Driving tests and tricky scenarios that come up in driving

[TUS373]

I passed my driving test decades ago - nearly 40 years driving. A family member is learning to drive and it has forced me to re-examine my knowledge and understanding of scenarios. I expect these are the kind of things that we face everyday as drivers and work our way around the situation....BUT...if you did it on a driving test, you may get major or minor fault.

For example, you are on a main road and there is a cycle lane on the left, with broken white line. Car in front is waiting to make a right turn. Your could wait for it to go - which might be considered undue hesitancy, or pass on the left and enter the cycle lane to go around. Which would you do on the the driving test?

One thing in particular I have really noticed in our area is that road markings are worn off every where. They are pretty much not discernible. Whilst against common sense, a driver could end up stopped upon a "Keep Clear box" - that is a complete "no no", but if you can't read it - does it exist?

[Simpo Two]

I believe a broken white line can be crossed if it's safe to do so. But if it was a driving test and involving a cycle lane I might stay put just in case.

We wonder why a cycle lane (presumably one way) is wide enough for a car - it seems a great waste of precious roadspace but that's another argument.

I too have noticed very faded road markings, especially zebra crossings. The cynic in me suggests it's due to EU-directive solvent-free paint not being as good at the job as what went before.

[handpaper]

If you don't cross the dotted line (assuming that it's safe to do so) are you 'failing to make progress' and holding up other vehicles? I'd put that down as a minor.

The 'paint' is thermoplastic and is melted on, has been for decades. No solvent and never has been.

[TUS373]

Simpo Two said:

.

I too have noticed very faded road markings, especially zebra crossings. The cynic in me suggests it's due to EU-directive solvent-free paint not being as good at the job as what went before.

We are in West Yorkshire. The road surfaces themselves have got very poor and worn, so that, combined with a change in paint - who knows? There are Give Ways, Stop Junctions, arrows on lanes that tell you whether it is ahead or left turn, box junctions - all terrible and largely absent. You would need to be an archaeologist to prove they are there sometimes. I expect that there is a lack of money in the system to go around and do them, and ultimately, responsibility resides with the motorist to apply due care and attention at all times. This makes driving, especially under exam conditions, all the more difficult.

[TUS373]

handpaper said:

If you don't cross the dotted line (assuming that it's safe to do so) are you 'failing to make progress' and holding up other vehicles? I'd put that down as a minor.

The 'paint' is thermoplastic and is melted on, has been for decades. No solvent and never has been.

I dont' know. In a real world situation, I would check my mirrors for cyclists and if otherwise safe, move over and pass on the left. I expect most people would or risk a honk on the horn from traffic behind. But....under test conditions - what is correct?

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

On a driving test, either a basic DVSA test, an ADI Part 2 test, or an advanced test like RoSPA (all of which I’ve passed numerous times over the years), I’d do the same thing as I’d do in normal driving: I’d check mirrors, and do a thorough left-side shoulder check, and move into the cycle lane if safe to do so. I can’t imagine any examiner having a problem with that, and I’ve sat in the back of at least twenty basic tests so have a pretty good feel for what examiners do and don’t like.

The mirror check on its own is insufficient. You need to use direct observation to ensure your blind spot is clear. Mirror check on its own could (and should) be a fail, IMHO, because your blind spot is easily big enough to contain an unseen cyclist.

Regarding whether you’d fail for not entering the cycle lane, that’s more tricky and would depend on the situation. If it’s fairly obvious that the delay will be short, then I would see nothing wrong with waiting. But if it becomes clear that the delay is going to be longer then I think most examiners (especially advanced examiners) would expect you to go around. On a basic DVSA test, failing to do so when it’s obviously safe would probably only be a “minor” driver fault. However, “minor” faults become “serious” if your actions (or inaction) causes delay or inconvenience to other road users. So if you’re holding up following traffic that can’t get past you, you could score a “serious” fault, and even just one of those is a fail.

Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Thursday 14th March 17:14

[Alex Z]

Simpo Two said:

I believe a broken white line can be crossed if it's safe to do so. But if it was a driving test and involving a cycle lane I might stay put just in case.

We wonder why a cycle lane (presumably one way) is wide enough for a car - it seems a great waste of precious roadspace but that's another argument.

Perfect example here. The carriageway is more than a car wide, so if someone has pulled all the way to the right to turn, there’s often enough space to pass *if* you use the cycle lane too.

But I wouldn’t do that on a test.

[HalfManHalfJaffaCake]

Agree with Dr Mike - if it’s a broken line then it’s fine but a blind spot check is essential.
However - and this applies cycle lane or not - if there isn’t room to squeeze past then stay in lane leaving room for bikes to get through.

An instructor should prepare test candidates for all the tricky junctions in the area so lane markings are a moot point, though their absence makes other drivers’ behaviour unpredictable while some junctions develop local customs which can’t be discerned from markings alone; a decent instructor should know what to look out for.

[TUS373]

Thanks all. Good points well made.

We have had trouble with the reliability of the driving instructor who cancels lessons on the day, and done so 5 times. I am therefore doing some filling in to get the learner's hours up, but ages since I did a test. Therefore teaching as much as I can and uphold the Highway Code.

[Simpo Two]

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

So if you’re holding up following traffic that can’t get past you, you could score a “serious” fault, and even just one of those is a fail.

They could use the cycle lane... so aren't being held up (unless they choose not to use it).

[Dracoro]

I think, when doing a test, you verbally state that you have sufficient space and safe to make manoeuvre - so you are telling the examiner that you are actively assessing the safety of the pass.

Just doing it without stating out loud and the examiner may not know you’re actively assessing the situation and considering safety etc.

[jondude]

I would have thought in your example that cycle lane there or not, you make a very exaggerated look to the left and check your blind spot before passing on the left of the car - simply to show you are checking it is safe to do so. These days quite a few cars will go for such a gap if they are behind you and think you will not, and motorcyclists could choose to do this move too, so I'd say the cycle lane is irrelevant (if a broken line) to what you need to do.

Just breezing past on the left will not be seen as good form.

[Pica-Pica]

I may use the cycle lane of safe to do, and I was confident the car in front was not going to move back left (and don’t forget we had the issue about a bus swinging the rear out as it turn, it could happen with a car too). You should only use the cycle lane if it is unavoidable, so you would have to justify that. You could certainly do that verbally on an advanced test. All this, unless the cycle lane was red coated.

A basic driving test leaves less room for interpretation, as it defaults to the safest option. Advanced tests go beyond that, and the level for prosecution is higher still. You drive to what is being assessed.

[andrebar]

TUS373 said:

One thing in particular I have really noticed in our area is that road markings are worn off every where. They are pretty much not discernible. Whilst against common sense, a driver could end up stopped upon a "Keep Clear box" - that is a complete "no no", but if you can't read it - does it exist?

My daughter passed recently & told me the examiner had given her a couple of pointers in places where the road markings or signage were inadequate.

[TUS373]

Thanks again everyone.

The more we drive, the more experienced we become, so many things just become second nature to most of us. I have done what I can to articulate this and pass on the experience to try and advance the learning. They are doing better than many people on the road. Keeping safe, mirrors, observation, and as suggested - verbalising decisions to the examiner, are the way to do this. Thanks.

[defblade]

Young girl at work got failed a few weeks back for not overtaking a bin lorry pretty much immediately. She said the binmen were running back and forth across the road, there was a wider/clearer section coming up, and no other cars behind her to delay, so she decided to crawl behind him for half a minute or so. Seemed harsh to me.

[Freddie Fitch]

defblade said:

Young girl at work got failed a few weeks back for not overtaking a bin lorry pretty much immediately. She said the binmen were running back and forth across the road, there was a wider/clearer section coming up, and no other cars behind her to delay, so she decided to crawl behind him for half a minute or so. Seemed harsh to me.

It's quite possible that that is not the full story. Especially the 30 seconds or so.

[Simpo Two]

TUS373 said:

verbalising decisions to the examiner, are the way to do this.

'I decided to nail the bd on the inside at 90 because he was annoying me'. Yep that should work

[GT6k]

Find your local test centre, sit in the waiting room and listen to what the instructors say. In my neck of the woods (Swindon) there are some interesting roundabouts where instructors and examiners have come to an agreement on what the acceptable lines are, there are a couple where trying to follow the highway code to the letter will get into an accident.

[poo at Paul's]

TUS373 said:

I passed my driving test decades ago - nearly 40 years driving. A family member is learning to drive and it has forced me to re-examine my knowledge and understanding of scenarios. I expect these are the kind of things that we face everyday as drivers and work our way around the situation....BUT...if you did it on a driving test, you may get major or minor fault.

For example, you are on a main road and there is a cycle lane on the left, with broken white line. Car in front is waiting to make a right turn. Your could wait for it to go - which might be considered undue hesitancy, or pass on the left and enter the cycle lane to go around. Which would you do on the the driving test?

One thing in particular I have really noticed in our area is that road markings are worn off every where. They are pretty much not discernible. Whilst against common sense, a driver could end up stopped upon a "Keep Clear box" - that is a complete "no no", but if you can't read it - does it exist?

My opinion would be on the bike lane, provided you know the rule about being able to be crossed "when necessary" and it you make a point that you are double checking it is clear, even maybe saying to the examiner, I've checked it is clear so am passing up the inside here using the bike lane, then that would be fine. To not do so would be undue hesitancy, IMO.
If however, it was dark, raining, loads of bikes about and view is at all compromised, just hold station and again, say why.