Driving licence - absolute farce of a system and 83,000 waiting

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm not missing your point, I think it is unnecessary. If the candidate needs a talk through discuss with whom they took lessons from.

The driving instructor can only go over it to an extent, they aren't on the test itself, i've only ever heard of it being done once and that was at the RSA's discretion.

Alanstrainor

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Why? it's assumed the potential driver can read . If they can't get someone to read it for them sorted.

It is something that would be a good idea though. Yes, I think it is a given that any driver can read the tick boxes on a sheet. But it is very hard to know where those faults were incurred, especially if they are grade 2 faults where it mightn't be as obvious as a single grade 3. I think a quick debrief would be a good idea. "Sorry, but today I can't give you a pass, there were a number of faults when turning, one example would be when turning off x road on to y"... would be rather good. But on the other hand I can see why there would be some reluctance. I have heard of some very angry people after being told they've failed, and that is something that is difficult to deal with, and arguing is something no one wants in a job.

Make no mistake the system is not perfect. The test doesn't cover anywhere near enough, the waiting lists are too long (for lots of reasons), and only in recent times have the government began to actually apply the law with regard to learner drivers. Making those with learner permits now bitter about the way things were before. It's not surprising tbh.

EDIT: Just thinking about my one and only test which I passed, my examiner did actually do a bit of a debrief. "Well, you have passed your test but there are some areas that need a bit of work....", of course I don't remember anything about what he said given the excitement but it was a nice thing to say!

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Alanstrainor wrote: »

It is something that would be a good idea though. Yes, I think it is a given that any driver can read the tick boxes on a sheet. But it is very hard to know where those faults were incurred, especially if they are grade 2 faults where it mightn't be as obvious as a single grade 3. I think a quick debrief would be a good idea. "Sorry, but today I can't give you a pass, there were a number of faults when turning, one example would be when turning off x road on to y"... would be rather good. But on the other hand I can see why there would be some reluctance. I have heard of some very angry people after being told they've failed, and that is something that is difficult to deal with, and arguing is something no one wants in a job.

Make no mistake the system is not perfect. The test doesn't cover anywhere near enough, the waiting lists are too long (for lots of reasons), and only in recent times have the government began to actually apply the law with regard to learner drivers. Making those with learner permits now bitter about the way things were before. It's not surprising tbh.

EDIT: Just thinking about my one and only test which I passed, my examiner did actually do a bit of a debrief. "Well, you have passed your test but there are some areas that need a bit of work....", of course I don't remember anything about what he said given the excitement but it was a nice thing to say!

Very valid points you make there.

as mentioned in my earlier post, in my recent test and in 2015 i got feedback from both, i understood what the tester said and knew exactly why it was said, they were both 100% correct.

2 things i have heard of people failing tests for are having the radio turned on or trying to engage in a full blown conversation about the sun the moon and the stars with the tester, or even both. only once ever did i speak to a tester when out on the road, that was to seek clarity on his instruction.

It's a tough job they have.

?Cee?view

On any of the tests I've done, I've always got feedback. Maybe the difference is that I have asked for it?

ayux4rj6zql2ph

?Cee?view wrote: »

On any of the tests I've done, I've always got feedback. Maybe the difference is that I have asked for it?

I never asked for it, rather it was automatically provided, only for the artic and bike, not the other 3, I didn’t ask either on those occasions, I was just delighted to pass.

Crock Rock

Amirani wrote: »

If you drive better in your test then you'll pass it. If you want to ensure you drive better then you should do more lessons and/or practice.

There's no need to insult the OP. I'm sure she's a perfect driver. Everyone makes mistakes when under pressure.

?Cee?view

Crock Rock wrote: »

There's no need to insult the OP. I'm sure she's a perfect driver. Everyone makes mistakes when under pressure.

How was that an insult? It's an absolute statement of fact surely?

Maldesu

gct wrote: »

She had a pretest along the route and the instructor was very happy with her driving.

A route. The tester generally will go to certain places to perform certain maneuvers but doesn't have to stick to a pattern.

She was out at least 40 minutes while others were out 20 minutes

RSA website states that the test can take from 30-40 mins. My own test was about 30 mins. Traffic is also a consideration. 40 minutes doesn't show the test was unfair, only that the test did the job within the expected time. Going a different route to the one she practiced isn't unfair. The point of the test is to see if someone can handle themselves on the road. If you daughter can't adjust to a change of route during the test, she isn't ready for to be on the road alone.

professore

Hoboo wrote: »

I'm not sensing much urgency to learn/practice when you're dishing out free insurance every year at 3k a pop but thats up to you. I appreciate its much harder having to be present all the time to practice, but 3 years is an awful long time. You're getting a report from a qualified instructor after each test, and taking the word of an unqualified driver as to how they think the test went......4 times, same result, something's amiss.

She only did 2 actual tests. Others were non test.

Basic reading comprehension is a problem for many replying here.

Test reports are vague to say the least. If it was stuff like check your blind spot but it's all vague stuff like not fast enough here or slightly too slow there. Driving instructors all say she is an excellent driver.

She has done hundreds of hours driving along with at least 20 lessons. There is nothing wrong with her driving. The guy who vaguely failed her said she was a good driver... Apply again and you'll pass. That was a Saturday so he probably had his quota for the week.

So tell me, how do you appeal a non test? This last one was an utter farce. The best you can get is a free test by going to court. How is that putting safety first?

The reality is having a driving licence is every bit as important as having education for the jobs market.

Plumbthedepths

professore wrote:

She has done hundreds of hours driving along with at least 20 lessons. There is nothing wrong with her driving. .

Clearly there is if she is incapable of passing the test.

professore

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Clearly there is if she is incapable of passing the test.

Well would be nice if she was told stuff she could actually improve on and not subjective crap. The standard of testing here is extremely poor compared to what I experienced in Belgium. You got clear feedback on what you did wrong and how to improve. Not the vague stuff she got.

Plumbthedepths

professore wrote:

Well would be nice if she was told stuff she could actually improve on and not subjective crap.

Isn't it amazing though how it's always someone else's fault in this country when a person is incapable of doing something?

professore

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Isn't it amazing though how it's always someone else's fault in this country when a person is incapable of doing something?

Isn't it amazing though how low standards and corruption in the public sector are the norm in this country?

Plumbthedepths

professore wrote:

Isn't it amazing though how low standards and corruption in the public sector are the norm in this country?

As I said always someone else's fault. The only low standards I see displayed here are the driving standards when tested.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

professore wrote: »

Isn't it amazing though how low standards and corruption in the public sector are the norm in this country?

It ain't just in this country, it's widespread, corruption is dealt with differently in each country, that is a different subject.

Your suggestion that the testers are corrupt is utter garbage.

professore

Natalie Aggressive Dirt wrote: »

Your suggestion that the testers are corrupt is utter garbage.

Never said that. Was replying to the other poster who was replying off topic to me.

Plumbthedepths

professore wrote:

Never said that. Was replying to the other poster who was replying off topic to me.

Driving testers are employed by the state in the public sector, you have claimed it has low standards and is corrupt. Btw I have not gone off topic, surely you understand the principal of discussion.

professore

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Driving testers are employed by the state in the public sector, you have claimed it has low standards and is corrupt. Btw I have not gone off topic, surely you understand the principal of discussion.

You started talking about people in this country blaming others for their problems. That's off topic. And sure yes the public sector has low standards and is corrupt. There is huge evidence of that everywhere. Hardly controversial.

And its principle not principal.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

professore wrote: »

Never said that. Was replying to the other poster who was replying off topic to me.

What I find galling is that I and my daughter are the last people in the world to blame others for our own problems. She failed fair and square the first time and had no problem with that. The second time she and I were truly baffled that she failed. The third time the brake light blew just before the test. Again no problem, just ****ty luck.

The last time, a pathetic excuse about the door handle being too stiff when my 83 year old mum can open it and a fresh NCT on it and also oil on the engine bay when there wasn't a drop of oil on it... He just wasn't bothered doing the test. And theres nothing that can be done except wait another 4 months and try again.

If anyone thinks this is an efficient system then they are delusional.

I wasn't there so i can't say much and can only go on what you say.

Stiff door, as in to open/close or the door handle was the problem? my definition of stiff would be needing 3in1 oil or wd40 to sort it.

When was the nct done and how far apart was it from the test? all an nct states is the car was fine on the occasion it was tested, it isn't a 1 or 2 year guarantee.

You can appeal to the district court, the judge can award another test, if the test doesn't take place for any particular reason then that must be justified, i note you said in an earlier post you are in Cork. If it is the city then you must be referring to Wilton test centre as cars are not tested in Ballincollig.

Only other test centres in Cork i am aware of are Mallow & Skibbereen.

professore

Natalie Aggressive Dirt wrote: »

I wasn't there so i can't say much and can only go on what you say.

Stiff door, as in to open/close or the door handle was the problem? my definition of stiff would be needing 3in1 oil or wd40 to sort it.

When was the nct done and how far apart was it from the test? all an nct states is the car was fine on the occasion it was tested, it isn't a 1 or 2 year guarantee.

You can appeal to the district court, the judge can award another test, if the test doesn't take place for any particular reason then that must be justified, i note you said in an earlier post you are in Cork. If it is the city then you must be referring to Wilton test centre as cars are not tested in Ballincollig.

Only other test centres in Cork i am aware of are Mallow & Skibbereen.

NCT was 2 weeks ago. Door handle was fixed with a spray of oil afterwards but it really was only slightly stiff... Its been like that for years already. I had noticed it but I didn't bother oiling it because it just wasn't an issue. Seems the NCT and the other 3 testers agreed.

Most bizarre was the statement that there was oil all over the engine bay. You can see there isn't.

This test wasn't done in Cork due to the excessive waiting list. I'd rather not say where as it would be too easy to narrow it down. The tester just seemed to be in a foul mood from the get go.

Really what is the point in going to court when the most you will get is a free test? Will cost far more to appeal.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

professore wrote: »

NCT was 2 weeks ago. Door handle was fixed with a spray of oil afterwards but it really was only slightly stiff... Its been like that for years already. I had noticed it but I didn't bother oiling it because it just wasn't an issue. Seems the NCT and the other 3 testers agreed.

Most bizarre was the statement that there was oil all over the engine bay. You can see there isn't.

This test wasn't done in Cork due to the excessive waiting list. I'd rather not say where as it would be too easy to narrow it down. The tester just seemed to be in a foul mood from the get go.

Really what is the point in going to court when the most you will get is a free test? Will cost far more to appeal.

Is that a 1.6 diesel Ford Focus engine?

Plumbthedepths

professore wrote:

You started talking about people in this country blaming others for their problems. That's off topic. And sure yes the public sector has low standards and is corrupt. There is huge evidence of that everywhere. Hardly controversial.

You daughter failed her exam several times, yet it is the fault someone else, see the connection to my comment?

Plumbthedepths

professore wrote:

And its principle not principal.

If you wish to be pedantic it's also improper to start a sentence with 'And'. Now that's off topic.

Galbin

There are so many issues with our testing system. I would agree that the feedback system is terrible. It should be way more specific.

Plus it absolutely should be filmed. In my test, the tester kept waiting till the last minute to give me directions. I was then failed for not being "smooth enough." Hard to be smooth when you are given 10 seconds to make a dramatic right turn. That happened many times. If it had been filmed it would have been clear that he was not giving me the 1 minute advance notice you are supposed to give.

The waiting times are impossible too. In the UK you get a repeat test within two weeks, so failing is not as big a deal. Whereas here you might only get two chances a year. So if you fail three or four times (as seems to be the norm in my area) it could take you 1.5 years to sit all those tests.

I notice also that the people most in favour of the Clancy amendment are those who learned to drive at a time when you were allowed to drive on your own. Funny that...

Plumbthedepths

Galbin wrote:

I notice also that the people most in favour of the Clancy amendment are those who learned to drive at a time when you were allowed to drive on your own. Funny that...

Funny at one stage you were allowed to have four pints and drive home. It has been the law for many years that you could not drive unaccompanied now the law is being enforced as it should always have been.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Filming a driving test? Good luck to that proposal. GDPR will put an end to it.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

professore wrote: »

Really what is the point in going to court when the most you will get is a free test? Will cost far more to appeal.

Lodging an appeal due a civil matter is about €25, you don’t need a solicitor for it although it would be a disadvantage to not have one.

That’s not to say that you wouldn’t get a favorable outcome representing yourself. It has happened.

professore

Natalie Aggressive Dirt wrote: »

Lodging an appeal due a civil matter is about €25, you don’t need a solicitor for it although it would be a disadvantage to not have one.

That’s not to say that you wouldn’t get a favorable outcome representing yourself. It has happened.

Thanks for the advice.

daheff

Galbin wrote: »

Hard to be smooth when you are given 10 seconds to make a dramatic right turn. That happened many times. If it had been filmed it would have been clear that he was not giving me the 1 minute advance notice you are supposed to give

So you think you are going to get a minutes notice of an accident occurring? Be glad if you get 2 seconds warning....not 10...or a minute

You need to be able to react to situations as they happen. You won’t get notice

Dravokivich

Natalie Aggressive Dirt wrote: »

Filming a driving test? Good luck to that proposal. GDPR will put an end to it.

Any form of recording the test hasn't been permitted before GDPR was a twinkle in many an IT security officers eye!

Dravokivich

Galbin wrote: »

There are so many issues with our testing system. I would agree that the feedback system is terrible. It should be way more specific.

Plus it absolutely should be filmed. In my test, the tester kept waiting till the last minute to give me directions. I was then failed for not being "smooth enough." Hard to be smooth when you are given 10 seconds to make a dramatic right turn. That happened many times. If it had been filmed it would have been clear that he was not giving me the 1 minute advance notice you are supposed to give.

The waiting times are impossible too. In the UK you get a repeat test within two weeks, so failing is not as big a deal. Whereas here you might only get two chances a year. So if you fail three or four times (as seems to be the norm in my area) it could take you 1.5 years to sit all those tests.

I notice also that the people most in favour of the Clancy amendment are those who learned to drive at a time when you were allowed to drive on your own. Funny that...

If someone else was giving you directions, you'd expect plenty of time for them. The examiner should be no different. If not enough time, tell them to give more notice. You also don't really have to follow their direction. You can question it and proceed past that turn.

professore

Should be filmed for instructive purposes with timestamps on the report so you can see where you made mistakes as a driver. Now that would be a great system.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

professore wrote: »

Should be filmed for instructive purposes with timestamps on the report so you can see where you made mistakes as a driver. Now that would be a great system.

Not sure how this was allowed even though it was on a bike, but anyway.................

Galbin

daheff wrote: »

So you think you are going to get a minutes notice of an accident occurring? Be glad if you get 2 seconds warning....not 10...or a minute

You need to be able to react to situations as they happen. You won’t get notice

I wasn't avoiding hazards. And when you are doing the test they are indeed meant to give you 1 minute's warning so that you have time to do MSM. In real life, people do indeed do things like go past turns if the person giving them directions gives them at the very last moment. It's not rocket science and my test did violate their very own rule. Sadly, I did not know this at the time.

Galbin

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Funny at one stage you were allowed to have four pints and drive home. It has been the law for many years that you could not drive unaccompanied now the law is being enforced as it should always have been.

Drink driving has been proven to reduce reaction times, control of a car etc. OTOH, leaner drivers were only involved in 5% of accidents according to most recent stats. Most learners are actually way more careful than your average driver. Plus, most learners don't drive unaccompanied until they reach a certain stage. When I first learned no way would I have driven alone as I would have panicked and stalled or whatever. If it were not against the law now though I definitely would drive alone as I actually know how to drive now.

Plumbthedepths

Galbin wrote:

Drink driving has been proven to reduce reaction times, control of a car etc. OTOH, leaner drivers were only involved in 5% of accidents according to most recent stats. Most learners are actually way more careful than your average driver. Plus, most learners don't drive unaccompanied until they reach a certain stage. When I first learned no way would I have driven alone as I would have panicked and stalled or whatever. If it were not against the law now though I definitely would drive alone as I actually know how to drive now.

My point was laws change, people have to adapt no amount of whinging will change the law now as it stands. Tbh enforcement of the existing law was long overdue to bring us in line with the rest of Europe.

Galbin

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

My point was laws change, people have to adapt no amount of whinging will change the law now as it stands. Tbh enforcement of the existing law was long overdue to bring us in line with the rest of Europe.

Why should we be in line with the rest of Europe? The roads and traffic systems are unique to each country.

Plumbthedepths

Galbin wrote:

Why should we be in line with the rest of Europe? The roads and traffic systems are unique to each country.

Do you think the NCT was an Irish idea or a directive from Europe for example. As I said the law now that is being enforced is what applies and any amount of whinging cries about corruption changes nothing.

Amirani

Galbin wrote: »

I wasn't avoiding hazards. And when you are doing the test they are indeed meant to give you 1 minute's warning so that you have time to do MSM.

I'm not sure where you're getting this 1 minute warning thing from. You're not supposed to be given 1 minute warning at all, that's in no way practicable or realistic.

Charles Babbage

Galbin wrote: »

Plus, most learners don't drive unaccompanied until they reach a certain stage..

"Most" is not all. And should they be the judge of that stage, given that they have least experience in driving? Society has decided that the stage at which people drive unaccompanied is after they pass a test.



People wil be driving for 60+ years, waiting a couple of months to start will be neither here nor there if it ensures that they are likely to have reached a proper standard.

Eggs For Dinner

We have an appalling attitude to driving legislation in this country. If it doesn't suit us personally, we ignore it and this is fuelled by poor detection rates.

Wishbone Ash

Natalie Aggressive Dirt wrote: »

Not sure how this was allowed even though it was on a bike, but anyway.................

I'd say the examiner didn't know/didn't care or the candidate just said the camera wasn't running. Pretty competent riding all the same. I did it under the old system. They were just introducing the ear pieces and I was informed that I'd be one of the pilot tests but they abandoned it on the day as it was a complete disaster with the few other guinea pigs before me. So I ended up just doing the old system. They must have improved it since then.

(Looks like that examiner had an inspector with him also).

MascotDec85

Galbin wrote: »

I wasn't avoiding hazards. And when you are doing the test they are indeed meant to give you 1 minute's warning so that you have time to do MSM. In real life, people do indeed do things like go past turns if the person giving them directions gives them at the very last moment. It's not rocket science and my test did violate their very own rule. Sadly, I did not know this at the time.

Where are you getting this 1 minute notice from? It is absolutely not the case

daheff

Galbin wrote: »

I wasn't avoiding hazards. And when you are doing the test they are indeed meant to give you 1 minute's warning so that you have time to do MSM. In real life, people do indeed do things like go past turns if the person giving them directions gives them at the very last moment. It's not rocket science and my test did violate their very own rule. Sadly, I did not know this at the time.

Can you point out a reliable reference that confirms your 1 min notice rule?

The whole point of the test is to show you are a competent driver and can react safely to situations as they arise.

J_R

Galbin wrote: »

I wasn't avoiding hazards. And when you are doing the test they are indeed meant to give you 1 minute's warning so that you have time to do MSM. In real life, people do indeed do things like go past turns if the person giving them directions gives them at the very last moment. It's not rocket science and my test did violate their very own rule. Sadly, I did not know this at the time.

daheff wrote: »

Can you point out a reliable reference that confirms your 1 min notice rule?

The whole point of the test is to show you are a competent driver and can react safely to situations as they arise.

+1

Hi,

Just because you are doing a driving test is no reason to suspend all common-sense.
So for example, if the examiner gives an order that would be unsafe or dangerous to execute, you just ignore. You could add a simple reason, sorry, too late.

Pupil of mine then asked, "what do you want me to do now" Examiner "You have left us no option, continue on ". she got no marks.

Also re, 1 min warning, travelling at 50 Kmh the tester would have to give you directions 833 meters back from the junction - 25 Kmh 400 odd meters.

Galbin

Amirani wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting this 1 minute warning thing from. You're not supposed to be given 1 minute warning at all, that's in no way practicable or realistic.

Two separate instructors told me about the one minute warning. And yes it is realistic. Whenever I am a passenger giving directions I give them well in advance. I don't wait until we are just at the turn.

J_R

Galbin wrote: »

Two separate instructors told me about the one minute warning. And yes it is realistic. Whenever I am a passenger giving directions I give them well in advance. I don't wait until we are just at the turn.

Hi,

Sorry, but both instructors are definitely wrong. There is no such rule. It would be impossible, impractical to implement. For example the examiners would have to give directions such as "I want you to take the fifth turn on the left".

If an examiner gives a late direction the applicant need only ignore and then complain that they were not given sufficient time to safely complete the manoeuvre. Highly unlikely it would happen again.

I used to tell my pupils to ignore, then afterwards say something like "New on the job are you ???.

The instructors are wrong about this, strong possibility that they will also be wrong about other stuff as well.

Wishbone Ash

Galbin wrote: »

Two separate instructors told me about the one minute warning. And yes it is realistic.....

Absolute nonsense and totally impractical and confusing. If a route had multiple junctions very close together, the examiner would have to give several instructions in advance. I've done the tests for all categories of vehicles using several different schools/instructors and I've never heard of a one minute rule.

(The only time instruction were given long in advance was under the old motorcycle test system but that was pre ear-pieces and the examiner had no choice but to give all directions in advance).

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Absolute nonsense and totally impractical and confusing. If a route had multiple junctions very close together, the examiner would have to give several instructions in advance. I've done the tests for all categories of vehicles using several different schools/instructors and I've never heard of a one minute rule.

(The only time instruction were given long in advance was under the old motorcycle test system but that was pre ear-pieces and the examiner had no choice but to give all directions in advance).

+1 on the above. Done the same myself.

Amirani

Galbin wrote: »

Two separate instructors told me about the one minute warning. And yes it is realistic. Whenever I am a passenger giving directions I give them well in advance. I don't wait until we are just at the turn.

Well either they're wrong, you misheard them or you're taking their "a minute before" too literally.