Drivers should have a minimum of a year of lessons!!

I had 32 hours with an instructor and nil with my parents as both of their cars are automatic and were far to expensive to insure me on. I'm not sure if adding more time before someone can pass is a good idea. It is expensive to learn to drive and a year with an instrutor would still be nothing like driving on your own.
 
I think extending it is a great idea, where I come from in New Zealand it takes at least 18 months to get your full licence and that is only if you do a Defensive Driving course.

Simple things like indicating and looking before you leap seem to escape so many London Drivers. Having said that the cyclists are equally as scary, maybe there should be a licence for cyclists?

White van drivers and Black Cab drivers seem to be the worst offenders, the number of times they have almost bowled me over on a zebra crossing!?!?!?!
 
PeterNem said:
I'd rather someone take 3 months and as well as an hour a week with an instructor, drive their parents car daily, than take 12 months but only drive once per week.

It's experience behind the wheel that's important, and just because you've spent a year having lessons doesn't mean you have it.

I first drove on the roads on the day of my 17th birthday woth my parents. It was a cold wet miserable dark november evening and I went out for an hour. I had my first lesson later that week. I had a month off around christmas/new year (although still kept driving during this time with my parents), and passed in March the next year.

Touch wood I've been driving now for over 5 years and would like to think that out of all of my friends, despite taking the least time to learn and pass, that I am probably one of if not the safest and most aware driver.
Click to expand...


But surely even if it is only a minimum of 52 hours experience before taking a test, (1 hour a week 52 weeks) that is far better than maybe 2 or three months (8-12 hours experience) before taking a test??



I was very lucky, my father was a Police class on instructor so I was brought up around a reasonable driver.

I first started to drive properly myself when I could reach the pedals, at about 9. I had before that been sitting on my dad's knee doing gear changes and steering since about 4 or 5 years old.

All of this was on private land before anyone starts. :)

I had probably, on average, 2 or three hours of driving pretty much every week from age 9 till my 17th birthday.

On the morning of my birthday I had 2 hours on the road around the test routes, (my dad's mate was an instructor and knew what routes were used).
I then took my test at 9:30 on the morning of my 17th and passed first time.

I have since taken and passed my own Police Class one ticket, and the IAM advanced test, and the ROSPA Gold motorcycle ticket.

However I am still learning to drive, and still do not consider myself, a good driver.
 
If they force drivers to take a years worth of lessons deonting a set amount of time actually within a lesson, then I sure as hell hope that the government are paying for it.

Back when I was 17 it was a struggle enough to pay for the 7 lessons I had, let alone 52 of them.
 
When my father was getting his licence, there was no such thing as a driving test. You turned up and were issued with a drivers licence.

When I learnt how to drive in the 60s with the Army, my driving course was 1 week solid for the basics, 1 week solid for the advanced and 1 week of off-road training. Then I was issued with a full uk licence.

tests were piece of **** when I took them. They are a LOT harder nowadays.

No swearing! FF.
 
I honestly think that OAP are just a big risk on the road than young drivers.

I am not going to lie to anyone, after passing I thought I was god's gift at driving. I lost control of the car, fortunately no damage to myself, vehicle or any property but I sure as hell learnt my lesson- I am not stupid though and learn from my mistakes, this was a one-off.

A few months later I had some track experience which taught me a lot about car control and also allowed me to vent my desire to speed around.

I do a fair amount of driving, all different road types too. I will always see one at least OAP who is not really aware of what is going on, what they are approaching and hazards around them . I do not always see young people hooning around though.
 
I don't think the level of skill in driving is the problem,its the age and inexperience thats the problem,and i can't see how this idea will alter that.
I'm glad i picked up experience 25 yrs ago with prob a third the no. of cars on the road than there is now.
 
Tesla said:
This is a stupid lesson unless...

They grade your test.

Similar to how GCSE / A-Levels work.

A-C is a pass.

Anything below is a fail.

If you score an A then your insurance will have more of a discount than someone who scores a C.

Reason I think this is that everbody learns at different paces, so, if they want to enforce a year to learn then they need to change how they pass people.

After 3 years everybodies licence/pass grade is equal though, unless you have done some sort of advanced course.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. It does of course ignore some situations, prime example below:

I drove like a complete muppet on the test that I actually passed. In fact, I drove much worse than when I actually failed (for using the middle lane coming on to a roundabout to go straight on.....). I drove home from the test centre in a far better manner since the pressure was off.

Whether it should or not, the driving test does carry some pressure for a lot of people. They want a license (in my case the first 18 years of my life were spent simply waiting for that license!), and pressure can - and does - have an adverse effect on how you drive. How much of someone's ineptitude on a test is down to lack of talent or lack of ability to seperate their driving from the "OMG MUST PASS THIS OR ELSE" voice lodged somewhere in the middle of their skull?

I spent over a year learning in the end. Started on my 17th birthday, took my first test on my 18th birthday (having had to wait a couple of months for that) and then passed the next January (b-day is in October) having had to wait again for a place. That meant I got some experience of driving in pretty much any weather condition that Britain could send my way before taking my test. That helped once I passed - I'm still the only one out of my group of mates from school who hasn't crashed a car yet :)
 
I also think that its a little farcical due to the fact that everyone is an individual, and as such completely different from anyone else.

Myself as an example, I have ALWAYS had high awareness of my surroundings when driving, always know what is going on, and can perceive what is about to happen most of the time.

I know i'm not a perfect driver, infact i'm most likely not even a great driver, but i am certainly not a bad driver at all. What has helped me the most was that day 1 after my test I was off down motorways, driving the length of the country, and have been ever since. Racked up well in excess of 100,000 miles in 4 years, and one year of that alone is well more experience than a year's worth of static lessons.
 
well, considering the driving "test" when my mother did it was simply a run about for the instructor to see how good you are - you telling me you didn't hoon about in your youth entai? :p
 
eidolon said:
Just make the test harder, job done.

As it stands, the test is far, far too easy which leads to some atrocious drivers being given a licence when they really shouldn't be on the roads.
Click to expand...


As has been said before we already have one of the hardest tests in the world, but the main problem we have is that the lessons partaken before the test, only serve to teach you how to pass the test, NOT how to drive.

What we really need, and it has has been said, is to include motorway driving and night driving in the lessons and test.

Also as I said in the OP, make the "P" plate compulsory for a year or maybe even more after passing the basic test, and maybe you can make it that newly qualified drivers with a "P" plate can only drive with an already qualified driver of say ten years or more experience, also you have to take an advanced test and pass before you can remove the "P" plate.

The only problem with that of course is that no-one would agree to do it, and how would it be policed??

But it would serve the purpose, of only leting people who have a basic rudimentary knowledge of driving skills, loose to drive on their own.

At the moment you learn to pass the test, you end up with virtually no skills, and can then leap into any car with however many passengers and off you go.

In my mind that is a totally flawed system.
 
Entai said:
As has been said before we already have one of the hardest tests in the world, but the main problem we have is that the lessons partaken before the test, only serve to teach you how to pass the test, NOT how to drive.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how hard our test is in comparison to other countries, it's still not hard enough as every single day I see people who really shouldn't have a licence (maybe they don't, who knows?)
 
eidolon said:
Regardless of how hard our test is in comparison to other countries, it's still not hard enough as every single day I see people who really shouldn't have a licence (maybe they don't, who knows?)
Click to expand...


But as I said, the test does NOT prove you can drive, so in one sense, what is the point of the existing test at all??

We do not need a harder test, that will not serve any purpose.

What we do need is a complete system of lessons and tests, so that when you pass the test, you can actually show the basic rudimentary skills of, observation, anticipation and forward planning. You should also have good experience of motorway and night driving.

All this takes time to learn and untill the system does not allow you to take a test untill you have that experience, be it one year or four, then the system cannot work.
 
Entai said:
But as I said, the test does NOT prove you can drive, so in one sense, what is the point of the existing test at all??

We do not need a harder test, that will not serve any purpose.

What we do need is a complete system of lessons and tests, so that when you pass the test, you can actually show the basic rudimentary skills of, observation, anticipation and forward planning. You should also have good experience of motorway and night driving.

All this takes time to learn and untill the system does not allow you to take a test untill you have that experience, be it one year or four, then the system cannot work.
Click to expand...

id agree with that.
 
eidolon said:
Regardless of how hard our test is in comparison to other countries, it's still not hard enough as every single day I see people who really shouldn't have a licence (maybe they don't, who knows?)
Click to expand...

Yes,but i'd hazard a guess that all those people you see who shouldn't have a licence could quite easily pass even a much harder test than we have already -when they are concentrating on what they are doing.
 
Stonedofmoo said:
I don't have much thoughts on this either way, but I do feel that for the first 2 years under 25's should not be allowed to drive anything greater than a 1.2 or 75bhp
Click to expand...

That's a good idea I'd definately agree with that.

Maybe add the clincher that you can only upgrade your car once you have passed a recognised advanced level test.
 
We need some sort of psychological test as well, one to pick out potential boy racers etc. It wouldn't be too hard to do, there's a lot of common traits that highlight someone who's probably going to make a bad driver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom