A bit of advice to anyone using a dashcam. I see a lot of people complaining that theirs is playing up, and other advice to regularly reformat the card – which seems to get a lot of people recording again. I strongly believe that part of the problem is with the card, and not the dashcam. Specifically, people are using the wrong cards.
I have always used SanDisk Extreme cards in my dashcams, and I have not had any problems. Extreme cards are not the cheapest, either. They’re pretty high spec. However, I recently wrote to SanDisk and asked them if Extreme cards were OK to use in such applications. Here is what they replied:
Thank you for contacting SanDisk® Global Customer Care. Please allow me to inform you that for Dashcams & security surveillance cameras, we recommend to use SanDisk® High Endurance Memory Cards since these cards are specially developed for high endurance applications and continuous read & write cycles. These cards are built for and tested in harsh conditions and are temperature-proof, shock-proof and waterproof.
Also, please be informed that using Extreme or Ultra line memory cards on these devices void their warranty.
At this point, it is worth noting that “high endurance” cards are special cards. They’re not easy to get hold of except through specialist suppliers, and your local Currys is unlikely to have them in stock. They cost more than normal cards.
But the upshot is that using Extreme (i.e. high-end “normal”) cards puts them under stress that they’re not designed for. It voids their warranty, but – more importantly if you read between the lines – there is a good chance they will malfunction or play up. I don’t know much about cards from other manufacturers, but I would lay odds that most people with dashcams are using the cheapest card they can find, and that means they’re not “high endurance” types. Most of the time I see people asking what dashcam to choose they always want a cheap one, and the one they end up buying often costs them less than I pay for a SanDisk Extreme card – so there’s no way they’re going to buy a card even close to that.
My current dashcam is the NextBase 612GW. It records in 4k, and on cards up to 128GB (so I get about six hours of footage in a run). I have never had any problems with Extreme cards, but after the SanDisk advice I invested in a Samsung 128GB high-endurance card.
NextBase doesn’t seem to want to enter into discussion over this and insist that all their devices work with Extreme cards. Their own branded cards appear to be rebranded SanDisk ones. I don’t disagree that Extreme cards have worked well for me, and probably for everyone else when they’re new. But the niggling problems people keep reporting might not be doing NextBase any favours, because I firmly believe that a lot of the reported “faults” are down to those cards protesting at being used outside of their specification, with the user blaming the dashcam.
SanDisk high endurance cards only go up to 64GB at the moment (SanDisk said they’d feed back to their technical people on that), though other manufacturers (e.g. Samsung) produce higher capacity units.
Look at the photo, above.
Yes, it’s real. It hasn’t been Photoshopped or anything (unless Derbyshire Police are making stuff up), but this is what they found when they stopped a driver doing the school run near Normanton. It appeared on the BBC local newsfeed, so there’s no stable link, but the brief text with it says:
The officer gained the driver’s attention and escorted the car to a nearby garage in Normanton for a replacement tyre.
Derby City Council [DCC] said checks on the car found it was fully taxed and had a valid MOT.
Erm, excuse me, DCC, but the Highway Code says the following:
Tyres. Tyres MUST be correctly inflated to the vehicle manufacturer’s specification for the load being carried. Always refer to the vehicle’s handbook or data. Tyres should also be free from certain cuts and other defects.
Law CUR reg 27
Following the Law link to The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, we see:
Condition and maintenance of tyres
27 …a wheeled motor vehicle or trailer a wheel of which is fitted with a pneumatic tyre shall not be used on a road, if—
… the tyre has any lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of its structure
I think it is fairly safe to say that the tyre in the photo is absolutely, totally, and unequivocally illegal for use on the roads. Illegal with knobs on. It’s worth at least six points on someone’s licence in that state.
It’s yet another example of the Police not doing their jobs properly. If a male driver had, say, tried to chat up a woman as he engaged in “the school run”, he’d be in the cells and looking at lifelong membership of the sex offenders’ register before you could fart. However, someone “else” on “the school run” has got away with this unbelievably dangerous tyre. And he/she (take a guess which it most likely was) probably had his/her kids with him/her at some point (not to mention everyone else’s kids who had to risk being within five miles of him/her).
You need to be a special kind of stupid to let a tyre get in that condition. I’ve never seen one even remotely like it, and the wheel balance must have been beyond bad. And the driver in question seriously needs lesson in how not to hit the kerb every time they park, because as well as an horrendously dangerous car, they’re also clearly an horrendously bad driver (and don’t forget the month of rain we had this morning, either). But now we know you can get away with all that. In Derbyshire, anyway.
I nearly went a full year without a single puncture… until last night.
My last lesson was due to start less than 5 minutes away from my house, so I hopped in the car and was met with the “ping” and a warning light on the dashboard. I went round to have a look and, sure enough, the front nearside was extremely low. I quickly cancelled my lesson, pumped the tyre to the required pressure, and set off in the direction of Kwik-Fit. But then I realised the time was 5.50pm – and a vague memory of them closing at 6pm flashed up in my mind. I pulled over and did a quick Google, and I was right. Damn.
The tyre didn’t deflate noticeably when I checked it late last night, but by this morning it had. I was actually quite pleased about that, because I’ve taken them in before when the tyre’s suddenly deflated and they’ve not found a problem (aka “possibly a sticking valve”). The fact it had done it twice inside a day meant that was less likely to happen this time.
Anyway, I took it in this morning, and thankfully I was the only one there, so they did it straight away. It turned out to be the most pristine, shiny, straight-out-of-the-box-someone-just-bought-from-Screwfix screw imaginable that was lodged on the inside surface of the tyre.
I’ve mentioned this before, but when the reverse around a corner exercise was still tested, and so you had to spend a lot of time perfecting it, some corners were deliberately seeded with screws by sad acts who probably also voted for Brexit. One year, I had four punctures in the space of a few weeks just before Christmas – all shiny new screws.
If I ever catch anyone chucking screws into the road, I’ll punch their teeth in!
Incidentally, if you’re ever on a lesson (or even if you’re a regular driver), NEVER let your pupil drive over a bit of wood in the road. It’s usually a piece of skirting from a house (or something similar) and it almost invariably has screws or nails in it, which the wood conveniently holds in an upward position. If you’re lucky and there are no such screws, it’s only because some other poor sod has found them first and they’re now stuck in his tyre.
This crops up from time to time, and someone recently asked me if the same rules applied when giving refresher lessons to full licence holders that apply to learners.
When teaching a learner for reward (i.e. if you’re being paid), you must be an ADI, and you must display your badge.
It’s also worth noting that ‘reward’ refers to any sort of remuneration, so if someone was giving you a discount for a service they provided, you’re still doing it for ‘reward’ and are on dodgy ground if you’re not an ADI. Same goes for gifts or ‘contribution to petrol’ (that last one is funny, because a typical lesson might only use a couple of £ worth of fuel at most, and yet people take ‘contributions’ of £20).
Most of my work is with learners, but every now and then I get a full licence holder who wants a brush up, needs to be assessed for medical reasons or perhaps age-related insurance issues, or ones who have had an accident and are now apprehensive and need some reassurance.
I’m an ADI, so the issue of reward doesn’t come into it for me, but if I am doing the lesson in their car I do not move my badge out of mine and into theirs. I checked on this years ago, but when the topic came up again recently I could not remember how I’d found out, and I couldn’t find any online information that clarified it either. So I did what I usually do and asked DVSA directly. I emailed them as follows (summarised):
I am fully aware of the rules regarding payment for lessons (i.e. you must be an ADI and on the Register, etc.) and displaying your badge when teaching learners.
However, what is the situation where a full licence holder has asked for refresher training. Do the same rules apply?
Does the law relating to giving driving lessons apply equally to training given to FLHs as it does to tuition given to provisional licence holders?
DVSA replied (summarised):
I can confirm the rules only apply to learner drivers and not full licence holders. You do not need to be qualified as an ADI to provide instruction to full licence holders therefore a badge will also not need to be displayed.
So there you have it. Anyone can give refresher lessons to people who hold a full (and valid) licence, and they can take payment for it. They are not breaking the Law if they do. Furthermore, an ADI does not need to keep moving their badge around if they are doing such a lesson in the FLH’s own car.
I’m giving refresher lessons to someone in their own car who I taught previously – do I need to display my green badge?
No. DVSA has confirmed absolutely categorically that you only need to display your badge if you are teaching a provisional licence holder (i.e. a learner). In fact, you don’t even need to be an ADI to give refresher lessons, and you wouldn’t be breaking the Law if you were being paid for it.
The system we have in the UK is that if you hold a full non-UK licence from a non-EU country, or a country which does not have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK, you can drive on that licence for up to 12 months.
The clock starts ticking from the moment you set foot in the UK. It doesn’t stop if you go home again, and it doesn’t get reset at any time. Oh, and you can’t go back home, get a full licence, then come back and drive for a full 12 months on it. The clock is started as a result of your first entry into the UK – not the entry of your licence.
The purpose of this arrangement is to give you time to apply for a UK provisional licence, take driving lessons, and pass your test. Unfortunately, many see it as an excuse not to do anything for another 12 months – then get desperate.
Many years ago, while I was still a relatively fresh ADI, I had a new pupil who was from Pakistan. He had a job with a big pharmaceutical company based in the south of the UK. On his first lesson I asked to see his licence, and he handed me a pristine Pakistani one (green card). Alarm bells rang immediately, and asked him how long he’d been in the UK (two years). I then asked him when he had obtained this licence. He told me he went home earlier in the year (about three months previously) and got the licence then. I told him I didn’t think he could drive on it and – in his presence – called the main police station in Nottingham to seek clarification. As luck would have it, the guy who answered on that Saturday or Sunday afternoon was ex-traffic police, and he told me he thought I was right, but went to fetch the handbook to check for me. That was when I heard the full detail I have already given, above. In this learner’s case, he needed a UK provisional licence and didn’t have one, and the lesson obviously didn’t go ahead.
Some designated countries (and the whole of the EU) have those “reciprocal arrangements” I mentioned. The full list is here (and although it is dated 2013, it is still correct at the time of writing). People who hold full licences from those countries can exchange them for a full UK one without having to take a test. The exchange is like-for-like – an automatic licence from Australia would get exchanged for an automatic licence in the UK. And the original licence must have been obtained in one of the reciprocal countries – not one near by, or with a similar sounding name or geography (i.e. North Korea is not the same as South Korea, USA is not Canada, Hong Kong is not China (nor is Singapore), and so on).
Ignorance of these rules – real or pretend – is not going to get you anywhere if you get stopped by the police. I know for a fact that there’s a fair number of older non-UK drivers, who have been in the UK for quite some time, who still drive on their “international licence” by virtue of going to visit family in their home country once a year, thus believing they’re resetting the counter. They only get away with it because they haven’t been caught yet – and I know for a fact that there are some who have been caught, and who therefore can’t fall back on “pretend” ignorance any more, but who carry on driving nonetheless. Sorry, but it’s true.
As driving instructors, our only professional responsibility is to make sure the people we teach are licensed to take lessons with us. Anything beyond that is a personal matter, and climbing on to a soap box to bemoan the dangers of allowing foreigners to drive in the UK at all, without (or before) passing a test, has nothing to do with our day job. Don’t forget that we are foreigners when we travel outside the UK, and if you think we should bar anyone who hasn’t passed a test in the UK from driving here at all, then expect to have your (or your kids’) future plans for camping or skiing holidays seriously curtailed in return.
This has been the system used for many years across many countries. It doesn’t result in carnage, and apart from the usual mad rush to get a licence at the end of the 12 month window, it works reasonably well. For us as well as “them”.
They can go home and drive for another 12 months in the UK
NO THEY CAN’T!
I got this directly from the police when I had one once who had obtained his Pakistani licence when he went home for a few weeks earlier that year. I suspected when he showed it to me that there was something wrong, because he lived and worked in the UK, and had done so for the previous three years.
The police confirmed from their official manual that the clock starts ticking as soon as someone enters the UK, and does not get reset if they leave the country. In this guy’s case, the clock ran out over two years earlier and his 3-month old Pakistani licence was meaningless. He needed a UK Provisional and was classed as a learner.
I doubt that the system would check someone who had left the country for several years then re-applied to come back, so they might get away with it – but most non-UK nationals or dual-nationals won’t, because they are officially resident here. If they do it, they’re driving illegally – they’re uninsured, for a start.
Foreigners can fail a test and still drive. That’s wrong.
Look. It’s the system. How many current UK drivers would pass the test if they took it right now, without additional training? How many ADIs would?
It’s worth looking at the DVLA’s official position on this before spending the rest of your working life believing something else. I wrote to them and specifically asked what happens if a non-UK/non-EU full licence holder takes and fails a test within the 12 month window. Their response was:
A non GB licence holder can still drive for up to 12 months regardless of a UK test failure.
Is that clear enough? ADIs are always whinging about how one of their pupils was unfairly failed for things like not looking in their blind spot even though no one was nearby, or braking hard at a junction, but that they’re otherwise good drivers. Like it or not, the test is a series of hoops the candidate has to jump through, and if they miss one, they fail. The difference is that a learner has never driven unsupervised and has never been licensed to do so, whereas those holding licences from other countries usually have. There’s a big difference.
And don’t forget that when a UK driver visits another country, they expect to be able to get a hire car if they want one and visit all the tourist sites. A UK driver in Europe, the USA, or anywhere else is no different to a foreign driver in the UK. It’s the system.
If you’re teaching a foreign driver, just concentrate on your job and teach them. Get them through their test.
Trying to get them off the roads is a personal issue, not a professional one.
Foreigners may never have driven on the left
No. And foreigners in other countries – foreigners from the UK – may never have driven on the right. Yet many thousands do it every year. It’s the system.
The driving test isn’t specifically about driving on the left or right. It’s about being able to drive safely enough to get a licence. It’s all very well giving examples of the bad examples you may have experienced or heard of (or even imagined might happen), but a lot of non-UK drivers holding full licences are perfectly safe on the roads.
Of course, some aren’t. But as I suggested previously, some of our own learners fall into that category.
Professionally, we should concentrate on teaching our own learners. If you want to embark on a personal crusade, keep it separate.
I’ve seen people fail their test and drive away from the test centre
If they have a full licence from another country and are still within their 12 months, they are not breaking the Law. It’s the system. I repeat what the DVLA has told me:
A non GB licence holder can still drive for up to 12 months regardless of a UK test failure.
If they drive away on a Provisional licence unaccompanied then they are breaking the Law. It’s a totally separate situation, and one that isn’t confined to non-UK drivers.
Even EU drivers are unsafe
Look. Try to understand this. The people who come to you are not representative of the entire population of the universe. They are merely representative of the type of people who have issues with their driving. Crass, all-encompassing statements about EU (or any non-UK) drivers are just wrong. The ones who approach you obviously know they have issues, otherwise they wouldn’t have.
Foreigners have always driven here when they visit – certainly within your lifetime. The vast majority are exactly the same as a Briton driving abroad – and we’ve always done that.
There are some UK drivers – people who can trace their family tree back virtually to the Saxons – who are crap drivers. They’re probably less “foreign” than you are. It happens. And they’d be just as crap driving in France, Spain, the USA, or anywhere else. The same is true for some people who were born in other countries. Driving is a human skill, not a racial one.
The UK test is stricter than everyone else’s
You can’t have it both ways. First, it’s about driving on the left, now it’s about British superiority.
Britain doesn’t have the “hardest” test – not even within Europe.
In my own experience – and that of a lot of other ADIs if what I have read is correct – people from countries where obtaining a licence is easiest tend to realise they’re going to have problems and take lessons when they get here. Not all of them, of course, but a fair few.
I’ve had full licence holders from Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, USA, Gambia, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe, and some others I can’t recall right now come to me for lessons because they’re terrified of our roads.
If someone has a full licence from any country, and doesn’t give a damn about how they drive, they won’t come anywhere near you in the first place. So if they do, it’s either because they don’t have a licence, or because they know they need some guidance. And if they vanish once you explain how much work is involved… well, as I said previously, it’s a totally separate issue, and has nothing to do with allowing foreigners to drive for 12 months on their full national licences.
I never see them again when I tell them they won’t pass the test
You’d never see any learner again if you told them that. I was under the impression that ADIs were supposed to be positive when dealing with their customers.
Perhaps you should take a step back and consider that maybe your attitude to “foreigners” is clouding your judgement when you take them on.
When someone comes to me, and once I’ve assessed their driving, I explain to them what is required to pass the test, and that they’re not there yet (assuming that they aren’t, although many aren’t far off). I explain that there’s no chance of passing the test by luck unless you’re close to the required standard, so it is important to fix any specific problems. I stress to them that we’re going to do it in the shortest possible time, because driving lessons are expensive. I never tell people how long it will take, because I simply don’t know. If someone is no better than a beginner, they usually already know they’re not ready (and, usually, they do, no matter what you’ve convinced yourself of otherwise). One or two might believe differently – usually, the older drivers – but the majority don’t.
If someone insists on booking a test in spite of all that, I simply tell them that they can’t use my car. If they disappear as a result, I concentrate on my other pupils, because that’s my job.
If they pass, they’re not insured to drive away from the test centre
Neither are UK learners. That’s why I explain to any of mine – no matter where they come from or what colour their skin is – that if they go for their test in their own car (and a small number do), they need to phone their insurance company before they drive away just to be on the safe side. If they’ve spent all that money on learning to drive, they will listen. Any who don’t are not automatically “foreign”.
It’s their responsibility – not yours. And the problem is not confined to “foreigners”.
I wrote this back in 2012, but someone contacted me about it so I’ve updated it.
At the time I wrote the original article, a debate was raging on one of the forums concerning reference points – using parts of the car to reference your position in relation to other objects, like the kerb.
Some instructors insist on putting little sticky dots or other marks all over the car. Indeed, when I did my Part 3 exam I rented a car from another instructor, and his was festooned with the things. Red ones, yellow ones, blue ones. They were everywhere. It was like sitting inside a psychedelic three-dimensional slide rule.
The problem with this method – and it IS a huge problem which those who use it are usually ignorant of – is that everyone sits in a different place in the car. A short person sits a long way forward, and a tall person sits a long way back. Everyone else is somewhere in between. And any given pupil might easily be in a different position on each lesson because of how the rake of the seat is set. So a sticky dot which lines up with, say, the kerb for a short driver is going to be miles off the mark for a taller one – and it might not work on the next lesson if they’ve got the seat adjusted differently. The sticky dot only works for one size of person under a specific set of conditions.
To make matters worse, if you point out a sticky dot to someone and ask them where the kerb is in relation to it, the first thing they usually do is start moving their head around. It’s just the same when you are teaching them to adjust the mirrors – you tell them to adjust the rear view mirror so they can see the back window – and they lean over. Or, you say to them “sit normally”, and they immediately adopt the most UN-normal pose they can think of.
But just as ignorant are those instructors who pooh-pooh reference points entirely, and insist they never use them. Hopefully, they just mean that they don’t use sticky dots, because it is a basic animal instinct to use some sort of position-based reference to avoid walking into walls or falling out of trees.
This is exactly what a pupil has to learn when you’re doing, say, a reverse into a parking bay. Whatever method you use for that, the pupil has to be able to determine where they are in relation to the bay and make corrections as necessary. If you stop the car for them and ask them to look at the lines (in the mirror or through the door windows), there is a reference point there waiting to be discovered. Some will find it, others need a bit of extra assistance, and you might ask them to position the car so that the line lines up with, say, the door handle inside, or perhaps the window button. Wherever it is, that reference is likely to be different for each pupil. It cannot be covered by a sticky dot that works for everyone.
Much of the problem stems from the fact that instructors seem to have purchased Coaching For Dummies, but have only got as far as the table of contents. They think that all an ADI has to do is sit in the car and ask questions, and the pupil will learn how to drive by themselves. The sticky dots come about as a result of those learners (the majority, in fact) needing more guidance, but the instructor not knowing what to do.
What are the reference points for ADIs and instructors?
Someone found the blog on precisely that term! Quite simply, there aren’t any universal reference points! They’re different for everyone, and for every car, and if you get bogged down with fixed points you run the risk of becoming a very bad instructor.
As an example, if you’re doing the reverse bay park with a pupil and you want them to be able to position the car relative to the target bay somehow (depending on your method), stop the car when YOU know it’s in the right place and ask them “where is the line?” Get them to relate it to the mirror or the inside door handle or something. Now they have their own way of referencing the car’s position relative to the kerb. If they need more help, tell them what they need to look for, and get them to perfect the positioning.
Should you use sticky dots or tape on your Part 3?
If you do, be careful. When the Part 3 involved role play, I know that some examiners went to town tying the candidate in knots with this way of teaching. It was easy for them to do that because of the drawbacks I mentioned above.
I don’t know how they’d view it now, but you need to make damned sure that whatever you are doing works reliably – and sticky dots often don’t.
I’ve never used a fuel card, and for a good reason. I’ve been approached many times over the years (damned Yellow Pages) by companies offering me one, but the simple fact is that I have never been convinced that any savings are great enough, real enough, or reliable enough. Not for me, at any rate.
You see, when you look at what fuel card providers say, it’s always something like “save an average of 3p per litre against the national average forecourt price”. It’s that bit in bold which is the fly in the ointment. Fuel in Nottingham is – as long as you stay away from city centre garages – well below the national average in terms of cost per litre. At the time of writing, a litre of diesel costs me 125p, and yet the national average is apparently 132p. I would only ever “save” money if I sought out one of the joker garages around this way who charge this much, which would be stupid if I can already buy it at full price elsewhere for 7p less.
But what if there was a way to get a discount even on the lowest fuel prices? Well, there is – and it works all the time, no matter what the advertised price on the forecourt is, and it works anywhere.
I shop regularly in Asda, and my average weekly spend on groceries there is around £150. I also buy my fuel from Asda (it is the same quality as the equivalent basic grade from anywhere else), and my average spend on that is also around £150. A total of £300.
A few years ago, I came across Asda’s Cashback Credit Card Plus. It offered 2% cashback on virtually all purchases from Asda – crucially, including fuel. And although I had once vowed never to have another credit card as long as I lived, I was now in a position to be able to pay off an entire credit card bill each month without blinking, and since it would actually save me money I decided to try it. It works like this.
My weekly fuel spend attracts a cashback figure of £3. The quantity of fuel involved is about 120 litres at 125p per litre, so that equates to a discount of 2.5p per litre. But since I also spend the same amount on groceries, I get another £3 cashback with that, which means another 2.5p discount if I apply it to my fuel (whichever way you look at it, it’s money in my pocket). It equates to a saving of about £300 a year.
Cashback is redeemed by way of a voucher. Each time you use your card, cashback is added to your account, and when you’re ready you just choose an amount from your cashback balance and print off a voucher. You can’t use the voucher to pay for fuel directly, but since I already shop in Asda I just use it there. Obviously, you have to factor it in appropriately when you complete your tax return, but that doesn’t stop it being a saving on fuel costs.
Although the 2% cashback is only on Asda purchases, you also get 0.2% cashback on all other purchases made using your card. I know that 0.2% might not seem much, but buying a TV or something similarly expensive attracts up to another £5, and another 5p per litre discount for a week. As long as you clear your account each month, there’s no interest. Basically, the more you use your credit card for, the more cashback you get.
Unfortunately, the Cashback Plus card is not currently available to new applicants (since June 2019), but there is still the basic Asda credit card, which gives 1% cashback (and 0.2% on non-Asda purchases). This is still better than most cashback (and fuel card) deals out there right now if you are in an area which has below average fuel prices.
With the weather we’ve had recently, there’s a good chance you’ll have had pupils turn up half naked for their lessons ready to sweat all over your seats (one of mine has been bringing a towel to sit on after I ribbed him about wetting the seat). Then, five minutes later, they’re moaning about being too cold because you have the aircon turned on (assuming you’re not a tight-arse who refuses to use it).
One issue which comes up regularly throughout the year, though, is what they have on their feet.
At the most basic level, a new driver has got to learn how to control the pedals, and especially the clutch. To do that, they’ve got to be able to feel it – which they can’t if they’re wearing big, clunky shoes. Running shoes are probably the worst for this, because they’re specifically designed to absorb shock (and therefore any light touch on the pedals), but any kind of shoe with a platform is going to make clutch control harder. This is especially true if the pupil hasn’t driven before, and even more so if they’re one of the types who is going to have problems in this area anyway.
I had a pupil a few years ago who was one of the jumpy kind. One day I picked her up directly from work, which meant she had ‘forgotten’ her driving shoes. She was wearing platformed Doc Martens – literally, with a four inch chunky heel and bulldozer tread underneath. I abandoned the lesson after less than ten minutes before someone was killed, and drove her home. In a similar vein, I remember once seeing a woman get out of a Mini Cooper wearing massive goth boots with wedge soles that were at least three inches thick (below the knee, she was a ringer for Karloff’s Frankenstein). You cannot drive safely in those. Period.
I always advise pupils to wear flat soled shoes with a thin profile. Anything thick is going to make life difficult, and it drives me crazy when one turns up for their very first lesson in designer running shoes, with the extra thick sole and a concealed wedge heel.
Speaking personally, I absolutely hate it when they want to drive barefoot. My reasoning behind this is that I know from direct experience that you can stub your toe or even cut your foot on the pedals if you hit them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it bloody hurts. Car manufacturers don’t seem to put much effort into ensuring the undersides of the pedals free from burrs or sharp edges. Furthermore, there is no way most people can brake as hard barefoot as they could in shoes. And if it’s more than half an hour since the car was last valeted, the floor mat will have grit on it, and the last thing you want is to have to execute an emergency stop in your bare feet only to discover something sharp stuck on your sole.
Having said that, I had one pass recently who drove barefoot. I let her do it (after telling her off the first time for trying to stow her shoes in the footwell) after I’d done my usual test in this situation: the Emergency Stop. If they can execute an Emergency Stop barefoot to the standard I expect, then they can drive like that if they want (though I still don’t like it). And she could. However, at the same time she had referred a friend to me who was in the same Halls of Residence, and she couldn’t. One day a few months ago, she came out to a lesson wearing huge furry slip-on slippers (‘why’ was a long story which I’m not sure I fully understand even now). She immediately knew they were not good for driving and asked if she could drive barefoot.
I said that I didn’t mind (because her friend did it), but I was concerned about how well she would be able to operate the brake in bare feet. I asked her to brake firmly while we were stationary and to tell me how it felt. She said it hurt, and she didn’t think she’d be able to brake hard if she needed to on the lesson. Problem solved, and we rescheduled – with the additional light-hearted warning not to come out with the wrong shoes again.
I can think of loads of examples where pupils had previously worn sensible shoes, then come to lessons wearing different though not necessarily inappropriate ones, and had a stinker – just because the shoes are different! Small differences can have a huge effect on some people.
Pupils with larger feet also need to be careful. Anything much above size 9 or 10 doesn’t work well if their shoes have long toe caps, because they’re likely to start catching on the cowling above the pedals. Winkle pickers are a no-no if you have large feet in many normal cars, and since they often have absolutely no grip (just a thin, shiny sole), the risk of the wearer’s foot slipping is also greater.
Very wide- and loose-fitting shoes – Ugg boots spring to mind – are also potentially dangerous, because if you try to slam on the brakes there’s a good chance you’ll make contact with the brake and gas pedals at the same time. And it does happen – it happens sometimes even with small-footed people wearing sensible shoes, so throwing Uggs into the mix is just asking for trouble. The same is true when someone insists on wearing some sort of hobnailed boot two sizes too big as a fashion statement – they’re too bloody wide.
Probably the most dangerous shoes for driving, though, are backless types. Mules, backless sandals, and flip-flops. It’s not necessarily anything to do with the heel thickness – though it can be if they’re platformed – but the fact that they can slip off. I mean, think about it. You can potter about as much as you like in summer wearing flip-flops or mules, but try to run and it’s 50-50 whether they will stay on, and 50-50 whether you end up flat on your face on the pavement or road. They present the same risks in the car if you have to move your foot suddenly to brake – with the additional chance that they will fall under the pedal and prevent you from depressing it fully. They could even get tangled up sufficiently to prevent you being able to brake at all. And don’t dismiss that out of hand – I once had a loop in a shoe lace double bow get itself completely over the clutch pedal (God knows how) so I couldn’t take my foot away or lift it high enough to declutch, and when I slipped the shoe off it swung under the pedal and stopped me declutching fully anyway. Shit happens, as the saying goes.
Strap-on sandals are not so bad, though the open toe arrangement still means you can catch your foot more easily if the sandals are particularly large and oversized (which many are these days).
And it goes without saying that trying to drive in high heels is just plain stupid. The heel messes up how you have to operate the pedals, and you cannot get anything like the same force if you really needed it. Many high heels have shiny soles with little grip, which makes matters even worse.
It isn’t illegal to drive barefoot, nor are any specific types of footwear banned or even mentioned in the Highway Code. The only reference is in Rule 97 (partial quote):
Before setting off. You should ensure that
- clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls in the correct manner
However, DVSA has been quoted separately as follows:
Wear sensible clothing for driving, especially on a long journey. Suitable shoes are particularly important. We also would not recommend driving barefoot because you don’t have the same braking force with bare feet as you do with shoes.
My comments above are based purely on my own experience and knowledge, and they agree completely with this DVSA advice. And so do various other organisations.
I wear flip-flops and never had a problem
This stupid argument makes me angry – especially when it is coming from ADIs.
Everyone knows that if you have a set of expensive crystal glass goblets you shouldn’t drop them. If you do, they’re likely to smash. However, someone somewhere will undoubtedly have dropped one by accident one time, and it will have bounced on the carpet or the arm of a chair, and survived. This does not mean it is OK to drop or mishandle delicate glass goblets. It just means you were bloody lucky.
As I said above, if you try and run in flip-flops or mules, they’re easily likely to come off or send you sprawling (possibly both). The chances of that happening are roughly the same as they are of you getting away with it. If personal injury is one of the possible outcomes, then those odds are not good. If death for you or a passer-by were a possible outcome, they’re catastrophically bad.
I drive in high heels and don’t have a problem
There is no way you can drive as safely in high heels as you can with sensible flat soles. Period. It is a simple scientific fact based on the change to the way you have to apply leverage to the pedals when a high heel is extending and deforming your foot length. Having to brake hard in an emergency situation is going to be a lottery if there is the chance of your four inch heel making contact with the floor before you’ve got the brake on hard enough, or if it snags on the mat.
Remember the example I gave above, of the woman in the goth boots? Three inches of plastic increasing her leg length by 10% and suppressing all feeling of the pedals? Driving in high heels is no different – possibly worse – and anyone who suggests otherwise is a complete idiot, even if they have “always done it”. That’s the risk you’re takin each time you drive in heels.
Pupils will drive in those shoes when they pass
That’s their problem. Your job is to try and educate them in what’s right and what’s stupid while they are with you – not to encourage them in dangerous practices.
I advise all of mine to keep a pair of driving shoes in the car when they pass and not to risk it with heels. Beyond that, it’s up to them.
It’s not against the Law to wear flip-flops
Well, you’d probably still be arguing the toss even if it was. But the fact that it isn’t specifically against the Law doesn’t mean it is the sensible or right thing to do. That it isn’t specifically against the Law means that you doing it is your problem as you struggle with simple common sense. But if you’re encouraging others to do it, then you have become the problem.
But you let people drive barefoot
And I don’t like it. I only give in if they can prove to me that they can do an Emergency Stop properly. As it is, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number who have done it out of many hundreds I have taught. Quite frankly, I wish they would make it illegal to drive barefoot or in inappropriate shoes.
What shoes do your wear?
Deck shoes. I suggest to my male pupils they drive in something similar if they have any issues on lessons. I suggest to the females that ballet pumps with a firm sole are worth a try.
Why shouldn’t you put your shoes or bag in the footwell?
If you brake, whatever is down there will move forward. The only place for it to go is under the pedals. So if a kid on a bike rides out in front of you and your bag has moved under the brake or clutch, one of you will be in hospital (or worse) and the other will be up on a careless driving charge (or worse) and about 99% of the way towards becoming an ex-ADI.
Putting your shoes or bag in the footwell isn’t a problem
I have a tidy bag on the back seat of my car for a good reason. On more than one occasion during my driving lifetime, sharp braking has resulted in a bottle or book sliding under the seat and straight under the pedals. The design of the car footwell and the universal laws of physics guarantee that loose objects will end up there if you brake hard. Shit happens.
Storing anything in the footwell is dangerous. I regularly get people wanting to put their shoes, handbags, and even an umbrella down there. I simply won’t let them. Because I know from experience how dangerous it is.
I recently saw an ADI claim that theory test apps are no good because they “only cover 5%” of the possible questions. It’s yet more complete bollocks from so-called “professionals”, and is only true – and even then, only partially – if you (or your pupil) is an idiot.
The only app I recommend to all my pupils is Driving Test Success (DTS), which is published by Focus Multimedia. I have no affiliation with Focus whatsoever – though an agent of theirs did once contact me offering such a relationship, but I never heard from him again. The full version of DTS contains all the official DVSA revision materials, and unless they are telling lies, that means exactly what it says. They also do a free “taster” version, and that only contains about a third of the total questions in the official question bank (that’s about 30%, and not 5%).
Most of my pupils buy DTS if they haven’t already got something else – some will already have the DVSA one, which is perfectly OK, and which also contains all the relevant revision material. They all pass if they use either of these.
The important word in all this is “buy”. If you wanted to get hold of the raw bank of official questions from DVSA and use it or distribute it in any way, you’d have to pay. I know, because I have looked into it myself. You can register and get the question bank for free to play around with, but the moment you start giving anyone access to it you have to pay a licence fee per unit/user to the to DVSA. If you wanted the Hazard Perception (HPT) clips, it’d cost you £800 up front just for those. You have to be approved to get the raw materials in the first place, and I asked if licensing charges would still apply if I only gave access to my own pupils. They said it would. So any official revision software would incur those same costs for the publisher.
Several years ago, I had advised a pupil to get DTS for his phone. I specifically said to get the one that cost £4.99, and not to download the free one, because it was just a trial version that didn’t have all the questions in it (at the time, it may well have contained only around 5% of the full question bank). He subsequently kept failing his theory test, and I was pulling my hair out as to why – I asked him about his school lessons, possible dyslexia and stuff, everything. He assured me there were no issues, and that he was getting 100% every time he did a mock test. After he failed for about the sixth time with a score that you could have bettered by guessing, something clicked, and I asked “how much did that app cost you?” He replied “oh, nothing. It was free”. I think my reply was something along the lines of “you prat! I told you that was a trial version”.
It turned out he’d been answering the same incomplete sample of questions over and over again (he said he wondered why he kept seeing the same ones). It was no wonder he was getting 100%. Once he bought the full version – with all the questions in it – he passed the next time.
ADIs who make stupid claims about apps only containing 5% of the questions must be of a similar mentality to that pupil. They expect free versions to be the full monty, and stupidly assume that when they aren’t then this must be true of all apps whether paid for or not. God only knows how they qualify as ADIs if they are so dumb. I figured out what “trial” meant the first time I saw it – particularly when there was the paid-for version sitting right next to it in the Android market, prompting the immediate question: why?
The only thing you need in order to pass the Theory Test is the DTS Bundle. It costs £4.99, and includes the Hazard Perception (HPT) clips. The official DVSA one is also fine and costs the same, though I haven’t used it in a long while.
There are some free ones which claim to contain all the questions, though those I’ve seen don’t have the HPT included. They contain advertising and “in-app purchases”. As I say, someone somewhere has to pay.
Frankly, for the sake of £4.99, and the risk failing the £23 Theory Test a few times because you didn’t have the right revision resources, you should stop pissing about and just buy it.
A few days ago, the media was awash with reports about how the driving test pass rate had plummeted, and it was all because of the “new parallel parking manoeuvre” that had been introduced. It was a great opportunity for ADIs who have been against “it” from the start to give their two penn’orth.
Although the link above was from The Telegraph, the Daily Mail ran the same illiterate crap, and several others followed. Comic news site, Yahoo, even went so far as to blame the same “new” manoeuvre on a separate FOI request, which revealed one candidate took 21 tests in a single year.
It seems that in the world of newspapers, someone who has just been given their first job in journalism does one of these FOIs every year. I think it must be some sort of induction test to make sure they can fill in an online form properly. And every year, without fail, there is someone somewhere who has taken an ungodly number of tests before passing (and some of them still haven’t passed, even then). It is a separate statistic which is independent of how easy or hard the test is. It merely shows that just as some people are crap journalists, there are others who are crap drivers and perhaps ought never to be allowed to drive. Ever. But it is separate.
The really laughable part is the reference to this “new parallel parking manoeuvre” – all the more laughable since there are ADIs who have allowed themselves to be associated with the claims. Because there IS no new parallel parking manoeuvre! Even some joker representing a querulous organisation which, in a previous incarnation, specialised in stirring things, ranted about how “dangerous” it is without clarifying the glaring naming error (perhaps because he didn’t know himself).
What there actually is is a piss-easy manoeuvre which involves checking your mirrors and looking ahead to make sure it’s clear, pulling over on the right-hand side of the road, then reversing back a couple of car lengths without ending up on the pavement or on the other side of the road again, and finally driving off and going back over on to the correct side safely. It’s the kind of thing any 17 year old is going to be doing 5 minutes after he passes when he sees one of his mates on the other side of the road.
The manoeuvre is referred to as “pulling up on the right”, “stopping on the right”, or similar phrases. And it is not a “parallel parking manoeuvre”.
It’s only dangerous if people haven’t been taught to do it properly. Mine have to do it on busy roads in Long Eaton and with oncoming/passing/parked lorries on a busy industrial estate in Colwick, and the only problem I’ve had was when someone decided for reasons not even known to himself to turn the wheel on to half lock as he reversed and veered outwards (and since he didn’t notice until I showed it to him on the dashcam, it was probably best he was caught early anyway). A disproportionate number of tests seem to include it, and I thought they’d pull back on it after the original introduction – where virtually every test did it – but they haven’t.
The media has claimed that the pass rate has plummeted. They base this ridiculous statement on something like the graph at the top of this article – which shows the national pass rate for the last three years. I have carefully adjusted the axes to make it look as bad as possible, just like pretty much every journalist does when they’re talking about numbers. Yet it is only a little over 1% decline over three years. If you ignore the fact that life has been going on for more than the last three years, it looks like the pass rate is on a downward slope into oblivion – even if it would take over 40 years to get to zero at the rate it is going.
However, if you look at pass rates since the introduction of the driving test in 1935, a completely different story emerges.
I cut these data down to one approximately every 5 years up until 2007, and from there on the data are yearly. Because of that, and also because I started the y-axis at 20% instead of 0%, they look a bit more dramatic than they are (i.e. the right half of the graph covers 19 years, whereas the left half covers 65 years – imagine the 1935-2000 part stretched out to three times wider).
Something odd happened between 1975 and 1990, and between 1990 and 2000 (a rise followed by a fall). But since 2000 the pass rate has been virtually flat – hovering between 44% and 47%. It is currently at about 46%, and there are no blips or drops worth a mention (i.e. any changes to the test have neither improved or worsened pass rates to any significant extent).
As I said, the top graph shows what you can do if you don’t represent data properly, and the message that comes across if you’re an ADI or journalist who doesn’t understand data is both confused and wrong.
The only time the pass rate has been significantly higher than it is now was in a different era. No internet, no smartphones, dial phones wired to the house, two postal deliveries a day (one of them before you got up), bottled milk on the doorstep, outside toilets, bin men who actually carried bins overflowing with filth and tipped them in the back of a truck, anything up to 1,000 times fewer cars on the road, no motorways, no roundabouts, and so on. DVSA does itself no favours harping on about training standards being the issue when the pass rate is hovering around 45%. It’s just the norm, and has been for almost 20 years – and up to more than 50 years if you allow a few percent extra variance.
One thing is certain. The pass rate has not fallen (or risen) significantly for the last 20 years. And the proper graph clearly shows its not likely to change much in the next 20 either – unless some idiot forces it to. I try not to say bad things about them, but I’m sure DVSA is disappointed that the 2019 data point isn’t joined by an almost vertical line up at 90%, and will likely blame this on poor training again.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention. The reason I wrote this is that DVSA has had to send out an email correcting the false media stories.