[98selitb]

Just out of interest Xenomorph, how often do you find yourself having to fail a candidate you believe deserved to pass, and how often do you find yourself having to pass a candidate who is in reality a terrible driver? I would imagine this must happen quite often due to the rules of the driving test? Just one last thing (sorry!): who determines the rules and criteria for passing/failing the test, is it the government or the DSA, or some other body?

I do have respect for what you do as it must be a very hard job, much like a football referee, as people don't understand that we are all only human and make mistakes of judgement and the wrong decision sometimes!

[Xenomorph]

98selitb -


The DSA is an agency of the government. All examiners, through all the grades, are civil servants and answerable to ministers. The criteria for the test are set by the Chief Examiner. That is the person who decides the level required for passing a driving test.

The biggest problem for people trying to pass their test is how they are taught. If you are taught to drive then you should have no problem passing the test. The test itself is extremely easy to pass, you do not have to show a great deal of skill to pass. However the problems occur when someone gets an ADI who would rather teach their pupils just to pass the test. In other words, a lazy ADI.

In order to be taught to drive you have to be taught a lot of disciplines in various different ways. For instance, as I mentioned in a previous post, consider the handbrake. When should you use it, why should you use it and how does it differ to the foot brake. If you understand those 3 questions you should have no problems with it. How many people are actually taught those things and how many people are taught "when a pause becomes a wait..."? How many people are taught they MUST apply the handbrake after stalling? How many people have had the information for the correct use of the handbrake muddied and complicated by nonsense such as those last 2 examples of poor tuition.

The handbrake is just a very basic example of what gets taught badly in driving lesson but I consistently see badly prepared pupils being presented for test. Most fail but some do pass and I feel sorry for those people. In times gone that sort of person could probably 'wing' it as the roads were not too crowded but as you know in today’s environment one mistake could potentially be very dangerous.

A good instructor is one who teaches their pupil to drive in exactly the same manner as they drive and to the same standard and is able to explain to the pupil in a suitable manner how they should drive like their ADI. They should be teaching you to drive for life and not to the basic standard required for the test.

One of the most common faults I find myself award is for hesitancy...

[98selitb]

I feel there is a very good reason why ADIs teach you to pass your test and not actually to drive.

The way you have to drive to pass your test is completely different to the way you drive normally on the open road.

If the test was more realistic to actual road conditions and behaviour, ADIs would be able to teach you to drive properly, but as it is, if they do that, you will probably fail your test.

[wagolynn]

If you think about it; the aim is to put a good foundation in place (it may well be a little out of date). They problem is that it takes several years of driving to really learn about driving, but people who have just got that magic piece of paper, think they now know how to drive.
In the past part of my job was to train people in industry. I would give people demonstrations coupled with theory followed by a period of close supervision while they applied what they had learned. This was then followed by a long slow relaxation of the supervision, in contrast to the driving test setup.
Back to the test, by following closely the content of the syllabus, you, and other road users will always be safe. Though everyone else may think you are a right pain in the bum. :D

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

The way you have to drive to pass your test is completely different to the way you drive normally on the open road.

How is it different? Exactly what are you required to do differently on the test as opposed to what you are expected to do in the ‘real world’? I think you will find a lot of what you think you have to do differently is simply misconceptions about the driving test.

Just consider what an uproar there would be if you WERE expected to learn to pass a driving test a certain way and that way had absolutely no bearing on the real world.

Originally Posted by 98selitb

If the test was more realistic to actual road conditions and behaviour, ADIs would be able to teach you to drive properly, but as it is, if they do that, you will probably fail your test.

The only example you have given (that I have seen) is where you feel you were unfairly failed for not making progress. The way you have explained yourself on that issue made no sense in that you said that you couldn't pull out without crashing yet you were failed for not pulling out. I wasn't there so cannot comment directly on that instance but that situation you describe is not accurate overall; you cannot fail for not doing something that would have caused an accident had you done something. Again, consider the uproar if that WAS the case in general.

Now I know from experience that many people who fail for hesitation cannot understand why because they were sure they could not go. However you are being assessed by someone who has a vast amount more experience than you (as a new driver) and if they tell you that you could have emerged safely then, regardless of what you personally think, you could have and, more importantly, should have.

Suffice to say what we want to see from you on a driving test is the ability to drive safely in the real world; not some make believe world of driving examiners. The test is very basic in format and very easy to pass if you are trained to a sufficient level.

My personal problem with the driving test (and I know this is shared by many of my colleagues) has nothing to do with what it expects of you, the new driver. It has more to do with allowing the examiner more leeway when assessing a driver. After 30 minutes or more of driving we can work out whether the candidate is ready to drive unsupervised or not. The test is too robotic at the moment but that is from the examiners side and has nothing to do with the way you drive or are expected to drive.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear from you on how the test criteria are perceived to be different from how you should drive in 'real life'.

Regards

[Rolebama]

The one thing I did not like whilst taking lessons was on the use of roundabouts. Locally, the majority of drivers stay in the middle of the lane when crossing roundabouts, would drive across the roundabout in the middle of the road. My instructor was adamant that I should drive around the kerb for going straight across, and this would be misinterpreted by some motorist that I was turning left off the roundabout, (even though I was not indicating my intention to do so), so they would overtake. I had to brake a few times to avoid them as they cut across my front.
Hope that makes sense.

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

How is it different? Exactly what are you required to do differently on the test as opposed to what you are expected to do in the ‘real world’?

Most of it involves this 'making progress' thing. Some examiners seem absolutely obsessed by this, as if it's more important to make a risky call and pull out in the name of 'making progress' and risk an accident than wait an extra 3 seconds for one passing car just to be safe (which is what I and also many experienced drivers often do). Not only with the waiting at roundabouts, but speed limits also. On the test, if it is a 60mph road where it is safe to go at 60, but you go at 50 or 55, you are penalised for not making progress. This is irresponsible and encourages learners to become impatient drivers. Just because there is a maximum speed limit, it doesn't mean you have to go at that maximum. The test gives the opposite impression though.

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

The only example you have given (that I have seen) is where you feel you were unfairly failed for not making progress. The way you have explained yourself on that issue made no sense in that you said that you couldn't pull out without crashing yet you were failed for not pulling out. I wasn't there so cannot comment directly on that instance but that situation you describe is not accurate overall; you cannot fail for not doing something that would have caused an accident had you done something.

My ADI was in the back of the car and he also believed it was not safe to pull out on that occasion.

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

However you are being assessed by someone who has a vast amount more experience than you (as a new driver) and if they tell you that you could have emerged safely then, regardless of what you personally think, you could have and, more importantly, should have.

I don't agree. Examiners make mistakes too, they are not perfect drivers, no-one is! Sometimes they will misjudge something, just like any other driver. That seems a very dangerous attitude to suggest that examiners are perfect and never make mistakes.

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

Anyway, I would be interested to hear from you on how the test criteria are perceived to be different from how you should drive in 'real life'.

On the test you have to go way out of your way to bend your neck just to show you are looking in the mirrors, so that you are not penalised for not doing so. In reality, it is possible to look in your rear-view mirrors without moving your neck one bit, just by moving your eyes. If you need to strain to look in your rear-view mirror in the real world, it probably means you have it set in the wrong position. But you have to ostentatiously bend your neck etc. in the test otherwise you will be failed on observations.

You only have to read all the posts on this thread to see the many different examples that myself and other users have given of, to quote the title, "the rubbish" that you need for your test that you never do in reality.

The reason there is no uproar: the learners hear what the examiners say to them and just assume that's the gospel truth of driving and how it is done in the 'real world'. They let themselves be sometimes very badly patronised because they believe they don't know anything and are led to believe the ADIs and examiners are correct about absolutely everything, and never make mistakes. It is an easy thing to belive when you are inexperienced at something, not just driving but any skill. You just look up to those in authority and assume everything they do is right, and you don't know any better if they do something wrong.

-----

One last thought: the problem with many young drivers is the belief that they have to drive at the limit and pull out at a junction when it is dangerous to do so. I attribute this to the driving test system. Why? If they had been taught there is nothing wrong with going at 50 or 55 if you feel like it (as long as you don't dawdle at 40), and likewise that there is no problem with waiting a few extra seconds at a junction/roundabout, better to be safe than sorry, then these young drivers would have a better attitude. But instead they are taught it is an absolute cardinal sin not to pull out at a junction even if they have doubts, and that it is imperative to go at the maximum speed limit of a road (when it is safe) and even cruising along at 5 or 10 mph less than that (when there are plenty of opportunities for those behind to overtake) is unacceptable.

[mills705]

Xenomorph- things i now dont do as i did for my test!
1) mirrors, i had my mirror purposfully set out of my normal field of view so I would have to move.
2) use of handbrake. When doing a manouvre I now never use it when changing gear ie 3 point turns.
3) i felt on my test I had to speed to pass. The normal traffic was goin at 60mph even though limit is 70mph. Well I felt I had to go at 70mph.

Do you think a more american system would improve it.
A test to get your license... then lessons etc. Test if you pass you get P plates.....! then a yr down the line if you passed again then you have a full license.

[wagolynn]

98selitb.
I hope you re-read your post in say about 5yrs time I am sure will be very embarrassed. In the test the examiner is trying to establish that you are able to control your vehicle and at the same time deal with whaterver the traffic is doing. You I am sure would agree that when you first started under instruction, your instructor was dealing with the outside world keeping you and it safe. Meanwhile you were fully occupied by keeping the car on the road, changing gear etc. The only way you could do this was by going slowly – do see where I am going? - . Right sit in the examiners seat now. We have this driver, who wishes to travel slower than everyone else at that moment shies away from negotiating the traffic and your job is to judge their competence to drive, what would you do? But the statement that worries me the most is driving above 40 – why 40? – ‘because you feel like it’. Yes you have a right to drive at any speed but you should have some regard for other road users. The road system can only work if everyone co-operates, I know this is not a fashionable word but unfortunately it is a fact of life.
Re-mirrors, as a passenger providing I am able to be aware of the traffic behind, I will be able to tell if the driver is using his mirrors, so the cricking your neck stuff, you should talk to your instructor about it.
As to xenomorph; I think you are brave putting your head above the parapet and certainly would not like your job. To see the world of driving through your eyes is very interesting, thankyou.

[wagolynn]

Mills705,
1.Covered in my last post to 98selitb

2.If you are saying that in a 3pnt turn you consciously decide that the handbrake is not required under the road conditions at the time that’s ok, you have learned the basic rules, but if you are saying you blindly never use your handbrake on 3pt turns then I would buy no claims protection. You should have been taught ‘why’ you use your handbrake then the ‘when’ would automatically follow. Take it up with your instructor; it’s nothing to do with the driving test.

3.See 1. Above.

4.What you should have been taught is basic ground rules, a foundation to build on. So that in moments of stress you revert to the basic rules and do the right thing.

[98selitb]

Re: handbrake with 3-point turns.

I also very rarely use my handbrake when stopping for periods of a few seconds. I change to neutral to save fuel and keep my foot on the brake pedal. The exception being on a particularly steep hill, when I will use my handbrake for safety, regardless of how long I am stopped.

Being how much the driving test loathes "failing to make progress" or holding people up, I'm surprised that the policy is to use the handbrake whenever you are stopped for a couple of seconds. Putting the handbrake on, changing gear, disactivating the handbrake, etc., etc., makes the process unnecessarily longer, therefore making less progress.

I barely ever use the handbrake for 3-point turns as I don't ever remember the need to do one on a steep hill, and it is a pointless waste of time and effort if you are familiar with your car and its biting point etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion using your handbrake in these situations gains nothing and is no safer than not using it.

[smudger]

Some folk think that once they have passed their driving test that they are now drivers? Where in fact they are only just starting to learn how to drive on our overcrowded roads.
Its the same when I was welding instructor, I always told my trainees that we had just taught them how to pass thier welding tests, and that their real learning starts when they start on the job itself;)
Cheers, Smudger.

[Rolebama]

Just how long does it take to apply and let-off your handbrake? It takes me a fraction of a second to do either, and I know which is safer. The Driving Test is not just about driving, it is about driving safely. I have been rear-ended a few times whilst sitting waiting to pull onto a roundabout in a queue. Because I leave a gap between me and the car in front, and I use my handbrake. Because of this I did not hit the car in front. Also worth bearing in mind is that the average cost of a clutch replacement now is near the £200 mark, and the cost of using handbrake is nothing,

[98selitb]

I understand that it doesn't take long to do the handbrake, but I find it contradictory that the driving test, while being obsessed about delaying progress, at the same time encourages the use of the handbrake even at times when it is not necessary and delays progress. Of course there are times when it really should be used, but there are other times where there is simply no need, yet you still have to use it on the test.

Just in case I have not worded my opinion very well: safety is always more important than progress, and if it is safer to delay for a few seconds then of course that is better. But the use of the handbrake is often not a safety matter, so it becomes a delay in progress rather than a necessary delay for safety reasons.

Re: driving too slowly. I agree it can be frustrating when you're stuck behind someone, and as I said quite clearly on the previous page, I agree a candidate should be penalised for "dawdling" at (for example) 40, when it is perfectly safe to go at 60. What I don't agree with is being marked down for going at 55 on a 60 road, or even worse 65 on a 70 road, especially as all 70 roads have two lanes so there is always a chance to overtake. On my test, I got a minor for going at 65 on the dual carriageway; the examiner said I should have been going at 70 and by not doing so was failing to make adequate progress. Make of it what you will, but I see that as unnecessary and it certainly gives the wrong image to young and inexperienced drivers.

One last thing: I disagree that 30 or 40 minutes is enough to judge the skills of the candidate. They have had dozens of hours of practice beforehand in a non-exam situation, where they are 99% likely to have performed better due to not being nervous. For many people the driving test is the most nerve-wracking moment of a candidate's life so far, so it is obvious that there performance may be hampered by this. In the 'real world', this is not an issue. That is another unrealistic aspect of the test, although I do understand that this one is unavoidable.

[Rolebama]

I would agree that the Test could be changed so that an Instructor could input an 'assessment' report. I know of people who have totally wrecked any chance of a pass through sheer nervousness, yet in a more relaxed atmosphere, drive perfectly capably and safely. The topic of 'making progress' has always been a bone of contention as far as I am aware. When I took my motorcycle driving test, two candidates failed because of this as they would not overtake a slower-moving vehicle.

[98selitb]

On my first test (which I failed), I got marked down for not overtaking a tractor. I had been following it for about 5 minutes along a small bendy road where overtaking was impossible. Then we got onto a major single-carriageway A-road, going uphill, with a crawler lane. I knew that the crawler lane was quite short and I was not sure if I would have the time, and/or if the small ADI car would have the grunt to speed up on the hill and overtake it in time before the crawler lane disappeared, so I chose not to overtake.

Back at the test centre, the examiner told me I should have overtaken the tractor. I explained the reason above for not doing so. She said, quote, "there was actually a fraction of a second where you could have just made it."

In my opinion this is such an irresponsible thing to say and to encourage to learners. I will not risk something if there is a "fraction of a second"'s opportunity. That encourages taking needless risks and reckless and impatient driving. Again this all goes back to 'making progress'. Yes, making progress is a good thing - but there should be a line drawn when making progress compromises safety. Yes, I probably would have 'just made it', but would it have been worth it with the risk of not making it?

[wagolynn]

[QUOTE=98selitb;39682]Re: handbrake with 3-point turns.

QUOTE]

Re-handbrake; the whole point of the handbrake thing is to get you to understand that you must always have the vehicle under control. If you, every time you ask yourself the question, ‘have I got control’ and the answer is yes, then fine don’t use it.
A learner driver does not have the experience to decide this. So to ensure it becomes a (good) habit the instructor will insist that every time you stop you apply the handbrake. If you are saying that applying the handbrake slows you down excessively; perhaps you need some practice! Look at it this way; if you use the handbrake when there is no need; no harm done but if you forget the handbrake when it is required; much damage will be done.

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Look at it this way; if you use the handbrake when there is no need; no harm done but if you forget the handbrake when it is required; much damage will be done.

That's a very good point, and I agree, no harm done if you use it when there's no need. I don't have a problem with this, however it completely contradicts the mantra of the exam where delaying others by a second or two is the worst thing in the world.

Sorry but I do have an axe to grind on this issue of 'failing to make progress'. (1) I believe it encourages and condones impatient driving, and (2) I was personally failed for this reason, when even my ADI sitting in the back seat said he would never in his wildest dreams have pulled out at that point as I did not have priority at the roundabout and there was an endless stream of traffic coming from my right.

This experience, and the accounts of others, make me feel that even if there is truly no possibility of pulling out (e.g. if you are waiting at at T-junction and there is non-stop traffic on the road you're trying to get onto), there is some sort of rule of thumb where after a certain amount of time, like 30 seconds, you will just be failed even though you simply cannot move out. I know this is unlikely to be true but I am very disillusioned at this.

I have heard so many stories where someone has had 2 options (e.g. pull out or wait), and they fail using either of those 2 options even though they have no choice but to do one of them. I.e. pulling out is a dangerous error, and waiting is failing to make progress.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

Sorry but I do have an axe to grind on this issue of 'failing to make progress'. (1) I believe it encourages and condones impatient driving, and (2) I was personally failed for this reason, when even my ADI sitting in the back seat said he would never in his wildest dreams have pulled out at that point as I did not have priority at the roundabout and there was an endless stream of traffic coming from my right.

I am unable to agree or disagree with what happened in your test, I was not there. I would suggest the person in the rear seat also is no real position to comment.
The point I set out to make was; most of what I have read as evidence of inferior/unfair testing, after a little thought, turns out to be poor instruction. I am fairly confident that I could teach anyone who really wanted to learn, how to pass their driving test very quickly, (not that I am claiming to be the best driver, but I do claim to be still learning!), but I would not have trained them how to drive, only how to pass the test.
From the vairiouse complaints in this thread I suspect the problem is instruction that is focused on passing the test, rather than problems with the test it’s self. Of course this is not surprising because learner drivers are paying the instructor to get them through.

I have some experience of training people in industry, one tool I gave to trainees was a number of printed cards each with What? Why? Where? When? on them, the trainees, if they did not understand a point, would then ask the instructor the appropriate questions. The Why? Was the most important question to answer, armed with that information the trainee was unlikely to do the wrong thing. As an aside, at first, it was not popular with the various trainers, because they felt that they were being challenged. Later they decided that in fact they had learned a lot themselves!

As to the stress of the driving test; firstly the candidate is trying to prove that they are able to control their vehicle under the stress of traffic. I am confident the examiners are trained to make an appropriate allowance for this extra stress. We may get confirmation of this later.

[malcolmfleetwoo]

driving test - flashing lights

My daughter has just taken and failed her test on her first attempt.

She received 7 minors and a major - the latter being given whilstcarrying out the hill start. She was waiting for a line of traffic to pass and with only two vehicles behind her indicated merely to pull out.

This caused an old lady driver to slow down on what is a 40 mph road and flashed her lights to allow my daughter to pull out - this she did and was failed by the examiner.

What else could my daughter have done once she had indicated that would have prevented her from failing her test in this instance ?

[Rolebama]

Purely a guess, but the way you worded: 'This caused an old lady driver to slow down' would be enough to fail.
How did she know that the old lady was flashing her out as opposed to thinking your daughter was about to pull out in front of her, braked and flashed her lights as a means of attracting your daughter's attention as to her presence?
I am not suggesting this was the case, merely suggesting an alternative interpretation of events described, which may have been what the examiner thought.

[smudger]

Aye! its a catch 22, if she had waited for the other car to pass, she would probably been failed for that well documented, " hesitation":confused. :confused:
Cheers, Smudger.

[mills705]

if i read the post correctly:
you said she indicated to pull out with two cars left. Why didnt she just wait until the two cars had gone? Indicated, checked and then gone? It is not against the rules of the driving test to take your time. The examiner says pull out when you are ready!

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by mills705

if i read the post correctly:
you said she indicated to pull out with two cars left. Why didnt she just wait until the two cars had gone? Indicated, checked and then gone? It is not against the rules of the driving test to take your time. The examiner says pull out when you are ready!

This is true. I probably would have done that, waited for them to pass before indicating then pulling out. This is exactly what I do on a daily basis, I find that is least likely to confuse and worry those behind you. If I am driving past a parked car and it starts indicating, I get slightly worried that it might pull out right there and then. But I would only flash at it if I meant to say, "yes, you can pull out", I would always beep if I wanted to attract attention to myself because I think most people see flashing as a sign that they can go. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, just that it seems to be the most common intention when someone flashes like that. I would never flash someone to warn them as my presence as they might well take that to mean I have let them out then there would be a collision.

However, it seems it is against the rules to take your time as you will be marked down for hesitation, so there is a lot of pressure on the candidate and as Smudger said, it can sometimes be a catch 22 situation where you have 2 and only 2 choices, and whichever one you choose, you will fail.

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by malcolmfleetwoo

My daughter has just taken and failed her test on her first attempt.

She received 7 minors and a major - the latter being given whilstcarrying out the hill start. She was waiting for a line of traffic to pass and with only two vehicles behind her indicated merely to pull out.

This caused an old lady driver to slow down on what is a 40 mph road and flashed her lights to allow my daughter to pull out - this she did and was failed by the examiner.

What else could my daughter have done once she had indicated that would have prevented her from failing her test in this instance ?

Hi

A bit more information would be helpful to help us consider what actually happened. Where on the DL25 (the copy of the test report she would have got) was this serious fault recorded? Were there any other faults in the same section? Do you happen to know what the examiner said went wrong?

Regards

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

Most of it involves this 'making progress' thing. Some examiners seem absolutely obsessed by this, as if it's more important to make a risky call and pull out in the name of 'making progress' and risk an accident than wait an extra 3 seconds for one passing car just to be safe (which is what I and also many experienced drivers often do). Not only with the waiting at roundabouts, but speed limits also. On the test, if it is a 60mph road where it is safe to go at 60, but you go at 50 or 55, you are penalised for not making progress. This is irresponsible and encourages learners to become impatient drivers. Just because there is a maximum speed limit, it doesn't mean you have to go at that maximum. The test gives the opposite impression though.

The driving test is a test of your skills as a driver. If you are unable to drive at a normal speed on the road or are unable to make progress at junctions then you are not yet ready to be given the freedom of a full licence. This is a point you and others should consider before jumping to conclusions about what the test 'should' require of you.

On the test, if I think it is safe for you to go I am looking for you to go. If you do not then I consider why that might be; is there a reason why you didn't go. We do not lose sight of the fact you are under pressure and you are inexperienced. If the gap is one I would go for but I would consider it too small for the standard you should be at then I would consider that an unworthy fault which means it is not as I would do but that is not worthy of recording a fault down. However when the candidate is missing blatant chances to emerge this will be noted. Remember, you are demonstrating your ability here and by not emerging (when safe) until the road has emptied, or someone eventually stops for you, what exactly have you demonstrated?

Again, with regards to travelling at speed, you are demonstrating your ability. If the conditions and road allows for you to travel at the maximum speed then you are expected to do so in order to DEMONSTRATE you possess the ability to do so. If the conditions require a lower speed then so be it. Now, contrary you your allegation that this encourages drivers to be reckless this actually encourages you to consider other drivers and think about how your driving (especially if you are unwilling to go when safe or drive at a normal speed) affects other drivers.

Originally Posted by 98selitb

My ADI was in the back of the car and he also believed it was not safe to pull out on that occasion.

I guess your ADI put in a formal complaint then because according to your ADI you were awarded a fault when there was no fault to award. Is this the case?

Originally Posted by 98selitb

I don't agree. Examiners make mistakes too, they are not perfect drivers, no-one is! Sometimes they will misjudge something, just like any other driver. That seems a very dangerous attitude to suggest that examiners are perfect and never make mistakes.

What you fail to realise is that we do not record a fault unless we are 100% sure we are correct. Often is the case when I am not 100% sure, so no fault is recorded. As you say we do make mistakes; sometimes I am looking one way when I should be looking the other but unless I know with full confidence that a mistake was made and the manner that the mistake was made I cannot, and would not, record a fault.

Suffice to say; if you get a fault then you deserved it.

As for your silly assertion that I have a dangerous attitude I suggest you re-read my comment, consider the experience I have, both as a driver and as an examiner, then consider your own experience with regards to conducting driving tests. As patronising as that sounds it is something you really need to take heed of.

Originally Posted by 98selitb

On the test you have to go way out of your way to bend your neck just to show you are looking in the mirrors, so that you are not penalised for not doing so. In reality, it is possible to look in your rear-view mirrors without moving your neck one bit, just by moving your eyes. If you need to strain to look in your rear-view mirror in the real world, it probably means you have it set in the wrong position. But you have to ostentatiously bend your neck etc. in the test otherwise you will be failed on observations.

You do not have to "bend your neck just to show you are looking in the mirrors" and if you have been taught to do that for your test I would be asking for a refund from your ADI. Your last sentence above is pure nonsense and anyone reading that should treat it as such. People stating such things without substance are part of the reason why there is so much assumed nonsense surrounding the test with respect to what we (the DSA) require of you.

I know if you are looking in your mirrors without having to see your neck move because I can see your eyes move. Anyone taking the test will notice that the examiner positions themselves in the car in a way that they can observe you drive. We make sure we sit in such a position to be able to see your eyes move. Remember what I said above about having to be 100% sure before awarding a fault. I have to know you have not looked in you mirrors before awarding a fault. Sometimes it IS hard to be sure so sometimes no fault is recorded when perhaps there should have been one.

One thing everyone can take away from this discussion is as follows: The test is weighted in YOUR favour. If we aren't 100% sure about something the benefit goes to you.

Originally Posted by 98selitb

You only have to read all the posts on this thread to see the many different examples that myself and other users have given of, to quote the title, "the rubbish" that you need for your test that you never do in reality.

All I have seen are examples of ignorance regarding what is required of people on the driving test. Unfortunately some of the worst culprits are ADIs...

I would like to address some of these if I am able but can only do so if people actually listen to information from the horses mouth.

Originally Posted by 98selitb

The reason there is no uproar: the learners hear what the examiners say to them and just assume that's the gospel truth of driving and how it is done in the 'real world'. They let themselves be sometimes very badly patronised because they believe they don't know anything and are led to believe the ADIs and examiners are correct about absolutely everything, and never make mistakes. It is an easy thing to belive when you are inexperienced at something, not just driving but any skill. You just look up to those in authority and assume everything they do is right, and you don't know any better if they do something wrong.

The reason there is no uproar is because the tests are fairly handled. There are a few people who feel hard done by and refuse to listen to reason but such is life.

Originally Posted by 98selitb

One last thought: the problem with many young drivers is the belief that they have to drive at the limit and pull out at a junction when it is dangerous to do so. I attribute this to the driving test system. Why? If they had been taught there is nothing wrong with going at 50 or 55 if you feel like it (as long as you don't dawdle at 40), and likewise that there is no problem with waiting a few extra seconds at a junction/roundabout, better to be safe than sorry, then these young drivers would have a better attitude. But instead they are taught it is an absolute cardinal sin not to pull out at a junction even if they have doubts, and that it is imperative to go at the maximum speed limit of a road (when it is safe) and even cruising along at 5 or 10 mph less than that (when there are plenty of opportunities for those behind to overtake) is unacceptable.

Remember the driving test is a test of your abilities. If you are properly trained then you will know the reasons why it is right and proper to travel at the maximum safe speed for any given road. If you are unable to emerge when safe because you "have doubts" then that reflects more on your inexperience (thus an inability to attain the suitable standard for a test pass) and not on some inherent problem in the system.

Regards

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by mills705

Xenomorph- things i now dont do as i did for my test!
1) mirrors, i had my mirror purposfully set out of my normal field of view so I would have to move.
2) use of handbrake. When doing a manouvre I now never use it when changing gear ie 3 point turns.
3) i felt on my test I had to speed to pass. The normal traffic was goin at 60mph even though limit is 70mph. Well I felt I had to go at 70mph.

Do you think a more american system would improve it.
A test to get your license... then lessons etc. Test if you pass you get P plates.....! then a yr down the line if you passed again then you have a full license.

Hi.

1 - There is no need for this and I addressed this in the post above. If anyone reading this has an ADI who thinks this is a good idea you might want to suggest to your trainer that they speak to their DTAM (SEADI in old money) about whether this is something they should be telling their pupils...

2 - We expect the HB to be used WHERE NECESSARY. As this suggests you only need to use when you really need to and not all the 'flippin' time like some people are taught. I believe telling people to always use the HB is lazy instruction as what do you really learn by this?

3 - You are expected to drive at the maximum SAFE speed for a road, up to and including the limit. In your example of being on a 70mph road with everyone else travelling at 60 mph an examiner would expect you to drive with the flow.

The problems arise if everyone is travelling at 70mph and you are travelling at 60mph...

I would certainly like to see a change to this system. I would like to see a removal of the ADI system and a removal of the examiner system that we currently have.

I would like there to be government run training centres around the country where people would attend and be trained by numerous trainers. You would be continuously assessed and when the conclusion of numerous trainers was that you are ready for your licence then you would receive it; no more practical tests.

During the first year I would like there to be severe limitations to what you can drive and I would like there to be a limit of 1 passenger in the car.

At the end of the first year you attend the training centre again, this time you get more advanced training and the standard expected would, of course, be higher. Again, once you have satisfied the trainers you are of sufficient standard you would be awarded a full licence.

I could go on...

[Xenomorph]

There was mention a few posts back about how to handle a situation where a car flashes you on test. Well I would say that if it was safe to go then go.

However you have to be sure that the other driver has flashed you. Generally a flash is accompanied by a visible reduction in the other cars’ speed. I would certainly not expect a candidate to ‘go’ just on the say so of another drivers flash as it could be an accidental flash.

When I am out driving and get into a situation when a car appears to flash me then I take into consideration a lot more things than just the flash. This is exactly what I would expect the candidate to do.

So then, for the test, it does not matter if the candidate reacts to a flash as long as they react safely. Also it does not matter if they in turn flash another road user if it is done appropriately and safely. I am aware of what the Highway Code asserts but I am also aware of how people behave and as such would expect a candidate to behave as anyone else on the road.

It is not rare that I hear a candidate declare that although they have seen the car flash they will not proceed because their ADI has told them they are not allowed to on test...

[wagolynn]

That should have cleared up a few myths Xenomorph, very interesting thank you.

[Bikerbill]

Driving tuition

I have found the comments here very interesting and informative, in particular the comments from Xenomorph. Firstly, the questions I asked myself were should a learner driver be taught by an ADI, or should I teach my son myself? I passed my test in the mid 70's so thought that a lot has changed since then.

I decided that I would teach him to control a car in a local industrial estate, before we ventured on to the main roads before his driving lessons with an ADI, as they are aware of the current standards to pass the test.

However, his ADI is not keen on me giving my son extra tuition. For example, I taught my son to use the engine as a brake, ie approaching a junction he should slow down using lower gears 4th to 3rd to 2nd, cover the brake, if safe to move off accelerate. It's the way I was taught, but may be wrong now. Your comments are appreciated.

Billy