Driving test

cormie

Thanks:) Here's to safer roads and safer driving!

Niamhie

Can you explain the techinal checks that I will have to perform on my car( steering, tyres, ventilation). I'm taking my test next week & am I bit unsure.

Saruman

I passed my test first time when i was 19. No trick to it other than for the month before hand i put myself in a test mindset and drove exactly how the tester wants me to so when it came to the test i was driving normally for me but how he wanted.. Simple enough. Once done i was back to one hand driving etc etc.. which i think is safer than the 2 hand crap you are supposed to do. It simply takes too long to turn the wheel in an emergency and you might panic.

Anyway that aside the bit about young drivers im not sure about. Im sure i heard that Young male drivers are actually SAFER than older more mature drivers for the simple reason that with the exception of boy racers, they drive carefully scared out of their brains that if they are in an accident their insurance jumps from a mere 3000 to something line 10,000 and they cant afford it. Boy racers are a tiny minority.

murphaph

dublinguy2004 wrote:

Point is, I'm legally complient and that's all that matters to me.

Are you though? Do you drive accompanied at all times because you said you've been driving for 6 years, that would put you on your third provisional at least, unless you haven't been driving continuously for those six years?

On your original post-It didn't come across as a rant to me. I understand your frustrations at the ridiculous wait for a test. The 'system' is a joke that isn't funny.

Newfie Bullet

While some driver training, combined with lots of practice and a healthy dose of calm can get you pretty far, in the end the system itself puts your chances at 50/50 *at best*

By international and European standards our test is very subjective, open to interpretation by the tester. Now this is usually normal, given that people (testers are people I hear) are subjective by their very nature. But the Irish system tilts that in a very particular way. Since EU standards for driver testing were implemented only after significant prodding, they were done in a very half-assed manner.

The standards for evaluation are vague and while you will get a certain amount of of "blue" marks which can accumulate in a failure, the explanation you get for such a failure is almost like "story time". Its not so much the tester's fault - the standards and guidelines they have to work with are so poor that they are left to rely on their own experience, which was basically the structure of the old testing system as well. The 'new' system is basically the old system, with an attempt to dress it up and make it respectable.

There is a tendency in the testing centres to make things up as they go along. Let me give you an example from my own experience. For my first test just three years ago I booked, called ahead and made sure that everything was in order - after all I'd waited several months. I showed up in my own rented car for the occasion (I'd cleared this beforehand).

I have had a full Canadian license since I was 17, and can rent on it in any country, insurance and all. The tester would not proceed with the test as he believed I was not insured on the car!

I produced all the documents and insurance certs, and was informed that I could not take the test since I was not insured on the provisional (which I had) on that car. I argued that I was insured on a FULL, recognised license on the car, and could drive it anywhere I chose, with anyone along with me. He insisted that the only license that counted was the provisional and that the car would have to be insured on that - a catch 22, since a young foreign man with a provisional was not *ever* going to get insured in 2002 - Insurance companies would not quote me on any license, regardless of the law.

Long story slightly longer, the point is that when you get a notification of a driver's test now, you'll notice that it states that a rented car is not acceptable. That’s directly due to me.

So what’s the point?

Well when attempting to book or take your test: 1. Never volunteer information. If I'd kept my mouth shut, our surreal debate over insurance particulars would never have come up. 2: Realise that the system is profoundly ad-hoc. When told I would have to wait a year for another test I got into the habit of calling once a day to check for cancellations. The trick to this is to be *very* polite. Not brief, but polite. By conveying this story as a prelude to my request, I'd take ten minutes. Since I was polite and sincere, with no trace of anger, they couldn't very well get angry in return. After about two weeks of this, I was on a first name basis with a good few of the staff - one of them went around, quizzed the other staffers on cancellations for the day and came back to me and said "2 weeks from today okay?".

If the driver testing system were well staffed, efficient and in adherence to European standards, you wouldn't have to do any of this. But it isn't, and it's not, so you do.

Bottom line, be politely persistent. Enough people pushing hard enough for long enough will eventually result in change. We should be much angrier than we are at the state of things.

murphaph

Newfie Bullet wrote:

Bottom line, be politely persistent. Enough people pushing hard enough for long enough will eventually result in change. We should be much angrier than we are at the state of things.

Interesting post. You should have kept your trap shut and you would have been tested none-the-wiser to the tester. As for people being angry, well a lot of people (it's estimated at well over 200,000) simply drive without insurance. Such inconveniences as driving tests will not bother these sort of people. The system is being reshaped to resemble the UK Driver testing service. See here (1.3MB file there-not suitable for dialup). They're still using an antiquated VAX to host the driving test database.

Running Bing

murphaph wrote:

Are you though? Do you drive accompanied at all times because you said you've been driving for 6 years

some people seem to be confused by this. Once your on your second provisional (which you get after two years on your first prov.) you no longer have to be accompanied by a licensed driver.

murphaph

Babybing wrote:

some people seem to be confused by this. Once your on your second provisional (which you get after two years on your first prov.) you no longer have to be accompanied by a licensed driver.

You're the confused one. Your 3rd and all subsequent provo licences require you to be accompanied (except in category M, A1, A and W). Only your 2nd provo licence allows unaccompanied driving in category B only.

Edit: Here it is from the Department of Transport's Driving Licence FAQ;

Q. I have held four provisional category B licences. Do I need to be accompanied?

A. Yes, you must be accompanied by a qualified driver at all times. It is only on a second provisional in category B that you do not have to be accompanied. If you do not pass the driving test during the validity of your second provisional you revert to being accompanied on all subsequent provisional licences.

causal

Newfie Bullet wrote:

While some driver training, combined with lots of practice and a healthy dose of calm can get you pretty far, in the end the system itself puts your chances at 50/50 *at best*

That's not true.
The test is not designed to have a 50% pass rate / 50% fail rate.

The fact that typically 50% pass / 50% fail is down to the proper / improper preparation respectively of the people who present for the test; perhaps with a tiny bit of good luck / bad luck thrown in either way.

If you fail to prepare - your prepare to fail.

causal

is_that_so

I am one of the lucky ones who got through first time. While I agree that test is designed to have 50% failure rate, it's not an excuse to fall on, although I sympathise with people on their third or fourth attempts.

Anyway the driving test.

Before booking the test I decided I might need a pre-test course so I went to a Driving school and I had a two hour evaluation. On that basis he told me I needed 8 hours which turned out to be four 2 hour lesson on the grounds that 1 hour was just not enough. I also took a mock test with a "grumpy" instructor (who was really a sound guy) which helped get me into a test mode.

The first day of lessons the instructor said to me.

"I want you to forget anything you think you know about driving. The test is 25 minutes and you WILL NEVER drive that way again."
And that was it. I listened to everything he said. I drove the way he wanted me to. In the weeks before the test I was in the local industrial estate, manoeuvring, up the gears, down the gears, turning corners, reversing, 3 point turns. Practice, practice, practice.

In the last lesson he told me I would pass.

On the day in question I made a mistake inside two minutes. My attitude at that point was that I wasn't going to fail for the want of trying and I kept on going. And that was that . A certificate of competence.

I think people fail for different reasons, a lot of the time nerves play a big part but most of all I would say, it is the assumption that they can drive well and don't need anyone to tell them different, that causes the failure. There is a theory that you stand a better chance of passing in your first year of driving becasue you have not picked up any bad habits.
Either way it's only 25 minutes for a test you will never do again. Do what it takes. Figure out what's stopping you so that you end up in the right 50%

dublinguy2004

murphaph wrote:

Are you though? Do you drive accompanied at all times because you said you've been driving for 6 years, that would put you on your third provisional at least, unless you haven't been driving continuously for those six years?

On your original post-It didn't come across as a rant to me. I understand your frustrations at the ridiculous wait for a test. The 'system' is a joke that isn't funny.

I don't like what you are suggesting; keep such assumptions to yourself pal.

murphaph

dublinguy2004 wrote:

I don't like what you are suggesting; keep such assumptions to yourself pal.

Woah, easy tiger.

causal

causal wrote:

That's not true.
The test is not designed to have a 50% pass rate / 50% fail rate.

is_that_so wrote:

I am one of the lucky ones who got through first time. While I agree that test is designed to have 50% failure rate, it's not an excuse to fall on, although I sympathise with people on their third or fourth attempts.

Three points:
1) You weren't just lucky - you did lessons and followed your instructors advice. You prepared well and you passed - that's not luck - that's proper preparation.
2) I said "The test is not designed to have a 50% pass rate / 50% fail rate."
3) I don't sympathise with people on 3rd/4th attempt. Anyone can have bad a bad driving day - but 3 or 4 shows an underlying trend of bad driving imho. furthermore, they're clogging up the test centre and doubling the waiting time for everyone else.

causal

Newfie Bullet

causal wrote:

That's not true.
The test is not designed to have a 50% pass rate / 50% fail rate.

The fact that typically 50% pass / 50% fail is down to the proper / improper preparation respectively of the people who present for the test; perhaps with a tiny bit of good luck / bad luck thrown in either way.

If you fail to prepare - your prepare to fail.

causal

I wasn't meaning to suggest that failure is designed into the test (although thats worth a thread for the tinfoil hat crowd for certain )

I was meaning to suggest that the pass rate of 44.7% (Wicklow) to a high of 64.4% (Shannon) is so bad that it says something about the test and the process itself. Can you imagine the implications of 60% of all people (at most), being unfit to drive? How did any of us survive the trip home today?

Even with a hundred new testers, a bad system, however efficent, remains bad. Maybe we can take a few tips from the Germans, and then do our test round the Nuremberg ring, in BMW M5's...... yeah... thats the ticket.

causal

Newfie Bullet wrote:

I was meaning to suggest that the pass rate of 44.7% (Wicklow) to a high of 64.4% (Shannon) is so bad that it says something about the test and the process itself. Can you imagine the implications of 60% of all people (at most), being unfit to drive? How did any of us survive the trip home today?

Exactly right.
The test is crappy - no doubt - the real problem is the poor standard of driving.
The main solution to that is CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) for everyone.
Currently the Government have plans to introduce it for bikes - imho it must be introudced for all road users BEFORE they get on the road.
Also, compulsory retesting every 5 years.

The above may not be popular - but imho it is part of the solution (in addition to decent quality well maintained crap free roads) and the NCT.

causal

is_that_so

causal wrote:

Exactly right.
The test is crappy - no doubt - the real problem is the poor standard of driving.
The main solution to that is CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) for everyone.
Currently the Government have plans to introduce it for bikes - imho it must be introudced for all road users BEFORE they get on the road.
Also, compulsory retesting every 5 years.

The above may not be popular - but imho it is part of the solution (in addition to decent quality well maintained crap free roads) and the NCT.

causal

I agree with most of it but I am not sure about mandatory retesting, however I would be in favour of retesting of anyone who loses their licence. I also believe that no learner should be allowed out on the road without an instructor ( I was so bad ) until they have completed a course and passed their test. This opens up its own can of worms.

murphaph

causal wrote:

The main solution to that is CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) for everyone. Currently the Government have plans to introduce it for bikes

Any idea when?

causal

murphaph wrote:

Any idea when?

No, and neither do the Gov.
The Gov announced it in their usual reactive knee-jerk PR style - then it was left to civil servants (I presume) to try to actually implement.

It was quickly realised why all the bikers had laughed when they heard about the 'impending' CBT. There simply weren't anywhere near enough qualified bike instructors to handle all the people who would have to take CBT. afaik that is still the situation.

causal

causal

Saruman wrote:

Once done i was back to one hand driving etc etc.. which i think is safer than the 2 hand crap you are supposed to do. It simply takes too long to turn the wheel in an emergency and you might panic.

I don't see how having only one hand on the wheel will stop panic

I take it you're joking when you say that one hand steering is safer than two hands.
I'm reminded of the poseurs who drive their car with one arm stretched straight out in front of them and their hand on the wheel at the 12 o'clock position - it's seems they think they're flying through the air like Superman :rolleyes: usually the other arm is on their lap or holding the gearstick (in case an emergency gear change is required or maybe they like the soothing vibrations)
Idiots - if they're in an emergency they've very little control of the vehicle - and if the air bag deploys they'll get a broken arm too.

Check out this video* of a guy doing a lap of the Nurburgring - not surprisingly he has two hands on the wheel to deal with extreme ac/deceleration plus cornering and accompanying oversteer and understeer. These are also typical of the steering inputs required in an evasive manouevre for an emergency (and it was an emergency you cited as an example).

As for panic - only training will cure that.

causal

*large download 14MB

cormie

I always have two hands firmly on the the wheel going along the motorway at 120 in me oul betty of a Micra. The faster I'm going, the better grip I tend to have. In a 50 zone I would have my left arm on my lap (poseur) but my hand would still be holding the wheel at about 7 o clock, my right hand is always firmly on 2 o clock.

a_ominous

Newfie Bullet wrote:

I was meaning to suggest that the pass rate of 44.7% (Wicklow) to a high of 64.4% (Shannon) is so bad that it says something about the test and the process itself. Can you imagine the implications of 60% of all people (at most), being unfit to drive? How did any of us survive the trip home today?

Even with a hundred new testers, a bad system, however efficent, remains bad. Maybe we can take a few tips from the Germans, and then do our test round the Nuremberg ring, in BMW M5's...... yeah... thats the ticket.

I wonder if all of the 64% who pass in Shannon would also pass in Wicklow? SWMBO did most of her early driving in Dublin before moving down the country to work. Did her test in the country and passed first time. The examiner did ask if she had learned to drive in Dublin as well. Possibly becuase she had to react quicker at lights and stuff. Not that she's an agressive or even assertive driver.
I wonder how many roundabouts they have in Shannon? Just that big one on the way to the airport? What about traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, filter lanes, etc.?

I don't believe the driving test should just be one 30 minute assessment. Should include things like driving in the wet, in the dark, motorway driving, parking(!). In Scandinavian countries, the test is multi-part and includes winter driving as the roads are covered in snow for 6 months of the year.

eth0_

dublinguy2004 wrote:

The reason for failure: driving too close to parked cars. I thought this a bit harsh. Thing is I can't even remember driving close to any cars!

Sorry but you cannot be failed for just that, I don't believe it. There MUST have been other things you were marked down on.

There are lots of things they can mark you down on and driving too close to parked cars i'm 99% sure is not on the list of 'majors' that you can be instantly failed on.

cormie

eth0_ wrote:

Sorry but you cannot be failed for just that, I don't believe it. There MUST have been other things you were marked down on.

There are lots of things they can mark you down on and driving too close to parked cars i'm 99% sure is not on the list of 'majors' that you can be instantly failed on.

You can, if you get marked 4 times on one risk you fail. You could pass 4 sets of parked cars within about 2 minutes and if you're too close, your test is over in 2 minutes, failed.

John R

a_ominous wrote:

I wonder if all of the 64% who pass in Shannon would also pass in Wicklow?

Unlikely I would say, Wicklow is hilly and has a lot of very narrow roads with parked cars all over the place. There are also a few badly marked deceptive junctions that are infamous for catching out the unwary. Shannon is very flat (are there any gradients at all for the hill start?) with wide roads, light traffic and mainly simple T and cross junctions.

murphaph

John R wrote:

There are also a few badly marked deceptive junctions that are infamous for catching out the unwary.

Yeah, I remember when I did mine in Naas the pretest guy brought me to all the poorly laid out/marked 'junctions' and advised me on them. I think it's ridiculous that you should fail your test because a junction isn't up to scratch (I didn't by the way!). The junction should at least comply with legislation for signage, marking etc. If anything-driving test towns should be a model of how to lay out junctions etc. so that any failing driver cannot blame the conditions.

There was one particularly stupid junction. It looked like a T junction but in fact just before the main road there was a right turn into a tiny housing estate. There were two stop signs, one before the turn to the right and one before the main road. There were no road markings. It looked just like they'd put up two stop signs which wouldn't surprise anyone (we know how lame the councils are at correct signage). It wasn't though, the little road to the right was the priority road and I was obliged to stop, look right and continue 15 ft and stop again for the main road T junction. The guy told me that the little housing estate was much older than the one we were driving out from and that when the road had been opened up into the newer estate the priority wasn't altered to reflect the now minor status of the old road into the smaller estate.