Proposed New Driving Test

[Cookeh]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-driving-test-fit-for-the-21st-century

TL;DR :-

• Introdution of a 'cashback' system for first-time passers.
• Reduced cost of test.
• More tests - evenings and weekends now viable (thought they already were!).

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

Sounds good, also means more work for the instructors too, always a good thing

 

[Glaucus]

Sounds good, also means more work for the instructors too, always a good thing

if you dont pass you need more training. Training should be the same amount, just massively less tests booked.

Seems an odd proposal. Nothing about improving the standards.
And there claim

•less likely to have an accident in the months following the test

comes from where? If you pass you pass, if you don't you don't. Don't see what effect that has on accident rates in the first few months.

It also by the looks of it will massively increase costs. Longer opening hours, more opening days. Reduced test rate. Yet massively reduced numbers of tests.


An extremely odd proposal.

 

[Diagro]

if you dont pass you need more training. Training should be the same amount, just massively less tests booked.

Seems an odd proposal. Nothing about improving the standards.
And there claim comes from where? If you pass you pass, if you don't you don't. Don't see what effect that has on accident rates in the first few months.

It also by the looks of it will massively increase costs. Longer opening hours, more opening days. Reduced test rate. Yet massively reduced numbers of tests.


An extremely odd proposal.

???

Its an incentive not to go in for the test early. Because if you feel you wont pass you will loose that money, where is if you wait a little longer then you wont loose the money.

Its trying to play on peoples want for money to get them to hold off taking it early. Which is fine if it was the kids who are paying and not the parents who 95% of the time don't care.

If people wait a little bit longer, it may make them a better driver, so when they do pass there are less accidents.

They need more places open, around here its a 6-8 week waiting time which imo is moronic.
With that sort of demand i very much doubt there will be problems with more opening times and more tests carried out per week.
Only 21% of people pass first time, so the costs may only increase a little.

 

[Haggisman]

Also needs "compulsory retest every 10 years"

 

[Jim99]

And there claim comes from where? If you pass you pass, if you don't you don't. Don't see what effect that has on accident rates in the first few months.

Disagree there. I know a lot of people who did say 10-15 hours of lessons, and then went for a test hoping to wing it, rather than do the average of 40-50 (the figure when I passed, IIRC) and pay a heck of a lot more money.

If they did manage to pass through good fortune, then off they go onto the road without learning any more skills. If you're discouraged from taking the test until you're more likely to pass, then you're going to get a higher calibre of driver.

Personally I think a minimum lesson requirement would be a more sensible approach.

 

[Skeeter]

Wut? I'm assuming the guy you were handing your money over too for lessons was the one telling you that you needed to keep coming for 50 hours?

I passed my test first time with 9 hours of lessons. Both my sisters were around the same. If you need 50 hours your either a complete idiot or using a completely crap driving instructor.

 

[craig_t]

I had 16 lessons, not sure how people can need so many lessons. Rather than 50 being an average, it should be a maximum. If you can't do it by 50 lessons you shouldn't have a test. You can always tell the drivers that had so many lessons to pass...

 

[Burnsy2023]

This is simply a cost cutting measure to reduce the work of driving examiners.

 

[Scania]

Mandatory motorway training, education on HGV's blind spots, compulsory re-tests, some degree of skid control training.


Our driving test has so much room for improvement, if only they'd concentrate on the holes in the system rather than reducing costs.....

I passed my test first time with 9 hours of lessons.

9 hours training for a lifetime of road use, hardly inspires confidence in the system tbh.


With the greatest of respect, 9 hours is no where near enough training for our modern congested roads.

I wonder what you've learned - perhaps the hard way - since the test?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you, its the system and its inadequate (IMO) level of training as it currently stands.

 

[Dave85]

It really does need night driving, Motoway driving and a skid pan session and I also think proper car maintenance and controls should be covered eg. bulbs tyres and basic mechanical servicing that is tested. Retesting at 65 should also be compulsory

 

[Dav4]

What happened to the government plan of making learners have at least 40hrs of lessons as there are far too many places offering 2 week crash courses were they put people in for there test and some end up by fluke passing. Nobody can learn to drive in a few weeks and have good road awareness.
There are far too many awful drivers on the roads these days and everytime I look its nearly always the 21 and under group that seem to lack any basic knowledge such as roundabouts etc.
I don't think the driving test is strict enough! I chose to have 40x 1hr lessons as I wanted to gain as much knowledge as possible and drive in all situations such as driving at nighttime, heavy rain, busy traffic and icy conditions etc.

 

[koolpc]

Up the legal age to drive to 21

 

[Dav4]

Up the legal age to drive to 21

Yes I think that aswell! Most 17-18 yr old males are still far too immature to drive in my opinion. I was an idiot in my first year of driving Untill I matured and realised the dangers of driving fast etc.

 

[Glaucus]

???

Its an incentive not to go in for the test early. Because if you feel you wont pass you will loose that money, where is if you wait a little longer then you wont loose the money.

Its trying to play on peoples want for money to get them to hold off taking it early. Which is fine if it was the kids who are paying and not the parents who 95% of the time don't care.

If people wait a little bit longer, it may make them a better driver, so when they do pass there are less accidents.

They need more places open, around here its a 6-8 week waiting time which imo is moronic.
With that sort of demand i very much doubt there will be problems with more opening times and more tests carried out per week.
Only 21% of people pass first time, so the costs may only increase a little.

Which has nothing to do with safety, you will save very little money as the majority is the training.

They want to open more centres and open them longer, that usually indicates a increases of tests. Yet with this system you should have a massive reduction in tests being booked.

If you can pass the test you a re deemed safe no being lucky about it, having more lessons is unlikely to increase safety by much as they are getting you to the standards of the test, which aren't changing.
If they want to change it for safety then change it for safety, night test, motorway test etc.

It looks moronic, doesn't improve safety in the slightest and seems totally backwards.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Yes I think that aswell! Most 17-18 yr old males are still far too immature to drive in my opinion. I was an idiot in my first year of driving Untill I matured and realised the dangers of driving fast etc.

From my experience, many young people don't realise this well into their 20s though, so raising it to 21 won't help that much.

 

[Skeeter]

Mandatory motorway training, education on HGV's blind spots, compulsory re-tests, some degree of skid control training.


Our driving test has so much room for improvement, if only they'd concentrate on the holes in the system rather than reducing costs.....



9 hours training for a lifetime of road use, hardly inspires confidence in the system tbh.


With the greatest of respect, 9 hours is no where near enough training for our modern congested roads.

I wonder what you've learned - perhaps the hard way - since the test?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you, its the system and its inadequate (IMO) level of training as it currently stands.

So what would you suggests? Forcing me to take lessons I don't need? Are you going to pay for them for me too?

Any why does learning/training stop when you pass your test? I've continued to learn and improve every time I drive.

You've assumed I'm a dangerous driver because I only had 9 hours of lessons, but surely logic says requiring less training to reach the same standard level of competence as someone who took 50 hours to pass their test means I'm a better driver, and able to learn quicker?

Personally I put it down to a decent driving instructor anyway. If I had gone with someone crap I'd have probably spent 20 hours in lessons and not known what I was doing. As it stands I had 9 quality hours and passed first time.

 

[koolpc]

I was 22 when i took and past my driving test. Approx 30 years ago now. I was more mature at 22 than i was at 17 / 18! Less mature now though!!

 

[cadmunkey]

Passed after 12 lessons, never had a claim on my insurance after 20 years. Agree with Skeeter what does the amount of lessons needed to pass your test have anything to do with the quality of driver? From my experience, some people are just bad drivers full stop and no amount of lessons would ever improve them. I'm counting friends among those crap drivers!