Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why do people blame luck?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KX321)
    I agree. I'm sick of hearing people I know say "They can only pass a certain percentage of people each day which is why they failed me" or something along those lines.

    I understand that failing can be embarrassing but making stupid excuses rather than accepting why you failed is worse.
    This!

    Except then you have the awkward moment when your stupid excuse IS actually true! (mine was my indicator broke before I even left the test centre so couldn't take the test, my try getting anyone to believe that )
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    They would have passed if they were lucky, yes?
    They would have passed if they had prepared for everything, not if they were lucky as they can't get lucky.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    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.
    Yeah in that case that's unlucky and it's unfair if they fail, but this would be a rarity and is not usually why people fail tests.

    I'd say that for every 100 people who claimed that they were unlucky, 1 of those genuinely was and had to face a situation where they nearly crashed or did crash but even in that case, it would be really harsh if the examiner failed them without offering them the chance of a free re test.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    They would have passed if they had prepared for everything, not if they were lucky as they can't get lucky.
    Lol, you can get lucky with empty roads etc.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Lol, you can get lucky with empty roads etc.
    By saying that you can get lucky with empty roads, you are implicitly stating that the opposite would be true and that it would be unlucky for that driver to face roads with traffic, therefore saying that they can't drive in those conditions.

    It's like saying that you can do deemed a good overall mathematician if you can only do quadratic equations and angles but not other fundamentals. You wouldn't be called a good all round mathematician in that case and you wouldn't be deemed an all round good driver if you couldn't drive in adverse conditions and yet it's obviously essential that in the latter case, to pass your test you should be a good all round driver.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    By saying that you can get lucky with empty roads, you are implicitly stating that the opposite would be true and that it would be unlucky for that driver to face roads with traffic, therefore saying that they can't drive in those conditions.

    It's like saying that you can do deemed a good overall mathematician if you can only do quadratic equations and angles but not other fundamentals. You wouldn't be called a good all round mathematician in that case and you wouldn't be deemed an all round good driver if you couldn't drive in adverse conditions and yet it's obviously essential that in the latter case, to pass your test you should be a good all round driver.
    I count myself unlucky if there's a prick tailgating me etc, and I've been driving for years.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    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.
    I didn't in any way, shape or form say it was unfair to expect someone who was driving a potential killing machine to be confident in all aspects of their driving. Of course that isn't ****ing unfair. Where the hell did you get that crap from? :lolwut:

    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.
    :facepalm: Oh my....... Are you that ****ing retarded? If someone was absolutely atrocious when it came to parallel parking and the examiner in question on that test 'just happened' to pick a maneuver that the candidate was more confident in and it resulted in them passing. Did being competent in manoeuvres all round actually help, or was it the fact that there was only a 1 in 4 chance the examiner could have picked the manoeuvre the candidate actually sucked at?

    And I know your reading comprehension skills are non existent, so I'll clarify. In no way am I saying its fine for people to pass their test if they aren't able to display all the good particular driving skills. Because it isn't. All I'm saying is that luck could make it so certain driving skills that said particular learner may suck at may not come up on the day of the test. And obviously if that particular driving skill isn't tested the examiner will have no way of knowing how competent they are at said particular driving task.

    I think the part in bold is the cause of our dispute as well as you bringing your morals into this (talk about that later). You're obviously assuming that I think if someone is unlucky it isn't their fault. Please quote where I actually stated this because I ****ing didn't. Someone can be unlucky and still be entirely at fault of course (so please stop stating this) as well as being unlucky and it not being their fault (remember your point about harsh examiners).

    And if the two candidates of equal ability took the test, what would actually cause one to forget to signal or whatever scenario you threw in there?*

    Now about your morals, well any decent persons morals since I share the same view as you. You keep going on about how the learner should have prepared sufficiently beforehand and that any eventuality that occurs is entirely their fault blah blah. I can see your point but what about the people who pass but clearly can't drive for ****? Surely luck played a role?

    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.
    You're almost sound like a ****ing hypocrite, when someone fails their test and brings bad luck up as an excuse you're all "OMDZ UR LIKE A ****TY ****ING DRIVER. LUCKS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, IT WAS ALL DOWN TO YOU!!!"*

    But again I ask, what's your view of people who clearly can't drive passing their test? They must be great drivers secretly according to your logic :lol:

    If you say luck is involved with this case but not when people fail then you're just a ****ing retarded hypocrite and I'll be seriously done with you!
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Of course it's their own fault, ultimately, because to be of a standard sufficient to pass your test, you should be able to independently react to any situation that's thrown at you. However, some people get lucky in terms of not having difficult situations come up in their test.
    In summary, many people are lucky to pass, but no-one is unlucky to fail.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice Constricter)
    I didn't in any way, shape or form say it was unfair to expect someone who was driving a potential killing machine to be confident in all aspects of their driving. Of course that isn't ****ing unfair. Where the hell did you get that crap from? :lolwut:



    :facepalm: Oh my....... Are you that ****ing retarded? If someone was absolutely atrocious when it came to parallel parking and the examiner in question on that test 'just happened' to pick a maneuver that the candidate was more confident in and it resulted in them passing. Did being competent in manoeuvres all round actually help, or was it the fact that there was only a 1 in 4 chance the examiner could have picked the manoeuvre the candidate actually sucked at?

    And I know your reading comprehension skills are non existent, so I'll clarify. In no way am I saying its fine for people to pass their test if they aren't able to display all the good particular driving skills. Because it isn't. All I'm saying is that luck could make it so certain driving skills that said particular learner may suck at may not come up on the day of the test. And obviously if that particular driving skill isn't tested the examiner will have no way of knowing how competent they are at said particular driving task.

    I think the part in bold is the cause of our dispute as well as you bringing your morals into this (talk about that later). You're obviously assuming that I think if someone is unlucky it isn't their fault. Please quote where I actually stated this because I ****ing didn't. Someone can be unlucky and still be entirely at fault of course (so please stop stating this) as well as being unlucky and it not being their fault (remember your point about harsh examiners).

    And if the two candidates of equal ability took the test, what would actually cause one to forget to signal or whatever scenario you threw in there?*

    Now about your morals, well any decent persons morals since I share the same view as you. You keep going on about how the learner should have prepared sufficiently beforehand and that any eventuality that occurs is entirely their fault blah blah. I can see your point but what about the people who pass but clearly can't drive for ****? Surely luck played a role?



    You're almost sound like a ****ing hypocrite, when someone fails their test and brings bad luck up as an excuse you're all "OMDZ UR LIKE A ****TY ****ING DRIVER. LUCKS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, IT WAS ALL DOWN TO YOU!!!"*

    But again I ask, what's your view of people who clearly can't drive passing their test? They must be great drivers secretly according to your logic :lol:

    If you say luck is involved with this case but not when people fail then you're just a ****ing retarded hypocrite and I'll be seriously done with you!
    Seriously man i try to refrain from insulting people in debates but I can't not tell you that you're a ****ing idiot. You're the one who was on about we shouldn't expect people to be fully prepared, I simply refuted that ridiculous statement.

    Seriously **** off, IT'S NOT LUCKY OR UNLUCKY IF THE PERSON CAN'T DO ONE OF THE MANOUVERES,IT'S THEIR ****ING FAULT YOU SPAZ.

    It's not unlucky if a particular driving skill which they are tested on is something that they suck at, as they were fully aware that it could come up and should have prepared for it. In fact it's a good thing as I don't want someone on the road who can't bay park for **** and ends hitting the cars or hits a kid due to their rubbish observation during a reverse around a corner. If they can't do it, then they should either work on it until they can or they can give up their dreams of driving, why risk letting someone not fully competent on the roads? Would it be ok to hire an accountant who could do your taxes but would be **** with your savings? Would it make sense to hire a builder who can carry a load of bricks but is woeful at putting them together? The answer is no, all the parts matter and if on the test someone is seen to be incompetent at something, it's their fault and the only unlucky thing is if they had a **** instructor.

    Who knows, people just forget things? Why would man u be good one week and **** the next?

    No luck didn't play a role, they obviously can drive to an acceptable standard as they would have been tested on the essential things but they choose to drive in their own way once they got their own car. I know people who drive like maniacs but who if they had to could ace the test because they don't neccesarily have to drive that way.
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    OP must have passed first time.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    it makes them feel better, just like the "oh, all the better drivers pass second time, it's a fact"... erm.. no. when you passed your test has no relevance unless you are unbelievably **** and take it like 4+ times.

    to be good enough to cope by yourself on the roads then you should be able to deal with pretty much any situation... if you can't then you don't deserve to pass. it CAN be luck whether you get a situation like shocking behaviour from other drivers, but if you fail then it's your own fault and you don't deserve to pass anyway.
    I know someone who didn't pass her test til her 11th time :eek:
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i was very lucky in my test.. i had a laid back examiner, an easy route, my fav manoeuvre (3 point turn on a wide, quiet road) and i would've failed at one point where i went on a mini roundabout without knowing lol and thank god nothing was coming from the right or else i would have failed. so yeh there is a lot of luck involved imo.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think luck is a factor. As I did two driving tests (passed on my second one) and both were completely different to each other. On the first one it was quieter, I had a nice examiner and it was a lovely clear day. The second test the roads were busy, I had a horrible route which I've never done before and my examiner kept shouting at me after I did a mistake. But I agree with what you say when people say about them only passing a certain number of people that day, as I was with 4 other people and we all passed.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Trust me there are things you won't be able to prepare for, whether you want to call it luck or not.... and people driving mad is not a rarity and I see that a lot, and by your name i'm assuming you're from Birmingham, I am too. Next I want to address to you that you have only taken 12 lessons (which I saw on a thread that you posted after this) which means you have hardly any experience on the road, you will encounter some driver who is maybe in a rush to get somewhere and does something that was completely unexpected.

    You probably haven't even taken the theory test yet, so when you have passed you're theory and then taken your test and passed then come and talk to us, because we would be interested on your view of driving then. But until then hop on the bus lad !

    And let me address the quotas if an examiner passes/fails more than the average of their test center they will be investigated - there isn't a quota
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Luck is absolutely a factor on whether you pass or fail - The luck of getting an examiner who can actually do their job.

    Do some examiners fail people because they weren't paying attention? Yep.
    Do some examiners fail people because they had been passing too many other people that day? Absolutely.
    Do some test centres have a higher rate of failing people than other centres, even when roads and traffic nearby are very similar? They sure do!

    I was failed once for 'not checking my left mirror as I moved lane to the left'. This was despite me clearly checking several times, in a very exagerrated manner (as taught by my instructor, because people happen to fail curiously often for that reason at my centre!), including when I was indicating, and before, and during, moving lane. So when he claimed that I didn't, it was a very clear and blatant lie, meaning...

    1. He wanted to find a reason to fail me to reach his quota (or percentage), and so made a reason up.
    or 2. He wasn't doing his job, and wasn't paying attention at all to my driving or mirror checks, and when he realised "oh darn, what do I put in this category", put it as a serious 'just in case'.


    Thus! It was luck that I failed, as I did my test just great, and that was the only 'serious' point, which was something never even occurred. For anyone thinking of replying with "oh you must have done something wrong, the examiner is always right"... nope. Really.

    It's infuriating that the reason examiners get away with nonsense like this, is because people are so willing to take their side so easily, regardless of all the drivers getting failed for nonsensical reasons who are claiming otherwise.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarBunny)
    Luck is absolutely a factor on whether you pass or fail - The luck of getting an examiner who can actually do their job.

    Do some examiners fail people because they weren't paying attention? Yep.
    Do some examiners fail people because they had been passing too many other people that day? Absolutely.
    Do some test centres have a higher rate of failing people than other centres, even when roads and traffic nearby are very similar? They sure do!

    I was failed once for 'not checking my left mirror as I moved lane to the left'. This was despite me clearly checking several times, in a very exagerrated manner (as taught by my instructor, because people happen to fail curiously often for that reason at my centre!), including when I was indicating, and before, and during, moving lane. So when he claimed that I didn't, it was a very clear and blatant lie, meaning...

    1. He wanted to find a reason to fail me to reach his quota (or percentage), and so made a reason up.
    or 2. He wasn't doing his job, and wasn't paying attention at all to my driving or mirror checks, and when he realised "oh darn, what do I put in this category", put it as a serious 'just in case'.


    Thus! It was luck that I failed, as I did my test just great, and that was the only 'serious' point, which was something never even occurred. For anyone thinking of replying with "oh you must have done something wrong, the examiner is always right"... nope. Really.

    It's infuriating that the reason examiners get away with nonsense like this, is because people are so willing to take their side so easily, regardless of all the drivers getting failed for nonsensical reasons who are claiming otherwise.
    Well that's a sad and unfair thing to happen but it doesn't prove that your theories about examiners are correct, it just proves that your examiner was ****. What could examiners possibly stand to gain from only passing a certain number of people every day? I would say that if it did go down like you said, then it would have been because your examiner was either really incompetent or just didn't pay attention and I guess that is related to luck but it would be so rare to have an examiner like that that it would be nowhere near widespread or the reason behind most people's failures.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    Well that's a sad and unfair thing to happen but it doesn't prove that your theories about examiners are correct, it just proves that your examiner was ****. What could examiners possibly stand to gain from only passing a certain number of people every day? I would say that if it did go down like you said, then it would have been because your examiner was either really incompetent or just didn't pay attention and I guess that is related to luck but it would be so rare to have an examiner like that that it would be nowhere near widespread or the reason behind most people's failures.
    Presumably examiners get investigated if they pass significantly more or less people than the average examiner (probably area and time are taken into account).
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Presumably examiners get investigated if they pass significantly more or less people than the average examiner (probably area and time are taken into account).
    So? If they were passing people fairly and it happened to be more than the average, then when they are investigated they would have nothing to worry about.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    So? If they were passing people fairly and it happened to be more than the average, then when they are investigated they would have nothing to worry about.
    What if they didn't want the hassle of being investigated? Sometimes checks and punishments can have the opposite effect.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What if they didn't want the hassle of being investigated? Sometimes checks and punishments can have the opposite effect.
    What hassle? Someone sits there, watches what they do and then deems them fit to examine people, it's hardly difficult. If it's done once then it won't have to be done again as the reason for their high pass rate would be justified.

    I just think it's so ridiculous how people will formulate any old conspiracy to help justify why something didn't go their way. No, it wasn't because I drove like a tool, it was because the examiner HAD to fail me. Even though his reasons for failing me were completely fair and I nearly rammed into tht guy when I went about 5 minutes too early on the roundabout, i failed because of a examiners' conspiracy. It's just so stupid IMO. I've heard people say that the Government want less cars on the road, yeah the same people who say that the Government are desperate to get as much money as they can from the public. Erm, insurance, petrol, road tax, tax they receive when a car is sold?

    People just annoy me in general.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 6, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered learning to drive

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.