Join TSR now and chat about whatever you’re intoSign up now

What one thing would you change about the driving test? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    If you were put in charge,what would you change?

    Personally I would make the parking/3 point turn mandatory and remove reverse around a corner which is rarely used in driving Tbh...
    • TSR Support Team
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I would make emergency braking mandatory.

    My instructor and parents said it should be in every test because you will at some point in your driving life make an emergency stop that could be vital (might save a person getting run over).

    They should make us do two manoeuvres. One manoeuvre out of the possible four doesn't seem rigorous.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James A)
    I would make emergency braking mandatory.

    My instructor and parents said it should be in every test because you will at some point in your driving life make an emergency stop that could be vital (might save a person getting run over).

    They should make us do two manoeuvres. One manoeuvre out of the possible four doesn't seem rigorous.
    Tbf some do do two manoeuvres, two of my mates both did two and didn't realise that in most they only do one.

    Plus at my local test centre there's only 3 manoeuvres, we don't do bay parking haha




    I think it should be made that you do a test in any weather conditions, because at the end of the day once you've passed you're test you're going to drive in anything aren't you, it's not a case of oh it's raining a bit, I've never driven in rain I'm not driving in this, that would just be stupid and the whole world would be at a standstill, especially in this country


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James A)
    I would make emergency braking mandatory.

    My instructor and parents said it should be in every test because you will at some point in your driving life make an emergency stop that could be vital (might save a person getting run over).

    They should make us do two manoeuvres. One manoeuvre out of the possible four doesn't seem rigorous.
    Good idea.

    Another thing that would be great in the test would be motorway driving as so many learners struggle to drive safely on it afterwards... Tough due to a lit of test centres being far from.motorways...
    • TSR Support Team
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    Good idea.

    Another thing that would be great in the test would be motorway driving as so many learners struggle to drive safely on it afterwards... Tough due to a lit of test centres being far from.motorways...
    :teehee:

    My enfield test centre is right near the M25.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the poster above that the emergency stop should be mandatory - that is such an important thing to get right.
    I would also include a bay or parelell park in every test (ive passed my test and found im STILL not confident with this), and a hill start.

    But good parts of the test as it is i'd say.....the marking system is *on the whole* fair and i like the idea of the independent drive section
    • TSR Support Team
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I agree with the poster above that the emergency stop should be mandatory - that is such an important thing to get right.
    I would also include a bay or parelell park in every test (ive passed my test and found im STILL not confident with this), and a hill start.

    But good parts of the test as it is i'd say.....the marking system is *on the whole* fair and i like the idea of the independent drive section
    Yeah, they should include at least a bay park or parallel park as necessary.

    They should scrap reversing round the corner, it's rare you see that nowdays.

    Even so, if after you pass and you find yourself in a situation where you have to park round a corner, a fairly experienced driver knows his/her car well and knows how much steer lock to put to get it to reverse where they want it to, so they would be able to reverse round a corner without too much of a problem.

    On the whole, I've seen the marking sheet and it's rigorous enough. Hence why people say the UK test is hard compared to other countries.


    https://www.learnerdriving.com/drivi...marking-system

    Has anyone seen an online version like this?

    It's really helpful!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James A)
    :teehee:

    My enfield test centre is right near the M25.
    My test centre was about an hour from the nearest motorway so would be very unpractical. But at least some dual carrigeway would be good. I went onto a small amount of A road in my bike test but not even a dual carriageway...

    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I agree with the poster above that the emergency stop should be mandatory - that is such an important thing to get right.
    I would also include a bay or parelell park in every test (ive passed my test and found im STILL not confident with this), and a hill start.

    But good parts of the test as it is i'd say.....the marking system is *on the whole* fair and i like the idea of the independent drive section
    Good point.

    Emergency stop/both parking manoveures and hill starts should all be essential because there are things you will need to do in everyday driving and people should be confident with them.

    Yea, the independent driving section is still fairly new and i think it's a good idea. Shows people can follow basic road signs whilst still remembering the rules of the road.

    Marking system is fair as well since you need a major fault or a dangerous fault to cause you to fail most of the time. The same minor 4 times rule can be annoying as i once failed with only 5 minors and no majors because they were all for the same thing...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James A)
    Yeah, they should include at least a bay park or parallel park as necessary.

    They should scrap reversing round the corner, it's rare you see that nowdays.

    Even so, if after you pass and you find yourself in a situation where you have to park round a corner, a fairly experienced driver knows his/her car well and knows how much steer lock to put to get it to reverse where they want it to, so they would be able to reverse round a corner without too much of a problem.

    On the whole, I've seen the marking sheet and it's rigorous enough. Hence why people say the UK test is hard compared to other countries.


    https://www.learnerdriving.com/drivi...marking-system

    Has anyone seen an online version like this?

    It's really helpful!
    Totally agree with the scrapping the reverse around the corner as well, the other manouvres are helpful in everyday driving, but i have never used that!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Motorway driving would be super, but you'd be buggered if you live in Scotland/Wales/Devon/Norwich. Thus, it wouldn't really be enforceable unless they made you drive in particular cities (and I suppose you can still drive around without ever needing to use a motorway if you lived in those areas too).

    I have to say though, reversing around corners, turning in the road, hill starts and parallel parking are just things that I usually bodge quite well. I am used to doing them and don't need to think about it very much. Emergency stops, however, sneak up on the best of us and therefore these should always be tested in the exam.


    What are the views on re-testing drivers? Obviously not to driving test standards (as those are really quite irrelevant once you start on the roads and learn "real" driving skills) but to safe and aware standards? I think a lot of drivers quickly forget how to drive and never evaluate themselves. Driving is seen as too much of a right in my opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    My test centre was about an hour from the nearest motorway so would be very unpractical. But at least some dual carrigeway would be good. I went onto a small amount of A road in my bike test but not even a dual carriageway...



    Good point.

    Emergency stop/both parking manoveures and hill starts should all be essential because there are things you will need to do in everyday driving and people should be confident with them.

    Yea, the independent driving section is still fairly new and i think it's a good idea. Shows people can follow basic road signs whilst still remembering the rules of the road.

    Marking system is fair as well since you need a major fault or a dangerous fault to cause you to fail most of the time. The same minor 4 times rule can be annoying as i once failed with only 5 minors and no majors because they were all for the same thing...
    Yeah the minors thing can be annoying - especially if you're a safe driver and they just think you're cornering isn't quite good enough or something, and i've heard some stories about examiners that aren't fair.....but i think as long as you have a fair and competent examiner, its a good way of marking
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SortYourLife)
    in most they only do one.
    Well that's news to me...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would make the driving test be taken in a closed location, Other drivers can make you fail far too easily if they want to and thats out of your hands.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SillyEddy)
    Motorway driving would be super, but you'd be buggered if you live in Scotland/Wales/Devon/Norwich. Thus, it wouldn't really be enforceable unless they made you drive in particular cities (and I suppose you can still drive around without ever needing to use a motorway if you lived in those areas too).

    I have to say though, reversing around corners, turning in the road, hill starts and parallel parking are just things that I usually bodge quite well. I am used to doing them and don't need to think about it very much. Emergency stops, however, sneak up on the best of us and therefore these should always be tested in the exam.

    What are the views on re-testing drivers? Obviously not to driving test standards (as those are really quite irrelevant once you start on the roads and learn "real" driving skills) but to safe and aware standards? I think a lot of drivers quickly forget how to drive and never evaluate themselves. Driving is seen as too much of a right in my opinion.
    I think re-testing drivers is a very very good idea. It'd be expensive and i reckon thats why they don't do it, but there's too many unsafe drivers on the road. People can pass their test when they're 17, never drive again and then get in a car when they're 50 and go out on the road by themselves. I think thats wrong, and although it would cost the government money to test people periodically, it would probably save quite a number of accidents and therefore money.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I think re-testing drivers is a very very good idea. It'd be expensive and i reckon thats why they don't do it, but there's too many unsafe drivers on the road. People can pass their test when they're 17, never drive again and then get in a car when they're 50 and go out on the road by themselves. I think thats wrong, and although it would cost the government money to test people periodically, it would probably save quite a number of accidents and therefore money.
    What about making the driver fund it? Is there a profit/loss to operating the driving centres? In pretty much all situations I can think of where a person is operating machinery or heavy vehicles, they must be re-evaluated to hold their permit. Usually this is provided by the company, but drivers would have to provide for themselves.

    Just a quick thought, with no research of any kind, but how about a re-test after 10 years if you have had an at-fault incident or have enough points on your licence, then a test 10 years afterwards for everyone? If you haven't driven sufficient mileage over the course of 5 years, then do an evaluation before being allowed to drive again.

    I really can't think of a suitable number of years when you can flat out say that drivers become dangerous, so it's hard to know how frequent it could or should be. In most cases it should just be a refresher (as they do hold a licence)... So a quick 20 minute trip through town and around the dual carriageway to ensure you're in suitable control of the car. If you fail, then you have 30 days to re-test, and if you fail that you must go on a proper course to re-train you. Doesn't seem too harsh, does it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I think re-testing drivers is a very very good idea. It'd be expensive and i reckon thats why they don't do it, but there's too many unsafe drivers on the road. People can pass their test when they're 17, never drive again and then get in a car when they're 50 and go out on the road by themselves. I think thats wrong, and although it would cost the government money to test people periodically, it would probably save quite a number of accidents and therefore money.
    I seriously think this should happen aswell, especially given our ageing population
    Whilst it may be expensive to get people redo-ing a practical I reckon the theory should be done every 10 years (at the same time that you have to renew your licence card) as it wouldn't be all that expensive, you could even get people to do it online from home (even if they cheated they'd probably still learn something!).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SillyEddy)
    What about making the driver fund it? Is there a profit/loss to operating the driving centres? In pretty much all situations I can think of where a person is operating machinery or heavy vehicles, they must be re-evaluated to hold their permit. Usually this is provided by the company, but drivers would have to provide for themselves.

    Just a quick thought, with no research of any kind, but how about a re-test after 10 years if you have had an at-fault incident or have enough points on your licence, then a test 10 years afterwards for everyone? If you haven't driven sufficient mileage over the course of 5 years, then do an evaluation before being allowed to drive again.

    I really can't think of a suitable number of years when you can flat out say that drivers become dangerous, so it's hard to know how frequent it could or should be. In most cases it should just be a refresher (as they do hold a licence)... So a quick 20 minute trip through town and around the dual carriageway to ensure you're in suitable control of the car. If you fail, then you have 30 days to re-test, and if you fail that you must go on a proper course to re-train you. Doesn't seem too harsh, does it?
    I think that's right, and i think it would significantly reduce the amount of accidents. I know people say young drivers have a huge amount of accidents from inexperience, but i think people overlook the amount of accidents from people that have held their licence for longer and consistently drive dangerously.

    I don't think things like speed awareness courses are the right thing to do when people get points on their licence - from what ive heard you can just nod your way through these course, not listening or getting any kind of knowledge and then go straight back onto the road driving dangerously again. You're right in saying that there should be more vigorous testing, especially for people that are consistently getting points in their licence.

    I think the poster above saying doing theory tests every 10 years from home is a good idea too - people need to keep their knowledge of the roads. A shortened driving test every 10/15 years would be a good idea too - maybe not as vigorous as the actual driving test, but to make sure people have a safe attitude to the roads.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SillyEddy)
    Motorway driving would be super, but you'd be buggered if you live in Scotland/Wales/Devon/Norwich. Thus, it wouldn't really be enforceable unless they made you drive in particular cities (and I suppose you can still drive around without ever needing to use a motorway if you lived in those areas too).

    What are the views on re-testing drivers? Obviously not to driving test standards (as those are really quite irrelevant once you start on the roads and learn "real" driving skills) but to safe and aware standards? I think a lot of drivers quickly forget how to drive and never evaluate themselves. Driving is seen as too much of a right in my opinion.
    Yea, Motorway driving wouldn't practically work at all but trying to at least get onto an A road with 2 lanes would help show examiners you'd know what to do.

    Reteting drivers is a good idea. I'd say if they have an at fault accident then yea, they should be made to retake it within a year or so to prove they're still safe. And if they have no accident then every 20 years or so would be fair. Eg, around 40ish years old and then again around 60...


    (Original post by thefunktopus69)
    I seriously think this should happen aswell, especially given our ageing population
    Whilst it may be expensive to get people redo-ing a practical I reckon the theory should be done every 10 years (at the same time that you have to renew your licence card) as it wouldn't be all that expensive, you could even get people to do it online from home (even if they cheated they'd probably still learn something!).
    An online theory test would be a good idea, and hazard perception in that as well as that's hard to cheat and good at making people think about all the potential hazards.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think there should be a cap in tests, if you fail more than 5 times then you have to wait 2 years before taking another. Stops people trying to brute-force it, and actually try to become better drivers
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    I think there should be a cap in tests, if you fail more than 5 times then you have to wait 2 years before taking another. Stops people trying to brute-force it, and actually try to become better drivers
    I see where you're coming from but then again i failed 3 or 4 times(lost count) and i think it can make you a better driver/rider... First time i was overly cocky and sure i was a riding god and just failed. Then i went away and focused on the minors i got and learned from it etc.

    Maybe if there was a longer delay between retests as opposed to 2 weeks but 2 years does seem extreme. Maybe it should be 2 weeks first time, then 4 then 8?
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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