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

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I like the test as it is, save for the fact you should only have to take 1 theory test for bike / car rather than two!

    I would also like to see some skid pan training introduced so people can develop some apriciation for how a car behaves in a slide and gain an idea of what to do when it happens.
    At some point you're going to hit ice or diesel slick on the road and the car will step out so why not get a feeling for how to deal with the situation?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JC.)
    I like the test as it is, save for the fact you should only have to take 1 theory test for bike / car rather than two!

    I would also like to see some skid pan training introduced so people can develop some apriciation for how a car behaves in a slide and gain an idea of what to do when it happens.
    At some point you're going to hit ice or diesel slick on the road and the car will step out so why not get a feeling for how to deal with the situation?
    Having foul weather driving as part of the driving course is a sensible idea for drivers and instructors. I did Pass Plus and saw my fair share of some horrific conditions then. I presume the sort of skid pan where you don't need to soak it, but just use the trolley wheels? That would be cool.

    And yes, the bike licence and car licence shouldn't be quite so far apart. The theory tests should be valid for both - I also don't see why I need to do a bike theory test again seeing as I have passed my car test and have been driving for several years! I always thought it would be amusing to force car learners to try a bike as part of the course... Simply to give them the fear that bikers must have so that the car drivers bother to look out for them more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    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?
    Yeah, something that increases proportionally would probably be fairer, I just wanted to avoid penalising someone who failed the first couple of times due to stress / bereavements / etc etc
    • TSR Support Team
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JC.)
    I like the test as it is, save for the fact you should only have to take 1 theory test for bike / car rather than two!

    I would also like to see some skid pan training introduced so people can develop some apriciation for how a car behaves in a slide and gain an idea of what to do when it happens.
    At some point you're going to hit ice or diesel slick on the road and the car will step out so why not get a feeling for how to deal with the situation?
    good point, but how often would you be in a situation where the car skids?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JC.)
    I like the test as it is, save for the fact you should only have to take 1 theory test for bike / car rather than two!

    I would also like to see some skid pan training introduced so people can develop some apriciation for how a car behaves in a slide and gain an idea of what to do when it happens.
    At some point you're going to hit ice or diesel slick on the road and the car will step out so why not get a feeling for how to deal with the situation?
    Good idea. I also do like the motorbike 2 part test. Getting people to do all manoveres (and not just one) before doing the onraod part of the test. Think there are about 12 Motorbike manoveres to do...

    Skid pan would be a good idea. I think some other countries do it. The same theory behind being able to emergency stop safely, whilst it won't happen often, knowing how to deal with it could easily save lives.


    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    Yeah, something that increases proportionally would probably be fairer, I just wanted to avoid penalising someone who failed the first couple of times due to stress / bereavements / etc etc
    Ahh true. But the wait is 2 weeks atm anyway so for the first two fails it would only be an extra 2 weeks on the second one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James A)
    good point, but how often would you be in a situation where the car skids?
    I don't know... er... every winter?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Motorbiker)
    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.
    I meant cheat as in people hiring someone to do it for them. Not sure there'd be any way for that to be stopped.

    I can't decide whether hazard perception is useful -I think it has helped me, but I think that some people don't really get the idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefunktopus69)
    I meant cheat as in people hiring someone to do it for them. Not sure there'd be any way for that to be stopped.

    I can't decide whether hazard perception is useful -I think it has helped me, but I think that some people don't really get the idea.
    I reckon the idea of having some kind of technology to test someone's ability to spot hazards is a very good idea. However, I think the current technology that they use is awful. I failed my theory 2 times because of hazard perception, despite knowing what kind of things to look out for I couldn't work out the 'clicking' system. I'm sure I'm not the only person that's had this problem - I just don't think it's a very accurate way of telling whether someone can spot hazards.

    Maybe they should change it to something like listing the hazards after watching a video?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yaboy)
    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.
    Sorry but I disagree.

    Tests should be conducted as they are currently, so examiners can ascertain how the learner deals with other road users and if they are safe/unsafe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amyshamblesxx)
    Sorry but I disagree.

    Tests should be conducted as they are currently, so examiners can ascertain how the learner deals with other road users and if they are safe/unsafe.
    But there are so many situations where another driver can cause you to fail so easily when its not your fault. In court you would probably win if it ended in an accident but you would still fail your test...

    Like seriously if your trying to pull out and somebody sits there and waits for you to pull out of parking only to move off just after you to make you fail seems unfair to me
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    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.
    You can't expect to re-test drivers on this basis. That rarely, if ever, happens.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I failed my theory 2 times because of hazard perception, despite knowing what kind of things to look out for I couldn't work out the 'clicking' system.

    Maybe they should change it to something like listing the hazards after watching a video?
    You spot a hazard, and click. It's hardly difficult technology....
    Offline

    2
    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.
    In Northern Ireland every test has an emergency stop.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WildeAboutOscar)
    In Northern Ireland every test has an emergency stop.
    Well not everyone lives in Northern Ireland :rolleyes:

    Even though they have a similar system to ours, there are subtle differences.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James A)
    Well not everyone lives in Northern Ireland :rolleyes:

    Even though they have a similar system to ours, there are subtle differences.
    Love the roll of the eyes . I was just saying because I live in Northern Ireland so I was concurring that it would be a positive step. However what NI lacks is common sense - for the first year after passing I have a max speed of 45mph hence despite passing my test in November I have yet to brave the motorway because I'd be too slow!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    hands free on a motorway... that's a challenge
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefunktopus69)
    I meant cheat as in people hiring someone to do it for them. Not sure there'd be any way for that to be stopped.

    I can't decide whether hazard perception is useful -I think it has helped me, but I think that some people don't really get the idea.


    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I reckon the idea of having some kind of technology to test someone's ability to spot hazards is a very good idea. However, I think the current technology that they use is awful. I failed my theory 2 times because of hazard perception, despite knowing what kind of things to look out for I couldn't work out the 'clicking' system. I'm sure I'm not the only person that's had this problem - I just don't think it's a very accurate way of telling whether someone can spot hazards.

    Maybe they should change it to something like listing the hazards after watching a video?
    I made a post a while ago explaining why the hazard perception test is utter bull****. And because this post is old not everything it says is true of me. For example I have driven now.

    Anyway, here it is:

    (Original post by Ice Constricter)

    1) On a computer screen you have no peripheral vision. Your line of sight is limited to only ninety degrees. You cannot see anything at the corners of your eyes which hardly simulates real life driving. Overall your view of your surroundings is very limited and these could contain potential hazards.

    2) There is no sound in those hazard perception clips. Is that how it's like driving in real life? Everything in absolute silence, when a lot of hazards are identified by their sounds first. Not exactly a great indicator of how driving is like, now is it?

    And for the final icing on the cake I'll talk about myself.

    I've never driven a car in my life yet I was able to pass the hazard perception first time while experienced drivers of over 20 years have failed it. You know why?

    It's because I know how to play the game. Yes, the hazard perception is like a game, once you know the little tips and tricks you'll pass everytime. The fact that you can click too early shows that the HP is flawed and it's obviously just there to build revenue. How the **** is it ever too early to notice a hazard in real life, yet in the hazard perception this is possible, but you somehow still think it actually tests your awareness on the open road.*

    As for the tips and tricks (OP take note of this as well) when you see a potential hazard (e.g. boy walking on the edge of the pavement) click once, then click again in case you clicked "too early". If the hazard starts to develop (e.g. boy starts to walk out into the road) click the mouse, then again for good measure, just don't go overboard on the clicking otherwise you'll score a big fat zero.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WildeAboutOscar)
    Love the roll of the eyes . I was just saying because I live in Northern Ireland so I was concurring that it would be a positive step. However what NI lacks is common sense - for the first year after passing I have a max speed of 45mph hence despite passing my test in November I have yet to brave the motorway because I'd be too slow!
    It's kind of a double killer really, if you aren't allowed to drive above 45mph, how would you ever gain experience driving above those speeds?

    It's similar to employers only hiring people with "experience", but if no one ever hires you, how would you ever gain experience?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice Constricter)
    I made a post a while ago explaining why the hazard perception test is utter bull****. And because this post is old not everything it says is true of me. For example I have driven now.

    Anyway, here it is:
    Totally agree!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarahthegemini)
    You can't expect to re-test drivers on this basis. That rarely, if ever, happens.
    Who knows... Maybe they go and live in Australia for a few years with family and then move back? 17 to 50 is obviously a bit of an over-estimation, but people do leave for years at a time for work or social reasons.

    I think if you haven't driven sufficient distances over the course of, say, 5 years, you should do a refresher course.

    I'm fortunate in the sense that despite living at university, I can still drive a car when I go home. I have temporary insurance so rarely take it out, but I drive every few months. Even then, I forget a hell of a lot and I get the same glazed feel in my eyes like I did when I started to learn. 3 months without driving wasn't dangerous, but I was not driving on top form. A year or more without driving must be quite risky for the first few trips.
 
 
 
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.