Proposed New Driving Test

[K.C. Leblanc]

A retest every 10yr would be a good idea. Stamp out those bad habits that develop after a few years on the road.

I also think this needs to be reinforced with a requirement for retraining for people who either have more then a certain number of accidents of are convicted of careless driving.

The problem being is not very many people seem to get convicted of careless driving. Our roads policing policy seems to be focused entirely on speed, because it's the easiest way to get the most convictions with the least effort.

 

[Scania]

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.

Agreed, it's only 12 but it's better than nowt and far better than what we have, let's face it, whatever we have will be a compromise as is the German setup ultimately.

Seems now that the horses are shot we've shared the peace pipe, hope so anyway, honestly, I wasn't having a dig.

 

[DampDog]

minimum hours of learning is just stupid, everyone is different..

Thing is as you seem to be saying everyone is different there is no "set" ideal number of hours for everyone that takes the test. However I think there is a reasonable argument for a minimum number of hours just to cover the contents of the driving test syllabus. And though practise may not make you perfect it will make you better. Also it's a tried and tested method in some professions. Pilots have to log hours, doctors have to do a minimum number of procedures to be classed competent. There will always be those that learn more quickly than others, it doesn't mean because you can't do the task at hand from the get-go you won't become proficient at it. As has been said the test really is the start or should be. Many think that once they've passed it's a done deal and they can disregard all the hours your instructor put in trying to make you a safe and responsible driver. The church yard is full of people who thought they were good drivers. Pity they have company and took many with them who were minding their own business.

 

[grudas]

Thing is as you seem to be saying everyone is different there is no "set" ideal number of hours for everyone that takes the test. However I think there is a reasonable argument for a minimum number of hours just to cover the contents of the driving test syllabus. And though practise may not make you perfect it will make you better. Also it's a tried and tested method in some professions. Pilots have to log hours, doctors have to do a minimum number of procedures to be classed competent. There will always be those that learn more quickly than others, it doesn't mean because you can't do the task at hand from the get-go you won't become proficient at it. As has been said the test really is the start or should be. Many think that once they've passed it's a done deal and they can disregard all the hours your instructor put in trying to make you a safe and responsible driver. The church yard is full of people who thought they were good drivers. Pity they have company and took many with them who were minding their own business.

there's always a minimum number of hours to cover everything, with my instructor it took 12 hours to get everything from the book covered, rest was just polishing those skills.

if my instructor thought I wasn't ready to take my driving test after 12 hours he would say so, forcing me to do another 40 hours just because someone thinks I'll get "better" is just dumb.

the goal here is to pass the test, once you pass it only then will you be on your own, dealing with different things on the road.. as long as you're able to safely judge the conditions, traffic etc then you're a safe driver? if you don't have those skills then the chance of you passing a test is very small in the first place.

as I've said before, just because you drive one way in front of instructor/examiner doesn't mean you'll drive the same when on your own which is why you see many drivers drive like tools, it's not because they're unable to drive properly, it's because they have no reason to do it..

spending more hours practicing the same thing will not make them safer.

 

[DampDog]

there's always a minimum number of hours to cover everything, with my instructor it took 12 hours to get everything from the book covered, rest was just polishing those skills.

if my instructor thought I wasn't ready to take my driving test after 12 hours he would say so, forcing me to do another 40 hours just because someone thinks I'll get "better" is just dumb.

I have no idea what the plans may or may not be for the next iteration of the driving test. But I would not be surprised if a "minimum hours" prior to being eligible for the test becomes mandatory. Sort of the same way you now have to pass the theory test first. Everyone says you only start really learning to drive when you are alone in the car and many have pretty scary experiences when they have only their own judgement to rely on. Plus the more hours behind the wheel the better you become, we all learn from experience. Having a few more hours with a trainer may be a better way to gain that experience than flying solo. I can't see any instructor hypothetical or otherwise "forcing" 40 hours on anyone. Generally instructors will advise you to apply for test when you are ready, possibly just before because of the waiting times with a view to you being at the required standard by test. Most of the instructors I've known are very honest and do their best for their pupils. Lots of them have kids so they know how precious they are so prepare them to the best of their ability so they stay safe. (Not just to pass the test) There are still some dinosaurs who pound the test routes but they are fairly thin on the ground thankfully.

Lets not forget that the driving test as it is has been slowly evolving. In my day, there was no theory test. The examiner just showed you a series of picture cards and you told him what you thought they were. Butterfly, spider, naked woman....LOL.

It's odd when you talk to people and they rant about how learners should be taught about how the car works. They didn't even realise that the "Show-me, tell-me" part of the test has been in place for years. The chances of them even picking up a copy of the highway code in the last 20+ years are zero.

 

[Vonhelmet]

There's a huge element of luck to the test, which doesn't help. Who knows what will happen when you're out and about? I failed first time because, among other things, I found myself behind a horse and lost my nerve with a queue forming behind me, but how many people pass without ever encountering that situation who would likewise have bottled it? I know people who failed because they found themselves at the head of a queue waiting for a broken light to change, and the tester said they should have come to the conclusion that the light was broken and gone when safe. People pass when the roads are quiet rather than busy, or when it's dry and bright rather than wet and dreary. It's not a level playing field and people could pass the test without being at all ready for all the eventualities that driving will throw at them.

All that aside, regular mandatory re-testing is what is really needed.

 

[Burnsy2023]

There's a huge element of luck to the test, which doesn't help. Who knows what will happen when you're out and about? I failed first time because, among other things, I found myself behind a horse and lost my nerve with a queue forming behind me, but how many people pass without ever encountering that situation who would likewise have bottled it? I know people who failed because they found themselves at the head of a queue waiting for a broken light to change, and the tester said they should have come to the conclusion that the light was broken and gone when safe. People pass when the roads are quiet rather than busy, or when it's dry and bright rather than wet and dreary. It's not a level playing field and people could pass the test without being at all ready for all the eventualities that driving will throw at them.

That said, a competent driver should be able to navigate all those issues.

 

[Nasher]

I still think they should do what they do in some Scandinavian countries and have time on a skid pan. Learning to control (and avoid) a slide would prevent a lot of accidents in the rain/snow/ice. Most people panic when they start to skid and don't know what to do.

 

[Vonhelmet]

That said, a competent driver should be able to navigate all those issues.

Well, that's my point. Unless any or all of those issues come up, it's very hard to prove how competent someone is. If all of them come up, then someone might pass a very hard test. If none of them come up, then someone could get very lucky with a really easy test. So how can you say that both drivers have been tested to the same standard? I absolutely deserved to fail, but how many others should fail if only they came across some more challenging situations?

 

[DampDog]

That said, a competent driver should be able to navigate all those issues.

But they aren't competent drivers, they're novice drivers. With the limited time they've had behind the wheel they have learned to deal with only a small amount of situations they will meet on the road. If they go for test and nothing falls outside what they've already seen or dealt with they normally cope. The amount that go to test and fail because someone did something on the road that they've not seen before is huge. Nerves kick in and they forget it all in the blink of an eye. It may only be for a few seconds but it's enough to cost them their test.

 

[Burnsy2023]

But they aren't competent drivers, they're novice drivers.

Like has been said, level of skill is separate to experience. You can be experienced and have a low level of skill or vice versa.

The driving test is there to determine competence, not experience.

 

[DampDog]

The driving test is there to determine competence, not experience.

That is absolutely correct. But the wider the range of experience you acquire, the more likely you are to be competent in unfamiliar circumstances. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That said we all see so called "experienced drivers" every day that you could not call competent.

 

[Skeeter]

Its interesting that this thread is full of people saying you need more experience before you can be considered compitent, and then people say older drivers need a retest as they are incompitent!

Surely if experience = competence, the 65 year olds are all the best drivers on the road?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Surely if experience = competence, the 65 year olds are all the best drivers on the road?

Competence to some degree correlates to competence. I think after you've had around 5 or so years driving the benefit of any extra experience diminishes, indeed there becomes a point where it is a hinderance due to complacency.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Its interesting that this thread is full of people saying you need more experience before you can be considered compitent, and then people say older drivers need a retest as they are incompitent!

Surely if experience = competence, the 65 year olds are all the best drivers on the road?

People develop bad habits, get lazy.

 

[Haggisman]

Like has been said, level of skill is separate to experience. You can be experienced and have a low level of skill or vice versa.

The driving test is there to determine competence, not experience.

How do you test someone's competence in a scenario which doesn't occur during the test?

E.g. how do you decide if someone is competent to drive in heavy rain when their 4 lessons have all been on dry sunny days and so is their test?

Having more lessons doesn't necessarily mean that someone is a better or worse driver, but it does mean they are more likely to have encountered (and so learned to deal with) a wider variety of scenarios and driving conditions.

IMO the suggestion of a training based assessment is far better; you have to "check all the boxes" (e.g. driving in traffic, in the rain, dealing with emergency vehicles, single track roads, etc.), rather than having your competency judged on 45 minutes of driving in what are most likely to be a very narrow set of circumstances.

 

[DRZ]

I passed first time after 9 hours of lessons.

The idea that I think some people are trying (and failing) to convey to people on Skeeter's side of this 'debate' is that you cannot possibly be a competent driver after just 9 hours of lessons, despite passing the test. Why? Because the test does not adequately judge whether you are competent are not. There are simply not enough "checks" built into the test for this to be the case - and in just 9 hours of lessons you are very, very unlikely to have been exposed to, trained in and drilled on the responses to a wide range of scenarios that can occur on the road.

If it is raining during the test, you're arguably going to be tested more stringently on your car control than you would have been had you been tested in the dry. If your test is in the winter and in the dark, your perception of hazards and your reactions to that may well be tested more than a bright sunny summers day. The idea that passing your test has any implication other than you've met the absolute bare minimum standards possible is laughable.

 

[Clarkey]

I passed first time after 12 lessons. It was simple, just do what the instructor taught you for 40 minutes. You only need to have the most basic level of driving competency to manage it. People who fail are either totally useless or they can't do as they are told?

Also disagree with the raising of the age to 21. I passed when I was 21 and drove like a moron and had many near misses.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

I passed first time after 12 lessons. It was simple, just do what the instructor taught you for 40 minutes. You only need to have the most basic level of driving competency to manage it. People who fail are either totally useless or they can't do as they are told?

Also disagree with the raising of the age to 21. I passed when I was 21 and drove like a moron and had many near misses.

I am not sure labelling people who fail at a test as 'useless' is really a good attitude. Especially when their are so many factors to consider; hours, driving instructor, the examiner, type of car, the roads, etc.

either way not so bothered about age restrictions, but their should definitely be retests every 10 years or alternatively cars need remote cams where the footage can get uploaded to a police, dvla, gov server should another car trigger a type of distress, this can then get monitored with license points allocated should the footage show that someone is driving dangerously.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I only needed 5 hours of lessons to pass my car test, but then I been riding motorcycles on the road for 5 years beforehand as well as driving Landrovers etc. around on a neighbouring farm since I was 14.