[pshewitt1]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
is that not bad conduct rather than bad luck? could you not have complained for failing something that you had no part in/were a victim of?

the only thing they can offer is a retest... for free of course

[iGriff]

If you have time, take a look at the Locus of Control theory by Julian Rotter. The theory may answer your question.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
the only thing they can offer is a retest... for free of course

id rather complain...while its nice that its free, it doesnt seem to be the best especially if you pretty much finished the test

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
id rather complain...while its nice that its free, it doesnt seem to be the best especially if you pretty much finished the test

already spoke to head offices multiple times, nothing can be done :/

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
already spoke to head offices multiple times, nothing can be done :/

personally id give up after that point because after that itd seem like too much effort for a small outcome but if you were adamant, you could keep going, hear their reason why and form a rational response as a counter argument.

[Dragonfly07]

No, it's also partly due to lack.

If there is a lot of traffic then there are many more occasions in which you have to look in the mirror, and the examiners often miss it and tick away madly at minor faults.

Also, if you're more lucky you'll have an examiner that gives you more slack.

Also, if you take your driving test in different locations it may be easier/harder to pass, which is also counted as luck.

[Hopple]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
http://www.keys-driving.co.uk/Reasonsforfailing.htm

How can failing your driving test possibly be relate to luck? What is unlucky about not taking effective observations at a junction? What is unlucky about not steering properly? I don't want to sound like I'm taking a dig at people who failed but I firmly believe that if you fail your driving test, unless the examiner was exceptionally harsh, then it's the driver's fault and luck plays no part. I think that if people didn't lie to themselves and instead acknowledged that they failed because of mistakes that they made, even if they are due to nerves which is understandable but still your fault, then they would stand a better chance of passing the next time as they seek to rectify any errors in their driving which caused them to fail.

Anybody agree with me?

It is possible that their peers would have failed if they had their test in the same circumstances, hence they'll say their peers were lucky to pass. Or because they don't want to offend their friends, they'll say they themselves were unlucky.

[g36c]

first of all the driving test doesnt allow for common sense and has strict rules and if you cross them then you fail. no matter the circumstances which is ridiculous.

it is based on luck because if a certain situation comes up then its impossible to fit into their 'rules'.

90% of drivers are ****ing retarded, the driving test is bull****.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Svenjamin)
Heard from an examiner's mouth:

Driving a few mph too slowly.
Road empty - Minor.
Car behind you - Serious, as the car will need to slow down and/or overtake.

Likewise, stalling in such a way that causes someone else to slow down or swerve. Would be a minor if there wasn't a car there.


I'm not saying people should blame their fail on luck. Pretty much the opposite actually, there are people passing because luck has fallen in their favour, so that's a flaw in the system.

As for your example, you're creating a strawman to try and prove your point. I don't think anyone would ever blame stalling on luck (let alone 4 times in 40 minutes?!). From these forums most the concerns about luck seem to stem from other drivers not giving the correct signals (e.g. not signalling on roundabouts).


Besides, when lessons + tests are so expensive, people are ALWAYS going to be annoyed that they have to retake. Often that will be expressed as excuses that they shouldn't have failed in the first place since they're annoyed they've effectively "wasted" money. If they're kidding themselves, then it effects no one but themselves. Likewise, anyone who convinces themselves they're a completely competent driver just because they've passed their test is equally foolish.

Don't drive too slow then?

Are you actually kidding me? If you stall the car in a dangerous situation, then you should be failed. Basically what that tells the examiner is that if you were allowed to be alone on the road, you'd be liable to stalling in places which could cause harm. It's completely fair for the examiner to infer that the increased pressure of the situation caused you to panic and stall, indicating that you aren't ready to pass yet.

Look, a competent driver should be able to deal with the bad drivers on the road. It's a given that they exist everywhere and you should have been taught to never assume something, so if someone doesn't indicate at a roundabout, you should be prepared for that and should take the neccesary precautions. Everyday drivers can deal with these things without crashing or doing silly things and seeing as how the driving test is taken so one can become an everyday driver, they should expect to be treated like one. There should be no special treatment given, if someone's doesn't indicate and you shoot forward and the examiner has to brake, it's the driver's fault, plain and simple.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Ice Constricter)
You cannot say luck plays no role whatsoever in a person passing, that's ****ing absurd. Many different factors that are determined by luck may cause a person to fail, mind you this isn't an excuse for failure but it can play a part. Anyway some of these factors are:

-The weather
-Road conditions (busy,quiet or moderate)
- Subjectiveness of examiners: what one examiner may class as a major fault might be what another classes as a minor.
-Time of day
-Events that are taking place at the time (e.g. family tragedy)

You may say a well prepared learner should be able to deal with the worst case scenarios in all these factors. And while that's true it doesn't mean luck can't mean the difference between a pass and a fail.



This!

I dunno why its so hard for the OP to understand. Nobody is even saying a that person who had 'bad luck' deserved to pass.

What's actually absurd is how you make a counter argument and then defeat your own arguement. Yes, a competent driver should be able to deal with these situations, what's unlucky about it?

It's raining, so? It will be raining once you pass your test.
It's busy on the roads, so? It will be busy once you pass your test?
The only example where luck might play a minuscule role. But, it will be so rare as to near enough render it an anomaly where one examiner regards something as a major and another classess the same thing as a minor. Also, this coud be an example of an examiner being really harsh, something that I mentioned in my OP.
Time of day? What?
If a family tragedy occurred, then they shouldn't be taking their tests if they feel that it will adversely affect their driving, simple as. It's sad but it's not a reason to fail a test as the test shouldn't even be attempted if someone can't drive competenty when they're stressed or grieving.

You've basically mentioned things that occur to all drivers, it's like you think it's unlucky if the examinee doesn't get his test on a day that had no traffic, has perfect weather and has no bad drivers on the road. That's just ridiculous and I don't care what anyone says, before you're deemed to be safe to be able to driven the roads alone, you should be able to deal with all types of traffic conditions and it's not unlucky at all if on your test you have to

[Hopple]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
What's actually absurd is how you make a counter argument and then defeat your own arguement. Yes, a competent driver should be able to deal with these situations, what's unlucky about it?

It's raining, so? It will be raining once you pass your test.
It's busy on the roads, so? It will be busy once you pass your test?
The only example where luck might play a minuscule role. But, it will be so rare as to near enough render it an anomaly where one examiner regards something as a major and another classess the same thing as a minor. Also, this coud be an example of an examiner being really harsh, something that I mentioned in my OP.
Time of day? What?
If a family tragedy occurred, then they shouldn't be taking their tests if they feel that it will adversely affect their driving, simple as. It's sad but it's not a reason to fail a test as the test shouldn't even be attempted if someone can't drive competenty when they're stressed or grieving.

You've basically mentioned things that occur to all drivers, it's like you think it's unlucky if the examinee doesn't get his test on a day that had no traffic, has perfect weather and has no bad drivers on the road. That's just ridiculous and I don't care what anyone says, before you're deemed to be safe to be able to driven the roads alone, you should be able to deal with all types of traffic conditions and it's not unlucky at all if on your test you have to

Would you say then that someone who took their test in perfect conditions with no traffic etc was lucky, if they would have panicked and hence failed if a bad driver decided to go all over the back of them?

[Ice Constricter]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
What's actually absurd is how you make a counter argument and then defeat your own arguement. Yes, a competent driver should be able to deal with these situations, what's unlucky about it? You're basically saying that all learners should be well prepared and competent enough before they take their test. But I'm saying we need to face reality, unfortunately we don't live in a fairy world where every candidate to take the test will be 100% confident in every aspect of their driving. Some candidates will be better prepared than others. Also the fact that you can fail on manoeuvres absurd. If someone absolutely sucks at parallel parking and is lucky enough not to get it on their test what does that show? Anyway say 2 candidates of equal driving ability took the test which resulted in one failing and the other passing what would you say was the determining factor? Tell me how I defeated my own argument again?
It's raining, so? It will be raining once you pass your test.
It's busy on the roads, so? It will be busy once you pass your test? All that I've said has fallen on deaf ears eh? Yes you'll encounter these things once you pass your test, still can make the difference between a pass or fail. Remember the two candidates of equal ability?
The only example where luck might play a minuscule role. But, it will be so rare as to near enough render it an anomaly where one examiner regards something as a major and another classess the same thing as a minor. Also, this coud be an example of an examiner being really harsh, something that I mentioned in my OP. You admit this? OK.
Time of day? What? Apart from the difference in traffic volumes, believe it or not but the few hours extra practice you'll get from having an exam later in the day could make the difference between passing or failing.
If a family tragedy occurred, then they shouldn't be taking their tests if they feel that it will adversely affect their driving, simple as. It's sad but it's not a reason to fail a test as the test shouldn't even be attempted if someone can't drive competenty when they're stressed or grieving. You have a point there, unfortunately a lot of people disregard this advice as they want to pass as soon as possible. But I agree they shouldn't have taken the test.

You've basically mentioned things that occur to all drivers, it's like you think it's unlucky if the examinee doesn't get his test on a day that had no traffic, has perfect weather and has no bad drivers on the road. That's just ridiculous and I don't care what anyone says, before you're deemed to be safe to be able to driven the roads alone, you should be able to deal with all types of traffic conditions and it's not unlucky at all if on your test you have to.
I think all this confusion stems from you not doing the actual definition of luck, or more likely your denial of it. Because you continue to pander for a world of 100% perfectly prepared candidates who'll take a test which will only assess their skill and no other determining factor. Stop dreaming, nobody is saying that the state at which driving exams are in now is the ideal situation.

luck /lək/
Noun: Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

Everything you mentioned occurs by chance

Being unlucky =/= deserving of a pass like your trying to accuse me of saying.

[Ice Constricter]

(Original post by Hopple)
Would you say then that someone who took their test in perfect conditions with no traffic etc was lucky, if they would have panicked and hence failed if a bad driver decided to go all over the back of them?

You're wasting your time asking that to a person who doesn't even know what the meaning of luck is.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Hopple)
Would you say then that someone who took their test in perfect conditions with no traffic etc was lucky, if they would have panicked and hence failed if a bad driver decided to go all over the back of them?

You're misinterpreting the different definitions of luck which exist and you are ignoring the fact that when people bemoan luck, they are usually talking about something which had nothing to do with their driving ability.

Yeah, if a driver is **** in certain situations, then it's fortunate for them if on their test they do not encounter these adverse conditions. But when someone says that they were unlucky that they failed their test, its usually because they're blaming external factors. They're not saying 'I got unlucky because I can't deal with large roundabouts and I had to', they're usually balking aiming other road users or other things not related to their driving ability.

[Hopple]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
You're misinterpreting the different definitions of luck which exist and you are ignoring the fact that when people bemoan luck, they are usually talking about something which had nothing to do with their driving ability.

Yeah, if a driver is **** in certain situations, then it's fortunate for them if on their test they do not encounter these adverse conditions. But when someone says that they were unlucky that they failed their test, its usually because they're blaming external factors. They're not saying 'I got unlucky because I can't deal with large roundabouts and I had to', they're usually balking aiming other road users or other things not related to their driving ability.

So if they don't have the luck in conditions that could/would have gotten them a pass, then they are unlucky, no?

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Ice Constricter)
Being unlucky =/= deserving of a pass like your trying to accuse me of saying.

Wtf, you're now saying that it's unfair to expect people taking a test which will allow them to drive a machine which could kill people to be fully confident in all aspect of their driving? Oh so it's ok if someone is **** at checking their mirrors if they're good with their clutch control? Or is it reasonable if someone is terrible at braking if they can steer well? That's not how it works ok. With certain things in life, it's acceptable to be good in some aspects of it and not so good in others, but when you're driving a car, it's extremely important that a driver is good in every aspect of their driving as every part is important, from emerging at junctions to doing manoeuvres correctly. If you genuinely think that failing on manoeuvres I'd absurd then I'm sorry to say it but you're an idiot. What's the point of the test if someone's going to demonstrate something that they've learnt, muck it up and still pass? That's just ridiculous. If someone is **** at parallel parking, a neccesary part if driving, then they should delay doing their test until they can do it. The good thing about it being random is that it shows the examiner that you've practiced all 4 if you can do the one that they tell you to do, as it's unlikely that the one that they pick is the one that you worked the hardest for. Your argument is so ridiculous I'm telling you. It's not unlucky if someone gets a parallel parking exercise and fails because they can't do it, it's THEIR FAULT. luck, yes luck, is predicated purely on chance, there's no room for human interference and yet it's ultimately up to the driver to complete whatever manoeuvre they have to do. It's not unexpected and so you can't say it's unlucky just because you didn't want it, it's just indicative of the fact that you aren't ready for your test yet. If two candidates of equal ability take the test and only one fails, then it's down to a mistake being made, luck plays no part. Who knows, maybe the one who failed forgot to do his signal one too many times did failed, or didn't look to the right when he turned left at a junction, maybe because nerves played a role. Either way, luck is not a factor in this scenario and so stop going on about that and stop making excuses for bad preparation and inadequate overall driving skills.

I had always mentioned that, or 'admitted' it so that's a redundant sentence. Actually, your use of the word admit implies that I was at one point denying it, which I wasn't, so that's a bit silly on your behalf.

No it won't. You can either drive or you can't. If you're going to be driving to work in the morning, you aren't going to wait a few hours before your driving to an acceptable standard, you'll get in your car in the morning and hopefully be driving properly then, you don't need a few hours practice to get ready for it, unless you're an incredibly **** driver.

I know exactly what luck is and my understanding of its definition is fine. It's not unlucky to get a parallel park if you can't do it, it's the driver's own actions before the test which determine whether the parallel park coming up will either be a good or bad thing. It's not unlucky to get a lot of traffic, it's the driver's fault if they haven't been equipped or don't have the skill to navigate the traffic.

Every eventuality should be factored in and if it isn't and something comes up which ****s up someone's test, it's their fault for not preparing for it, not 'chance' being mean to them.

[donald86]

(Original post by iGriff)
If you have time, take a look at the Locus of Control theory by Julian Rotter. The theory may answer your question.

Totally agree!! People, read it!

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Hopple)
So if they don't have the luck in conditions that could/would have gotten them a pass, then they are unlucky, no?

You're not getting what I'm saying. No one is saying 'I'm unlucky because I can drive well in good conditions and I never got them'. That's what my whole point is predicated on and I can't understand why you don't get that. They are not unlucky in any sense. Every possible situation which could come up should be able to be dealt with and if it isn't, then it's not unlucky, as the driver should have anticipated that it could happen. It's their own actions which determine whether they'll be able to deal with the situation, negating luck in any of this.

[Hopple]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
You're not getting what I'm saying. No one is saying 'I'm unlucky because I can drive well in good conditions and I never got them'. That's what my whole point is predicated on and I can't understand why you don't get that. They are not unlucky in any sense. Every possible situation which could come up should be able to be dealt with and if it isn't, then it's not unlucky, as the driver should have anticipated that it could happen. It's their own actions which determine whether they'll be able to deal with the situation, negating luck in any of this.

They would have passed if they were lucky, yes?

[Michaelj]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
Don't drive too slow then?


Look, a competent driver should be able to deal with the bad drivers on the road. It's a given that they exist everywhere and you should have been taught to never assume something, so if someone doesn't indicate at a roundabout, you should be prepared for that and should take the neccesary precautions. Everyday drivers can deal with these things without crashing or doing silly things and seeing as how the driving test is taken so one can become an everyday driver, they should expect to be treated like one. There should be no special treatment given, if someone's doesn't indicate and you shoot forward and the examiner has to brake, it's the driver's fault, plain and simple.

Ok what if a bad driver pulls out on you and its impossible to avoid a crash? Say the bad driver doesn't look left and pulls out = crash. Or maybe he just speeds to the junction and pulls out regardless and you have no time to put on brakes or prevent the accident? Or what if you're on a motorway/dual carriageway and somebody just pulls into your lane, whilst your in it? Even Lewis Hamilton would have snags if people were that reckless.