Call for Twelve Month Tuition Before Test!
Discussion
Heard on review of papers that insurance company ist calling for a twelve month course of lessons before people allowed to take driving test.
Somehow - not practical given cost of lessons und if you do these lessons in rapid succession - ist better chance to practice the learning of previous lesson. We booked our three eldests' lessons in blocks of 12 - und each day at different times for duration of the blocked lessons. This was to fast track the "feel" initially und then to let them practice. Then in run up to test - another tightening up of skills lesson block.
The focus should be from very first lesson on getting message across that every drive ist a learning experience for life und that we should think about the dirve objectively und seek to improve the skill at all times. Und try to motivate to complete Pass Plus within this 12 months - with carrot of very much improved insurance premium perhaps und follow that with an active encouragement to take up a course with IAM etc.
Somehow - not practical given cost of lessons und if you do these lessons in rapid succession - ist better chance to practice the learning of previous lesson. We booked our three eldests' lessons in blocks of 12 - und each day at different times for duration of the blocked lessons. This was to fast track the "feel" initially und then to let them practice. Then in run up to test - another tightening up of skills lesson block.
The focus should be from very first lesson on getting message across that every drive ist a learning experience for life und that we should think about the dirve objectively und seek to improve the skill at all times. Und try to motivate to complete Pass Plus within this 12 months - with carrot of very much improved insurance premium perhaps und follow that with an active encouragement to take up a course with IAM etc.
The DSA and other "important" bodies have been discusing this for a couple of years. One suggestion is to change the learning age to 16 and make 12month learning compulsary. Thus not making anyone wait untill they are 18 before they can pass. Personally I think 12month learning is a very good idea, apart from the age thing, keep it at 17. it will stop some of the idiot parents saying things like "isn't it time my little angel put in for the test, I have watched them set off from here and they are very good".
They don't even want to listen when I explain there is more to driving than setting off smoothly.
Wildcat, most of the time you talk very good sense but one comment puts you in the same boat as others----COST/MONEY? How can you put a price on childs safety. I think there is no such thing as fast track learning, it takes as long as it takes. Thats why I always refuse to teach 1 week intensive courses, very good earner for me but does nothing for safety. Driving is a life skill, like any other skill(electrician,solicitor etc) it takes time to learn
They don't even want to listen when I explain there is more to driving than setting off smoothly.
Wildcat, most of the time you talk very good sense but one comment puts you in the same boat as others----COST/MONEY? How can you put a price on childs safety. I think there is no such thing as fast track learning, it takes as long as it takes. Thats why I always refuse to teach 1 week intensive courses, very good earner for me but does nothing for safety. Driving is a life skill, like any other skill(electrician,solicitor etc) it takes time to learn
Unless students are happy to shell out for hundreds of lessons, they will have forgotten what was learnt in the previous lesson when taking the next. The way around that is to have one lesson at the start of the 12 month period, then have the block of lessons in the months approaching the test – almost like what is done anyway 
I can’t figure out what an insurance company has to gain from broadcasting statements like that.
I can’t figure out what an insurance company has to gain from broadcasting statements like that.
BadgerBenji said:
Retest after the first 12 months might be an idea, and then a retest every 5 years after that.
That makes good sense. If test after 5 years is failed then driver is allowed to continue driving for 1 more year before loosing licence. This will give time to pass the test, resetting the 5 year timer, and ensure that there is no loss of job/hardship etc.
I think that there should be a minimum number of training hours that a learner should record rather than an arbitrary length of time, i.e. 12 months.
In addition, there should be a number of core competencies that a learner has to master, which are signed off in their training logbook by the instructor before being allowed to apply for the test. Also once someone has passed the basic test of driving competence, there should be compulsory further training, say in motorway and night driving, before they obtain their full driving licence.
In addition, there should be a number of core competencies that a learner has to master, which are signed off in their training logbook by the instructor before being allowed to apply for the test. Also once someone has passed the basic test of driving competence, there should be compulsory further training, say in motorway and night driving, before they obtain their full driving licence.
I took a short course of lessons, then failed my test - purely through inexperience, technically I was fine(aged 17 and 2 weeks). After a further 7 months on L plates, learning how the roads worked, I took a refresher course and passed my test easily.
I'm all for this new proposal, having witnessed the difference in my own driving first hand.
I'm all for this new proposal, having witnessed the difference in my own driving first hand.
It should be compulsary to have lessons with an instructor, at the moment it isn't so anyone can book a test and turn up in their own car. The government argue it's against the human rights thingy bullshit to change this.
They may be lucky enough and pass the test but not be a safe driver. The examiner only has them for 35 minutes and if nothing unusual happens then they pass. Also, dare I say it, the examiners will almost certainly take them on a less dangerous route as there will be no dual controls fitted so he wants to make sure he himself is safe. Totally wrong but I have seen it happen, strongly denied by the DSA though.
Compulsary lessons with an instructor for a set number/time and plenty of private practice is the only way to go IMHO. With the decision of when to book the test down to the instructor and learner jointly.
Only last week a young guy said to me at the end of a lesson, "I am going to book my test because I think I am ready". When I informed him he wasn't ready he said, "well I think I am and so does my mam".
They may be lucky enough and pass the test but not be a safe driver. The examiner only has them for 35 minutes and if nothing unusual happens then they pass. Also, dare I say it, the examiners will almost certainly take them on a less dangerous route as there will be no dual controls fitted so he wants to make sure he himself is safe. Totally wrong but I have seen it happen, strongly denied by the DSA though.
Compulsary lessons with an instructor for a set number/time and plenty of private practice is the only way to go IMHO. With the decision of when to book the test down to the instructor and learner jointly.
Only last week a young guy said to me at the end of a lesson, "I am going to book my test because I think I am ready". When I informed him he wasn't ready he said, "well I think I am and so does my mam".
TOPTON said:
It should be compulsary to have lessons with an instructor, at the moment it isn't so anyone can book a test and turn up in their own car. The government argue it's against the human rights thingy bullshit to change this.
They may be lucky enough and pass the test but not be a safe driver. The examiner only has them for 35 minutes and if nothing unusual happens then they pass. Also, dare I say it, the examiners will almost certainly take them on a less dangerous route as there will be no dual controls fitted so he wants to make sure he himself is safe. Totally wrong but I have seen it happen, strongly denied by the DSA though.
Compulsary lessons with an instructor for a set number/time and plenty of private practice is the only way to go IMHO. With the decision of when to book the test down to the instructor and learner jointly.
Only last week a young guy said to me at the end of a lesson, "I am going to book my test because I think I am ready". When I informed him he wasn't ready he said, "well I think I am and so does my mam".
They may be lucky enough and pass the test but not be a safe driver. The examiner only has them for 35 minutes and if nothing unusual happens then they pass. Also, dare I say it, the examiners will almost certainly take them on a less dangerous route as there will be no dual controls fitted so he wants to make sure he himself is safe. Totally wrong but I have seen it happen, strongly denied by the DSA though.
Compulsary lessons with an instructor for a set number/time and plenty of private practice is the only way to go IMHO. With the decision of when to book the test down to the instructor and learner jointly.
Only last week a young guy said to me at the end of a lesson, "I am going to book my test because I think I am ready". When I informed him he wasn't ready he said, "well I think I am and so does my mam".
My friend did loads of lessons with his dad, went for his test, passed, and has had about 10 years of accident free motoring under his belt.
I did about 30 lessons (4 months)maybe with an instructor, passed 2nd time, again 10 years of accident free motoring (touch wood)...
I think the important bit is that an instructor, parent or paid for professional, doesn't let learners go for their test until they judge they are a GOOD driver, not just a driver who can pass a 35 min test.
After all that, why not just make the test longer and harder? If people don't pass then they need to get better. If people do pass then they are good enough!
Why force probably 50% of learners to learn for upto 4x longer when they simply don't need to?
It's just a big stick method, because a few schools teach to pass a test and not to be a good driver, and we have poor drivers passing the test, doesn't mean ALL learners need to have silly measures applied them. A test will sort the wheat from the chaff and to a FIXED standard. The test is outdated, not the teaching duration! You could teach a crap driver for 12 months and they'd still pass the outdated poor test and be a crap driver!
Update the test and the teaching will have to alter to meet the required standards. Why update the teaching requirements if the test is still easy? Why bother having a test if your focussing on the teaching being the key factor? The test is the weak point!
This new idea is backwards.
Test=harder, lessons=sufficient to pass the test!
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 20th September 10:41
black-k1 said:
BadgerBenji said:
Retest after the first 12 months might be an idea, and then a retest every 5 years after that.
That makes good sense. If test after 5 years is failed then driver is allowed to continue driving for 1 more year before loosing licence. This will give time to pass the test, resetting the 5 year timer, and ensure that there is no loss of job/hardship etc.
Excellent well thats our white paper in place
Can I propose an ammendment as well.
1) No towing with a vehicles without a towing test, which must include reversing it.
2) This test only applies to cars with a maximum of 100bhp/ton, anything more than that, requires a further test, which will include skid pan sessions.
I would agree that the test is outdated, it needs to be longer and to cover every aspect of driving, where possible. But if it was longer and harder then everyone would need more lessons or longer time to learn.
I never put anyone forward for a test if they are not capable of driving and not just passing the test, I don't take chances on a test and that they might be lucky.
I don't wish to insult anyone, but 5/10 or 15 years of accident free driving doesn't necessarily mean its a good driver, it could mean lucky. I know an old chap who only drives around 50 miles a week. But in that time he sees or has more near crashes than I do in my 3000 mile month with learners. Guess what??? It's always someone elses fault because he says he is a good driver and has been for 30 years
I never put anyone forward for a test if they are not capable of driving and not just passing the test, I don't take chances on a test and that they might be lucky.
I don't wish to insult anyone, but 5/10 or 15 years of accident free driving doesn't necessarily mean its a good driver, it could mean lucky. I know an old chap who only drives around 50 miles a week. But in that time he sees or has more near crashes than I do in my 3000 mile month with learners. Guess what??? It's always someone elses fault because he says he is a good driver and has been for 30 years
Mr Whippy said:
This new idea is backwards.
Test=harder, lessons=sufficient to pass the test!
Test=harder, lessons=sufficient to pass the test!
This is sopt on. There is no point in having a years worth of lessons if you still only need to pass a test that is too easy. I would imagine it's perfectly possible to drive badly for a whole year. The focus should be on driving skill. If someone has the ability to pass a more difficult test after two weeks then let them.
The current testing system is a joke, so I'm not sure how additional learning beforehand can help. A lot of my friends have learned to drive over the last couple of years, and it seems to me that the test does descriminate between good and bad drivers, only it gets them the wrong way round! It's like it was designed by some diabolical genius! A friend of mine took three goes to pass, then proceeded to drive 20k miles a year for three years without a single accident or point on his license (or even getting pulled over). Another friend passed first time, with hardly any minors, and is totally useless.
The problem is that nowadays instructors only seem to teach learners how to pass the test, not how to drive. You get taught which buttons to press in what order to make the vehicle move in a manner satisfactory to the examiner, but you don't get told why. So if you happen across a set of unusual circumstances, such as a motorway pile-up, you're f
ed!
The problem is that nowadays instructors only seem to teach learners how to pass the test, not how to drive. You get taught which buttons to press in what order to make the vehicle move in a manner satisfactory to the examiner, but you don't get told why. So if you happen across a set of unusual circumstances, such as a motorway pile-up, you're f
ed!I'm a learner (well ok a stagnant learner at the moment!)
When I was 17 I was offered a course of driving lessons for my birthday, I refused the offer as I knew I was not mature enough to be responsible for my life and everyone else's on the road, I then went through the next 18 years or so not needing to drive and more importantly still not feeling competant/mature enough to do it.
Last year at the ripe old age of 36 I decided the time was right and I was ready to learn, my b/f had me put on his insurance (and was very suprised that my age went in favour for me regardless of experience!). The original plan was for him to teach me how to handle an automatic, get used to driving the car, then I would go to a proper instructor for lessons and learn what to do with my left foot. Due to the car having more fun being in the fixers, I had not had much chance to get out in it.
Ok it's only baby steps, and some may raise an eyebrow at doing it this way, but I am learning to progress upto road speed, handle the car, concentrate on my steering and maintining my speed before I then have to learn clutch and gears. Trying to do it all at once would just overwhelm me.
My brother on the other hand deemed the offer of lessons at 17 to be a right, within 12 months of him 'passing' he had written off two cars, one of which he took through someone's garden wall!
I won't get in a car with him, I just don't trust him with my life, its a simple as that. There are other people I know that have been driving for years and I won't travel with them.
It seems to me that a lot of younger drivers (I am not tarring all with the same brush here.... some are safe and competent) see driving as a right and not a priveledge, and how some have passed their test is totally beyond me, and on the other hand, those like me that have taken driving up later in life seem to be 'safer' (again though I stress..not all!)
My b/f has said that although I have had only a few attempts at pootling up and down the road I am good at it, and will make a safe driver (my perception and theory are spot on!), I will get there one day, if it takes a lot of time then so be it, I waited long enough till i decided I was ready to learn, and I'll plug away at it until I and those that I trust feel I am ready to be tested..... however long that takes.
When I was 17 I was offered a course of driving lessons for my birthday, I refused the offer as I knew I was not mature enough to be responsible for my life and everyone else's on the road, I then went through the next 18 years or so not needing to drive and more importantly still not feeling competant/mature enough to do it.
Last year at the ripe old age of 36 I decided the time was right and I was ready to learn, my b/f had me put on his insurance (and was very suprised that my age went in favour for me regardless of experience!). The original plan was for him to teach me how to handle an automatic, get used to driving the car, then I would go to a proper instructor for lessons and learn what to do with my left foot. Due to the car having more fun being in the fixers, I had not had much chance to get out in it.
Ok it's only baby steps, and some may raise an eyebrow at doing it this way, but I am learning to progress upto road speed, handle the car, concentrate on my steering and maintining my speed before I then have to learn clutch and gears. Trying to do it all at once would just overwhelm me.
My brother on the other hand deemed the offer of lessons at 17 to be a right, within 12 months of him 'passing' he had written off two cars, one of which he took through someone's garden wall!
I won't get in a car with him, I just don't trust him with my life, its a simple as that. There are other people I know that have been driving for years and I won't travel with them.
It seems to me that a lot of younger drivers (I am not tarring all with the same brush here.... some are safe and competent) see driving as a right and not a priveledge, and how some have passed their test is totally beyond me, and on the other hand, those like me that have taken driving up later in life seem to be 'safer' (again though I stress..not all!)
My b/f has said that although I have had only a few attempts at pootling up and down the road I am good at it, and will make a safe driver (my perception and theory are spot on!), I will get there one day, if it takes a lot of time then so be it, I waited long enough till i decided I was ready to learn, and I'll plug away at it until I and those that I trust feel I am ready to be tested..... however long that takes.
It's not the Length of time taken to pass but the experience you gain. 12 months is no good if they only take 12 lessons. However 1 month would be better. You gain experience quickly and spend more time in the car hopefully in varied conditions. How many new drivers do you see who patently have not travelled in rain, fog, snow etc?? How many don't know how to handle a dual-carriageway. There is also the problem of the instructor. My original one pushed me into 4 test's before I was ready. I binned him and passed first time with another instructor. Since then I have believed that you need to get the right instructor for you.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff