What changes would you make to the Driving Test?

Blondie919

http://www.thejournal.ie/driving-test-ireland-1503333-Jun2014/

The RSA want the public to give their views on how the driving test should be altered. I think everyone should suggest something, and especially us bikers. We could ask that anyone on the test show that they are aware of bikers somehow. There must be other ways to change it but I can't think of any right now. Maybe the rest of ye can think of something?

Here's the link to the RSA.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/Consultations/Driver-Testing-and-Licensing/Proposals-for-the-Reform-of-the-Practical-Driving-Test-in-Ireland-/

tim3000

Surprised this thread hasnt garnered more attention. This is the email I sent to them. I know it will make no difference whatsoever but one can dream.

To whom it may concern,

As a frustrated learner driver I propose the following reform to the process.

I feel I must address the cost of retests. It is shame that retests are as expensive as the primary exam. I propose that retests be halved in price or that they adopt a similar process as the NCT, where the previous points of failure are tested in the retest at an appropriate fee. Those of us who have to to sit the test 2 and 3 times find the escalating cost of these tests off putting and stress inducing. The more cynical among us may view it as a revenue generating exercise.

The above method has the advantage of speeding up the test/re-test process as the exam invigilators need only examine previous points of failure which could be done in as little time as 15 minutes not the 45-50 minute time needed for a full retest. I ask you why should a driver demonstrate the same skills two and three times in order to pass a single test? This is not the case with any other exam practical or otherwise Surely it makes more sense to have them demonstrate that they have learned from their mistakes and corrected the offending error.

I understand the need for increased safety on our roads, but learning to drive is an incredibly expensive process. Lets not forget that it is the youth that are learning to drive. This is the same youth that is leaving our shores in droves, the same youth that is often claiming social welfare or working underpaid jobs and you ask us to shell out time and time again.

I hope the above is taken into consideration.

Regards
tim3000

Wonda-Boy

For a start, all motorbike testers should be on a bike.....NO EXCEPTIONS!

Blondie919

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

For a start, all motorbike testers should be on a bike.....NO EXCEPTIONS!

Good point this. I always found it hard to understand how a tester following you in a car would see the things that you see and do, and interpret the same way. I remember raging after my second failed attempt about my tester. He was some old dude following me in a car. I remember afterwards raging to anyone who listened that I felt as if he'd never ridden a bike before! What did he know about riding motorbikes?!

The test could be done the same way the guards carry out their Bike Safe course. The tester follows you on a motorbike.

popolive

parallel parking is missing

Frigga_92

I heard about this on the radio, apparently the RSA intend to "shake it up" in some way which I'd imagine will increase the cost in some way for us all.

I would like to see driving simulation as part of the driving test, as part of the simulation the candidate could sit the test in different vehicles.
I would like to see mandatory re-testing, the fee or a portion of the fee for same could be refunded if the candidate is successful or a reduction in insurance, say 25% or something along those lines.
Also, maybe a kind of "general knowledge" section about other vehicles. For example, I would know a bit about cars even though I don't drive one but there are few car only drivers who would know much about bikes, ie harsh braking at slow speeds can potentially cause a lot of damage on a bike as opposed to any other vehicle.

kerry4sam

I had not heard about this so Fair Play to the RSA & all concerned with this development.

Only passed theory test and holding tough for few months before applying for provisional & commencing my training courses, so will follow this thread & the RSA to see what developments are implemented.

Have no business near a motorbike at present; so any and all safety issues they change / implement will be welcomed by me.

Thanks for starting this thread,
kerry4sam

minidazzler

tim3000 wrote: »

Surprised this thread hasnt garnered more attention. This is the email I sent to them. I know it will make no difference whatsoever but one can dream.

To whom it may concern,

As a frustrated learner driver I propose the following reform to the process.

I feel I must address the cost of retests. It is shame that retests are as expensive as the primary exam. I propose that retests be halved in price or that they adopt a similar process as the NCT, where the previous points of failure are tested in the retest at an appropriate fee. Those of us who have to to sit the test 2 and 3 times find the escalating cost of these tests off putting and stress inducing. The more cynical among us may view it as a revenue generating exercise.

Sorry, but No. If you fcuk up enough to fail a Drivng test, it should be the full test redone.... and I say this as someone who is doing his Full Licence test on Thursday next... If I fail it, I should have to pay full price again to resit, because regardless of if it's just any one thing, if I can't pay attention for an hour enough to pass a fcuking driving test, I'm a ****ty driver. Even if it's one or two little things I fail on.

prunudo

They should teach people how to use a 3 lane road/motorway properly. I'm sick of middle hoggers on the m50 & n7.
Also they should make a learner driver ride pillion to realise how vulnerable motorcyclists are to other road users.

This is probably more licensing then test but a mandatory eye sight test every time you reapply for a your 10 year license. Ridiculous that somebody can drive for 50 years with the same eye sight test done when they were 17.

Maybe they should look into a classroom based cpc style refresher course/test every 10 years too.

Wonda-Boy

I agree big time with a "Motorway" section being introduced, people in this country have no clue about driving on a motorway.

MarkR

Parallel parking. Correct use of lights. Road position on roundabouts. It's round! That's why they call it a round about! Don't go straight!

Roadskill

"MarkR wrote: »

Road position on roundabouts. It's round! That's why they call it a round about! Don't go straight!

Nothing wrong or illegal about straightening out a roundabout just don't do it with someone next to you. In fact its encouraged on the bike test in UK specially when wet.
The driving test here is too by the book with no room for common sense. Examiners have their own idea of correct driving instead of seeing people make a judgement for safety reasons. I don't see the need for the mentality of that's not what the rules of the road say so fail. A lot of the rotr is advisory and the rider/driver should be checked on their decision making and defensive riding/driving abilities.

KTRIC

Correct use of stoppies, wheelies and power slides.

popolive

Roadskill wrote: »

The driving test here is too by the book with no room for common sense.

This. If you dont' practically telegraph every move then you can very easily get marked down. Having to telegraph every move is actually dangerous. Maybe there needs to be two examiners for every test.

unattendedbag

jvan wrote: »

They should teach people how to use a 3 lane road/motorway properly. I'm sick of middle hoggers on the m50 & n7.

I agree with this and would add nighttime driving too. However not every centre has access to a three lane motorway.

lillen

popolive wrote: »

parallel parking is missing

As much as parallel parking is a good skill to have, it is not something needed for a driver to drive in a safe manner.
It's a drivers license, not a parking license.
A driver can choose to drive around until finding a suitable spot instead of parallel parking if he or she feels uncomfortable doing so.

popolive

lillen wrote: »

As much as parallel parking is a good skill to have, it is not something needed for a driver to drive in a safe manner.
It's a drivers license, not a parking license.
A driver can choose to drive around until finding a suitable spot instead of parallel parking if he or she feels uncomfortable doing so.

Ah yes but if you can parallel park in good time then you are demonstrating some control over the vehicle. Too many people try to parallel park into a small space but freeze instead and block traffic before giving up. This can also be dangerous on a busy road.

lostboy75

I remember after passing my test, the tester and myself had a bit of a chat about the driving you see on the roads. I mentioned that there should be retests or something similar to try keep the driving standards higher. he said there was no point, that some of the most annoying/dangerous driver on the road will just slow down and be careful for the hour they are doing the test, but when they pass its back to their old ways of no indication, tailgating etc.
the one item that would make our roads safer is"consideration for others" there is very little of that on the road.
I use "consideration of others" as a very broad term, covering letting others know what your intentions are(indicating, correct road positioning etc), not endangering them and you by tailgating, dangerous overtaking Etc.
Driving is mainly common sense really, if people actually though about what they do on the road i am not so sure they would do quite so many stupid things. but common sense seems to leave people once they get in/on their preferred mode of transport (excluding busses, trains Etc ;-))

tim3000

minidazzler wrote: »

Sorry, but No. If you fcuk up enough to fail a Drivng test, it should be the full test redone.... and I say this as someone who is doing his Full Licence test on Thursday next... If I fail it, I should have to pay full price again to resit, because regardless of if it's just any one thing, if I can't pay attention for an hour enough to pass a fcuking driving test, I'm a ****ty driver. Even if it's one or two little things I fail on.

Sorry, but yes. For some of us (including myself up to quite recently) 85 euros is over half our weekly income, for a 40 minute test where half of those that sit can expect to fail outright

How would a lowering of the price of a retest affect the quality of the driver once he/she passes? If anything a lower price would mean a calmer learner driver. I know that when I resat it a large consideration was that I better not fail or thats another 85 euros wasted and I am sure I am not the only one that thinks of this.

popolive

tim3000 wrote: »

Sorry, but yes. For some of us (including myself up to quite recently) 85 euros is over half our weekly income, for a 40 minute test where half of those that sit can expect to fail outright

How would a lowering of the price of a retest affect the quality of the driver once he/she passes? If anything a lower price would mean a calmer learner driver. I know that when I resat it a large consideration was that I better not fail or thats another 85 euros wasted and I am sure I am not the only one that thinks of this.

This is true and for that 85 euro you have to also factor in the cost of providing your own car separately too. How inefficiently run is a system which costs 85 euro (before cost of a car) for a half hour test ? I cant believe those sorts of overheads considering the driving testers were rarely idle with huge backlogs. How much can it cost to rent a garage with a few parking spaces , a computer and a few staff ?

Roadskill

popolive wrote: »

This is true and for that 85 euro you have to also factor in the cost of providing your own car separately too. How inefficiently run is a system which costs 85 euro (before cost of a car) for a half hour test ? I cant believe those sorts of overheads considering the driving testers were rarely idle with huge backlogs. How much can it cost to rent a garage with a few parking spaces , a computer and a few staff ?

I don't want to sound too pro RSA but there's a bit more to it than that.
Getting on the road isn't cheap for anyone but the bottom line is if you can't afford it don't do it. A licence is to be earned and it's not anyone's right to have one.
Test fee's and training costs are still some of the cheapest in the EU. If you don't believe me check them out.
At least there is a consultation in place. When was the last time doctors asked our opinion on a 2 minute appointment for €55 then rip me off for the medication.

Wonda-Boy

In all fairness Roadskill, there are alot of instructors out there doing basic IBT "WELL ABLE TO CHARGE" Dont know how they get away with it TBH. But that is a thread for another day.

Roadskill

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

In all fairness Roadskill, there are alot of instructors out there doing basic IBT "WELL ABLE TO CHARGE" Dont know how they get away with it TBH. But that is a thread for another day.

Yes I agree and it happens in every country. There are some instructors that only have the basic ADI exam and no experience charging more than highly qualified people. There are lot's of stories on the web from all over the world about the same issues stated on this thread. Some are unbelievable. Some very funny.

jimgoose

lostboy75 wrote: »

I remember after passing my test, the tester and myself had a bit of a chat about the driving you see on the roads. I mentioned that there should be retests or something similar to try keep the driving standards higher. he said there was no point, that some of the most annoying/dangerous driver on the road will just slow down and be careful for the hour they are doing the test, but when they pass its back to their old ways of no indication, tailgating etc.
the one item that would make our roads safer is"consideration for others" there is very little of that on the road.
I use "consideration of others" as a very broad term, covering letting others know what your intentions are(indicating, correct road positioning etc), not endangering them and you by tailgating, dangerous overtaking Etc.
Driving is mainly common sense really, if people actually though about what they do on the road i am not so sure they would do quite so many stupid things. but common sense seems to leave people once they get in/on their preferred mode of transport (excluding busses, trains Etc ;-))

Maybe it would be no harm in this day-and-age if the "civilian" driving test was made the same as the advanced one used to examine ADIs?

Roadskill

jimgoose wrote: »

Maybe it would be no harm in this day-and-age if the "civilian" driving test was made the same as the advanced used to examine ADIs?

I wouldn't really say it was advanced. Just longer with less mistakes allowed but yes I agree. Both bike & car tests are too easy, specially if you never get re-tested in your life.

jimgoose

Roadskill wrote: »

I wouldn't really say it was advanced. Just longer with less mistakes allowed.

Yeah, well "more advanced" maybe! There's also a bit more emphasis on environmentally-aware driving, hazard anticipation, etc.

popolive

Roadskill wrote: »

I don't want to sound too pro RSA but there's a bit more to it than that.
Getting on the road isn't cheap for anyone but the bottom line is if you can't afford it don't do it. A licence is to be earned and it's not anyone's right to have one.
Test fee's and training costs are still some of the cheapest in the EU. If you don't believe me check them out.
At least there is a consultation in place. When was the last time doctors asked our opinion on a 2 minute appointment for €55 then rip me off for the medication.

Of course. I never disagreed with this.... but... a big but ... are the examiners munching on Faberge eggs behind the scenes or what ? The student provides their own vehicle so then what do you get for 85 Euro ? You cant compare a half hour of an examiners time to a doctors visit which can turn out cheaper...Doctors have overheads too but crucially the examiner doesn't have the overhead of maintaining a vehicle, at least for the car test. And the examiner has a solid monopoly too. Doctors can be accused of having a cartel but examiners are on a different level even compared to this.

You cant compare prices in the EU either without a broader picture. How much are doctors across the EU ? How much profit is the government/private agency making off failed tests ?

Wonda-Boy

Roadskill wrote: »

Yes I agree and it happens in every country. There are some instructors that only have the basic ADI exam and no experience charging more than highly qualified people. There are lot's of stories on the web from all over the world about the same issues stated on this thread. Some are unbelievable. Some very funny.

That does not justify instructors doing it here just because its being done in other countries.....as I said dont wanna hyjack this thread anymore.;)

szatan84

I'd like to see poeple forced to progress with their license. For example you can't have a car without having a bike first, that way everyone would be more aware of other vehicles having driven one himself. And do away with the ****ing learner permit already! It's a bleedin joke that some idiot is able to drive a car with a basic theory test that's RIDICULOUSLY easy. To get a livense in Poland this is how it works:

Find an instructor
Finishe the jnstructor course (involes at least 8 hours theory and at least 30 hours behing wheel with the instructor)
Apply for driving license test
Pass theory test and if passed you are allowed to procced to the practical part which involes 40 minute of driving wifh teste following u (dirty trick are permitted on this ie the examiner might tell u to turn right when there is a sign saying it's not allowed, it's ur job to tell him it's illegal) parallel parking, 3way, 2 way turns and other bits are mandatory. Also you have to know basic medical stuff (how to do CPR, recognise spinal injury etc etc in case there is an accident)

Frigga_92

Do you mean every person wanting to obtain a licence should be forced to drive a motorbike at some stage for an extended period of time? I don't agree with forcing people to drive bikes if they do not want to or are not suited to them. I definitely think that there are a higher percentage of people not suited to bikes than are.

Also, I'm not sure about anybody else but I certainly think that only fully trained medical professionals should attend to people involved in serious accidents. What you think you might know about how to handle spinal injuries could be detrimental to a person lying on the road. If I came upon an accident I would only physically move or come into contact with a person if they were trapped in a vehicle that might ignite, otherwise call 999 and await the ambulance and gardai.
If you move someone unnecessarily and possibly cause them further injury, you are just opening yourself up to all kinds of litigation.

szatan84

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

Do you mean every person wanting to obtain a licence should be forced to drive a motorbike at some stage for an extended period of time? I don't agree with forcing people to drive bikes if they do not want to or are not suited to them. I definitely think that there are a higher percentage of people not suited to bikes than are.

I was thinking its a bit ott but its a thought. ..

[Qoute]Also, I'm not sure about anybody else but I certainly think that only fully trained medical professionals should attend to people involved in serious accidents. What you think you might know about how to handle spinal injuries could be detrimental to a person lying on the road. If I came upon an accident I would only physically move or come into contact with a person if they were trapped in a vehicle that might ignite, otherwise call 999 and await the ambulance and gardai.[/quote]

This is called first aid, how to put a person in recivery position, when to do that when not to. Which position to put the person in when hes got breathing problem's. This is life saving stuff! Eveyone is required to provide basic first aid to poeople ina an accident, failure to do so is a crime.

Frigga_92

szatan84 wrote: »

I was thinking its a bit ott but its a thought. ..

Also, I'm not sure about anybody else but I certainly think that only fully trained medical professionals should attend to people involved in serious accidents. What you think you might know about how to handle spinal injuries could be detrimental to a person lying on the road. If I came upon an accident I would only physically move or come into contact with a person if they were trapped in a vehicle that might ignite, otherwise call 999 and await the ambulance and gardai.

This is called first aid, how to put a person in recivery position, when to do that when not to. Which position to put the person in when hes got breathing problem's. This is life saving stuff! Eveyone is required to provide basic first aid to poeople ina an accident, failure to do so is a crime.

Basic first aid has nothing to do with spinal injuries (as referred to by you in your original post).

"Everyone" is not required to give first aid and it is not a crime in Ireland to not give first aid. You are only required to make contact or ensure contact has been made with the gardai/ambulance/fire brigade. What you are referring to is a tort which is different to a statute governing a criminal offence.
Anyway, this is going OT.