Dr Monsignor Larvell Jones MD wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008, 1:49pm:


That's actually a really good idea. And yes, i've also heard that they run on a government induced quota system, but everything seems to these days.

Valentino Rossi wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008, 1:45pm:


A driving test isn't like a GCSE, there isn't a pass mark, you can fail with one mistake.  I failed my first test for not turning into a bus lane when I could have done, hardly unsafe.

Naked Thursdays

Smashed_Strawberry wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008, 10:33am:

Yeah, me too  

Valentino Rossi wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008, 9:14pm:


Not really, I made mistakes in my driving test that I'd NEVER make under normal circumstances, never had in my driving lessons once when I was learning and it was only the situation that made me so (completely missing a light go green and speeding up to go on a full dual carriage- not something even a learner at the beginning of their lessons would do, but I just stopped working as soon as they got into the car with their clipboard and yellow visi-jacket). To me, written examinations are completely different- you have time to sit, compose yourself and check through what you've written. In practical examinations it's now or never and one stupid mistake and that's it (I was the same in violin exams- would be able to play pieces off by heart and pretty well in normal circumstances, but get me into the exam hall on a stage infront of one person staring at you and my hand was all over the place. I got the exact mark I needed to pass my grade 6 and that was clearly only because he could tell I was nervous and probably realised that had severely affected my performance, which the DSA obviously can't do...)

One of the best drivers I know passed after 6 tests and some of the worst after one.

Thing is though, the way you describe as driving in a test is how you are actually supposed to drive, thats why you get taught how to drive like that and thats why you get tested on that. (ignoring the gears thing, since I'm not quite sure what you mean.)

The reason you're not tested on how you drive is because everyone will have their own approach and in 99% of all cases, that approach will be wrong.

I know this from speaking to my instructor, back when I had lessons, its only when he learned how to teach driving that he realised just how bad and dangerous a driver he actually was, I'd imagine it will be the same for most people.

It why, despite buying a car to learn in, I'm still going to get lessons when I get close to my test, just to iron out the bad habits and crap that I will no doubt have picked up and that will make me a less safe driver.

Like Amy? (Adding this within seconds of my first post so can't see the original) said, the safest driver she knows failed their test 6 times, but each one of those failures forced an adaptation to their driving, conscious or not, which overall made them better able to pass a test and also, because of it a much safer driver.

I always thought that should be the way. Like have them assess you over a series of lessons but not make the learner aware of this. Maybe have a list of criteria that the pupil should be able to fulfill and when they do this consistantly that's when you get your driving license? Of course you'd have to trust the instructor's judgement as a few could just try and get people to stay on to get more money out of them, but it seems a lot fairer and more accurate way of assessing someone than a fifty minute, highly pressurised situation. (Which can also work the other way- I know of people who were told they weren't ready to take their test, did so and passed, then crashed very soon afterwards...)

Talking of cars...

The Unpronounceable wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008, 4:15pm:


While this is theoretically a good idea, in practise it just wouldn't work, especially not in places like I live. Putting on extra buses so people could get to the train stations or areas they work in would result in a lot of empty buses (they're rarely full now, save for peak times). Currently there's no way that my Dad could use public transport to get to the train station he goes to to get to London/ when he works in Northha,pton, and my Mum would add an extra hour to her journey and would be cutting it pretty fine should she have to get a number of buses. She needs her car for work purposes anyway (she teaches autistic kids so drives them places like Tescos/swimming, etc- public transport would be highly impractical, and 2 days a week she does 'outreach', which involves going to various schools, many of which are in remote villages and would not be connected to one another by public transport, nor would there be any demand for them to be). Having just one car would not be feasible, and it's a similar situation for most people that live in the villages around here. To make that a fair change you would have to put on so many more buses, but only have a couple of people using each service, which would almost make them just as bad as if those people chose to drive instead.

I think it would work for people living in cities- for the most part, should you live near or around Oxford city centre/Headington/Blackbird Leys etc, you can get to the vast majority of places surrounding the city within an hour and I'm sure it's the same for most other big cities. But for rural areas, cars are an unfortunate necessity and increasing public transport just wouldn't be worth it.

Yeah I know, that's the main issue with it. I guess you could say that you need two people to sign it off or something, like moderation for coursework or whatever. To stop the first problem you could do as Phil said and have to complete a minimum amount of driving time- perhaps in months?- before you could even consider passing someone (there are some countries where you have to be a learner for a year before you're allowed to take your test I think, but the age where you can start learning is lower so it's not as much of an inconveninece as waiting to be 18 could be for some people)