Need driving test scandals, stories etc. Tester whistleblowers esp. welcome!

Eoin

Larry David wrote:

No it isn't vague. The driving test is very specific - there is an EXACT way for doing everything, from Observation, to road & lane position, to reversing, to 3 point turn, to right turns, to Roundabouts, Progress, etc, etc - if you do all of this by the book, they can't fail you.

I disagree - "failing to make progress" can mean that you didn't break the speed limit. My instructor said to do 32-33MPH, or I would be done for not making progress. This is obviously breaking the speed limit, but had I not done so, I would have failed.

Also, is there a set amount of times you should check your mirrors per minute, or is this left to the discretion of the tester? I would think there are lots of potential things that can fail you that entirely up to the judgement of the instructor.

Larry David

podgewalsh wrote:

Please read the post properly before nitpicking..Its fairly obvious what I was saying ! I think its fairly cruel thing to leave someone collappse on the path...maybe thats the type of person you are but I certainly didnt like being told by a nazi pr1ck that I wasnt allowed help - End of Rant !

How does some dude collapsing affect your driving skills? Poor excuse IMO. And I didn't nitpick - you said you "Have been driving for six years not still on a provisional" - yet you say you haven't passed your test! So are you on a provisional or not?

Larry David are you a Driving Tester by any chance !?!?

No, but I did make this video for ISM a few years ago, and spent 6 months going over and over and over the very specific rules of the road with about 5 or 6 driving testers & ISM head instructers (and the owners) who have all been in the business for years...
http://www.ism.ie/ismshop.php (2nd item)

I have also sat the test myself in 2001 - failed once, then passed. No excuses though - I just didn't know how to drive properly the first time!

podgewalsh

sure so every provisional driver who has failed their test is a crap driver , all the testers are great / fantastic / and never fail anyone they shouldnt...Yeah right ! Get yer head out of your arse...

podgewalsh

eoin_s wrote:

I disagree - "failing to make progress" can mean that you didn't break the speed limit. My instructor said to do 32-33MPH, or I would be done for not making progress. This is obviously breaking the speed limit, but had I not done so, I would have failed.

Also, is there a set amount of times you should check your mirrors per minute, or is this left to the discretion of the tester? I would think there are lots of potential things that can fail you that entirely up to the judgement of the instructor.

Totally agree with you there on both points , I didnt break the speedlimit on my test once and I got failed on "Failing to Make progress"

Larry David

podgewalsh wrote:

sure so every provisional driver who has failed their test is a crap driver , all the testers are great / fantastic / and never fail anyone they shouldnt...Yeah right ! Get yer head out of your arse...

I never made such a blanket statement. I said "MOST" people who blame the tester are making pathetic excuses. Like you: "I failed because a guy collapsed on the path nearby..."

Larry David

podgewalsh wrote:

Totally agree with you there on both points , I didnt break the speedlimit on my test once and I got failed on "Failing to Make progress"

You don't have to "break" the speed limit - you can go 10% over, without it being considered 'broken' (i.e. 33mph, 44mph) - any good instructer could have told you this. It's called "maintaining reasonable forward progress", and keeping up with the flow of traffic, and this is what the tester expects you to do!
So drop the "I failed because I refused to break the speed limit!!?? That's mks no sense! lol" attitude.

podgewalsh

I never said I failed cause a guy collapsed , The Thread is about different peoples stories on their test If you would care to read the thread Title.
I did however Fail first time round because I wasnt properly prepared but I was prepared last time around and was failed unfairly like many many others!. Just cause YOU worked "closly" with 6 or so who gives a dam...

MrPudding

Drax wrote:

I
Bad luck I know but a terrible decision from that c*nt of an instructor. I was livid when I heard this.

Yeah cnut. Imagine the cheek, not letting someone sit their test in a car that would fail the NCT. The cheek of it. I hope she got his name and reported him. :rolleyes:

Did she bring spare bulbs to the resit?

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

Drax wrote:

Bad luck I know but a terrible decision from that c*nt of an instructor. I was livid when I heard this.

So you think the tester should have happily gone out in a car with an obvious defect? In the eyes of the law the car is unroadworthy even with one blown brake light. The attitude of Irish drivers to fixing things like this is highly irresponsible, if it wasn't for the NCT I doubt many would ever check bulbs or tyres.
You're calling him rude names for not doing something he's not allowed to do.

podgewalsh wrote:

the tester was not a nice man to be honest. Driving along a quiet road and a man collapsed on the path - I asked the tester should we stop and see if he was ok - he said no !

You could stop if you like but it would mean calling off your test. Up to you.
The tester can't stop for 5 / 10 / 15 minutes in the middle of your test and still make the next one on time. The time spent driving is short enough without taking a break in the middle. It could be construed as giving you an unfair advantage.

I did however Fail first time round because I wasnt properly prepared

Not getting at you, but how often do we hear this? Imagine how much shorter the queues would be if people bothered to prepare properly for their test. If it was up to me the test fee would be €500 or €1000 but with a refund if you pass That would sort out the no-shows anyway.

Oh and about progress - if 32-33mph is on the speedo the car is probably NOT breaking the 50km/h limit (31 mph.)

podgewalsh

Give me a break FFS I was unlucky to get the same guy testing me twice- thats all..this thread has turned into a "Dont Knock The Instuctors!" Thread..all people are doing is posting their various experiences that they have had..

alias no.9

Drax wrote:

It most certainly was. I went through all the lights and fluid levels the night before with her. I think nowadays they ask you to point out various bits of the car - dipstick etc.

Bad luck I know but a terrible decision from that c*nt of an instructor. I was livid when I heard this.

I totally and utterly disagree. It wasn't even a decision because he did not have a choice whether or not to test her, he simply couldn't because the car was defective. Thats the procedure he is required to follow. To call him a c*nt for that says more about you than anything else. It was not his responsibility to provide a roadworthy car.

I can imagine the headlines when the newspapers get hold of this story...

Scandal: Employee carries out duties as required by employers

Larry David

alias no.9 wrote:

I totally and utterly disagree. It wasn't even a decision because he did not have a choice whether or not to test her, he simply couldn't because the car was defective. Thats the procedure he is required to follow. To call him a c*nt for that says more about you than anything else. It was not his responsibility to provide a roadworthy car.

I can imagine the headlines when the newspapers get hold of this story...

Scandal: Employee carries out duties as required by employers

Here here - I'm sick of people blaming testers for their own shortcomings.

Sure - not ALL testers are perfect, but the higher majority are absolutely fine, and even the 'difficult' ones can't fail you if you stuck to the rules of the road!

Jimoslimos

Larry David wrote:

You don't have to "break" the speed limit - you can go 10% over, without it being considered 'broken' (i.e. 33mph, 44mph) - any good instructer could have told you this. It's called "maintaining reasonable forward progress", and keeping up with the flow of traffic, and this is what the tester expects you to do!

Incidentally I'm interested in what the situation is if the examiner has no way of viewing the speedometer in a car. When I did my test (Yaris) the speedo was built into the dashboard and angled in such a way that it was impossible for anybody sitting in the passenger seat to see. Not that it made a difference to the result but I picked up 2 moderate faults for progress on the straight (not sure if it falls into this category?). It seems to me that an already subjective test is made worse by an examiner guessing whether your speed is either 28 or 32mph.

podgewalsh

Larry David wrote:

Here here - I'm sick of people blaming testers for their own shortcomings.

Sure - not ALL testers are perfect, but the higher majority are absolutely fine, and even the 'difficult' ones can't fail you if you stuck to the rules of the road!

How gracious of you to admit there is a problem with some of our testers :rolleyes:
How do you know the higher majority are "absolutly fine",
Is that the same way you know I am a crappy driver...
With thousands of people on 2nd and 3rd provisionals I beg to disagree with your comment the 'difficult' ones cant fail you... They can fail whoever they like whenever they like...

Larry David

podgewalsh wrote:

They can fail whoever they like whenever they like...

Not without a specific reason.


edit: if you are going to quote someone then at least quote what they said instead of making it up!

Stark

Larry David wrote:

Not without a specific reason.

The tester is under no obligation to tell you what you did wrong. You'll get a sheet at the end with a list of faults,but they're just random Xs under various categories like "observation" etc. There's nothing preventing the tester from jotting down random Xs.

Stephen

I passed both of my driving tests first time (1 bike, 1 car). Clearly I'm a ****ing legend to have been able to do this in this environment of Nazi driving testers.

:rolleyes:

The guy I had for the bike test was a surly bollix but he passed me. The guy I had for the car test was silent. Barely said a word besides grunting the odd instruction (suits me tbh, less distracting).

Did the bike test aged 20, and the car at 22, so no sign of bias against me being a young male and all there either.

Supercell

In fairness to the inspectors...

I failed my test in April in Churchtown, on clutch control and observation. I up till recently thought it was the tester being a cúnt as the reverse around a corner and turnabout went flawlessly (aka the *hard stuff*)

Well, have another test soon and have been getting lessons from an instructor recommended to me by some one else on boards and he asked me to take a drive around thye local area first lesson, and then he scored me and then asked to see the test sheet from the failed test.
Guess what..they were very very similar!!
He couldnt believe some of the things my previous instructer told me (eg always hand brake at every blind junction before turning, stop at a stop sign then creep to the solid white line etc etc)
I simply drove badly, partially because I had bad lessons but anyhow would have failed on clutch control (got the car a week before the test and hadn't got it smooth) anyhow - 4 grade twos.

I'd still do a hidden camera thing , but no longer feel i was hard done by last time..well perhaps the last instructor was a pile of crap that frankly told me incorrect things which the inspecter picked up on correctly.

Of course if I fail it this time (and think its unfair) its throw a hissy fit time again

dochasach

Larry David wrote:

Here here - I'm sick of people blaming testers for their own shortcomings.

Sure - not ALL testers are perfect, but the higher majority are absolutely fine, and even the 'difficult' ones can't fail you if you stuck to the rules of the road!

I strongly disagree, people can fail the test for arbitrary reasons which have nothing to do with the rules of the road or safety. If you passed the test, chances are you may be a reasonably good driver, you have a serviceable car AND you are very lucky (tester in a good mood...).

The film sounds like a worthwhile project. I wish RTE and the mainstream media had more guts and creativity to look into Ireland's driving test fiasco. Here are a couple of suggestions:

1) Ask the driving test office if they have any statistics on accident rate of drivers who passed vs drivers who failed. (The fact that they don't or are unwilling to publish this is suspicious) One easy to find statistic is the pass rate of females vs males and the crash rate of males. Even this suggests that boy racers are more likely to pass and more likely to crash.

2) Ask the driving test office if they have any statistics on accident rate of testers (when the tester is at the wheel, of course!)

3) Investigate stories of those who failed when they asked the tester to wear a safety belt, and the tester refused.

4) If you can find evidence of quotas and premarked test sheets, run with it but be sure you have plenty of evidence for these claims.

5) Be careful of legal issues if you try a hidden camera. If all testers were confident of their methodology, they shouldn't object to a non-hidden camera if the driver being tested also agrees to it. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

I've driven a quarter of a century and a quarter of a million miles in snow, ice mountains and heavy traffic without a single crash or a single insurance claim. I've passed several driving tests outside of Ireland and I find the Irish driver testing system to be very very broken.

Stark

Longfield wrote:

He couldnt believe some of the things my previous instructer told me (eg always hand brake at every blind junction before turning, stop at a stop sign then creep to the solid white line etc etc)

:eek:

My last instructor was supposed to have a very high student pass rate even though he told me such bull**** as "weave in and out of the parked cars as you must always keep to the left of the road". He also had some funny handbrake rules which to this day I'm still unsure about. (something to do with whether you're first, second or third car from the lights and crap, plus different rules for different stopping situations. I was well confused).

Drax

MrPudding wrote:

Yeah cnut. Imagine the cheek, not letting someone sit their test in a car that would fail the NCT. The cheek of it. I hope she got his name and reported him.

NCT? Dont make me laugh.

If there is one thing that p*sses me off, its technicalities. Did I not mention that I tested the lights the previous night and it blew on the way to the test.
This is simply bad luck. I do however think he could have conducted the test nonetheless.

Ninja900 wrote:

So you think the tester should have happily gone out in a car with an obvious defect? In the eyes of the law the car is unroadworthy even with one blown brake light.

As a matter of fact I do. "Unroadworthy" is the type of word that we could start a whole thread on.

Alias no.9 wrote:

I totally and utterly disagree. It wasn't even a decision because he did not have a choice whether or not to test her, he simply couldn't because the car was defective. Thats the procedure he is required to follow. To call him a c*nt for that says more about you than anything else.

I admit that was a strong word to use and probably inappropriate. The fact is, this kind of pussy-footing around makes it no wonder that it adds to the size of the waiting lists and drives me nuts when you look at how out-dated and inefficient the whole system is, yet no one want to take the bull by the horns and take responsibility for it. I dont know what way instructor rota's work but it would be a handy number if he could mark that down as a 'test' to fill his daily quota.

There is no mechanism for these type of technicalities to be addressed (correct me if I am wrong). Havnig to wait for another year because of a blown bulb is simply ridiculous.

eamon234

Mrs went for hers a few weeks ago and failed for coasting - on her way out the next guy arrived in a souped up boy racer heap of junk and the tester sent him home because the engine didn't belong to that model of car - fair play to him!

dochasach

Stark wrote:

:eek:

My last instructor was supposed to have a very high student pass rate even though he told me such bull**** as "weave in and out of the parked cars as you must always keep to the left of the road". He also had some funny handbrake rules which to this day I'm still unsure about. (something to do with whether you're first, second or third car from the lights and crap, plus different rules for different stopping situations. I was well confused).

My instructors told me the weaving thing and some other BS. I wonder if that's why such a high percentage of those who (apparently) passed the test are drink and/or drug drivers. I've also known people who failed for polar opposite reasons. One failed for signalling out of mini-roundabouts, another failed for not signalling out of mini roundabouts.

For those who believe nonsense such as "even the 'difficult' ones can't fail you if you stuck to the rules of the road!" here are several ways you can fail which have nothing to do with "rules of the road" or IMHO safety:

• Where is the law which forbids pulling the handbrake without pushing the button? You can be failed for that. Also, if any mechanic has ever seen a handbrake wear out from this, I'd like to hear from you.
• I may be wrong, but bans on "coasting" do not appear in Irish law. I'd like to see any research showing that clutching while braking is dangerous, in fact on ice and snow it's essential. In 250,000 miles (to the moon) of driving I can't remember ever accelerating out of a possible crash. In fact, assume that you're going 30mph and something unexpected happens, you keep it in gear and accelerate to 40mph to "avoid" the situation. If your attempt to accelerate away fails, your chances of dieing have doubled because your increased speed.
• What if you're absolutely sure sure you were the correct distance from parked cars, the correct road position, you shifted at exactly the right RPM but the tester disagrees? All ties go to the tester, the appeal process is worthless. And you can be well within Irish law but fail because the tester believes you were 3" too far to the right or left.

But while I complain that testers aren't required to measure whether pass/fail rate has any corellation with driving legality or safety, my real complaint is the instructors. While you have a fair chance of having a tester who doesn't fail you for personal reasons, the chances of getting a competent instructor can't be much higher than the chances of being struck by an asteroid.

Since Ireland tends to do everything asbackwards, I'll bet the transport minister will soon require a couple of hundred hours of instruction. A few years (decades?) later they'll decide to require these instructors to be competent.

In 2003

Seth Brundle

eamon234 wrote:

the tester sent him home because the engine didn't belong to that model of car - fair play to him!

Are the testers qualified to determine this? The engine in the car is irrelevant I would have thought and the safety of it can be guessed but not scrutinised.

Wishbone Ash

Drax wrote:

There is no mechanism for these type of technicalities to be addressed (correct me if I am wrong). Havnig to wait for another year because of a blown bulb is simply ridiculous.

There is a mechanism - carrying a spare set of bulbs in the car.

eth0_

podgewalsh wrote:

sure so every provisional driver who has failed their test is a crap driver , all the testers are great / fantastic / and never fail anyone they shouldnt...Yeah right ! Get yer head out of your arse...

Yes that's true, but the fact remains if you've been driving for _six years_ and *still* haven't managed to pass your test, you shouldn't be on the road.

Tell us why you were failed, it wasn't because you showed concern for a pedestrian who collapsed, that's not even on the test sheet :rolleyes:

eth0_

Jimoslimos wrote:

I picked up 2 moderate faults for progress on the straight (not sure if it falls into this category?). It seems to me that an already subjective test is made worse by an examiner guessing whether your speed is either 28 or 32mph.

No...think 'lack of progress' also covers how quickly you react to green lights, or taking an opportunity to enter a roundabout, turn at a junction, it's not just about driving too slowly.

axer

Drax wrote:

My sister waited 15 months for a test, and on the big day on the way to the test centre, one of the her brake bulbs blew. The instructor refused to test her because her car was 'unroadworthy'. Needless to say she was very upset. She now has to reapply and wait another couple of months. F*cking ridiculous.

First time I did the test back about 4/5 years ago in Loughrea my L plate fell off on the way to the test as it was a wet and windy day. The tester wouldnt let me do the test as a result. Found out 2/3 days afterwards that there was a shop across the road that sold them. Bastard would have known this or could have at least offered some asisstance - instead he said "sorry I cannot test you without an L plate" and went off back to his cosy office.

Wishbone Ash

axer wrote:

Bastard would have known this or could have at least offered some asisstance - instead he said "sorry I cannot test you without an L plate" and went off back to his cosy office.

He is not permitted to as he must remain impartial. Telling you that a shop sells them could be construed as giving advice.

eth0_

axer wrote:

First time I did the test back about 4/5 years ago in Loughrea my L plate fell off on the way to the test as it was a wet and windy day. .

Um...was your L plate on the outside of the car? Was it back-to-front as well? :rolleyes: