Learning or Passing?

bonkey

Something that I've been wondering about...

To fellow learners....are you learning to drive, or learning to pass the test?

Its a serious question. I get the impression that most people (not just on this forum, mind) see the test as this pain-in-the-ass thing that needs to be done so you can get on with your life, start getting your insurance premiums down, and so forth.

Tied in to it, I guess, would be whether you see driving lessons as what you need to take to pass the test, or what you should take to learn to drive properly .

OfflerCrocGod

Pass the test of course I don't trust an Irish government test to be good enough to teach you how to drive properly.

aniascor

I'm taking lessons to learn to drive - passing the test is something I would hope will come once I am able to drive.

That being said, I do notice that my instructor's focus seems to be on getting me to pass the test.

Idleater

bonkey wrote:

To fellow learners....are you learning to drive, or learning to pass the test?

I think this is a very appropriate topic, given the statistics in the news this morning that our young folk have the highest death rate in europe in vehicle accidents.

I believe that this is partly down to the system that is geared towards "passing" the test, rather than learning to drive.

I am a firm believer that you are constantly learning to drive, and passing the DoE test is just one step along the way.

L.

Stark

nereid wrote:

I think this is a very appropriate topic, given the statistics in the news this morning that our young folk have the highest death rate in europe in vehicle accidents.

I think that figure included both drivers and passengers. Especially since the apalling lack of seatbelt wearing for kids in the back seat which would contribute significantly to the "young people death count".

I had to take 10 lessons before I could ever get insured as a named driver on my parents' car under a provisional licence. So during those lessons, I was learning to drive, the test was something that was ages away in the future. When it came to doing my 2nd test (I wasn't at all ready when my first test came round), my driving was at a good standard, so the lessons I took were mostly "polish", getting the little things sorted out for the test. I failed it unfortunately (stupid reasons, I mentioned them in a previous thread here), and then got dejected so fell into a lot of bad habits between then and my 3rd and final test. So for my 3rd test pre-test lessons, I had to both work on the test criteria and work on getting my actual driving back to a high standard again.

I think there is some benefit to being forced to drive on a provisional for a long time before the test. By the time you come to do pre-test lessons, you understand the value in what you're being taught to do. I've noticed with a lot of people who get and pass their test quickly, that they see things like indicators and mirrors as "things they had to use to keep the tester happy" and never bother with them after passing the test.

TwoShedsJackson

My instructor's focus is definitely on learning to drive in a sensible and safe manner - he reckons that passing the test should be achievable as a result of learning to drive properly, not the other way around, and he's completely right.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that most instructors here are more interested in simply doing the minimum nessecary to let you pass the test. My instructor's school does additional lessons with you after you've passed the test (if you wish) on motorway driving and ettiquette, defensive driving etc.

chasm

Stark wrote:

I think that figure included both drivers and passengers. Especially since the apalling lack of seatbelt wearing for kids in the back seat which would contribute significantly to the "young people death count".

Quote from rte:
"The report showed that 38% of all those killed in crashes are under 25, while 30% are between 18 and 25." So that means 8% were under 18. So it is still quite a high figure. I can't believe that in this day and age some people still don't wear a seatbelt-pure madness.

bonkey

chasm wrote:

I can't believe that in this day and age some people still don't wear a seatbelt-pure madness.

That reminds me of a rant (Jeremey) Clarkson went on at one point, about how car-design was being changed to make them less lethal for (typically American) drivers who don't wear seat-belts. The "ice-cream van design" I think they called it at the time.

Yes, is pure madness. Its pure madness even in the back seat. But you'll always find someone who'll argue that its their right to be allowed to do it because its only their life (or their fellow passengers, in the case of back-seaters) they're putting at risk.

If they'd agree to no insurance cover, disability or other compensation, or anything for injuries/fatalaties sustained as a result of the lack of seat-belt wearing, I'd let them.

"What's that you say sir? Wheelchair for life because you didn't wear your seat-belt? That's tough, but no disability pension nor insurance claim for you."

Strangely, I am typically the one accused of being unreasonable when I make that case to them.

As an aside...before someone makes the argument that I'd only be reasonable if I thought this should apply to all types of stupidity...

Over here in Switzerland, if you are found to be guilty of causing an accident and have alcohol or drugs in your system (or were otherwise cledarly at fault), your insurance company can come after you. They make the payout, and then seek redress from you. They can claim back up to 40% of their payout, depending on the circumstance.

Case in point...stoned 19-year-old his an accident. Resultant costs, including injury-related remuneration came to 1.4 million swiss francs. He was hit back by his insurance company for somewhere around 225,000 of that. If he cannot pay up, they can take everything he earns beyond susbsistence-level costs until the debt is covered.

That's insurance here in Switzerland....and you know what...I think its a brilliant system.

If its something you are supposed to be responsible for, you should be held responsible. Every driver can make a genuine mistake. Every car can suffer unexpected failure. Not every case will be clear-cut. But when its clearly negligence or stupidity, you deserve to be smacked back.

Irish Salfordia

nereid wrote:

I believe that this is partly down to the system that is geared towards "passing" the test, rather than learning to drive.

L.

Did you really mean to say 'geared' towards passing the test???????

As a driving instructor most people who come to me have only one aim in mind - to pass the test'

• no interest in learning to drive safely
• Do not want to learn to reverse park, parallel park, do emergency braking etc.
• Want to do the absolute minimum of lessons just to 'get the test'

I learnt to drive in the U.K. and still have lots of contacts over there. The emphasis is very different with their 'after driving Pass Plus type schemes.

I would agree that in Ireland most folk just want to 'Pass' THE test