Holy cow, they’re at it again!
I wrote an article in 2015 about a monthly magazine where you gradually got parts to build a model of The Millennium Falcon from Star Wars. Although issue 1 was priced at £2.99, subsequent issues were £8.99 and the full series was 100 issues long (totalling nearly £900 to get a finished model).
I just saw an ad on TV for a similar series where you build a model of the Bismarck. The bloody thing is 1¼ metres long and is made largely of die-cast metal (they don’t say how much it weighs). This time, although the first issue is £1.99, subsequent issues are £8.99, and there are 140 of them! So it’ll cost around £1,250 in the end.
I saw this question posed on a forum a while back, the premise being that if you have been trained properly, you could pass your test at any test centre in the country. It comes up regularly.
Many instructors jump on board with it like starved chihuahuas on pork chops, because we all know how better than everyone else they are. It’s a nice theory, and one which should work – in an ideal world. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and there are several flaws in the idea.
First of all, even passing your test at the test centre you know like the back of your hand is far from guaranteed. The national pass rate is about 45%, and even after we eliminate every person who shouldn’t have been at a test centre just yet, it still wouldn’t be close to 100%. The best and most well-prepared drivers can get caught out on the day on roads they know well for any one of a hundred different reasons.
Secondly, even Godlike driving instructors would have problems driving in some unfamiliar areas around the country. Nottingham doesn’t have any particularly awe-inspiring features, but a relatively simple one like the Nuthall roundabout – following the A6002 from Stapleford towards Hucknall, for example – would be enough for an experienced but unfamiliar driver get in the wrong lane and be required to do a late change (perhaps on the roundabout itself). There’s no signage on approach to tell you what lane to use in advance, and it’s only when the road suddenly widens from one into four lanes that road markings appear (if you can see them under all the traffic). The lane allocation is not what you’d expect if you were following the usual roundabout principle in the Highway Code, and it’s a very busy M1/city centre junction with surprisingly short light sequences. Any late lane change during the day will definitely require someone to slow down and let you in (or not if they’re driving an Audi, BMW, Merc, or if they live in Strelley), and that will inconvenience the overall flow at the lights. Even the Godlike instructor would fail if that happened on a test – and since it is on the Watnall test routes (with many more situations like it across all three Nottingham test centres), what the hell chance does a novice driver have if they haven’t been shown how to do it, and practiced it often?
Then there is the general area itself. Taking an extreme case, Mallaig in Scotland has often been cited as having the highest pass rate in the country. This isn’t because the drivers who take tests there are better than anywhere else, but is almost wholly as a result of the fact that Mallaig is a tiny fishing village in the middle of nowhere. It has something like 10km of roads in total, no dual carriageways, one small roundabout, and a total population of under 200 in a village of 67 dwellings (and about 1,000 inhabitants in the total catchment area). It is 140 miles away from the nearest motorway, and only a few miles north west of the place where Connor MacLeod was born in Highlander. And it does around 20 tests a year – that’s one thousand times fewer tests than are conducted in Nottingham, which is by no means at the other end of the spectrum from Mallaig (parts of London probably hold that honour).
Even given the apparent simplicity of the road network there, there’s still no guarantee that someone from, say, London would automatically pass in Mallaig without practice, and I suspect that Mallaig’s occasional less-than-perfect pass rate in any given year is partly down to outsiders thinking they can pass there after reading about it, even though they can’t drive properly anywhere else.
There are no certainties in driving, and definitely not in driving tests. If there was, there would be pass rates of 100% by the bucket load, and instructors would be boasting more zero-fault passes than you could shake a stick at. The best you can say is that the odds of passing shift from whatever they would have been if you change things. Taking a test in an unfamiliar place will almost certainly shift them down, and a simpler road network is likely to shift them up. But unless everyone heads to Mallaig, the degree of simplification would be minimal, and would merely introduce new roundabouts and weird junctions for some learners to get into a panic over.
Lastly, no one who claims their pupils would pass no matter where they took their test has ever evaluated it. It’s impossible to do so, since you can’t test the same pupil in different places. Everyone is different, and every test is different – even if it uses an identical route to the one before it.
Sometimes my own pupils get it into their heads, when trying to book a test sooner than is available at the nearest centre, that going for one elsewhere would be a good idea. I only deal with Nottingham, so if they come up with Sutton in Ashfield, Loughborough, or Leicester (and they do), I refuse outright. If I don’t know how to get there without looking it up, they can forget it. I’m more amenable to the idea if it’s another Nottingham one, but not if they only do one hour lessons and a simple round trip is more than 30 minutes or so in good traffic. I will also usually put a block on it if they want the test within a couple of weeks and haven’t driven the area before.
If they persist, a quick drive around the relevant area is usually enough to get them to change their minds. Once they’ve seen all the lorries and roads full of potholes around Colwick, the Nuthall and IKEA roundabouts for Watnall, or the Long Eaton roundabout for Chilwell, most decide to stay where they were before. Sometimes, the grass on the other side isn’t quite as green as it once seemed when you’re walking over it barefoot.
Which test centre do you recommend?
The nearest one. If a pupil can only do one hour lessons, and lives in Long Eaton, with the Chilwell TC five minutes away, and we’ve done most of our lessons around Long Eaton, Chilwell, Beeston, and Bramcote, they’re not booking a test at Colwick, which is a good 30-40 minutes away, solely on the grounds that their mate (who lives there) passed at it last week. Not without a big discussion, anyway. I once did a test at Colwick with someone who lived in Long Eaton (we’d done many of the two hour lessons over there, mainly at night), and on test day it took us over an hour and a half just to get there – we arrived a few minutes late. Fortunately, she passed.
If they really want to use a different test centre, they can do longer lessons to make sure we can familiarise with it.
So, you just teach people test routes?
I’ve written hundreds of times about the distance I cover with pupils on lessons. Someone who I have been teaching from the start will have been on the A46 with me, and many will have been down to Leicester and back on the M1 if they do two hour lessons. They’ll have been on single-track roads, driven through a ford, dealt with horses and nut jobs with a Spandex fetish on country lanes, and quite possibly have seen Southwell Minster. All of them now know where (and what) Newstead Abbey is, and will marvel at how much of Sherwood Forest has fewer trees than a football pitch does. All of them will have passed through at least some of the villages of Papplewick, Wysall, Rempstone, Widmerpool, Wymeswold, Tollerton, and many others, for the first (and possibly last) time in their lives. I did one this week, and we covered over 40 miles in an hour and half lesson.
But no matter where they have driven with me, the test will be conducted within a very tightly defined area, and driving through the ford near Oxton – while useful in its own right – isn’t going to help them stay in lane when they have to deal with the Virgin roundabout in Colwick. Nor is it going to help get it into their heads that when the bus lane ends heading back to the test centre, if they don’t move into the left lane, they’re likely to panic and mess up big time when they realise the lane they’re in is now right-turn only, and the examiner said to go straight ahead at the lights. The ford won’t help them finally grasp that driving on Marshall Hill Drive cannot be done in third gear unless you’re doing 30mph all the way up it, and that those Give Way signs at the top mean that when get there you should take your foot off the gas and be careful of vehicles coming the other way. It won’t help them understand that when people are walking across the road in front of them in West Bridgford town centre, it’s most likely because they’re on one of the seven zebra crossings over about 300 metres, and that it might be a good idea to slow down and stop for them. Oh, and the ford won’t teach them that no matter how many times they try, they can’t go straight ahead at that first mini-roundabout in West Bridgford, because the pretty red signs with a white bar across them say so.
In short, the ford near Oxton has no direct bearing on the outcome of their test. All that other stuff does, and it would be insane not to spend more time on that than on the fringe stuff. I mean, it’s no bloody good if they can drive through a ford, but still don’t see or react correctly to pedestrians in built up areas.
I’m teaching them how to be novice drivers. They can gain 30 years of experience… over the next 30 years by themselves. They’re not going to get that in the three months they’re with me.
People doing intensive courses have to use different test centres
I have my own views on intensive courses, but if you do them and have to book wherever is available, then that’s your affair. I’m not convinced that the test centre used should be dictated by the timescale involved in the first place, but even more so when it is just to avoid taking lessons (which it usually is with mine when they do it). Lack of familiarity with an area is unlikely to go in their favour.
Most test routes are intended to be at least a little challenging, taking in steep hills, one-way streets, heavily pedestrianised areas, and so on. I would lose pupils if I hadn’t shown them these features and they encountered them for the first time on their test. I’d lose even more if a particular individual had issues with certain things, and I hadn’t spent time on specific and more troublesome examples of them on test routes across several lessons to put things right.
Some pupils might not be fazed by unfamiliar territory. But many more are.
All other news has stopped these last two days (mid-January 2019, when I first wrote this) because of the motor accident involving Prince Philip near Sandringham. Apparently, he’s already back behind the wheel.
The last line in that article made me smile.
Chris Spinks, who led Norfolk’s roads policing team for five years, said the royal would not be shown any “favouritism” in the investigation.
It’s too late, Chris. He already has been if he’s back driving again already. If it had been any other 97-year old who had hit the wrong pedal because of being dazzled by the sun, they’d probably have had their licence confiscated on the spot. And if they’d have driven into a Royal vehicle, they’d still be in the cells helping with enquiries. And at that age, they’d be unlikely to get their licence back without so much hassle that it would be simpler to just forget it.
Age is both a progressive and a relative thing. We’re all affected by it as our lives progress, but some people more so (and more quickly) than others.
On the one hand, age should not be seen as a barrier against learning to drive. It should not be seen as a direct barrier to carrying on driving well into your old age (however that might be defined). However, there comes a point where you – as an individual – have moved as far along the timeline as you can without becoming a serious risk. As I said above, some people get there quicker – and earlier – than others. Getting the pedals mixed up – along with not being able to see very well – is most definitely the point where Father Time is telling you you should stop.
I would bet money that Prince Philip has never got the pedals mixed up before. But he’s 97 – and he has now.
Fortunately, no one was killed or seriously injured.
It gets better. If a normal motorist was observed not wearing a seatbelt, the police would go nuts over it (they have done, before). It’s a good job the Duke is not getting “favourable” treatment, isn’t it?
And in the latest update, Prince Philip has done the right thing and surrendered his licence. Whatever the reasons – sensible or political – he’s made the right decision.
And in still another development, he’s got off with it. No further action will be taken. Although my view on older drivers declaring themselves fit, and then proving that they’re not by driving into things, is no secret, let’s hope that the same leniency is extended to anyone who does this sort of thing in future – even if they’re not Prince Philip.
You’ve got to laugh.
A PDI (trainee instructor) asks for advice on whether it’s best to go it alone in his Part 3 training, or use a franchise to go on a pink licence.
He gets a reply that franchises are a waste of money and he should go it alone using Facebook. Except that the person who left that reply started out with a franchise themselves and left after becoming established.
Apart from the overlap of situations (a PDI aiming for Part 3 is a completely different situation to a new ADI who’s just passed Part 3), it’s like if Andy Murray started advising people to enter Wimbledon when they’ve only just taken up tennis on the basis that he’s won it in the past.
Actually, given the aforementioned overlap of situations, it’s more like Andy Murray advising someone who’s only just taken up cricket to enter the World Snooker Championship because he’s won Wimbledon before.
Anything to have a dig at franchises.
This article was originally published in 2011, with updates in 2014 and 2016. It has had a few hits recently, so I’ve updated it again.
Someone found the blog on the search term “adi how to check wing mirror position”. A bit of a strange question if it was from an ADI, but for pupils it is often a problem – certainly to start with.
The wing mirrors should be adjusted to give the maximum view behind without creating blind spots. My own lesson plans use the image shown on here. However, this is not intended to provide millimetre-perfect guides for where to put the mirrors!
The bottom line is that you aren’t interested seeing birds and aeroplanes, or road kill. You want to see as much as possible of what is happening behind you and to your sides. You don’t want to be looking at half of your own car. It isn’t rocket science.
I currently teach in a Ford Focus and I’ve found that a good position position for the wing mirrors from the pupil’s position in the driving seat is when they can just see the tip of the front door handle in the extreme bottom right of the nearside mirror, and the extreme bottom left of the offside mirror. Anywhere near that position is fine – it doesn’t have to be measured with a ruler! Obviously, if you’re an ADI using a different car, you set the mirrors yourself and then look for a reference you can explain to your pupils when they have to do it.
One point I do stress to my learners is that if they plan on using the mirrors for any reversing manoeuvres, it makes sense to adjust them consistently each time they get in the car (during their cockpit drill). If they don’t, what they see can vary, leading to confusion.
An ADI needs to have a rough idea of what the best mirror position looks like from the passenger seat so they know if the pupil is doing things properly. This is pretty much down to experience, because all pupils are different – some sit 4 feet behind the steering wheel because they’re 6′ 7″ tall, whereas others sit only a few centimetres away because they’re 4′ 10″. Consequently, the best mirror position for each learner can vary dramatically.
I remember one occasion many years ago when one of my pupils had driven to a location for a manoeuvre. Just before we started it I casually glanced at her offside mirror and something struck me as being odd. I suddenly realised that I could see the side of the car in it from the passenger seat. When I tested the position later I confirmed that she would have been unable to see anything but the side of the car!
Lord knows what she was thinking, or what she thought she was seeing. She’d been through her cockpit drill and insisted everything was OK, and she was religiously doing the MSM routine throughout the lesson. But she wasn’t actually seeing anything useful at all. This is the sort of thing that instructors need to look out for.
What is the correct position for my mirrors?
You want to see as much as possible of what’s going on behind you and to your side, and not leave any unnecessary blind spots.
The interior and exterior mirrors’ coverage overlaps behind the car, but there are areas where only one mirror provides useful information – and areas where none of them do (the blind spots). The red car in the diagram is in a blind spot, and would not be visible in any of the mirrors, so you’d have to turn to look over your shoulder to see it (this is a shoulder or blind spot check).
There is no advantage to being able to see birds and aeroplanes anymore than there is to being able to check out the squashed hedgehogs. And it goes without saying that the interior mirror is not for checking your hair and make-up.
How you achieve the correct mirror setting is really up to you, but it makes sense to have a consistent position so that you can see the same space around the car whenever you go out. If the mirrors are too high then you won’t see the lines when you’re reversing into bays, for example, but too low means you can’t see behind you properly when you’re driving, which can be a particular problem if the road undulates (i.e. it is hilly).
I get my pupils to use the door handles as references, as explained above. For the interior mirror, the driver wants to see all of the back window with a slight bias towards their left ear. But remember, this is just a very general guideline that I use – it isn’t written down anywhere that you have to use it.
How much of the car should I see in the passenger mirror?
Almost none of it – just the same as with the one on your side.
Although there is no rule that says they have to be set in a precise way, common sense dictates that the mirrors are there so that you can see what’s going on around you at ground level – not so you can stare at the side of your car. Therefore, you want to adjust them so that you can’t see much of the car at all, and not too much sky or road. Being consistent is a natural consequence of that.
Don’t try to adjust your mirrors too far outwards to try and cover your shoulder blind spots – you won’t be able to do it, and you’ll just create two more of blind spots behind the car. What you’re after is almost continuous coverage from the nearside mirror, through the interior mirror, and across to the offside mirror.
How can I adjust my mirrors to eliminate blind spots?
If you mean the blind spots you need to turn around for, you can’t – not with the standard mirrors fitted to the car, anyway.
The only way to cover your shoulder blind spots using mirrors is if you buy additional piggyback ones that fit on top of your existing mirror housing and which can be angled differently (or those round convex ones you stick on the surface of your existing mirrors. Such additional mirrors are often used by people who can’t turn around properly, or in cases where the driver cannot see behind properly due to the vehicle design. A lot of instructors also use them, but I am not in favour because pupils are unlikely to fit them to their own car, and they just promote laziness when it comes to being safe. I only use additional mirrors if I’m teaching someone with a disability which impedes turning around in the seat.
Unless you have a medical condition or some genuine reason for needing extra mirrors, you should not be looking for ways to avoid checking your blind spots properly. Turning around to look is absolute, but using a mirror is by proxy. A mirror is useful if there is absolutely no other way – but it is dangerous and lazy if the mirror replaces the absolute way needlessly.
My instructor told me the car should fill one third of the mirror each side
I’m sorry, but that is complete nonsense. As I said above, there is no absolutely correct mirror position, but there are plenty of absolutely wrong ones. What point is there in wasting a third of the mirror area just so you can look at the side of the car? I’ve also heard similar nonsense about “two [or three] finger widths” of car being visible, which is also wrong.
Your mirrors are there to show what’s behind you. Adjust them so that they show a tiny sliver of the car, and not too much sky or road.
Can I re-adjust my mirrors for particular manoeuvres?
Yes. My own pupils only adjust it for the parallel park, because I have a method which accurately positions the car relative to the kerb, but I sometimes pick up new pupils who like to drop the mirrors for any reversing (quite a few used to do it when reversing around a corner). If it works for them I don’t try to change it, but if it doesn’t I get them to do it my way. For normal observations, the mirrors don’t need to be moved if they’re adjusted properly in the first place.
If my side mirrors aren’t adjusted properly will I have trouble with parallel parking?
It depends what method you’re using. In order to parallel park you need to know where the kerb is and to judge your position relative to it, so if you’re using your mirrors to determine that, you’ll have problems if the mirrors are badly adjusted, or if they’re adjusted differently each time you get in the car.
This is true of any manoeuvre or situation where you use your mirrors – if they’re badly or inconsistently adjusted then you won’t be able to see what you ought to be able to.
Can I re-adjust my mirrors if I’m on my Part 2 (driving instructor) test?
Can I ask the examiner to adjust my mirror for me?
If you have manually-adjustable mirrors, yes. The examiner will not refuse this request. The examiners’ SOP (DT1) says (or used to):
The candidate may ask the examiner to assist in adjusting the nearside door mirror before a manoeuvre. The examiner should not refuse this simple request, and assist the candidate as appropriate. The candidate should not have to lean across the examiner to adjust the mirror.
If you have electrically-operated mirrors, it is a non-issue since you can adjust them as necessary.
Would I fail if I touched (clipped) someone’s wing mirror?
If you mean clipping it with your wing mirror (or any other part of your car), almost certainly, yes! You could fail just for being too close to someone’s wing mirror, so clipping it would be even worse.
Like most things you can never be 100% certain that it would result in a fail – there might be extenuating circumstances – but in all normal cases it would mean that you were passing too closely, and that has its own box on the DL25 Marking Sheet. You’d get a serious or a dangerous fault for it depending on the actual situation.
I clipped someone’s mirror. Does it make me a bad driver?
Only if you keep doing it. Most people have done it at one time or another, but they learn from their mistakes.
If you actually break someone’s mirror, my advice is to let them know. Years ago, one of my pupils went into a narrow gap too fast, panicked when a bus also came through, and clipped someone’s wing mirror when he steered away. I can vividly remember seeing the glass from the other car’s wing mirror fly up as we went past. I pulled him over immediately, and ran back to the other car – which had someone in inside ready to drive away – and apologised profusely, got their phone number, and informed my insurance company right away. None of this crap about not admitting liability – we were at fault completely.
Who are you to tell people how to set their mirrors?
Yes, that question has been asked in those aggressive terms on more than one occasion (including on forums, where instructors are trying to score points off of each other).
The short answer is that that I’m a driving instructor, and one that knows what he’s talking about. If someone hasn’t done it before – and if they’re paying me to teach them – I will give them the correct guidance they need on all aspects of learning to drive. If your instructor isn’t helping you with stuff like this it is probably because he or she doesn’t know the answer, and he’s taught you not to know it either.
What am I checking for when I use the mirrors?
Anything or anyone that you might hit or inconvenience if you move off. The mirrors are only part of it – you also need to check your blind spots, which are those areas not covered by the mirrors.
How should I use the mirrors?
Generally, at least in pairs. Use your own common sense.
For example, if you’re parked on the left hand side of the road and want to move off, you would typically check your inside mirror, offside (right hand) mirror, and right shoulder blind spot to get the maximum amount of information about what is coming up behind you. However, if you were parked on the right hand side of the road then you’d check your inside and nearside (left hand) mirror, and your left shoulder blind spot.
In either of the above examples, if you’d seen pedestrians, children, people getting into cars in driveways, or anything else that could be relevant, then you may well decide to check your other mirror and blind spot as well.
Do I need to check them in any particular order?
Not really, but checking the inside, wing, and blind spot in that order makes the most sense in most cases. If a car is coming up from behind on a straight road it will initially be visible in the inside mirror. As it gets closer it will appear in both the inside and offside mirrors, then move to only the offside mirror. Finally, it will only be visible in your blind spot until it passes you. And in any case, what is in your blind spot is closest to you, so checking that last gives you the most up to date information to act upon.
However, if you know there is a hazard of some sort behind you – cyclists or pedestrians, for example – look in the mirror/blind spot most likely to tell you where it is and what it’s doing as well. You are not going to be marked on which order you check them in as long as your checks are meaningful.
Remember that it is your responsibility to check properly. In extreme cases it may even be prudent to stop and get out of the car. For example, what if you see a small child on a bike, or even a dog, which then disappears from view as you’re about to move off? Where are they? This is especially relevant if you are doing a reversing manoeuvre of some sort.
Should I do a six-point check?
Some instructors absolutely live for routines like this.
If you insist on doing it, as long as your checks mean you don’t move off when someone is behind you, then it doesn’t really matter. Just bear in mind that while you’re doing two/three of the six checks (which are not always necessary), things could be developing in the other three/four (which are). For that reason, I do not teach this silly routine.
Many years ago, I had a pupil who used to do it. She used to say “no one there, no one there, no one there, no one there, no one there, no one there” as she did it. On her test, which she passed, the examiner commented on it by saying quietly to me outside the car: “she’s not very mature, is she?”
The simple fact is that as long as you are certain it is safe to move off, and the examiner knows that you know, that’s all that matters. How you get that message across to him is up to you.
Is it OK if I check all the mirrors every time?
It depends. Although checking all three mirrors to pass a parked car, for example, isn’t a fault in itself, the extra delay that the unnecessary additional check creates could cause problems. The most likely one is that you’ll steer out later and you’ll therefore be looking away from the obstruction at the same time you’re getting close to it. One of the most common faults (and causes of test failure) is passing obstructions too closely.
It’s the same when moving off. If you add unnecessary additional checks, the first one becomes quite stale before you’ve finished the last. If you check your right mirror/blind spot first, someone could turn up while you’re looking needlessly to the left. If that happened – and you didn’t see them – you would probably fail.
If you are doing it because you’re trying to cover all the bases and make sure you don’t miss a check in front of the examiner, or religiously performing the Six-point Check Ritual, it’s the wrong way to go about it. Remember that learners tend to be quite slow with their checks in the first place, and extra ones make them even slower – sometimes, too slow.
If it’s because you used to ride a motorcycle, then as long as you’re aware it isn’t absolutely necessary every time in a car – and if no other problems result – then it doesn’t really matter.
Instructors shouldn’t really be encouraging unnecessary checks, though they shouldn’t be trying to stop it if no other issues are cropping up.
I failed my test for observation when moving off, but I did look over my shoulder
The examiner is watching you to make sure you take effective observations before moving off (and in other circumstances). Just looking isn’t enough. You have to actually see, too. That’s what is meant by “effective”.
Think about it. Looking in two mirrors and over your shoulder involves three head movements, but you could do this with your eyes closed and not see anything at all.
I once had someone on a lesson stop at a T-junction to emerge, look both ways, and then try to pull out in front of a bloody lorry which was less than 20 metres away approaching from the right. They had looked, but not seen.
The problem is that when people don’t appreciate why they’re looking or what they’re looking for, they won’t do it properly. In that case they may as well have their eyes shut for all the good their “checks” do.
The chances are that something similar to this is what happened on your test. Or perhaps the examiner wasn’t happy that you’d have seen something if it was coming (even if it wasn’t) because you didn’t look properly.
Brexit is the gift that just keeps on giving. Unfortunately, these gifts are invariably parcels of dog crap.
The latest episode involves the EU’s reference to Gibraltar as a British “colony” in one of the latest documents. The flag-waving tosspots who hold court in this country are up in arms over it. A UK spokesman (well, spokesperson – the BBC probably made sure they spoke to a woman) said:
This will not change due to our exit from the EU. All parties should respect the people of Gibraltar’s democratic wish to be British.
It’s a shame the spokesman doesn’t feel quite so strongly about Gibraltar’s democratic wish to remain in the EU. Their result was the first to be declared and was 96% in favour of remaining! I repeat: 96%.
As far as UK petty semantics goes, Gibraltar is officially a British Overseas Territory. However, up until 1983, even we classified it as a British Crown Colony. Nothing much has changed in Gibraltar’s standing since then, except for the official British term to describe it.
Even in the Gibraltar Constitution Order referendum in 2006 the word “colony” was used. One of the campaign groups at the time issued a press release, stating:
[the new constitution]… is not the act of self-determination which will decolonise us… [and it]… is as colonial as its 1964 and 1969 predecessors
Interestingly, a British film archive website – which is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council – carries old film of Gibraltar. What makes it interesting is that the site is called Colonial Film (Moving Images of the British Empire). So people still reckon Gibraltar isn’t a colony?
It doesn’t matter what you call it, anyway. It’s still the same piece of land it ever was, almost wholly self-governed, and still pissing Spain off just by being there. And it is still as much a colony as it ever was (or wasn’t), albeit one which has much more reason to remain in the EU due to its location, which voted with a 96% majority to do so, and which has had that strong desire trampled underfoot thanks to flag-waving morons.
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.
So, using Extreme 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 they certainly won’t be paying the extra few quid that goes along with 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.
I have a GoPro camera that records in 4k video. I bought a high capacity SanDisk card designed for 4k that I had to import from the USA because they weren’t available over here, but before I got it I tested a normal SanDisk Extreme card and the video was as choppy as hell. It wasn’t the card’s fault directly – it just wasn’t fast enough for 4k, and it wasn’t supposed to be. I’m fairly certain that this is one of the problems people experience when they use a card that simply isn’t up to the job in their dashcam.
NextBase insist that Extreme cards are compatible with their devices, and their own cards appear to be rebranded SanDisk ones. I don’t disagree that they work 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 them are down to the cards protesting at being used outside of their specification, but the user blames the dashcam.
SanDisk high endurance cards only go up to 64GB, though other manufacturers produce higher capacity units.
I haven’t updated this in a while, and I really should have.
I have been intrigued by the number of driving school websites carrying these sheets now – even to the extent that they carry the exact same scanning defects that are on the ones I generated. Coincidence? Or uncredited plagiarism? I’m seeing a lot of the latter these days.
Note that the article below is the original from 2014, and the download file is for the old PSTs if anyone still wants them for some reason.
The new Part 3 marking sheet can be downloaded here. There’s only one, and it is the official DVSA website, so it should always be up to date (or have a link to an up to date version).
The blog gets a lot of hits from people looking for the PST (ADI 26) marking sheets used on the Part 3 ADI test. In fact, this file has been downloaded many hundreds of times, yet I think less than half a dozen people have bothered to say thank you (and some websites are carrying ones they’ve apparently pilfered from here, down to the same scanning defects, but not given credit for). It used to be very difficult to get hold of these from anywhere else, and given the graphics work I had to do to clean up the originals, I know that people have got them from here.
Click the PDF image to download the file. It contains all ten PSTs, and they’re full-sized, so you can print them out if you want to.
The PSTs are also given in the Driving Instructor’s Handbook, although much smaller. But you can see what’s on them at least – which is really all that matters.
Just one last word on the “thank you” thing (and the outright plagiarism some people are involved in). If you have anything like the same approach when you start teaching real pupils you may find you don’t stay in business very long.
I don’t watch Game of Thrones, but there is apparently a natural feature in Northern Ireland called The Dark Hedges. It is a tunnel formed by Beech trees, and it has been used in the series because of its other-worldly appearance.
The trees which form the tunnel have apparently been damaged by the weather before, but another was felled by strong winds over the weekend.
Here’s what I don’t understand. A tree expert has said that the trees have stood since 1775, and that Beech trees have a typical life expectancy of around 250 years, so at 240 years these are very old. There were originally about 150 trees, but due to natural events there are only 90 left (well, 89 after the windy weekend). The tree expert says:
It’s sad to see that one by one they are actually falling.
Erm. Excuse me, but isn’t it possible to plant new trees when one dies or gets blown over? They could even clone the existing ones to keep the history alive if they wanted. I mean, fair enough. They have left it about 100 years too late, but even now the feature could be preserved for posterity – instead of just being allowed to fizzle out.
There really is something wrong with mankind that I can’t quite put my finger on.
Just before Christmas I wrote an article based on some silly statements I’d seen about independent instructors being “better trained” and “more professional”, meaning that they could charge more and not have to offer discounts. It was easy to prove categorically that those claims are untrue with a simple scan of some instructors’ websites, and that all instructors are pretty much the same (with the statistical spread that that implies).
I just saw another comment about franchised instructors being much worse off because of having to pay their franchiser. There are still people who are dumb enough to think that being independent automatically means you’re £200 a week better off. You are not.
As I said in that earlier article, if an independent instructor and a franchised one both have the guaranteed same number of hours, and if both charge the same hourly rate, then the independent is better off – not by the whole amount of the franchise fee, but by the whole amount of that fee minus whatever he or she pays for their own overheads (and those are absolutely not even close to £0). So, if the franchisee pays £200 per week for everything (except fuel), the independent – even if they don’t realise it – will be paying at least £30 per week, but more like £50-£100 in most cases, for everything (except fuel). So the independent would be turning over approximately £100 more.
But look at all the “ifs”.
Now, consider this. A franchised instructor is likely to be charging £25 per hour or more for lessons. The independent ADI who made the claim isn’t, even though that’s the typical franchised rate in their location. Their website indicates a top rate of £21 per hour, but only £20 per hour with block booking. They also have introductory offers where blocks of 10 lessons are equivalent to less than £17 per hour! One block offer for a smaller number of hours that could last a pupil for a month is equivalent to £11 per hour!
In a worst case scenario (lots of first time buyers on the books), even if the two ADIs were doing the same number of hours (say 30), the franchised instructor could easily be turning over more than £300 a week more than the independent. In the best case (all paying the independent’s highest rate), also with the same number of hours, the franchised ADI would still be turning over £150 more per week.
And the thing to remember is that if you have a full diary and are having to turn people away, you don’t cut your £25 rate to £11, or even £20. If you are cutting it, it is to try and fill your diary. Therefore, you’re not doing the same number of hours as the franchised ADI in the first place. So the difference in turnover is even greater.
This is why franchised instructors can afford to pay the franchise. It is why they are not as badly off as some independents like to believe. And it is why I advise all new ADIs to start off with one.