Question-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Hi Philip
I am a driving instructor and have always taught my pupils to drive across the centre markings at mini-roundabouts, taking the smoothest line to the required exit, if the markings are simply painted on the road (not raised up). Always bearing in mind that the centre markings could be slippery when wet.
I was looking through the Highway Code the other day and noticed (rule 164)that all vehicles MUST pass round the central markings unless they are physically incapable of doing so.
I work in the Hendon area (Police driver training) and they all seem to drive straight over - even going the 'wrong' side of badly placed markings.
Do you think I should revise what I teach in this respect?
Best wishes
Phil Pepper ADI
Answer -
Hi Phil,
I have to say that it is interesting to receive a query that echoes exactly my discontent on this subject.
I was taught (at RAF Cardington) that the purpose of a mini roundabout was simply to apply the roundabout rule to the junction and the best route applied even if that meant passing to the right of the disc.
I always applied that to my assessment of driving tests until the matter was referred to my Area Supervisor and we exchanged views for a while!
I eventually had to agree to his point of view and a memo was circulated emphasizing the following points.
>The purpose of a routine Driving Test is, amongst other things, a test of the knowledge of, and practical application of, the Highway Code and any significant deviation from the direction of that publication would be considered to be a failure to have understood or applied the rule concerned.
A Driving test is to be considered on the foundation of the manual “Driving” and “The Highway Code” issued by the DTp for the education of ordinary drivers and NOT “Roadcraft” the structure of which was to serve an entirely different purpose and intended for advanced drivers.
And even if the standard displayed on test was higher than that expected for testing purposes, it would be inappropriate if the method were at variance with the rule contained in the Highway Code.<
I hope this eases your discomfort on the subject.
Regards,
Phil
P.S. I taught my wife to drive at Hendon some 35 years ago so I know what you mean… !
Hi again Phil,
Thank you for your quick and very informative reply.
One of the problems must be mis-leading other drivers by taking, what may seem to them, a very exagerated course. For instance, a driver emerging from the left may think you are turning left (instead of going straight ahead)and pull out in front of you!
Another problem is credibility. If pupils can see that no one else - including the police - takes any notice of the rule then the validity of all the rules comes into question.
Perhaps the rule needs changing!
I would be interested to hear any further comments you may have.
Best wishes
Phil
Answer -
Hi again,
I symphonize with your dilemma and agree in principle with the points that you mention.
However, taking the position of the learning driver sharing the crowded public road there is a wealth of contradiction evident from all quarters that they are being taught to drive to a completely different set of rules to which everyone else is observing, so it is ‘just' another abnormality.
Hence the scenario that depresses me the most, “Well, now that I've passed my test I can start driving properly!” Meaning like everyone else! That means we have failed.
As I perceive the situation, far from perfect as it is, your job is to convince the learner driver that you are not only teaching them to drive properly, you are also encouraging them to drive better and live longer than those they see around them, my job, alas, is simply to ascertain whether they know enough about the rules to drive safely and legally whilst being trusted out on their own.
I don't think one can perform a job as objective as examining without introducing some element of plain common sense into the equation, I have always believed in rules being there as guidance rather than for blind obedience.
If it is plain that a novice is tempering strict compliance with traffic law with a measure of intelligence and regard towards other road users and difficult circumstances, then I do not think it should count against them, but I do believe that everyone should know and obey the rules before deciding whether they are imperfect. That decision should come after considerable experience.
Obviously when I say all that, I cannot speak for all Examiners, human opinion being so wide, so generally speaking the closer they stay to the rules, the more likely it is they will pass, as the overriding tenet of the examination is to ascertain whether they are capable of observing the laws governing that activity, and if found wanting should face failure – after all, it would be very hard to justify a pass with a recommendation of further tuition.
I wonder if this viewpoint strikes any chords with you? I am sure that caring, considerate drivers cut you up as much; probably much more, than when they are out with me on their test, simply because they are obeying the rules, it is an unpleasant occurrence, but a positive reflection of that is if they can cope with it, then they are good enough.
I would be interested in your thoughts.
Regards,
Phil
Hi Phil
You raise a number of interesting points and I will try to deal with them:
My philosophy of driving instruction is to teach a pupil to drive just like me - and the closer I get to that aim, the more likely they are to pass their test.
I believe that the rules of the road as in the Highway Code and 'Driving' are 99% correct and should be followed - but, unfortunately, there is still this niggle about bloody mini-roundabouts.
Maybe it was the DSA that changed the rules. You must have an old Highway Code. Did it always say you MUST go round the markings? They changed the rules on overtaking on the left (and I know personally that some examiners were not aware of the changes) so they may have done the same thing with mini-roundabouts.
Incedently, I am no big supporter of the 'Roadcraft' system. The number of fatal crashes of police drivers, presumably using this system, is evidenced by the fact that you will rarely see a police car doing more than about 25mph these days. The lights flash, the siren goes, but the speed is kept well down. I would be happy to discuss the merits/drawbacks of the 'Roadcraft' system but it certainly does not form any significant part of my day to day instruction.
The question:
When mini-roundabouts were first introduced did the Highway Code say that drivers MUST keep off the central markings?
Best wishes
Phil Pepper
Answer -
Hi Phil,
Unfortunately, I do not seem to be able to lay hand on an old issue of ‘HC' and as I am away from home just now, so I guess I won't for at least a few weeks.
But I do not recall anything specific about the road markings except that the purpose of a “Mini” roundabout was simply to establish the roundabout rule at a junction and not intended to be a defined “Miss” zone, I certainly read it as, one could cross it with impunity, and to gain an understanding that strong there must have been something somewhere to have planted it because it does go against the natural order of things.
For there is I think, the overriding “Road markings” rule, one should take care to observe and be guided by the road markings and not cross an unbroken white line, it can be argued that a solid disc painted in the middle of the road amounts to a solid white line that one should not cross, and therefore by default must keep to the left of it.
I may be wrong, but I would read this as a clarification and tightening up of a road marking rule rather that a change of a rule pertaining to mini roundabouts per se.
I fully accept your point about left overtaking and was actually quite angry about it at the time, I even came across a police Inspector in charge of a large section of mixed roads that was unaware of the current speed limit of some of the roads he was policing! It happens! And people get burned because of it.
However I have to re-iterate my point about test marking. If there were any doubt about whether it is right or wrong to cross a mini roundabout then the majority (in my opinion) of Examiners would default to the logic of observing road markings.
They would deduce that if a test candidate were observing the road markings correctly, they would keep to their permitted space to the left of the disc, and if other traffic were to be misled by the candidate being properly but unexpectedly placed for a manoeuvre then the fault would lie with the third party and not the test candidate.
Take this proposition alongside the “New” rule 164 and there is no defence, rightly or wrongly, for proceeding in any other way.
That leaves us being unhappy with the HC rule being accustomed to different criteria, but we have to acknowledge, a rule it is, and this is what must be applied by any reasoning fair minded Examiner, subject to the common sense portion that I mentioned previously, but unfortunately, you just cannot take for granted.
Finally, I have to wonder whether there was a particular spur for this burst of interest regarding mini roundabouts? You have me intellectually intrigued at this point.
It may be that there is such a roundabout that has become contentious in your area, and if that is the case then it will take a little more effort to close this to satisfaction.
Regards,
Phil
Hi Phil
It's OK, please don't put yourself out rummaging around for an old HC. I just wanted to know if you thought the DSA sometimes acts in a rather high-handed and inconsiderate way towards drivers generally, learners, instructors, and possibly even examiners. From your answers you seem to accept they do (please correct me if I misinterpret your views). If they mean what they say about courtesy and consideration then perhaps they should make more of an effort to publicise arbitrary changes in the rules - after all, they do have a huge influence on road safety, which is what the DSA is supposed to be about!
For myself, I don't remember having any problems with road markings until some years ago when it began to seem to me that mini-roundabouts were being used more as a traffic calming measure rather than as an aid to more efficient traffic flow. Surly it would be wrong to highjack mini-roundabouts and turn them into sleeping policemen?
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the DSA is capable of being extraordinarily secretive about its plans and intentions and I suppose when there have been enough accidents caused by their mis-handled efforts they will revise the rules - keep re-reading the HC for updates and do not expect any warning that the material has been significantly changed!
By the way, as you know, you can cross an un-broken white line for a number of reasons (rule 108) not least to turn right into a side road, so I don't know if the general rule can be applied in this case.
I think the ready availability of an expert (your good self) made me want to get as close as possible to the 'official' view of these matters as possible. Needless to say, your personal opinions are also of great interest.
I wouldn't like you to think I spend all my time scrutinising the HC for anomalies and looking for ways to attack the DSA. I just want them to get it right - after all, the general public does look to them for clear, sensible, safety advice and, let's not forget, pays their wages.
I do have some other interests. I do - really!
Best wishes
Phil
Answer -
Hi Phil,
Well, it looks as though you have me tagged, I joined the (then) DTp because I wanted to make a difference… I got a bit suspicious when I was informed that the testing schedule and criteria is subject to the Official Secrets Act. Seems a bit OTT to me! But this is why I cannot discuss official positions with you; only air my personally held opinions.
I think that the problem lies with the structure of road rules being constructed by “Experts” who never give a thought as to how their deliberations will be interpreted by the general population, if of course, they ever get to wondering about them at all.
As in all areas of legal regulation, the more detailed it becomes, the higher the scope for contradiction and inconsistency. When it becomes necessary to “clarify” one issue, it can be almost assured that it will create more confusion elsewhere and by the time the ramifications of correction are applied to the consequences they tend to lose the plot a bit, as you obviously can see the results in the regulations. If you know what you are about, then you can see the inconsistencies and contradictions and the errors and omissions that abound on a subject that is in essence, quite simple and straightforward on the face of it.
However, this is missing the point.
The point of the whole exercise is to train and educate new drivers with a view to passing their test, not because they have been fed the quick fixes of knowing the dodges, but with a solid foundation of understanding why they are expected to do things in certain ways and how to anticipate the consequences of their actions and most importantly, how to properly interact with other road users and the environment.
This is where the skill and professionalism of an Instructor comes into play. He has to teach the pupil to drive, whilst not knowing the standards of judgements applied and with vague and unhelpful rules to boot. This means that the paramount skill lies in the deduction of progression. Every situation has a quota of ingredients and a successful Instructor will be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff and understand which are the points that are important, what are the primary cause and effect scenes and how to apply the distillation of all that into a coherent set of principles, his pass rate should be a reliable indicator of how well he is succeeding in that area, but all to often, the legends appear to try to conceal the short falling, like Examiner X has a “Thing” about junctions and you are bound to fail with Y on Mondays because…
So, I said it before, and I reiterate, human nature being what it is, the closer one can stay to the definition of the rules contained within the HC then the higher the probability that an Examiner will be satisfied with the progress of the test, assuming always that the candidate can in fact drive. And the skill factor is applied by educating the pupil into the relative merits of the various elements of the HC rules and their subsequent implementation on the road.
I am relatively fortunate insofar as I do remember the time when I was a novice driver, when I was completely overwhelmed with all the rules that I didn't understand and how eventually I came to realise that recognising the principles of safe driving, made the rules a tad axiomatic.
The rules are in the essence, just lines in the sand. Their primary purpose is to define standards and identify offences, if one can identify the principles, then the rules are really superfluous.
Looking back over this tome, I see that I am rambling, I apologise but as it is 04:30 I am not going to revise it, I am sure that you will know what I mean. It is a subject close to my heart and I am willing to dissect it ad finitum, don't hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can comment on.
Finally, I note that the behaviour at mini roundabouts was defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988 so I am disappointed to note that it has been around a while.
And I have to say that the exceptions to (R108) are a bit tenuous… after all, it is the rule that applies not the exceptions.
And I have been known to talk about other things too!
Regards,
Phil
Hi Phil
Thanks for your very informative (and never rambling) replies to what must have seemed, at times, rather strange questions. I feel your personal comprehension of the matter has given me a much better understanding of the examiner's view of the driving test - don't worry, I won't tell MI5 if you don't.
I said before I thought the rules were 99.95% correct, and the wonder to me is that they have done so well framing them, given all the difficulties you outline above. Let's face it, it leaves people like you and me picking over what will probably only amount to a 'driving fault'on a driving test anyway. Pretty damn good if you ask me. Personally, I still don't like 'em. They are high-handed, they are secretive, they are arrogant. It may well be that their success in this matter is more due to the subject being, as you say, 'quite simple and straightforward on the face of it' rather than to any particular skill on their part. Whoops, I think I'm rambling...
Could I ask you, if you were given the task of re-writing the HC in only 10 rules, what would the rules be?
If you are reading this at 04:00 then I suggest you go to bed
Best wishes
Phil
Answer(Sorry for the delay-the website was down when trying to post this)
Hi Phil,
Well, I think that despite expressing a dislike of “Them” you still harbour a charitable attitude.
It is in fact, the distilled wisdom of the likes of us that filters down – in statistic form – to them and the rules are constructed in simple response to that weight of evidence.
20,000 accidents caused by people being distracted with their mobile phones could inspire someone somewhere to think that a rule may be called for!
I think that the bureaucrats do a necessary job in an unnecessarily officious manner; they rely completely in the legal précis of “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” when they revise or completely change basic tenets of our lives, and expect us to act diligently in ensuring that we are conversant with all the random changes as they occur.
As I have said before rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools, but the prolonged tendency is in every case where stupid behaviour becomes an issue then the response is Ban it! Rather than the far more sensible tactic of severely punishing misbehaviour (Driving without due care and attention) and letting the rest of the generally responsible population get on with what they have been unremarkably doing without comment or censure until then.
This legislative snowball keeps rolling on – if sufficient people irritate them enough – they will Ban it! – Simply put, eventually everything will be banned. The HC will be 2000 pages long, and Diploma's will be issued to student drivers that can remember better than 75% of it.
But the effect of burgeoning legislation is profound, the more of is there is, the less weight is attached to it by the ordinary driver, and once one falls to breaking some laws – because the are stupid and irrelevant – then it's a short step to ignoring the rest, The irresponsible motorists ignore them anyway, and they were the ones the rules were aimed at in the first place, so now we have two classes of law breakers instead of just the one.
Actually, since you mention it, I think that the subject is far from simple and straightforward, purely because the subject matter involves human behaviour, and that has never been straightforward. The problem is that the powers-that-be thinks that simple rule making will solve the problems and clearly that is not the case.
An example is that of traffic camera's, undeniably a good idea that no-one can in conscious argue against, but is nevertheless turning a substantial portion of Britain's population into convicted offenders, unless something is done soon the majority of the population will be offenders…
A learned Law Lord said a long time ago that law making in a democracy must rely on the support and good will of the vast majority of the concerned population to succeed. Criminality by definition must be confined to the minority so that the weight of the disapproval of the majority can be transferred in the way of punishment.
If the majority of a population opposes or suffers from, any aspect of regulation then clearly democracy has ceased to exist, and the regime that created the legislation must be considered unrepresentative or hostile. Maybe this argument is a little OTT for the point, but nevertheless it is consistent, over regulation is diluted and weakened regulation and that is prone to contempt.
By an amazing flash of insight, you asked me to construct 10 rules for the HC. As you will no doubt have realized by now this is exactly my point. Keep it simple; keep it fair, keep it logical and few people will argue with it. And punish transgressions severely to prove you mean it, but I have always believed in the judgments of Solomon in the local Magistrate to determine the punishment, because as there is a myriad of ways to break the law there is also a multiplicity of reasons why someone would break it and a centralized scale just doesn't cut it.
Enough! I am in ramble mode again.
See below what I would prefer to call the Ten Principles rather than Rules, I have always found rules to be too rigid and one rule inevitably leads to another to cover all the bits left out.
My defence is I didn't have much time to think about it so it's all off the top of my head stuff, don't laugh too long…
Regards,
Phil
The Ten Principles
1. Before driving, ensure that you are qualified, competent and fit to do so.
2. Before driving, ensure that the vehicle is legal, safe and roadworthy.
3. Know the capabilities and restrictions of your vehicle and yourself and always strive to be within them.
4. Always give your driving your undivided attention.
5. Always keep left and comply with road markings, signs and other indications that are there solely to enhance road safety for you and others.
6. Always drive at a safe speed in relation to your surroundings and your ability.
7. Regardless of priority, always be prepared to give way to avoid an accident.
8. Yourself, other traffic and the environment. You can control only one of these and so recognise that you are always in a minority control situation.
9. Respect the fact that all other road users have an equal right to be there.
10. Only stop on a road where you are not a danger or causing an obstruction.
