Unsuccessful - post here

Beau x1 · 20-03-2009 12:55am

Right lads, I have a pretest tomorrow and I'm <SNIP>. I haven't even driven in Wicklow yet but I've done LOADS of normal driving. My friend said his instructor told him when you turn left you need to look over your shoulder. Surely this is wrong, the left wing mirror should suffice for left turns, and the right wing mirror for right turns? Also, what's the deal on roundabouts? If you stop at a roundabout when there's suffice space to go before other cars, do you get marked down for that for waiting?

Also I have a question - say you're at lights right and you look in your wing mirror before indicating as you should; I suppose you're supposed to look at said wing mirror again before taking off right? Just want to know, I don't wanna be done for under/over observation of mirrors.

Also that was really messed up, the guy who got owned in Finglas for kids sitting on his bonnet and opening his back doors

Permabear · 20-03-2009 1:35am

This post has been deleted.

Alanstrainor · 20-03-2009 9:22am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed. I often hear that tip minus the second "mirror", but as noted it's "mirror, signal, *mirror*, manoeuvre.

Beau x1 · 21-03-2009 12:32pm

Cheers lads, I'm going to venture into Wicklow town today. Get some practice done etc. I think it's sort of stupid the way though that you get marked down for leaving your hand on the gearstick when you go from neutral > gear 1 > gear 2 because it's usually a pretty swift change instead of neutral > gear 1 > hand on wheel > gear 2 > hand on wheel.

To make things more interesting my friend bet me €50 I'll fail, so I have to pass. Prove a point and all that. Lads, believe in me.

Permabear · 21-03-2009 1:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Beau x1 · 26-03-2009 8:02am

Bring it on, today's the big day. Hopefully I'll get a sound lad and not some nit picking bogger. My friend is also doing his test on the same day, he's a problem with his insurance so he made a fake disc. I'm not condoning it, but who reckons he'll get shafted for that?

L-M · 26-03-2009 9:17am

Beau x1 wrote: »

Bring it on, today's the big day. Hopefully I'll get a sound lad and not some nit picking bogger. My friend is also doing his test on the same day, he's a problem with his insurance so he made a fake disc. I'm not condoning it, but who reckons he'll get shafted for that?

Good luck:D

TheElf · 26-03-2009 11:12am

Beau x1 wrote: »

Bring it on, today's the big day. Hopefully I'll get a sound lad and not some nit picking bogger. My friend is also doing his test on the same day, he's a problem with his insurance so he made a fake disc. I'm not condoning it, but who reckons he'll get shafted for that?

If he didnt do a 100% job on it, that wouldn't get past the tester, considering they look at over a hundred a month, I'm sure they'd spot a fake one if it's not down to a tee.

Just if it is spotted, the best your friend can get is the test cancelled, if the tester is serious he could report it ( I presume?)

But if he has an accident, then he's just rightly....you know the rest.

Best of luck in your test btw!

Beau x1 · 26-03-2009 12:12pm

Failed on turning right because I had to inch because I couldn't see traffic coming from the left because there was a phone box obstructing my view. I said I was nervous but he didn't say anything to calm me down, it was like the GPS was just telling me where to go. I got 5 grade 2's and I tried to ask him about it after the test but he just said "we don't talk about the test" afterwards and I just thought he was pretty rude but I suppose thats the general policy. He asked me if I was happy with the test and I just said yes even though I was pretty annoyed he wouldn't answer a simple yes/no question afterwards.

I'll probably do it in Wicklow again though.

mark renton · 26-03-2009 12:19pm

The tests are a sham - they are supposed to be competency tests, not perfection tests.. It cost me over 300 euro to fail last time (only time), with a day off work, 2 pre tests and paying for the test... Me arse am I doing it again because its just chance if you have a free run of traffic on a good day, and it is not financially rewarding for me to try again. . This test really has to be re-evaluated to consider that motorists drive in the real world, not in the world of a test

L-M · 26-03-2009 6:15pm

john47832 wrote: »

This test really has to be re-evaluated to consider that motorists drive in the real world, not in the world of a test

But in the real world, you are going to come across different scenarios of traffic etc. It's like doing your Leaving Cert etc. You are told to cover lots of different topics, and only one comes up. Likewise in the test, you have to prepare for all events, wind ,rain, traffic etc. etc. etc.

mark renton · 26-03-2009 6:18pm

Limerick man wrote: »

But in the real world, you are going to come across different scenarios of traffic etc. It's like doing your Leaving Cert etc. You are told to cover lots of different topics, and only one comes up. Likewise in the test, you have to prepare for all events, wind ,rain, traffic etc. etc. etc.

yes - but because your slightly off straight line, maybe dont check all 3 mirrors, or possible indicate before checking mirrors "GOD Forbid", doe this make you an incompetent driver?

Permabear · 26-03-2009 6:24pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 26-03-2009 6:25pm

This post has been deleted.

Beau x1 · 26-03-2009 6:33pm

Yeah, why is that though?

mark renton · 26-03-2009 6:33pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok so lets say 100 people start driving today,
50 of those pass a test in 6 months time.
20% of those 50 are involved in a colision in their first year, thats 10 people....

roughly 10 people in 100 will always be involved in some sort of collision on the road, even if the pass rate in a driving test was set to "maximum skill required"

fact is the quality/pass rate of a driving test has little or no relevance to collisions on the road

ztoical · 26-03-2009 6:46pm

john47832 wrote: »

This test really has to be re-evaluated to consider that motorists drive in the real world, not in the world of a test

the test takes place on public roads how much more real world can you get?

mark renton · 26-03-2009 6:51pm

ztoical wrote: »

the test takes place on public roads how much more real world can you get?

Its the evaluation of the driving test I have issue with, as what people have posted on this thread, clearance of stationary vehicles - FFS if you pass a staionary vehicle without taking any paint off or making any other motorist move to avoid you, then that to me is competent...

Alanstrainor · 26-03-2009 7:05pm

john47832 wrote: »

FFS if you pass a staionary vehicle without taking any paint off or making any other motorist move to avoid you, then that to me is competent...

I'm a cyclist, and although i understand your point is in relation to vehicles, that is a down right dangerous opinion to have. It almost encourages road users to pass as close to obstacles as possible. The same rule would apply to passing cyclists allowing about a full arms width of distance. Not doing so could prove fatal for the cyclist.
From your post, to you competence seems to mean "getting away with it", there is a distinct difference. Your logic would only work if you can assume every other person is paying 100% attention to what everyone around them is doing. This just isn't how people work, people suddenly opening car doors and jumping out is a regular occurrence, which is precisely the reason a doors width of a gap is to be left between stationary vehicles when overtaking.

ztoical · 26-03-2009 7:22pm

john47832 wrote: »

FFS if you pass a staionary vehicle without taking any paint off or making any other motorist move to avoid you, then that to me is competent...

And what if someone was to suddenly come out from behind that vehicle or the door of the car was to fly open - the test isn't just about showing yourself to be a competent driver but a safe one.

timmywex · 26-03-2009 8:23pm

If you want details of your test you could put freedom of information act request into the rsa seeking the report that the tester wrote up onto why you failed!

mark renton · 26-03-2009 9:02pm

Both points above quoting me are in relation to "other" people... Not the drivers, and again adds to my point that the test is about being lucky, that "other" people dont do something stupid while your driving along doing your test.... as a tester will never give any benefit for doing something right... the test is about always taking marks away, if this was an educational test in school it would have been abolished a long long time ago

mark renton · 26-03-2009 9:04pm

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I'm a cyclist, and although i understand your point is in relation to vehicles, that is a down right dangerous opinion to have. It almost encourages road users to pass as close to obstacles as possible. The same rule would apply to passing cyclists allowing about a full arms width of distance. Not doing so could prove fatal for the cyclist.
From your post, to you competence seems to mean "getting away with it", there is a distinct difference. Your logic would only work if you can assume every other person is paying 100% attention to what everyone around them is doing. This just isn't how people work, people suddenly opening car doors and jumping out is a regular occurrence, which is precisely the reason a doors width of a gap is to be left between stationary vehicles when overtaking.

Passing every stationary car on the road giving "full arms width distance" is not the reality of the road, and would possibly bring traffic to a standstill

jordainius · 26-03-2009 9:16pm

john47832 wrote: »

Both points above quoting me are in relation to "other" people... Not the drivers, and again adds to my point that the test is about being lucky, that "other" people dont do something stupid while your driving along doing your test.... as a tester will never give any benefit for doing something right... the test is about always taking marks away, if this was an educational test in school it would have been abolished a long long time ago

Absolute rubbish.

The test is to prove that you are BOTH a safe and competent driver.

Driving competently is very easy. Driving safely on the other hand is a completely different matter.

john47832 wrote:

Passing every stationary car on the road giving "full arms width distance" is not the reality of the road, and would possibly bring traffic to a standstill

It IS the reality. You have to take into account that you cannot predict whats going to happen with regards cyclists and stationary cars. NEVER take things for granted on the roads. That is why accidents happen.

You do not give me the impression that you prioritize road safety.

If you think its enough to be able to drive competently then I find that worrying.

And I honestly cannot see you passing your test until you change your mentality and adopt the safety first approach.

john47832 wrote: »

The tests are a sham - they are supposed to be competency tests, not perfection tests..

No mention of safety there, what more can I say?

Your comments are setting a terrible example.

mark renton · 26-03-2009 9:35pm

jordainius wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

The test is to prove that you are BOTH a safe and competent driver.

And how exactly does it do that?

ztoical · 26-03-2009 9:37pm

john47832 wrote: »

And how exactly does it do that?

By getting you to drive on public roads and seeing how you perform basic road tasks - I thought we'd already covered that?

mark renton · 26-03-2009 9:39pm

ztoical wrote: »

By getting you to drive on public roads - I thought we'd already covered that?

It proves that you are a safe and competent driver by getting you to drive on the road???

How??

Alanstrainor · 26-03-2009 9:40pm

john47832 wrote: »

Both points above quoting me are in relation to "other" people... Not the drivers, and again adds to my point that the test is about being lucky, that "other" people dont do something stupid while your driving along doing your test.... as a tester will never give any benefit for doing something right... the test is about always taking marks away, if this was an educational test in school it would have been abolished a long long time ago

Reacting to other people is a huge part of everyday driving, how can you expect to pass a test if you dont react to hazards when they arise? People do "stupid" things everyday, it doesn't matter if you are sitting a test, or driving to work, they happen. So you have to be prepared for them to happen.
How exactly do you expect examiners to mark the test? Plus one point for every "good" thing you do? -1 for every bad thing? Sorry, but that is crazy. This is not school, you cannot expect to be praised for the *good* things. The only things that matter to the RSA and the examiner are the things you fail to do correctly, as these are the very things that could get people killed or seriously injured.
If you can prove you are both safe and competent behind the wheel, you Will pass.

Alanstrainor · 26-03-2009 9:42pm

john47832 wrote: »

It proves that you are a safe and competent driver by getting you to drive on the road???

How??

I'm happy to let this debate continue, but let's not get silly. I'll bring out the banning stick if i have to.

mark renton · 26-03-2009 9:47pm

Ive put out a few points and remain of the belief that the format of the test needs to be looked at.

I believe that people learn how to pass a test, not how to drive any better.

I'm aware this thread is not setup for this purpose so I will not continue here.

Unsuccessful - post here

Comments