Prejudice in driving & driver training

In recent times, the Driver Training industry has seen lots of change in the way Driving Instructors are both initially and regularly tested to ensure the highest quality of training is being given.

Traditionally, the process of teaching somebody to drive involved telling them how to do something, watching them to ensure that they were doing what they were being asked to do and looking out for signs that they'd learnt what they were doing - learning by repetition (or for those of you who have studied this stuff, learning by rote). Once the pupil had learnt what was expected of them, the instruction could be taken away and replaced with prompts and if that was successful, then the pupil was left to their own devices with the instructor watching closely for any mistakes. If a mistake was spotted, it was a question of "See it, Say it, Sort it" and following a few targeted questions to establish the root cause of the problem, a solution would be offered to the pupil and the cycle began again until everything was right - basically a lot of talking being done by the instructors and not a lot of input from the pupils aside from following instructions.

These days, we try to involve the pupil a lot more. We try to find out what they already know and build on that. At the age of 17, if a learner driver has been in a car once a day and been present when the car has been driven through just 5 junctions on each journey, then they have witnesses well over 30,000 demonstrations of how to drive through junctions. They've seen all different types of junctions from roundabouts to motorways to open and closed junctions to those controlled by traffic lights - there should already be a lot of knowledge in there before they even get into a car with a Driving Instructor and we ask them for this information as part of their lessons, with an aim to trying to work in partnership with the pupil to fill in any gaps rather than just fire information at them.

However, as these conversations flow, I am learning some pretty uncomfortable stuff!

The average learner driver doesn't appear to respect anyone as being a good driver and they don't appear to have any reasons for holding this opinion with most saying that they've never been involved in any crashes or anything. Apparently, everyone else on the roads can't be trusted to stop at red lights, go at green ones, stop and give way at junctions as defined in the Highway Code or even cross a road safely when on foot. I even had one girl tell me once that a driver ahead of us who had passed through a junction might suddenly stop and reverse back across it, in spite of having never seen anyone do that and in spite of her saying that she wouldn't because it would be a dangerous thing to do - that was her reason for stopping at a green traffic light and she said a number of times "you never know what they might do do you"

Why are young people thinking like that??

The answer is "prejudice"

In the dictionary, the word "Prejudice" is defined as "holding a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" or "to make biased" - the word fits this situation almost perfectly.

We live in an age where people are accepted for being different more than ever before. Racism, sexism and homophobia may not be totally eradicated, but we're generally a lot more tolerant in society towards those groups of people than we were... or are we? Maybe we've just made it unpopular to target those groups and made it okay to target others?

For some reason, a very high proportion of young people today tell me that they think "other road users" are "all idiots" and it's such a well established opinion that it's almost impossible to challenge it and see change - I must stand out as being about the only person they've ever spoken to who doesn't hold that opinion!

Of course, I am one of those other road users, and as such I identify with words like "everyone" and "all" - because by definition, saying "everyone's an idiot on the roads" includes me as well (and you). I have tried pointing out to people expressing these views this attitude that if you pick any individual car driving down the road, it could be a highly qualified driver with years of experience and a raft of advanced driving qualifications or it could be a recently passed driver who might make a few mistakes. Those people are uncomfortable when they're asked to justify their attitude towards me as one of the "everyone". The truth is that prejudice isn't fair, but I think it's entirely fair to say that if you're uncomfortable discussing your prejudices face to face with somebody, then that's the clearest sign of all that maybe you shouldn't hold those prejudices at all.

There is the strong possibility of course that this opinion doesn't reflect the true attitude of the new driver I am working with - they may simply be telling me what they think I want them to say and to be fair to them, I see plenty of stereotypes around me that encourage that opinion!

Only last week, I watched a viral video taken by a cyclist where a Driving Instructor was arguing with them that they should be using a cycle lane by law (which isn't true - use of cycle lanes is encouraged and the intention is that they're safer places for cyclists to be, but using them isn't mandated by law). The tone of that video is very much anti-cyclist but also "I am the be all and end all of motoring, so don't you dare to challenge me" - if that attitude is transferred from trainer to trainee (as attitudes often will be), then we've got a new driver on the roads that would never ask a question to a Driving Instructor and may develop that prejudice towards cyclists.

I had a pupil once who was a week away from passing a driving test on his first shot at it when he did a parallel park for me. I asked him what he thought of it (encouraging self reflection is one of the modern ways of training people). He thought for a bit and said he was very happy with the manoeuvre, but was keen to hear from me if there was anything wrong that I could see that he wasn't aware of. My reply was that it was a good parking exercise, and that it would pass a test with ease but to make it perfect, he might want to try and straighten his front wheels next time so they didn't stick out. Joe's next comment was that he was on a hill (a very, very minor gradient that I hadn't even realised was present until he said that) and that the Highway Code recommends having the wheels facing into the kerb when parked on hills. My answer to that was a very grey sounding "just use your common sense Joe because it depends on how steep the hill is" but it was a great moment for me because it told me that he was thinking in the right way about his driving. Sadly, many Driving Instructors I've discussed that with think Joe was being cocky and that I should have bought him down a peg or two... which is a shame when he was such an obviously well read individual making an entirely correct and factual point.

I think it's time we dropped the attitude of disrespecting each other when we're on the roads. We're obviously all in possession of different levels of skill, but the crashes aren't being caused by idiots, they're being caused by people just like the rest of us. Like you, they're busy, distracted by kids fighting on the back seats and stressed out with the pressures of life, so they make mistakes... just like you do. Surely those of us that are trained to a higher standard should be looking after those that struggle a bit rather than just belittling them?

Those of us that are in a position to talk to the kids also need to drop those stereotypes too.

Good driving isn't about driving slowly, it's about concentrating on what you're doing and making good decisions. Many, many crashes take place below speed limits, and the fact that it's at a lower speed doesn't make it alright. Hitting the little girl at 20mph so she stands an 80% chance of life rather than an 80% chance of death at 30mph does not make it okay to hit the little girl - avoiding hitting her is our aim isn't it?

The young people I work with don't want to be involved in car crashes. They don't sit in cars deliberately encouraging their recently passed friend to drive stupidly and risk hurting everyone but they're told that that's what happens whenever young people get together to go anywhere in a car. Is it any wonder they crash shortly after passing their test as they listen to a bit of music and converse with their friends on the way to McDonalds when nobody ever told them that that kind of normal teenager behaviour was exactly what they meant when they were talking about "idiots"?

When it comes to drinking and driving, the average drink driver is somebody who has drunk a couple of pints or had a couple of glasses of wine and then driven whilst comfortably over the limit whilst being unaware of that fact. It's a shame the conversation isn't about them at the presentations. If it was, then perhaps people would become more educated about what it takes to become a drink driver. As it is though, the people who feature in the presentations have always been out on a fifteen hour bender and they're 5 times over the limit at the point in time where they crash and kill everyone in the car. Is it any wonder that the so many drivers see nothing wrong with a couple of pints when driving? Is it any wonder that they don't see their two pints and that guy's 15 hour bender as the same thing?

We have a greater understanding now than we have ever had before as to the real causes of car crashes, it's perhaps about time the training system (at all levels) caught up.

Nick Heath Driver Training is based in Alsager and teaches people to drive from scratch as well as training new driving instructors and working with more experienced drivers to help them to improve their driving. Nick is a qualified Diamond Advanced Driving examiner and trainer, is heavily involved with the local Driving Instructor Associations and is regularly asked to feature on local radio stations to give expert analysis on driving related new items. More information is available on our website www.nickheathdrivertraining.org.uk 

Meeting situations and clearance to obstructions and other road users

 I live on a terraced street with no off road parking and it is always very obvious if you spend just a few minutes in the street watching cars pass along the street that one aspect of driving that people struggle with is how to deal with parked cars when there is on coming traffic - or "meeting situations" as we call them in the driver training industry.

For the purposes of training, a "meeting situation" is an situation in which the road space is restricted to a point where two road users travelling in different directions who want to use the road don't have sufficient space to share it safely.

It is affected, no only by the physical width of the road, but also the size and type of vehicles wanting to use the space available and the need for safety margins. For example, a cyclist approaching a meeting situation requires very little physical space, but needs a big safety margin - so they essentially need to be allowed as much space as a car coming through. Likewise, if there is a line of parked cars on your left hand side, it's possible people could open doors or walk around those cars, so a 1mtr safety space should be allowed, whereas if it's a long straight wall, then we can get a bit closer to it without fear of things like opening doors affecting us.

The rules are quite simple really:

• If your side of the road is obstructed by a parked car, then you do not have priority
• You have priority if your side of the road is clear
• Where there are obstructions on both sides, or if it's a canal bridge or something in the countryside where the road naturally narrows, then neither of you have priority
• The highway code advises you to hand priority to large vehicles coming uphill regardless of what side of the road the obstructions are on
• The highway code advises you to hand priority to those who have already commenced their journey through the meeting situation

Some of this will sound like common sense to a lot of people, but time and time again, you see people driving onto the wrong side of the road, forcing on coming traffic to stop (in order to avoid a serious head on collision) and then waving "to say thanks for letting me through". We also see people "squeezing through" very tight spaces, bringing all moving traffic down to a crawl as they do so - don't they realise that stopping and going through one at a time allows people to come through quicker, due to the presence of safety margins and therefore giving way is actually going to reduce journey times as well as danger?

In terms of the safety margins, the rules are again quite clear:

• For parked cars leave 1mtr of space
• For cyclists and pedestrians leave 2mtr of space
• For horses leave as much room as you can
• For on coming traffic, there should be at least 1.5mtr of space

To summarise...

DO NOT ENTER A MEETING SITUATION UNLESS YOU CAN SEE THAT YOUR PATH THROUGH TO THE NEXT PASSING PLACE IS SAFE AND THAT YOU CAN LEAVE THE CORRECT SAFETY MARGINS

Nick Heath Driver Training is a driving school operating in and around the area of Alsager, in South Cheshire. We offer advanced driver training and testing (through our association with Diamond Advanced Motorists), Driving Instructor Training, Driving Instructor Franchising and of course we train learner drivers too. More details can be found by visiting our website at www.nickheathdrivertraining.org.uk or by calling 0800 820 20 38

Advanced driving tests with Diamond Advanced Motorists

I wonder how many people there are in the country who have always wanted to pass an advanced driving test, but never actually looked into what would be involved?

Last year, I qualified as an Driving Examiner for Diamond Advanced Motorists.

That means that I can not only train people to a standard required to pass the four different levels of driving test (learner, taxi, advanced & elite) but that I can also carry out driving assessments for those drivers that are above learner level (I can't examine people that I've trained of course, due to the conflict of interest issues & for the same reason, I can't carry out testing for learner drivers - only DVSA qualified & employed driving examiners who give up their ADI badge can do that)

There are several advanced driving groups operating in the country, but Diamond is set aside because it is fault based rather than risk based. That means that your result will be based on facts rather than opinions about best practice & that you're assessed by qualified ADI's who have been specially trained to examine (Approved Driving Instructors) rather than group members who are enthusiastic about good driving.

So what's involved...

Well you'll note that I mentioned the 4 levels of test - let's take them one by one

Learner Drivers

Most of us on the roads have already reached this standard (although many of us passed the test years ago & it's fair to say that as well as the roads getting busier, learner drivers have regularly been asked to reach a higher standard in order to pass the standard, entry level driving test as it's evolved over the years)

To pass this driving test, you need to drive for 35-40 minutes & attract fewer than 16 Driver Faults (these are the ones that everyone calls minors, but they are in fact opportunities to fail your driving test & the decision to give it a lower weighting is often down to the proximity of other road users & the affect you have on them). There should be no Serious Faults (these are where you breach the Highway Code, cause another road user who has priority over you to take action, show a lack of understanding by collecting various driver faults or place the car in a position of danger) & no Dangerous Faults (you'd provoke another road user into emergency action if you did this)

You'll drive on a variety of different roads & experience a variety of different traffic conditions & it's essentially about applying the highway code, assessing the road around you for risk & applying common sense where other road users act in a way that increases risk. Finese isn't really being assessed on this test... due to the expectation that learner drivers will be very nervous on test day.

Taxi Drivers

Some local authorities insist that Taxi Drivers are pass an assessment of their driving standards before granting them an operators licence.

This test is NOT really an advanced driving test; it's more of a slightly tougher learner level one.

You'll drive for around 45 minutes & to be successful you need to attract less than 10 driver faults. The test route will be set at a similar level to that used for learner drivers, but this time finese IS being assessed - you will pick up faults for "rough" gear changes or jerky braking.

Advanced Drivers

Any ADI's reading this will recognise this test as being the same as the DVSA's "part 2 test of driving ability" test that they are required to pass as part of the ADI qualification process.

A very high standard of driving is now required.

You'll be driving for around 60-70 minutes & must attract less than 7 driver faults in order to be successful. Finese is being assessed again, & the test route chosen will be more challenging. Where features allow, it is very likely to include motorways.

Elite Advanced Drivers

This is a 90 minute long driving assessment where the test route is set at the same level as the Advanced Driving Test, but longer. The standard required in order to be successful at this level is very, very high - you must attract less than 3 driver faults & there must be no repeat faults (in addition to no serious or dangerous faults as applied to all of the tests).

Diamond advanced trainers (& examiners) are required to have passed this test, be ADI's & be paid up members of the Driving Instructors Association. To remain qualified, you must repeat this test every 3 years.

In terms of road safety, Advanced & Elite drivers will very rarely crash due to their defensive approach to driving & highly tuned anticipation skills - they will often see that a particular vehicle needs space BEFORE the actual driver of that vehicle realises he needs it. They will also enjoy improved fuel economy, have their car repaired less regularly (due to less wear & tear), reduced journey times & greater confidence of their passengers.

If you're still thinking about improving your skills, then please feel free to get in touch. There are two Diamond Trainers in the area that I can put you in touch with who will be happy to help you identify areas of weakness & worth with you to develop an action plan to get yourself up to standard... I'll then be happy to take you around a test route... & the best of luck to you :)

Why I recommend buying a new car when you pass your driving test

"Now then son, you've passed your driving test - now you can learn to drive" are the words I hear the proud father speak down the phone to his excited son as we drive away from the test center. "What we need to do now is find you a cheap runaround to use for a bit, something that doesn't matter so much if you knock it about a bit... because you will"

It might be what his own dad said to him when he passed, but these words are not helpful at all!

At this stage in the process of learning to drive, a new driver has just driven for 40 minutes or so without breaking any rules in the highway code or putting himself or others at risk after completing (the national average figure) 50 or so hours of professional training and passing a detailed theory test. They've been on various roads and demonstrated competence in various traffic conditions which includes interacting with those who may be un-licenced, drunk, using the phone, arguing with passengers, lost or suffering ill health - they CAN now drive!

Of course, experience is something that takes time to gain and we can all make mistakes - but I've never really understood why we put our most vulnerable drivers in cheap, battered cars with minimal levels of safety feature fitted to them and engines that mean that they're certainly at risk if they attempt an overtaking manoeuvre or attempt to join a dual carriageway or a motorway.

Surely they would be better off in a modern car, with the latest airbag, crumple zone, safety cell and  seat belt technology - that way if they do fall foul of the inexperience, then they'll be adequately protected. Many insurance company's recognise this and ask for lower premiums as a result.

There's also a level of pride associated with having a brand new, shiny car that encourages people to look after it rather than not care - nobody want's a 6 month old car with dents and scratches all over it do they?

And what about running costs? Modern engines are less polluting and achieve better mpg than their older cousins. They don't need to go through an MOT for a few years and they often come along with free servicing and warranty.

I always recommend new cars to my learner drivers as they go through the process of learning to drive and have worked with the guys at Marmalade Insurance for some time. Marmalade can provide you with a brand new car at prices starting at £200 a month and you get a year's insurance for free as part of the deal (which is probably worth £100 a month or so). For more details click on this link  www.wearemarmalade.co.uk/cars-for-young-drivers and if you decide it's a good idea, please tell them you heard about this from your driving instructor and give them my name - you know it makes sense!

www.nickheathdrivertraining.org.uk

Who is to blame for car crashes?

This has got to be THE most popular question that news sites and facebook groups pose to their readers in an attempt to get loads of likes and comments on their social media pages. Comments and likes of course is helpful if you're trying to use social media as a marketing tool to help ultimately generate sales interest... and if you can get your readers to argue, it helps to keep the Googlebots happy to place you at the top of search result pages without necessarily making you look bad as an individual business.

But on a more intelligent level, who actually is to blame for car crashes?

Well throughout our lives we're told constantly that somebody else is to blame for them - it's never us, and the people responsible are usually made out to be stupid!

The police come into the schools for example to talk about the dangers of drink driving. They never tell us stories about somebody who met the rest of the extended family for a meal one Sunday afternoon and had two pints of beer with his food before getting pulled over by police for having a brake light out and being found to be over the limit. That's likely to be your "average" drink driving story. What they tell us instead is the story of a young, foolish lad who met some mates for a deliberate drink after the football, perhaps he intended to leave his car at the pub, but it was raining and he drove home after 20 pints, crashing at 80mph in a 30 zone and killing people close to him. Is it any wonder that the audience here finds it very easy to dismiss examples such as the one given as being something that they simply wouldn't do? A crash after that amount of alcohol seems almost inevitable - normal people wouldn't do that, the driver there was plain stupid!

And then you have those cliches that come out when people are learning to drive...

"You only learn to drive after passing your test"

"Nobody drives after their test in the same way that they do when they pass it"

"It's not your driving you need to watch, it's everyone else's"

"The roads are full of idiots these days"

That doesn't help either - it seems as though most drivers openly admit that they deliberately let their driving standards drop immediately after passing their tests (which is a test of their ability to follow rules and to drive safely) and then wonder why everyone seems to have differing opinions as to how things should be done and labels everyone else stupid!

To find a more constructive answer to the question of who is to blame for car crashes, we need to spend some time thinking about one.

Take for example, a fairly standard crash where a car has apparently emerged from a junction into the path of another vehicle. If we assume that that basic fact is all that we know about the situation and brainstorm possible reasons for it happening and list them, it varies a lot...

• Bad weather could have caused skidding
• Bad weather could have caused poor visibility
• Speed of either vehicle could have been an issue
• An emergency vehicle may have been involved
• Either driver may not have known what road markings meant
• Somebody may have been in a hurry - if so... why?

After a few hours of brainstorming, the exhaustive list of potential causes for any particular crash is massive and any single one of the things listed may be the ultimate cause of a crash of this description in a real life situation.

Now each of these potential causes can be placed into one of four different boxes - just four. Those four are:

• PERSONALITY TRAITS
• REASON FOR THE JOURNEY
• KNOWLEDGE OF RULES AND PROCEDURE
• PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE

As you sort the reasons into the boxes (and some go in two or more boxes, it's okay to do that and to list them twice) then a very clear, stark pattern emerges. As we go through this exercise, we find that two boxes contain 80 or 90% of the potential causes we came up with - these boxes are the personality and reason for the journey boxes.

It's a fact that people don't crash because of a lack of knowledge of the rules or because they lost physical control of their vehicle (these are the two things that form the basis of the driving test) - they crash because of their personal character attributes and the reason for their journey.

Now you may have crashed yourself because you lost control of your vehicle and be thinking that this is a load of rubbish, but give it a bit of thought - why were you driving in that manner? Do you just enjoy a fast drive (personality)? Or were you late for work or something (reason for the journey)? Perhaps your kids distracted you as you drove somewhere on holiday (reason for the journey)? 

We end up with examples like this coming to mind...

A young lad taking his girlfriend out on a date promised her dad that he'd have her home for 11pm and is keen to leave a good impression. They've been to the cinema and the film over-ran so they're late. There isn't a lot of traffic around and the lad is feeling pressure to get home before that 11pm deadline. Is he an idiot for respecting the girl's father like that?

An elderly lady wants to go shopping. Her eyesight is failing and she knows it but without her car she is isolated and reliant on neighbours who are also elderly. She has no family. Is she an idiot for needing a few things from the shops? How easy would you find it to trouble the neighbours if you were in her situation? Very easy? Really?

Those are just two examples that come up in these kinds of studies and they illustrate clearly who is to blame for car crashes and that is all of us that are involved in them! Idiots don't cause car crashes generally, normal people doing normal things are to blame.

If we're going to bring down the number of crashes and KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) figures, then what we need to do is drop this attitude that everyone else is the cause of the problem and adopt one of tolerance, co-operation and personal responsibility for our own actions and safety. When you do that, you notice that there aren't actually that many problems on the roads at all and that most drivers, far from being stupid, hostile towards you and the cause of danger, are simply trying to do their best to get from A to B with the minimum of fuss and drama.

Better fuel consumption

How well does your car do for fuel use when you're driving?

Have you ever compared your actual fuel consumption to that which is quoted in the manufacturer's guides? I think it's pretty common knowledge that the figures in the books are always a bit "too high" when compared to real life and this is mainly because the official figures are gathered from rolling road data. You have to do it that way really, otherwise the figures would be affected by road, traffic and weather conditions. The engines are run through standard cycles with various resistances, but there is no aerodynamic drag or resistance created by different road surfaces meaning that although the figures allow easy comparison between different models of cars, the figures are not something that can be achieved by an actual driver in real life situations.

Most drivers CAN get a lot close to the quoted figures than they do though and all it would take is a few simple changes to the way they drive their cars. Give the following ideas a go...

• Plan ahead more
• Is it worth increasing the speed? 
• If you change gear now, will it be used for long?
• Is there anything in the road ahead that might cause you to reduce speed?
• Is it possible to adjust speed early for traffic lights so that they're always on green by the time you reach them?
• Keep more space around the car
• If the car in front stops, do we need to use the brakes or can we utilise engine braking?
• Is the car in front approaching a hazard that's likely to cause it to slow down?
• Is it worth reducing speed now, even though the car in front may not have started to change it's own speed in response to an approaching hazard yet
• Consider use of the gas pedal to be investing money to create energy and the brake pedal to be something that destroys invested money by destroying that energy
• Is the creation of that energy sensible?
• Is the destruction of it necessary?
• Was the destruction of it avoidable?
• Was the un-necessary creation of it avoidable?

If you give some thought to these questions and look at your driving style, you WILL see your fuel consumption figures improve. You'll also likely feel reduced levels or stress and tiredness too and your driving will become safer - give it a go!

Two words that are distinctly different in driving - "react" & "respond"

"Slow down so you've got more time to react"

How many times have you see that phrase mentioned in various forums in relation to the use of speed? Everyone says it from the police to parents to driving instructors. Being "able to react in time" to changes in road and traffic conditions around you is seen as a good thing, and when it comes from the police (to put one particular group of highly qualified drivers up there for analysis) then you can trust the advice... because they know how to drive don't they?

Well, of course they do... but they're making a mistake in their attempts to get people to drive more sensibly - they don't react to things when they're driving! When they are driving to the scene of an emergency they call that an "emergency RESPONSE" rather than an "emergency REACTION"

The difference in the words might seem tricky to put into words. The dictionary definitions of the two words if you search on google are...

REACT- to act in response to something; to respond in a particular way

RESPOND - to do something as a reaction to somebody or something

So they are very, very similar in definition, but for me though, it's the emotion that is attached to the two words that is crucially important when used in the context of driving:

REACTING to something gives a picture of something urgent, hurried, fast, instinctive or even competitive - sportspeople react to the actions of their opponents.

RESPONDING to something feels more considered, relaxed and thought out... it's co-operative, courteous and the right thing to do having weighed up various options.

Now... when you see newly qualified, young drivers driving badly, perhaps give some thought to why they think that driving fast and relying on quick reactions are signs of good driving... 90% of the people talking to them about what "good driving" is have been telling them that's how to do it for years - we call it "unintended learning" in our profession.

Thoughts on space...

As a driving instructor, people expect me to hold strong views on speeding and to be very critical of everyone else's driving styles. I try very hard not to conform to that stereotype. The truth is that if I could change just one thing about the general standard of driving I see around me, it wouldn't be anything to do with speed; it'd be space - I would encourage everyone to create more space around them.

Space is never mentioned (and of course, it'd be hard to set up cameras to automatically prosecute people for poor use of it) but it's a very important consideration when it comes to choosing what speed to drive at. In theory, a car is safe travelling at any speed the driver likes as long as there is sufficient space around it to allow the driver to see developing hazards and handle them where it becomes necessary.

With their exemption from speed limits, space / risk management is basically how the emergency services drive with safety on blue lights.

If you look at the diagram above, we have 3 main zones around the car to consider.

Zone 1 - This is the space in front of the car. Having lots of space here obviously allows us to stop easily if needs be, but also it helps us to see past the vehicles in front and provides traffic waiting to emerge or turn at junctions with an opportunity to turn, thereby reducing congestion without affecting our journey too much (which in turn improves fuel consumption and arrival times because our average speed is more consistent) Aim for at least 2 clear seconds of time between you and the vehicle in front in good conditions and double that in wet weather - "only the fool breaks the two second rule"

Zone 2 - This is the space behind. Having space here allows us to brake firmly if needed without worry that the guy behind is going to hit us. Obviously there is only so much we can do to control Zone 2 space because some drivers just like to tailgate I suppose. I want there to be 2 seconds of time again, but if the car behind is too close, what I do is add their time to my zone 1 space - so if they're only 1 second behind me, I make a 3 seconds gap in zone 1 to further reduce the chance of hard braking.

Zone 3 - is the space alongside the car on both sides. Having space here means that we don't really need to worry about the width of the vehicle which turn leaves us free to risk assess the road around us and monitor things like compliance with local speed limits. I want to have 1 meter of space on both the left and the right hand sides as a minimum at 30mph. That allows car doors to open and people to walk around parked cars as I pass them without being in immediate danger of me hitting them and if I can't allow that much space, I reduce my speed on a "Less space? Less speed!" basis. If  I am passing a vulnerable road user like a cyclist or pedestrian, I double the space to leave 2 meters and leave as much space for horses as I can.

Managing space perfectly is one step towards having a perfect safety record... give it some thought.

Do you think you could be a Driving Instructor?

As well as teaching people to drive, at Nick Heath Driver Training, we also run a Driving Instructor Training (DIT) scheme which helps those who would like to become a Driving Instructor to gain the qualifications required and set themselves up as one of our Franchised Driving Instructors.

The qualification process starts with a DBS check, after which you are entitled to apply for a PRN (Personal Reference Number) which is linked to your entry on the register of Approved Driving Instructors where all your details and exam results will be kept on file.

You are then allowed to book the first part of a three part exam that you are required to pass in order to qualify as a Driving Instructor.

That "Part 1" test is a test of your subject knowledge. You'll be asked 100 multiple choice questions and expected to get at least 85% of those correct. The questions are taken from four different topics and you are not allowed to get less than 80% of the questions right in any single topic. At the same time, you will complete a hazard perception test, where you click on your mouse button if you see a developing hazard whilst watching a video clip - you get a maximum of 5 points depending on how early you see the hazard developing and you need to gather at least 57 points in order to pass that part of the test.

If you pass it, then you are obviously entitled to book your "Part 2" test of driving ability. Passing that first test also starts a clock ticking away - you must pass the next two tests within a period of 2yrs or your theory test certificate will expire and you must start the process again. These last two tests are also subject to restrictions on how many attempts at them you are allowed - you must pass them within three attempts or fail your attempt to become an Approved Driving Instructor. If that happens, you must wait until that 2yr clock has stopped ticking and then start the process again.

The Part 2 test is a driving test of approximately 1hr in length. You will do a variety of manoeuvres, the emergency stop and demonstrate your ability to use motorways where it is practical to do so as well as driving generally in a variety of road and traffic settings. In order to pass, you must attract no more than 6 driving faults and a high standard of driving is required - unlike learners, you may pick up driver faults for issues of finese or refinement.

Having passed the driving ability test, you are then entitled to book your 3rd exam, which is a test of teaching skill. This test was recently re-structured by DVSA to fall in line with the Standards Check that is carried out on Fully Qualified Driving Instructors every four years. A specially trained Driving Examiner from DVSA will sit in the back of the car whilst the PDI (Potential Driving Instructor) teaches a lesson. They will assess 17 different competencies and award an overall score at the end of the session - you will pass if you have achieved a score of at least 31 points out of a possible 51 unless there is a particularly low score in the area of "risk management"

After passing this test, you're then a Fully Qualified and Approved Driving Instructor who can give tuition for payment as long as you display your Green badge in the windscreen (see previous blog entry relating to the difference between Green and Pink licences)

Click here for more details of how Nick Heath Driver Training could help you on the way to becoming a Driving Instructor

The difference between Pink & Green ADI licenses

You may already have noticed that Driving Instructors have to display, by law, a licence (which is supplied and regulated by DVSA) in the windscreen of their car whilst they are giving paid tuition, but you may not have noticed that there are two type of license available - a Pink one and a Green one... what is the difference?

Well, the Pink version represents a "trainee" Driving Instructor who has passed two of the three exams required to gain "fully qualified" status and who has completed a minimum of 40hrs of training as well as being committed (these are the terms under which the licence is granted by DVSA) to around 20hrs of further training.

The Green version represents a "fully qualified" Driving Instructor who has passed all three of those exams. These Driving Instructors are the only ones allowed to advertise as "Approved", "Qualified" or "Fully Qualified" Driving Instructors and they are subject to repeated DBS and quality checks every four years. Following a quality check (which is known as a Standards Check and involved a specially trained DVSA examiner sitting in the back of the car and observing a lesson being conducted) these Driving Instructors are graded either Grade A, B or Unsatisfactory (in which case they much present themselves for another Standards Check very soon and show a more competent driving lesson or they face removal from the register of Approved Driving Instructors)

The term "trainee" Driving Instructor is a rather unfortunate one... whilst a pink licence is granted on completion of a minimum of 40hrs of training and commits you to another minimum of 20hrs of training, there is no minimum requirement placed on those passing the 3rd exam (which is a demonstration of teaching ability). It is therefore entirely possible (although probably unlikely) that the holder of a Pink licence may have undergone more training hours than the holder of a Green licence - if your Driving Instructor is operating under a Pink licence and you're happy with the level of service you're receiving, then you don't need to panic.

Welcome to the New Nick Heath Driver Training blog page

Hello everyone!

This is the newly relaunched blog page for Nick Heath Driver Training.

I'll be sharing news, views and information about what's going on in the world of driver training as well as some of the success's of our clients.

Please pop back from time to time for a catch up!