Irish driving test unfair?

brian076

GreeBo wrote: »

:rolleyes:



"Anyone who cant pass the test is not fit to drive."

Anyone over the drink drive limit is not fit to drive.

Anyone who doesn't pass the test is not permitted to drive unaccompanied.

Big difference, if you fail your test, you cannot be given a second chance to pass if you're deemed unfit to drive.

GreeBo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because they are taking it before they are ready/competent to pass the test.
This does nobody any good for multiple reasons:
- Increases anxiety
- Increases waiting time for everyone
- Increases chances of bad drivers slipping through

GreeBo

brian076 wrote: »

Anyone over the drink drive limit is not fit to drive.

Anyone who doesn't pass the test is not permitted to drive unaccompanied.

Big difference, if you fail your test, you cannot be given a second chance to pass if you're deemed unfit to drive.

Im not sure what point you are trying to make?

robbie_998

@ Greebo:

you are being very smug about passing the driving test.

how many attempts did it take you to pass ?

and how many and which faults did you make ?

ztoical

Your black and white attitude of a fail = not ready/incompetent is unrealistic.

GreeBo wrote: »

Because they are taking it before they are ready/competent to pass the test.
This does nobody any good for multiple reasons:
- Increases anxiety
- Increases waiting time for everyone
- Increases chances of bad drivers slipping through

Alot of people are competent to drive but fail the test due to nerves it has nothing to do with them not being ready for the test. If you focus on learning to drive and being a safe driver you'll be a competent driver but you might not be a "test" driver. Like I already said earlier I failed my first test due to being nervous and easily passed it the second time less then three months later. I didn't take any extra lessons or change anything about my driving for the second test. There was no way to know what the test was going to be like without actually taking an actual test. You can take pre-tests with your instructor but they will never be the same as the actual test. I'm not saying people who fail their test should be allowed to drive like those who've passed the test - they aren't they can't drive on their own or on motorways but to use words like incompetent to describe someone whose failed one or more tests is frankly very smug and arrogant.

People putting in for tests and then no showing just so they can get another learners permit increases the waiting time not people sitting the test multiple times.

brian076

GreeBo wrote: »

Im not sure what point you are trying to make?

Well I'll just try and dumb it down for you..

You consistantly state that if someone fails the test 1st time "they're not fit to drive". Surely you mean they're not permitted to drive unaccompanied. If they're not fit to drive, what time limit do you propose putting on their unfitness (not sure if that's a real word, but I'm sure you'll look it up in the dictionary).

If they fail their test and are therefore unfit to drive, does that mean they can't drive home from the test centre if accompanied by a qualified driver, or in your vision of utopia, perhaps they become fit again the next day, or maybe they'll just turn up for their next test without any driving in between and magically pass the next time.

greyc

GreeBo wrote: »

Because they are taking it before they are ready/competent to pass the test.
This does nobody any good for multiple reasons:
- Increases anxiety
- Increases waiting time for everyone
- Increases chances of bad drivers slipping through

If what you say is correct, how come the the UK pass rate is about 45%, yet you can get a test date within a few weeks?

conf101

I've been reading and following this thread with interest but I think it's run it's course and I've lost interest. Personally I think GreeBo has been enjoying winding people up and I reckon we should just stop giving him the reaction he's looking for!

Conf101 over and out!

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Wishbone Ash

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, so they are not competent. Is that better?
Im baffled how you can argue this point when they fail a test to prove competency?

A single grade two fault doesnt fail you anything. As you well know the table below shows what you need to do with grade 2 faults to fail.
I dont think someone who hits the curb 4 times (or in fact 1 time when they are trying their best knowing that they cannot hit the curb) is a competent driver.

# 4 of the same grade 2 faults for a single aspect.
# 6 or more grade 2 faults under the same heading.
# 9 or more grade 2 faults overall.

If you are deemed to be competent during a driving test, you will pass. Officially you are competent to drive that category of vehicle but that is a very narrow and subjective term. I have driven many classes and categories of vehicles but I have never driven a three wheeled car. I know nothing about its handling characteristics and would consider a learner who makes contact with the kerb in an ordinary car to be safer than I would be in such a vehicle. Yet, legally I have been deemed competent to drive one.

I failed the motorcycle test on the first occasion for exceeding the speed limit several times during the test. I was imcompetent. But exceeding the speed limit, can be done in any category. As I would be considered to be incompetent, and while adressing my speeding, do I refrain from driving in all the other categories in case I speed in those too?

As the others have said, its not a black and white issue.

ztoical

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The example you gave in your earlier post of holding your steering wheel at the bottom I would not consider a little thing - it's dangerous. While I can feel for people when they fail the test and wouldn't be so quick to call them incompetent as some there is a flip side that it is a fairly straight forward test of your driving skills and if you fail then something needs work. You are allowed gather up to 8 "little things" and still pass so there is plenty of room given for people. My indicators turn themselves off as well and I didn't get a mark in the test for them so there's something your missing there which might why you got a mark.

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

People in other countries aren't allowed on the roads at all and still learn how to drive. Why should you be let drive on your own? I don't understand where some people get this attitude from. I learned to drive without driving on my own even before the change in the law came in and I live in the back end of no where, miles from any family or friends with full license, so if I can do it anyone can.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GreeBo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lordy.
Im not trying to say that if you pass your test that means you are the be all and end all of driving elites. My point is that if you fail such a simple test then there is obviously something wrong. The test is simple. You can pass your test without having to park, use a roundabout, use a motorway, use a dual carriageway, do an emergency stop, etc etc.

GreeBo

robbie_998 wrote: »

@ Greebo:

you are being very smug about passing the driving test.

how many attempts did it take you to pass ?

and how many and which faults did you make ?

Show me where I am being smug?

My test record has zero to do with the point that if you cant pass the Irish Driving Test then there is something drastically wrong with your driving...like hitting the bloody curb multiple times for example!

DrivingInfo

GreeBo wrote: »

Lordy.
Im not trying to say that if you pass your test that means you are the be all and end all of driving elites. My point is that if you fail such a simple test then there is obviously something wrong. The test is simple. You can pass your test without having to park, use a roundabout, use a motorway, use a dual carriageway, do an emergency stop, etc etc.

Is this the type of test you done? because i do agree that you could have a test like this but I have NEVER had any pupil do a test like that???? What I'm saying is how will you get out if you don't park .

ztoical

DrivingInfo wrote: »

Is this the type of test you done? because i do agree that you could have a test like this but I have NEVER had any pupil do a test like that???? What I'm saying is how will you get out if you don't park .

Also very few if any test centers that aren't near at least one roundabout - even smaller towns like Thurles have several roundabouts on the route. Is there any test center that isn't near a roundabout out of interest?

GreeBo

ztoical wrote: »

but to use words like incompetent to describe someone whose failed one or more tests is frankly very smug and arrogant.

Despite my best efforts you still clearly dont understand the meaning of the word incompetent. Its both difficult and frustrating to try to have a conversation with someone who doesnt understand basic words.
Its a test of competency that you failed...join the dots!

ztoical wrote: »

People putting in for tests and then no showing just so they can get another learners permit increases the waiting time not people sitting the test multiple times.

You have a minimum of 6 months to practice before taking the test, why not take longer if you are still a nervous driver?
From the RSA
"Research shows that the longer a learner is supervised while driving, the less likely s/he is to be involved in an accident. For this reason the six months limitation is being applied."

GreeBo

brian076 wrote: »

Well I'll just try and dumb it down for you..

You consistantly state that if someone fails the test 1st time "they're not fit to drive". Surely you mean they're not permitted to drive unaccompanied.

They are not competent enough to drive on their own.

brian076 wrote: »

If they're not fit to drive, what time limit do you propose putting on their unfitness (not sure if that's a real word, but I'm sure you'll look it up in the dictionary).

Erm how about, at a basic level, until the pass their test?

brian076 wrote: »

If they fail their test and are therefore unfit to drive, does that mean they can't drive home from the test centre if accompanied by a qualified driver, or in your vision of utopia, perhaps they become fit again the next day, or maybe they'll just turn up for their next test without any driving in between and magically pass the next time.

Maybe they will do something magic like practice so they are better, more competent drivers?

Im getting accused of being smug on here when it seems clear to me that people have a real problem with being told that they are not yet good enough at something. Get over yourselves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GreeBo

ztoical wrote: »

Also very few if any test centers that aren't near at least one roundabout - even smaller towns like Thurles have several roundabouts on the route. Is there any test center that isn't near a roundabout out of interest?

Rathgar, Dublin.

GreeBo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They may be or they may not be.
Our test is so simple that in my opinion it cannot really prove that you are competent, it can however let you prove that you are incompetent.
Since there are only 2 possible results from the test, if you fail to prove yourself incompetent they must deem you competent.

Passing our test doesnt say much for your driving abilities, failing it says a lot more.

ztoical

GreeBo wrote: »

Despite my best efforts you still clearly dont understand the meaning of the word incompetent. Its both difficult and frustrating to try to have a conversation with someone who doesnt understand basic words.
Its a test of competency that you failed...join the dots!

You are not issued with a cert of incompetency are you? your arguing semantics and it's totally pointless. Someone can fail the test for having a blown headlight - officially that goes down as a fail so by your logic they are incompetent.

Reloc8

GreeBo wrote: »

They may be or they may not be.
Our test is so simple that in my opinion it cannot really prove that you are competent, it can however let you prove that you are incompetent.
Since there are only 2 possible results from the test, if you fail to prove yourself incompetent they must deem you competent.

Passing our test doesnt say much for your driving abilities, failing it says a lot more.

I think taking a position of absolutism as regards the outcome of a subjective test like this one (i.e. it is determined by someone else's opinion) is inappropriate, particularly when the line between pass and fail is capable of being extremely thin.

Its probably more appropriate to consider that if you pass your tests you have, on that occasion, demonstrated to an individual examiner an ability to drive to the required standard. If you fail your test, you have failed to demonstrate that ability to that person. You could meet the standard just about and pass, or ace your test so to speak and get no faults, and equally you could fail by a very narrow margin or indeed clearly fail with a number of dangerous faults. In either event the result is simply a pass or a fail respectively. Its not like the leaving cert.

You can't really fairly/logically/consistently adopt the language of the passed test result (certificate of competency) in order to argue that the failed test result must necessarily mean you are an incompetent driver if you also try and adopt the position that passing the driving test does not necessarily mean the person who passed is a competent driver, which I think is part of what you are saying in your posts (i.e. passing the test doesn't always mean you're a competent driver).

I suppose my own point of view is that if you fail the test you have to retake the test (that's pretty uncontroversial) and in a general sense I would prefer examiners to err on the side of tough marking rather than giving the benefit of doubt so to speak and I speak as an L driver.

GreeBo

Reloc8 wrote: »

I suppose my own point of view is that if you fail the test you have to retake the test (that's pretty uncontroversial) and in a general sense I would prefer examiners to err on the side of tough marking rather than giving the benefit of doubt so to speak and I speak as an L driver.

Do you think you should be allowed to take the test as soon as you can get one, or that you should be forced to wait (perhaps another 6 months) before you can try again?

Wishbone Ash

ztoical wrote: »

Someone can fail the test for having a blown headlight - officially that goes down as a fail

AFAIK in that scenario, the test is abandoned. I don't think a 'Failure to Pass' cert is issued.

Could an instructor/examiner clarify?

brian076

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

AFAIK in that scenario, the test is abandoned. I don't think a 'Failure to Pass' cert is issued.

Could an instructor/examiner clarify?

Your right that a failure cert isn't issued, but I think the RSA do count it as a fail in their stats, but I wouldn't be 100% certain.

If the tester doesn't take you out because of faulty indicators or brake lights (they don't check headlights), you're given a form which has 2 Sections, A & B. In the above scenario the tester completes part A stating the reason why the test wasn't conducted, and you must re-apply and pay again.

If you leave the test centre and something happens the car, or you or the tester become ill, Part B of the form is completed. This means that the test is ambandoned, in which case you're given another test free of charge.

gooch2k9

Are they plotting to raise the price again in this new budget??

Reloc8

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you think you should be allowed to take the test as soon as you can get one, or that you should be forced to wait (perhaps another 6 months) before you can try again?

Good question. I don't think you should necessarily be allowed into a new test an hour later...but I can't see why six months is necessary...I think the move to make a minimum amount of lessons from an Authorised Driving Instructor necessary is a good one, and there should be a further minimum hours of lessons between a failed test and the re-test - differentiated between failing for serious/dangerous errors and failing for repeated minor errors perhaps. But that is how I would handle it rather than just setting a time limit between tests, as there is nothing in doing that that requires a person to get good instruction before the next test.

GreeBo

Reloc8 wrote: »

I think the move to make a minimum amount of lessons from an Authorised Driving Instructor necessary is a good one, and there should be a further minimum hours of lessons between a failed test and the re-test

Yeah I think thats certainly a step in the right direction and would be better than just a mandatory waiting period.

Reloc8 wrote: »

- differentiated between failing for serious/dangerous errors and failing for repeated minor errors perhaps.

but I wouldnt do this. You either pass or you fail.

Reloc8 wrote: »

But that is how I would handle it rather than just setting a time limit between tests, as there is nothing in doing that that requires a person to get good instruction before the next test.

I just think it would be quicker to get this waiting period into action rather than work out how many lessons, what type, etc, etc.

Reloc8

GreeBo wrote: »

Yeah I think thats certainly a step in the right direction and would be better than just a mandatory waiting period.

but I wouldnt do this. You either pass or you fail.


I just think it would be quicker to get this waiting period into action rather than work out how many lessons, what type, etc, etc.

Meh I think its pretty reasonable that if you fail for something considered dangerous you might be expected to do more hours of tuition prior to next test than if you fail for a particular trait repeated or for many far more minor faults.

Anyway, as I see it, the fact that there is no mandatory wait period between tests is not really the greatest evil in this area - as a practical fact, subject to cancellations, there will be a delay between tests for a start, and in reality its far more important to require a proper minimum hours tuition with an ADI prior to driving unaccompanied, in my opinion.