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

galwaytt

..well actually he didn't fail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sampeters666

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

Anan1

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

BrokenArrows

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

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

L-M

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

Creamy Goodness

sampeters666 wrote: »

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

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

Anan1

BrokenArrows wrote: »

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

Absolutely nothing. It has to do with the tester's work environment.

L-M

Anan1 wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. It has to do with the tester's work environment.

Nicely put

cuppa

confused did he fail or not.

oops i get the first line now.

Victor_M

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

Wow, that's a new one to me.

Run_to_da_hills

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

galwaytt

Anan1 wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. It has to do with the tester's work environment.

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

junkyard

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

DublinDilbert

junkyard wrote: »

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

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

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

Run_to_da_hills

junkyard wrote: »

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

And if you vote YES to Lisbon you will only be giving into more of this metric euro bu*ls**t. My advice is for the OP is to get straight on to the tabloids about this, they would thrive on it and would possibly name and shame the test centre and tester.

junkyard

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

Run_to_da_hills

junkyard wrote: »

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

The French get millitant and will do damage.

D_murph

Limerick-man wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Anan1

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

Johnny Utah

Anan1 wrote: »

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

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

Del2005

Anan1 wrote: »

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

+1

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

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

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

Alanstrainor

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

l) As vehicles presented for a driving test are regarded as an enclosed workspace, all vehicles must
be smoke free in accordance with the Public Health (Tobacco) Act, 2004. As this Act also covers
environmental tobacco smoke, test candidates are requested to refrain from smoking in the
vehicle prior to the driving test,

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

Steve

Alanstrainor wrote: »

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


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

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

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

Full story FTW.

kmart6

galwaytt wrote: »

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

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

Alanstrainor

stevec wrote: »

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

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

Full story FTW.

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

Steve

Alanstrainor wrote: »

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

OK, I take your point.

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

Alanstrainor

stevec wrote: »

OK, I take your point.

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

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

Run_to_da_hills

Alanstrainor wrote: »

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

What about finding a good solicitor and taking up legal action against the driving school in question, i.e. providing a defective car unsuitable for the purpose, wasting you time, trauma, etc. If it was the good old USA you could guarantee It would happen.

Mr. Presentable

galwaytt wrote: »

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

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

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

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

So:

Fudged the truth

or

Govt conspiracy to keep the waiting list long.

Hmmmm?

Mr. Presentable

Del2005 wrote: »

+1

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

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

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

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

Anan1

nipplenuts wrote: »

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

The driving school undertook to hire them a suitable car.

fletch...

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

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

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

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

Is there no watchdog for driving tests?

Del2005

fletch... wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there no watchdog for driving tests?

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

il gatto

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

Jo King

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

mikemac

fletch... wrote: »

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

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

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

mikedragon32

stevec wrote: »

OK, I take your point.

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

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

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

Anan1

il gatto wrote: »

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

Were you in the car in question?

galwaytt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S.I.R

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


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

il gatto

Anan1 wrote: »

Were you in the car in question?

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