Driving Test has been shortened (?).

MontgomeryClift

I took a test recently and half-way through knew that I'd failed. I made a haimes of it, in fact. Fine; but afterwards when receiving my results sheet I expected spoken details on my less obvious faults and sat looking at the tester, waiting. He pointed impatiently to the bottom of the results sheet where it was printed that the tester is not permitted to divulge details of the test. I asked in disbelief could he not give me any clue at all. What was the use of the test, I asked, if I didn't know where I went wrong? If I took the test again I would fail again from exactly the same faults; and where's the sense in that?

I wondered about this strange regulation and afterwards rang the number on the bottom of my test letter to be told that no details were given to avoid "confrontation" due to the possibility of "difference of opinion" over what was good or bad driving practice. Now, if we humour them and assume that there can be difference of opinion over something so well-established and irrefutable as the rules of the road, the question remains why, to avoid confrontation, don't they just leave you in the car after the test, say "goodbye" and post out a more detailed sheet, specifying faults not just as Xs in boxes, but in words. This would aid the testee in passing his or her next test. It might take a little longer for the tester to complete said "test sheet", which brings me to the next paragraph.

I am inclined to think that the "confrontation" slant is an excuse; and the real reason for cutting such a useful part from the end of the test is to shorten it, and squeeze in extra tests per day to relieve the infamous "backlog". The testers are now simply handing the testee a mysterious sheet with Xs on it, leaving the latter to try and guess where he or she went wrong, making a failed test a useless exercise, and leaving the driving instructors to gather up the slack and try to decipher the test results sheet. In a time when the number of road deaths is rising continually, is it responsible or wise to shorten an already short driving test just to "cram them in"?

mackerski

If you were told it's policy, I'm sure it is. But when I did my test (about 15 years ago), it either wasn't policy or the policy wasn't observed, because I got an outline of my fault (it turned out there was only one) and I know other people who told a similar story.

Having said that, I had passed, and that lowered the odds on confrontation quite significantly.

Dermot

Capt'n Midnight

I'm sure you know people who would try to argue the point with the tester if they were handed the detailed results straight away. And besides it's not really going to speed up things much compared to the scandalous time it takes to do a re-test.

MontgomeryClift

I've outlined above how they don't have to give you the detailed result straight away. They could (and should) post it for delivery within two days, avoiding confrontation completely. But we're assuming that the confrontation argument is not just an excuse for shortening the test. I reckon it is just an excuse.

Victor

MontgomeryClift wrote:

I took a test recently and half-way through knew that I'd failed. I made a haimes of it, in fact.

What was the use of the test, I asked, if I didn't know where I went wrong?

Hang on, how did you know half-way through that you had failed, you must have had some clue.

specifying faults not just as Xs in boxes, but in words.

Whats wrong, can't you match up the Xs with the bigger words? :rolleyes:

John R

I think it's down to the tester, some will discuss the details others will not.

I had a short discussion with the tester about the fail points after the last test I took, I had passed the test so I suppose he was reasonably sure it wasn't going to be confrontational.

It is for the same reason that they insist on marching you back to the test centre before giving you the result, in the UK they tell you in the car as soon as the test is completed. I suppose they think that they are safer in their office than in the car. It wouldn't have saved the guy who did my car test many years ago had I failed, he acted like a complete cnut through the test and took a good five minutes after we returned to get around to telling me the result. By the time he grudgingly told me I had passed I was ready to explode and the small deserted office in Wicklow was a much better place to beat someone to death with a clipboard and pencil than a car parked on a public street in the middle of the day.

seamus

John R wrote:

I had a short discussion with the tester about the fail points after the last test I took, I had passed the test so I suppose he was reasonably sure it wasn't going to be confrontational.

Same here, he told me some specific mistakes (after he told me I'd passed). I failed my first test back in 2001, and the tester didn't discuss the results then, so this isn't a recent change in policy.

MontgomeryClift

That's what I was wondering. I thought it was a recent thing to try and shorten the test. It seems from the responses here and from conversations with others that it's down to the tester. I got a bollix for a tester then.

dochasach

MontgomeryClift wrote:

That's what I was wondering. I thought it was a recent thing to try and shorten the test. It seems from the responses here and from conversations with others that it's down to the tester. I got a bollix for a tester then.

I get the impression the testers are in a BF hurry and if you don't drive like Startsky and Hutch, they'll start checking the boxes. Maybe they have a quota they have to meet each day. Unfortunately this leads to the most agressive drivers passing. I'd like to see the crash rate of passed vs failed drivers and the crash rate of the testers themselves. Already we know that women have a higher test failure rate then men and yet they are responsible for fewer road crashes and deaths.

Until we reform the testing system, the road death rate will continue to rise:

1) Track the crash and violation rate for "passed" and "failed" drivers of each tester. Use this information to determine whether the tester is passing safe drivers.

2) Women are as safe or safer behind the wheel than men so at least 51% of the testers should be women.

3) Testers should be randomly tested by other testers.

4) Attach a DGPS, miniature webcam and notebook computer in the testing vehicle. When the tester logs a mistake on the notebook, it should be timecoded along with GPS speed and position on the webcam tape. The tester should be able to point out each mistake and a failed driver should be provided a copy of the tape.

5) Driving instructors should be regulated and tested. Their pass/fail rates as well as the crash rates of their students should be published.

6) The driving instruction company's sign should be removed from the vehicle during the test so there is no bias or chance of the instructor and tester being in cahoots to keep the driver on as the instructor's customer.

7) Drivers should not be tested on their ability to mimic driving habits of testers which have nothing to do with safety. Accelerating to 60kph between speed ramps, pressing the handbrake button so it doesn't make noise, and avoiding a last glance left when turning right will NOT save lives. Driving at a reasonable speed and covering the brake when pedestrians are crossing the road will.

dochasach

MontgomeryClift wrote:

That's what I was wondering. I thought it was a recent thing to try and shorten the test. It seems from the responses here and from conversations with others that it's down to the tester. I got a bollix for a tester then.

I get the impression the testers are in a BF hurry to clear their 54 week backlog and if you don't drive like Startsky and Hutch, they'll start checking the boxes. Maybe they have to meet a quota each day. Unfortunately this leads to the most aggressive drivers passing. I'd like to see the crash rate of passed vs failed drivers and the crash rate of the testers themselves. Already we know that women have a higher test failure rate then men and yet they are responsible for fewer road crashes and deaths.

Until we reform the testing system, the road death rate will continue to rise:

1) Track the crash and violation rate for "passed" and "failed" drivers of each tester. Use this information to determine whether the tester is passing safe drivers.

2) Women are as safe or safer behind the wheel than men so at least 51% of the testers should be women.

3) Testers should be randomly tested by other testers.

4) Attach a DGPS, miniature webcam and notebook computer in the testing vehicle. When the tester logs a mistake on the notebook, it should be timecoded along with GPS speed and position on the webcam tape. The tester should be able to point out each mistake and a failed driver should be provided a copy of the tape.

5) Driving instructors should be regulated and tested. It should be mandatory for their pass/fail rates as well as the crash rates of their students to be published.

6) The driving instruction company's sign should be removed from the vehicle during the test so there is no bias or chance of the instructor and tester being in cahoots to keep the driver on as the instructor's customer.

7) Drivers should not be tested on their ability to mimic driving habits of testers which have nothing to do with safety. Accelerating to 60kph between speed ramps, pressing the handbrake button so it doesn't make noise, and avoiding a last glance left when turning right will NOT save lives. Driving at a reasonable speed and covering the brake when pedestrians are crossing the road will.

Hotblack Desiato

dochasach wrote:

I get the impression the testers are in a BF hurry to clear their 54 week backlog and if you don't drive like Startsky and Hutch, they'll start checking the boxes.

If you exceed the speed limit, you'll fail.

Unfortunately this leads to the most aggressive drivers passing.

How do you figure that out? You need to make sufficient progress to not impede traffic but you also must not exceed an appropriate speed (even if within the limit.)

Already we know that women have a higher test failure rate then men and yet they are responsible for fewer road crashes and deaths.

This is largely because the average woman drives a significantly shorter mileage than the average man.

Until we reform the testing system, the road death rate will continue to rise:

Damn right and priority no.1 is getting all the unaccompanied provisionals off the road.

2) Women are as safe or safer behind the wheel than men so at least 51% of the testers should be women.

:rolleyes: Women aren't safer than men, they just drive less far.
They still have accidents, just different kinds of accident.
Hitting an unseen cyclist or motorcyclist is a popular one, as I and several of my friends can attest.

6) The driving instruction company's sign should be removed from the vehicle during the test so there is no bias or chance of the instructor and tester being in cahoots to keep the driver on as the instructor's customer.

Now that's the most improbable driving test conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

Padraig Mor

dochasach wrote:

Already we know that women have a higher test failure rate then men and yet they are responsible for fewer road crashes and deaths.
.

Further to Ninja's post, AFAIK women are actually responsible for MORE crashes than men - but they're less serious.

seamus

dochasach wrote:

Already we know that women have a higher test failure rate then men and yet they are responsible for fewer road crashes and deaths.

Women have fewer *serious* crashes and are responsible for fewer deaths. They have, per capita, more shunting and bumping accidents.

2) Women are as safe or safer behind the wheel than men so at least 51% of the testers should be women.

This is an unsure statement as ninja points out, but that aside, how do you propose to do this? You can't make women become driving testers. If more men apply for the job, then you have to employ more men. Either that, or you employ incompentent testers, just to fill your quota of either sex.

3) Testers should be randomly tested by other testers.

They are. Supervisory tests are carried out on a random basis (a supervisor rides along in an actual test and observes the tester).

4) Attach a DGPS, miniature webcam and notebook computer in the testing vehicle. When the tester logs a mistake on the notebook, it should be timecoded along with GPS speed and position on the webcam tape. The tester should be able to point out each mistake and a failed driver should be provided a copy of the tape.

A fine idea in theory. The main issues are:
1. Cost. The government will hike the test fee to cover it.
2. Time. How much time will be wasted setting up and calibrating the equipment? Should the test be shortened to accomodate it, or lengthened - increasing waiting times for tests.
3. Equipment failure. What happens if the equipment fails? Does the test have to be retaken, or if there are not enough spares can testers turn people away and tell them to reschedule?

To summarise, I don't think it's a bad idea - quite the opposite, but it would require a change to the entire system or it would just become another headache.

5) Driving instructors should be regulated and tested. It should be mandatory for their pass/fail rates as well as the crash rates of their students to be published.

Again, it would require another systemic change - and well outside of the testing system too. Integrating the Government departments is still a long way off. As for publishing metrics, well that's a mixed bag. In general if you publish people's performance, then they're going to be pressured into maintaining a certain level, which will cause them to make false judgements just to maintain a good metric.

dochasach

seamus wrote:

Women have fewer *serious* crashes and are responsible for fewer deaths. They have, per capita, more shunting and bumping accidents.

I've heard this anecdote but I've never seen a source, it sounds like urban folklore to me. The rates insurance companies charge men suggest that they expect more crashes. Insurance companies do their statistical homework. Yes, I know women still drive fewer miles than men but I'll bet the per mile crash rate of men is still worse than women and I know the per mile death rate in Ireland is terrible, about twice that of the U.K.

seamus wrote:

This is an unsure statement as ninja points out, but that aside, how do you propose to do this? You can't make women become driving testers. If more men apply for the job, then you have to employ more men. Either that, or you employ incompentent testers, just to fill your quota of either sex.

The fact that there are virtually no women or testers suggests there is some bias. All I'm asking for is investigating that bias and getting rid of it.

seamus wrote:

They are. Supervisory tests are carried out on a random basis (a supervisor rides along in an actual test and observes the tester).

I already assumed they did at least this, what I'm suggesting is random swap between all of the testers (not just supervisors.) If their test is based on scientifically measurable techniques and if the testers are competent, there should be no reason why any tester would fail any other tester.

seamus wrote:

A fine idea in theory. The main issues are:
1. Cost. The government will hike the test fee to cover it.
2. Time. How much time will be wasted setting up and calibrating the equipment? Should the test be shortened to accomodate it, or lengthened - increasing waiting times for tests.
3. Equipment failure. What happens if the equipment fails? Does the test have to be retaken, or if there are not enough spares can testers turn people away and tell them to reschedule?

No, GPS is extremely reliable, cheap compared to a tester's salary and is self-calibrating. The real problem is getting any job performance metric past a civil service union. This is also why we don't hear about crash rate of people who pass vs people who fail.

dochasach

ninja900 wrote:

If you exceed the speed limit, you'll fail.

How do you figure that out? You need to make sufficient progress to not impede traffic but you also must not exceed an appropriate speed (even if within the limit.)

A high percentage of failures is for "failure to progress" and I know at least three people who failed for not going fast enough through mini-roudabouts, not accelerating between speed ramps and not accelerating fast enough around corners when there was no following traffic and yet there were pedestrians, cyclist and children in and around the streets. These are people with hundreds of thousands of crash free driving miles who failed because the tester was looking for a race car driver.

ninja900 wrote:

Damn right and priority no.1 is getting all the unaccompanied provisionals off the road.

That's where we differ. My priority number 1 is less carnage on the road. If you just want to clear all the unaccompanied provisionals off the road, do another Brennen provisional clearance. But I'd be happy with a 10 year wait on provisional if I were certain that those who passed the test were less likely to kill me or my family. With the way tests are run today it wouldn't surprise me if those who pass have a higher crash rate than those who fail. If anyone has this statistic, please prove me wrong.

ninja900 wrote:

Now that's the most improbable driving test conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

Why even have the tempation though? Out of the hundreds of testers we need to clear the backlog, I'll bet at least one of them is dishonest enough to do something like this. Outside Ireland I've even heard of NCT employees moonlighting as car thieves. Maybe it won't happen here but even if there's no chance of conspiracy, there is a certainty of bias.

Maskhadov

I took a test recently and half-way through knew that I'd failed. I made a haimes of it, in fact. Fine; but afterwards when receiving my results sheet I expected spoken details on my less obvious faults and sat looking at the tester, waiting. He pointed impatiently to the bottom of the results sheet where it was printed that the tester is not permitted to divulge details of the test. I asked in disbelief could he not give me any clue at all. What was the use of the test, I asked, if I didn't know where I went wrong? If I took the test again I would fail again from exactly the same faults; and where's the sense in that?

Stopped reading.

MontgomeryClift

dochasach wrote:

I'd like to see the crash rate of passed vs failed drivers and the crash rate of the testers themselves.

I'd like to see that too. I think the reason we haven't seen that information already is because the crash rate for passed drivers is higher than for provisionals. If it was the other way around, wouldn't they be throwing that statistic around in order to convince us all to pass our tests as soon as possible? Yet I haven't seen any comparison of the sort. In fact, most literature I've read hints at the majority of crashes happening shortly after passing the test.

What I do know for a fact from a newspaper report is that those most likely to pass the test are also most likely to crash (I can't remember if it's to have an accident or die in a crash). So in a way, testers are crash-facilitators.

MontgomeryClift

Maskhadov wrote:

Stopped reading.

It's a pity you didn't stop posting. If you have nothing to contribute then STFU.

Victor

dochasach wrote:

I've heard this anecdote but I've never seen a source, it sounds like urban folklore to me.

Then go study accidents statistics.

The rates insurance companies charge men suggest that they expect more crashes.

No. Merely that they expect more expensive accidents averaged over their policies.

Insurance companies do their statistical homework.

And they will tell you that a serious injury or fatal accident will cost the hundreds of thousands to millions of euros to resolve. Material damage only accidents will cost a few thousand and bumps and scrapes will be settled without resorting to the insurance company.

Yes, I know women still drive fewer miles than men but I'll bet the per mile crash rate of men is still worse than women

I don't know, but per mile rate is largely irrelevant for insurance purposes where the insurnce is calculated per year.

I know the per mile death rate in Ireland is terrible, about twice that of the U.K.

Got numbers?

mackerski

dochasach wrote:

not accelerating between speed ramps

A bit more context is required to understand whether this was justified. The majority of speed ramps I've encountered have to be negotiated at a painfully slow speed, certainly below the posted speed limit and generally also below the natural, safe speed for the road. A failure to accelerate between speed ramps of this type is a test fault, and rightly so.

Dermot

MontgomeryClift

Ah, yes! The Failure to Accelerate Between Speed-Ramps - The main cause of road deaths in Ireland! To hell with speeding and overtaking on bends - We need guards out policing the speed-ramps in built-up areas.

Seriously though, what are the main death-situations on roads? Overtaking and speeding on open country roads and especially at junctions where the speed limit is 100km/h. Yet the tests are done in urban areas. Obviously the test is not about passing safe or sensible drivers. It's just a test of confidence and things like lane position and "looking" and all that, which are important in their own way and could be tested, but hardly the stuff that costs lives. The bad, very dangerous behaviours aren't seen in a test at all.

Hotblack Desiato

dochasach wrote:

A high percentage of failures is for "failure to progress" and I know at least three people who failed for not going fast enough through mini-roudabouts, not accelerating between speed ramps and not accelerating fast enough around corners when there was no following traffic and yet there were pedestrians, cyclist and children in and around the streets. These are people with hundreds of thousands of crash free driving miles who failed because the tester was looking for a race car driver.

A provisional licence is for *learning* to drive, not for driving around for years before one can be bothered to pass the test.
You _could_ be the world's greatest driver on a provisional - but if you've failed then someone way more qualified and experienced than you has found your driving lacking. Why do people seem to find this impossible to accept?

On the lack of progress issue, I'd be much more likely to trust the judgement of an experienced, trained professional (the tester) than a less experienced, unqualified amateur. Testers aren't infallible, no-one is, but just as the jails are full of "innocent" people according to them, it seems everyone who fails the driving test has a sob story.

That's where we differ. My priority number 1 is less carnage on the road. If you just want to clear all the unaccompanied provisionals off the road, do another Brennen provisional clearance. But I'd be happy with a 10 year wait on provisional if I were certain that those who passed the test were less likely to kill me or my family.

Missing the point. It doesn't matter how good or bad the test is (and it's way too easy at the moment, I feel) because large numbers of people simply can't be bothered to pass it, and the law actually encourages this.

Driving is a skill that needs to be taught, every other country in the world accepts this but we think it's something you absorb by osmosis by driving around for years on a provisional. It's daft.

With the way tests are run today it wouldn't surprise me if those who pass have a higher crash rate than those who fail. If anyone has this statistic, please prove me wrong.

There is a risk of overconfidence immediately after passing the test, yes - any proper course of instruction will warn you to be wary of this.
But I'd love to know why you think that demonstrating one's lack of competence on test and failing somehow makes one a safer driver.

The reason a test exists is that one is not qualified to judge one's own driving. Most people think they're above average and most of them are sadly mistaken.

Bluetonic

ninja900 wrote:

Driving is a skill that needs to be taught, every other country in the world accepts this but we think it's something you absorb by osmosis by driving around for years (on a provisional).

Ninja900 can I ask what are your driving qualifications and how long have you these qualifications?

MontgomeryClift

ninja900 wrote:

There is a risk of overconfidence immediately after passing the test, yes - any proper course of instruction will warn you to be wary of this.
But I'd love to know why you think that demonstrating one's lack of competence on test and failing somehow makes one a safer driver.

Because lack of competence in the test does not indicate a lack of safety. It might, in fact, make for safer driving to be reminded that one is not as good as one thinks by failing the test. The kind you see overtaking on bends, driving too close and speeding are the kind that pass the test easily, and have most likely passed it years ago. Their problem is not one of competence; it is a problem of emotion and restraint, which is not examined in the test.

mackerski

MontgomeryClift wrote:

The kind you see overtaking on bends, driving too close and speeding are the kind that pass the test easily, and have most likely passed it years ago. Their problem is not one of competence; it is a problem of emotion and restraint, which is not examined in the test.

Can you actually demonstrate this or are you just shooting your mouth off?

Dermot

TempestSabre

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Because lack of competence in the test does not indicate a lack of safety. ...

If you fail on something fundamental it does. However a fail on something subjective like "progress" is open to ambiguity and shouldn't be included in the test, especially if theres no checks and balances for it. I know a few people who have failed who shouldn't have and I'm a believer that its not always fair.

However any experienced driver should pass it fairly easily once they brush up on the rules. I reckon drivers should be tested every 10 years or so, at least on the rules. Its crazy that you can drive for decades and never be retested.

That said it all pointless if the Guards are not able to enforce the rules. Stand at any junction in Dublin and you'd catch someone breaking the rules every 5 mins. Any long journey in Ireland you'll see a dozen incidents of dangerous driving. There simply isn't enough enforcement. Its a joke.

Hotblack Desiato

Bluetonic wrote:

Ninja900 can I ask what are your driving qualifications and how long have you these qualifications?

Ah, the motoring equivalent of the "have you stopped beating your wife" question

I thought we were here to debate issues not individuals.

TempestSabre

Attack the post not the poster etc...:)

Hotblack Desiato

TempestSabre wrote:

If you fail on something fundamental it does. However a fail on something subjective like "progress" is open to ambiguity and shouldn't be included in the test, especially if theres no checks and balances for it.

So by that reasoning, repeated minor faults shouldn't cause a fail either?

It's simple. If, in the professional opinion of the tester, you are competent to drive unsupervised on the roads you will get a full licence, if not, you fail. Afaik progress is not a serious fault so it will need to be repeated, or combine with other faults, to cause a fail.

I know a few people who have failed who shouldn't have and I'm a believer that its not always fair.

They should grow up tbh. Life isn't supposed to be fair. No system is perfect. But if every sob story you hear in the pub (or on boards) is to be believed, then no driver should fail the test and no car should fail the NCT...

However any experienced driver should pass it fairly easily once they brush up on the rules. I reckon drivers should be tested every 10 years or so, at least on the rules. Its crazy that you can drive for decades and never be retested.

I agree fully and would argue for mandatory retesting at least every 5 years, and immediately after any serious offence.

If you hold a RoSPA advanced driving qualification you have to pass a re-test every 3 years to retain it.

That said it all pointless if the Guards are not able to enforce the rules. Stand at any junction in Dublin and you'd catch someone breaking the rules every 5 mins. Any long journey in Ireland you'll see a dozen incidents of dangerous driving. There simply isn't enough enforcement. Its a joke.

Lack of resources, lack of seriousness which judges treat RTA offences up to and including causing death - all of which really boils down to the government's refusal to treat road safety with the seriousness it deserves.

Instead they think more speed cameras are the answer, primarily because they take in money while police and prisons cost money...

TempestSabre

ninja900 wrote:

So by that reasoning, repeated minor faults shouldn't cause a fail either?

Not if its subjective and they don't have a means of quantifying the error. If its a funamental like failed to signal, or failed to observe other traffic.

ninja900 wrote:

It's simple. If, in the professional opinion of the tester, you are competent to drive unsupervised on the roads you will get a full licence, if not, you fail. Afaik progress is not a serious fault so it will need to be repeated, or combine with other faults, to cause a fail.

From what I've seen of the decisions of (some) testers "professional" is not a word I'd associate with (some) of them. I've known excellent drivers to fail, and shocking bad drivers to pass.

ninja900 wrote:

They should grow up tbh. Life isn't supposed to be fair. No system is perfect. But if every sob story you hear in the pub (or on boards) is to be believed, then no driver should fail the test and no car should fail the NCT...

Its a controlled test. Its SHOULD be fair. Whats the point of an unfair test? Thats an lame excuse for poor quality testing IMO. I'll agree that a lot of the people complaining especially young drivers deserve to fail. As for the NCT I know a car that passed with 4 bald tyres and the canvas showing. Whereas I had to fix a number plate blub to get my last NCT. But don't change the subject

Experienced drivers should pass easily as they know they can drive, so can concentrate on driving artificially as the test expects you do.

But I agree ultimately the responsibility lies with the Govt lack of positive action. Like so many issues. (sigh).

Alun

Any long journey in Ireland you'll see a dozen incidents of dangerous driving.

And on any short journey you'll be pretty much guaranteed to see one or two as well. Where are these mythical creatures called the Garda Traffic Corps when you need them? I remember seeing one or two just after they were announced, but not a sausage since then.

Coincidentally, I've just come back from a 3-day 700mile round trip in the UK, covering a mix of all kinds of roads imaginable from motorways, through fast A-roads to small country roads and didn't see one single incident of the type you see daily on the roads here in Ireland. That's not to say that the don't happen, of course, it's just that here you can pretty much guarantee you'll see something every time you venture out on the roads, whereas there it's an exception, as it should be.

Bluetonic

ninja900 wrote:

Ah, the motoring equivalent of the "have you stopped beating your wife" question

I thought we were here to debate issues not individuals.

Thank you for your helpful answer to my question.

For your information we are here to debate issues AND the opinions which individuals express.

In my case I wanted to acquire some more information regarding your driving experience before I debated upon some of your opinion.

Bluetonic

Alun wrote:

And on any short journey you'll be pretty much guaranteed to see one or two as well. ..blah...blah...blah...That's not to say that the don't happen, of course, it's just that here you can pretty much guarantee you'll see something every time you venture out on the roads, whereas there it's an exception, as it should be.

Have you any statisitcs or research to back up these claims? I'd be interested to see them to compare them to actual car journeys daily against incidents/accidents reported.

Thanks in advance.

TempestSabre

Just make stuff up, it works for most people. Imagine hes a F1 driver who's been banned for 4 years for lack of progress and lack of observation. Also guilty of driving a salmon pink Yaris and dressing in a neon electric pink jump suit. Now go forth with some sweeping generalisations staggering leaps of assumption.

Litcagral

I presume that all the previous users are referring to a driving test in Category 'B' although no one has specified this yet. As someone with a full clean and unrestricted driving licence in all 14 categories, I consider that I have more experience than the average person. I have found that the examiners that have tested me have been totally fair and impartial and professional at all times. I also believe that if they have any uncertainty about a particular issue they automatically give the client the benifit of the doubt. I think that the sheet that is provided when one fails a test is quite self-explanitory and any instructor would know how to interpret it. In saying that, in my experience, the examiners treat clients doing tests in large vehicles such as articulated trucks with more esteem but this is probably because the have already displayed competence in lesser categories.

DF

TempestSabre

Bluetonic wrote:

Have you any statisitcs or research to back up these claims? I'd be interested to see them to compare them to actual car journeys daily against incidents/accidents reported.

Thanks in advance.

I'm not saying stats are irrelevent. However any time I've tried to report incidents I've had either a very poor response or no response from the guards. Once out of about 5 or 5 reports did they bother to get back to me. I'd suggest most incidents go unreported because people accept poor driving as normal, and also because of the poor response to previous reports. Sweeping generalisation I know. Sorry.

TempestSabre

Litcagral wrote:

....probably because they have already displayed competence in lesser categories.DF

Is navigating a busy roundabout in a Artic, with a phone clamped to one ear, and windwilling the steering wheel with the other hand, while crossing as many lanes as you can, at random, part of the test. Because you see that a lot. (sorry couldn't resist).

Litcagral

You forgot about using the CB, smoking and reading the delivery docket!!

Dilly1

The driving test is sooo funny, you can pass it,if your used to driving around a village like an 80 year old doing the shopping, But if you are used to driving on main roads beware, you will probably fail. oh and they ask you where do you check the oil... priceless !! its no wonder people get killed, when they are not tested on things like 'how to over-take on a main road'.:rolleyes:

Litcagral

One unusual aspect of the testing procedure is that it is not possible to do an examination for Category D+E (large bus+trailer). If one already has passed Category D and applies to do 'D+E' they have to give it to you automatically as they can't penalise you because they have insufficient facilities.

Alun

Bluetonic wrote:

Have you any statisitcs or research to back up these claims? I'd be interested to see them to compare them to actual car journeys daily against incidents/accidents reported.

Thanks in advance.

Only my own many, many years of driving experience and a thing called a brain that records what I see when I'm out driving. I'll supply you with a memory dump of the contents of my neurons if you like That's all the statistics and research I need to back up my 'claim' as you put it, or 'observation' as I prefer to call it.

Hotblack Desiato

Bluetonic wrote:

Thank you for your helpful answer to my question.

It's a completely irrelevant question and personalises the debate.

Now if I had started a thread about being pulled over on the motorway and was looking for advice, it would be a very relevant question.

For your information we are here to debate issues AND the opinions which individuals express.

O.K. so let's see...
- Provisional licence holders don't know what they're talking about unless they've passed
- Recent full licence holders don't have enough experience to be 'qualified' to discuss road safety topics like this one
- Long term full licence holders simply don't care about the anguish of today's provisional licence holders, have forgotten all they've learned, or maybe got a free licence in 1979!

The question is irrelevant as it's possible to argue that no matter which answer is given, the poster isn't 'qualified' to discuss the topic.

In my case I wanted to acquire some more information regarding your driving experience before I debated upon some of your opinion.

Why?
And if that's what you want to do, why don't you 'show us yours' first?

Hotblack Desiato

TempestSabre wrote:

Not if its subjective and they don't have a means of quantifying the error.

By its nature the driving test must be subjective. It's not a maths test where there are right and wrong answers and little or no grey areas. It's something like an English exam where how you express your opinions/knowledge is as important as anything else.

If its a funamental like failed to signal, or failed to observe other traffic.

If the test was restricted to stuff like this, with no subjectivity, we could do it on a simulator... but we can't.

From what I've seen of the decisions of (some) testers "professional" is not a word I'd associate with (some) of them. I've known excellent drivers to fail, and shocking bad drivers to pass.

You can catch an excellent driver on a bad day - or a borderline one on their best day. The tester is the one qualified to make the judgement, you didn't see what the tester saw. If the candidate doesn't like their decision they can suck it up IMHO, tough, close but no cigar, try harder next time.

Even if you can prove in court the test wasn't carried out correctly, the best you're going to get is a retest free of charge. This was deliberate, so the courts wouldn't be clogged with every 'failed my test and it's SOOO unfair' sob story

Its a controlled test. Its SHOULD be fair.

It should be, but like everything in life it's not guaranteed. It's a subjective judgement, on one particular day - but by a trained tester and with procedures in place to ensure consistency between different testers.

I'll agree that a lot of the people complaining especially young drivers deserve to fail.

I think the main problem in Ireland is very bad preparation for the test. People think a couple of pre-test lessons can correct the bad habits of years of driving unsupervised.
To go back to the English test analogy, if you study half the poems on the course the best you can hope for in the exam is 50%. Get any of those slightly wrong and you've failed.
If you prepared better and studied the whole course, you could cope with getting a couple of little things wrong and still pass...

Experienced drivers should pass easily as they know they can drive, so can concentrate on driving artificially as the test expects you do.

There's nothign artificial about obeying the rules of the road and driving safely and competently, which is what is required on test.
Most of the stuff you hear about what you need to do specially for the test is complete myth.

MontgomeryClift

MontgomeryClift wrote:

The kind you see overtaking on bends, driving too close and speeding are the kind that pass the test easily, and have most likely passed it years ago. Their problem is not one of competence; it is a problem of emotion and restraint, which is not examined in the test.

mackerski wrote:

Can you actually demonstrate this or are you just shooting your mouth off?

Dermot

What are you on about? You want be to provide an example of a person with an emotional problem? What - should I find such a person and post them to you in a large wooden box? Or is it that you want be to come by your house and demonstrate the bad driving practices I mentioned; maybe speed up and down your road? It'd be easier if you just used your imagination.

MontgomeryClift

ninja900 wrote:

By its nature the driving test must be subjective. It's not a maths test where there are right and wrong answers and little or no grey areas. It's something like an English exam where how you express your opinions/knowledge is as important as anything else.

But the driving test is not subjective. There are right and wrong answers; and no, the English exam is not about opinion. In that there are also right and wrong answers. (That's why it's such a bogus exam.)

If the test was restricted to stuff like this, with no subjectivity, we could do it on a simulator... but we can't.

Em... You probably could.

You can catch an excellent driver on a bad day - or a borderline one on their best day. The tester is the one qualified to make the judgement, you didn't see what the tester saw. If the candidate doesn't like their decision they can suck it up IMHO, tough, close but no cigar, try harder next time.

Even if you can prove in court the test wasn't carried out correctly, the best you're going to get is a retest free of charge. This was deliberate, so the courts wouldn't be clogged with every 'failed my test and it's SOOO unfair' sob story

All of this childish stuff deals with unfair failures of the test, which is not being discussed here at all. This thread deals with the test and what it examines and fails to examine, and has nothing to do with the fairness of a failure or a pass.

TempestSabre

Well if you don't know what you failed on, and the test has ambiguity, then its a lottery. If the tester is having a bad day he can fail you for no real reason. I believe that happens. I don't agree that the test can't be black and white. Thats just a cop out. You could use simulation to test people. Pilots do it as part of their annual check. Driving is a heck of lot simpler than flying.

As the OP stated how can you learn if you don't get feedback. Thats just common sense. How can it improve safety if it puts a driver back on the road as a provisional with no idea on what hes failing on. Its madness. Dismissing people who complain about the test as childish is just being condecending IMO. The failure of the test has a direct effect on the driving you see on the road.

Bluetonic

ninja900 wrote:

Why?
And if that's what you want to do, why don't you 'show us yours' first?

'show us yours', you been watching Gunfight At The OK Corral?

I don't think I should humour you anymore.

Litcagral

TempestSabre wrote:

Driving is a heck of lot simpler than flying.

When you are flying, you are dealing with professionals. Any pilot will tell you that the most dangerous part of their job is driving to the airport.

TempestSabre

Obviously you don't know any pilots. :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

MontgomeryClift wrote:

But the driving test is not subjective.

Yes, it most certainly is. e.g. making insufficient progress, driving at speed unsafe for the conditions. Stalling the car - once is acceptable, but is five times acceptable? Is five times in a row more or less acceptable than five separate stalls? What distance from the kerb is acceptable during the reversing around a corner manoeuvre? Does the tester measure this distance or judge it using his/her skill and experience?

There are right and wrong answers;

There are some things which are definite faults, e.g. wrong answer to RoTR question, failure to indicate; but other things which are grey areas such as the above.
Even when the use of indicators is required is a grey area. Let's say you're passing a parked car. If you're not crossing the centre line then do you indicate if moving over 10cm? 20cm? 100cm?

Em... You probably could. (do it on a simulator)

You could possibly do the test on a simulator, but you couldn't score it automatically. Only very simple tests like the UK hazard perception test can be done automatically, and even then it's pretty doubtful how accurate or useful it is when compared to a real-world situation.

All of this childish stuff deals with unfair failures of the test, which is not being discussed here at all.

The OP asked whether the test was shortened - this has already been answered.
The OP also brought up for discussion whether the use of judgement by testers was fair, and this is the point I'm answering.
Re: your point about childish, I think blaming testers as having acted unfairly when people fail is what's childish. It can happen, yes, but not often.

Hotblack Desiato

TempestSabre wrote:

Well if you don't know what you failed on, and the test has ambiguity, then its a lottery.

It's only a lottery if you're a borderline pass/fail case. Better preparation would get round this problem, but it seems most people don't set their sights any higher than a bare minimum pass.
The tester has to provide a sheet with the reasons for failure. If you want this to be more detailed, then fine, but there's a limit to what the tester can do (especially on the bike test when they have to operate a radio, drive a car and mark a sheet at the same time!!! :eek: ) The government also doesn't want to introduce anything which would cause fewer tests to be done in a day.
If you do something like the RoSPA test you get a full debrief afterwards, but it's a bit much to expect that from a test as basic as the DoE driving test, and most people are so wound up on the day they wouldn't be able to take in much anyway.

If the tester is having a bad day he can fail you for no real reason.

In theory yes, in practice testers have to justify their pass/fail rates.

I believe that happens. I don't agree that the test can't be black and white. Thats just a cop out. You could use simulation to test people. Pilots do it as part of their annual check. Driving is a heck of lot simpler than flying.

The test cannot be black and white without simplifying it to the point of uselessness, where you'd have to practically commit an offence to fail.

(Edit: Even what is an offence and what isn't is down to the judgement of a Garda and some guy in a wig called... erm, a judge because he uses his judgement to decide guilt or innocence, and appropriate punishment.)

Pilots do sim checks yes, but the only reason is that using a real aircraft is too expensive.
The sim check isn't judged by the computer, it's judged by the training captain using his/her skill, judgement and experience. i.e. it IS subjective.

The failure of the test has a direct effect on the driving you see on the road.

That's because too many people are passing, not too few! Also we allow people to drive around indefinitely unsupervised, as long as they keep failing the test... how stupid is that.