Unsuccessful - post here

thomashood10

So punish the people still learning and getting to grasp with something that's probably new to them. Seems fair

As I said WE pay for everything, all the government are giving us are the roads, which in turn WE payed for.

The driving test is just to check that you've got a good standard of driving, a standard set by the government.

The Leaving Cert likewise is a test that ensures we all have a standard of education. But we're given that (to a degree admittedly) for free.

Aside from that in California it costs $31 for a new license, and thats only after you've passed the test

cc

ok i think people loosing reality a bit here, we are in the grips of a recession, high unemployment, cuts everywhere, in, health, education etc etc I have no sympathy for miffed people who failed there test looking for free ones. Yes the driving test is stressful but if you can pass it under pressure, as most people do, I would say they are on the road to being an accomplished driver. Some people may be more than "miffed" and barely failed and I have sympathy, that happened to me first time around, just apply again and keep positive. And i'll state the point again, driving is way more expensive than a test and lessons!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mark renton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

is this coming from someone who doesn't have to pay for another test?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cc

thomashood10 wrote: »

So punish the people still learning and getting to grasp with something that's probably new to them. Seems fair

As I said WE pay for everything, all the government are giving us are the roads, which in turn WE payed for.

The driving test is just to check that you've got a good standard of driving, a standard set by the government.

The Leaving Cert likewise is a test that ensures we all have a standard of education. But we're given that (to a degree admittedly) for free.

Aside from that in California it costs $31 for a new license, and thats only after you've passed the test

Education is a right, as provided for under the constitution. Driving is not. If you can afford it and prove to someone your competent off you go.BTW If California was a country of its own, it would have the 10th largest economy in the world, i'd say they have bit more cash than us to provide for its citizens.

Shinnypeople

Hi

Was nervous because another lady tester. I knew I had little possibility to pass when I saw her. Twelve grade twos and two grade threes.

One grade three is in reversing. I was asked to reverse into a minor road where there is a van. When I reversed into it before finishing, the vas started to move and stopped behind me. I could not finish it. Then I got grade three for giving way to other vehicles.

I want to book another test maybe in a little later. Best of luck for that.

Does anyone know how to book a test with a man tester, please? I know it sounds a little creazy. But I really could not see any female testers who just make me too nervous.

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

Best of luck next time as well.

Why not send a letter to Ballina stating you had X number of lessons with three ADI rregistered instructors (They were registered ??) and all three did not pick up the faults marked by the tester ??

Give their names and RSA-ADI numbers.

J_R wrote: »

In the UK at the end of the test, pass or fail, examiner asks you if you would like the marks explained. You are also asked if you would like to have your driving instructor present - this because of data protection laws.

Also in the UK, the driving instructor is allowed to accompany a person on test. In fact the DSA (their RSA) wanted this to be made compulsory but backed down due to pressure from the driving instructors who wanted it to remain voluntary.

Wish we had that system here.

However, I find the examiners will normally give a brief explanation if the applicant only had a few mistakes. Multiple mistakes, no chance.

Shinnypeople wrote: »

Failed at Finglas today. Seven grade 2 on position, and four grade 2 on gears. Only four grade 1.

I do think the result depends on the tester. I have three instructors. One from ISM and two from temple school. I also practice a lot. However, I failed the test. Suprisingly, my faults are where the instructors are very positive.

I would not say the examiner is unfair but too strict. Especially the lady tester is more strict.

Best of luck for my next test not to meet that lady tester.

thomashood10

Are you honestly suggesting this country is going to crumble because we don't pay for driving tests?

Yes driving is expensive, but does that mean we should assume the attitude of "oh well, pay whatever they ask".

I thought you needed your own car and have the tax disc displayed for the test. Apologies if I am mistaken.

As I said, we hand out FAS, we hand out the dole, we hand out education. Yes education is a right, but it's still given to us. We're not just told to take a test at the end of 5 years of reading books off our own time.

Maybe we'd have less road accidents too if there was a system in place to teach people how to drive and then let them take as many cracks at getting the license as they want.

The instructors and schools are private, why not make the testing private too and just tax that. Would make for a better system imho.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DriveSkill

thomashood10 wrote: »

The instructors and schools are private, why not make the testing private too and just tax that. Would make for a better system imho.

If the driving test was privatised and not subsidised by the state the cost would be a lot higher than €75, I cant remember the exact costs but I think the actual cost per driving test is around €120 to the RSA. Now the RSA is not in it to make a profit but assuming it was a fully private organisation its not unreasonable to see the cost of a driving test being around €150.

BTW the ADI tests cost €150 for the theory test, €200 for the driving test and €200 for the teaching test - so in that context €75 is not too bad

2nd BTW nothing is ever really 'FREE' someone is always paying for it through taxes or other charges and given that we cant afford to pay our current bills then adding extra costs on the state inevitably means more taxes in one form or another - so the options may be pay €75 now or pay an extra 50c every week for the rest of your life . Personally I'd prefer to pay the €75 now.

zynaps

I'm not objecting to the fact that we have to pay for the test, just that people are failing in very questionable situations (e.g. the tester complaining that someone stopped reversing when traffic was coming from behind) and that the testers have a policy of not explaining any of the marks given, in the context of the test.

Even when I passed the test the second time, the tester refused to elaborate on any of the marks, or even answer my simpler question: "if you could suggest one thing I should improve so as to be a safer driver, what would it be?"

It should be forbidden for them to refuse to explain any mark given, IMO. It's this unhelpful stance which only hinders transparency in the execution of their duties that often makes one feel cheated when they fail, and it needs to stop.

Nobody should feel cheated and confused when they fail, or like applying and sitting the next test is just another toss of a coin. When you fail, you should know exactly why, in the context of what actually happened on the road, and how you can improve for the next test. This is not too much to ask.

DriveSkill

zynaps wrote: »

It should be forbidden for them to refuse to explain any mark given, IMO. It's this unhelpful stance which only hinders transparency in the execution of their duties that often makes one feel cheated when they fail, and it needs to stop.

I totally agree that the lack of feedback is probably the biggest failing of the testing system at the moment. However I understand the reasoning in not wanting to get into an arguement or debate on what is in some cases a subjective decision. While there are a lot of people who do the test who would be happy to calmly discuss where they made mistakes and learn from it, unfortunately, there are equally people who could and would get very abusive and confrontational so we end up with the system as it is and no one gets to have feedback.

One solution is for the driving instructors to be allowed sit in on the test (this is allowed in the UK) if the pupil agrees. In that case at least the instructor should be able to explain where the mistakes were made while at the same time not being seen as the 'bad guy' At the moment there can be cases where pupils come out of a test with marks where the instructor really has no idea on the specifics of how they got them - for example 'reaction to hazards' can be any number of things and unless the pupil has shown problems in that area before its virtually impossible to determine what the exact mistake was or where it occurred.

zynaps

DriveSkill wrote: »

I totally agree that the lack of feedback is probably the biggest failing of the testing system at the moment. However I understand the reasoning in not wanting to get into an arguement or debate on what is in some cases a subjective decision. While there are a lot of people who do the test who would be happy to calmly discuss where they made mistakes and learn from it, unfortunately, there are equally people who could and would get very abusive and confrontational so we end up with the system as it is and no one gets to have feedback.

That could be true, but did it used to be that way? What about in other countries - are we really more aggressive and abusive than say, English or American people? AFAIK in both those countries testers will openly discuss where faults were received and why.
In fact, I'd very much like to know whether there are any other countries where testers refuse to do this.

DriveSkill wrote: »

One solution is for the driving instructors to be allowed sit in on the test (this is allowed in the UK) if the pupil agrees. In that case at least the instructor should be able to explain where the mistakes were made while at the same time not being seen as the 'bad guy' At the moment there can be cases where pupils come out of a test with marks where the instructor really has no idea on the specifics of how they got them - for example 'reaction to hazards' can be any number of things and unless the pupil has shown problems in that area before its virtually impossible to determine what the exact mistake was or where it occurred.

Perhaps, but if testers are intimidated by one student, they might be more intimidated by a student and his/her driving instructor (who may have something to prove too, after all).

Maybe the best solution would be a camera they could install in-car (any car would be nice - I like that students can at least use their own car which they're comfortable with) which could help objectivity in this situation.
The tester could have a little handheld bluetooth device or something which adds a bookmark to the current position in the recording when clicked, so they could jump to points of interest later, and even overlay the marked fault data on the footage at those points.
Sure, this would drive up the cost... a lot... but it would be so much fairer for the student, not to mention useful for actually improving their driving.

thomashood10

DriveSkill wrote: »

If the driving test was privatised and not subsidised by the state the cost would be a lot higher than €75, I cant remember the exact costs but I think the actual cost per driving test is around €120 to the RSA.

Where do you get your figures may I ask?

And 50c would be a bit more convenient for young people/people with low income.

greenie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well Donegalfella I'm well aware that RSA describe Grade 2 faults as serious and this was my point in a round about way. I don't think certain minor mistakes warrant a grade 2 for example under the limit in an estate or over observation. I would not class these as serious faults or serious driving errors and I doubt many people would with the exception of the testers and perhaps yourself. 11 grade 2 faults is often made up of at least half of minor mistakes due to nerves. This does not make someone a bad driver. I'm not saying the test should be marked leniently at all, I'm just expressing my opinion. And thankyou anyway but I'd say more people than you know are actually aware that the complicated roads & fast traffic require extra awareness and skill.

cc

thomashood10 wrote: »

Where do you get your figures may I ask?

And 50c would be a bit more convenient for young people/people with low income.

but then people who don't drive would be complaining why should they be subsidizing other peoples driving tests, its a no win!

greenie

cc wrote: »

ok i think people loosing reality a bit here, we are in the grips of a recession, high unemployment, cuts everywhere, in, health, education etc etc

So why claim the driving test cost should be raised to 250?

And i'll state the point again, driving is way more expensive than a test and lessons!

CC I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to put people off doing their test? This is not a competition. Yes test & lessons are costly. Yes driving is costly. Everyone goes through the lessons & ends up doing the driving. We're all paying. Some more than others of course.

DriveSkill

thomashood10 wrote: »

Where do you get your figures may I ask?

And 50c would be a bit more convenient for young people/people with low income.

Well I made up the 50c bit (as that is all just hypothetical ) just as an example of increased taxes but the point being it would be over a much much longer time.

The reference to the actual cost of €120 is here :
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0409/1224244282262.html

Alanstrainor

greenie wrote: »

Well Donegalfella I'm well aware that RSA describe Grade 2 faults as serious and this was my point in a round about way. I don't think certain minor mistakes warrant a grade 2 for example under the limit in an estate or over observation.

Over observation is a very serious fault. If you're spending too much time looking in your mirrors and not on the road then you are a danger to yourself and others. Ultimately it's what is in front of you that matters the most, mirrors will come second.

Also lack of progress, may not be "dangerous" for you as a driver, but as a result of you driving too slow you may cause other drivers to take unnecessary risks to overtake. To take an extreme example, driving at 20km/h on a road with a 50km/h limit and no reason to drive at such speeds would cause chaos on any major road. To say that this should be acceptable in a test just doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

Now i'm not just siding with the RSA, or testers for the sake of it, i firmly believe in the above situations are dangerous, and should be considered in a test situation.

As for people who get say 9 grade 2's, which is one over a pass mark. You have to draw the line somewhere, if it was raised to 12 grade 2's being a pass, you'd still have people who would feel hard done by when they got 13.

thomashood10

You should check your rear view mirror every 12.5 seconds according to Ray D'arcy.

Lol honestly where do they come up with that kind've stuff

greenie

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Over observation is a very serious fault. If you're spending too much time looking in your mirrors and not on the road then you are a danger to yourself and others. Ultimately it's what is in front of you that matters the most, mirrors will come second.

Also lack of progress, may not be "dangerous" for you as a driver, but as a result of you driving too slow you may cause other drivers to take unnecessary risks to overtake. To take an extreme example, driving at 20km/h on a road with a 50km/h limit and no reason to drive at such speeds would cause chaos on any major road. To say that this should be acceptable in a test just doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

Now i'm not just siding with the RSA, or testers for the sake of it, i firmly believe in the above situations are dangerous, and should be considered in a test situation.

As for people who get say 9 grade 2's, which is one over a pass mark. You have to draw the line somewhere, if it was raised to 12 grade 2's being a pass, you'd still have people who would feel hard done by when they got 13.

Gosh I always thought 9 was the pass mark! But I agree with you Alan, there are people who will always feel hard done by.
With the observation & progress points, I wasn't really thinking of extreme cases. Extreme cases certainly warrant a grade 2, anything causing danger on the roads of course should be a mark against you. It's just in some non extreme cases a grade 2 is given. That's what annoys me. I'm not talking about going 20km/h, I'm talking about slowing to 35km in areas like estates where it's, in my opinion safer to drive under 50km. And people have received g2's for over observations & progress not on the roads but doing their manoevers especially the reverse.
I'm not here to complain that tests should be easier, I'm only airing my thoughts. I guess it annoys me when many learners queries about their marks are dismissed with answers like 'you're obviously not as good as you thought', 'test prices should be raised', 'focus & learn to relax'. Everyone should realize that not all learners drive at a snails pace nor are they always wrong.

cc

greenie wrote: »

So why claim the driving test cost should be raised to 250?



CC I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to put people off doing their test? This is not a competition. Yes test & lessons are costly. Yes driving is costly. Everyone goes through the lessons & ends up doing the driving. We're all paying. Some more than others of course.

I just suggested raising it to stop unprepared people sitting tests, just an idea. My point about the recession was in reference to people saying the test should be free, surely you must agree we have more pressing areas that public money should be spent on?

Greenie, i'm not trying to trying to put people off doing there test but I have no time for people who go on about the cost of lessons and test application fees and how unfair everything is. For a lot of working people the cost of driving is second only to the mortage or rent. The cost of lessons and tests are just a drop in the ocean compared to how much you're going to fork out in the years to come. IMO it all sounds like sour grapes! I can see why people would disagree with me but i'm not convienced by anyones logic so far.

zynaps

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Also lack of progress, may not be "dangerous" for you as a driver, but as a result of you driving too slow you may cause other drivers to take unnecessary risks to overtake. To take an extreme example, driving at 20km/h on a road with a 50km/h limit and no reason to drive at such speeds would cause chaos on any major road.

Absolutely - a lot of drivers dangerously overtake people who drive at the speed limit (e.g. me)

My friend was thinking of getting an automatic (although I'm not sure why given that he hasn't sat his test yet, better to do it in a manual), so I let him drive mine around the block. There was almost no traffic about, but when he took a left turn off Collins Avenue he did so at a snail's pace, slowing down about 5 seconds before starting the turn. Immediately, a guy zoomed up from behind and immediately got (understandably) frustrated, blipping his horn as we crawled around the corner.

zynaps

cc wrote: »

The cost of lessons and tests are just a drop in the ocean compared to how much you're going to fork out in the years to come. IMO it all sounds like sour grapes! I can see why people would disagree with me but i'm not convienced by anyones logic so far.

Frankly I don't see the point in posting that. If people are genuinely aggrieved by an unfair aspect of the system, then let them say it and perhaps do something about it. Especially if they're disappointed at having just failed a test they tried hard to prepare for.

You're basically saying "so what if you were treated unfairly and ripped off? It's nothing compared to how much money you'll spend on your mortage, so why complain?"
Well, why complain if you get mugged, or are charged €50 extra for your shopping by mistake? Because if it can be prevented, it should be.

Doesn't mean the whole system should be scrapped or anything, just a few things need to be fixed and it's worth discussing IMO... perhaps not here, but still.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

greenie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, that was badly written Donegal. I meant extreme cases ( not dangerous enough to warrant a g3) of minor faults should definitely be at least a grade two:o
Dangerous drivers deserve an automatic fail. I think the test should end the minute you receive a g3. I also think your g3 should be explained to you by the tester because if you fail for being a danger on the road then this has to be corrected immediately.

cc

zynaps wrote: »

Frankly I don't see the point in posting that. If people are genuinely aggrieved by an unfair aspect of the system, then let them say it and perhaps do something about it. Especially if they're disappointed at having just failed a test they tried hard to prepare for.

You're basically saying "so what if you were treated unfairly and ripped off? It's nothing compared to how much money you'll spend on your mortage, so why complain?"
Well, why complain if you get mugged, or are charged €50 extra for your shopping by mistake? Because if it can be prevented, it should be.

Doesn't mean the whole system should be scrapped or anything, just a few things need to be fixed and it's worth discussing IMO... perhaps not here, but still.

I think i'll make this my last post on the subject as I didn't start to out trying to make an "I'm right and your all wrong" type of discussion. And we're very much off-topic as you pointed out, also I can see most of you disagree with me, and thats ok :P I just don't think the test fee is a rip off, and don't agree with the usual lines like, "why should I get failed for something trivial like this when it cost me so much to take the test and get lessons", "tests should be free" etc etc etc If people want to bring these points up please don't demonize me for disgreeing!

zynaps

Apologies cc, not trying to demonise you, honestly! I'm just disagreeing with your disagreement I certainly don't think the tests should be free either, FWIW (just fair and accountable if possible, is all).

cc

zynaps wrote: »

Apologies cc, not trying to demonise you, honestly! I'm just disagreeing with your disagreement I certainly don't think the tests should be free either, FWIW (just fair and accountable if possible, is all).

no problem, i'm in agreement with you there;)

greenie

Lol @ cc! I agree with you. I don't think the test fee is a rip off at all. It's affordable yet not cheap enough for people to just not turn up etc which is what used to happen I hear. And I think making it free would be ridiculous!