How you think Ireland should learn and test drivers.

Mister Jingles

Bit of a dreamer thread I suppose.......being Ireland and that.

But anyway if you were given the job in setting out the rules and guidelines as to how people in this country are thought how to drive and how the driving test is carried out what you do ?

For me I think that :

(Mandatory) All secondary school students should be thought basic rules of the road while in 5th or 6th year.

(Optional) When thats or while thats being covered students should be thought basic car controls i.e how to move a car (clutch),make it go faster (accelerator) and stopping the car (break).

The theory test is fine at the moment, nothing I would change about that.

I would keep EDT except that I think it should be 15-20 mandatory lessons and with two lessons covering Motorways. (It's gas the way on a Monday you have a learners permit and aren't allowed to go on the motorway, on Tuesday it's your test and you pass and Wednesday you can go on a motorway with no experience what so ever :rolleyes: )

The Test :First of all €85 is robbery, so it should be reduced to about €40-€50, and if you fail it will be cheaper come the second and more times around.

The theory side of it is fine, common sense really. I suppose what it covered in the practical part is mostly all okay with the exception of the reversing around a corner bit, that should be replaced with reversing into a parking space.

If you fail the test your mistake(s) should be explained to you in detail, as with the saying ''you learn from your mistakes''.

Regarding the test those who do carry it out should be driving instructors (ADI's) who are called to test centres and will conduct the tests themselves, sort of like a Leaving Cert Aurl exam i.e you've never met the person in life and probably never will again.

A lot of test centres seem to have too many ''testers who fail people under 21'' type of thing and I think the above would make it more fairer.

Anyways share your thoughts and opinions and don't forget the number one rule on boards: Attack the post, not the poster

johnmcdnl

be told why you failed :mad: instead of trying to double guess the tester in so many cases...

starlit

Honestly, those that got their full licence before the 60's/in around early 60's should all be tested since they got their full licence from the post office and didn't have to do a test! They should really be the ones to do a driving test later in life at least before a certain age!

I agree, think secondary schools should teach the main things of driving such as rules of the road and so on and offer a driver's ed course similar to the US, as optional as part of the curriculum.

And that testers should tell you why you failed and discuss the Test, silly not to get feedback like you would from an instructor! It should be all part of the learning process! Ya definitely the mistakes should be explained to those who failed certain parts of the test.

Ya I keep the EDT lessons but have more lessons included in it and a wider syllabus that includes all conditions of driving, driving all kinds of roads including motorways. Night driving is part of it but should be empathised more in the syllabus. Learning the basics before the lessons even begin should be a major requirement even though they state 3 hours but that's not enough you need to practice that much before doing lessons at all.

Theory is grand just that they could add more hazard and perception type questions even more interactive/video type ones.

There should be a concession for the driving test cost, pay full whack first time but reduce the cost at a discount if having to do a test again.

I don't know, a lot of instructors are testers too but there should be at least be ADI's anyway coming from other different centres rather than just one area so that you be less likely to meet them again for a retest! There should be a restriction in having the same tester again cause they could be very hard on those they are testing, having a different tester would make more sense for everyone being tested!

Mister Jingles

doovdela wrote: »

Honestly, those that got their full licence before the 60's/in around early 60's should all be tested since they got their full licence from the post office and didn't have to do a test! They should really be the ones to do a driving test later in life at least before a certain age!

Couldn't agree more but to be honest, if such thing was to happen there would be war started by old people. Almost like the way with the Medical Card issues a while back.

**Timbuk2**

Parking should be on the test. Bay parking and parallel parking.

I understand there's only a certain amount of time but it is such a common manoeuver it seems completely ridiculous not to have it in the test. In real life driving, it's almost impossible to make a journey that doesn't involve parking.

I think that parking tests almost the same skills as the reverse around the corner, so they could replace the reverse with parking.

And in the UK they have a section of the test called 'independent driving', where you spend about 5-10 minutes without instruction from the tester - e.g. he'll say "Follow the signs for the town centre" or "Follow the signs for Swords until I direct you otherwise" or he will describe to you where he wants you to go - I think that should be included in the test as it tests the candidate's ability without constant direction and guidance.

Also, tester's should definitely describe where the candidate went wrong. I know it's done so you can't argue back, but as it's already the case that whatever is written on the sheet is final, the tester should just list where each came from (briefly). I imagine it's disheartening to fail and have faults such as "Reaction to Hazards" and "Competency during the turnabout" etc. and not have a clue what led to them.

sentient_6

I think the test as it is for the most part is fine, proving your car control & observation at low speeds, i.e less than 60 k's. But definately bring in greater clarity & feedback on fails. Maybe remove reversing around a corner, nobody should ever do it in reality so why test it.

Then add extra aspects which have to be completed seperately.

1: Test dedicated to driving on regional, national, & motorway roads(let learners be trained in motorway driving but only under instructor supervision). If it could be somehow implemented one should need to demonstrate an overtaking maneuver during this, following the principle of the overtaking triangle from Roadcraft.

2: Night driving. 45 minute test with a mix of town & main roads.

Mandatory re test every 10 years to renew your licence. Across the board, straight away, regardless of anyones age, no phase in BS, don't give a sh*t if your 50 & have your licence for 30 years, i'm sure if your so great you'll have no problem showing it.

matt70iu

johnmcdnl wrote: »

be told why you failed :mad: instead of trying to double guess the tester in so many cases...

Couldn't agree more. In the UK, they give you feedback as to why you've failed. Why can't the RSA testers then?

MascotDec85

Without doubt the Emergency Stop should be included in the test. It's ridiculous it isn't.

I teach it to my pupils

challengemaster

Mister Jingles wrote: »

The theory side of it is fine, common sense really. I suppose what it covered in the practical part is mostly all okay with the exception of the reversing around a corner bit, that should be replaced with reversing into a parking space.

If you can't reverse around a corner, you won't be able to reverse into a parking space. Also, what sort of parking space? Where would it be? What obstacles would you have either side? It's not like you can use other peoples cars as an obstacle during the test...

Regarding the test those who do carry it out should be driving instructors (ADI's) who are called to test centres and will conduct the tests themselves, sort of like a Leaving Cert Aurl exam i.e you've never met the person in life and probably never will again.

Actually, I think the opposite should be true. People who are entirely unrelated to ADI's should carry out the test. This should provide a fair testing enviornment and assure that ADI's aren't trying to generate business / scratch eachothers backs.

Ireland is too small for what either of us are suggesting though, so that's out the window

doovdela wrote: »

I agree, think secondary schools should teach the main things of driving such as rules of the road and so on and offer a driver's ed course similar to the US, as optional as part of the curriculum.

There's certain issues with actually setting up such a scheme now.... such as funding for a start. Then you have the issues with insurance, health&safety, possibility of exclusion (if there's a cost involved), possibility of bullying due to performance, cost of upskilling either teachers or employing enough ADI's to cover the entire course with everyone in every school around the country... and more...

Ya I keep the EDT lessons but have more lessons included in it and a wider syllabus that includes all conditions of driving, driving all kinds of roads including motorways. Night driving is part of it but should be empathised more in the syllabus. Learning the basics before the lessons even begin should be a major requirement even though they state 3 hours but that's not enough you need to practice that much before doing lessons at all.

Agree 100% here, night driving is completely neglected, as are most things in the test. It's an essential part of driver education.

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Parking should be on the test. Bay parking and parallel parking.

How do you introduce this in a fair and testable way? You're either talking about forced building of resources at every test centre in the country, or using what you find when you find it which has it's own problems... mainly time, instruction could be quite haphazard, parking space size could vary on factors (how generous the council were feeling that day, the numpty who can't park behind/infront of you, etc etc)

And in the UK they have a section of the test called 'independent driving', where you spend about 5-10 minutes without instruction from the tester - e.g. he'll say "Follow the signs for the town centre" or "Follow the signs for Swords until I direct you otherwise" or he will describe to you where he wants you to go - I think that should be included in the test as it tests the candidate's ability without constant direction and guidance.

This could also be quite problematic for a number of reasons. For example, if someone doesn't know the surrounding areas or hasn't driven a certain route before - Yes, they should in theory be able to cope by themselves before being let out on the road, but that's assuming that all signage is present in the first place, is correct and clear, and that GPS devices are a figment of my imagination...

If you're not used to driving in Dublin, the place is a fricking nightmare. You need to know where you're going without being told, because there's no clear signage a lot of the time. In day to day driving, nobody is going to lose their life if you miss a turn, spin up the road a few miles before you come back and go where you meant to... failing a driving test on such a thing would also be stupid.

sentient_6 wrote: »

Maybe remove reversing around a corner, nobody should ever do it in reality so why test it.

I'd love to know how you think that nobody should ever reverse around a corner in reality... I do it every time I'm at home in the driveway. It also applies to reversing into and out of parking spaces. It's probably one of the more applicable parts of the test tbh.

Mandatory re test every 10 years to renew your licence. Across the board, straight away, regardless of anyones age, no phase in BS, don't give a sh*t if your 50 & have your licence for 30 years, i'm sure if your so great you'll have no problem showing it.

The country can't handle the current level of applicants each year without massive backlogs - adding thousands of drivers to that each year for re-tests would, as you can imagine, not help one bit...


I think the major things missing from the test are as follows:

1. Motorway driving
2. Dusk driving (IMO the hardest of all)
3. Night driving
4. Adverse weather conditions, skids/snow/ice/aquaplaning (some could be emulated by skid-pan)
5. Emergency braking & accident prevention

Apart from that, I also believe that cyclists as all other road users should have to complete a test and get a license, and have the ROTR strictly enforced and apply to them also.

**Timbuk2**

challengemaster wrote: »

How do you introduce this in a fair and testable way? You're either talking about forced building of resources at every test centre in the country, or using what you find when you find it which has it's own problems... mainly time, instruction could be quite haphazard, parking space size could vary on factors (how generous the council were feeling that day, the numpty who can't park behind/infront of you, etc etc)

No, you wouldn't need to build anything - the roads are full of parking spaces. The tester would know by looking at a space whether it is safe to reverse into. They do it in the UK on public roads. I can't speak for all towns, but in most towns I have driven in there are residential streets with cars parked on the side that are nowhere near full, so you can find a place. I think in the UK they just test reversing behind another car while parallel parking, you don't actually need to park between two cars.

As for bay parking - I imagine a lot of the test centres have this. The tester should just say "OK I would like you to reverse into that parking space there, and that will conclude your test", just like they did it at the end of the Aviva Ignition Test (which happened to finish in the driving test centre in Dundalk).

challengemaster wrote: »

This could also be quite problematic for a number of reasons. For example, if someone doesn't know the surrounding areas or hasn't driven a certain route before - Yes, they should in theory be able to cope by themselves before being let out on the road, but that's assuming that all signage is present in the first place, is correct and clear, and that GPS devices are a figment of my imagination...

If you're not used to driving in Dublin, the place is a fricking nightmare. You need to know where you're going without being told, because there's no clear signage a lot of the time. In day to day driving, nobody is going to lose their life if you miss a turn, spin up the road a few miles before you come back and go where you meant to... failing a driving test on such a thing would also be stupid.

I didn't mean it as a test of navigation, and that's certainly not how it is in the UK - apparently making a wrong turn doesn't count as a mark against you. It's just that driving in the test is less like 'real life' if you are constantly being given directions. With 'independent driving', you have to balance driving the car (as you would in your test) with looking at road signs, making sure you are in the right lane, etc. If you deserve to pass your test, then it should be a doddle! In the UK they even show you diagrams before you do the 'independent' bit to make fully sure you know where you are going, so even if the signage wasn't up to scratch, it wouldn't impinge the test (if the signage isn't sufficient, the tester will know this - it's his/her job!)

Mister Jingles

challengemaster wrote: »

If you can't reverse around a corner, you won't be able to reverse into a parking space. Also, what sort of parking space? Where would it be? What obstacles would you have either side? It's not like you can use other peoples cars as an obstacle during the test...

I can't agree, I'm not the best at reversing around a corner yet I'm fine at reversing into spaces. I'll get better at it though Im sure but I just find parking easier.

What sort ? Well two sorts, bay parking and parking along side a path with two cars front and rear. Where ? I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to simulate such a thing at the test centre's themselves. But even at that it would be possible for a tester to say ''park in this space here'' along a public road.

challengemaster wrote: »

Actually, I think the opposite should be true. People who are entirely unrelated to ADI's should carry out the test. This should provide a fair testing enviornment and assure that ADI's aren't trying to generate business / scratch eachothers backs.

I probably didn't explain my opinion fully here. What I meant was to have ADI's every fortnight or 3 week or something like that called up to do a day of testing. The reason why I see it being fairer is because ADI's will most likely of come across all different types of people in their work in terms of gender, age and race so they would be unlikely to judge. They'll know that some young people aren't good and others are brilliant ect...

challengemaster wrote: »

Ireland is too small for what either of us are suggesting though, so that's out the window

That why I call this a dreamers thread :pac:

challengemaster wrote: »

There's certain issues with actually setting up such a scheme now.... such as funding for a start. Then you have the issues with insurance, health&safety, possibility of exclusion (if there's a cost involved), possibility of bullying due to performance, cost of upskilling either teachers or employing enough ADI's to cover the entire course with everyone in every school around the country... and more...

Doing the practical stuff in schools would be just crazy but the theory side of things would be manageable.

Emergency breaking - smash the break as hard as you can

Why should that be on the test? If you fail it the cars probably ****ed along with you and the instructor

challengemaster

AdamD wrote: »

Emergency breaking - smash the break as hard as you can

Why should that be on the test? If you fail it the cars probably ****ed along with you and the instructor

If you stomp on the brakes as hard as you can in a non-abs car, first off you're going to cause yourself to actually skid and increase your chance of a crash, and secondly you'll cause the car to cut out and probably lose control of steering...

Being able to effectively stop in the event of an emergency is vital, how you can think it shouldn't be on the test is beyond me...

spideog7

Having done the test in both Ireland and the US the first thing I will say is be grateful for how much better our system is, so even though a lot of the suggestions here would make good improvements bear in mind it could be much worse.

Teaching the theory in secondary school is a good idea. The "driver's-ed" over here is decent but as far as I know it's all car parking driving and maybe a little bit of "around the block" stuff. I have friends here who's teacher gave them their licence after they did the driver's-ed, they didn't have to do a test at all.

The independent driving part of the test sounds like a good idea.

Personally I thought the sheet they give you at the end at home is fairly detailed, it tells you what to work on even if you did pass or even if they aren't the reason you failed, over here it was just "you passed" or "you failed because..."

Motorway driving is definitely another thing, motorways are relatively new at home and most people wouldn't drive on them on a regular basis (particularly not when starting out) so teaching things like how to merge, changing lanes etc. is important.

I don't know about teaching the parking, obviously here the parallel parking is the only complicated maneuver you actually have to do in the test but I don't think it's necessary to know to be a safe driver. Plenty of people I know here struggle to learn it for the test so they'll just avoid parallel parking, I think it's up to the individual if that's a skill they want or learn or not.

I don't think it should be mandatory to re-take the test every X number of years, I do think it should be mandatory if you're convicted of a careless driving offence or get too many points.

Sorry for harking on about the US system but just figured I'd be able to lend a view from a different perspective.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

If you stomp on the brakes as hard as you can in a non-abs car, first off you're going to cause yourself to actually skid and increase your chance of a crash, and secondly you'll cause the car to cut out and probably lose control of steering...

Being able to effectively stop in the event of an emergency is vital, how you can think it shouldn't be on the test is beyond me...

The vast majority of cars have ABS nowadays......

Mister Jingles

AdamD wrote: »

The vast majority of cars have ABS nowadays......

Yes and no. Unless you wish to spend a few bob on your first car the chances are that your first car is gonna be something over 10 year old and if I recall right, Punto's, Micra's, Fiesta's, Yaris's ect don't have ABS.

johnmcdnl

Mister Jingles wrote: »

Yes and no. Unless you wish to spend a few bob on your first car the chances are that your first car is gonna be something over 10 year old and if I recall right, Punto's, Micra's, Fiesta's, Yaris's ect don't have ABS.

it's a fair point that drivers should be taught about but it's not practical to include it in the test... as said before if you screw that up the car is in ****e...

how would you suggest that it be implemented - the only way I can think of doing this would be in a very big carpark and you have to go to 30kph or something and stop as fast as possible... not exactly a challenge in fairness... you wouldn't even have to worry about ABS nearly would you as the car wouldn't be going fast enough (open to be corrected on this - never drove a non ABS car) you can't test something like this on a big road because it'd be a daylight dangerous... where do you even test it like never mind think about what happens when the candidate screws up and ends up with a nice set of bald patches on the new tyres of the car... not to mention the countless bald batches and skids and possible accidents caused by candidate in practicing this for the test...

in say 5 years time only REALLY old cars won't have it so for the vast majority of learner drivers even it won't be an issue...

I haven't a clue about what cars don't have ABS but a quick google suggests that the newer models of those cars have ABS as top results in google are all ABS light Problem Micra etc etc etc... so if in the next few years virtually all cars on the road have ABS is there any point in trying to introduce it for the tiny percentage of people who'll have to deal with no ABS....


I know it's something that drivers need to know so maybe make it one of the questions that you may be asked... "describe how you'd slow a car to a stop from a high speed in an emergency situation" and candidate must be able to give a good description of the method involved.... but actually having to demonstrate it is a different story....

mikemac

sentient_6 wrote: »

Maybe remove reversing around a corner, nobody should ever do it in reality so why test it.

Have you ever gone to a shopping centre and reversed into a parking space?

johnmcdnl

mikemac wrote: »

Have you ever gone to a shopping centre and reversed into a parking space?

which is why reversing into a car parking spot should be on a test and reversing around a corner shouldn't

2 traffic cones or something down the back of the test center to represent 2 cars on either side of you and then you can see how good you are at parking - a skill you'll use...

and if you can park a car right you'll surely be able to reverse into a car parking spot...

it may also help reduce the number of people who insist on driving into car parking spaces and then reverse back out onto road despite them not being able to see a thing and are just hoping that whoever is on the road will see them on time and stop... :mad:

drivers need to learn to park by reversing in.. really dunno why it's not included in the test as it is...

Thoie

Are people from Ballina or Tralee going to drive 200km+ to be tested on a motorway?

Sineadsss

i passed my test first time

**Timbuk2**

Thoie wrote: »

Are people from Ballina or Tralee going to drive 200km+ to be tested on a motorway?

No.

As much as I think motorway driving should be on the test, it's something that would definitely not happen any time soon. It would require changing the no learners on motorway law (which I agree with), and would also significantly increase the time of the test (by their nature, you would have to drive to the motorway, which may be a fair distance away, then even if you travel for only one exit you're usually still far away - you'd have to come back the same way).

I think that once passing your test, it should be a rule that you must do one motorway lesson with an A.D.I. before gaining access to your pink licence. You could present the A.D.I. with your certificate of competency, and once completing the lesson he could 'stamp it' or something, then you'd go to the MTO. There's probably legal problems with this as well, but a system like that!
Of course you still have the argument that people that live far away from motorways would find this awkward, but just because you live over 100km away from a motorway doesn't mean you will never travel on one, so it's important to learn no matter where you live.

And there are some dual carraigeways which are almost equivalent to motorways, as you join them using slip-roads etc. Some of them are even N roads but 120km/h.

LEH

Another thing that should be included in the test is driving in snow!

If the last two years are anything to go by, and snow becomes more regular, we all need to learn how to drive safely in snow/icy conditions. It's impractical to have a real-life snow simulation, but couldnt part of the mandatory lessons and theory test include measures/procedures for driving in snow?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

catweasel10

Re: Independent Driving.


I did my driving test in the North last week. The Independent Driving part is one of the easiest parts of the test, and you now only have to do one manoeuvre. The area I drove in was still part of the test route that had been published online, although in future, they may not publish the routes, from what I've heard. Basically, you are shown diagrams of the route you should take, given verbal instructions, and can ask at any stage if you've forgotten the directions. Once you have completed the part shown on the first diagram, you are shown a second. If you take a wrong turn, you're not penalised. I was asked to follow signposts in the last part of the independent drive, but if you're in anyway familiar with the test route, there's not much of a chance that you'll go the wrong way. The reason it was introducted, from what I've been told, was to ensure that mirror checks and the like would be done automatically instead of being prompted by a specific instruction from the tester. It's not really a navigational test.

I'm a bit shocked that it's 85 euro to take the test at home, and that feedback on mistakes isn't given.

johnmcdnl

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

how do they test it in the UK??? if it's a good system I'd be all for it... I'm probably just assuming it should be at a moderate to fast speed whereas in a test it'll be driving along at 20-30kph which could be easily incorporated into a test in a housing estate or big car park...

catweasel10

johnmcdnl wrote: »

how do they test it in the UK??? if it's a good system I'd be all for it... I'm probably just assuming it should be at a moderate to fast speed whereas in a test it'll be driving along at 20-30kph which could be easily incorporated into a test in a housing estate or big car park...

The tester tells you to pull over, says that you'll be doing an emergency stop when they give a signal (they do a kind of salute and shout stop). I did mine on a quiet residential road, and you're told to get your speed up to around 25/30 mph.

**Timbuk2**

Here's a video driving lesson of the emergency stop (for the UK test)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyqYe-92mP8

Didn't the emergency stop used to be part of the Irish driving test? My dad is sure he was asked to do it in his driving test, but he did his first driving test in London before doing his second in Galway so he might be getting them mixed up.

And here's a video driving lesson for how they ask you the reverse parallel park in the UK - there's no reason it can't be done here, time constraints aside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MyEDUB4atM

challengemaster

AdamD wrote: »

The vast majority of cars have ABS nowadays......

The vast majority of new cars have ABS, however, as already said, new drivers don't have the money to get a reasonably new car - Depends on the car but anything pre-2000 there's a good chance it wont have it.

Also, as this is Ireland - ABS for years has been an optional extra (ie. $$$$), one which many people didn't want to pay for. So while there's ABS on most newer cars, a lot of cars already in circulation don't have it.

LEH wrote: »

Another thing that should be included in the test is driving in snow!

If the last two years are anything to go by, and snow becomes more regular, we all need to learn how to drive safely in snow/icy conditions. It's impractical to have a real-life snow simulation, but couldnt part of the mandatory lessons and theory test include measures/procedures for driving in snow?

You can easily train people with a skid-pan as to how to react to the car going into a slide, and how to correct it....

They testers do give you feedback tbf, I passed my test first time but the guy still went through each mistake I made.

**Timbuk2**

My brother passed his test there not so long ago, and the tester told him why he got the Grade 2 he got.

When I failed my first test, however, the tester didn't tell me what any of the faults corresponded too (to be fair to him, every single all 7 of the Grade 2's I got were for progress, so it didn't take a genius to work it out) he just said ask your driving instructor. Luckily, I didn't get any faults on the second test but I imagine he wouldn't have explained them anyway - I can understand why they don't, I just think it's not very productive, especially if you fail multiple times for seemingly non-related faults (as can happen).

Mind you, I think the introduction of the E.D.T. programme is a step in the right direction. Maybe I'll amend my earlier point about motorways to say one of the lessons on E.D.T. should be based on a motorway or dual carraigeway if available. It's just too important to ignore.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnmcdnl

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm sure some entrepreneur would see potential in opening a center where you could simulate snow to practice on if it were to be in the test..

dragon's den job :pac: at the minute naturally it'd be a retarted idea but if it were mandatory on the test I'm sure you'd see them springing up across the place...

LEH

Just because somebody sits their test in Spring/Summer doesn't mean they shouldn't know and be asked about how to drive in snow. Obviously not practical demonstrations but a verbal question and answer to show you know the theory behind it!

**Timbuk2**

I could be wrong, but don't road deaths go down everytime it's snowy/icy because people are driving much more slowly (and avoiding unnecessary journies), so while ice driving takes a lot of skill, bad motorway driving could cause more deaths and thus would be more important? Just a thought, I'll look up official statistics if I can when I'm not on my mobile.

challengemaster

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I could be wrong, but don't road deaths go down everytime it's snowy/icy because people are driving much more slowly (and avoiding unnecessary journies), so while ice driving takes a lot of skill, bad motorway driving could cause more deaths and thus would be more important? Just a thought, I'll look up official statistics if I can when I'm not on my mobile.

Yup, they do go down because less people are driving...

However, motorway accidents don't tend to occur as often as on other roads, and nor do they often result in deaths (due to motorways having a divider in the centre of the road)

**Timbuk2**

challengemaster wrote: »

Yup, they do go down because less people are driving...

However, motorway accidents don't tend to occur as often as on other roads, and nor do they often result in deaths (due to motorways having a divider in the centre of the road)

Good point about motorways, those primary secondary roads that are 100km/h are probably much more dangerous - maybe they could be included in the test?

I always thought that accidents on motorways are infrequent, but when they do occur, they can be very dangerous (involving a lot of cars) due to the high speeds. Motorways wouldn't even have to be part of the test as a practical element, there should be more about them on the theory test - once people know the rules. I don't recall there being that much about motorways on the theory test, apart from the few signs, the strange "leaves on the motorway picture that could cause skidding", putting on your hazards if you encounter unexpected very slow traffic and of course the speed limit - I can't remember there being anything about lane discipline. And let's face it, a person not knowing which lane to be in could be arguably more dangerous than breaking the speed limit on the motorway - a middle lane hogger forces people to either make more lane changes than necessary to overtake, or even undertake which is a very dangerous maneuver.

Mister Jingles

Mister Jingles wrote: »

(Mandatory) All secondary school students should be thought basic rules of the road while in 5th or 6th year.

(Optional) When thats or while thats being covered students should be thought basic car controls i.e how to move a car (clutch),make it go faster (accelerator) and stopping the car (break).

They must of heard me out

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/call-for-driving-lessons-in-schools-16033957.html

also heard it was on TV3 too.

softmee

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

those primary secondary roads that are 100km/h are probably much more dangerous - maybe they could be included in the test?

I was driving from Galway to Clifden and Cong recently. I dont get how there could be 100km/h limit! I was driving 80 and I thought it was too fast sometimes. Narrow. winding roads with stone walls on both sides! :eek:
How this could be safe to drive 100km/h there!?!

-and back to topic -I think system here is ok, just what I think is missing is few group theory classes with instructors -that would allow to discuss all the situations on the roads and answer the questions every learner has. Not everything is in the book and when in a car with instructor you are focused on driving and how not too stall the engine at the beginning.

**Timbuk2**

softmee wrote: »

I was driving from Galway to Clifden and Cong recently. I dont get how there could be 100km/h limit! I was driving 80 and I thought it was too fast sometimes. Narrow. winding roads with stone walls on both sides! :eek:
How this could be safe to drive 100km/h there!?!

Some roads have crazy speed limits. There's some roads that are 80km/h that can barely fit one car. There's a road near me like that it's tiny and has an 80km/h limit (in reality you definitely couldn't do over 50km/h) and it ends at a roundabout with a dual carraigeway, the dual carraigeway is 60km/h when in actual fact 80-100km/h would be much more suitable!

Often those secondary N roads are 100km/h but have sections where you need to go slower than 100km/h, like bad bends, blind junctions etc. Sometimes 100km/h is fine on the straight, but they really should have reduced speed limits coming up to bad bends!

In Louth, there are some R roads that have 100km/h limits, as well as an N road (the N1) that is dual carraigeway but has 120km/h limits, and in Cork the N25 is 120km/h for a section of it! But these are 'adjusted' by local councils because while the road has a low classification (e.g. Regional road), it's safe to do the higher speed.

softmee

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Some roads have crazy speed limits. There's some roads that are 80km/h that can barely fit one car. There's a road near me like that it's tiny and has an 80km/h limit (in reality you definitely couldn't do over 50km/h) and it ends at a roundabout with a dual carraigeway, the dual carraigeway is 60km/h when in actual fact 80-100km/h would be much more suitable!

Often those secondary N roads are 100km/h but have sections where you need to go slower than 100km/h, like bad bends, blind junctions etc. Sometimes 100km/h is fine on the straight, but they really should have reduced speed limits coming up to bad bends!

In Louth, there are some R roads that have 100km/h limits, as well as an N road (the N1) that is dual carraigeway but has 120km/h limits, and in Cork the N25 is 120km/h for a section of it! But these are 'adjusted' by local councils because while the road has a low classification (e.g. Regional road), it's safe to do the higher speed.

Most of the people will just use their common sense and slow down when they should, but if you think how some just have to drive always slightly over limit.... I was afraid of passing cars cutting corners and flying stones were like gun fire!

galwaycyclist

Obviously enough I feel all schoolchildren should be taught how to cycle in traffic before they are let anywhere near the theory or practice of driving a car.

The UK National Standard for Cycle Training follows the following curriculum.

Level 1: Basic bike handling (taught off road) - using brakes and gears, checking behind, hand signals, emergency stops and swerves.

Level 2: Basic traffic skills (taught on minor roads) - starting a journey, road position (primary and secondary), overtaking parked cars, pulling in, left-turns, right turns, small roundabouts,

Level 3: Advanced skills multilane roads, large roundabouts, complex traffic signals.

Faith+1

What chance do learners have in this country when we have this....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mozzercork/1812910823/in/photostream

Mister Jingles

Faith+1 wrote: »

What chance do learners have in this country when we have this....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mozzercork/1812910823/in/photostream

haha I'd be surprised to see a rally car do 100 there

johnmcdnl

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Some roads have crazy speed limits. There's some roads that are 80km/h that can barely fit one car. There's a road near me like that it's tiny and has an 80km/h limit (in reality you definitely couldn't do over 50km/h) and it ends at a roundabout with a dual carraigeway, the dual carraigeway is 60km/h when in actual fact 80-100km/h would be much more suitable!

Often those secondary N roads are 100km/h but have sections where you need to go slower than 100km/h, like bad bends, blind junctions etc. Sometimes 100km/h is fine on the straight, but they really should have reduced speed limits coming up to bad bends!

In Louth, there are some R roads that have 100km/h limits, as well as an N road (the N1) that is dual carraigeway but has 120km/h limits, and in Cork the N25 is 120km/h for a section of it! But these are 'adjusted' by local councils because while the road has a low classification (e.g. Regional road), it's safe to do the higher speed.

or in the case of the N3 after the M3 was opened - reclassify the roads to 80kph so you have to pay the 2 motorway tolls if you need to get to Dublin in a rush :mad: :mad: - to increase traffic on the motorway and all that yano so the politicians get to look good for building the new motorway

it's a straight main road that was more than capable of traffic traveling at 100kph but money says to reduce speed limit to 80 :mad:


and compare that 80kph road to beside my house...

just doesn't make sense the speed limits at all sometimes...


I'd love for any tester or instructor to try to demonstrate how to safely travel at 70-80kph on that road there that'd be fun

but in all seriousness - how the **** has the old N3 route which is a great road got the same speed limit as that lane there only in Ireland

munchkin_utd

The compulsorary lessons with a structured laid out sylabus are a great start in introducing better habits into learner drivers.

Heres the 12 lessons laid out which now must be taken, including night driving.
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Driver%20Training/EDT%20Syllabus%20A4-2.pdf

And it also stipulates that the learner be challenged with various difficult driving conditions. From personal experience that was the main benefit I got from having a good driving instructor. He deliberately brought me on some of the most horrible narrow and busy roads during the lessons which really benefit me in day to day driving. If you had your dad only teaching you, he might not find these stretches of road and more importantly might not communicate the proper driving and observation techniques needed in the situation. And an instructor being blunt with feedback on your mistakes in difficult driving situations is easier to take than from a family member!

But theres still the obvious ommition! There really should be dual carraigeway/ motorway driving on the lessons with a special permission for learners to use them for the lesson. And if that means a day trip to Dublin or Cork at the weekend to have it with a different instructor than normal then so be it.

The test though really is outdated.
Why are handsignals still included? Cars now are more complicated but reliable so a knowledge of your warning lights and other features surely is more relevant?
Why is parking either reversing into a space or parallel parking not included seeing as it is one of the major techniques needed to be a functioning driver?
Also, a 3 point turn! Nowhere to be seen in the test.
Also use of a roundabout - at least should be a criteria if theres one nearby seeing as the things are so often a bone of contention as to how they should be used - even requiring tv ads!!

If the test focused on those hard skills more than "making progress" and other wishy washy categories then you'd have better drivers and less fails.

challengemaster

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Why are handsignals still included? Cars now are more complicated but reliable so a knowledge of your warning lights and other features surely is more relevant?

Well, you still need to know the AGS hand signals, as they're relavent, and tbh it's not like it's that difficult to learn anyway. Better to have it and not need it than not know it and need it tbh.

Also, a 3 point turn! Nowhere to be seen in the test.

Eh.... the turnabout? Been in the test since... forever

Also use of a roundabout - at least should be a criteria if theres one nearby seeing as the things are so often a bone of contention as to how they should be used - even requiring tv ads!!

Well testers usually do take you through routes that have them if they're nearby, but it's somewhat unreasonable to expect a 20mile drive to find a roundabout or to think that they'd intentionally avoid a route with roundabouts...

If the test focused on those hard skills more than "making progress" and other wishy washy categories then you'd have better drivers and less fails.

Actually, I think the making progress/keeping up to speed isn't enforced enough in the test - and it's the reason we still have people driving 30km/h under the speed limit without any good reason, which TBH is the real cause of a lot of accidents in the country, more-so than the government (RSA) would ever admit as it would go against their propaganda.

Flecktarn

Just out of interest, when was the last time the driving test was changed or revised?

Flecktarn

(Double Post)

Bobby42

There will be changes to the driver test coming in later in the year under the roll out of graduated driver licensing.

Link to the RSA Graduated Driver Licensing here:

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Learner-Drivers/Driver-Training/Graduated-Driver-Licensing/

Think they're moving to towards the way the test is carried out in the UK and Northern Ireland.

The difference is that instead of the tester asking you to turn left here, and turn right there, you'll be asked to drive from a to b.

starlit

Bobby42 wrote: »

There will be changes to the driver test coming in later in the year under the roll out of graduated driver licensing.

Link to the RSA Graduated Driver Licensing here:

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Learner-Drivers/Driver-Training/Graduated-Driver-Licensing/

Think they're moving to towards the way the test is carried out in the UK and Northern Ireland.

The difference is that instead of the tester asking you to turn left here, and turn right there, you'll be asked to drive from a to b.

That's all fine, said and done. Easy to say and state on paper but is it easy to apply in practice sometimes drivers won't know where they are going unless they know the road well and have driven the route while preparing for the test, and done a number of the routes with their instructor as there is likely to be more than one route on offer for the test depending on the test centre. It be hard enough when drivers are a bag of nerves on the day, it be enough for them to concentrate on their driving without worrying when to turn or not. Unless they know the way will it benefit them. It's much easier to be guided but surely the tester will ask to do the general thing like 'stop at the junction ahead' and maybe ask to turn left/right if the driver is unsure? What if you took a wrong turn or expected to take a different turn even if given the map before hand of the direction from a to b. I don't know what that's to prove? A mock test/pre-test be the only way prove it be beneficial for the test.