RE: Driving Test Reforms Planned
Thursday 8th May 2008
The driving test could be heading for its biggest shake-up since it was introduced in 1935.
Driving Test Reforms Planned
Driving instructors are to be given new powers under Government proposals
Instructors could be given powers to order learners to have extra lessons before taking their tests.
The Government is planning that learners gain a ‘test readiness certificate’ signed by either the instructor or the ‘supervising driver’.
However the scheme has already come under fire from critics, who suggest that unscrupulous instructors could keep their pupils from taking their tests to make more money from lessons.
However the DfT has reportedly hit back at such claims by saying that learners will be able to pick the best instructors by using a new star-rating.
Also under the new proposals the instructor or ‘supervising driver’, who is most likely to be a parent, can sit in the back of the car and make notes as to what, if anything, the driver is doing wrong.
The DfT consultation paper, learning to Drive, is understood to also propose to stop publishing questions from the theory test.
This means that drivers could no longer memorise the questions before taking the test.
Some have suggested the new rules could lower insurance premiums for everyone.
However the Driving Instructors Association has said the star-rating system is unfair.
‘The Government has put electoral concerns ahead of road safety and shamefully failed to grasp the nettle in reducing the appalling level of teenage casualties on our roads.’
Discussion
Teenage deaths are due to 17-18 year old (mainly men) jumping into cars and racing around like loonies without the correct skills or abilities to deal with the potential pitfalls of doing so on the road. This is a culture/society problem where being a rebbel/driving like a knob is seen as being "cool"
The quality of the standard driving test is JUST SHOCKING - take a leaf out of the IAM test and actually show these people how to observe the road and conditions correctly!
The quality of the standard driving test is JUST SHOCKING - take a leaf out of the IAM test and actually show these people how to observe the road and conditions correctly!
but what is the point of allowing instructors to force someone to take more lessons before doing the test? I can't see any benefits, only an opportunity for some less-than-honest instructors to wangle more money out of people. Surely if someone takes their test before being ready, then the current system of them failing the test sorts them out?
They should make driving tests more about using your common sense and initiative to figure out problems you come across on the roads rather than driving about a fixed route to a very fixed set of rules. It should include motorway driving.
They should make driving tests more about using your common sense and initiative to figure out problems you come across on the roads rather than driving about a fixed route to a very fixed set of rules. It should include motorway driving.
Surely getting a certificate that says your ready to take the test is no different to just taking the test a lot of times until you pass? There won't be any increase in driving standards because the test won't be any harder, all it means is that your (marginally) less likely to fail on your first attempt.
The only way I passed the theory was to memorise the questions and answers, because the questions are so vague and wishy washy anyway... mainly when they have 'other' as an option.
They at least need to make sure that no question is impossible to answer incorrectly if applying simple logic.
All just arse. Why not just make the testers not have to meet targets, while having them assess attitude and general ability, not just capability to meet the requirements of a grid of tick boxes.
Dave
They at least need to make sure that no question is impossible to answer incorrectly if applying simple logic.
All just arse. Why not just make the testers not have to meet targets, while having them assess attitude and general ability, not just capability to meet the requirements of a grid of tick boxes.
Dave
I'm sorry but its getting a bit tiring having so many facts and figures about traffic incidents about 'young drivers'. I'll admit that young drivers do tend to be a bit more careless when driving through over-confidence and such, so I'm all for revising the driving test, its all practice at the end of the day.
But what about the elderly? I saw a man the other day get out of his car, and he actually struggled to get up onto the pavement with his walking stick. How can that possibly be allowed? His reaction time is probably frightening. Its been proven that elderly drivers actually CAUSE more accidents than young drivers. So I think its about time the government started thinking about the other end of the scale!
But what about the elderly? I saw a man the other day get out of his car, and he actually struggled to get up onto the pavement with his walking stick. How can that possibly be allowed? His reaction time is probably frightening. Its been proven that elderly drivers actually CAUSE more accidents than young drivers. So I think its about time the government started thinking about the other end of the scale!
I think it's a step in the right direction, in as much as it puts the spotlight on driving skill, though if the instructor feels the student needs more training before taking their test, then surely the test itself should fail that student anyway?
I would expect that the whole idea behind having to pass a driving test to get a license means that anyone in the possession of said license is competent to drive, and anyone not competent to drive would fail?
i.e. if licenses are being issued to people unsafe to drive, shouldn't the test be tougher / pass requirements be stricter?
Also, in my opinion, being competent to drive means being able to control a car in an emergency situation as well as in normal circumstances, but last time I checked, the only emergency competence tested by the examination was an ability to locate and operate the brake pedal. While travelling in a straight line. Pilots, even private pilots, are taught, or at least were taught, how to recover from spins and stalls. Why aren't drivers taught how to recover from a slide, or taught proper observational skills?
One might argue that this would encourage young male drivers to take more risks, but I believe that they already feel encouraged to do so anyway. They'll try the same stupid things whether or not they have the skills to back up their ambition. That teenager is going to attempt a handbrake turn into the pub parking lot whether he knows how to or not. If he has some training on how to control the resultant slide, he's at least less likely to f
k it up and kill someone. And if he's taught proper observational skills as part of his requirement for getting a license, he's got more chance of identifying his potential victim and thus choosing not to be a numpty this time at least.
I would expect that the whole idea behind having to pass a driving test to get a license means that anyone in the possession of said license is competent to drive, and anyone not competent to drive would fail?
i.e. if licenses are being issued to people unsafe to drive, shouldn't the test be tougher / pass requirements be stricter?
Also, in my opinion, being competent to drive means being able to control a car in an emergency situation as well as in normal circumstances, but last time I checked, the only emergency competence tested by the examination was an ability to locate and operate the brake pedal. While travelling in a straight line. Pilots, even private pilots, are taught, or at least were taught, how to recover from spins and stalls. Why aren't drivers taught how to recover from a slide, or taught proper observational skills?
One might argue that this would encourage young male drivers to take more risks, but I believe that they already feel encouraged to do so anyway. They'll try the same stupid things whether or not they have the skills to back up their ambition. That teenager is going to attempt a handbrake turn into the pub parking lot whether he knows how to or not. If he has some training on how to control the resultant slide, he's at least less likely to f
k it up and kill someone. And if he's taught proper observational skills as part of his requirement for getting a license, he's got more chance of identifying his potential victim and thus choosing not to be a numpty this time at least.Sounds to me like they're worried about drivers with poor skills scraping through the test.
The best-placed person to know how well a particular person drives probably [i]is[/b] the instructor rather than the examiner but this solution seems fraught with pitfalls and potential abuse.
Simple answer: make the test harder and have a mandatory cooling-off period of several months before you can apply for a re-test.
The best-placed person to know how well a particular person drives probably [i]is[/b] the instructor rather than the examiner but this solution seems fraught with pitfalls and potential abuse.
Simple answer: make the test harder and have a mandatory cooling-off period of several months before you can apply for a re-test.
Just a thought for everyone saying about the use of motorways. Think how slow learners are around towns. Everyday we would be looking at huge tailbacks and crashes where nervous learners just cock up.
Even the instructor can only hit the brake and that is not generally a good move on a busy motorway.
I think its best that people get lots of experience on normal roads then move up to motorways and if they are too nervous dont use them.
My other half has never driven on a motorway and her sister never had in 5 years of driving until about a month ago, and she took her dad with her just incase/ for tips. Its just a lack of practice for most people. Its the grannies or mums who just normally drive around town that cause problems on the motorways.
Even the instructor can only hit the brake and that is not generally a good move on a busy motorway.
I think its best that people get lots of experience on normal roads then move up to motorways and if they are too nervous dont use them.
My other half has never driven on a motorway and her sister never had in 5 years of driving until about a month ago, and she took her dad with her just incase/ for tips. Its just a lack of practice for most people. Its the grannies or mums who just normally drive around town that cause problems on the motorways.
Absolutely typical st from this st government.
Indeed, I too reckon that the test should be harder but also with more consistent results. The driving test is a bit of a lottery at the moment and as such you will get drivers of varying skill passing the test, many of which were just lucky and many failing that were simply unlucky.
I reckon a kind of graded licence (not unlike a pilot or biker) is needed and should have modules to be tested by accredited instructors or even 15min mini tests. The modules should include everything from city/town/motorway/night/poor weather/car control on skid pan/observational skills etc before a licence is given to a competent driver. If it takes 6 months or a year to get through it then so be it. Somehow we should bring in proper driving standards and roadcraft with only good drivers able to pass and none of this foreign language guff.
t from this st government.Indeed, I too reckon that the test should be harder but also with more consistent results. The driving test is a bit of a lottery at the moment and as such you will get drivers of varying skill passing the test, many of which were just lucky and many failing that were simply unlucky.
I reckon a kind of graded licence (not unlike a pilot or biker) is needed and should have modules to be tested by accredited instructors or even 15min mini tests. The modules should include everything from city/town/motorway/night/poor weather/car control on skid pan/observational skills etc before a licence is given to a competent driver. If it takes 6 months or a year to get through it then so be it. Somehow we should bring in proper driving standards and roadcraft with only good drivers able to pass and none of this foreign language guff.
I say bring it on. Add in motorway driving, skid pan, general road-craft and driving at night.
While they are at it get rid of the ridiculous and frankly dangerous hazard perception computer game. Maybe replace it with a testing area where students are faced with preplanned scenarios in a real car. Either that or a fully featured driving simulator with 360 deg screens.
I did an advanced course last year and it was excellent. Some skid pan work, driver aids, about 3 hours on a wide variety of roads 1 on 1 and some track work. Everyone should do it.
While they are at it get rid of the ridiculous and frankly dangerous hazard perception computer game. Maybe replace it with a testing area where students are faced with preplanned scenarios in a real car. Either that or a fully featured driving simulator with 360 deg screens.
I did an advanced course last year and it was excellent. Some skid pan work, driver aids, about 3 hours on a wide variety of roads 1 on 1 and some track work. Everyone should do it.
"Some have suggested the new rules could lower insurance premiums for everyone."
My arse.
The insurance companies will just charge the same amounts. I had a crash just over 5 years ago, not my fault and there was no claim, as it was 5 years ago, my insurance company took it off my file and my renewal quote went UP!! WTF!!!
My arse.
The insurance companies will just charge the same amounts. I had a crash just over 5 years ago, not my fault and there was no claim, as it was 5 years ago, my insurance company took it off my file and my renewal quote went UP!! WTF!!!
RB Will said:
Just a thought for everyone saying about the use of motorways. Think how slow learners are around towns. Everyday we would be looking at huge tailbacks and crashes where nervous learners just cock up.
Not thought through very well.Nobody's suggesting that unlicensed learners would be allowed onto motorways whilst learning.
It seems common sense, however, to introduce a P-plate (or similar) and for licensed drivers to need a 2nd test before being allowed onto motorways unsupervised.
The current system lets drivers onto the motorway network unsupervised with no preparation at all.
officialslacker said:
"Some have suggested the new rules could lower insurance premiums for everyone."
My arse.
If less people crashed, there would be less insurance payouts and the insurance companies (which are competitive with each other) will be able to offer lower premiums as the risk of paying out is lower.My arse.
spads001 said:
I'm sorry but its getting a bit tiring having so many facts and figures about traffic incidents about 'young drivers'. I'll admit that young drivers do tend to be a bit more careless when driving through over-confidence and such, so I'm all for revising the driving test, its all practice at the end of the day.
But what about the elderly? I saw a man the other day get out of his car, and he actually struggled to get up onto the pavement with his walking stick. How can that possibly be allowed? His reaction time is probably frightening. Its been proven that elderly drivers actually CAUSE more accidents than young drivers. So I think its about time the government started thinking about the other end of the scale!
Page 12 IAM Motoring Facts 2008. But what about the elderly? I saw a man the other day get out of his car, and he actually struggled to get up onto the pavement with his walking stick. How can that possibly be allowed? His reaction time is probably frightening. Its been proven that elderly drivers actually CAUSE more accidents than young drivers. So I think its about time the government started thinking about the other end of the scale!
Four times as many car drivers under 30 years old are killed in accidents than drivers over 70.
Up to age 60 the risk of death in a traffic accident reduces significantly. After 60 the risk increases - particularly among pedestrians.
Under 16 year olss are the least likely to be killed or injured on the roads.
16-19 years old is the most dangerous age group
- 72 per cent killed in traffic accidents are in cars (i.e. driving or a passenger)
You might not like hearing it. But these are factual summaries. If you want the source numbers I'll try to cut and paste them. Yes old biffers die on the roads - usually when someone runs them over...who statistically is going to be under 30 and is also likely to be in the 16-19 year old age bracket. Bummer, huh.
Something needs to be done.
The amount of bad & unsave drivers out there is a concern.
Same said drivers then accuse you of trying to kill them if you dare overtake them while they plod alone at 45mph in a 60 zone. Yet carry on driving at 45 when they hit a 30 zone.
Witnessed a crash last year which a Ford Focus smashed into the back of another car sat at traffic lights. Shocked woman Focus driver got out of her car wearing those horrid furry monster feet slippers.
How she thought she could drive in them was beyond me.
The amount of bad & unsave drivers out there is a concern.
Same said drivers then accuse you of trying to kill them if you dare overtake them while they plod alone at 45mph in a 60 zone. Yet carry on driving at 45 when they hit a 30 zone.
Witnessed a crash last year which a Ford Focus smashed into the back of another car sat at traffic lights. Shocked woman Focus driver got out of her car wearing those horrid furry monster feet slippers.
How she thought she could drive in them was beyond me.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff