Driving test has become a lot easier

Wishbone Ash

Threads merged.

Yellow Snow

I passed in SGS Newbridge a few weeks back (first time). I had a clean sheet at the end of the test! I thought I made one or two silly mistakes during the test so it was a huge surprise not to get a single fault and it had me convinced that SGS go really easy on people.

BUT.... I was uber prepared for it though. Had been driving 4-5 hours a day for the guts of a year (drive a lot for work) and found a brilliant instructor to kick out my bad habits. I HAD to pass before the changes come in in June and I think a lot of people are in the same boat. I was one of the people who panicked and applied over the bank holiday weekend when the Government decided to scare the sh!t out of provisional drivers.

Most of the people passing now applied around the same time so I think the higher pass rate has less to do with the test being easier and more to do with the fact that a hell of a lot of provisional drivers took their fingers out and finally started to A) actually apply for their test and took it seriously by getting lessons and being well prepared.

My instructor said he has never been so busy with new clients. He's turning people away at the moment. So maybe the Governments scaremongering tactics actually did work and we will have a new batch of better drivers passing their tests and making the roads a whole lot safer to be on! It's either that or maybe I'm just better than Michael Schumacher (Joke, my real learning starts now.... )

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

Wishbone Ash

Thread merged.

kerry4sam

Do SGS and RSA use the same routes when conducting the tests? or have they their own separate route?

Chakar

I hope I get a fair tester when I take my test after reading this thread. That's all I'm saying.

Moonbeam

Out of the 6 people I know that did their driving tests this year 5 passed, 3 were people sitting it for the first time,3 had sat it a few times.
The new drivers are safe but in experienced and went the correct route with lessons and things and deserved to pass but whether they would under the old regime I dunno.
One of the ones who sat if before is a grand driver and no idea why he failed previously,the one that failed did no prep for the test at all.
The pass rate definately appear to have gone up.
I only know of one case where someone passed that really should not be on the roads.

squishywishy

Nov2006 wrote: »

I seriously doubt that most SGS testing centres are being lenient to get through the backlog. If anything I think in the past the RSA test centres have been too hard.
Maybe the SGS testers and happier people cos from what I have heard and read on this board some of the RSA testers are grumpy people who tend to make the driver more nervous.

Couldnt agree with you more!! I failed an RSA test in February because the tester turned me into a nervous wreck by triple checking my age, complaining about the way my provisional had been made, not allowing me a nano second to think about my technical checks, road signs etc and making me stop and restart my reverse around the corner cos HE wasnt ready.

On tuesday i had an SGS test and passed with a near clean sheet, ive only had two lessons since my previous test and i drove the exact same as on my first test. SGS tester was full of compliments and told me im an excellent driver. From the very start i was at ease and felt totally in control. He even explained where and when id picked up the faults i had, which is more than the RSA would do when i had failed and needed to know how.

To me it seems some RSA testers enjoy failing people and that is very wrong. SGS have done a great job and deserve praise.

Id gladly sit another SGS test as its a fair shot which is all anybody wants.

LDriver

wil wrote: »

Will it have any real effect on the quality of drivers on our roads - .

Doubt it there will still be 'full licence' holders who bought their licences during the amnesty, never did a test and do not know where their indicators are........
LDriver

Wishbone Ash

LDriver wrote: »

Doubt it there will still be 'full licence' holders who bought their licences during the amnesty, never did a test and do not know where their indicators are........
LDriver

But those drivers are statistically the safest drivers on our roads while young male drivers, who know it all, are statistically the most dangerous.

LDriver

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

But those drivers are statistically the safest drivers on our roads while young male drivers, who know it all, are statistically the most dangerous.

How can they be safer when they driver without care? what is the difference betwen them and someone driving for years [not the young know alls] who did not buy the licence at the amnesty. Such people never did a test and i would challenge them to do the theory and practical test

Wishbone Ash

LDriver wrote: »

How can they be safer when they driver without care?

Have you ever heard of insurance claim statistics?

Middle age drivers make the least amount of claims hence the low cost of insurance.

Young male drivers make the most amount of claims hence their high cost of insurance.

Are you seriously suggesting that those who make the least amount of claims are statistically more dangerous that those who make the most claims?

Wishbone Ash

LDriver wrote: »

who did not buy the licence at the amnesty

....You also appear to be confusing the 'amnesty' licence holders with the pre-test era licence holders.

LDriver

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

....You also appear to be confusing the 'amnesty' licence holders with the pre-test era licence holders.

No I mean the people who did not do a test but upgraded to full during amnesty. By what qualification are they full licence holders? The bought the licence as money was the only thing necesary during the amnesty

LDriver

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that those who make the least amount of claims are statistically more dangerous that those who make the most claims?

No I am simply saying thereis no difference between a driver who is driving for years who did not pass a test and someone who bought a licence during the amnesty. My point is not about stats but simply that the amnesty drivers are not full licence holders by the standard required of LDrivers today - in that they did not pass a test

Wishbone Ash

LDriver wrote: »

No I mean the people who did not do a test but upgraded to full during amnesty

The people driving prior to 1964 didn't do a test either.

LDriver wrote:

The bought the licence as money was the only thing necesary during the amnesty

Are you familiar with the amnesty - it doesn't appear so!

Wishbone Ash

LDriver wrote: »

My point is not about stats but simply that the amnesty drivers are not full licence holders by the standard required of LDrivers today - in that they did not pass a test

Neither did the pre 1964 motorists! Why are you continually referring to the amnesty. Many more people obtained their licence pre 1964 than during the amnesty.

gaeilgegrinds

Without a doubt easier. Know nobody who has failed recently & some are appalling drivers. Doing the rest of us an injustice.

bigpinkelephant

This is all music to my ears, I have my test with SGS on the 26th... I better pass!!! I have had 4 extra lessons so far and am due 2 more and a pre-test on the day!!!

LDriver

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Why are you continually referring to the amnesty.

Because I am fed up of so called full licence holders some of whom are only full licence in name, including the pre 1964 one com plain about how 'they' when they pass their easier test they will not be 'real' full licence drivers and are not as good as them or as safe on the road as them

You are right i do not know much about amnesty only that the people who got their licences then are not full licence holders by definition of the test which they use to compare other road users with them. ditto pre 1964 drivers

The only test forthem was if they had money for the licence so they have no right to complain about LDrivers.

bonkey

LDriver wrote: »

Because I am fed up of so called full licence holders some of whom are only full licence in name, including the pre 1964 one com plain about how 'they' when they pass their easier test they will not be 'real' full licence drivers and are not as good as them or as safe on the road as them

Funny you should mention that.

I tend to find that there are far more learners complaining about people who obtained a full license without doing a test then there are in the opposite direction.....and that not one of them is willing to accept that the statistics show that those people who hold a full license [i[today[/i] who did not sit a test are statistically safer drivers today then some newly-qualified or unqualified learner.

You are right i do not know much about amnesty only that the people who got their licences then are not full licence holders by definition of the test

A full licence holder, by definition is someone who holds a full licence. Any other meaning is one of your own creation.

The only test forthem was if they had money for the licence

#
You've said thismultiple times already, and WA has already politely suggested that you're wrong, but you haven't taken the hint.

Let me put it more bluntly: You're wrong. Money was not the only test for them.

You've admitted to not knowing much about it, so I would suggest that you go and learn about it and then at least you can express your outrage in terms that are factually accurate.

so they have no right to complain about LDrivers.

What about those of us who passed driving tests? Can we complain about you? Do you stop and ask everyone who complains but who is young enough to have gotten their licence post-'64 whether or not they got it under amnesty?

Stark

The number of "amnesty drivers" on the road is utterly insignificant when compared to the total number of drivers on the road. Insignificant in the "who gives a flying toss" sense unless you're a driver who's grasping for an argument as to why they too should be allowed drive without a test.

Wishbone Ash

Stark wrote: »

The number of "amnesty drivers" on the road is utterly insignificant when compared to the total number of drivers on the road. Insignificant in the "who gives a flying toss" sense unless you're a driver who's grasping for an argument as to why they too should be allowed drive without a test.

I'd estimate that it is less than 1%.

There is a perception out there, usually among L-Drivers, that half the country got their licences in the 'amnesty'.

Now, a few facts about the amnesty if I can recall them. I'm taking this from memory so I hope all the facts are correct!



1. In the late 1970s the waiting lists for Category C tests (now Category were horrendous and up to 2 years in some centres. To put that into perspective, there were a lot less cars and drivers around then than now.

2. On the 13th(?) of October 1979 (shortly after the Pope's visit) the Minister of Transport of the day, Sylvester Barrett TD anounced that, in an effort to shorten the waiting lists, he would grant a full licence to certain drivers who met certain conditions.

3. The conditions were that the person had to be on a 2nd provisional in Category C (Category B now) and had to have had applied for a driving test on a specific date ending some time the previous March.

4. 32,085 persons were granted a Full Licence.

5. No notice was given about the amnesty, therefore the people who had benefitted had to have applied for a test and therefore were seen to be making an effort.

6. It only applied to those on their 2nd provisional who were entitled to drive unaccompanied.

7. It did not apply to those on their 1st, 3rd or subsequent licence regardless of whether they had applied for a test or not.

8. It did not apply to any other category of vehicle.

9. The people who benefitted from the amnesty did not ask for it. It's unfair to critise them purely on the basis of how they obtained their licence.. I'm sure if any L Drivers out there now were offered an amnesty, they wouldn't refuse it.

It's also unfair to critise the pre-1964 drivers purely on the basis of how the obtained their licence. It's not their fault that there was no testing system in place.

10. Under EU regulations AFAIK, it can never happen again!

bigpinkelephant

I still can't see how it is legal for someone on their 2nd provisional to drive unaccompanied (I know the law is changing soon).

I mean say you're on your first provisional, not allowed to drive unaccompanied. You sit your test and fail it => you can now apply for your second provisional and are allowed to drive on your own?!?!?!

Wishbone Ash

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

I still can't see how it is legal for someone on their 2nd provisional to drive unaccompanied (I know the law is changing soon).

I mean say you're on your first provisional, not allowed to drive unaccompanied. You sit your test and fail it => you can now apply for your second provisional and are allowed to drive on your own?!?!?!

Many people refer to that as a 'loophole'. It is not a 'loophole'. It was deliberately introduced as a concession to encourage people to apply for a driving test before or during their 2nd Provisional Licence. If they chose to ignore this concession they would be obliged to be accompanied from the 3rd Provisional Licence onwards.

People on a 2nd Provisional Licence/Learner Permit may legally drive unaccompanied for the next 7 weeks or so, after that, they would be legally required to be accompanied.

Chakar

A few people I know have driven themselves out and about on a first provisional licence on their own recently. It was undoubtedly foolish of them to do so as there would have been consequences if they were caught or had a crash. But here's the thing I don't get, they justify it with the mentality that 'everyone does it'. It really grinds my gears.

Anyway I will be sitting my test soon enough hopefully. With my preparation and driving skills hopefully I will be deemed to be a competent driver.

daveharnett

joey54 wrote: »

For example, over the last 3 weeks I know 5 people who have sat their driving test in the Baldoyle and Ballymun SGS centres and passed.
I would only deem one of these drivers safe on the road.
The others fail to use their mirrors, indicate and most of all take huge risks in the car.
I.e. they have very poor judgement and regularly pull out in front of other cars causing other drivers to brake suddenly.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that these private test centres need to be monitored more closely to ensure that the standard of safety on our roads is not compromised for the sake of clearing the back log of tests.

Just to point out that candidates are naturally on their best behaviour for tests. Your aquaintances may simply have performed like model drivers for thirty minutes. The testers can't really evaluate a person's normal driving habits.

Foj2007

Oh god...i just cant stand smug full licence holders!!!! I have my full licence, drove for 3 years did did lessons and pre-tests, did my test (twice) and passed. I was so nervous going in to do it, thought i was going to faint behind the wheel, but i got through it and was delighted with myself.

ztoical

interesting pieces about proposed changes to the UK system.

Have to say the the part I found most interesting was this:

The Department for Transport says the average learner takes around 52 lessons costing approximately £21 - up to £28 in London, leaving new drivers with a bill of between £1,000 and £1,500.

Nightwish

In the UK they cannot drive unaccompanied before taking the test, so most have all their pre-test driving experience in driving school cars.

I must admit I have spent approx €1200 on lessons while learning to drive. Money well spent in order to become a safe driver IMHO.