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

Anan1

nipplenuts wrote: »

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

The driving school undertook to hire them a suitable car.

fletch...

The driving test seems like a lottery to me to be honest.
I smoked in my 15 year old bucket of a car, did and passed the test. one thing that nearly blew the test for me was a well hidden stop sign just as you leave the test centre carpark. I was told that many people are instantly failed for missing this stop sign which you would never see a stop sign so hard to see anywhere else in the real world of driving. another girl was refused her test due to dog hairs on her back seat. As I was leaving the test centre the next guy was being asked to change a tyre because of worne threads.

I mean wtf, I understand that the examiner has his rights to suitable working environment but then theres taking advantage. The test is supposd to be to determine if a person is capable of controlling a vehival safely. what an absolute joke :mad:

The test should be updated if you ask me, I mean we are expected to drive like grannys for the test, this is not a true representation of how people actually drive (confirmed by many people I have asked)

sorry about the rant, even tho I passed the test I still think its a load of crap and people are being ripped off.

Is there no watchdog for driving tests?

Del2005

fletch... wrote: »

The driving test seems like a lottery to me to be honest.
I smoked in my 15 year old bucket of a car, did and passed the test. one thing that nearly blew the test for me was a well hidden stop sign just as you leave the test centre carpark. I was told that many people are instantly failed for missing this stop sign which you would never see a stop sign so hard to see anywhere else in the real world of driving. another girl was refused her test due to dog hairs on her back seat. As I was leaving the test centre the next guy was being asked to change a tyre because of worne threads.

Is the tester supposed to clean the crap from peoples cars off their clothes after every test? What if the next person they tested was allergic to animals? Everyone is entitled to a clean safe workplace, I wouldn't like to get into a strangers car covered in dog hairs, even if you say only on back seat, as good knows what else is on the seats.

If a tyre has worn threads, I hope it didn't have threads showing:eek:, then it's unsafe and as I posted earlier the tester can refuse to do the test so that person was lucky to be allowed to change the wheel.

I mean wtf, I understand that the examiner has his rights to suitable working environment but then theres taking advantage. The test is supposd to be to determine if a person is capable of controlling a vehival safely. what an absolute joke :mad:

Part of contolling a vehicle safely is making sure it's in a roadworthy condition, what if the person goes out in a sh!t heap and has an accident? The tester is responsible for the vehicle as they are the fully licenced driver, though I'm sure we'd all have to pay any damages.

The test should be updated if you ask me, I mean we are expected to drive like grannys for the test, this is not a true representation of how people actually drive (confirmed by many people I have asked)

sorry about the rant, even tho I passed the test I still think its a load of crap and people are being ripped off.

Is there no watchdog for driving tests?

Agreed with updating the test. But since most test centres are in urban areas I think it's better to drive like a granny then a boy racer:D

il gatto

It shows a lack of regard and common decency. On the part of the tester, that is. Is this country so far gone that we can justify pedantry of this extreme with regards one's "work environment". It will cost the lad more money to re-apply, more money in insurance and possibly a day off work because the tester was applying the letter of the rules because he could. If anyone is that unbalanced that they wouldn't let down the window for a few minutes and would rather penalise someone instead, I contend that they haven't the capacity to test anyone.
This country has a reputation for being laid back, and as markets itself as such. It sickens me to read about such petty minded individuals. His job entails that he deals with the public. You cannot control everything about your dealings with the public, as any barman, shop assitant, bouncer, mechanic, doctor, Garda etc. will tell you. Demonising cigarettes is one thing. Using a faint smell as a stick to beat misfortunate tax payers is another.
No such thing as doing someone a good turn. People like that are beneath contempt.

Jo King

Hasn't the young lad got a right of appeal to the District Court? What about a complaint to the Ombudsman? Small Claims Court against the Driving School? He has plenty of remedies. He shouldn't just sit on his arse and whinge.

mikemac

fletch... wrote: »

As I was leaving the test centre the next guy was being asked to change a tyre because of worne threads.

In fairness, your car is supposed to be roadworthy so if the tyres are worn then the test cannot go ahead. You sign a document to attest it is roadworthy afaik. That tester gave the guy a chance to fix the problem and you still blast him?

A decent rant fletch but any muppet who shows up to a test with defective tyres and a "it'll be grand" attitude deserves to fail

mikedragon32

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.

My thoughts exactly. If the car belongs to a driving school and is one used for instruction it is a workplace and therefore covered under the ban on smoking in workplaces (even when no work is actually taking place).

No doubt in my mind that it's the driving school who is at fault.

Anan1

il gatto wrote: »

It shows a lack of regard and common decency. On the part of the tester, that is. Is this country so far gone that we can justify pedantry of this extreme with regards one's "work environment". It will cost the lad more money to re-apply, more money in insurance and possibly a day off work because the tester was applying the letter of the rules because he could. If anyone is that unbalanced that they wouldn't let down the window for a few minutes and would rather penalise someone instead, I contend that they haven't the capacity to test anyone.
This country has a reputation for being laid back, and as markets itself as such. It sickens me to read about such petty minded individuals. His job entails that he deals with the public. You cannot control everything about your dealings with the public, as any barman, shop assitant, bouncer, mechanic, doctor, Garda etc. will tell you. Demonising cigarettes is one thing. Using a faint smell as a stick to beat misfortunate tax payers is another.
No such thing as doing someone a good turn. People like that are beneath contempt.

Were you in the car in question?

galwaytt

Obviously, he wasn't in the car, but let's recap.

Yes, and I agree, there should be no smoking in the car. There was no smoking in the car. There was an odour, from someone who smoked in the car, previously - that is not the same thing, and does not come under the Act, imho.

And irrespective, writing down the 'strong scent of air freshener' is a complete joke - that most certainly is not covered under the Act, i.e. that workplaces 'may not scent of Pine/Coconut/Tea Tree oil/whatever'.

I agree the school should be brought to book, and we'll have a go at that, separately.

Consider though: if this tester drinks, or eats out, and goes to a pub or restaurant. Now all of those are smoke-free(thank god), and the law is observed now.
However, they didn't knock down all the pubs and build new ones when they brought in the law. They didn't all go and put in ventilation and a/c to contain smoke - they simply stopped smoking on the premises on day XX, from thenceforth.

Ditto public buildings , I might add, including the offices of the Dept of Environment, Transport and RSA. I don't see staff refusing to work in buildings now, that were previously - at some time unknown - smoked in. The claim wouldn't be legitimate. And if the 'safe work environment' is the excuse, then it should apply to those buildings too, and they should all be torn down.

They can't have it both ways, and the tester was not within his rights to cancel the test, according to the letter of the regulation - i.e. there was no smoke in the car.

In all likelihood, the tester was Dept, not private (I'll try and find out), as no-one who works in the 'Real World' would attempt such a stunt, because their job would be on the line. A manager would not be able to sustain that cancellation on such subjective grounds.

S.I.R

thats worse then the time my dad failed for doing 42 in a 40 zone :rolleyes:


would threaten them with a court action if they didnt remove that silly little faiiure .... could make a nice pretty penny for the heartache they caused...

il gatto

Anan1 wrote: »

Were you in the car in question?

As I'm sure everyone else who read the thread assumed, I was not. Before going on to ask what specific difference that makes to my point, maybe we should recap some science from school. Smoke is a gaseous substance and will therefore disperse quickly, leaving no oily or sticky residue on the interior of said car. As such, opening of a window for the first 2-3 minutes would have eliminated all smoke from the car. If it was just the smell of smoke, rather that the "actual" smoke the tester didn't like, maybe the Department of Transport would consider allowing testers to bugger up other unfortubate applicants tests, due to body odour, bad breath, vanilla air fresheners, washing machine detergent reidual smell on clothes, "FIAT SMELL", "FORD SMELL" "TOYOTA SMELL" etc. ad naseum. It's complete BS and the sort of thing which would lose that tester his job in the real world (private sector).