|
Apparently one concern is that it would force people to use a registered driving instructor. I can't see how that is a bad thing, and I'd argue that a minimum number of lessons logged with a pro instructor, plus their sign off for the test could be a good thing. Most people do that already, by default.
|
I'd argue that a minimum number of lessons logged with a pro instructor plus their sign off for the test could be a good thing.
Why, when people can be tested by a completely unpartisan tester, and the test covers this, and general capability, anyway?
|
|
|
The purpose of the driving test should be to measure someone's competence as a driver: is this person competent to drive safely and legally, and with sufficient confidence and with due consideration for other road users? Or not?
How they gained that competence is their own business, and the DVLA should focus on outcomes rather than process. I see no good purpose in forcing everyone to use a professional instructor, and many dangers in doing so.
In most cases a professional instructor is the best route to take, providing good quality training and avoiding the terrible rows which can be break out within families someone tries teaching a relative ... but I know plenty of people who were taught very successfully by a relative, and others who great skill learnt by driving around fields or by thoroughly dodgy practices such as joyriding. If they aren't up-to-scratch they should fail the test, and if they are competent they should pass. That's all; the process is irrelevant.
Testing driving skills by a DVLA-employed examiner ensures that the test is done by someone with no vested interest in either passing or failing the applicant. The examiner is a neutral party, who has nothing to gain by passing someone who is unfit to drive or failing someone competent, and that's the way it should remain.
However, a driving instructor has a vested interest in the outcome. That may be to gain a reputation for passing people quickly, or it may be to like the instructor near me who was notorious for keeping learners on her books for years, telling them that they were not quite ready.
I suspect that this may be a step towards privatising the whole driver testing regime, by shifting more and more of the responsibility onto private companies who will be empowered to certify drivers. That will both squeeze out independent instructors (which suits big companies just fine) and remove more people from government employment, which suits the government very well. And then we'll end up with the sort of situation we now have in other fields, where private companies make loadsamoney out of a broken system and the government can absolve itself of responsibility.
That's just a suspicion, of course. But we do have ample precedents.
Edited by NowWheels on 06/10/2008 at 15:10
|
The problem with these sections of the test is that they bear only a passing similarity to what you actually do in a real situation so Im not bothered if atleast two of those three disappear anyway.
It would be interesting to see if they could come up with new practical parts to the test such as driving narrow country lanes, a 'moose' test ( although not in an A-Class Merc of course ) and perhaps more indepth testing on what is and isnt safe and legal regarding a cars condition - just examples but I think you are far more likely to have to swerve in real life than find the time to reverse round a corner or execute a turn in the road in the methodical, hold the traffic up manner I was taught.
|
The problem with these sections of the test is that they bear only a passing similarity to what you actually do in a real situation
I don't understand that. Don't you ever reverse into a side-street, parallel park, or make a 3-point (or more) turn? Do these manoevres differ from what's taught?
|
I do parallel park yes, which was why I said two of the three.
I dont make a habit of reversing into side streets - my car has a tight turning circle so its rare that I need to and on the rare occasion that I do, I dont do it textbook because that takes way too long on busy roads, same with turn in the road ( which is what they call it now ).
I turned in a road yesterday but I did it in 7 seconds and didnt bother with all the handbrake and messing around that I was taught - all that does is increase the chance of traffic arriving and then you are in someones way, dangerously so on fast country lanes.
My preference is to find a entrance to a field or in town, somewhere wide enough that I can turn into and stop which is useful if its too busy to do it all in one go.
The parking moves work brilliantly in suburbia where they seem to teach them, but in more challenging situations they can be long-winded and risk annoying other road users.
|
The parking moves work brilliantly in suburbia where they seem to teach them but in more challenging situations they can be long-winded and risk annoying other road users.
Further learning should come alongside more experience. What you say tends to bear this out. A starting point has to come somewhere, & with driving, it's "the test" - basic competence, to be built on.
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 06/10/2008 at 18:35
|
|
|
|
>> Testing driving skills by a DVLA-employed examiner ensures that the test is done by someone with no vested interest in either passing or failing the applicant. The examiner is a neutral party who has nothing to gain by passing someone who is unfit to drive or failing someone competent and that's the way it should remain.
>>>>
I thought they had quotas of pass and failure rates to attain?
|
I thought they had quotas of pass and failure rates to attain?
There may well be some of that rubbish at work, though I suspect that some reports of such things are confusing quotas with monitoring. If a tester's pass rates differ substantially from the average, it's worth checking whether there test is being applied consistently.
As with any such approach, the monitoring may have a Heisenberg-like effect of distorting behaviour, but it's still a different matter from a quota or target.
|
Many learners just fail because of a reverse maneuver. Most dreaded are reverse round left corner and parallel parking. However, parking into a bay and 3-point turn are pretty easy.
Parking and reversing is an art by itself. If someone wants to avoid || parking or reversing round a corner, there are alternative options available most of the time.
But if the want to exclude it from exam, it should be exempted from getting certified by driving instructors as well.
|
If someone wants to avoid || parking or reversing round a corner, there are alternative options available most of the time.
I found reversing round a corner the hardest manoeuvre when learning, and only passed my test because the crowded streets near the test centre provided no safe place to do it.
I now do it regularly, because I have taken to reversing into my one-car-driveway so that I can drive out forwards, but it has taken a lot of practice to complete the job without hitting too many obstacles.
However, my driving instructor had me reversing blind around street corners (rather than into a driveway), which I have always considered to be a very dangerous exercise best avoided unless absolutely necessary. That was what the test was supposed to involve, and I'm still inclined to think that the test would be better without it.
I'm still quite bad at || parking, but can usually mange it eventually.
|
Preposterous suggestion.
Of course drivers should be able to park, reverse and otherwise position their vehicles safely and accurately before they are issued with a driving licence.
Outrageous !!!
( So there, harumph ! )
|
|
|
|
I thought (driving examiners) had quotas of pass and failure rates to attain?
Not as far as I know. If the candidate does the right things, and nothing *too* wrong, it's a pass.
|
Crackers, you've only got to drive a half a mile before you come across the first of many clots of the day who haven't got the foggiest idea what they are doing, the test needs to made more comprehensive not easier.
My own idea for test conditions would be putting more emphasis on general competence, observation and vehicle handling/awareness etc. And yes very important for an examiner to see that the candidate is in full control of the vehicle at all times including going backwards.
I agree about this heading down the privatisation route.
SWMBO has just voiced her disgust by suggesting 'why don't they just hand out licences to anyone who wants one and cut out the middleman' (i've translated some of that for the easily offended), she's not impressed i think..;)
|
What I find quite strange is the fact that carrying out an emergency stop appears only in about 1 of 3 tests.
Now once you've passed your test, you could never parallel park, avoid parking in bays, never wish to reverse around a corner and avoid having to turn in the road by going round the block etc.
But you can't avoid the fact that someone might step out in front of your car at any time or that you may need to stop in an emergency. Therefore I feel that stopping a car safely from speed should be in every test.
The other manoeuvres aren't just about parking or turning in the road, really they are also there to demonstrate car control, clutch control (if applicable) and judgement of vehicle size/handling.
I believe in India or somewhere out that way, the driving test consists of starting the car, driving down a fairly straight road and stopping again. Over in about a minute!
|
|
|
Crackers you've only got to drive a half a mile before you come across the first of many clots of the day
And although some of them improve, some really don't, and their moronic behaviour becomes entrenched and sometimes backed up with aggression, dishonesty and so on.
Why anyone gives a damn about people driving over the alcohol or speed limits when the hundreds of thousands of these awful folk, often legal on paper, are driving about trying to kill the rest of us, while not quite beyond my understanding, often gets slightly on my nerves.
|
|
what will happen is the examiner will occaisionaly do a manouver to check they are in fact competent. the test will now involve more driving,this in turn will make the test harder to pass, it only ever gets harder
|
To answer a few points here -
Examiners do not officially have a quota of passes. However, their performance is rigorously monitored and any examiner who wants to advance or just have a quiet life will make sure his pass rate does not deviate from his test centres average by more than a few points. He will pick hard or easy routes for his candidates in order to balance the books should things get out of kilter. His marking of faults will also very as required.
Learners who mix professional instruction with private practise from a friend or relative are much more competent than those who have just learned with an ADI.
If driving instructors were allowed to determine the competence of their pupils reversing manouvres you would get a hell of a lot of drivers who were totally clueless when it came to driving backwards. Look at the Pass Plus which is ADI assessed - NO ONE fails - ever.
|
|
|
|
i agree with most of the post that unless you have mastered basic skills such as hazard avoidance, being able to reverse without pranging other peoples cars, able to stop in an emergency (and know the importance of tyres and brakes being in good condition to achieve this) you should not be let loose on your own. Parallel parking is really not needed in a driving test, as other posters point out there are always alternatives. Allowing instructors to gauge this may not be a bad thing as anyone who has ever done a CBT will testify (unless you can do it they wont pass you) I suggest the best improvements would be that green L plates should be made a legal requirement for the first 3 months of solo driving to let us all make allowances and give fair warning. I would also scrap the current hazard perception test, having done (*and passed) one recently for a motorcycle license I can say that it is more like getting a go on a playstation game that a real test of road sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> I thought (driving examiners) had quotas of pass and failure rates to attain? Not as far as I know. If the candidate does the right things and nothing *too* wrong it's a pass.
See www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=...e
for some discussion about the alleged existence of quotas.
Edited by Webmaster on 07/10/2008 at 11:18
|
The report quoted by Cliff mirrors my own experiences. When waiting times for tests reached a point where the DSA were getting complaints you suddenly found you could get any old rubbish through.
Some of the stories told by ADI's who trained as examiners but returned to instructing were quiet eye opening too.
|
|
What these manoeuvres do are demonstrate car control. Any chimp can trundle along through town in third gear hanging on to the steering wheel with nothing to do. All of us have experienced the screaming engines and burning clutches of other people attempting to park their cars in our towns and cities, all allegedly having passed the same test. The parallel park in the test has a very wide margin of error, it's not into a tight parking bay, and if someone is unable to do that after instruction and practise, they simply do not deserve to be in charge of a powerful, potentially dangerous, lump of metal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
