Irish Driving Test A Racket?

risteardb · 09-11-2012 01:29PM

i'd have my car crashed, if i had to drive like you are supposed to in the driving test along time ago, Did mine in mallow and past first time, it is a way easier there than any other place in cork!!!

username432 · 09-11-2012 08:06PM

Hobbes wrote: »

About the only time I would personally think of pulling the handbrake is if brakes have failed, not enough time to down gears and impact is about to happen. I wouldn't expect it to stop the impact, just slow you down a little bit. There is nothing involved in knowing, you just pull your handbrake up.

You restated what I originally posted. You have just agreed with what I stated. It's basic physics, this stuff. Brake is applied, car eventually stops. What is the issue here? What are you even complaining about? If the handbrake can stop the car rolling back on a gradient, you can be certain it will stop a car eventually in an emergency.

It's a complete myth that using the "parking" brake, which is actually a handbrake to stop the car is stupid. It's what the brake is there for!

--Kaiser-- · 09-11-2012 09:08PM

username432 wrote: »

You restated what I originally posted. You have just agreed with what I stated. It's basic physics, this stuff. Brake is applied, car eventually stops. What is the issue here? What are you even complaining about? If the handbrake can stop the car rolling back on a gradient, you can be certain it will stop a car eventually in an emergency.

It's a complete myth that using the "parking" brake, which is actually a handbrake to stop the car is stupid. It's what the brake is there for!

Firstly, handbrakes only work on the rear wheels. Use that at high speed and you lose control of the car, in fact, professional drifters use this aspect to start drifts.

Secondly, you ever see someone drive off with the handbrake on? Yeah? That's because they're not designed to sop a vehicle in motion

ZombieBride · 09-11-2012 09:23PM

In all the years I've been driving there has never been an occasion when I've needed to use hand signals.

RustyNut · 09-11-2012 09:26PM

username432 wrote: »

You restated what I originally posted. You have just agreed with what I stated. It's basic physics, this stuff. Brake is applied, car eventually stops. What is the issue here? What are you even complaining about? If the handbrake can stop the car rolling back on a gradient, you can be certain it will stop a car eventually in an emergency.

It's a complete myth that using the "parking" brake, which is actually a handbrake to stop the car is stupid. It's what the brake is there for!

Yes the hand brake will eventually stop a car, however in an emergency it is your worst option to attempt to control it. You are far more likely to lock up your back wheels and go spinning off into the scenery only making an already bad situation worse. The handbrake on a car is designed to prevent the car from moving when it already stoped and not to stop it from any speed. People will over react in an emergency, this is why abs was developed.

username432 · 09-11-2012 09:52PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Firstly, handbrakes only work on the rear wheels. Use that at high speed and you lose control of the car, in fact, professional drifters use this aspect to start drifts.

Secondly, you ever see someone drive off with the handbrake on? Yeah? That's because they're not designed to sop a vehicle in motion

I stated this too. Nowhere did I say it's ideal, but in a case of total brake failure, you have no other option, other than over revving the engine in a low gear. As I stated before, combined with over revving, it might save your life someday. It will eventually bring the car to a stop over a longer distance, yes, but in the situtation where all other brakes have failed, you aren't exactly in a position to be picky.

It's a perfectly valid concept, in very limited circumstances. That is all I am saying. What is the problem? You say you can drive a car with a handbrake pulled all the way up? If that was the case, every car in the country would roll back down hills. You don't know what you are talking about.

username432 · 09-11-2012 09:58PM

RustyNut wrote: »

Yes the hand brake will eventually stop a car, however in an emergency it is your worst option to attempt to control it. You are far more likely to lock up your back wheels and go spinning off into the scenery only making an already bad situation worse. The handbrake on a car is designed to prevent the car from moving when it already stoped and not to stop it from any speed. People will over react in an emergency, this is why abs was developed.

Rubbish. The Handbrake is the only brake not connected to your hydraulic system. It's your nuclear button option should all other brakes fail. You would only lose very significant control of the car if you don't perform the move correctly. I stated before you must downshift overrev the engine in low gear combination. The handbrake is designed for this.

As to the bit in bold, not all cars have ABS, and ABS isn't something I would want to rely on as a last resort to avoid a crash. Your handbrake is also an emergency means of stopping the car. This is a simple fact. You may as well try claim the earth is flat. It's common knowledge, though you could try and disprove me, I would love to read any material you provide.

It's nothing personal, I just want to clear up this complete myth.

Pedro K · 10-11-2012 03:12AM

username432 wrote: »

As to the bit in bold, not all cars have ABS, and ABS isn't something I would want to rely on as a last resort to avoid a crash. Your handbrake is also an emergency means of stopping the car. This is a simple fact.

Are you saying, that in an emergency, you would rather rely on your (often drum brake) hand brake rather than your abs disc brakes to stop your car???

IncognitoMan · 10-11-2012 03:24AM

MaxSteele wrote: »

I know this chap who did his driving test up in Donegal years ago.

Passed everything with flying colors, except he forgot to put on his seatbelt.

The miserable instructor failed him and so he was fuming. What did he do then ?

He drove the instructor out into the middle off nowhere and told him to get out to f*ck.

Im calling bull****. When I sat my test I didnt find out if I passed or failed until I was back in their office. So unless your friend managed to convince the tester to go for a spin after or kidnapped him its ****

Edit: Should have read the thread first I see hes already been called up on it

username432 · 10-11-2012 12:10PM

Pedro K wrote: »

Are you saying, that in an emergency, you would rather rely on your (often drum brake) hand brake rather than your abs disc brakes to stop your car???

In a car without ABS, yes. It's an emergency brake, not an ideal brake. You may only have 30% of the braking capacity compared to the foot brakes, but it's your last resort brake. Seriously though, I suspect many people here have degree's, yet can't understand a basic concept. A 5 year old could be taught this stuff. To all the peeps who "thanked" Kaiser, would you not just man up and give your perspective, it's cowardly to just circlejerk each other. State your argument please. Thanks whoring does not contribute to a discussion in a positive manner.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-11-2012 02:05PM

ZombieBride wrote: »

In all the years I've been driving there has never been an occasion when I've needed to use hand signals.

You've never driven straight when a Guard is doing traffic light duty :eek:

Also there are far too many taxi drivers who don't understand that using hazard warning lights means they no longer have function indicators, or that the illuminated sign TAXI on the roof is globally recognised as hazard warning symbol in and of itself.

house_speaker · 10-11-2012 03:00PM

i passed it the second time and most definatley should have failed

i failed it the first time ( obviously ) and most definatley should have passed , was failed on observation which is a stock n trade fail option for testers , made sure the second time to do an impression of the girl in the movie the exorcist , every time i passed a road of any kind or took a turn , i done a near 360 with my neck

Madam_X · 10-11-2012 03:39PM

Doubt it's an organised money racket. Too arbitrary and case-by-case for that. It's down to the individual examiner. Some of it is quite subjective yes but most of the whinging is people just being annoyed they didn't pass. Although it sucks when you put in a lot if practice, feel the test went well, then failed. Necessary evil though.

Herb Powell · 10-11-2012 03:46PM

username432 wrote: »

You restated what I originally posted. You have just agreed with what I stated. It's basic physics, this stuff. Brake is applied, car eventually stops. What is the issue here? What are you even complaining about? If the handbrake can stop the car rolling back on a gradient, you can be certain it will stop a car eventually in an emergency.

It's a complete myth that using the "parking" brake, which is actually a handbrake to stop the car is stupid. It's what the brake is there for!

I don't think you get to decide it's a myth.......

Anyway, driving tests have to be fairly strict when you think about it.

kirving · 10-11-2012 03:52PM

Hobbes wrote: »

Your gearbox is designed to automatically apply braking. That is why you use your gears going downhill and not your brakes. If you were to use your brakes in that situation, they are more likely to fail possibly killing/injuring you and others in the process.

The gearbox itself does't provide any braking effect.

When you release the throttle, the engine has to do more work to pull air though it, providing a braking effect. The rotational inertia of the engine also plays a part. The kinetic energy of a spinning object is poroprtional to the square of it's anglular veloxity, so a spinning engine has lots of energy which can be converted into a braking effect if you created a difference in speed between the wheels and engine by changing gears.

Modern brakes aren't likely to fail going down a hill.

juan.kerr · 10-11-2012 03:52PM

Turtyturd wrote: »

Emergency handbrake stop?...I feel safer knowing you failed op.

Not sure why. The OP probably drove to and from the test centre unaccompanied and probably continues to drive unaccompanied.

imurdaddy · 10-11-2012 04:01PM

i passed my test first time after two lessons, my driving instructor told me i had no chance. on the day of the test the tester turned up 30 min lat for my test and was all about me, i made a load of mistakes in the test but passed with only 2 faults. i have no doubt he passed me because he was late and let me hanging around.

username432 · 10-11-2012 04:22PM

Herb Powell wrote: »

I don't think you get to decide it's a myth.......

Anyway, driving tests have to be fairly strict when you think about it.

Yes, you are correct. The outcome of a "driving test" nullifies any capacity for debatable arugment or discussion. Whatever you do, please don't work in a field that requires logical, concise thinking. That statement is most certainly not an example of such thinking.

endacl · 10-11-2012 04:30PM

shopaholic01 wrote: »

OP ......... this is awkward ....... it's an emergency stop, not an emergency handbrake stop.

You might be confusing this with a hill start.

An emergency hill start?

username432 · 10-11-2012 04:35PM

juan.kerr wrote: »

Not sure why. The OP probably drove to and from the test centre unaccompanied and probably continues to drive unaccompanied.

You're only a bad driver if you crash willfully. With the number of people driving without a full licence already, I suspect most get away scot free, simply because the Gardai have more important stuff to be doing than catching people, like solving Murders and stuff. Guards have better things to be doing. What, do you think EVERY person in the country who have to go to work on a provisional, are going to "bring a full driver" with them at all times? Considering the statistics, I highly doubt it.

I have seen some terrible driving from people with a full licence, and some good drivers without one. Assuming people with a licence are good drivers outright is bull, likewise to presume for people who don't have one are bad drivers. It's not that simple. Why do you think the government has the ability to revoke a full licence? This is an implication that full licence holders can be horrible drivers too, No?

It's another policy of inept Government. I feel bad for the Gardai, along with the Courts , Defence Forces and President, these branchs are the only truly legitimate branch of Government. Anything else is a self serving money hungry Politician. The Politicians only give a **** about themselves. I mean where the hell do these policies even derive from, a divine spirit, the politicians self interest, or actual scientific data? Who knows. Going OTT, but Politics is a real Charade.

kirving · 10-11-2012 04:53PM

username432 wrote: »

You're only a bad driver if you crash willfully.

Nope.

I'm sure most crap drivers who cause accidents don't want to crash.

username432 · 10-11-2012 04:58PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Nope.

I'm sure most crap drivers who cause accidents don't want to crash.

Notice the word "wilfully". That one word invalidates your entire rebuttal.

juan.kerr · 10-11-2012 04:58PM

username432 wrote: »

What, do you think EVERY person in the country who have to go to work on a provisional, are going to "bring a full driver" with them at all times? Considering the statistics, I highly doubt it.

Do you not realise that the unaccompanied 'provisional' driving is an Irish thing that no other country tolerates? Other countries don't let unlicenced drivers drive unaccompanied on public roads, why should we allow it in Ireland?

It's ridiculous that someone should buy a car or rely on a car to get to work BEFORE they have a driving licence.

There is no reason why a driver should ned a car to get to work and still have a provisional licence other than they are incapable of passing the driving test.

username432 · 10-11-2012 05:05PM

juan.kerr wrote: »

Do you not realise that the 'provisional' driving licence is an Irish thing that no other country has? Other countries don't let unlicenced drivers drive unaccompanied on public roads, why should we allow it in Ireland?

It's ridiculous that someone should buy a car or rely on a car to get to work BEFORE they have a driving licence.

There is no reason why a driver should ned a car to get to work and still have a provisional licence other than they are incapable of passing the driving test.

Because the difficulty of passing a test varies from country to country? I mean in America, you don't even need to know how to drive a manual transmission. Everybody should know how to drive a manual transmission unless you aren't physically capable. Why are people who can't drive manual cars allowed drive, yet somebody who can fails by 1 point for not putting on his seatbelt during the test does not?

Ghost Buster · 10-11-2012 05:05PM

I long suspected that, as this is Ireland, the driving test was an unanswerable shoddy scam and had it proven to me in 2001.
My then girlfriend, now wife had been riding motorbikes her entire life, since about 10 (off road!!:)). She passed her provisional no problem.
She entered an event called The European Young Rider of the Year where a guy and girl from every European country would take part in a road safety awareness campaign for bikers culminating in a trip to Milan for a road skills competition. She won the females heat hands down and so was chosen to represent Ireland.
A snag arose for the Milan trip as she would need a full licence for that. She was taken for a days training with the garda traffic police trainer who said that she was perfect and would pass no bother.
Come test day she walked into the test centre where an auld geezer reluctantly folded up his news paper, looked my wife, in full kevlar gear and boots, up and down, sighed audibly and muttered 'lets get this over with'. he basicly followed her around a housing estate in Sligo in his car. Lost her a couple of times, did not do the slow speed part of the test (To check low speed balance) or the U turn or any of the standard parts of the bike test. No surprise ..he failed her.
She kicked up an almighty fuss to absolutely no avail as there is zero recourse it seems. Eventually the garda trainer managed to pull some strings and get a re test in a hurry before the trip to Milan came up. She got a new, young tester who passed her with zero marks against her on the test. The best part was that the original auld fecker who failed her was sitting in the test centre as she and the new tester walked by and the new guy announced very loudly "I dont understand how you were failed the first time!!!".
Utter farce

kiffer · 10-11-2012 05:06PM

Madam_X wrote: »

Doubt it's an organised money racket. Too arbitrary and case-by-case for that. It's down to the individual examiner. Some of it is quite subjective yes but most of the whinging is people just being annoyed they didn't pass. Although it sucks when you put in a lot if practice, feel the test went well, then failed. Necessary evil though.

Most of the whinging is indeed.
That said if there was a racket how would we know except from people complaining about it.

Best story I've heard was a friend of my sister who insists that when she was in the office answering the pretest questions she noticed that the tester had already marked a fail on the sheet...
And we have the poster commenting on passing even though they felt maybe the shouldn't have just because the tester was late.
And we have people who get very short easy tests because the got the time slot during the busy schools just got out period and the roads were so busy...
And various other gossip that may be groundless or might be indicative of a system in dire need of an overhaul.

juan.kerr · 10-11-2012 05:14PM

username432 wrote: »

Because the difficulty of passing a test varies from country to country? I mean in America, you don't even need to know how to drive a manual transmission. Everybody should know how to drive a manual transmission unless you aren't physically capable. Why are people who can't drive manual cars allowed drive, yet somebody who can fails by 1 point for not putting on his seatbelt during the test does not?

Absolute rubbish. If a driver can't pass the test they shouldn't be driving unaccompanied. End of story.

kirving · 10-11-2012 05:19PM

username432 wrote: »

Notice the word "wilfully". That one word invalidates your entire rebuttal.

That makes no sense, at all. You can be a bad driver, and never crash. You can also be a bad driver and crash without wanting to.

You said that you're onlya bad driver if you crash willfully. i.e. wanting to. Do you think anyone wants to crash their car?

Daveysil15 · 10-11-2012 05:43PM

Madam_X wrote: »

Doubt it's an organised money racket. Too arbitrary and case-by-case for that. It's down to the individual examiner.

I agree with this. I failed my test 3 times before I passed on the 4th go. The first 3 times I had different examiners and they all penalised me on different things. For example; the first examiner penalised me for not putting the car into 5th gear on the dual carriage way, (during the pre-test my instructor told me I should leave it in 4th) On the second test a different examiner, penalised me for putting it into 5th - I just couldn’t win!

On the third test when I was reversing around the corner, rather than reversing a few yards and then stopping, (which is the way it usually works) this bollix had me reversing the whole way back to the end of the estate, where I eventually clipped the curb. I managed to get a decent fella on the 4th test and thanks be the jasus, I passed it, because there was no way I was going to do it for a 5th time.

username432 · 10-11-2012 05:51PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

That makes no sense, at all. You can be a bad driver, and never crash. You can also be a bad driver and crash without wanting to.

You said that you're onlya bad driver if you crash willfully. i.e. wanting to. Do you think anyone wants to crash their car?

A prerequisite for crashing wilfully is an intent to drive in a manner which is not conducive to proper, safe driving. The axiom that you can be a bad driver and never crash, or that you can be a bad driver and not want to crash, are completely seperate arguments altogether.

Irish Driving Test A Racket?

Comments