Driving test fail - unfair?
Discussion
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
DuckDuck said:
...there was someone, on the right, trying to squeeze through, friend said that they didn't see anyone; maybe in the blind spot.
That sounds like a major error to me...DuckDuck said:
Thanks everyone.
Yes, positioned left and received a fail!! Tester added that there was someone, on the right, trying to squeeze through, friend said that they didn't see anyone; maybe in the blind spot.
Highway code rule 186 is clear in so far that this was technically a right exit even though it's almost straight ahead! The first exit was on the left. I would tend to agree that taking the middle position means that you restrict anyone coming up the side. The last sign leading up to the roundabout, I think is, incorrect as it doesn't show any left exit.
Still think this was a bit harsh
Taking the middle position you do not restrict a motorcycle coming by on either side!Yes, positioned left and received a fail!! Tester added that there was someone, on the right, trying to squeeze through, friend said that they didn't see anyone; maybe in the blind spot.
Highway code rule 186 is clear in so far that this was technically a right exit even though it's almost straight ahead! The first exit was on the left. I would tend to agree that taking the middle position means that you restrict anyone coming up the side. The last sign leading up to the roundabout, I think is, incorrect as it doesn't show any left exit.
Still think this was a bit harsh
johnao said:
The candidate should have observed the vehicle approaching from behind, taken note of its position to the right of the lane and then moved right herself to ensure that the follower remained behind.
I would say maybe this could be the case but it depends how quickly things happen, how close the car was to her, I would say moving herself into the other cars position just makes the situation much worse, it would be best to keep tight to the left if anything?lewishollings said:
johnao said:
The candidate should have observed the vehicle approaching from behind, taken note of its position to the right of the lane and then moved right herself to ensure that the follower remained behind.
I would say maybe this could be the case but it depends how quickly things happen, how close the car was to her, I would say moving herself into the other cars position just makes the situation much worse, it would be best to keep tight to the left if anything?I think the first occurs because learners want to drive (of course), but do not have the chance to listen to a running commentary from a driving teacher.
The driving examiner is always correct....period....there is no point in complaining you will always loose an appeal
With out looking at the dl25 or the notes the D/E made post test as to why the candidate failed then you will never know
The fact she did not see the car "trying to make progress" from behind her to her offside suggests poor mirror work on approach to the roundabout.
If an approach is made to the roundabout to turn left or go straight on she would be better off staying on the nearside of the road/lane (unless marked otherwise)
If directed to turn right by D/E (unless marked otherwise) (or there are options) then approach the roundabout to the offside of the road/lane. I would consider a right turn anything that is to the right of "12 O'clock"
Any deviation from this rigid way that the test requires may go against the candidate.
I have sat in on countless driving tests, and many if not most fails are from poor or inadequate obs by the candidate approaching/at junctions and , moving off from or to the side of the road.
Believe me they do not miss much, if they say "You did not see that silver merc to your right on the approach to the roundabout, therefore I had to say stop, or use the dual controls" you didn't!
If I drove my learner car like I do for the driving test I would fail it.....because like most of us if it is suitable, safe, and I am sure what is around me, I am in the correct gear at the correct speed for that gear, on the approach to a roundabout and I can position the vehicle to straight line it, keeping the vehicle stable and under control..... then I do it if my actions will not cause any other road user to change direction or speed to avoid me.
The driving test is a test of very basic skills, it is what we have to work with when teaching learners, very rarely do any want further driver training "post" test.
Many forget and disregard their basic training/coaching and try to get from A to B asap without regard for other road users, hence the crash stats on our roads
If you don't like the way our tests are conducted, then contact your MP, road user associations, and try to get things changed. Moaning on PH will not change things. However our roads believe it or not are some of the safest in the world.
Your friend will learn from her experience and will pass soon. To have only 3 minors means she was not bad at all, suggesting that a little work on roundabouts, especially the one she failed on will mean the same situation is less likely to happen again. I would imagine her instructor would have taken her onto more complex junctions/roundabouts to give her an idea of what "may" happen, but he can't cover everything, we all experience things we have not before even after many years of driving.
In Southampton where I train most of my customers there are several roundabouts that the customer has to manage independant of me before I allow them to take the test in my vehicle, otherwise they would have no chance on test, and also prepares them better for post test driving.
When she does pass, 5 minors or less would I feel be a very reasonable pass, 4 or less, pretty good, 3 or less good, 2 or less very good, 1 or less rare and almost brilliant. No fault passes are very very rare, so many things have to go right to achieve a perfect drive, very rarely do any of us manage that!
With out looking at the dl25 or the notes the D/E made post test as to why the candidate failed then you will never know
The fact she did not see the car "trying to make progress" from behind her to her offside suggests poor mirror work on approach to the roundabout.
If an approach is made to the roundabout to turn left or go straight on she would be better off staying on the nearside of the road/lane (unless marked otherwise)
If directed to turn right by D/E (unless marked otherwise) (or there are options) then approach the roundabout to the offside of the road/lane. I would consider a right turn anything that is to the right of "12 O'clock"
Any deviation from this rigid way that the test requires may go against the candidate.
I have sat in on countless driving tests, and many if not most fails are from poor or inadequate obs by the candidate approaching/at junctions and , moving off from or to the side of the road.
Believe me they do not miss much, if they say "You did not see that silver merc to your right on the approach to the roundabout, therefore I had to say stop, or use the dual controls" you didn't!
If I drove my learner car like I do for the driving test I would fail it.....because like most of us if it is suitable, safe, and I am sure what is around me, I am in the correct gear at the correct speed for that gear, on the approach to a roundabout and I can position the vehicle to straight line it, keeping the vehicle stable and under control..... then I do it if my actions will not cause any other road user to change direction or speed to avoid me.
The driving test is a test of very basic skills, it is what we have to work with when teaching learners, very rarely do any want further driver training "post" test.
Many forget and disregard their basic training/coaching and try to get from A to B asap without regard for other road users, hence the crash stats on our roads
If you don't like the way our tests are conducted, then contact your MP, road user associations, and try to get things changed. Moaning on PH will not change things. However our roads believe it or not are some of the safest in the world.
Your friend will learn from her experience and will pass soon. To have only 3 minors means she was not bad at all, suggesting that a little work on roundabouts, especially the one she failed on will mean the same situation is less likely to happen again. I would imagine her instructor would have taken her onto more complex junctions/roundabouts to give her an idea of what "may" happen, but he can't cover everything, we all experience things we have not before even after many years of driving.
In Southampton where I train most of my customers there are several roundabouts that the customer has to manage independant of me before I allow them to take the test in my vehicle, otherwise they would have no chance on test, and also prepares them better for post test driving.
When she does pass, 5 minors or less would I feel be a very reasonable pass, 4 or less, pretty good, 3 or less good, 2 or less very good, 1 or less rare and almost brilliant. No fault passes are very very rare, so many things have to go right to achieve a perfect drive, very rarely do any of us manage that!
1) You won't always loose an appeal, but the only thing you can successfully appeal against is that the test wasn't conducted properly (i.e. it wasn't a lawful test). All that results in (if successful) is a free re-test, not a result change. You can't appeal the result of the test.
2) Straight lining a roundabout isn't an automatic fault, it is heavily dependent on the observations made/circumstances performed in.
3) No recorded faults doesn't necessarily indicate a perfect drive (does a perfect drive of 30+ minutes exist?). It could have been littered with a lot of very minor errors, just that they were not worthy of recording (which is the first grade up the ladder for faults & if it was not worthy of recording the first time it happened it isn't worthy of recording the tenth time you did it either).
2) Straight lining a roundabout isn't an automatic fault, it is heavily dependent on the observations made/circumstances performed in.
3) No recorded faults doesn't necessarily indicate a perfect drive (does a perfect drive of 30+ minutes exist?). It could have been littered with a lot of very minor errors, just that they were not worthy of recording (which is the first grade up the ladder for faults & if it was not worthy of recording the first time it happened it isn't worthy of recording the tenth time you did it either).
3) No recorded faults doesn't necessarily indicate a perfect drive (does a perfect drive of 30+ minutes exist?). It could have been littered with a lot of very minor errors, just that they were not worthy of recording (which is the first grade up the ladder for faults & if it was not worthy of recording the first time it happened it isn't worthy of recording the tenth time you did it either).
[/quote]
Disagree. If a footballer commits a foul and does not get booked, that does not make him less likely to avoid a booking second time. I would suggest that repeated 'offending' would result in it being recorded.
Mandat said:
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
DuckDuck said:
...there was someone, on the right, trying to squeeze through, friend said that they didn't see anyone; maybe in the blind spot.
That sounds like a major error to me...
head "squeezes" up the blind-side of a marked learner car on a roundabout ?Pica-Pica said:
vonhosen said:
3) No recorded faults doesn't necessarily indicate a perfect drive (does a perfect drive of 30+ minutes exist?). It could have been littered with a lot of very minor errors, just that they were not worthy of recording (which is the first grade up the ladder for faults & if it was not worthy of recording the first time it happened it isn't worthy of recording the tenth time you did it either).
Disagree. If a footballer commits a foul and does not get booked, that does not make him less likely to avoid a booking second time. I would suggest that repeated 'offending' would result in it being recorded.The reason you are wrong is because It's a part of the Driving examiner's assessment tool kit that if it's not worthy of a fault this time, the same action is not worthy if repeated again & again. There has to be something additional either about the action or the circumstances it occurred in that makes it different to the prior cases & elevates it in severity beyond the previous examples (repetition doesn't qualify) & therefore worthy of recording this time. Any faults have to stand alone in merit as being worthy of being recorded if they are to be recorded.
Where repetition matters is in recorded faults, not for faults that were unworthy of being recorded in their own right in the first place.
Repeated recorded faults will ultimately lead in a later fault being elevated to a Serious fault, but there is no defined number where the change will occur. That depends on what the fault is or (for instance) the percentage those faults are as a proportion of that action in the whole drive. For example, in a PSV test the second time you simply forget to observe the doors when closing them at a bus stop (considered a worthy fault) it will be elevated to a serious fault on the second occasion the fault occurs (without any additional factors being present), but the second time you attract a simple gears fault, that was worthy in each case on it's own, it won't have to result in it being elevated to being marked as serious fault without there being some additional factors that would make it a serious fault in it's own standalone right.
I happen to have got a no-fault pass.
Driving was good, and law abiding generally. Not perfect though - there was a moment where I did 35 in a 30 accelerating away from some lights. Rectified very quickly (masked by the traffic ahead meaning that I had to slow down anyway
). So no, I really doubt you get 30 minutes of perfect driving. Not when you're taking your test. However, if you really tried and were highly experienced, it's probably possible.
And there's the evidence;
A fun anecdote: I nearly got a fault on the show me/tell me questions. I got so nervous when we first got into the car I forgot where my washer jets were! The back windscreen wiper seemed to have a mind of its own... fortunately, I calmed down after the first one.
Driving was good, and law abiding generally. Not perfect though - there was a moment where I did 35 in a 30 accelerating away from some lights. Rectified very quickly (masked by the traffic ahead meaning that I had to slow down anyway
). So no, I really doubt you get 30 minutes of perfect driving. Not when you're taking your test. However, if you really tried and were highly experienced, it's probably possible.And there's the evidence;
A fun anecdote: I nearly got a fault on the show me/tell me questions. I got so nervous when we first got into the car I forgot where my washer jets were! The back windscreen wiper seemed to have a mind of its own... fortunately, I calmed down after the first one.
Edited by Solocle on Sunday 30th July 23:05
BertBert said:
So is there any such thing as a perfect drive? What would define it?
I'd say for a learner: obeying every instruction in the highway code at all times, while making good progress.For PH: getting from A to B as safely and quickly as possible, while naturally never speeding
Looking at the first sign for the roundabout it tells you there are two exits of equal priority - minor exits would be represented by narrower lines.
On this basis I'd automatically approach the roundabout using the right hand side of the lane, taking the right hand lane on approach if there are two lanes.
More generally, pick an entrance lane by splitting the number of major exits across the number of entrance lanes.
On this basis I'd automatically approach the roundabout using the right hand side of the lane, taking the right hand lane on approach if there are two lanes.
More generally, pick an entrance lane by splitting the number of major exits across the number of entrance lanes.
vonhosen said:
Pica-Pica said:
vonhosen said:
3) No recorded faults doesn't necessarily indicate a perfect drive (does a perfect drive of 30+ minutes exist?). It could have been littered with a lot of very minor errors, just that they were not worthy of recording (which is the first grade up the ladder for faults & if it was not worthy of recording the first time it happened it isn't worthy of recording the tenth time you did it either).
Disagree. If a footballer commits a foul and does not get booked, that does not make him less likely to avoid a booking second time. I would suggest that repeated 'offending' would result in it being recorded.The reason you are wrong is because It's a part of the Driving examiner's assessment tool kit that if it's not worthy of a fault this time, the same action is not worthy if repeated again & again. There has to be something additional either about the action or the circumstances it occurred in that makes it different to the prior cases & elevates it in severity beyond the previous examples (repetition doesn't qualify) & therefore worthy of recording this time. Any faults have to stand alone in merit as being worthy of being recorded if they are to be recorded.
Where repetition matters is in recorded faults, not for faults that were unworthy of being recorded in their own right in the first place.
Repeated recorded faults will ultimately lead in a later fault being elevated to a Serious fault, but there is no defined number where the change will occur. That depends on what the fault is or (for instance) the percentage those faults are as a proportion of that action in the whole drive. For example, in a PSV test the second time you simply forget to observe the doors when closing them at a bus stop (considered a worthy fault) it will be elevated to a serious fault on the second occasion the fault occurs (without any additional factors being present), but the second time you attract a simple gears fault, that was worthy in each case on it's own, it won't have to result in it being elevated to being marked as serious fault without there being some additional factors that would make it a serious fault in it's own standalone right.
I don't know how many tests you above have sat in on.....but the driving test is designed to last some 38-40 minutes depending on traffic.
I have had one or two last some 33-35 minutes but only because the lights were green on just about all junctions and traffic sympathetic , i have also had tests that have lasted some 50-55 minutes owing to catching every red light, and poor traffic
So suggesting a driving test is some 30 minutes is a little off what i have experienced for the last 14 years
As for the driving examiner only marking faults after a while, or after one or more times, is again not what I have witnessed over hundreds of "observations" of tests from the back seat, they don't have a casual attitude to marking the dl25.....if you don't do something you should, then it will be marked.
The original OP stated that the candidate was marked "serious" for her lane discipline and or awareness/ observation on the approach to a roundabout .....are you suggesting the driving examiner would let her off a couple of times for the same fault prior to that?
I have had one or two last some 33-35 minutes but only because the lights were green on just about all junctions and traffic sympathetic , i have also had tests that have lasted some 50-55 minutes owing to catching every red light, and poor traffic
So suggesting a driving test is some 30 minutes is a little off what i have experienced for the last 14 years
As for the driving examiner only marking faults after a while, or after one or more times, is again not what I have witnessed over hundreds of "observations" of tests from the back seat, they don't have a casual attitude to marking the dl25.....if you don't do something you should, then it will be marked.
The original OP stated that the candidate was marked "serious" for her lane discipline and or awareness/ observation on the approach to a roundabout .....are you suggesting the driving examiner would let her off a couple of times for the same fault prior to that?
Not seen anyone mention the following yet...
As the roundabout has only three exits in total it's a mini-roundabout (regardless of the size of the island). So first exit left 'lane, second exit right 'lane'. No requirement to indicate when you leave the roundabout (although it would make sense in this case as joining traffic won't know which exit you came on at).
Also, on the road sign the exit is after 12 o'clock so is technically 'right'.
I would approach on the right hand side with a right indicator, combined with good observations behind incase anyone thinks you're looping, on a driving test. Not on test I'd drop the right indicator but stay on the right side of the lane.
As the roundabout has only three exits in total it's a mini-roundabout (regardless of the size of the island). So first exit left 'lane, second exit right 'lane'. No requirement to indicate when you leave the roundabout (although it would make sense in this case as joining traffic won't know which exit you came on at).
Also, on the road sign the exit is after 12 o'clock so is technically 'right'.
I would approach on the right hand side with a right indicator, combined with good observations behind incase anyone thinks you're looping, on a driving test. Not on test I'd drop the right indicator but stay on the right side of the lane.
watchnut said:
I don't know how many tests you above have sat in on.....but the driving test is designed to last some 38-40 minutes depending on traffic.
I have had one or two last some 33-35 minutes but only because the lights were green on just about all junctions and traffic sympathetic , i have also had tests that have lasted some 50-55 minutes owing to catching every red light, and poor traffic
So suggesting a driving test is some 30 minutes is a little off what i have experienced for the last 14 years
If that's directed at me.I have had one or two last some 33-35 minutes but only because the lights were green on just about all junctions and traffic sympathetic , i have also had tests that have lasted some 50-55 minutes owing to catching every red light, and poor traffic
So suggesting a driving test is some 30 minutes is a little off what i have experienced for the last 14 years
38-40minutes is 30+ minutes, I wasn't suggesting they are 30 minutes but just picking a convenient figure that they will be over in time. I didn't put a specific time because they vary (as you've alluded to) & that will also depend on the vehicle class you are being tested in too.
I've sat in on an awful lot of test, in fact I've conducted an awful lot of tests because I used to be an examiner.
watchnut said:
As for the driving examiner only marking faults after a while, or after one or more times, is again not what I have witnessed over hundreds of "observations" of tests from the back seat, they don't have a casual attitude to marking the dl25.....if you don't do something you should, then it will be marked.
The original OP stated that the candidate was marked "serious" for her lane discipline and or awareness/ observation on the approach to a roundabout .....are you suggesting the driving examiner would let her off a couple of times for the same fault prior to that?
That can't be directed at me.The original OP stated that the candidate was marked "serious" for her lane discipline and or awareness/ observation on the approach to a roundabout .....are you suggesting the driving examiner would let her off a couple of times for the same fault prior to that?
Pica-Pica said:
vonhosen said:
Pica-Pica said:
vonhosen said:
3) No recorded faults doesn't necessarily indicate a perfect drive (does a perfect drive of 30+ minutes exist?). It could have been littered with a lot of very minor errors, just that they were not worthy of recording (which is the first grade up the ladder for faults & if it was not worthy of recording the first time it happened it isn't worthy of recording the tenth time you did it either).
Disagree. If a footballer commits a foul and does not get booked, that does not make him less likely to avoid a booking second time. I would suggest that repeated 'offending' would result in it being recorded.The reason you are wrong is because It's a part of the Driving examiner's assessment tool kit that if it's not worthy of a fault this time, the same action is not worthy if repeated again & again. There has to be something additional either about the action or the circumstances it occurred in that makes it different to the prior cases & elevates it in severity beyond the previous examples (repetition doesn't qualify) & therefore worthy of recording this time. Any faults have to stand alone in merit as being worthy of being recorded if they are to be recorded.
Where repetition matters is in recorded faults, not for faults that were unworthy of being recorded in their own right in the first place.
Repeated recorded faults will ultimately lead in a later fault being elevated to a Serious fault, but there is no defined number where the change will occur. That depends on what the fault is or (for instance) the percentage those faults are as a proportion of that action in the whole drive. For example, in a PSV test the second time you simply forget to observe the doors when closing them at a bus stop (considered a worthy fault) it will be elevated to a serious fault on the second occasion the fault occurs (without any additional factors being present), but the second time you attract a simple gears fault, that was worthy in each case on it's own, it won't have to result in it being elevated to being marked as serious fault without there being some additional factors that would make it a serious fault in it's own standalone right.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff