Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Unsuccessful - post here
Options
Comments
-
I have a real problem with this. We are paying €85 to do the test, which is a lot of money. Therefore, we should be entitled to detailed feedback. And if the testers don't like having to give the feedback verbally, then yes they should do it via e-mail. Quite frankly, given the job they do, they should be prepared to put up with negative feedback. As the saying goes, "Suck it up, Buttercup." Plus, if they had to do detailed feedback, the pass rate would probably increase as they could no longer justify failing people for silly reasons. Therefore, I am not sure waiting times would increase.
Hi,
agree, but only with the "bolded" part.
It is not in the examiners job description to do the instructors job as well, Giving a full run-down on the faults in the test test would be equivalent to a "Pretest". This perhaps would be the first proper accurate pretest the applicant ever had.
Instructor teach their pupils to drive, examiners then merely check to see if they have succeeded in turning them into safe, competent drivers.
When I was an instructor if at all possible I gave a de-brief to every single one of my pupils immediately after their test. If not possible, then a phone call later that evening.
First question, pass or fail used to be "Did the examiner say anything". (When I started as an instructor an examiner told me that due to their widespread knowledge, experience, training, intelligence etc etc they might notice something in the test that an instructor might miss, and they might give a brief mention of it to the applicant after the test. He said it would of course benefit the applicant but it would benefit the instructor much more. So my first question was always "did he say anything". Over the years I picked up the odd gem of advice, but other times it might be a bad habit that I had been trying to beat out of the pupil.)
The 2nd question was always "were they happy with the marks".
If they did not understand why they got specific marks and I could not explain either I would investigate, find out exactly why they were marked.
How could I justify taking money for preparing someone for a test if I did not know the syllabus ?
Examiners have no hidden agenda, all they are looking for is a safe competent driver. And if you have been prepared properly for the test you will believe this. If not, it is all a conspiracy0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22058
I'm not sure where the dispute about the level of detail in feedback from an examiner comes from. I passed on 3rd attempt. And received feedback on my 2 failures that gave fairly specific work-ons. It wasn't vague and the examiners did seem to understand I'd intentions on focusing on my driving more so than disputing things. They don't want people to fail.0 -
I failed attempt number 2 yesterday in Wicklow . I honestly thought I'd done okay but I actually got a grade three on a right turn while in a housing estate :-( I got 5 grade 2's, a lot less than first time round when I got 9.
Anyway I applied for my next test straigh away and I called up this morning about a cancellation. I was told I had to wait three weeks before I can resit. I thought you only had to wait 2 weeks, can anyone provide any clarity on this? I'm under pressure at this stage needing to drive to work.0 -
I failed attempt number 2 yesterday in Wicklow . I honestly thought I'd done okay but I actually got a grade three on a right turn while in a housing estate :-( I got 5 grade 2's, a lot less than first time round when I got 9.
Anyway I applied for my next test straigh away and I called up this morning about a cancellation. I was told I had to wait three weeks before I can resit. I thought you only had to wait 2 weeks, can anyone provide any clarity on this? I'm under pressure at this stage needing to drive to work.
What did you do wrong with the turn?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 25699
Dontfadeaway wrote: »My test is coming and I'm ****ting it. Do they normally take you on the exact time you have and how long is the whole thing?
They are usually pretty good on the times. Sometimes delays build up as the day goes on, but they often get no shows too, so can catch up.
From start to finish it's about 30-40 minutes usually. That would include the questions in the office, look under the bonnet etc.. It will fly.
Don't be stressing about the test. If you pass, you pass, if you don't, you re-apply and take a cancellation and could have it passed in a month. Not the end of the world.0 -
They are usually pretty good on the times. Sometimes delays build up as the day goes on, but they often get no shows too, so can catch up.
From start to finish it's about 30-40 minutes usually. That would include the questions in the office, look under the bonnet etc.. It will fly.
Don't be stressing about the test. If you pass, you pass, if you don't, you re-apply and take a cancellation and could have it passed in a month. Not the end of the world.
That's not bad. I was expecting an hour or so.0 -
It really flies by.0
-
Examiners have no hidden agenda, all they are looking for is a safe competent driver.
The test used to be subsidised by the government. At €85 a test it is now self funding. What do you think would happen if the test became fairer and standardised across the country? Pass rates would increase and thus less people would need repeat tests. This would equal less tests being performed per year. Thus, some testers would be surplus to requirements.
The need to keep to the status quo would also explain the consistent centre pass rates from year to year. I also note that the overall pass rates in Ireland shot up in 2008 when there was motivation to move people quickly off the waiting list.
Finally, if the test became more standardised and less biased, a lot of instructors would be out of work too. The high failure keeps them in the green.
So, even if there is no official quota from the boss, it's clear that the testers know what side their bread is buttered on. As a result, they know it's better to err on the side of failing someone rather than passing them. Then again, the whole test is set up to benefit the tester. Even the way they make you continue the test after you have failed is to protect them. It's not to get an extra 10 minutes of driving out of you!
Now, don't get me wrong. If you are consistently stalling, positioned dangerously, running red lights, and aren't able to do a hillstart/turnabout, you deserve a fail. However, most people are not stalling and stuttering by the time they get to a test. They are failed for reasons that are not generally dangerous. In reality, if Grade 2s are not actually dangerous, they should not be a negative mark on the test. And Grade 1s are stupid, since you could get 100 of them and still pass.0 -
Advertisement
-
the test is standardised. learners know what is expected when they sit the test. The tests are conducted by people not machines. there will always be an element of bias.Then again, the whole test is set up to benefit the tester. Even the way they make you continue the test after you have failed is to protect them. It's not to get an extra 10 minutes of driving out of you!
i'm not sure i would want to be driven by somebody who has lost the head because they were told they failed. much safer to tell them at the end.In reality, if Grade 2s are not actually dangerous, they should not be a negative mark on the test.
if you repeatedly make the same mistake then your driving is not up to scratch.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »the test is standardised. learners know what is expected when they sit the test. The tests are conducted by people not machines. there will always be an element of bias.
Yes, but it should be more standardised from tester to tester. So, hitting the kerb should either be a serious error or not. Instead, it's a judgement call to the point where my best friend and my brother's friend both hit the kerb and passed, while others fail on that and get a Grade 3.ohnonotgmail wrote: »i'm not sure i would want to be driven by somebody who has lost the head because they were told they failed. much safer to tell them at the end.
Perhaps you are correct on this, but again this is solely for the benefit of the tester and not the learner driver. They try to spin it by saying its for the driver's benefit.ohnonotgmail wrote: »if you repeatedly make the same mistake then your driving is not up to scratch.
Sure, certain errors are dangerous. However, Grade 2 errors are not described in RSA material as, "dangerous". I mean, people in other countries sit much more reasonable driving tests. Why on earth do Irish learners have to have such a high level of perfection? As long as the student is not doing anything dangerous, who cares if they clip the kerb on the reverse, rev the engine a little bit on the hill start, or sometimes let the clutch up too quickly. Those mistakes are not dangerous. Dangerous errors are more like running a red light, falling down a hill, ignoring mirrors, or pulling out when you don't have the right of way.
It rather reminds me of this Guardian article. Ireland is similar to the UK in this respect. We are basically expected to get a PhD in driving. That level only comes with years and years of daily driving. Of course, it's probably why most people take a few years to get to their test, and will only do when they have almost daily practice for a long time. Thanks to the insurance mobsters providers, such practice is impossible for many.0 -
Yes, but it should be more standardised from tester to tester. So, hitting the kerb should either be a serious error or not. Instead, it's a judgement call to the point where my best friend and my brother's friend both hit the kerb and passed, while others fail on that and get a Grade 3.
every instance of clipping the kerb is not the same.Perhaps you are correct on this, but again this is solely for the benefit of the tester and not the learner driver. They try to spin it by saying its for the driver's benefit.
a driver already found to be not competent subsequently losing the head is not in anybodies benefitSure, certain errors are dangerous. However, Grade 2 errors are not described in RSA material as, "dangerous". I mean, people in other countries sit much more reasonable driving tests. Why on earth do Irish learners have to have such a high level of perfection? As long as the student is not doing anything dangerous, who cares if they clip the kerb on the reverse, rev the engine a little bit on the hill start, or sometimes let the clutch up too quickly. Those mistakes are not dangerous. Dangerous errors are more like running a red light, falling down a hill, ignoring mirrors, or pulling out when you don't have the right of way.
you're having a laugh now, right? if you cant control the clutch properly you have no business being a car. if you cant avoid hitting obstacles you have no place driving a carIt rather reminds me of this Guardian article. Ireland is similar to the UK in this respect. We are basically expected to get a PhD in driving. That level only comes with years and years of daily driving. Of course, it's probably why most people take a few years to get to their test, and will only do when they have almost daily practice for a long time. Thanks to the insurance mobsters providers, such practice is impossible for many.
and yet people still pass without years and years of daily driving. american style driving tests that involve driving around a car park would be step back in road safety. If i moved to another european country i can exchange my licence quite easily. an american couldn't do that and rightly so.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »every instance of clipping the kerb is not the same.
In order to be a standardised test, it should be.ohnonotgmail wrote: »you're having a laugh now, right? if you cant control the clutch properly you have no business being a car. if you can't avoid hitting obstacles you have no place driving a car
You just said above that, "every instance of clipping the kerb is not the same." Clipping the kerb is very different from hitting it. The man I drive with told me last week that he clipped the kerb parking outside my house the other day, and he is absolutely not a dangerous driver. In fact, he's never had an accident in 40 years of driving.
Also, I never said a person who can’t control the clutch should pass. I clearly mentioned in my other post that if someone is stalling and sputtering then they should fail. My exact words were, "sometimes let the clutch up too quickly." By its very definition the word “sometimes” does not refer to “all the time” . Anyone can let the clutch up too quickly every now or then. Heck, my old instructor told me that he sometimes stalls if he gets distracted!ohnonotgmail wrote: »and yet people still pass without years and years of daily driving. american style driving tests that involve driving around a car park would be step back in road safety. If i moved to another european country i can exchange my licence quite easily. an american couldn't do that and rightly so.
I have never met anyone who passed without at least a year's daily/minimum three times per week driving. Who are these people? I would imagine they are very young (we know from scientific research that 17 is the prime age to learn to drive). Or else just happen to be mechanically minded. However, they are bound to be a very small percentage, given the abysmal first time pass rates.
Also, driving tests are much fairer in many other countries such as Australia and Canada. Please note that not all American tests take place in a car park either! My Friend in NY state drove through town, as well as on highways. She also had to parallel park. In fact, her test seemed pretty similar to the one we have.0 -
In order to be a standardised test, it should be.
You just said above that, "every instance of clipping the kerb is not the same." Clipping the kerb is very different from hitting it. The man I drive with told me last week that he clipped the kerb parking outside my house the other day, and he is absolutely not a dangerous driver. In fact, he's never had an accident in 40 years of driving.
Also, I never said a person who can’t control the clutch should pass. I clearly mentioned in my other post that if someone is stalling and sputtering then they should fail. My exact words were, "sometimes let the clutch up too quickly." By its very definition the word “sometimes” does not refer to “all the time” . Anyone can let the clutch up too quickly every now or then. Heck, my old instructor told me that he sometimes stalls if he gets distracted!
I have never met anyone who passed without at least a year's daily/minimum three times per week driving. Who are these people? I would imagine they are very young (we know from scientific research that 17 is the prime age to learn to drive). Or else just happen to be mechanically minded. However, they are bound to be a very small percentage, given the abysmal first time pass rates.
Also, driving tests are much fairer in many other countries such as Australia and Canada. Please note that not all American tests take place in a car park either! My Friend in NY state drove through town, as well as on highways. She also had to parallel park. In fact, her test seemed pretty similar to the one we have.
what are you basing that on?0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »what are you basing that on?
- Anecdotal statements from persons living in those countries. And yes, I know that "the plural of anecdote is not data." However, it's certainly thought provoking.
- The overall pass rates.
- The actual process of getting a licence. Australia in particular excels at making this process safe, effective, and quick.
Heck, England's test is very similar to ours, yet there are so many differences in how it is conducted.
Anyhow, looks like we are at impasse in this thread. You seem to think the process is fine, and I do not.0 -
The test used to be subsidised by the government. At €85 a test it is now self funding. What do you think would happen if the test became fairer and standardised across the country? Pass rates would increase and thus less people would need repeat tests. This would equal less tests being performed per year. Thus, some testers would be surplus to requirements.
The need to keep to the status quo would also explain the consistent centre pass rates from year to year. I also note that the overall pass rates in Ireland shot up in 2008 when there was motivation to move people quickly off the waiting list.
Finally, if the test became more standardised and less biased, a lot of instructors would be out of work too. The high failure keeps them in the green.
So, even if there is no official quota from the boss, it's clear that the testers know what side their bread is buttered on. As a result, they know it's better to err on the side of failing someone rather than passing them. Then again, the whole test is set up to benefit the tester. Even the way they make you continue the test after you have failed is to protect them. It's not to get an extra 10 minutes of driving out of you!
Now, don't get me wrong. If you are consistently stalling, positioned dangerously, running red lights, and aren't able to do a hillstart/turnabout, you deserve a fail. However, most people are not stalling and stuttering by the time they get to a test. They are failed for reasons that are not generally dangerous. In reality, if Grade 2s are not actually dangerous, they should not be a negative mark on the test. And Grade 1s are stupid, since you could get 100 of them and still pass.
Hi,
There are only three sets of people directly involved in the driving test.
1. The examiners
2. The actual test candidates
3. Driving Instructors
1. The examiners To be employed as an examiner, the candidate must first pass an aptitude test. Only a certain type are selected those that are completely devoid of compassion, who do not accept any responsibility for their actions.
I was chatting to an examiner once, (usual brown-nosing) I said that he had a very difficult job, that I would find it extremely difficult to fail some people. He said he never failed anyone, the "sheet" failed them. So pass or fail, immaterial, nothing to do with them.
They have total job security for life. During daylight hours , they could also work as much overtime as they wished. (Including Saturday and Sunday) As they are extremely well paid very few actually work any overtime at all.
They do not fear running out of test candidates. No test applicants, pay will remain the same, they will turn up for work each morning, drink coffee and happily play on their ipad all day.
All examiners receive exactly the same training, get regular check-ups and refresher training, so all examiners sing from the exact same hymn book. Markings should and are consistent. You do get the odd quirk or foible from some examiner, but these balance out overall.
They also have a nice system to boost their pay. For a week they claim massive travelling expenses to do tests in another test centre, usually away across country. Do not know if it is still the same but it used to be every third week was an "away" week. (was told the expenses pays for a new car). The examiners playing musical chairs also helps to standardise the markings across the country.
2 The population demographics of the various centres. Obviously in the cities these will be more mixed than in the country so could affect the overall pass rate somewhat
3. This leaves the instructors. A poor workman blames his tools, seemingly a poor instructor blames the system, exaggerates the complexity, difficulty, the randomness anything but their own incompetence in preparing a pupil for a simple driving test. .0 -
Hi,
There are only three sets of people directly involved in the driving test.
1. The examiners
2. The actual test candidates
3. Driving Instructors
1. The examiners To be employed as an examiner, the candidate must first pass an aptitude test. Only a certain type are selected those that are completely devoid of compassion, who do not accept any responsibility for their actions.
I was chatting to an examiner once, (usual brown-nosing) I said that he had a very difficult job, that I would find it extremely difficult to fail some people. He said he never failed anyone, the "sheet" failed them. So pass or fail, immaterial, nothing to do with them.
They have total job security for life. During daylight hours , they could also work as much overtime as they wished. (Including Saturday and Sunday) As they are extremely well paid very few actually work any overtime at all.
They do not fear running out of test candidates. No test applicants, pay will remain the same, they will turn up for work each morning, drink coffee and happily play on their ipad all day.
All examiners receive exactly the same training, get regular check-ups and refresher training, so all examiners sing from the exact same hymn book. Markings should and are consistent. You do get the odd quirk or foible from some examiner, but these balance out overall.
They also have a nice system to boost their pay. For a week they claim massive travelling expenses to do tests in another test centre, usually away across country. Do not know if it is still the same but it used to be every third week was an "away" week. (was told the expenses pays for a new car). The examiners playing musical chairs also helps to standardise the markings across the country.
2 The population demographics of the various centres. Obviously in the cities these will be more mixed than in the country so could affect the overall pass rate somewhat
3. This leaves the instructors. A poor workman blames his tools, seemingly a poor instructor blames the system, exaggerates the complexity, difficulty, the randomness anything but their own incompetence in preparing a pupil for a simple driving test. .
1. I had long suspected that. You could not be empathic in order to do that job. My background for example is mental health, and I simply would not last a day. I could not do a job where I upset people every single day. Also, even if I had to do it, I am trained in active listening. Thus I know how to deliver bad news in a nice way. Most of the testers don't. They give zero positive feedback and all negative feedback. If I had to do the job I would always, always cushion it with the positive feedback also.
I knew about their cushy conditions too. Private sector folk who actually make positive contributions to the world often get none of those benefits.
I would disagree however with the security thing. If the pass rate suddenly hopped up to 70% nationally, there would have to be some redundancies, as less tests would need to be conducted. Then again, perhaps you are right and the wait times would just decrease.
2. I absolutely disagree with this. Pass rates are consistent within centres, but not overall. Just look at the annual stats for Ennis vs Churchtown.
3. Do you mean that the low pass rates are caused by poor instruction? Do you think there are a lot of bad instructors out there?0 -
Not a driving tester but the Driving Examiner should not get involved in giving feedback. The marking sheet will do thatMost of the testers don't. They give zero positive feedback and all negative feedback.
Most drivers rate their own abilities highly and some will take any critique as a personal insult.
Anyone who has had to cut a trainee who is borderline knows how willing people are to blame everyone but themselves.
Very few individuals are capable of assessing their own abilities dispassionately.
The driving test is a snapshot in time of the learner's abilities. Either the meet the required standard on the day or its a fail.
andIf I had to do the job I would always, always cushion it with the positive feedback also.
There are many posts here where failed applicants have quoted this positive feedback in support of "then why did they fail me?"I know how to deliver bad news in a nice way.
Letting someone down gently is one thing.
Giving someone false hope is another.
See my first point about how people rate their own abilities.Do you mean that the low pass rates are caused by poor instruction? Do you think there are a lot of bad instructors out there?
Some simply are not ready to sit the test but have done the required number of lessons so that it as far as they are concerned.
An interesting study would be along the lines of- how many hours practicing driving before the test did the average successful applicant have?
- How many extra lessons beyond the mandatory minimum did the average successful applicant have.
I am currently trying to teach number 2 to drive with a plan for number 3 to start in January. Each is different.0 -
Hi,1. I had long suspected that. You could not be empathic in order to do that job. My background for example is mental health, and I simply would not last a day. I could not do a job where I upset people every single day. Also, even if I had to do it, I am trained in active listening. Thus I know how to deliver bad news in a nice way. Most of the testers don't. They give zero positive feedback and all negative feedback. If I had to do the job I would always, always cushion it with the positive feedback also.
I knew about their cushy conditions too. Private sector folk who actually make positive contributions to the world often get none of those benefits.
I would disagree however with the security thing. If the pass rate suddenly hopped up to 70% nationally, there would have to be some redundancies, as less tests would need to be conducted. Then again, perhaps you are right and the wait times would just decrease.
2. I absolutely disagree with this. Pass rates are consistent within centres, but not overall. Just look at the annual stats for Ennis vs Churchtown.
3. Do you mean that the low pass rates are caused by poor instruction? Do you think there are a lot of bad instructors out there?
but you can not compare your situation with an examiners. When or if you must convey bad news you will set up and be in full control of the environment. And you will not be under any time constraints whatsoever.
The examiner on the other hand may have just been subjected to forty minutes of really bad, always potentially dangerous driving.
Then at the conclusion, he has only a few minutes before the next test, when he must be ready calm and composed for the next test applicant. He would much prefer to use these few precious moments for a toilet break, a gulp of coffee, or even run outside, take a drag on a cigarette.
Instead, after subjecting the poor man to a ride from hell, some people expect him to be kind , compassionate explain exactly what they did wrong and how to correct their many mistakes and faults. Faults that they were completely oblivious of committing. This would of course be totally impossible in the time available, so the examiners do not even try.
But if the examiner just had had a nice safe trip around town, with the odd wee mistake he will be relaxed, expansive mood even and quite often will give some valuable snippet of info.
1. Redundancies in the civil service :eek:
2. Which would have the higher ratio of foreigners, Ennis or Churchtown
3. Absolutely, without a doubt. The standard of driving instructors is abysmal. The trouble is there are very few good properly trained instructors, so learners never get the chance to experience a lesson from a good instructor for comparison.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi i failed my driving test yesterday by 1 mark and i know where i went wrong so i feel i could do it again straight away ..My tester told me i dont need to wait 3 weeks to apply so i rang RSA this morning looking for a cancellation and i told them that i had failed my test and i wanted a cancellation and she said no because i have to wait 3 weeks before i can get a test. I really need to get my licence as it is too risky to drive unaccompanied. I searched forums on this and i saw some people didnt have to wait 3 weeks for their test so i am just wondering what is the story thanks0
-
Failed test today - badly -
Once I knew I made the first mistake the confidence went completely and I drove like a lunatic.
Feel I made such a Hames if it I would fail if I did another immediately. Need to take stock and a few lessons. I feel I can't ask for time off for a while. It's in thurles and I'm a dub so maybe I'll put down the retest for thurles.
As I'm in a new job are there any Saturday tests ?
thanks0 -
Failed test today - badly -
Once I knew I made the first mistake the confidence went completely and I drove like a lunatic.
Feel I made such a Hames if it I would fail if I did another immediately. Need to take stock and a few lessons. I feel I can't ask for time off for a while. It's in thurles and I'm a dub so maybe I'll put down the retest for thurles.
As I'm in a new job are there any Saturday tests ?
thanks
Chin up, I narrowly failed my 1st and was a disaster on the 2nd, passed 3rd time lucky, keep at it and as you say, take stock and learn from your mistakes - there are Saturday tests yes, I passed on a Saturday and got the best tester of the 3!0 -
Hi,
but you can not compare your situation with an examiners. When or if you must convey bad news you will set up and be in full control of the environment. And you will not be under any time constraints whatsoever.
Of course I would have time constraints. There always are unless you can see each client for your entire work day.Instead, after subjecting the poor man to a ride from hell, some people expect him to be kind, compassionate explain exactly what they did wrong and how to correct their many mistakes and faults. Faults that they were completely oblivious of committing. This would of course be totally impossible in the time available, so the examiners do not even try.
Again, tough luck on him. It should just be an essential part of the job when the failure rate is so high.1. Redundancies in the civil service :eek:
2. Which would have the higher ratio of foreigners, Ennis or Churchtown
3. Absolutely, without a doubt. The standard of driving instructors is abysmal. The trouble is there are very few good properly trained instructors, so learners never get the chance to experience a lesson from a good instructor for comparison.
Actually, I met an ex tester once and he told me he would be on and off the panel. So clearly they are not all permanent jobs there.
What do foreigners have to do with the failure rates?!
How on earth do people find good ones then if they are all so bad? I had a great instructor in Dublin, but I live far from there now. And the local ones I have had since have either screamed at me to go over the speed limit (yep, over it when I was just on it - I was not given any marks for progress in my test; it's not an issue for me) or just sat there saying nothing.0 -
Of course I would have time constraints. There always are unless you can see each client for your entire work day.
Again, tough luck on him. It should just be an essential part of the job when the failure rate is so high.
Actually, I met an ex tester once and he told me he would be on and off the panel. So clearly they are not all permanent jobs there.
What do foreigners have to do with the failure rates?!
How on earth do people find good ones then if they are all so bad? I had a great instructor in Dublin, but I live far from there now. And the local ones I have had since have either screamed at me to go over the speed limit (yep, over it when I was just on it - I was not given any marks for progress in my test; it's not an issue for me) or just sat there saying nothing.
they are examiners not instructors.0 -
Failed test today - badly -
Once I knew I made the first mistake the confidence went completely and I drove like a lunatic.
Feel I made such a Hames if it I would fail if I did another immediately. Need to take stock and a few lessons. I feel I can't ask for time off for a while. It's in thurles and I'm a dub so maybe I'll put down the retest for thurles.
As I'm in a new job are there any Saturday tests ?
thanks
So sorry. The testers are so unfriendly though that it would put anyone off.
I think there are Saturday tests in certain areas.0 -
#ohnonotgmail wrote: »they are examiners not instructors.
Well, unless your instructor has an invisibility cloak he won't be at the driving test. Therefore, he can't explain where you went wrong. Simple.0 -
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »the fail sheet tells you where you went wrong.
No it doesn't. For example it has a section entitled, "Hazards." Yet there is no explanation of which hazard or what you did wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement