The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: driving lessons /survey  (Read 52015 times)

Offline The Chief

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #100 on: 07/06/2007 22:43:20 »
Is there any way I can send you a personal message on this forum?

A lot has happened since we last debated. Even though we had opposing views, I respected the responses I received from you. It is always good to be able to debate opposing views without the toys coming out the pram.

The Chief.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #101 on: 07/06/2007 22:46:44 »
If you click on my user name a new page will open and in the list on the left one of the options under actions menu is the option to send a personal message
 

Offline tmg555

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #102 on: 16/06/2007 09:20:43 »
Ok lets look at it this way, supposing a learner driver took the average amount of lessons, which the dsa says is 40 hours and for each of those hours tuition the pupil paid an average 22.00 per hour. That amounts to 880.00 so far, on top of that you will have test fee,s and lets say the pupil passed both tests at the 1st time of sitting them, thats another 70.00 then maybe the pupil purchased some training aids, ie highway code, theory questions books etc, approx 12.00. Now add all that up and it comes to 962.00. If the learner passed the tests at age 20 and went on to drive until the age of 70, thats 50 years behind the wheel, break that down and the true cost over the years for learning to drive is only 19.24 per year or 37 pence per week.
That to me is extremely good value for money, learning a skill as complicated as learning to drive on todays roads for life, for just 37 pence per week, you wont even find a better deal than that at your local asda (well maybe the 60 bottles of Stella for 20.00 comes close Ha Ha)
Les.
 

Offline harpz

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #103 on: 03/07/2007 16:53:49 »
Hey UkMickey,

I think Chief, Grumpy & Z. are members of the DSAs division of Al Qaeda, you have insulted their faith (you used free speach) and in turn you have been put on their verbal assassination list.  They were more than likely bullied at school, and met at High-Horsiness class at uni'.  They then formed a terrorist cell group, where they practised the art of self-righteousness and bullship writing.  They more than likely have very large mouths and very tiny penis's (very much like a bullfrog)......... Just be careful out there Mickey, they are probably plotting to send you a package through the post, packed with highly explosive bullship....Be warned, they are not answerable to anyone, and they don't hear others words over their own bullship!!!!! ....You have been warned!!!!    :D :D
 

Offline tonycsm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • http://www.cranswicksom.co.uk
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #104 on: 08/02/2008 09:14:51 »
UPDATE: It seems a long time since I joined in the thread but have been busy as usual.
I never did get a reply from the 'Chief' to my last post to him!
Well, I'm still in business ( all 28 years of them) contrary to what was suggested and, although there are countless newbie instructors virtually giving away lessons to attract business in my area, I cannot keep up with enquiries, so I must be doing something right!!!!
Since I first posted here, I have had hardly any students need above 30 lessons to reach the DSA standards and pass their tests - in fact in the past 6 weeks alone, I have had two who didn't even have one single minor fault on their tests and many with just one or two minors. From the last DSA published figures, my students average only about 60% of the national published figures for minor faults during driving tests, so I feel comfortable in my teaching standards.
The thing that really annoys me is the continual quote from the government that 30% of all drivers with under 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - now that really surprises me - NOT!! Of course one would expect to see this sort of figure and no amount of stricter training will reduce it UNTILL, the other drivers who contribute to the huge 70% of all road accidents are all subject to continued assesment to drive!
The other 70% of accidents are caused by EXPERIENCED drivers so what excuse has the government got for this figure! Until this group is sorted out, then the inexperienced drivers will continue to have accidents as, the new driver will only emulate the behaviour of the experienced drivers they see driving every day! The new driver needs to be set a good example and not a bad one which is so much the case!
From time to time, rumours are passed round about raising the age to 18 from 17 for young drivers - this is not necessary as all that needs to be done is to consult school records upon the behaviour of young people who apply for driving licences at 17 - if they behaved badly at school, then they are likely to do that on the roads when they get driving, so kids with very bad school records would have to wait until they were say 21 to get their first licence - maybe not the best answer but it would certainly help!
I teach many 17 year olds who are just as intelligent on our roads as those who have been driving 50 years - so, not all young drivers are bad. Indeed I had student who turned 17 just two months ago who passed this week and was one of my recent students who passed with NO minor faults - the examiner said that toward the end of the test, he was getting bored as he couldn't find anything to mark down so againg, it shows that young drivers can also be good ones too!
Take 1000 new drivers ( of the past two years ) and take 1000 long time experienced drivers and ask them to negotiate roundabouts correctly and include correct indication and positioning. I'll wager now that over 90% of the newer drivers would be able correctly manage it while I doubt whether 30% of the experienced drivers would be able to do it!
Tony
 

another_someone

  • Guest
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #105 on: 08/02/2008 19:45:16 »
The thing that really annoys me is the continual quote from the government that 30% of all drivers with under 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - now that really surprises me - NOT!! Of course one would expect to see this sort of figure and no amount of stricter training will reduce it UNTILL, the other drivers who contribute to the huge 70% of all road accidents are all subject to continued assesment to drive!
The other 70% of accidents are caused by EXPERIENCED drivers so what excuse has the government got for this figure! Until this group is sorted out, then the inexperienced drivers will continue to have accidents as, the new driver will only emulate the behaviour of the experienced drivers they see driving every day! The new driver needs to be set a good example and not a bad one which is so much the case!

Sorry, but the statistics you quote don't mean what you think they mean (whether they are better or worse is another matter).

To say that 30% of drivers will be involved in a road accident in their first two years of driving is not the same as saying 30% of accidents are caused by drivers with less than 2 years experience.  It may mean that the 30% of drivers with under 2 years of experience represent 100% of all accidents, or that the 30% of accidents involving drivers with less than 2 years experience represent a small fraction of 1% of all accidents one cannot say from those statistics.

Nor is it the case that one can say that an accident involving an inexperienced driver does not also involve an experienced driver, nor does it in any way suggest that the 30% of inexperienced drivers involved in an accident were only involved in a single accident.

From time to time, rumours are passed round about raising the age to 18 from 17 for young drivers - this is not necessary as all that needs to be done is to consult school records upon the behaviour of young people who apply for driving licences at 17 - if they behaved badly at school, then they are likely to do that on the roads when they get driving, so kids with very bad school records would have to wait until they were say 21 to get their first licence - maybe not the best answer but it would certainly help!

Apart from being politically totally unacceptable, it would put teachers in an untenable situation.

Giving candidates some sort of psychiatric or behavioural examination, as was/is the case with gun licence holders, may be more practical.

I teach many 17 year olds who are just as intelligent on our roads as those who have been driving 50 years - so, not all young drivers are bad. Indeed I had student who turned 17 just two months ago who passed this week and was one of my recent students who passed with NO minor faults - the examiner said that toward the end of the test, he was getting bored as he couldn't find anything to mark down so againg, it shows that young drivers can also be good ones too!
Take 1000 new drivers ( of the past two years ) and take 1000 long time experienced drivers and ask them to negotiate roundabouts correctly and include correct indication and positioning. I'll wager now that over 90% of the newer drivers would be able correctly manage it while I doubt whether 30% of the experienced drivers would be able to do it!
Tony



But what does that prove?  Correct and incorrect are inherently arbitrary notions, although one hopes they are based on some rationale, but that is not necessarily so.

What is more critical to driving than formal correctness or incorrectness is hazard avoidance.  Being technically correct, but dead, helps nobody.

Nor does the fact that a driver can negotiate a roundabout correctly suggest they they would choose to do so in non-test conditions.

Personally, I have not had an insurance claim in the last 16 years, but I certainly would not claim to drive correctly, and my technical driving skills today are probably inferior to what they were 20 years ago.
 

Offline tonycsm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • http://www.cranswicksom.co.uk
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #106 on: 09/02/2008 00:26:29 »
The thing that really annoys me is the continual quote from the government that 30% of all drivers with under 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - now that really surprises me - NOT!! Of course one would expect to see this sort of figure and no amount of stricter training will reduce it UNTILL, the other drivers who contribute to the huge 70% of all road accidents are all subject to continued assesment to drive!
The other 70% of accidents are caused by EXPERIENCED drivers so what excuse has the government got for this figure! Until this group is sorted out, then the inexperienced drivers will continue to have accidents as, the new driver will only emulate the behaviour of the experienced drivers they see driving every day! The new driver needs to be set a good example and not a bad one which is so much the case!

Sorry, but the statistics you quote don't mean what you think they mean (whether they are better or worse is another matter).

To say that 30% of drivers will be involved in a road accident in their first two years of driving is not the same as saying 30% of accidents are caused by drivers with less than 2 years experience.  It may mean that the 30% of drivers with under 2 years of experience represent 100% of all accidents, or that the 30% of accidents involving drivers with less than 2 years experience represent a small fraction of 1% of all accidents one cannot say from those statistics.

Nor is it the case that one can say that an accident involving an inexperienced driver does not also involve an experienced driver, nor does it in any way suggest that the 30% of inexperienced drivers involved in an accident were only involved in a single accident.

From time to time, rumours are passed round about raising the age to 18 from 17 for young drivers - this is not necessary as all that needs to be done is to consult school records upon the behaviour of young people who apply for driving licences at 17 - if they behaved badly at school, then they are likely to do that on the roads when they get driving, so kids with very bad school records would have to wait until they were say 21 to get their first licence - maybe not the best answer but it would certainly help!

Apart from being politically totally unacceptable, it would put teachers in an untenable situation.

Giving candidates some sort of psychiatric or behavioural examination, as was/is the case with gun licence holders, may be more practical.

I teach many 17 year olds who are just as intelligent on our roads as those who have been driving 50 years - so, not all young drivers are bad. Indeed I had student who turned 17 just two months ago who passed this week and was one of my recent students who passed with NO minor faults - the examiner said that toward the end of the test, he was getting bored as he couldn't find anything to mark down so againg, it shows that young drivers can also be good ones too!
Take 1000 new drivers ( of the past two years ) and take 1000 long time experienced drivers and ask them to negotiate roundabouts correctly and include correct indication and positioning. I'll wager now that over 90% of the newer drivers would be able correctly manage it while I doubt whether 30% of the experienced drivers would be able to do it!
Tony



But what does that prove?  Correct and incorrect are inherently arbitrary notions, although one hopes they are based on some rationale, but that is not necessarily so.

What is more critical to driving than formal correctness or incorrectness is hazard avoidance.  Being technically correct, but dead, helps nobody.

Nor does the fact that a driver can negotiate a roundabout correctly suggest they they would choose to do so in non-test conditions.

Personally, I have not had an insurance claim in the last 16 years, but I certainly would not claim to drive correctly, and my technical driving skills today are probably inferior to what they were 20 years ago.
author=another_someone link=topic=2980.msg155892#msg155892 date=1202499916]
The thing that really annoys me is the continual quote from the government that 30% of all drivers with under 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - now that really surprises me - NOT!! Of course one would expect to see this sort of figure and no amount of stricter training will reduce it UNTILL, the other drivers who contribute to the huge 70% of all road accidents are all subject to continued assesment to drive!
The other 70% of accidents are caused by EXPERIENCED drivers so what excuse has the government got for this figure! Until this group is sorted out, then the inexperienced drivers will continue to have accidents as, the new driver will only emulate the behaviour of the experienced drivers they see driving every day! The new driver needs to be set a good example and not a bad one which is so much the case!

Sorry, but the statistics you quote don't mean what you think they mean (whether they are better or worse is another matter).

To say that 30% of drivers will be involved in a road accident in their first two years of driving is not the same as saying 30% of accidents are caused by drivers with less than 2 years experience.  It may mean that the 30% of drivers with under 2 years of experience represent 100% of all accidents, or that the 30% of accidents involving drivers with less than 2 years experience represent a small fraction of 1% of all accidents one cannot say from those statistics.

Nor is it the case that one can say that an accident involving an inexperienced driver does not also involve an experienced driver, nor does it in any way suggest that the 30% of inexperienced drivers involved in an accident were only involved in a single accident.

From time to time, rumours are passed round about raising the age to 18 from 17 for young drivers - this is not necessary as all that needs to be done is to consult school records upon the behaviour of young people who apply for driving licences at 17 - if they behaved badly at school, then they are likely to do that on the roads when they get driving, so kids with very bad school records would have to wait until they were say 21 to get their first licence - maybe not the best answer but it would certainly help!

Apart from being politically totally unacceptable, it would put teachers in an untenable situation.

Giving candidates some sort of psychiatric or behavioural examination, as was/is the case with gun licence holders, may be more practical.

I teach many 17 year olds who are just as intelligent on our roads as those who have been driving 50 years - so, not all young drivers are bad. Indeed I had student who turned 17 just two months ago who passed this week and was one of my recent students who passed with NO minor faults - the examiner said that toward the end of the test, he was getting bored as he couldn't find anything to mark down so againg, it shows that young drivers can also be good ones too!
Take 1000 new drivers ( of the past two years ) and take 1000 long time experienced drivers and ask them to negotiate roundabouts correctly and include correct indication and positioning. I'll wager now that over 90% of the newer drivers would be able correctly manage it while I doubt whether 30% of the experienced drivers would be able to do it!
Tony



But what does that prove?  Correct and incorrect are inherently arbitrary notions, although one hopes they are based on some rationale, but that is not necessarily so.

What is more critical to driving than formal correctness or incorrectness is hazard avoidance.  Being technically correct, but dead, helps nobody.

Nor does the fact that a driver can negotiate a roundabout correctly suggest they they would choose to do so in non-test conditions.

Personally, I have not had an insurance claim in the last 16 years, but I certainly would not claim to drive correctly, and my technical driving skills today are probably inferior to what they were 20 years ago.
[/quote]


First of all don't patronise me - I DO know full well what the statistics mean! 30% of all new drivers with less that 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - I didn't say that they would cause it or that the other driver was also a new diver - it's just a fact! The basic premise is that new drivers are much more likely to be involved in a road accient in the first 2 years of their driving.
By the same token - Simple maths will also ascertain that 70% of road accidents will involve experienced drivers. This is the group which actually causes most accidents and which are the ones the government should concentrate on in order to reduce road fatalities and not just new drivers!
Every week, I or my students will have to take evasive action maybe up to 100 times to avoid either serious or fatal collisions in situations caused by the behaviour of other drivers, most of whom would be considered mature and experienced! It invariably involves careless through to downright wreckless driving by moving off without proper observations, emerging without due regard for other road users or overtaking or crossing our path wrecklessly so, not only have we to teach students proper road behaviour but we also have to teach them how to avoid idiots who shouldn't have a television licence let alone a driving licence!
So I strongly disagree with your views on what is good driving - if the other road user can't even negotiate a roundabout correctly either under test or non-test conditions then they are by and large not safe as drivers!
Poor indication and positioning on inner city roundabouts alone accounts for up to 15% poorer traffic flow simply because some irks can't be bothered to signal or take up a correct position or even find out from the Highway Code just how it should be done!

The time must come when every driver without exception will have to undergo continued ability checks to test their driving - I for one would vote for it as it would make our roads considerably safer and if it meant that some drivers would suffer because of their inability to drive safely, then tough! If an experienced driver can't drive by the rules for 30-40 minutes to current DSA standards then they don't deserve to hold a licence.

Regarding your comments on teaching being made untenable if reports on young people's behaviour at school affected the age which they would be allowed a driving licence - why should it be make it untenable??? I have firearms and have to undergo periodic police checks to ascertain that I am a suitable person to continue holding these weapons - what is wrong with doing the same when a driving licence is applied for?

As for your admission that you don't drive correctly, then I personally would be ashamed to admit that! If you don't drive correctly then maybe a course of re-training or perhaps licence surrender would be in order! 16 years without an insurance claim is no indicator that you drive correctly! That is the problem with many experienced drivers, they think they don't need to drive correctly to be safe but, at some point they will cut the metaphorical corner and cause an accident either minor or even fatal - so good driving is about following the rules set down - they are there for good reason - it's just a pity more drivers didn't follow them.

There is no such thing as a road 'accident' - there is careless or dangerous driving but no such thing as a road accident! These so called accidents are caused by drivers who think they know better and ignore the rules and what they were taught - even if their instruction was 25 years ago, the basics have not changed.

 

another_someone

  • Guest
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #107 on: 09/02/2008 01:11:14 »
First of all don't patronise me - I DO know full well what the statistics mean! 30% of all new drivers with less that 2 years experience will be involved in a road accident - I didn't say that they would cause it or that the other driver was also a new diver - it's just a fact! The basic premise is that new drivers are much more likely to be involved in a road accient in the first 2 years of their driving.
By the same token - Simple maths will also ascertain that 70% of road accidents will involve experienced drivers.

You have not understood either the statistics (as you have quoted them), not my comment on them.

To say that 30% of all drivers with less than 2 years experience will be involved in an accident merely tells us that 70% of drivers with less than 2 years experience do not have an accident.  It tells us nothing about all accidents, or drivers with more than 2 years experience neither are mentioned by you.

Read again what you have written that 30% of all new drivers, not, I repeat, not, 30% of all accidents.  If that is because you have misquoted the statistics, then so be it, but if you have quoted the statistics correctly, then it tells us nothing about all accidents, or what percentage of all accidents is attributable to each group.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #108 on: 09/02/2008 02:09:57 »
So I strongly disagree with your views on what is good driving - if the other road user can't even negotiate a roundabout correctly either under test or non-test conditions then they are by and large not safe as drivers!
Poor indication and positioning on inner city roundabouts alone accounts for up to 15% poorer traffic flow simply because some irks can't be bothered to signal or take up a correct position or even find out from the Highway Code just how it should be done!

I said nothing about not indicating (I do agree that poor indication and positioning is inconsiderate), I merely said that I don't slavishly follow the high way code.  My criteria is usually how will this effect other drivers, and the question how legal is this is only an issue if I see a police car nearby.

As for taking roundabouts, in my time, there have been many conflicting sets of advice offered on the matter.  I tend to take each according to circumstance (not least, taking into account other traffic and visibility).

Regarding your comments on teaching being made untenable if reports on young people's behaviour at school affected the age which they would be allowed a driving licence - why should it be make it untenable??? I have firearms and have to undergo periodic police checks to ascertain that I am a suitable person to continue holding these weapons - what is wrong with doing the same when a driving licence is applied for?

Did they check your school records when giving your firearms licence?

If you are talking about making a separate request from the school for good character reference, that is one thing, but maybe it is my error, but that was not how I understood you to propose the idea.  My concern was that if every time a schoolteacher wrote out a school report, they had in the back of their minds that this report may have a future impact on the pupils eligibility to hold a driving licence, it may interfere with them giving an honest opinion of the student, and may undermine the integrity of the report for other purposes.

As for your admission that you don't drive correctly, then I personally would be ashamed to admit that!

I was trying to be honest, not boast.

16 years without an insurance claim is no indicator that you drive correctly!

Precisely my point, but the converse is also true correct drivers also have accidents (particularly those that think that as long as they follow the rules they don't need to think for themselves).

There is no such thing as a road 'accident' - there is careless or dangerous driving but no such thing as a road accident!

I don't know why that is more or less true of driving than of any other aspect  of life.

To an extent, I do agree that everything that happens is at least one person's fault to some degree (more typically, it is the fault of several parties who each made errors of judgement to some degree).  This is ofcourse the basis of the compensation culture, where every incident has to have someone to blame, and someone from whom compensation can be claimed.  There is some truth to it, but one should not become overly obsessed with blame about everything.

Ofcourse, even accepting that all 'accidents' are somebodies fault, is it always the case that the major fault lies with the driver?  You can argue that the driver could have tried to anticipate and avoid all eventualities (including someone dropping a brick from a motorway bridge, or the road giving way under the vehicle), but how far is is practical to assume this to be the case, however far you may take the theory.
 

Offline tonycsm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • http://www.cranswicksom.co.uk
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #109 on: 12/02/2008 19:35:05 »
First of all, I don't have the time to spend disecting and disseminating every phrase or sentence one writes therefor I'll reply without phrase by phrase pedanticism.

First of all, there is no good reason why any teacher should let their judgement affect their report on a student, particularly where it would concern potential future risks to the general public! Just as a driving examiner has a duty of care to ensure a candidate for a driving test has met the minimum standards on the test, then a teacher also would have a duty to note down any continued bad behaviour or lack of dscipline, to be accessed at a later date.
When I first applied for my firearms licence or renew it, the police would do all the checks including a check with doctors to ensure I was mentally stable to hold firearms! I can't see why the DVLA can't access simple discipline and school behaviour records before issuing a licence to a new driver under 21. It doesn't mean that anyone over 21 will be safe, it's just that insurance claim data and statistics suggest so! I have also recently had to undergo a further CRB check as part of the DSA's new policy on driving instructors and their suitable persons initiative, so I don't see any problem with doing background checks before a person is allowed to drive. There are many more people killed by cars every day than by firearms.
Looking at the driving behaviour of a number of  young drivers, though I hasten to add not all, it would probably be in their interest as well as the interests of other road users if they weren't allowed to drive until they had reached a sufficient level of maturity to drive unaccompanied!
On our roads, life is cheap! There is a distinct lack of discipline which is reflected by the number of accidents deaths on our roads and can be seen at any time on our roads! Many drivers just don't comprehend the danger in their actions - if they do and still behave dangerously, then they shouldn't have a driving licence ever!
I notice that you admit to not following the highway code rules accurately and only sticking by them when a policeman is in the vicinity. This is a perfect example of the lack of discipline exhibited by experienced drivers who think they don't need to follow the rules and know better - it also sends out the wrong messages to new drivers too! If you make up your own rules and decide that is how you will drive unless being observed by a member of the law then that is a poor example of what driving is about and, new drivers will only tend be influenced by drivers like yourself which only protracts and propagates the problems!
I have held an instructor's licence for about 28 years and have covered well over a million miles during my tuition yet, I still stick to the rules of the HC in my driving - Why? Because I don't think I know better and I fully understand the reasons behind the rules and the possible consequences of deviating from them!
I would like to see a system whereby all drivers are re-tested every 10 years - if a driver can't pass a basic 30 minute safety driving test after driving for 10 years or longer, then they shouldn't hold a licence - full stop!
At the same time, I'd like to see the application of laws regarding pedestrians and their duty of care to use and cross our roads safely with regard to other road users!
All the blame tends to fall on the motorist yet, a good many road accidents and deaths involving pedestrians can be attributed almost solely to the behaviour of the pedestrian. They carry no insurance and often motorists are left out of pocket where no blame can be attached to their behaviour - maybe the time has come when the motorist should use the current blame culture to advantage and persue the pedestrian for any out of pocket losses.
 

Offline minorityslam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #110 on: 23/03/2008 14:32:36 »
I honestly think the driving tests are a blessing, I am they are expensive and all i agree to the fact that they could be cheaper but if you think about it god forbid if they weren't there so many careless drivers would have access to the roads and can cause so many accidents which in turn can effect so many families. I mean you can't really feel what I am talking about until you are in the moment and in the situation where you have lost a family member cause someone was driving carelessly.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #111 on: 25/09/2008 16:13:03 »
Hmmm, not advertising are we MMMMMMMMMMMMM???????
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #112 on: 26/09/2008 13:39:11 »
Yes you are right ! Advertising indeed! NOT ALLOWED!
 

Offline theboy

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #113 on: 21/03/2009 11:17:40 »
hi I'm new and just thought i would share this with all i have had 5 driving tests now and still haven't passed! I have been told by more than 1 driving instructor that i am ready for my test and don't need any more lessons. I think it is stupid the way the driving test is done to evaluate some ones capability of driving when they are under a ridiculous amount of pressure is not right!!!!

also any1 who is thinking of taking a intensive course i strongly advise against it. I went to blackpool for 1 week of driving and its a big con, they tell you that you get "40 hours in a car" over the week, what they don't tell you is half the time some1 else is driving so you only do 20 hours of driving (well they do tell you in a leaflet but its right at the bottom in small print so i paid 600 for 20 hours of driving which works out at 30p/h.  [:(!]
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #114 on: 21/03/2009 11:23:59 »
Well, thanks for the warning theboy. I never took any defensive driving course and my driving is perfectly fine. :)

 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #115 on: 21/03/2009 11:32:22 »
I have no idea how I managed to get that there.
I've forgotten.
Darn it, I knew I shouldn't have gone to that place.
 

Offline theboy

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #116 on: 21/03/2009 12:43:16 »
im sorry you have not passed this time sir
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #117 on: 21/03/2009 12:47:20 »
Oh I passed, I just don't know how to drive. :)





....or how to park my car.


 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
driving lessons /survey
« Reply #118 on: 21/03/2009 17:26:26 »
What is wrong parking that way. Women drivers do it all the time while on their cell phones.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

driving lessons /survey
« Reply #118 on: 21/03/2009 17:26:26 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums