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

driving test fail, you won't believe this....

Options
  • 04-06-2008 11:33pm
    #1
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,776 ✭✭✭✭


    ..well actually he didn't fail.

    I heard this evening that a relation of mine (distant, tenuous..), 'failed' his test today, and the reason cited - and the tester wrote this down:

    "you did not meet the requirements of para 10L - smell of tobacco smoke in car and v.strong smell of airfreshener"..

    He was stunned. Tester got straight back out of the car, and wouldn't proceed.

    So, to clarify, later, he looked up the aforementioned Act and it states the car must be smoke-free. It was. It was a car belonging to a registered driving school, and was hired for the morning, for the test. The young lad to do the test, 18, is gutted, and now faces months of a wait for a new test. Obviously, at some time, the car has been smoked in - but that's a different thing entirely - there was no smoke in the car -the young lad doesn't smoke in the first place.

    If this rule is to stick, you'll have to ban a huge no of secondhand cars from doing driving tests - does this mean that only the drivers of NEW vehicles (and guaranteed never-to-have-been-smoked-in...:rolleyes:) can do their driving tests?

    Failing that, the Dept can provide the 'smoke free' cars for the test f.o.c.

    I've told his parent's to lodge a formal complaint to the Dept and RSA..... I don't know if it was a Dept tester, or a private one, but either way he should be docked pay, the young lad should be re-imbursed by them for the day off work and the hire of the car, and given priority for a re-test a.s.a.p.

    Un****ingbelieveable - pardon my French. This smacks of a revenue generating scam and I hope his parents take them to the cleaners over it. Remember those 'rumours' about targets for pass/fail?? Is this another little scam to earn a few bob?

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    sampeters666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭sampeters666


    True some excuses are just weird and testers will fail people for no good reasons. However Test Centers are very professional outfits these days.Can not just let anyone out on the road. Too dangerous nowadays.
    The whole idea is to put Professional Drivers who are carefull and considerate out on the road. Saves lives in the long run.
    I've seen soo many god awful drivers over the years.


  • Options
    #3
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    I would have thought the driving school is responsible for this?


  • Options
    #4
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users Posts: 7,498 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    thats insane. what in gods name has the smell of a car got to do with a persons ability to drive.

    its worse than failing an NCT because an electric window does not work. like whats the ability to move a window up and down got to do with the road worthiness of a car


  • Options
    #5
    L-M
    Registered Users Posts: 23,694 ✭✭✭✭L-M


    That's a disgrace. Let us know how he gets on with the complaint.


  • Options
    #6
    Creamy Goodness
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Creamy Goodness


    sampeters666 wrote: »
    However Test Centers are very professional outfits these days.Can not just let anyone out on the road. Too dangerous nowadays.
    The whole idea is to put Professional Drivers who are carefull and considerate out on the road. Saves lives in the long run.

    yeh so not even testing his driving ability is making sure that he drives away as a professional driver? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    BrokenArrows wrote: »
    thats insane. what in gods name has the smell of a car got to do with a persons ability to drive.
    Absolutely nothing. It has to do with the tester's work environment.


  • Options
    #8
    L-M
    Registered Users Posts: 23,694 ✭✭✭✭L-M


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Absolutely nothing. It has to do with the tester's work environment.

    Nicely put


  • Options
    #9
    cuppa
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭cuppa


    confused did he fail or not.

    oops i get the first line now.


  • Options
    #10
    Victor_M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭Victor_M


    So if you get a new air freshner and he doesn't like the smell of it he can fail you too.

    Wow, that's a new one to me.


  • Options
    #11
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Next time you do a test make sure you don't have beans for breakfast. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,776 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Absolutely nothing. It has to do with the tester's work environment.


    no it doesn't - there was no smoke in the car - there was a smell from a previous user, and an air freshener.

    If scent is now an official excuse to rip off the public for test fees, what next? Slurry smell in rural areas? Smoke as you pass hardstands? Fish smell in the docks?

    Greed, and contempt for the public is what it is - and giving two fingers to the paying public, because they have a state salary and pension, that's what that is.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #13
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    This is really taking 'taking the piss' to a whole new level. I can't believe what I just read.:mad:

    FFS, that rule is so people don't smoke during the test, nothing whatsoever to do with a smell of stale cigarettes.

    Tell your cousin to have bacon and cabbage followed by a feed of guinness topped off with a 'put the andrex in the fridge' curry the night before the next test.
    There'll be no complaining about tobacco smell then:D


  • Options
    #14
    junkyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭junkyard


    A few years ago we were laughing at the Swiss with all their airy fairy rules and regulations but it's far worse here now than most of Europe, I for one blame the greens, the whole lot of them should be rounded up with their bikes and sandels and sent to Iceland or somewhere and freeze their a**es off, I'm really sh*t sick of this place lately, all these rules are only making jobs for the boys,:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #15
    DublinDilbert
    Registered Users Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭DublinDilbert


    junkyard wrote: »
    A few years ago we were laughing at the Swiss with all their airy fairy rules and regulations but it's far worse here now than most of Europe, I for one blame the greens, the whole lot of them should be rounded up with their bikes and sandels and sent to Iceland or somewhere and freeze their a**es off, I'm really sh*t sick of this place lately, all these rules are only making jobs for the boys,:rolleyes:

    I think this sort of thing has been going on much longer... didn't they have a 20% absenteeism at one point a few years ago? "cause of the stress of the job"....

    If that happened to me i would not of left the test centre till someone more senior came out and inspected the car... It's a terrible thing to do to the young lad... i'm guessing it wasn't the private test centre, they wouldn't get away with that crap...


  • Options
    #16
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    junkyard wrote: »
    A few years ago we were laughing at the Swiss with all their airy fairy rules and regulations but it's far worse here now than most of Europe, I for one blame the greens, the whole lot of them should be rounded up with their bikes and sandels and sent to Iceland or somewhere and freeze their a**es off, I'm really sh*t sick of this place lately, all these rules are only making jobs for the boys,:rolleyes:
    And if you vote YES to Lisbon you will only be giving into more of this metric euro bu*ls**t. My advice is for the OP is to get straight on to the tabloids about this, they would thrive on it and would possibly name and shame the test centre and tester.


  • Options
    #17
    junkyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭junkyard


    If this place was France they'd be out on the streets years ago, no-one else would put up with this crap tbh.


  • Options
    #18
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    junkyard wrote: »
    If this place was France they'd be out on the streets years ago, no-one else would put up with this crap tbh.
    The French get millitant and will do damage.


  • Options
    #19
    D_murph
    Registered Users Posts: 773 ✭✭✭D_murph


    Limerick-man wrote: »
    That's a disgrace. Let us know how he gets on with the complaint.

    X2^ a complete and utter disgrace :mad:. all he had to do if the "smell" was bothering him was roll down a window FFS :rolleyes:.

    not a great inconvenience compared to that of the lad in question having to reapply and wait for another test.

    i reckon that he should not have to pay the driving school at all for this and instead to refer them to the testing centre instead and let them have a go at this insufferable clown as well for wasting all his and their time and money :mad:.


  • Options
    #20
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    I think we're all agreed that the young fella was wronged. I'm just not so sure that it was by the tester as opposed to the school who hired him the car.


  • Options
    #21
    Johnny Utah
    Registered Users Posts: 2,157 ✭✭✭Johnny Utah


    Anan1 wrote: »
    I think we're all agreed that the young fella was wronged. I'm just not so sure that it was by the tester as opposed to the school who hired him the car.



    +1; It's not too professional to have a driving school car reeking of tobacco.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,990 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Anan1 wrote: »
    I think we're all agreed that the young fella was wronged. I'm just not so sure that it was by the tester as opposed to the school who hired him the car.

    +1

    True this has nothing to do with the tester and it's all about the school providing an unsuitable vehicle.

    OP, it's up to the school to re-apply, or at least pay, for the test and supply a suitable vehicle free. They have contacts and can get a test quicker then Joe Public, if they are a legit school.

    When I was doing artic lessons a person was failed for a bald tyre in a school car, I asked had they to wait 12mths for a retest and was told no.


  • Options
    #23
    Alanstrainor
    Registered Users Posts: 23,157 ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    Nothing to do with the examiner (quoted from the RSA documentation supplied with the date of your test.)
    l) As vehicles presented for a driving test are regarded as an enclosed workspace, all vehicles must
    be smoke free in accordance with the Public Health (Tobacco) Act, 2004. As this Act also covers
    environmental tobacco smoke, test candidates are requested to refrain from smoking in the
    vehicle prior to the driving test,

    As has already been said, the driving school is at fault, complain to them.


  • Options
    #24
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Alanstrainor wrote: »
    Nothing to do with the examiner (quoted from the RSA documentation supplied with the date of your test.)


    As has already been said, the driving school is at fault, complain to them.

    From the OP's post, the person wasn't actually smoking in the car - it was only a residual tobacco smell in the car.

    I don't think that particular rule should be grounds for a fail in that case.
    If they had smoked a cigar on the way to the test with the windows closed and there was still some fog in the car then fair enough.

    Full story FTW.


  • Options
    #25
    kmart6
    Registered Users Posts: 15,172 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    galwaytt wrote: »
    no it doesn't - there was no smoke in the car - there was a smell from a previous user, and an air freshener.

    I'm right in thinking you weren't there and it's only the word of your relative this is being based on?!


  • Options
    #26
    Alanstrainor
    Registered Users Posts: 23,157 ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    stevec wrote: »
    From the OP's post, the person wasn't actually smoking in the car - it was only a residual tobacco smell in the car.

    I don't think that particular rule should be grounds for a fail in that case.
    If they had smoked a cigar on the way to the test with the windows closed and there was still some fog in the car then fair enough.

    Full story FTW.

    I disagree, It's at the discretion of the examiner to decide whether or not the car was smoke free or not. If there was a strong smell of tobacco he had every right to assume the car had been smoked in recently. Especially since there was a strong smell of air freshener on top of it. There doesn't have to be a fog of smoke to justify cancelling the test either.
    Now i completely agree that it was an awful situation to be put in, since he had rented the car from a driving school, but the examiner had every right to cancel that test.


  • Options
    #27
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Alanstrainor wrote: »
    I disagree, It's at the discretion of the examiner to decide whether or not the car was smoke free or not. If there was a strong smell of tobacco he had every right to assume the car had been smoked in recently. Especially since there was a strong smell of air freshener on top of it. There doesn't have to be a fog of smoke to justify cancelling the test either.

    OK, I take your point.

    It's possible the instructor had a cig in the car while waiting for the guy to come back with the tester or something.
    Regardless, there shouldn't be any smoking at all in a school car at all as it falls under 'workplace' in the act you quoted.


  • Options
    #28
    Alanstrainor
    Registered Users Posts: 23,157 ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    stevec wrote: »
    OK, I take your point.

    It's possible the instructor had a cig in the car while waiting for the guy to come back with the tester or something.
    Regardless, there shouldn't be any smoking at all in a school car at all as it falls under 'workplace' in the act you quoted.

    Very true i think it's disgraceful that the driving school allowed a car like that to be rented for a test. Very unfortunate and i hope the OP's nephew gets on to the driving school in question.


  • Options
    #29
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Alanstrainor wrote: »
    Very true i think it's disgraceful that the driving school allowed a car like that to be rented for a test. Very unfortunate and i hope the OP's nephew gets on to the driving school in question.
    What about finding a good solicitor and taking up legal action against the driving school in question, i.e. providing a defective car unsuitable for the purpose, wasting you time, trauma, etc. If it was the good old USA you could guarantee It would happen.


  • Options
    #30
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    galwaytt wrote: »
    no it doesn't - there was no smoke in the car - there was a smell from a previous user, and an air freshener.

    If scent is now an official excuse to rip off the public for test fees, what next? Slurry smell in rural areas? Smoke as you pass hardstands? Fish smell in the docks?

    Greed, and contempt for the public is what it is - and giving two fingers to the paying public, because they have a state salary and pension, that's what that is.

    Agreed. If what you have been told by your distant relative is in fact the full truth.

    So:

    Fudged the truth

    or

    Govt conspiracy to keep the waiting list long.

    Hmmmm?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    Del2005 wrote: »
    +1

    True this has nothing to do with the tester and it's all about the school providing an unsuitable vehicle.

    OP, it's up to the school to re-apply, or at least pay, for the test and supply a suitable vehicle free. They have contacts and can get a test quicker then Joe Public, if they are a legit school.

    When I was doing artic lessons a person was failed for a bald tyre in a school car, I asked had they to wait 12mths for a retest and was told no.

    Actually, it's up to the person taking the test to provide a vehicle.


Advertisement