{"id":9306,"date":"2012-06-27T00:09:37","date_gmt":"2012-06-27T00:09:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.diaryofanadi.co.uk\/?p=9306"},"modified":"2023-03-28T23:52:33","modified_gmt":"2023-03-28T22:52:33","slug":"moving-off-and-stopping-safely","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/diaryofanadi.co.uk\/?p=9306","title":{"rendered":"Moving Off And Stopping Safely"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is an old article, but it is still correct overall.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

.I noticed someone asked a question on one of the forums about this. The range of replies was quite astounding, with everyone having their own \u201cmust-do-it-this-way\u201d method, and poo-pooing everyone else\u2019s \u201cno-it-has-to-be-done-like-this\u201d procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s take a look at the issue, starting in the most sensible place possible – the DT1 SOP that the examiners follow. It says (in various places throughout):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

13 Move off:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Safely: failure to take effective observation before moving off, including the correct use of signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under control: inability to move off smoothly, straight ahead, at an angle, or on a gradient.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is fairly clear. You need to carry out effective safety checks before you move off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

1.30 MOVING OFF<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The examiner should observe whether the candidate first sees to the front, then to the rear, that the way is clear for pulling out, gives the appropriate signal if necessary, and moves away smoothly and safely. Wherever possible, ability to move off on a reasonably steep uphill gradient should be tested. A candidate starting on a gradient should be capable of paying attention to other traffic as well as moving their vehicle away without rollback and\/or excessive engine revolutions. If stopping on a hill is not possible an additional ‘normal’ stop need not be sought. However, the test must always include moving off at an angle from behind a stationary vehicle.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Also very clear. The examiner is expecting the candidate to check front and rear to make sure it\u2019s safe to go. He expects them to signal if necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

3.32 MOVING OFF<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prime consideration when moving off is that the candidate does so safely, showing an awareness of the presence of other traffic and pedestrians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The test should include a demonstration of the candidate’s ability to move off uphill, downhill and at an angle from a position reasonably close behind a stationary vehicle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gradients for testing the candidate’s ability to move off uphill or downhill should be between 8% (1 in 12) and 11% (1 in 9). Gradients steeper than 12% (1 in 8) should not be used in any circumstances. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Again, very clear. The prime consideration<\/strong> is that the candidate shows awareness of other road users and moves off safely. The examiner isn\u2019t expecting to see a choreographed head-nodding routine, a \u201cseven point check\u201d, or any other silly procedure that someone has imagined up to try to make the whole business as automated as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Assessment Criteria – (example = safely)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Driving Fault<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Incorrect timing of the blind spot check when moving off with no risk to other road users. For e.g. Checking the blind spot after the vehicle has moved off. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Serious Fault<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moving off into the path of traffic or failing to take observation at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dangerous Fault<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any situation brought about by the above lack of observation, that resulted in actual danger to the examiner, candidate, the general public or property. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This one gives the best indication of what should be happening (and why it often goes wrong). What is \u201cincorrect timing\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, I often pick up partly trained pupils who are terrible for this. I\u2019ll say to them \u201cdrive on when you\u2019re ready\u201d and quick as a flash they fling the indicator on – when they aren\u2019t even in gear and haven\u2019t begun to think what might be going on behind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But taking that one stage further, I also see a lot of pupils who will do one of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • look all around before<\/strong> they have the bite, then find it and move off <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • look all around, see something, wait, then move off without looking again<\/strong> <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • look all around, not see something that\u2019s definitely coming<\/span><\/span><\/strong>, and move off anyway <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • look all around, see something coming, and move off anyway<\/strong> <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    This isn\u2019t an exhaustive list. Pupils can find an infinite number of ways of doing things \"Noddingwrong. But the four I\u2019ve listed are common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The first one results in a delay between looking and moving – so something could have appeared behind during that period of delay in actually moving away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The second one is similar. The pupil does the right thing for whatever they see coming, but then don\u2019t check again for what might have appeared behind that while they were waiting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The third one usually happens because they think they can move faster than they actually do, or because they misjudge the speed of the approaching vehicle. So they cause it to have to slow down or even brake hard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The last one happens when they\u2019re just doing the nodding-dog routine. They\u2019re looking – sometimes not even that, as they just move their heads – but not seeing. I remember pulling one pupil to the side of the road to chew him out over his checks at a junction one time, but I couldn\u2019t keep a straight face because his \u201cobservations\u201d involved waving his head around with half-closed eyes as he looked at the gearstick! Better yet was the fact that he said \u201cI know what you\u2019re going to say\u201d. And he did. He knew he\u2019d done it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So it\u2019s very simple. when you move off, you\u2019ve got to make sure it is safe to do so. The precise detail of how<\/strong> doesn\u2019t matter as long as the safety aspect is adequately covered – and that means checking in front and behind to make sure nothing is coming. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What about signalling, though? As I have already mentioned I see a lot of pupils who just fling on the indicator to move away before they\u2019ve looked or even got the car in gear!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This one is not as black and white as many instructors would like to believe (or try to make it). Of course, there are situations where you definitely<\/strong> should<\/strong> signal – and if you don\u2019t then you will definitely fail<\/strong> your test. A good example is when pulling over and there is a car following you at a normal (or closer) distance behind. It would be dangerous to just stop without warning, so failure to signal in good time is almost certainly going to be marked as a serious fault. It\u2019s harder to think of a definite situation where not signalling to move away would be regarded quite so severely by the examiner, but perhaps if you\u2019re on a relatively narrow road and there is oncoming traffic (or pedestrians) quite close, moving away without a signal would be asking for trouble.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A lot of the time, though, whether or not you should signal – particularly when moving off – is a matter of opinion. For example, sometimes I will have noticed that a car parked not far in front of us has someone in it, but the pupil hasn\u2019t. In that case, I would<\/strong> signal, but the pupil might not<\/strong>. I point this out to them as something they should look for – that the other car might want to move away, and that they need to know that we\u2019re planning to go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Examiners tend not to regard signalling\/not signalling in these situations as a major problem, so learners who always<\/strong> signal to pull over or move away often won\u2019t be faulted for the signal itself<\/strong>. I suspect that this is why many ADIs appear to teach their pupils to signal regardless. However, signalling blindly often degenerates into just that – proper and safe observation starts to suffer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The usual guidance about when to signal is that if someone might realistically benefit from you doing it, then you should. And if you genuinely<\/strong> aren\u2019t certain that anyone will, then signal anyway – and by that, I mean situations like \u201cHold on! Is there someone in that car?\u201d and not \u201cwell, someone might turn up\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At what point of the moving off procedure should you signal? As a general rule, it should be the last thing you do before actually moving. You look, assess, and decide – then signal and do it in one clean action! You do not want any delay between signal and moving away because something might turn up during that delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Usually, you shouldn\u2019t use your indicators to request that people wait for you. One might stop, but that doesn\u2019t mean the rest will, so it is dangerous under normal circumstances. There\u2019s nothing worse than driving along on a free-moving road only to notice the clown in front has stopped dead to let someone out (and that is only marginally better than someone pulling out and forcing you to slow down). It stands to reason that doing it too often is going to increase the chances of someone tail-ending someone else if they aren\u2019t paying attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If traffic is very heavy and slow-moving then you might<\/strong> use your indicators to request that someone lets you out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, you signal when you have decided to move out. You must not leave a long pause between looking and moving or signalling and moving. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    All I have given above is a general procedure. It could be applied in a number of ways – even including stupid \u201cseven-point checks\u201d if you\u2019re one of those who insists on this sort of thing. But as long as you check properly all around you – depending on the circumstances at the time – indicate if necessary, and move off immediately, then the actual process doesn\u2019t matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I failed my test for \u201cmoving off\/stopping – safely\u201d. What did I do wrong? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It could have been one of a number of things, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • not checking your mirrors <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • not checking your blindspot <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • not checking properly<\/strong> (just moving your head, or not moving it far enough) <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • missing something that was there <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • misjudging something\u2019s speed and causing it to slow down or veer <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • moving off while<\/strong> you were checking <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • moving off before<\/strong> you\u2019d checked <\/span><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • stopping without indicating when someone was behind <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      How do I find out what I did wrong? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Ask the examiner! And that goes for ADIs, too. There\u2019s no point speculating or listening to people who will always blame the DSA for every fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What will happen if I don\u2019t check properly?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      It depends. If you miss a single<\/strong> shoulder\/blindspot check and no one is coming, it will probably just be marked as a driver fault. If someone is<\/strong> coming though, it could easily be marked as a serious or dangerous fault depending on the actual situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In my experience, if you keep missing those checks in that same situation<\/strong> then it could easily mount up into a serious problem – and so be marked as a serious fault. Quite simply, missing one<\/strong> check (with nothing there) is a driver fault, but missing them most of the time<\/strong> is a serious fault.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      An examiner once told me:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      I work the on the \u201cfive strikes\u201d principle unless something else makes it serious first.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      As a result, I tell my pupils that if they\u2019re lucky they\u2019ll get away with doing something that is classed as a driver fault a couple of times. But beyond that they\u2019re into very risky territory indeed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      I checked all round but the examiner said I didn\u2019t.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The usual reason this happens is that you didn\u2019t look properly<\/strong> – a quick flick of the head is not the same thing as actually looking to see what is coming. It is a very common problem with learners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      You must<\/strong> check in your blindspot – which is further round than just glancing to the offside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      But I know someone who got six<\/u> driver faults under one category on their test.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      You should be aiming for NO faults, not trying to calculate how many you can get away with. I know several examiners who will<\/strong> convert certain repeating driver faults into a serious one beyond a certain point, so it doesn\u2019t matter that there are apparently some who won\u2019t. It is the worst case<\/strong> that is most relevant, and the worst case is that a repeating fault could mount up into a serious one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      But examiners aren\u2019t allowed to do that, are they?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Yes they are. Your<\/strong> main concern should be making sure you\u2019re able to drive to the required standard so that you can easily pass the test (or, if you\u2019re an ADI, teaching the same).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      DT1 says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      There can however be occasions when one specific driving fault could by constant repetition, be regarded as serious and therefore a significant risk;<\/strong> for example when a candidate habitually fails to take mirror observation when appropriate.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      It\u2019s crystal clear, but if you still want to complain about it – or take issue with the precise meaning of the words \u201cconstant\u201d, \u201crepetition\u201d, or \u201chabitually\u201d – take it up with the DSA through your local test centre manager. As much as it is clear that people want to believe otherwise, the fault is not with the examiners but with the test candidates genuinely not checking properly (possibly because they aren\u2019t being taught properly).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      It\u2019s far better not to commit the fault (or to teach it) in the first place. Trying to weasel out of it after the event is pointless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n