Driving Test pass 'Quotas'
Discussion
Nu-Labour Targets give 'Licences-for-all'.
Amazing, it's almost like they fix quotas to give licences and then quotas to take them away.
What next privileges for party members/model citizens?
You couldn't make it up.
From The Sunday Mail
L - Test quotas will be the death of us
I NEVER thought they'd dare -but the watering-down of examinations is now said to be affecting driving tests. Who'll be surprised if accidents and casualties begin to rise in the next few years?
A driving examiner from Ashford in Kent, Pete Murray, has won compensation after he was dismissed - he says - for failing too many drivers. 'Pressure put on examiners to get their pass rates in line is jeopardising road safety' he alleges.
Just like education chiefs and head teachers, driving
examiners are under pressure to meet government quotas - in this case to clear a backlog of test waiting times. Mr Murray says learners are sometimes
passed after making serious, dangerous errors during tests. 'My integrity didn't let me pass people like that,' he says. Good for him - hut he's still out of a job. The effect of targets and quotas in A levels and GCSEs is disastrous but cannot be pinned down. The effect of weakening an already too-easy driving test will be felt by all of us in deaths and injuries. Why
no scandal?
And a similar story from; www.newcarnet.co.uk/newsarchiveitem.html?id=4413&pos=1
L-test scandal exposed (01.03.2005)
The Government's Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is allowing dangerous drivers on to the roads to fulfill driving-test pass quotas.
This claim is made by the influential Driving Magazine, which is widely read by the nation's driving instructors. The magazine says it was alerted to the scandal by an ex-examiner, who was wrongfully sacked by the DSA for failing too many candidates.
Despite proving his ability as an examiner under the DSA's own quality control procedures, the examiner in question fell victim to the Agency's insistence on maintaining specific pass rates for each test centre, regardless of the driving abilities of individual candidates. The magazine has been told of specific examples of candidates being passed despite all manner of serious faults such as clipping the wing mirror of a parked car, and pulling out in front of vehicles at junctions.
According to Driving magazine's source, any examiner who is found to be 'at unacceptable variance' from the test-centre average is deemed to be examining incorrectly and is warned to 'get their statistics in line,' or lose bonuses and ultimately face disciplinary action. Driving Magazine has spoken to other examiners who confirmed that this sort of thing was 'all too commonplace.'
Stephen Picton, Editor of Driving Magazine, said: "Ten people die on our roads every single day. How many of these are due to the poor driving skills of people who have been let out on the roads to satisfy DSA quotas?"
>>> Edited by catso on Monday 7th March 11:21
Amazing, it's almost like they fix quotas to give licences and then quotas to take them away.
What next privileges for party members/model citizens?
You couldn't make it up.
From The Sunday Mail
L - Test quotas will be the death of us
I NEVER thought they'd dare -but the watering-down of examinations is now said to be affecting driving tests. Who'll be surprised if accidents and casualties begin to rise in the next few years?
A driving examiner from Ashford in Kent, Pete Murray, has won compensation after he was dismissed - he says - for failing too many drivers. 'Pressure put on examiners to get their pass rates in line is jeopardising road safety' he alleges.
Just like education chiefs and head teachers, driving
examiners are under pressure to meet government quotas - in this case to clear a backlog of test waiting times. Mr Murray says learners are sometimes
passed after making serious, dangerous errors during tests. 'My integrity didn't let me pass people like that,' he says. Good for him - hut he's still out of a job. The effect of targets and quotas in A levels and GCSEs is disastrous but cannot be pinned down. The effect of weakening an already too-easy driving test will be felt by all of us in deaths and injuries. Why
no scandal?
And a similar story from; www.newcarnet.co.uk/newsarchiveitem.html?id=4413&pos=1
L-test scandal exposed (01.03.2005)
The Government's Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is allowing dangerous drivers on to the roads to fulfill driving-test pass quotas.
This claim is made by the influential Driving Magazine, which is widely read by the nation's driving instructors. The magazine says it was alerted to the scandal by an ex-examiner, who was wrongfully sacked by the DSA for failing too many candidates.
Despite proving his ability as an examiner under the DSA's own quality control procedures, the examiner in question fell victim to the Agency's insistence on maintaining specific pass rates for each test centre, regardless of the driving abilities of individual candidates. The magazine has been told of specific examples of candidates being passed despite all manner of serious faults such as clipping the wing mirror of a parked car, and pulling out in front of vehicles at junctions.
According to Driving magazine's source, any examiner who is found to be 'at unacceptable variance' from the test-centre average is deemed to be examining incorrectly and is warned to 'get their statistics in line,' or lose bonuses and ultimately face disciplinary action. Driving Magazine has spoken to other examiners who confirmed that this sort of thing was 'all too commonplace.'
Stephen Picton, Editor of Driving Magazine, said: "Ten people die on our roads every single day. How many of these are due to the poor driving skills of people who have been let out on the roads to satisfy DSA quotas?"
>>> Edited by catso on Monday 7th March 11:21
supraman2954 said:
Mighty strange, considering our government's current war against the motorist.
Thinking this through:
Lower test standards, leads to
worse drivers, leading to
more accidents, inherently leading to
more KSIs, resulting with justification for
more cameras
......now I understand
Even the dangerously incompetent can be relatively safe at ridiculously low speeds. Having those dangerously incompetent drivers on the roads just gives more credance to the speed kills policies. And no doubt it's driven also by social inclusion -- but I won't go there.
supraman2954 said:
Mighty strange, considering our government's current war against the motorist.
Thinking this through:
Lower test standards, leads to
worse drivers, leading to
more accidents, inherently leading to
more KSIs, resulting with justification for
more cameras
......now I understand
and ...
more tax from fuel
more pollution
more road tax
less people using public transport
yeah, makes perfect sense
, nice
Something is going seriously wrong here.
Targets are inherently counter-productive, yet everything associated with assessing whether something is good enough or not seems to have a target on it these days.
When it becomes more important to meet an artificial numerical goal rather than the primary objective of making an assessment of quality, then standards must inevitably fall. What pillock thought this up?! It's so transparently not about safety or results but about government spin - "we're meeting our targets, and our targets get higher each year" - what bollox.
Targets ought to be set the other way around. We should be failing more people, to drive the standards up. We should be making the exams harder to drive educational standards up. we should have maximum targets, not minimum - having a minimum target for criminal convictions, for example, inherently fails to reduce crime!! Having a minimum target for scamming speeders does exactly the opposite of slowing down traffic! What are these people on!!!!!
Targets are inherently counter-productive, yet everything associated with assessing whether something is good enough or not seems to have a target on it these days.
When it becomes more important to meet an artificial numerical goal rather than the primary objective of making an assessment of quality, then standards must inevitably fall. What pillock thought this up?! It's so transparently not about safety or results but about government spin - "we're meeting our targets, and our targets get higher each year" - what bollox.
Targets ought to be set the other way around. We should be failing more people, to drive the standards up. We should be making the exams harder to drive educational standards up. we should have maximum targets, not minimum - having a minimum target for criminal convictions, for example, inherently fails to reduce crime!! Having a minimum target for scamming speeders does exactly the opposite of slowing down traffic! What are these people on!!!!!
If there is a backlog of test dates, then wouldn't the best way to deal with that be to improve the ability of test centres to test applicants (ie more examiners)?
I really do wonder about the average intelligence/common sense of people who make such decisions. How can such people be in positions of power?
Why the hell is there a backlog anyway? Its not like we don't contribute enough in fuel tax revenue to the government anyway!
I really do wonder about the average intelligence/common sense of people who make such decisions. How can such people be in positions of power?
Why the hell is there a backlog anyway? Its not like we don't contribute enough in fuel tax revenue to the government anyway!
GKP said:Agreed, just like we currently have. One can pass the test using a car with manual or automatic gears; this determines the level of license.
WHY don't we have a separate test before newbie drivers can use the motorways? Or tow trailers etc?
unless my knowledge is wildly out of date
supraman2954 said:
WHY don't we have a separate test before newbie drivers can use the motorways? Or tow trailers etc?
Agreed, just like we currently have. One can pass the test using a car with manual or automatic gears; this determines the level of license.
unless my knowledge is wildly out of date
Motorway test not always practical - not enough motorways.
For trailers I believe you do have to take lessons and pass a test these days, though grandfather's rights apply to drivers of longer standing. (Before a certain date iirc). Not sure it applies to small trailers.
More and more people likely to have only auto licence - if no foot operated clutch on the test car the licence will be auto.
A year ago I was assured there were no quotas, although there were some huge variations in pass rates by some examiners though the management were attempting to get everyone within 5% (or a similar figure) for consistency.
Very low pass rates at certain centres - especially in the south and very especially some in London and Essex. Sub 30% as I recall.
Much higher in the centres in rural Scotland, in particular the islands. Often over 70%.
Difficult to get good examiners. They get a one shot initial assessment. If they fail they are out forever. I heard of one driving instructor who applied - turned up late and unprepared for his practical driving assessment and promptly parked the vehicle on the pavement as part of a reversing around a corner exercise.
He was advised his services would not be required so no point in applying for part 2.
parrot of doom said:
If there is a backlog of test dates, then wouldn't the best way to deal with that be to improve the ability of test centres to test applicants (ie more examiners)?
I really do wonder about the average intelligence/common sense of people who make such decisions. How can such people be in positions of power?
Why the hell is there a backlog anyway? Its not like we don't contribute enough in fuel tax revenue to the government anyway!
More examiners means more costs. Lowering the standards means you get the same result on paper for no money.
The reason I failed twice is because I took my test at the end of the month. I failed on stupid stuff that should have meen minor faults. After finding out how the quotas worked for my test centre my third test was booked at the beginning of the month, in the beginning of the week, in the morning. I botched the test and passed with minor faults.
And yes, I cant tow a large trailer without taking another test
>> Edited by sadako on Tuesday 8th March 01:29
And yes, I cant tow a large trailer without taking another test
>> Edited by sadako on Tuesday 8th March 01:29
sadako said:What qualifies as "large"?
And yes, I cant tow a large trailer without taking another test
And when did this come in? (I presume that with a licence I have held for 11 years I can tow a "Large" trailer ... otherwise I could be done for breaking the rules on quite a lot of occasions!)
Oli.
sadako said:
The reason I failed twice is because I took my test at the end of the month. I failed on stupid stuff that should have meen minor faults. After finding out how the quotas worked for my test centre my third test was booked at the beginning of the month, in the beginning of the week, in the morning. I botched the test and passed with minor faults.
And yes, I cant tow a large trailer without taking another test
>> Edited by sadako on Tuesday 8th March 01:29
My younger daughter had 4 attempts at passing despite being a very competent driver.
Test 1 - female examiner - clipped a 24/7 bus lane within 2 mins of the start of the test tuning out onto a main road. Obscured signs, difficult to spot and somehow her instructor had never gone that route. Automatic fail. One other serious failing - when the examiner gave an instruction too late for her to get into the right turn in some roadworks. Otherwise just 2 minors.
Second test - again within 2 minutes of the start and agian not having taken that route before in that direction - almost went into a one way road the wrong way. It's an odd one in that the main road become a no entry except for buses. Instant fail. Otherwise just 3 minors and was told she would have passed easily except for the first incident.
Third test - same examiner as for the first test. Failed on some bollox to do with reversing tround a corner - the examiner having chosen a busy location with a skip parked in the middle of the road. Otherwise 2 minors
4th test, 31st December. Passed with 3 minors.
Ignoring the major demerit marks for the technical failures, across all 4 tests she scored less minor demerits than she would have been allowed in one test and would still have passed.
I can't see the argument for fewer tests saving money. The DSA should be able to make a profit on each test it runs. The more tests the more money it makes.
The only rationale for allowing substandard drivers to pass might be -
Use of vehicle = fuel tax take.
Extra congestion means more justification for anti-car policies.
Likelihood of 6 points in the first 2 years gives the DSA another chance for the test fee.
Rising accident rate (potential) means more justification for anti-car policies.
>> Edited by longq on Tuesday 8th March 18:38
longq said:
GKP said:
WHY don't we have a separate test before newbie drivers can use the motorways? Or tow trailers etc?
Agreed, just like we currently have. One can pass the test using a car with manual or automatic gears; this determines the level of license.
unless my knowledge is wildly out of date
Motorway test not always practical - not enough motorways.
There's an answer to that!
zcacogp said:
And yes, I cant tow a large trailer without taking another test
What qualifies as "large"?
And when did this come in? (I presume that with a licence I have held for 11 years I can tow a "Large" trailer ... otherwise I could be done for breaking the rules on quite a lot of occasions!)
Oli.
www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/dl_towing_trailers.htm
autismuk said:
More examiners means more costs. Lowering the standards means you get the same result on paper for no money.
Which is a great shame, considering the 50 billion odd pounds we donate to Mr Brown each year, how much of it is actually spent on the transport system?
Hypothecated taxes should be implemented tbh.
longq said:Thanks Longq,
www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/dl_towing_trailers.htm
It's not exactly easy to pick the relevant information out of that - typical DVLA-speak!
Oli.
Both my tests were fair I felt. First one (he was a Wally) I made two big mistakes and some minors and I agreed with them. I did scare the shit out of him though so it made it worth it. Best emeregancy stop in fresh snow/slush ever. Second made to minors and I agreed with them although may have been a little harsh. One for gear choice/selection and one for hesitation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff