Why never to go driving in South Korea

no worse than here i know someone who failed 14 times i know its not that much but still. there should be a 6 months wait between tests if you fail imo
 
It says it is 100 questions in the report and she needed 60 to pass.

Then goes onto say

"According to the Korean Driver's Licence Agency, the 50-minute written test consists of 50 multiple-choice questions on road regulations and car maintenance." :confused:
 
Janesy B said:
6 months? That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

why if you fail your test your obviously not ready and will help reduce te ammount of people who fluke there tests

there is far too many bad drivers on the roads


on a side note the first year you should be limited like you are on bikes
 
Do you not think that six months is a bit extreme considering that person will have to fork out for another six months of lessons to keep on top of their practise? Do you really think it will keep bad drivers off of the road?

You need to make the test harder, not punishing people heavily for failing. You can fail for the silliest thing sometimes, if I fail because I did a stall do I deserve to wait a whole 6 months just to retake my test?

As for limiting engine size, the insurance do a pretty good job of keeping young drivers away from powerful cars. Chavs have been managing to kill themselves in 1.1 Saxos so I don't think it would even make much difference anyway.
 
ZG002 said:
It says it is 100 questions in the report and she needed 60 to pass.

Then goes onto say

"According to the Korean Driver's Licence Agency, the 50-minute written test consists of 50 multiple-choice questions on road regulations and car maintenance." :confused:
Click to expand...

IIRC it said they need 60 points out of 100 - so I assumed two points per question :p

Cupra said:
why if you fail your test your obviously not ready and will help reduce te ammount of people who fluke there tests

there is far too many bad drivers on the roads


on a side note the first year you should be limited like you are on bikes
Click to expand...

That would, really, be a silly idea. You'd have people rescheduling their tests because it's raining and things like that. There's too many fails that don't necessarily mean you're an unsafe driver for it to be viable. Plus it won't reduce the number of people fluking their tests - because they'll fluke it regardless of how many months they'd have to wait if they did fail.

Limited how? Anyway, I think we've already had this conversation somewhere. The essential point was that speed limiting is more dangerous than none, because then you have drivers doing silly overtakes to get ahead of the slow 'P' driver; and restricting engine size/power won't stop people killing themselves because they'll still take that corner too fast, crash, and die, it'll just take them longer to get up to a decent speed. Meaning they go faster round corners anyway because if they slow down to do it at a safe speed they'll be stuck doing 45 for the next 30s while they try to accelerate back up to 60 again.
Bikes are a different case because you can accelerate plenty fast enough with a 125cc to avoid being a hazard, and they're not the hardest things in the world to overtake - having a smaller road profile and much better visibility than a car (i.e. you can see when's safe to overtake better)
 
Cupra said:
why if you fail your test your obviously not ready and will help reduce te ammount of people who fluke there tests

there is far too many bad drivers on the roads
Click to expand...
It's hardly that hard to learn though, you could do it in 1 day and still pass the first time...

However it's people's own money, if they wish to spend it on failing then that's their own fault.
 
Seems to be a money making exercise rather than a measure to stop bad motorists. They should say "no more, you are too stupid" at some point or atleast enforce a delay between retests.
 
Cupra said:
why if you fail your test your obviously not ready and will help reduce te ammount of people who fluke there tests

there is far too many bad drivers on the roads


on a side note the first year you should be limited like you are on bikes
Click to expand...

Why? How are you supposed to get experience if you are limited for your first year?
Do you somehow think all bad drivers are first time drivers or young drivers?

And saying you have to wait 6 months in between tests is way to extreme. If you fail 5 in a row maybe 3 months waiting, that wouldn't be too bad because if you fail your test 5 times in a row you really do need more practise.
 
Last edited:
starfighter said:
Seems to be a money making exercise rather than a measure to stop bad motorists. They should say "no more, you are too stupid" at some point or atleast enforce a delay between retests.
Click to expand...

Hardly a money making exercise on something that you don't need to do though, is it? If "they" followed your advice then the usual mouthpieces would be crying on about how draconian the Govt. is for doing so.
Rock>hard place etc.
 
I get around said:
Why? How are you supposed to get experience if you are limited for your first year?
Do you somehow think all bad drivers are first time drivers or young drivers?
Click to expand...
For at least the first year, new drivers should be limited to slower cars. Perhaps using some type of power/weight model.
I get around said:
And saying you have to wait 6 months in between tests is way to extreme. If you fail 5 in a row maybe 3 months waiting, that wouldn't be too bad because if you fail your test 5 times in a row you really do need more practise.
Click to expand...
Make it six weeks between tests with a minimum of 3 lessons to be taken before the next test.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
For at least the first year, new drivers should be limited to slower cars. Perhaps using some type of power/weight model.
Click to expand...

Once again, how would this change anything? Inexperience causes drivers to misjudge appropriate speed - therefore taking corners too fast and ending up in a ditch. That is something that can't be legislated upon with any effectiveness, and has little to no bearing on the speed of car - in fact you might argue that by forcing new drivers to drive slower cars, you are increasing the risk because high-powered cars are more likely to handle better - therefore increasing the speed at which that corner can safely be taken - not to mention better impact protection.

Make it six weeks between tests with a minimum of 3 lessons to be taken before the next test.
Click to expand...

I feel this isn't unreasonable - although it might be harder to ascertain what constitutes a 'lesson'.
 
miniyazz said:
Once again, how would this change anything? Inexperience causes drivers to misjudge appropriate speed - therefore taking corners too fast and ending up in a ditch..
Click to expand...
Young drivers drive too fast. I say "young" instead of "new", because a 17y/o new driver is FAR more likely to A) show off and B) generally loon about. They also don't understand the bearing of road/weather conditions on their car.
Force them to use cars regarded as slow and it will typically mean that if they get into trouble they'll be doing so at a lower speed. This means they have more chance to recover it, and if they cannot then less damage will be done.
miniyazz said:
That is something that can't be legislated upon with any effectiveness, and has little to no bearing on the speed of car - in fact you might argue that by forcing new drivers to drive slower cars, you are increasing the risk because high-powered cars are more likely to handle better.
Click to expand...
So following your logic, something like a Focus ST is an ideal choice for a new driver?
miniyazz said:
therefore increasing the speed at which that corner can safely be taken - not to mention better impact protection.
Click to expand...
Crash protection has nothing to do with a vehicles performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom