Fail driving test for driving at 60 in 70?! Eh?

[hornetrider]

Was listening to 5 Live on the way in to work this morning. A report has suggested that 75% of drivers would now fail their test if they were to retake it (not PHers, obviously )

So... they sent some Joe Public to retake his test and the examiner was interviewed after the test. Said he would have failed the guy because he was driving at 60 on a 70 limit dual carriageway!!!

Now, I know you are supposed to make progress and not unduly affect other road users, but 60 in a 70?! That's taking the piss!

The guy taking the test was a bit shocked, said he was erring slightly on the side of caution due to the proliferation of speed cameras these days, and was aware that his driving was under scrutiny as he was being tested.

If he was doing say 45 or 50 then fair enough - but we are constantly being told that speed is a limit not a target.... I think its outrageous that someone can be failed for this.

[kambites]

Especially since the limit for some vehicles is 60. I often drive at 60 in the inside lane of the motorway if I'm in no particular hurry.

[Hooli]

just goes to prove we're not allowed to judge what is safe for us to do anymore?

[baSkey]

my cousing got failed for 44 in a 50 through roadworks! hilarious.

[TonyHetherington]

"Making suitable progress". It's what a lot of IAM associates fail on too.

A hesitant, timid driver is equally as bad as a forceful aggresive one; not doing 70 when it is obviously safe and clear to do so is understandably not correct, in my humble opinion of course

[kambites]

TonyHetherington said:

not doing 70 when it is obviously safe and clear to do so is understandably not correct, in my humble opinion of course

I suppose there's the argument that they want you to drive faster on your test to test your ability to drive at those kinds of speeds, on the assumption that you will drive at those speeds in the end anyway. Depends on what you think the idea of the test is I guess.

Still they should only fail you if they've asked you to speed up and you refuse. There's no way they should be able to fail you for driving below the speed limit if it's not causing an obstruction and they haven't told you to do otherwise.

[Burgmeister]

The examiner may well have had a chip on his shoulder from drivers that drive too slowly which would piss him off immensely if he is drving around all day every day.

I would be sick to death of being held up on NSL roads by incompetents doing well below the limit or indeed in 30's where the oldies insist on doing 25 even though the road is suitable for speeds of up to 30 mph!!

In the name of driving well done mr examiner

[zetec]

Perhaps there was a limit change from 50mph to NSL? Driving at 60mph the driver showed the examiner that he didn't know a NSL dual carriageway has a 70mph limit?

[r5gttgaz]

When I took my driving test I was told if the road conditions were good and clear then you drive at the stated limit, otherwise its a fail.

I totally agree with that ruling. We don't want to be breeding these 40 in a NSL idiots do we.

[kambites]

zetec said:

Perhaps there was a limit change from 50mph to NSL? Driving at 60mph the driver showed the examiner that he didn't know a NSL dual carriageway has a 70mph limit?

But the tester could have asked him. Driving at 60 in a dual carriageway national speed limit does NOT show that you think you speed limit is 60. I regularly drive at 60 on the motorway (mostly because there's less buffeting if I have the roof off at 60 but sometimes just because I'm in no particular hurry and don't want to burn more fuel than I have to) but that doesn't mean that I don't know what the speed limit is.

[bga]

TonyHetherington said:

"Making suitable progress". It's what a lot of IAM associates fail on too.

A hesitant, timid driver is equally as bad as a forceful aggresive one; not doing 70 when it is obviously safe and clear to do so is understandably not correct, in my humble opinion of course

I disagree. A timid driver can cause annoyance and may cause people to make a rash decision.

An aggressive driver is more likely to be forcing their behaviour on you. It is much easier to control than the other.

Either way, one should always make reasonable progress

[kambites]

I was explicitly told by my instructor that the only way I could fail my driving test was to either do something dangerous, to refuse to do something I was told to do or to fail to complete one of the designated "maneuvers" satisfactorily.

Obviously that's not true any more.

[bga]

kambites said:

I was explicitly told by my instructor that the only way I could fail my driving test was to either do something dangerous, to refuse to do something I was told to do or to fail to complete one of the designated "maneuvers" satisfactorily.

Obviously that's not true any more.

When I took my test in 1995 I was told that I could fail my test for driving too slow.

[Prince Rupert]

My driving test (which I passed) was during the petrol crisis a few years ago. Was only 15 mins long, highlights included me putting a back wheel on curb going round a tight corner, starting a 3 point turn off by going backward, then realising my mistake and going forward plus was told I was going too slowly on NSL stretch of road and going to fast in a 30 limit. Never really worked out how I passed...

Believe it or not i'm actually a reasonable driver now!

[mechsympathy]

bga said:

kambites said:

I was explicitly told by my instructor that the only way I could fail my driving test was to either do something dangerous, to refuse to do something I was told to do or to fail to complete one of the designated "maneuvers" satisfactorily.

Obviously that's not true any more.

When I took my test in 1995 I was told that I could fail my test for driving too slow.

You can (quite rightly IMO) fail your test for failing to make adequate progress. In addition the tester may well have thought that the driver believed the limit on an NSL dual to be 60.

[RobM77]

ah... there's a difference between driving at around about 60mph and sticking religiously to 60. If they guy was sticking religiously to 60, then the chances are he thought that was the speed limit, which shows lack of knowledge of the rules of the road maybe?

[Hooli]

i was told id fail my biketest if i wasnt doing 65-70 if traffic allows on mainroads. that was only in january of this year.
i can see the point of making progess & such. its just that it says to me you dont pick your speed the council (or whoever puts the signs up) does.
i wonder if you'd still fail for 60 in a 70 if it was raining & you said im not used to spray?

[shadowninja]

I often do just over 60 on the motorway. It's the right speed for doing handbrake turns onto the slip road. (Yes, it is such a ridiculous thing that there can be no sensible reply to it.)

[hornetrider]

In response to queries, the guy in question who took this test was also interviewed and stated he knew the speed limit was 70, he was just exercising a little caution/restraint and not being too cavalier bearing in mind it was a test.

[steve bowen]

bga said:

kambites said:

I was explicitly told by my instructor that the only way I could fail my driving test was to either do something dangerous, to refuse to do something I was told to do or to fail to complete one of the designated "maneuvers" satisfactorily.

Obviously that's not true any more.

When I took my test in 1995 I was told that I could fail my test for driving too slow.

Me too in 1994 on my test leaving a 40 limit into a 70 dual carriageway the examiner asked what limit it was and looked at me (I was doing about 55mph accelerating slowly), I said "70, the cars slow". Later he asked me to pull over but I had a car tailgating me so I didn't and carried on he said what are you doing, I said it wasn't safe, he replied i was to do what I'm told, had a bit of an argument, off we went again and I still passed.

Edited by steve bowen on Friday 3rd August 10:58