Why not have a proper, formal driving course taught in schools?

SuperInfinity

I think the driving and theory tests are a bit ridiculous in their current form. They are just common sense, ordinary driving, and then adding some sticking points in order to fail some people. For example looking in the mirror every five seconds, not changing the gear exactly when they want you to, not steering how they want you to, etc. All of these are obviously unnecessary and would never cause an accident. The same with those extremely rare signs on the theory test which you might never see in your whole life on the road.

I think they should try and start a course for the Junior Cert where you would learn the basics about driving, and especially.... about accidents. They could have statistics about accidents and the theory of how they occur. They could also have numerous case studies of fatal accidents and how they happened. They could discuss how they can be avoided also. Remember: it's very often not just the instigator of the situation whose driving skills and judgements are put to the test in such a situation. Being a good driver when everything is normal is one thing, being a good driver when others are acting rash or some dangerous situation arises is quite another.

They could have diagrams of how accidents are likely to occur, supported by statistics. They could have alternative and safer actions the drivers could have taken. This compared to the "I see a tractor in front of me, should I: A) Slow down Speed up" etc. nonsense you have now.

The ad about how to actually use a roundabout on tv, was a good start. I still see people doing ludicrous things on roundabouts, but at least there is an official guide showing people how to do it. Before this, there was no way of knowing unless you asked someone and it's not easy to explain.

Maybe they would also find that a lot of accidents are caused by bad roads, ie. the RSA and government's fault. And that you should be very suspicious of MANY roads and bends, and not assume that you can take them at speeds that are quite reasonable with regard to your position on the road and foresight available.

The course could be done in Junior Cert, it would be a replacement to the theory test. It could be once a week, maybe even just for one year. What could be more important than what might cost someone their life?

Now there may as well be no theory test at all, they may as well just say to you to get in the car and go and shur you'll pick it up as you go along.

MascotDec85

This is happening in certain places
Some schools seem very reluctant to want to run such courses. This is disgraceful imo

loobylou

Driving should be part of transition year curriculum. Problem is though that you would need to lower the age for getting a learners permit to 16, so as to allow students "real" driving.
At present transition year courses concentrate on theory only. This is unlikely to hold the attention of a student.

charlemont

Money, The powers that be don't want teenagers learning how to drive without forking out cold hard cash.

But seriously the amount of people who leave school without knowing how to read a rail or bus timetable or figure out connections and route numbers, cant read or understand a map, haven't a clue about National/Regional roads, etc is disgraceful.

spurious

Our LCA classes do their theory test as part of their personal achievement task and as a treat last year we booked them an hour each with a company who ran driving simulators in a big truck that they brought into the school yard. We used the profits they had made from one of their mini-companies to fund it.

They loved it. I had a go too - it was really quite realistic, except it was set that you could not go more than about 40kph. It prints out a log of your time, road position, speeds, what your most common errors are etc.. A very good idea for people who are not yet able to go on the road.

mikemac

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I think they should try and start a course for the Junior Cert where you would learn the basics about driving, and especially.... about accidents. They could have statistics about accidents and the theory of how they occur. They could also have numerous case studies of fatal accidents and how they happened. They could discuss how they can be avoided also.

I agree, a cold hard look at the facts, factors, main causes and result.
The national papers could run a monthly column on this too.

Will never happen SuperInfinity, Ireland is a small place and even if you remove the names and locations, you'd easily see who was involved.

When the lads in Monaghan died over playing chicken and over the alcohol limit it was hushed up and anyone who asked questions was called insensitive by the families.
Nothing was learned.

When the lady was killed on the N7 it was called a tragedy and so it was.
But when a radio show discussed how she was speeding in heavy fog and drove into the back of a fire engine, her sister went on the air and blasted the radio show host for even talking about it.

The only case I remember being openly discussed was a father in Donegal whose daughter died, he blamed the council and since it seems it wasn't her fault he was happy to discuss the facts and blast the council over road conditions.

It's a good idea SuperInfinity, but drivers don't make mistakes it seems and if they kill themselves playing chicken or driving into the back of a big fire engine with flashing lights, best we don't talk about it

GoldFour4

My old school has a driving programme in place for transition year. All students get three lessons with an instructer on a course the school built on the grounds. They also get the chance to do their theory test of they want.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I think the driving and theory tests are a bit ridiculous in their current form.

Well perhaps they should be changed then.

They are just common sense, ordinary driving, and then adding some sticking points in order to fail some people.

I disagree that driving is common sense.

For example looking in the mirror every five seconds, not changing the gear exactly when they want you to, not steering how they want you to, etc. All of these are obviously unnecessary and would never cause an accident.

Simply not true. If people used their mirrors as they should then there'd be a hell of a lot less accidents.

The same with those extremely rare signs on the theory test which you might never see in your whole life on the road.

Which ones?

I think they should try and start a course for the Junior Cert where you would learn the basics about driving, and especially.... about accidents. They could have statistics about accidents and the theory of how they occur. They could also have numerous case studies of fatal accidents and how they happened. They could discuss how they can be avoided also. Remember: it's very often not just the instigator of the situation whose driving skills and judgements are put to the test in such a situation. Being a good driver when everything is normal is one thing, being a good driver when others are acting rash or some dangerous situation arises is quite another.

Do you think that teachers should be the ones to teach this? Who would accredit the teacher? If it's not teachers who gets the contract and who pays the contracts? The state? The state is broke.

Maybe they would also find that a lot of accidents are caused by bad roads, ie. the RSA and government's fault. And that you should be very suspicious of MANY roads and bends, and not assume that you can take them at speeds that are quite reasonable with regard to your position on the road and foresight available.

There may be bad roads but you can hardly blame the government for reckless driving surely?

The course could be done in Junior Cert, it would be a replacement to the theory test. It could be once a week, maybe even just for one year. What could be more important than what might cost someone their life?

If we agree that it would be a waste of teachers time then who does the training and how does the government pay for it? Who gets awarded the conracts and if it becomes an official part of leaving cert it becomes extra cost for the already broke state.

Personally I think it's an awful idea. Leave drving training well outside schools and keep the state out of it altogether

The state has screwed up enough without giving those monkeys another shot gun to play with.

MascotDec85

"Bad roads" aren't the responsibility of the RSA.

They are the responsibility of the National Roads Authority (NRA) and the local County Councils where applicable

elbee

loobylou wrote: »

Driving should be part of transition year curriculum. Problem is though that you would need to lower the age for getting a learners permit to 16, so as to allow students "real" driving.
At present transition year courses concentrate on theory only. This is unlikely to hold the attention of a student.

The only problem with doing it in TY is that as far as I know (and I may be wrong on this, apologies if I am) is that TY is optional in some schools. When I was 15, there was no way I could have handled staying at school an extra year just to learn one thing.

I know there is a cost issue involved, but we already pay for TY which is essentially a whole year for general development rather than exam-focused learning. Not a bad thing, but if we're talking about paring education back to the essentials, that and at least one or two religion classes should be eliminated.

Also, the state pays money to have PE teachers, which is definitely not within in the realm of exam-focused learning. Someone gets paid a salary to make a class of 17- and 18-year olds run for forty minutes twice a week.

I think mandatory driving classes, taught by an ADI, would be a good use of state money when considered alongside PE or TY programmes, which we're already choosing to spend money on.

And as the state makes a loss on every driving test, if the pass rate was higher, that would lead to a small saving.

SuperInfinity

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The course could be done in Junior Cert, it would be a replacement to the theory test. It could be once a week, maybe even just for one year. What could be more important than what might cost someone their life?
.

It might well cost them their life if our educators got their hands on it, what with grade inflation, no inspections, etc
It's costly with money we don't have and I have no faith that the standards would be appropriate. Leave it as it is

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

roast

I reckon it would be a good idea to have driving theory taught in secondary school, with the option to sit the theory test there.
It's more relevant than having a religion class anyway!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

miju

Think one of the main factors is insurance namely how do you insure an unlicensed school goer in a car when most would be at the age not to get a license?

I know during Transition year about 13 years ago we had 4 theory lessons and 4 actual driving lessons on the school grounds and then 1 on the road as a passenger only.

Like to think that it served me well when I first got behind the wheel of a car

roast

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely.

loobylou

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It would of course have to be thought by an ADI. But there would be huge economies of scale.
I would quite happily spend a full 7/8 hour day teaching a large group from a single centre, as opposed to say 3 ordinary lessons, spread across a full day with a lot of travelling in between.
A lot of activities undertaken in transition year are considered extras and are paid for by the parents accordingly. Driving lessons need be no different, so there would be no extra cost to the taxpayer.
However, as I said earlier, for it to be practical we would first need to lower the age for getting a learners permit.