Except in Reading.
Apparently they have had 42-46% for so long, everyone is highly suspicious!!
I wonder if it's a tiny old test centre with a single examiner.. Or is it still all horse and carts in Reading? Never been...
Proposed New Driving Test
- Thread starter Cookeh
- Start date
I wonder if it's a tiny old test centre with a single examiner.. Or is it still all horse and carts in Reading? Never been...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,680
Over 10,000 car tests a year in Reading, according to Gov.uk...I wonder if it's a tiny old test centre with a single examiner.. Or is it still all horse and carts in Reading? Never been...
Supposedly the pass rate is down to local wealth.
The poorer people cannot afford that many lessons, so go to test without enough training.
It's also rumoured that Reading Test Centre is one of the more difficult, as you have a number of issues just in getting out, as well as the parking bays being especially tight.
The same is said for taking your motorcycle test in Reading, as the test routes (same as for cars) have a few uniquely awkward situations to negotiate that usually cannot be done unless an instructor tells you how...
Certainly I failed the bike in Reading (passed in Basingstoke after being trained by a bike cop), but managed the Reading Car Test first time... possibly due to the years spent on the bike.
And yes, we do have horses and carts, but they stay firmly South of the M4 J11... right around the area where I live - In fact, I *swear* they only come out when I'm trying to get to work in the morning!!
Your underlying point is that the system is poor because "someone like me" had been let lose on the roads with only 9 hours training. The only way that point makes any sense is with the implication that I'm a bad driver. Your hardly going to claim is a poor system because it produces excellent drivers, are you.
Whether intentional or not, your point implies I'm a bad driver.
The point re the 9 hours is this, you pass at say age 20 with 9 hours of training, say you have a driving career until your 75, that's 55 years of driving based upon 9 hours of tuition and the rest by Gods good grace once your out on the road.
That is what puts my lack of faith in the system, not your personal record, remember, I passed under the same system as you and as such I've learned under the same flawed system, I'm equally as bad as you as I've passed the same crap test.
I'm implying effectively that we are all bad drivers, not by our own fault, but by the poor training system we have over here.
We should aim toward the German system imo, much harder to pass, more expensive - on average €1,500 to obtain a license over there - and much more comprehensive training they have obligatory lessons which include a minimum number of lessons each driving on the Autobahn, driving within urban areas, and in the dark etc
My underlying point is we have a system where you can pass after a few hours of training - much less than 9! - and subject to personal wealth, then be quite able to then drive a McLaren P1 with no further training whatsoever, despite having no clue about motorway driving, other road users (such as bikes or HGV's) etc etc etc
Its a deeply flawed system that needs overhauling and absolutely **** all to do with your own particular record or ability Skeeter.
But Isn't the purpose of training to gain the skills to demonstrate your abilities during an examination? It's not like Scuba Diving or Flying where logged hours is a requirement in order to gain a certification, driving lessons are mainly because you need someone with a car and insurance for you to practice in. The amount of hours in lessons is a poor indicator of ability, and stating you need more or a minimum, or basing any opinion at all on the number of lessons alone is rather short sighted.
There will be people out there who are model drivers and passed their test with no faults yet had no lessons at all.
You can solve all of your issues with the system through extended testing, yet still people will be able to pass with no lessons. What would you do then?
Edit: Your argument about the German system is a bit flawed... As the minimum number of hours is 12, with the expectation that only around 45 minutes of each hour is driving time. So to pass a German driving test you need to have done... 9 hours of on the road practice! Lol.
There will be people out there who are model drivers and passed their test with no faults yet had no lessons at all.
You can solve all of your issues with the system through extended testing, yet still people will be able to pass with no lessons. What would you do then?
Edit: Your argument about the German system is a bit flawed... As the minimum number of hours is 12, with the expectation that only around 45 minutes of each hour is driving time. So to pass a German driving test you need to have done... 9 hours of on the road practice! Lol.
Last edited:
Always get the show offs who claim they passed at 17 years and 1 day old with 9 hours practice. Just like the ones who get insanely cheap insurance premiums at 19 with 1 ncb and an own fault accident on their record.
Most people don't pass in 9 hours and really they shouldn't even entertain letting people try until they've done 20 or so I'd say. Some of the people I know who passed first time were an absolute danger on the roads (some still are 8-9 years later)
So what your saying is we not only need to mandate a minimum number of hours, but also that we need to make sure everyone fails their first test too? Ha.
I don't quite see where I said that. Minimum number of hours practice/lessons/experience and then a separate statement suggesting passing first time doesn't make you a good driver
Not been reading the comments above, so don't know if this has been mentioned, but I've always thought a training based licence could be good? You'd need a minimum number of hours behind the wheel and your instructor would be able to award you your licence when deemed safe whether it takes the minimum amount of hours or 100 hours.
Not sure how they'd 'police' rogue instructors that just give the licence after the minimum time every time, but then it wouldn't be in their interest to do that as it'd mean less money.
It would get rid of all that pass by fluke and all the people that fail because of nerves or whatever.
Not sure how they'd 'police' rogue instructors that just give the licence after the minimum time every time, but then it wouldn't be in their interest to do that as it'd mean less money.
It would get rid of all that pass by fluke and all the people that fail because of nerves or whatever.
Your argument about the German system is a bit flawed... As the minimum number of hours is 12, with the expectation that only around 45 minutes of each hour is driving time. So to pass a German driving test you need to have done... 9 hours of on the road practice! Lol.
Only a little flawed, the German system means drivers are at least experienced on motorways and the various types of driving conditions prior to presenting themselves for test where here we can effectively go straight to test with no lessons - it happens - and then go straight onto a motorway if we so desire which is absurd.
Our training needs to be more comprehensive with ideally some kind of refresher at some point (at the very least, a point at or near old age perhaps) your right, it's not like Scuba Diving or Flying where logged hours is a requirement in order to gain a certification, maybe it should be.....
There is already an element of this with anyone who does their test in their instructors car. You do lessons, and then they say when your ready to book your test. They aren't going to let people out in their car, their business, if they think you will crash.
It's still only 12 hours though, which is well below the numbers people have been suggesting in here. The lack of motorway driving and night driving is a major issue though I agree, and I've not ever heard a good reason as to why it's not part of the test.
I'm sort of getting the point that folk are missing the point about learning to drive and "passing the test" The notion that I passed my test with x lessons less that you so I must be a good driver or my instructor was better is not the whole picture at all.
So we have pupil "A" who passed his test after 10 lessons. The reality of it is he instructor did nothing but circle the route for hour after hour. Pupil knows ever inch of the route and the "tricky" bits that catch people out. Passes first time, job done. Only problem is he has almost none of the skills and knowledge he needs to deal with real traffic conditions. Worse because he passed his test after so few lessons & first time believes he's a better driver than his piers. The truth of it is he has huge gaps in his knowledge and hasn't had time to learn the anticipation and forward planning skills that you need on the road today. So diver "A" thinks he's a great driver but the reality of it he had a rubbish instructor and if he's lucky will have weeks of near misses ahead of him.
Then we have pupil "B" has had 35+ hours instruction. Fails his first test. Conclusion he's a rubbish driver with a rubbish instructor. The reality of it is the instructor had had him out in all conditions and all roads and never been near a test route as he's learning the pupil the necessary skills and giving them time to develop their own forward planning and anticipation. Fails on the day because he's cut up by a local.
Generally those who shout about passing with X lesson less than everyone else are not telling the whole story. They forget to mention that they've had a motorcycle licence for years or had dozens of lessons with mum or dad. Or have even been doing motorsport since they were 10 or driving round the farm every day.
I think the test will evolve so that things that just take up time on the day will be removed. I can see a time when the manoeuvres will be signed of by your instructor prior to the test. Having to log a certain number of hours doesn't sound too bad an idea. Maybe a structured system where it's so many hours at each level before you are deemed proficient enough for motorway training. That way the real test would be all about driving as opposed to the test of driving car control it is now. It also allows more hours to modify poor attitudes to driving learned from parents, friends and general idiots.
Last edited:
I'm guessing you had 35+ hours and failed your first test
Nobody is claiming they are god for passing with 0 lessons. What were showing is that you can pass with few lessons or lots of lessons, so it isn't an indication of how good you are. Therefore suggesting that everyone would be better with a mandated amount of lessons would solve nothing and just make driving even more prohibitively expensive.
Nobody is claiming they are god for passing with 0 lessons. What were showing is that you can pass with few lessons or lots of lessons, so it isn't an indication of how good you are. Therefore suggesting that everyone would be better with a mandated amount of lessons would solve nothing and just make driving even more prohibitively expensive.
Last edited:
+1, my instructor told me the same and I didn't believe it until I passed. So many situations that happen on the road that you never encounter during your lessons, especially things like what to do when an emergency vehicle is trying to filter through. I see so many people panicking when that happens, mounting kerbs, vaulting over bollards, activating the gadget stilts, pure madness.
I'm guessing you had 35+ hours and failed your first test
Every driving examination examination I've ever taken I passed first time. As did the majority of the pupils I trained over the years..
Your a danger to yourself and everyone else on the road!
bet he circled the same route until he learned it all
funny thing is that the centre I took my test in had 15 routes... ohhhh and I Was on a route I've never been on before... ohh... I did do 36 hours so it makes me better than you guys who did 9 or 12 - hand your licenses back in and go back to learning!!
minimum hours of learning is just stupid, everyone is different..
This.
I'd rather force a good driver/quick learner to do a few extra hours than have a poor driver potentially fluke a test after only a few hours of lessons.
I know time != ability but there's a reason activities like learning to fly having a minimum number of required hours before a test can be passed.
Driving/having the right to drive is cultural/society thing, if it was invented today you can bet the test would be different.
Retirement age at minimum.
If you are considered "able to work", I see no reason why one cannot drive.