Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: ukmicky on 26/11/2005 16:13:38
-
Are driving lessons a big con designed just to make money out of those wishing to take there test.
When I passed my test just over 20 years ago according to my instructer at the time,they reckoned it took on average 10hours of tuition to pass your driving test. It took me eight hours, eight driving lessons to reach the required level before I passed my test and that was with the cost of each lesson at £7.50 an hour if I remember correctly. And most of my friends who I asked who took there tests 10 or more years ago on average passed there tests after around ten hours of tuition.
My daughter is currently learning to drive and these days they reckon on average it takes about 35 hours for average 18/19 year old at £24 UK pounds an hour before they reach the required standard.
Why the difference?
It’s almost the same test with just one extra reversing manoeuvre, almost the same standard of driving required, but why the extra 25 hours of tuition and now at 24 pounds an hour. It’s a lot of money.
It’s a big con if you ask me.
How many hours of tuition did it take you before you were allowed to take your test and then pass(hopefully) and what year did you take it in.
Is there much diference in other countries
Michael (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Frofl.gif&hash=481319b762ee9d57cda15e90d2e83ee6)
-
It was a long time ago but I'm pretty sure it was only 6-8 lessons.
Just as an extra to this thread, none of my friends when I was younger took more than 2 attempts to pass their test & most passed 1st time. Not only do people seem to take a lot more lessons these days, but the pass rate is much lower. People that I know who have taken their tests in the last 10 years or so have taken 2,3 or 4 attempts to pass. None of them has passed 1st time although I don't think their driving is any worse than people I knew when I was younger.
-
Best drivers past second time !!!
Hmmm...yep..mefinx it was about 9 or 10 lessons...with perhaps a couple thrown in for good measure prior to my second test.
At the time, I would have like to have taken one of those intensive week things !
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !! (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-of-smilies.com%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fugly%2Fugly_bums.gif&hash=e21c0210a2673ae990b27e26bb7f6440)
-
Seriously - there was a driving school where I used to live called the Impact School of Motoring and their sign advertised "crash courses available"
-
It just seems to me that it all a big money making scam, either that or the standard of driving instructors these days has taken a nosedive. There’s no reason why it should take 25 extra hour of tuition these days compared to when I learnt because the test has hardly changed.
P's
doc
I remember impact school of motoring, when i used to live near wembley ,
Michael (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Frofl.gif&hash=481319b762ee9d57cda15e90d2e83ee6)
-
Michael - I used to live in Harrow. That's where I saw it
-
i just passed my test last year (20 lessons £36 pound a pop) but althought he practical may not be hugely diffrent we now have a theory test and a hazard awareness my instructor used part of my lessons to prepare me for these aswell with homework and cdroms i passed quite quickly in 3 months on my second attempt but firmly belive i should have passed on the first the only reason i didnt was slow takeoff from roadside which could have slowed other driver (road was deserted but whatever) the test may be the same but the rules are alot tighter. also did you know that if you pass your test now your only allowed three point in the first two years get four and your banned for six months and have to retake all your tests
Giggidy Giggidy Goo
The philosopher Q man
-
quote:
also did you know that if you pass your test now your only allowed three point in the first two years get four and your banned for six months and have to retake all your tests
I most certainly did not realise that
-
doc Its a small world, as they say[:)]
Michael (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Frofl.gif&hash=481319b762ee9d57cda15e90d2e83ee6)
-
Apparently driving test duded have to fail a certain percentage of drivers a week! I don't know if it is true but that is what I was told. So you are probably best taking a test on the monday.
Also I think sharkeyandgeorge.... you got ripped off. My sister's lessons are £16 and so are everyone elses I know. MEh
I will pass 1st time withought any lessons *cough cough* Althuogh they may be putting it up to 18 to take your test. And you may have to have 40 lessons is what they are trying to do.
----------------------
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Check it out. Click on the forums
-
I just took my first attempt at the practical test, and failed! Everybody I've spoken to (including my instructor) tell me that the test is being made stricter every year. Although what is being tested is the same, you could fail today for something that in earlier years would only have raised an eyebrow. I failed because I touched the kerb in the reverse-into-side-road maneouvre, no mistakes allowed there. My driving otherwise was as good as could be (just got 2 minor faults) However, I was also warned that at one place, when I moved off from a stationary position, there was a car behind that had to slow down when it caught up with me. Never mind the fact that I reached the maximum speed limit for the road (30mph) before the guy caught up, and that he was doing 50mph and had to slow down to 30mph. I'm supposed to watch out for other people's mistakes and the responsibility of ensuring that an accident doesn't happen lies with me (irrespective of whether the other party is drunk, on drugs, going at twice the speed limit or just being a jerk!.
One mistake is enough today to fail, and the mistakes I'm talking about here are things that almost ALL seasoned drivers who hold a licence probably commit several times a day. They have made it difficult for new drivers to get a licence, in order to compensate for the plenty of bad drivers that have managed to get a licence in the last 20-30 years. I read a report that stated that 90% of licensed drivers (who got their licence before theory test was introduced) failed to clear the theory test without studying (although you would expect them to pass without studying, by virtue of their experience of driving). The report also said that based on observation of driving skills, 50% of the licensed drivers would 'DEFINITELY' fail the test if they were to take it today. I've found that most drivers do not adhere to the rule of 'Should not cross the arms on the steering' while turning, yet if you do it 2-3 times in the test today, you fail!
So many people touch the kerb to get an idea of how far the wheel of the car is, yet if you do it once today in the test, you fail! If you wait too long at a roundabout, you fail for hesitation, if you squeeze in between two cars, you fail for aggression. You have to get it JUST RIGHT, the only problem is that the definition of JUST RIGHT depends on the tester, and that varies with the personality of an individual.
There is no choice however, I will have to spend the £1000 pounds and the 6-8 months to get a licence, sometimes I even think if it's worth it if, like me, one plans to drive in the UK only for a few years before returning to one's native country (bear in mind that I already have a licence for my native country).
-
Hi pal. cheers for the reply,
There's still not much difference going by what you've written, it basically the same test and you fail for the same reasons now as you would have when i took my test 22 years ago.
I still reckon its a big money making scam designed so the instructors and schools can make as much money out of the pupils as possible.
Take my daughters instructor for instance, according to him it takes between 40 to 50 lessons before somebody is ready for the test. That's 30 to 40 more lessons than it took when i passed.
My daughters instructor wouldn't even allow her drive away from the house or back again until she had completed 8 hours of tuition and during that time she was restricted to the same side roads. When i learnt to drive it was straight on to the main roads and i drove away from my house and back again on every occasion. OK the main roads may be a bit busier now, however hammersmith roundabout was just as busy then as it is now.
As for the theory, i've failed the theory test every time ive put the practice test cd in my computer ,but since i passed there have been lots of new signs and regulations brought in.
You also pick up bad habits after you pass your test and for a newly qualified driver things like crossing yours hands could be deadly , however my driving ability and hazard perception has improved so much since i passed my test that most of them arn't dangerous for me to use and in general are only used when its safe to do so.[:)]
Maybe it would be better and cheaper for you and my daughter to take your tests in another country in the EU. I wonder how hard it is in france for instance.
ps Good luck with your next test
Michael (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Fwallbash.gif&hash=7fbfae96ee4eb666ba3ec22832e5a81f)
-
small point but crossing your arms is not a failable fault i do it all the time and did it on my test ( ive got a small driving arc due to excellent power steering ) indeed inspectors are not allowed to fail you for this however the problem with crossing your arms is many people dont do it properly take it to far round and as soon as you do you verge into diminished control where you are not in a position to immediatly respond to changes on the road that definatly is a fail
"I realised i was sitting on a thousand tons of fuel in a rocket built by the lowest bidder"
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
I still reckon its a big money making scam designed so the instructors and schools can make as much money out of the pupils as possible.
Take my daughters instructor for instance, according to him it takes between 40 to 50 lessons before somebody is ready for the test. That's 30 to 40 more lessons than it took when i passed.
Maybe, partly, but I think the main reason is that the safety culture has changed over the last twenty years. Motoring is now just about the most dangerous thing people are required to do. About 40,000 deaths across Europe last year and forty times that many with significant injuries. God knows how many accidents in all that equates to but it must be several millions.
Clearly many drivers are not really competent but the economy depends on them getting behind the wheel anyway! Sooner or later they will automate the whole thing (Giove A launched today!) but until then all they can do is improve the training.
Cars have been made easier to drive and protection in case of an accident have been improved but really the only way to bring the process into line with modern expectations is either to improve the quality of driving or automate it.
-
Learning to drive and driving tests etc are a big scam! My driving instructor told me that most are scam artists. I passed my test 3 1/2 years ago after 6 lessons at £10 a lesson. I got 100% on my theory test and taught myself the theory element with a good road sign book and a practice question book to get used to the types of questions asked.
Driving assessors do not have to fail a certain number each year, there is no quota. But some are complete w@nkers who are miserable b@stards and will fail you for even looking odd.
My friend failed because a car pulled out in front of him and he had to do an emergency stop (I know because I was in the back for moral support!) Never mind the fact that He spotted the other car and performed a correct emergency stop and avoided the car completely. The examiner failed him for observation. Not his fault the prik pulled out in front of him and obviously his observation was good or He wouldn't have seen it to avoid it!
The average number of lessons now is 60 at an average cost of £20 a lesson (phoned my instructor and asked him who by the way is still charging only £10 a lesson and averages 15 lessons to get students through their test. Every one of his students has passed first time!)
I now have to sit categories C1 and D1 to drive my new ambulances at a cost of £4000 and 80 hours this is a fu*king con because my mate doesn't have to do it as He passed his test in 1997. So it is OK for him to drive a 7.5 tonne vehicle with no training but I can't drive a 4 tonne vehicle and I am an advanced Police trained blue light user.
Along with the rising cost of running a car, it is simply the Government's way of reducing car usage. Don't believe me? Ask them how much they make each year from congestion charging!
I was glad I would never have to take another driving test ever again but ho hum I have 2 in February for my Cat C1 and D1 AND I can't even tow a caravan yet some crusty old fart who can't even see beyond his bonnet can!!!
Live long and Love life
Kevin Fisher
-
How old do you have to be in the UK to take a drivers test? Are you required to take driving lessons?
-
Hi Carolyn....Certainly not required to take lessons but it is of course adviseable. 17 is the age when you can drive on the road legally.
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
Thanks Neil. Here in USA you get a learners permit (must drive with an adult 21 years or older in front seat for one year) at 15 after passing a written test. At 16, if you pass the actual road test, you get a real drivers license. This could actually be part of my insomnia problem, as I have a 17 year old that stays on the road constantly.
Carolyn
-
15 !!!.....WOW...even accompanied by an adult !!..and 16 when you pass the test !!...cripes !!...
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
''Never in the history of driving instruction has so much bovine scatology been uttered by so many about so few''
Says Sir Winston Churchill, looking down from the heavens.
-
going by a lot of the driving I see out there where some people do not even posses the control skills to be able to keep to a 30mph speed limit for example, or the ability to understand how talking on a mobile while driving can kill somebody and whats this latest craze, to drive with the fog lights on illegaly in non fog. I believe some people when they say they have only had a handful of lessons, it really does show.
Who would put thier son/daughter on the road today with only 6 hours behind the wheel. Certainly not the driving test examiner.
-
I agree - driving laws in US are much to relaxed. Although my daughter was allowed to have a license @16, we didn't allow her to have any passengers for the first year.
-
And you consider yourself professsional UK Micky? With the attitude you have for your childs' learning experience I would not be surprised if you are having some "social" problems!
The driving test and methods of learning to drive have changed quite markedly, especially since 1995. Prior to then almost anyone could have passed the driving test due to one thing alone - the system of marking of faults. Back then you could commit as many (minor) driver errors as you liked and would not fail, however, nowadays if you commit the same fault 3 times that can and almost always does become a serious fault. 1 serious or dangerous fault means fail!!!
Think back honestly and ask yourself if you notice anything different about driving when you passed your test to driving now?
I passed my test around the same time as you about 22 years ago. I know for a fact that if I drove on a driving test with those same standards I passed with back then that I would now fail the test quite drastically - and deservedly so.
Take a look at CRASH statistics and make your own mind up as to whether or not a tougher testing and training regime was required.
As for your comparison to the price of driving lessons, I almost laughed out loud at your incredibly stupid comment...think how much a new car cost to purchase, insure, fuel costs etc etc...the list goes on. Have you asked your own insurance company how much it would be for your learner driver daughter to be added to your insurance or better still ask how much it would cost if she had her own car...then faint!!!
Driving instructors are a very easy target to take a pop at, it is all to easy to make inaccurate comparisons with when we learned to drive to todays roads and standards required to pass. As for price, I reckon if instructors charged more like £50 an hour it would reflect their profession and the increased cost of living more accurately and this would be much fairer.
I would not want my sons on the road alone with 6 - 10 hours of training not when I have to drive to and from work and see all the other idiots who subscribe to your way of thinking driving on the roads today...take some responsibility man for your kids and get your daughter properly prepared for the test.
Incidently, after reading your mince, I took a look at http://www.dsa.gov.uk you should take a look at the DL25 that is the examiners marking sheet, thank goodness I don't have to take a test again now. The DSA is the Driving Standards Agency, a government body and part of the Dept for Transport, the website makes interesting reading.
Finally, you should take a look at the European parliament too, legislation is being passed right now which means that all drivers will be re-assessed every 5 years, hoorah, it might just keep idiots like you off our roads and they might just become a safer place again.
Stay safe out there.
The Chief.
-
Chief
Thank you for your input, i think .
And After i have pick myself up off the floor and composed myself, which i hope will allow me to reply in a non aggressive manner i shall respond.
[:0][:(!]
But I would like to say before I get down to responding to your attack , that after reading your reply in full , if your standard of driving is anything like the manner of your reply then I wouldn’t like to be a passenger in you car or a victim of your road rage.
Michael HAPPY NEW YEAR (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Fparty-smiley-012.gif&hash=844994fd61764508c533537d6874634d)
-
So much to reply too, but so little interest in doing so due to the manner of your response.
quote:
And you consider yourself professional UK Micky?
Am I a professional driver, yes I suppose I am as I drive for a living, I also hold a hgv class 1 licence which I don’t use as I don’t enjoy driving large vehicles anymore.
_____________________________________________________________
quote:
With the attitude you have for your childs' learning experience I would not be surprised if you are having some "social" problems!
Got me their, but only because I feel my response would be inappropriate for posting on this forum.
But after reading your reply, I feel if you feel I have social problems then maybe my thoughts on your mental instability could also be just.
________________________________________________________________
quote:
The driving test and methods of learning to drive have changed quite markedly, especially since 1995. Prior to then almost anyone could have passed the driving test due to one thing alone - the system of marking of faults. Back then you could commit as many (minor) driver errors as you liked and would not fail, however, nowadays if you commit the same fault 3 times that can and almost always does become a serious fault. 1 serious or dangerous fault means fail!!!
Think back honestly and ask yourself if you notice anything different about driving when you passed your test to driving now?
I passed my test around the same time as you about 22 years ago. I know for a fact that if I drove on a driving test with those same standards I passed with back then that I would now fail the test quite drastically - and deservedly so.
____________________________________________________________
The standards in my day were quite tough even though I don’t seem to remember them as easy as you seem to. However even twenty years ago lots of people failed their first tests, so the test wasn’t that easy. I failed my first for being too cautious.
Anyway my post started with the line “Are driving lessons a big con” Not, driving lessons ARE a big con.
_____________________________________________________________
quote:
As for your comparison to the price of driving lessons, I almost laughed out loud at your incredibly stupid comment...think how much a new car cost to purchase, insure, fuel costs etc etc...the list goes on.
Maybe It would be laughable if it didn’t cost 17 year olds £1500 to pass their tests and more if they are unlucky enough to fail the first time.
New car, Are you mad.. (don’t answer that I already know the answer ) What 17 year old buys a new car when they have just passed their test, they use mums or dads.
quote:
Have you asked your own insurance company how much it would be for your learner driver daughter to be added to your insurance or better still ask how much it would cost if she had her own car...then faint!!!
I did Admiral charged me £200 pounds which is quite reasonable
quote:
Driving instructors are a very easy target to take a pop at, it is all to easy to make inaccurate comparisons with when we learned to drive to today’s roads and standards required to pass. As for price, I reckon if instructors charged more like £50 an hour it would reflect their profession and the increased cost of living more accurately and this would be much fairer.
So that’s £400 for my daughter and her instructor to go round in circle’s for her first 8 lessons does that sound reasonable to you
reprint from earlier
“My daughter’s instructor wouldn't even allow her drive away from the house or back again until she had completed 8 hours of tuition and during that time she was restricted to the same side roads. When i learnt to drive it was straight on to the main roads and i drove away from my house and back again on every occasion. OK the main roads may be a bit busier now, however Hammersmith roundabout was just as busy then as it is now.”
____________________________________________
quote:
I would not want my sons on the road alone with 6 - 10 hours of training not when I have to drive to and from work and see all the other idiots who subscribe to your way of thinking driving on the roads today...take some responsibility man for your kids and get your daughter properly prepared for the test.
I wouldn’t like my daughter on the road on her own after 6 to 10 hours of driving tuition either. I'm not be happy for my daughter to even drive down the road with her instructor next to her, however I have to be sensible and allow her to lead her own life ,so I would be ok if she was to pass her test after 20 or so lessons because my daughter is a very sensible, level headed and highly intelligent person,and I know numerous people who have passed their tests at around the twenty hour mark who are able and competent drivers
quote:
Incidentally, after reading your mince, I took a look at http://www.dsa.gov.uk you should take a look at the DL25 that is the examiners marking sheet, thank goodness I don't have to take a test again now. The DSA is the Driving Standards Agency, a government body and part of the Dept for Transport, the website makes interesting reading.
After reading your mince, (doesn't seem appropriate as I quite like mince)i shall do the same and at the same time i will see if they have a comparable sheet from 20 years ago
quote:
Finally, you should take a look at the European parliament too, legislation is being passed right now which means that all drivers will be re-assessed every 5 years, hoorah, it might just keep idiots like you off our roads and they might just become a safer place again.
More legislation, more crap from Brussels, more ways to control us and make us poorer
quote:
Stay safe out there.
You too
[:)]
PS We have just changed my daughters driving instructor to someone who was recommended to us through a number of sources and as it turns out also happens to be a friend of my wife's.(women) she charges ten pound less than bsm, whom she once worked for, and on average her pupils pass after 25 hours half the time that bsm like to take before they put their pupils through.
-
Well said Michael. Couldn't agree more.
Carolyn
-
quote:
Are driving lessons a big con designed just to make money out of those wishing to take there test.
No
quote:
When I passed my test just over 20 years ago.... It took me eight hours, eight driving lessons to reach the required level before I passed my test.... most of my friends who I asked who took there tests 10 or more years ago on average passed there tests after around ten hours of tuition.
Ahh! The mythical 10 hour average to pass. That old-chestnut was doing the rounds in the sixties. I blame free-love and psychodelia myself.
quote:
My daughter is currently learning to drive and these days they reckon on average it takes about 35 hours for average 18/19 year old at £24 UK pounds an hour before they reach the required standard.
The "they" you refer to is the Government. Their recommendation is, that on average each learner driver needs a minimum of 2 hours professional tuition per year of their age, plus as much private practice as they can get. You'll find that is the Governments recommended average; whatever the lesson price.
quote:
Why the difference?
It’s almost the same test with just one extra reversing manoeuvre, almost the same standard of driving required...
Almost the same as is not the same as - the same as. The driving test today is tougher than it was just five years ago let alone over twenty years ago.
quote:
...but why the extra 25 hours of tuition and now at 24 pounds an hour. It’s a lot of money. It’s a big con if you ask me.
£600 for a life skill. Sounds like a genuine e-bay bargain to me. If £600 is too high, then what is the value of a daughters' life nowadays? £192?
quote:
How many hours of tuition did it take you before you were allowed to take your test and then pass(hopefully) and what year did you take it in.
1st time pass after 26 lessons in 1981. But they were quoting 1.5 lessons per year of age in those days. I guess I'm just your average Mrs. Average. [:D]
quote:
Is there much diference in other countries
More than you can shake a stick at.
Swimming in a sea of sh1t? Keep ya gob shut then!
-
Wake up UKMicky, you are talking crap. "TEN HOURS" I bet if you told the truth you would agree that you had the basic skills in clutch control and had been driving around before you went for any driving lessons.
To make statements about how much lessons are being a con is a bit stupid, think about the cost of a vehicle, Depreciation, insurance, ADI registration fees, fuel, servicing, admin, phone, office costs, etc, it all adds up to an expensive time. Then of course the Instructor needs to be paid a reasonable wage. How much do you get an hour? after all the outgoing costs I bet the Driving Instuctor is way behind you in the list of earners.
The test now is vastly diferrent to the one you sat, Theory, Hazard Perception, Reverse Park into Bay, Reverse Park into a space between vehicles, a drive at Nationl Speed limit in Rural areas all add up to a test that takes longer than it did 20 years ago.
I suspect you are one of those idiot drivers who never uses indicators, waffles on the phone constantly, and stiks one finger up if any body has a dig at you.
Grumpy
-
Hi Grumpy. Your certainly not Bashful with your words are you, It seems I've hit a few raw nerve's.(i wonder why)[:)]
Maybe your friend the Doc should give you something to make you Happy again ,but be careful if you drive though because medication can on occasions make you Sleepy or Dopey, you don't want to crash your car do you . but you could always tell the policeman that you didnt see the lamppost due to you being a bit Sneezy at the time. [:D]
I had 8 lessons before i took my first driving test which i failed, a couple of weeks later i retook my test and passed after having short lesson on the way to the test centre. My wife also passed i think around ten years ago after 15 lessons.
The very first time i sat in a driving seat of a car with the engine on was on the day of my first lesson. My only other experience before that with a clutch was when my friend let me have a go on his 250 cc motorbike, i gave it to much accelerator let the clutch off to quick and ended up on the floor with the bike on top of me. I didnt try again.
My standard of driving since i passed my test is more than likely better than yours.
I have never had even a single point on my licence in all my years of driving . i'm not saying i always stick to the laws of the road (who does) however on the occasions when i have flouted the law(like the occasional speeding) i make sure it is safe to do so.
PS say hello to snow white for me, I bet you must be DRIVING her round the bend by now.[:D]
Michael HAPPY NEW YEAR (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Fparty-smiley-012.gif&hash=844994fd61764508c533537d6874634d)
-
Mmmm sounds like your a real cocky MetalMicky, I also hold LGV1, PCV1 Track Lic and class myself as a reasonable driver. You seem to live in the land of dreams. I see you do not respond to costs, perhaps you have realised that it is costly to drive. If you are so good my sugestion to you is, teach your Daughter yourself. Just think of all the savings, and you could do it all on a Saturday and she could take her test on the Monday.
Best of luck and watch the paintwork "Not on the car" on your shiny ego.
-
My Dear Friend Micky[:o)],
To quote you below and reply.
It’s almost the same test with just one extra reversing manoeuvre[:I] - WRONG, the tests taken today are vastly different!
almost the same standard of driving required,[:(] - WRONG, a MUCH higher standard of driving must be displayed!!!
but why the extra 25 hours of tuition[:D] - At last, a sensible question, well done. Look at the learner driving syllabus, available from the DSA - that's the driving standards agency or visit the highway code online.
and now at 24 pounds an hour[:0] - Haven't you noticed how other prices have changed in the last 20 odd years? It's called inflation!!!
It’s a lot of money [B)]- How much is a daughter worth these days???
It’s a big con if you ask me - The only con here is the con that you are perpetuating regards learning to drive!!![|)]
With Respect,
The Chief.
-
Hello. The way I see it is like this.
Maybe there are too many driving instructors and not enough work, so in order to keep most of the instructors in work and the schools earning money the big schools increase the recommended number of driving lessons before a learner sits his or her test .
You could give a pupil 100 lessons and still legitimately say he or she is still in need of tuition because driving is a skill that you never stop learning. But once a driver gets to a certain level where they can competently drive and pass their test then there's no point in holding them back and they are better off sitting and passing their test so they can get on the road on their own, as they will probably learn more in them first two weeks of driving on their own than they would if they had an instructor sitting next to them for the next 20.
My daughter can get in my car with me or my wife beside her and drive sensibly and safely, and I would be happy for her to drive alone on her own now if she were to pass her test, and if she were to sit her test right now she could probably pass it and that's after only 20 lessons.
The only thing that could prevent her from passing first time would be her nerves on the day. There is no way she needs another 30 lessons and will within the next two weeks apply for her test on the advice of her present instructor.
The reason for this topic was to ask a few questions in order to see if my opinions were just or not, so if you disagree then that’s fine. As long as you don’t try to verbally assassinate me [:)]then I will listen to what you have to say. My opinion may be be wrong as far as you are concerned, but unfortunately for you I’m not the only person who thinks it . So if you wish to put the record straight according to you then please do so .I have no problems with that, but for safety's sake maybe I should remove my picture from my profile, I can imagine 100s of irate driving instructors driving around with my picture pasted to there dashboards preying for the day when they see me in their rear view mirror [:D]
Michael HAPPY NEW YEAR (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Fparty-smiley-012.gif&hash=844994fd61764508c533537d6874634d)
-
It is a rip off in Germany too if you ask me. I did my driving licence in Germany last year and paid 24 Euros per lesson (45 min). I had to do over 35 hours and I had to pay as well around 200 Euros for my book and for the exams!
I guess they are digging out money from everywhere!
In Greece though my friends said that they paid max 15 Euros per lesson and they did up to 15-20 lessons. Also the exam fees were lower.
-
quote:
Originally posted by sdella
It is a rip off in Germany too if you ask me. I did my driving licence in Germany last year and paid 24 Euros per lesson (45 min). I had to do over 35 hours and I had to pay as well around 200 Euros for my book and for the exams!
I guess they are digging out money from everywhere!
In Greece though my friends said that they paid max 15 Euros per lesson and they did up to 15-20 lessons. Also the exam fees were lower.
Furthermore I disagree with all those people who tell you "how much your daughter worths now". They could do a more effective, less expensive work/service that meets the needs of the new drivers that are learners. How much your daughter worths now it depends on her and how she is applying the skills that she learnt. The same applies to all of us. Wanna be a careful driver? Then it is up to us to try to be that! I also believe as a fairly new driver that I learn every time I am on the road...so it will continue for the rest of my life I guess.
-
Hello Micky,
Firstly, I did not verbally assassinate you, I do however, have a very strong disagreement with your opinion about learning to drive, if I have upset or distressed you with any of my humour intended comments I unreservedly apologise, I do not apologise for disagreeing with you!
Now, this debate is getting more interesting, I do not think any driving instructor would give you a second thought so I think you may be safe there but then again...you never know when a learner driver might miss the brake pedal and press the accellerator instead!!!
Quote:
Maybe there are too many driving instructors and not enough work, so in order to keep most of the instructors in work and the schools earning money the big schools increase the recommended number of driving lessons before a learner sits his or her test.
Reply:
The Register of Approved Driving Instructors has hardly changed through the years until recently, see DSA quote below:
In recent years approximately 2,500 new ADIs qualify each year, with some 4,000 leaving the Register in each of the past two years. The great majority of these leave of their own accord; around 500 pa are removed for failing to attend a periodical Check Test of their continued ability and fitness to give instruction or for unsatisfactory performance or conduct.
Department for Transport.
Quote:
You could give a pupil 100 lessons and still legitimately say he or she is still in need of tuition because driving is a skill that you never stop learning.
Reply:
Driving is a skill you never stop learning, I agree totally, learner drivers however, do need to acheive a level of ability in order to effectively deal with all car control skills, road and traffic proceedures and all other road users in order to confidently acheive a test pass, no driving instructor who is good at the job will ever present a pupil for test who is not ready and I only wish more of them would do the same. I feel sorry for the instructor who has to succumb to the pressure of over bearing parents against thier better judgement.
I hope you understand the basis of my argument here and I suppose I should inform you that I am with the Traffic Dept of the Police currently serving and I regularly see the results of poor driving standards where over 99% of crashes are caused by driver error.
Have fun on those roads now - but remember the blue light might just be keeping an eye out for you!!![:D]
Regards,
The Chief
-
Hello UKMicky, at last we see reason behind what you have been saying. Of course a person who is at the correct standard should apply for the Driving Test, but you must remember that on "Average" that could mean 40 + hrs with private practice. I am glad to hear that you feel safe with your Daughter and wish her all the best for her Test. If she feels that the nerves will spoil her chances then try "The Bach Flower Rescue Remedy" it works a treat and I have used at many interviews that I have attended.
I would not say there were to many DIs out teaching, just that some have some very bad standards. They are caught out in the end but it takes time.
It may interest you to know that Instructors are Graded 1-6 check testing takes place about every 4 years and if an Instructor is not up to the standard they are removed from the Register. They are of course given the opportunity to improve.
Anyway, end of subject for me. I have aired my views and received some iteresting and comical replys.
My thought now is "Are Resturants charging fair prices for the food they supply"
From The Grumpiest Man in Town
-
I passed first time, and doing a three point turn whilst creating the Cosmos is no easy task.
I am GOD..You are Not..I don't exist !!
-
It took me a couple of years four tries many moons ago when i was about 21. I had driven about 4000 miles in my own car by dragging friends to sit with me by the time I passed. Mind you like my wife says, I am a bit spastic. [:)] My son booked his test and a set of lessons and passed first time in a week the moment he was 17 but he always was a natural ever since I put him on the little battery dogems at Bridlington when he was about 18 months old!
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
quote:
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY THE CHIEF
I hope you understand the basis of my argument here and I suppose I should inform you that I am with the Traffic Dept of the Police
Just my luck i get the Chief and not the Constable. And I may as well forget about robbing the Tate [:)]
Michael HAPPY NEW YEAR (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa186%2Fukmicky%2Fparty-smiley-012.gif&hash=844994fd61764508c533537d6874634d)
-
ukmicky said:
quote:
...in order to see if my opinions were just or not...
My dad once said: "A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man avoids the facts and forms opinions”
Some of my personal favourites are,
da Vinci: "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.”
JFK: "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
Arnold H. Glasgow: "The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.”
So before you share your "opinion" with us again, gather the facts necessary to keep a balanced view.
As Plato said: "Knowledge is true opinion.”
Safe driving and a Happy New Year [:o)]
Swimming in a sea of sh1t? Keep ya gob shut then!
-
I passed my test the second time. Whilst I can see .z and grumpy and the chiefs point of view I have to say that Ukmicky makes some good points too. Can you all be right and wrong together ?
I can't think of a signature.
-
It is a farce. They don't teach you to drive either; they teach you to pass a test and then you can learn how to drive properly.
25 lessons gone, nearly ready for test.
Big Tim
-
quote:
Originally posted by bigtim
It is a farce. They don't teach you to drive either; they teach you to pass a test and then you can learn how to drive properly.
25 lessons gone, nearly ready for test.
Big Tim
Hi Tim,
If you really feel that your driving instructor is not actually teaching you to drive then it is high time you moved to another instructor. I can never understand why anyone would put up with substandard training or substandard workmanship in any sphere.
Tim, why do you feel that you are just being taught to pass a test?
Why do feel you are not being taught to drive?
How the h3ll do you expect to "learn" to drive after passing the test?
The consequences of trial and error can be fatal - I know, I have attended far too many RTA's to be passive on this subject. I am a traffic officer in the police force just in case you didn't read any of my other postings. My advice to you is simple - if you cannot drive competently, safely, under control and without any help from your instructor or supervising driver then you should not take the test because quite clearly you ain't ready for it yet.
I would advise you that by reading your post I think your problems are more down to your attitude though.
Let me wish you the very best of luck however for your big day and remember there are 40,000 driving instructors out there...go get a good one.
The Chief
-
So The Chief - have you ever felt compelled to drive at 158 mph to "familiarise" yourself with your car ?
Just curious...
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
quote:
Originally posted by chris
So The Chief - have you ever felt compelled to drive at 158 mph to "familiarise" yourself with your car ?
Just curious...
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
Good comment Chris....I was referring to the same point in another thread...was my doing 42 in a 40 zone on the M25 at 3am on a clear road, for which I received three points...more dangerous than testing a car at 159mph ?
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
After reading the comments on the price of lessons and the usual fairy tales about driving skills I think they deserve a reply.
First of all, I have 25 years experience as a professional instructor, I charge one of the cheapest prices in my area and have more work than I can cope with! 85-90% of my work at any time comes from reccommendations and the rest through the internet etc. My students currently range from 17 to 70 years old, I also have three students with learning difficulties including one student with slight Downes Symdrome, so I cater for a large cross section of the community.
To be fair, some points raised are possibly genuine. For instance, there are indeed some instructors who will 'stretch out'the lessons to get extra money from the students but these are thankfully, in a minority.
The first advice I would offer is to do your homework and select an instructor who has been reccommended to you or has a good reputation. Price is no reflection of teaching ability, yet one of the first questions I am asked by potential customers who do not know me is "How much do you charge". Parents, understandably, who usually have to pay for the lessons of a 17 year old, have to watch how much they spend but, one can't put a price on an offsprings' life. So the answer is to get an instructor who is known for good quality instruction at a reasonable price.
It is fair to say that those young students who because of family circumstances, have to pay for their own lessons, usually absorb the required training far quicker than those who have their training paid for them! So maybe there is a lesson to be learned by this!
Most of the best instructors are independents' - they don't work for national companies - they rely upon their tuition skills rather than hiding behind a banner or franchise! Large national companies are more hit and miss in tuition quality too..there are some good instructors and there are some poor ones employed. They also use 'trainee' instructors on many occasions. I have seen some horrendous work done by trainee instructors, but this again is down to their supervisors or lack of training or supervision.
I never teach a pupil to just pass a test, but unfortunately, there are some students who will only just ever reach the test standard - they will always be potential accident causers or victims. This is due to every parent wanting their offspring to have a full driving licence.
Many parents however( though thankfully not all) don't really want their children to be taught to drive correctly, they want them to get passed their test as quickly as possible to save money so these parents can't place all the blame on instructors who do just teach to pass a test! This is probably the single most common pressure I face, but I will not compromise my training quality to meet the needs of greedy parents and will encourage them to take tuition with instructors who are more concerned about money than training quality!
From everyday observations in driver behaviour, I estimate that at least 30% of all drivers on our roads are just not mentally stable enough to hold a full licence. I wouldn't give these a television licence, let alone a driving licence.
Another 30% are very mediocre and only just get by, another 30% are slow 'one speed fits all' drivers and my estimation is that less than 10% of all drivers on our roads, really understand driving to a professional level.
Age is no indicator of driving ability - I have taken many 17 year old students for test who would leave many drivers of 50 years experience behind both in anticipation and road skill/handling. Very few of my young students ever become 'Boy Racers' because I talk to them and knock any wilder tendencies out of them. Instead I channel their abilities into responsible skills and where possible, teach them how to handle a car skillfully at higher speeds as well as sensibly in urban areas.
As for the number of lessons required to reach a competent standard to pass a test and much more, unaccompanied:
Each student has their own individual ability to absorb information. I sometimes have to tell students not to do things litterally many hundreds of times, yet they still do them wrong. On the other hand other students respond after telling them only once or twice, so there can never be a set amount of lessons for all students. I usually take between 16 - 32 hours to teach average students who don't or have very little access to driving any other vehicle than my tuition vehicle. That is between 2 and 4 working days tuition!! Not alot really!
I also offer intensive training ( 2 - 6 weeks) but will never take on a student for intensive training until I have assessed their suitability. Some students are just NOT suitable for intensive training and it would waste their money and time by trying to cram in lessons when they cannot absorb the training in the set time! I would advise any prospective student or parent arranging this form of driving tuition for their children to avoid any driving school which does not assess the driver first before accepting them for intensive training. It's like trying to choose unseen clothes or wallpaper over the telephone! It's just not possible to judge a person's ability without seeing them drive first! Also, some students may have previous driving experience and not need to spend money on a full course!
Taking an intensive course does not guarantee passing a driving test!
With regard to some of the comments on this topic. If I was allowing my children to learn to drive now I would want them to have the best tuition possible!!! I wouldn't be bothered about cost as long as it was justified. Surely a childs' life is more important than money! I know personally of one family who lost their child because of cutting lesson costs. I said their son wasn't ready to drive unaccompanied, so the parents applied for test themselves and he took it in the family car and managed to pass! Three months later he was tagically killed exactly due to the faults I said he had! So parents who whinge about costs should think again! The parents I mentioned have a lifetime to regret their eagerness to get their son passed his test! The worst part is that they could easily afford it!!! It would only have taken a few lessons to sort out his problems, but my advice went unheeded.
Simply, if a student needs assistance while learning, then they are not ready for test! They should be able to drive completely unaided, without advice from an accompanying driver! The examiner won't help them!
I hear drivers say " If I took my test again, then I'd fail"...well my advice is take some refresher lessons!!! It's an indication that they are driving incorrectly! Poor driving in many instances can be put down to a lack of discipline. A good driver will always retain discipline and not be tempted to metaphorically and literally cut corners no matter what the situation. The problem is that most people only learn to drive for their own needs. Once they have passed their driving test they are rarely bothered about maintaining let alone improving their driving skills. Combining a lack of discipline and a know it all attitude is a great recipe for an accident!
Many drivers have seriously dangerous faults without noticing - such as following too closely to the vehicle in front! This causes more road rage and accidents than anything else that I've witnessed yet 80% of all motorists do this regularly. The next time you are travelling along at 40mph in good dry conditions check to see if you can read the number plate of the vehicle in front. If it's not on the edge of your vision limit, then you are most probably following too close! Following too closely to the vehicle in front for instance is counter productive...it means more braking, poor vision ahead particularly when wishing to overtake and increases your risk of an accident many fold by not seeing potential hazards ahead!
New drivers will emulate the behaviour of the other experienced drivers on our roads if not trained correctly! Judging by some of the comments regarding this thread and the avaerage driver, many new drivers won't have a chance!
Another question...when did you last look at the Highway Code? This is by far the best book you'll ever read if you follow it's advice!
Yes experience will get poor drivers out of trouble in many occasions but just look at the statistics! 20% of all accidents involve novice drivers ( which is understandable) but that leaves the other 80%. They are the most experienced drivers yet they have most of the accidents, so maybe they should stop bleating how good drivers they are and have a real look at their driving before they pass the same attitudes onto their offspring! There is no such thing as a perfect driver. We all make mistakes at some point but by second checking such as emerging at junctions or mirrors before overtaking, then many serious accidents/deaths could easily be avoided. The problem is that driver arrogance gets in the way of road safety!
To those parents who's kids are taking the Theory Test...do it yourself and see how you come on! If you only answer 30 out of 35 questions correctly ( the pass mark) then quite frankly you aren't very good! Would you have faith in your doctor if he had a 15% hole in his knowledge? I want to see drivers who know and follow the rules of the Highway Code on our roads! If everyone knew and followed the rules of the Highway Code, 99.99% of all accidents and road deaths could be avoided!
Most accidents are caused by drivers who think they are much better than they are! It's not speed that kills - it's arrogance. Most drivers have 100mph cars with 50mph Brains!
When legislation arrives requiring every driver to retake their driving test at regular intervals, the comments we can see on this and other message boards from know it all drivers will soon dry up and maybe we'll find our roads are far safer.
One group of drivers who really infuriate other drivers are those who insist on driving at one speed, no matter how good the conditions. I regularly see drivers ( usually elderly ) who will not exceed 40mph no matter how clear the road! I am not in favour of wholesale speeding, but if the road is subject to say a 60mph limit, and the conditions are suitable, then they should reach it to reduce congestion and reduce frustrated drivers overtaking unsafely! They usually say, " I've beed driving 50 years without an accident you know"...well if that's the best they can do after 50 years then they should surrender their licence! Also, I wonder just how many accidents are caused indirectly by these drivers! They are just another form of the know it all!
Finally if I haven't offended everyone and you have someone near to you who is learning to drive, they are welcome to visit my website www.cranswicksom.co.uk for a little helpful advice.
Regards...
Tony
-
Tony
Whilst I can't say I totally agree with everything you wrote, it is nice to get an opinion from a driving instructor, especially one with 25 years of experience. In the future if anybody were to ask my advice I feel I would nudge them more in the direction of an independent. Independents tend to be people with more than a few years of experience and get work mainly through their reputations and so in general will take more pride in their jobs and therefore will care more about what there letting lose on the roads.
I could be wrong but I reckon the big schools are where the newly qualified instructors tend to migrate where they become one of many, where individual reputation and experience is not such a big factor, and where someone of low ability can hide for a few years because with big companies people tend to trust the big name rather than look at the results and abilities of the people doing the tutoring.
Lastly May I thank you and everybody who have taken their time to reply so far, all of your responses are very much appreciated
Michael
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your comments: I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with everything I've written ( the idea is to make them think), I have simply put my views of the respectable side of driving tuition which unfortunately is tarnished by some driving school practices and misunderstood by many average drivers. A good instructor will not rip the student off, he or she is more bothered by reputation for quality tuition than just money alone! In driving instruction, the best asset is a good reputation and in my own instance, I do everything in my power to keep the students I am training safe on the roads for the rest of their lives and not just a 40 minute driving test!
I try and give every young student the same level of instruction I gave my kids when I taught them!
With regard to my other comments...All I can say is that if everyone drove as advised in the Highway Code, there would be very few accidents.
With regard to your enquiry regarding everyone re-taking their driving tests, I have no present information but I know it is being mooted in the corridors of European power but you can rest assured that it won't be introduced by a British government unless it's forced upon us by the EU.
I could never envisage a British government introducing such a law as it would mean sudden death for that government and it's about politics so they only introduce laws which will win votes. This is the problem with politics - probably most of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads could be avoided if re-testing were introduced but those who would make the laws would also have to take the test too or be subject to stricter motoring laws so it's a non starter as well as a vote loser!
Thanks again
Tony
-
quote:
Tony
When legislation arrives requiring every driver to retake their driving test at regular intervals, the comments we can see on this and other message boards from know it all drivers will soon dry up and maybe we'll find our roads are far safer.
Do you know where i can view information regarding this proposed law online over the web
---------------------------------------------
Michael
-
Hi Michael,
I have no present information but I know it is being mooted in the corridors of European power but you can rest assured that it won't be introduced by a British government unless it's forced upon us by the EU.
I could never envisage a British government introducing such a law as it would mean sudden death for that government and it's about politics so they only introduce laws which will win votes. This is the problem with politics - probably many of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads could be avoided if re-testing were introduced but those who would make the laws would also have to take the test too or be subject to stricter motoring laws so it's a non starter as well as a vote loser!
Thanks again
Tony
-
Tony.
SORRY i hadnt seen your reply.
I've been searching for information regarding this proposed law for a couple of months now and have gone through many many EU databases all to no avail. Like you i can't really see it becoming law as so many industries and people reley on their licences to earn a living. Thankyou for your replies.
Michael
-
Tony,
I can understand where you are coming from, but the problem is that you are a professional driver, and most of us aren't.
Should driving be constrained to those people who are professionals, who can afford to allocate the amount of time and resources that a professional would be expected to allocate to their profession?
Yes, it would certainly make driving safer, not least because it would remove 80% of the traffic off the roads.
Driving is inevitably a high risk gamble, where a lot of people gain a lot of benefit, but at a great risk to life and limb. It is uncomfortable to think about the real risks we all take when getting behind the wheel of a car, but would we really be willing to live in a society where 80% of us were prohibited from driving.
Ofcourse, this is exactly what does happen with regard to flying. Flying requires a very much higher level of proficiency, and most of the sloppiness that exists in driving a car would simply not be tolerated when flying a plane, but very few of us can afford to maintain a pilots licence.
Does society wish to take the level of driving skill common in car drivers to the same level as is required by pilots? In an ideal world, from a safety perspective, the answer is clearly, yes; but there would be heavy social costs involved in making that decision.
You ask if I would have faith in a doctor that had a 15% hole in his knowledge. I'm be very impressed with a doctor that knew 85% of all the medical knowledge available in the text books – I'd be surprised if you can find such a fellow. This is why doctors tend to either be in general practice, where their knowledge of each topic is limited, or tend to specialise, where they are expected to know their speciality well, but have huge gaps in other fields of specialisation.
What you have to recognise is that human beings have a limit to their abilities, and simply demanding a theoretical perfection in knowledge and skill does not make it happen. Most people are not professional drivers, and you would not expect that their competence in something they are not paid to do will equate to the competence they must retain in that which they are paid to do. There are just not enough hours in a day to be an expert in everything, and would you really want your doctor to be less good a doctor because he spent more of his time being a better driver, and had less time left to be a good doctor? You are a professional driver, so this conflict does not apply to you, but it does apply to the rest of humanity.
I am not trying to justify bad driving, but merely suggesting that if you expect that we will all busily be spending our waking hours being up to date on the high way code, and endlessly retraining and retesting ourselves in driving skills, then it will have to be time we have to take from the other bots of our lives, and will take its toll elsewhere. This dilemma not only applies to matters of driving, it also explains why most police officers are not experts in the law, and often get the law wrong (just look at the chaos regarding the Data Protection Act in the background to the Soham murders).
-
Hi George
You raise some good points but you are using the argument that we all have a right to drive. Unfortunately this is not neccessarily conducive to safe driving on our roads and given the statistics of accidents and deaths associated with driving, some restrictions will eventually become the norm once we have diverged from this line of thinking.
If we suppose that on an average day throughout the year there are 20 million drivers on our roads then every year statistically, approximately one driver in 100 will be involved in some form of road accident. One driver or road user in less than 8000 will be killed as a result of a road accident. Not all the deaths of non drivers ( pedestrians) are attributable to driver error - pedestrians are also often at fault too, but judging by the propaganda from the government. it's always the motorists' fault.
Again, this is political. If the government of the day actually prosecuted bad " pedestrianing " ( new word huh) then many deaths could be avoided, but again it would mean a vote loser so they won't implement laws which are actually already in force. The Americans call it ' Jaywalking'.
We all have duty of care to other road users when we either drive on or cross/walk on our roads, but when was the last time you heard of a pedestrian being prosecuted for crossing a road dangerously?
As motorists, we all face new restrictions every day in the form of traffic calming, speed restrictions etc. These restrictions are a direct result of the actions of a certain relatively small proportion of ill-disciplined motorists who just can't be trusted to drive within the rules set down in the Highway Code ( and plain old common sense). We all suffer because of these morons and surely that deflates the argument for everyone in our society being entitled to drive. With driving comes responsibility!
Life is cheap on our roads...if the government applied the same criteria to driving as it does on other controlled practices, then we would see a massive fall in the number of road users and associated road accidents but with social implications which would not be acceptable.
Every day without fail, I will, while teaching, probably have to use the dual controls up to 20 times to avoid accidents. NO not because of my students' behaviour, but because of other driver error or the actions of pedestrians, surely this is not acceptable? The government leaves it to the commercial sector to penalise the bad motorist in the form of higher insurance premiums instead of rooting out bad drivers and prosecuting careless pedestrians.
Referring to an earlier posting, I estimate that if we removed the 30% of drivers who in my opinion shouldn't have a driving licence then we would see a 95% drop in road accidents attributable to motorists - surely this would be a price worth paying for road safety!
I am not trying to form a driving ' Elite ' within society, I am just advocating safer motoring for everyone. I drive every day and I suffer from road frustration equally as much as the next motorist when it comes to bad driving but, I have sufficient self discipline to restrain myself in these situations and follow the rules no matter how tempting it may be to break them! I am certainly not a slow driver butI am simply aware of speed limits in urban areas and employ common sense on open de-restricted roads.
I have a science honours degree in Geology/Geophysics but it doesn't mean I am any better driver than any other equally aware motorist who doesn't have one GCSE. Driving is not so much academic - it is discipline, which unfortunately is lacking in many motorists but could be had by all if only the drivers would make the effort.
Many of us treat career advancement as the norm yet once the average motorist has passed their test, very few go on to improve their driving skills. Most motorists gravitate to a very basic and often selfish level of driving skill.
There are many laws governing drinking and driving, dangerous speeding and overtaking etc, yet every day thousands of drivers break these rules because they think they know better.
By implication not everyone is suited to driving much the same as not everyone is suited to being a brain surgeon or doctor tradesman etc.
Driving is simply an interaction between often many individuals primarily following a fixed set of rules for a given situation - the majority have the neccessary skills to follow these rules while others don't, therefore for the safety of the majority, it would be better if the minority were removed from the equation!
Social costs should not be considered when deciding whether or not to remove a persons right to drive. If an individual chooses to ignore laws which are there to keep everyone safe or is incapable of being trusted on our roads, then unfortunately it's their problem and NOT societies'!
If a driver can't drive within the rules of safety for 40 minutes on a re-test after holding a full licence for 10 years, then they should either go back to being a novice driver with appropriate re-training or even not be allowed to drive!
As a DOT ADI, I have to undergo continued ability to teach check tests. This is about every four years for me ( the longest allowed between checks), but depending on the grade of the instructor, it could be as little as every three to six months. Unlike many instructors, I welcome these as it keeps me up to date with modern training methods and thinking and I see it as a challenge. If the average motorist thought likewise about their own driving skills, we would see a much better attitude on our roads.
By introducing re-testing it will in part help to remind drivers just how important driving skills and rules are, but it will never completely eradicate lack of discipline or encourage a willingness to learn or improve. That comes from within. There will always be those drivers who once they have passed the re-test, will revert to the way they drove before, but it would generally make the vast majority of road users more aware and somewhat safer.
I certainly don't take the view that I as a professional driving instructor, preclude non professionals from ever reaching the same driving skill level as myself. On the contrary, anyone can reach it if they are willing to simply apply the same rules and techniques as I do when I am driving.
It shouldn't take any extra resouces or time spent driving to attain a higher level of driving skills - the practice is there every time one sets foot in a vehicle.
By simply applying the rules of the Highway Code each time one drives is enough to make everyone a good safe driver. Not alot to ask really!
There is nothing special about me or my driving, anyone can do it. The only thing is that maybe I have the extra ability to teach it too and hopefully pass on to my students the values I place on safe driving.
Tony
-
Hi Tony,
Firstly, I do not use the argument that we all have the right to drive. I don't use such an argument because I am very dubious about the notion of rights at all. I tend to concentrate upon utility and the desired objectives.
In the modern world, we have become ever more reliant upon the notion that the vast majority of the population have easy access to personal transport. I am not merely talking about the fact that we don't give people the time to walk everywhere, or the public transport system that would enable them to get to where they want with public transport, but simply be the ever greater centralisation of facilities, with the closure of local shops, local hospitals, or anything else that is close enough to be reached without access to private transport. Even the notion of a working wife and mother is substantially facilitated by time savings available by the use of private transport. Both government of commercial policies are geared towards a presumption of a driving population, and if we were to ban a significant proportion of the population from driving, we could only do this by reversing much of the trend in such policies.
We could look at disenfranchising another 30% of the population from so much of modern society as an acceptable price to pay; after all, we already have so much social exclusion of so many groups within our society, so you might argue that an extension of that social exclusion would scarcely be significant. The question I would ask, given the thousands of people killed as a consequence of bad driving each year, how many lives would be saved by such an increase in social exclusion, and how many more lives would be lost simply because those who are socially excluded would suffer fatalities through poverty and lack of access to basic services?
Yes, life on the roads is cheap; but death through social exclusion is also cheap.
We cannot look at driver disenfranchisement in isolation, without looking at the wider role of driving in a social context.
I don't disagree with your notion of public responsibility; but merely argue that in the present social context, the notion of taking measures that will either disenfranchise large portions of the population from the right (and I use the term in a particular social context, not in an absolute sense) to drive; or that will impose an additional layer of bureaucracy and cost upon that right (which will have the same effect), is simply not utilitarian in the current social context.
I do agree with your arguments about the responsibility of the non-driving road users (both cyclists and pedestrians), neither of which groups need any basic training before being allowed to use public roads, let alone having to be retested every 5 years, and there being no question of disenfranchising either of those groups if they fail a minimum level of proficiency.
The other factor that you have not mentioned is the responsibility of the governments of the day to facilitate safe driving. A classic example of politicians ducking responsibility in this matter is the public information program telling drivers that they should take a rest if they feel tired, but while doing so, the government made no facilities available to allow drivers somewhere to rest. Many years ago, while on a long journey, I realised that I was too tired to continue the journey without a rest, but I had to get off the motorway, and find a deserted trading estate (in the middle of the night) before I could find somewhere to stop and sleep a while. It was a most intimidating environment, but luckily I knew the area a little bit, and so knew how to find my way back to the motorway. I could well imagine a lone woman, in an unfamiliar territory, in the same situation, would be very reluctant to take that course of action. So what should she do, stop off on the hard shoulder, and get prosecuted for that, or simply continue to drive until she fell asleep at the wheel?
The problem of an inability to stop on a journey not only is a concern on motorways, but even in urban conurbations, where most major roads now have restricted parking, and highly complex traffic systems, combined with often inadequate signposting. It is all too easy in such situations for drivers to find the themselves in unfamiliar environments, with nowhere to stop, and getting ever more panicked as to how to get back to their desired road.
It is not enough to demand good driving from drivers, and simply pile blame upon them when they do not deliver; it is also imperative that good driving be made easy. If what is demanded is ever less achievable, then people tend to simply give up trying to deliver. This is human nature, and however one may wish it were otherwise, it is something one must work within. Simply demanding that human beings behave in some idealised, but non-human, manner will not work.
Maybe one day we will have cars which drive themselves, where the human element is removed, and we may make as complex and arbitrary a set of demands upon them as we wish; but that day is not here yet.
You suggest that, as a DOT ADI you are happy to undergo regular retesting, but as I said, that is your profession, so one would expect that you would make that investment in your profession, as I would in mine. My profession is in computers, and I have shelves full of books on the subject, and seek out information to maintain my skills in that area wherever I can. I do not have shelves full of books on driving. Even other areas of my life that may be equally as critical as driving knowledge, such as the law or my health, I do not make the same level of investment in that I would in my career – although failure to stay up to date in either of those can carry severe costs.
One area where I have often argued against others, and yourself included, is your condemnation of slow drivers. I do not disagree with your comment that there is no such thing as 'one speed fits all circumstances', but if someone feels comfortable driving at 40 mph in a 60 mph limit, then I would rather they do that then be forced to drive 60 mph because that is what the limit says is the right speed. There is a problem that there are inadequate places to overtake slow vehicles, and ever fewer opportunities to do so (again, another attempt to blame drivers while reducing their choices), but that is not the fault of the slow driver. I think it is more important that a driver understands their own personal limitations in a particular situation, and drive accordingly, than that drivers be regarded in some idealised form, as if anything that was outside of that ideal is somehow faulty. As I said above, the day may well come where all cars are driven by computer, and we can then expect total standardisation in behaviour, but that day is not here yet.
What does annoy me is people who drive at the legal limit, and then make it difficult for others to pass them (they hog the outside of the road, etc.) in the belief that they should be enforcing the speed limit. It is their responsibility to drive to the best of their ability, within their own constraints, and within the prevailing conditions; and let other drivers get on with driving as best they can. If someone wishes to drive 40 mph on the slow lane of a motorway, I do not begrudge them that (although I can imagine some HGV drivers might feel differently), but equally if someone wishes to drive 100 mph on a clear motorway, so long as they do not drive with undue aggression, I would not condemn that the right to do so – if the police stop them, that is between them and the police, not between me and them.
-
YOU ARE NOT TAUGHT TO DRIVE,YOU ARE TAUGHT TO PASS THE TEST, DRIVING ,AND DRIVING WELL COMES AFTER WITH PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE.
-
Tony,
Is there a shortage of driving instructors ?
In my local paper you can't help but see so many adverts for people to take a course and become a driving instructor.
Thanks
Upton
~~~I can't think of a signature~~~
-
To Ray...
I certainly don't teach people to just pass their driving test and as for learning to drive AFTER they pass is a sure sign they weren't taught correctly in the first place. Driving well should be taught before passing, not left to an individual to work it out for themselves! If they can't drive well before their test, then they have taken it TOO early!
HI Upton..
Unfortunately there are numerous driving schools which are now cashing in on the latest craze, churning out more and more instuctors and flooding the market with what can be described as the "out of work...think it's easy brigade".
Most the these new instructors fail to make a go of it simply because their heart is not in it and they find they can't stand the stress!
To have a lasting instuction business, one needs to enjoy driving and teaching even more so. Being unemployed is not a good enough reason to start teaching people to drive. You have to have the apptitude and patience coupled with lots of changes of underwear!
Tony
-
Well now. I just don't really have the time to reply concisely enough to all the issues raised but I couldn't resist saying something.
A whole bunch of people just not living in the real world here I think. Even the driving instructor who has replied - well bully for you mate, so you have fabulously hi standards and get more work than you can cope with???
Were your standards so high when you started out? Do you have any idea of how hard it is to get started now? Really???
If I were you, I would watch out for your business because some shark is going to take it away from you. Sure, one should try to have high standards but one also has to make a living. Why do driving instructors get such a hard time for simply trying to do that.
The intelligence of the parents who say, "In my day, it only cost/it only took...", drives me nuts. And it is likely those parents whose children will pass their tests first time then promptly go out and crash their cars in their first week of owning a full licence.
Here are some truths for you...
A market is all about supply and demand
At some time or other in the recent past, the demand for instructors has rocketed to the extent that the market could not keep up.
At that point, big businessmen see the potential and almost any tom, dick or harry can qualify to become and instructor, or, a bus driver is another similar example - as will be evident to some of you from the quality of bus driving that one sees. In fairness to some, how the hell are they supposed to realistically get around London's crazy tight and busy roads in a vehicle that long (refering to those ridiculously long new buses) whilst keeping everyone happy and safe and keep their jobs at the same time.
Oh dear. Too much to say and not enough time.
Simple numbers for the originator of this topic.
If I work no, do 30 1 hour lessons, per week (which equates to around 40 working hours for me and sometimes more) then at my rate £20 per hour,(less with discounts but lets leave it at 20 for now given that you don't seem to understand how a business works)
my "turnover" is £600.
After I have paid my fuel, and accounted for the other costs of running my car, I'm lucky to be left with £400 per week.
Do you think that is a reasonable salary for a man of 38?????
Sure some people have to get by on that much but what do you think. Perhaps you would have me teach your child for half that?
The competition is now fierce. I thought I would make a fine instructor and I believe that some of my pupils think I do, but if I am short of work and I need income and a customer presents themselves to me because they have a test tomorrow that the DSA allowed them to book regardless of their ability, should I turn them down, when I know that they will find another instructor who won't.
The real world and a driving test world are not one in the same thing. The vast majority of drivers no longer follow the highway code to the degree that new drivers are expected to. Do you not think that it might take just a little longer to teach your child that if they DON'T drive in the bus lane at certain times, they WILL fail their test but if they dare to drive in it at the wrong time, they will incur a heavy fine. How long do you think it takes a young person to get their head around that whilst still getting to grips with controlling a dangerous new machine that might kill someone or them if they make a mistake.
WAKE UP!
AND - MR driving instructor whoever you are; you Sir are irresponsible for declaring how many lessons it takes for someone to pass their test with you. Are you trying to get business from this forum???
I note that you say "usually". Indeed! All people learn at the same rate do they?
-
To adi1,
Normally, I am not adversarial on this type of forum no matter what the provocation, however, in your case I will make an exception!
Quite frankly, from your attitude, I am not surprised you are short of work! The world does NOT owe you a living! When you work for yourself, you get the rewards you deserve!
Just how long have you been instructing? More to the point, how long do you expect to be an instructor?
When I started out instructing, I was already seriously interested in driving to a very high standard even immediately after I passed my test, which was easily transferred to my instructional ability and has served me well throughout my career! Can you say the same?
It's perhaps less difficult to start out now than it was when I started out!
When I took my ADI exams, there were only two exams, instead of the three we see now! However, the difference was that the first part also included a written section plus the multiple-choice, so that was more difficult than it is now!
The driving ability and instructional ability sections were not separated as they are now, so one had to pass both at the same time unlike now where you take each one serarately. If a trainee failed one of these when I started, he failed both, so don't give me the story that it is any harder to start now than when I started! I think it's now much easier, which is why there is such a high failure rate among new instructors!
As for maintaining my high standards, yes I do and nothing will make me change that! I am not affraid of sharks as you put it...my standards and reputation will see me through!
As for driving instructors getting a hard time - a few ( thankfully not all I may add) deserve it! It's their bad practices that get the majority a bad name.
As for competition, I live in a rural area where the proportion of instructors to local population is currently very high, so don't give me the competition argument! I have had fierce competition since the day I started 25 years ago and was up against well established instructors from the outset! I've seen loads of wannabe instructors come and go - the ones who retain a professional attitude to both business and their instructional ability, survive, the others soon perish.
I don't know which area you live and work, but I am confident now that if I moved to your area without any contacts, within six months I'd have a full book solely on the strength of my ability to teach! Perhaps I'd be considered a "shark" in your book!
Competition and success is about proving you are better than your rivals in business by offering a quality service, not bringing down your standards! That's the truth about understanding business - not just turnover.
As for taking someone for test because you don't want the potential customer to go to another instructor, that is the first big mistake!!!
I wouldn't let anyone I haven't taught, go for a driving test in my car. I don't know how they behave after perhaps only a couple of lessons and I have more respect for my business. Should the candidate crash during the test, it would grossly affect my business to the extent I am just not prepared to risk it, no matter what!
I have turned down literally hundreds of these type of customers over the years and it's not affected me!
Also, taking ill prepared or sub-standard candidates for driving tests gets the instructor a bad name with the examiners. I am on first name terms with all the local examiners - they simply respect me because I have high standards, so that is another benefit of maintaining high standards!
How can indicating approximately how many lessons to get an average driver to a decent test standard be irresponsible??? The customer needs to have an idea of just how much it's going to cost them, just as in any service they seek!!!!
I have sufficient experience to qualify my judgements in this and also the ability to to quantify too!
I don't know whether you have bothered to read my earlier posts on driving tuition, but I have never said that all students learn at the same rate! All students learn at differing rates but like all statistics, there are averages where the majority will fit, which is what I was indicating. I have students with quite severe learning difficulties or elderly trainee drivers, which other instructors have given up on, yet they are responding very well to me and will eventually pass a test I can guarantee! Yes they will take much longer to teach than the average student but I make sure they understand this, as again they have a right to know if the costs are justifiable.
As well as offering a a good quality service I also maintain an informative web site to help anyone who seeks advice, irrespective of whether they are customers or not! Do you?
Instruction is not just about earning a living and grabbing every penny you can from the customer; it's also about maintaining your integrity and professionalism and giving something to society through your work!
I have a well proven method of teaching which must work as I always have a customer waiting list and work a full six days a week, so please don't question my ability and integrity in this matter! I have had to work hard to achieve this and still work equally as hard to maintain it!
As for trying to get business from this forum...not a chance, I don't need it! The forum is for discussion and edification, nothing else.
As for lesson costs, I live in an area where the average lesson costs much less than £20.00 per hour and I still make a decent living and I cover up to 1000 miles per week because of the rural location! I could have made much more through other occupations but I chose this because I enjoy my work!
Maybe you are one of those people who came into instructing thinking it was easy money! Well perhaps you have realised it's not that easy!
This is not the place to take out your frustrations on others! If you teat people with respect they will listen!
-
Tony,
I have taken the liberty of having a look at your website and comparing some valuable information from the driving standards agency and the information you offer. Now can you tell me why the DSA recommend 45 hours of training as an average with a driving instructor and as an average around 22 hours of additional private practice before passing a driving test for a learner driver and your advice states only 16 - 32 hours on average? There is a massive discrepancy in these hours, with the greatest of respect I would be more likely to listen to those that set the standards that we all have to adhere to than the questionable opinion of someone who is in it "just to make a buck".
That brings me to another point, through some brief research it appears that your profession is in a bit of a shambles at present with driving instructors who claim to be professional offering services that are far from that maxim. How can any true professional offer a service with prices as low as yours without becoming bankrupt. I can only think you work very long hours in the car with clients or you keep them stationary so that you don't use much fuel. If you do work long hours then the quality of your teaching standards must suffer and that surely means the quality of learning suffers too - which I may add means that on average your learner drivers take longer than you suggest they may take on your website which is indeed tantamount to miss selling.
Now please do not think of me as antagonistic, I am only looking at the options that you offer and compare them to others. I looked at one website in Essex http://www.johnfoote.co.uk After going through this very informative website I spoke with the gentleman conserned who owns the site and driving school and he was very honest about learning to drive. I would suggest all forum members following this thread to do the same before forming any opinions.
-
quote:
Now can you tell me why the DSA recommend 45 hours of training as an average with a driving instructor and as an average around 22 hours of additional private practice before passing a driving test for a learner driver and your advice states only 16 - 32 hours on average?
Just out of interest who's opinions were sort before determining that the average driver requires 45 hours of tuition, did any of the big motoring organisations like the AA or RAC who happen to operate two of the biggest drivings schools have any input.
Maybe the DSA is wrong and its figures are an inaccurate assessment of what is required in the real world,its possible and cant be discounted just because their the DSA. Also do those figures take into account the experience and ability of the driving instructor, which must be the biggest factor in determining how much tuition is required for the average pupil.
Michael
-
Personally I think an hours tuition on a scalextric is enough !
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
To The Chief
First of all, I spend very little time stationary! So please don't give me that rubbish!
Secondly, it all depends on the style of teaching too! Why does a student need to spend 10 hours on a section of training when they can learn it in 5 ! It all depends if you cut out the crap and teach them correctly to drive and not just waste time which unfortunately is a common practice among some instructors. At least a third of tuition time could easily be wasted if one allows the student to do so, therefore it is essential that the student knows from the outset that they are there to learn and not waste time!
A decent average student will learn quickly if the right approach is taken from the outset and if correctly and positively instructed they will not waste a third of their lessons time.
I have my own methods of teaching and I never teach them to reverse etc until they can go forward reasonably well without help from me...that can save at least 8 hours of tuition alone as, it's pointless trying to teach them to go backwards until they can go forward proficiently. Also, by the student being able to control the vehicle proficiently during reversing etc, they can understand where if at all, they are going wrong and soon correct the problem. This can reduce their learning time by half for that section of training, hence freeing up training time for dealing with more advanced problems on the roads. This is my own technique and works well, particularly, during intensive training! It's called time management!!! If you teach them what NOT to do before teaching them what to do, one will save considerable training time!
There are basically three groups of learners. Those that find it very easy and will repond to instructions instantly...they represent about 10% - also they may have some previous road experience or live on a farm in the area where I work etc! These may only need perhaps 10 hours tuition to reach the driving test standard, but they represent only a small proportion of the overall students!
The second group are the average group ( about 70% ) who respond reasonably and will certainly learn in the time frame I suggest and there are the remainder...that 20% can take double or more lessons than average! Some students will have a little prior experience, others will not. So about 70-80% at any one time will take UP TO about 32 hours of tuition or less, to pass, while the others, will learn at their own individiual rates! If that is mis-selling then I am guilty as charged!
I know of quite a number of good instructors locally who will verify that they have similar figures, so I am not unique or are they telling porkies too?
Having just looked at the site you suggested, I invite you to look at the ' Signature Course' section they advertise! Are they too guilty of mis-selling?
Incidentally, I actually get students thinking I am trying to get money out of them uneccessarily by suggesting that it will take them up to 32 hours to reach a decent standard! I know where to send them for advice now!
The last national published figures from the DSA average of minor faults per driving test was about 8 rounded off....my student's average 5 which is about 40% below national average figures. Also, from published DSA figures, my students are about 100 times less likely to commit a dangerous fault during a driving test than the average student so I am quite happy with my training!
Perhaps you should ask the nice gentleman you spoke to, to divulge his figures!
As for additional practice...yes I would advise that as long as the practice is correct! I have seen plenty of students go out with parents etc; for practice and they came back to me with horrendous faults imparted upon them from the accompanying driver in a very short time...so while private practice is fine, it has to be correct, or best avoided!
I estimate that the average student would need about 4 or 5 hours of private practice to match one hour of good professional tuition from a decent instructor!
Ideally, the figures suggested by the DSA would be followed by everyone and that I would agree with, but as has been mentioned by others, we live in the real world and many students and parents just can't afford it so, unless it is made compulsory, we have to do the very best with the time available and financial constraints!
Thirty hours of good positive instruction will easily match 45 hours from a mediocre instuctor! So, it's not neccessarily quantity, but rather quantity that is the main factor! I personally would consider a driver who took 45 hours to train as being a slightly difficult to teach - not average!!!
Would you rather I charged for lessons that the student didn't need?
Maybe some instructors are hiding behind the 45 hour cushion. I think that if an instructor takes an average of 45 hours per student of average ability to teach, then I am affraid they may just be guilty of a little procrastination!
I also offer the pass Plus service which is an excellent tool for the new driver and makes a considerable difference to their driving ability! Many students take this as a follow-up so, they are very well palced to drive in most conditions and retain their safety!
If bad weather threatens, I don't just hang up my car keys and wait till it clears - I often for instance, take students to an empty car park and teach them about skids and how to recover from them etc. Sometimes, when snow has fallen, I will spend a whole day doing that with different students booked for that day, so that they will be prepared for such conditions later in their driving career! That is teaching them to drive and not part of the driving test!
Does your nice gentleman teach that way?
It's also about the type of student one attracts and teaches - as most of my work is from recommendation, many of these students are often similar in abilities to to the former student, so it usually follows that if the former student passed quickly, then their friends follow likewise. Obviously this is not in every case. By the same token, if you get an unusually difficult group they will also learn at similar rates.
Groups of friends usually compete to match each others' ability which encourages them to knuckle down and learn, making my work much easier.
Another point you conveniently omitted was that I teach about 40% of my lessons through semi intensive courses - these students are selected for their ability by myself - I NEVER take on a student for this type of course, (unlike alot of companies offering intensive training) until I have assessed them and their suitability first! So that means they have better than average ability!
I mention all the above details on my website and it is clear and transparent! NOWHERE on my website do I mislead anyone. I NEVER make false promises or give silly guarantees of passing first time. I simply give the prospective student an outline of what is required and expected!
I know for a fact that several examiners have visited my website and if anything had been found to be incorrect, then I'm quite sure I would have heard about it!
As for working long hours, why should that affect instruction??? It also depends upon what you call long hours! My instruction certainly does not suffer at the end of the day! Not everyone has a nice easy job with safety nets of a large organisation when they feel like time off!
I also take exception to your inference of how much I can earn! I have a very nice 4 bed det home in a des area...no mortgage, I live quite comfortably and very satisfied with what I earn thankyou! I like to work a six day week for a month and half to two months or so and then take a week's holiday, often abroad to unwind and refresh.
Another point worthy of note! The local wages are quite low compared to other parts of the country with many adults on minimum wage only, therefore lesson prices are relatively low compared to other parts of the county. Take any of the national driving instruction companies - they have a hard time filling one car in 4 times the area I cover in East Yorkshire.
I owe no one a single penny for anything, be it mortgage or any other finance and could never go bankrupt in 100 years, so your theory is out the window immediately! Or is that another myth too?
The main point is that I don't do my work just for money, I do it because I enjoy it! If I worked just for financial reward and a fat pension at an early age, then the last career I would choose is that of an instructor!
Or maybe you can't get your head round someone actually enjoying their work who is skillful without wanting to make a financial killing. Or are you just naturally cynical?
I believe you are a serving police officer in traffic!
Can you tell me why I have had to take evasive action on several occasions while instructing in the past three years to avoid serious and possibly fatal accidents due to downright rubbish driving by serving police officers supposedly aswering triple nine calls. On at least two occasions if I hadn't taken the action of taking over control of the student and driving onto the grass verge, we would have head on accidents by the idiots behind the wheel of the white car with the blue lights! On another recent occasion, a cruiser driver decided to take the wrong route off a roundabout and overtake alongside the splitter island only wide enough for one vehicle while I was driving, resulting in him losing control and nearly taking me out with him! I must say the signs I was giving him weren't in the Highway Code, but he wouldn't pull me over! I wonder why? This guy didn't have blues or anything...he was just arrogant and incompetent, yet the same guy would probably be pulling over motorists later in the day for much less that he had committed! These are just a few instances I could mention!
Yesterday, we were forced off the road by an ambulance showing blues overtaking several vehicles on a sharp curve with a crest on an A class road with 40mph restriction where we couldn't see him coming and he couldn't see us. I know that it may have been an emergency and it may have been for good cause but that is no excuse for dangerous driving!
As far as I am concerned, I don't need anyone from the police service questioning my integrity or teaching ability/business practices and certainly not my honesty! Indeed, as far as I am concerned, based on the standards to which I teach and from my observations, some police drivers and their driving standards and practices certainly leave a lot to be desired in lots of instances!
I reckon if I'd been clocked at 115mph in the car I've just recently bought for instruction, they wouldn't have accepted that I was just testing it out and getting used to how it handles!!!
That is why many of the general public have lost respect for the police because they know there is one law for the public and another for the police!
I think before you criticise the driving instruction industry, you should take a long look at your own. Even many middle aged and elderly members of the public have little faith in the police...exactly the group you'd expect to give support!
There are lots of other issues regarding the police and public perception such as witholding evidence in trials where people spend many years in prison for something they didn't commit, yet I have yet to hear of one single officer charged! They always retire and plead that they aren't well enough to stand trial.
It's the bad minority which get the majority a bad name!
Please don't throw the answer back to me that I should have reported the mentioned incidents to their commanding officer...it would just be denied or covered up!
I have sufficient close knowledge of the police to know how it works! Some are friends, surprisingly!
Incidentally, I have taught several police officers' family members and other driving instructors' family too, so they must think my instuction is ok or have I mis-sold them too?
So, as far as I am concerned, when I start losing work because of not doing my work correctly or go bankrupt, then I'll worry, but until then I'll stick to my teaching methods and work within my average hours of training 25 years on from when I first started!
I have never claimed to speak for all driving instructors and each instructor has their own methods of training practices - some good, some bad.
Tony
-
Came across this thread, while searching for something else and can't resist contributing! This thread has raised some very varied views, some of which I have to say lack any real substance. I should say I've been an Instructor for 13 years - so I have my own perspective. However, to make some random points on all that has gone before.
1. It is harder to pass the test now than say twenty years ago. The basic reasons are: change to the marking system including failure for nore than 15 driving errors; the test was lengthened a few years ago by approximately seven minutes to allow opportunity for test routes to cover more difficult and faster roads; busier roads today requiring greater awareness. In addition, there is an expectation from pupils and the DSA that Instructors include information in their lessons that will help with the Theory Test and Hazard Perception Test.
2. If the DSA say that their statistics show it takes ON AVERAGE 45 lessons, I have to say they are best placed to quote such statistics. If you ring AA or BSM, they will recommend on average two lessons per year of your life. (It is true that the older you are the more lessons it takes)
3. Personal aptitude will make an emormous difference to the number of lessons required. But remember what is required is not just skill but knowledge how to put those skills into practice in different situations. There actually is a large amount of info that needs to be imparted. I know of people who have failed their test for driving in the wrong position on a dual carriageway where the left lane is partly blocked by parked vehicles and others for failing to drive in a bus lane when it is not in operation. A novice driver would only know these things if they have been specifically taught them.
4. The pass rate is about 43%. Why so low? Either the test is unfair, Instructors universally give poor instruction or too many people take the test before they are ready. My view (obviously!) is the latter. Only about 1 in 10 people who start training successfully qualify and Instructors are regularly check-tested by the DSA, who will remove Instructors from the Register if their standards are not good enough.
5. I think I'm a good Instructor, I try not to slag off other Instructors, I have an above average pass rate. I charge £20 an hour which I think is cheap. To earn the average UK wage the DIA compute that I would need to charge £26 per hour. A guy repaired my washing machine three weeks ago. He charged £40 an hour. I would guess that my average is well under 45 lessons to pass. An honest guess would be around 30 - 35.
6. Big money is earned by businesses (including BSM) in training Instructors. It's not that there is a shortage of Instructors - contrary to what the ads may imply, there is no gaurantee of work at the end.
7. There is a residency requirement to take the test, so you can't just slip off overseas! There was a loophole where German nationals were coming over here as it was easier here than in their on country.
8. Almost everyone under-exaggerates the number of lessons they took. I've had it where a younger sibling tells me how many lessons their older bro/sis (who learned with me) says they took!
9. Most people want to pass their test, being a good or safe driver is secondary. I have to balance that. Help them to pass their test as quick as they can and help them to be a safe driver.
I could go on but have probably said enough. I too have a website with loads of info at www.wanadrive.co.uk
-
I did my driving test just less than a year ago, 6 months after I turned 17. I had already been riding a motorbike for a year and had a motorbike lisence - it took me three attempts to pass my motorbike test. So before I started learning to drive I already had a reasonably good knowledge of the roads. I passed my car test first time, after 20 hours of tuition with a qualified instructor. However I also had about 200 hours of driving experience with my dad, who was a driving instructor in the army in the 80s (I'm not exaggerating, he was determined that I wouldn't just pass my test, I would be able to cope in any situation I might find myself when I was driving on my own. He took me down roads that I would never need to drive on during my test because he figured if I could handle driving on them then I wouldn't panic if I found myself on one in the future).
I don't think a single one of those hours was a waste of time because now I have my license and I drive over 200 miles a week to and from school and work. I can drive in all weathers and I know how to react when faced with just about any type of road or driving condition. Passing the test isn't what's important, being able to drive safely when you start driving on your own is.
-
The Chief made some valid points in his earlier tirade against UKMickey's thoughts on the driving test. (You might have toned the aggression down a little Chief: I think it caused UKMick to shut down his objectivity module.)
I know of no one in the 60s who passed their test after ten lessons only. Ten formal lessons, yes. Coupled with lots of drives (legal and legal) in friend's and family's cars. Your experieces UKM are atypical.
Driving standards have improved significantly over the last three decades, but they have a long way to go. I welcome the plans to have everyone resit a their tests periodically. We have too many poor drivers, unskilled drivers, and mad drivers, on our roads. I think Chief reacted to your position so strongly, because he feels, as do I, that that position will act against the effort to improve our driving standards.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.
-
Hi ophiolite
I very much doubt a re-evaluation of our driving skills will remove the mad drivers from our streets as even a mad driver will know that during the test it would be unaceptable to go through red traffic lights and to travel at 60 mph down a 30 mph street.
Michael
-
unsuprisingly full of conspiracy theories and contradictions, but having looked around the forum that's unsuprising ...
odd isn't it that the ADIs have painted a pretty similar picture throughout, yet the wonderful polymath denizens of the forum have of course got a differing picture, backed up with the usual conspiracy theories and serving of chips (shoulder, for the use of) -
some of the comments about minor faults and hazard perception are very valid, as one only needs to conside the historic practice, the practice of the more modern tests , pre theory test and the current tregime, plus the hazard perception , anticipation and risk assessment skills required of vocational, 'advanced' and emergency service drivers ...
-
I dread the day my child begins to drive. We must spend around 150 hours on the road before sitting our test (and this will one day be properly governed). The majority of our paid instructors for learning in Aus, are sad to say the least, as bad as the learner. I have many a time followed a Learner who has done several things wrong and the teacher appeared to be unaware of these mistakes.
With the demand for young adults looking good in society, fast cars, mobile phones and the "not enough time" attitude, this will be the downfall of safer driving.
Our highest percentage of fatalities in Australia are young drivers. And sadly, lately it is showing that if they are not the fatality they are at least a part of the accident in some way.
In my learning days we had hard fast cars but nothing like today. Being "cool" was about how hot the car looked. Only in recent years the cars speed has been the major factor of this.
Who do we blame driving instructors for not teaching properly, car manufactures for making these cars or advertising companies for pushing it all?
We are all responsible for our own childs attitudes towards safer roads and if an instructor is paid to instruct and the Learner has not learnt than YES he is "making money out of these tests"
I believe, I, even though I have made a few mistakes, are still better to teach my child than those driving companies I have seen out there.
It is becomming extremely expensive to go for your test here. And until the goverment / police inforce tuffer rules on instructors themselves than the money is not well spent at all, and yes a ripp off.
Road conditions (busier) have completely changed worldwide. I don't for one minute think that 10 hours of driving makes you experienced enough to handle all the conditions thrown at you. The weather being the biggest factor.
And I don't believe for one minute that when someone says they are a perfect driver it is true, they just haven't been caught with that mistake.
I am overly precautious on the road with my children in the car and only lately without my children as well. I do want to make it home to them. I only hope that the dofuss who did not want to pay and get great teaching or that has only driven for 10 hours does not slide into me in the cold misty wet weather they have not yet experienced.
So, in my opinion ukmicky, No, driving lessons are not a big con and Yes they are a ripp off if you are not getting what you paid for regardless of price.
In Victoria, Australia to get a drivers licence (cost wise)-
First your learners application $17.80
Then your computer test $28.10
To get your full licence $142.40 covers you for 10 years
The "appointment" cost to get this $10.40
Practical Test $32.40 and written $56.30
The handbook to know all this $6.00
Don't forget cost in between learners and full licence for that excellent driving instructor. the average cost being $42.50 for 45 minutes!
$261++++++++++!!
LIFE EXPERIENCE - PRICELESS (had to throw that one in, Mastercards in our face everywhere we look)
Are you able to teach your children yourself to make this count to 35 hours? But don't forget that your experience and mistakes are handed down to your own children as they have seen you do this all there lives!
Happy and Safe Driving on your way home tonight!
[:D][:)][:D]
Jam
-
Driving lesions if they are any good are all about passing a test. A friend on mine who let his licences laps over ten years had to sit his test again. He not a bat driver in fact he does a lot of driving for a living. He not had a crash or accident in over twenty years. But he failed his test twice before he went and got lesions. He finally passed last month
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
Attending a defensive driving school offers a lot of benefits. It does not only improve your driving skills and helps you become a safe driver; you also get practical benefits such as obtaining discount on your insurance premium.
Search for more here:
http://www.schoolofdefensivedriving.com/Defensive_Driving_School.html
-
Oh the joy!
Apologies for dragging this one up, but I like this subject.
Are driving lessons a con? Possibly - are you being trained by a fully qualified instructor or a trainee who has had little more than basic training in what they do.
Are driving instructors trying to get more lessons out of customers? Some do, but they're the ones who lose customers to those of us who don't.
Are there too many driving instructors around? Yep, because companies have realised that they can earn £30 an hour for training instructors rather than £20 an hour training learners! (hence the lovely tv ads promising £30k and a shiny new car and the ability to work whenever you like! Believe them at your peril)
Are driving instructors charging too much for their services? Not the good ones, but the good ones are the ones who don't have much space in their diaries. The ones who're offering lessons at a fiver a pop are losing money, so they'll try to get it back by getting you to take more lessons.
Are driving lessons all about passing a test? - don't be silly - if you read the examiner's guidelines EVERYTHING they can fail you on has safety implications, they cannot fail you for silly technicalities. If you cannot pass the driving test then you are NOT a safe driver.
Does any of this matter to you? It might do in a few years time when insurance companies start to expect people to take driver training in order to keep their insurance premiums affordable!
Have fun, but just ask yourself one question - could you reverse park into a bay to modern test standards?
Oh, and the test is longer, stricter, includes more manoeuvres and allows far fewer faults than when we all passed with 10 lessons or so, so I'd guess the answer to the above question would be no. And if the answer to the above question is no - then that explains why new drivers have to be so good - it's to cope with all of your bad driving.
-
Whats the problem here?
If you dont want lessons dont have them. You teach your kids to drive by all means after all its so easy isnt it.
Why should an instructor take your kids out without making a living you dont drive lorries for free.
Funny how you cry on here about how hard done by you are yet your kids still ignor you and are sensible enough to take proper lessons. Shows how the world is changing.
If you guys think your driving is that good, go out and become a money grabbing instructor, after all it money for old rope isnt it.
Did you know that the pass rate for an ADI to teach is as low as 25%. The standards are set VERY high by the DSA NOT the ADI.
If your kids who you value, love, raised from little babys, want to go out on the ever changing and getting more dangerouse roads, dont you think it is best to let them have the BEST teaching they can have rather than a 8 lesson course with mum or dad.
Reguardless of anything you say on here an ADI will always teach better than any unproffesional and that is a fact.
Did you know that there is a rediculouse scheme that allows an unqualifiesd instructor to teach your loved ones for full money?
If your instructor has a pink badge in the window, he is NOT a qualified ADI and with a pass rate of 25% to become an ADI, what quality can he/ she be offering. They are allowed to take the ADI test 3 times then its on hold for 2 years. How many times has your £30.00 ph pink holder failed at yet you still send your loved ones out with them?
However they are allowed to charge you as much as a qualified green badge ADI and not tell you that they are only learners themselves. It makes the franchise holders rich as they charge £100.00 per week upwards to have a pinkie on the books and you pay full ADI money.
Now thats a reason to make a fuss from where I sit.
-
Hi undercover adi, I am also an adi, bet I know why you came here.....
-
Hi undercover adi, I am also an adi, bet I know why you came here.....
Please tell.
-
hmmm... in the u.s. any driver under eighteen is required to have formal lessons(ok in ohio at least) so this topic intrigues me... is it an option there to not take a driver's ed course?
-
hmmm... in the u.s. any driver under eighteen is required to have formal lessons(ok in ohio at least) so this topic intrigues me... is it an option there to not take a driver's ed course?
The theory (at least it was in my time, and I suspect it still is today) is that if you are good enough to pass the test, it does not matter how you got there.
Mostly (especially so as the tests have gotten harder) people do have formal lessons, but I don't think it is written down in law that they must.
-
oh i see. our lessons were only three in class lessons and 4 sessions in car. your parentsor someone over twenty one had to drive with you for at least sixty hours, ten of which had to be at night. the lessons were just to confirm what your parents already taught you, more or less
-
but i think things have changed since i took the test. that's sad it was only eight years ago
-
Hi i am new on here my name is Les and i am a fully qualified driving instructor. I have been watching this thread with interest i don't need to add much because what Tony has posted on here says it all really, all i want to point out is, like many others who say "when i learnt to drive i only had about 8 lessons and passed 1st time" well i did more or less the same in 1972, i was 17 in the January had around 10 or 12 lessons then passed in the April of that year. I don't remember much about my test it was so long ago, but what i do know is that the standard needed to pass today is a hell of a lot higher than it was back in 1972, the roads are a lot busier now, and there are many more roundabouts and some very complicated ones on the roads today, as a result the items on the syllabus has increased and there is much more to cover on lessons than there ever was. They are just some of the reasons why it takes longer to get to a competent level of driving ability than it did all those years ago. Around 3500 people are killed on our roads every year and to help reduce this figure we have to teach people to drive safely for the rest of there driving lives by teaching defensive driving techniques and it cant be done in 6 or 10 lessons, not on todays roads.
Thanks for reading this.
Les.
-
hello les!
-
There's no minimum or maximum amount of lessons necessary to take the UK test, and you don't need to take any lessons with an instructor if you don't want to. The test is a stand alone thing which takes no notice of your experience.
All you have to do is drive safely in a variety of circumstances for 40 minutes.
If you're wondering where all the instructors popped up from it's because someone posted a link to this thread from one of the driving instructor forums (hence the cryptic comment by kis earlier), which is how I found this.
On the instructor forum one of the instructors made a simple and I think extremely valid comment:
I can teach you to drive in 2 hours - can you learn that quick?
-
I don't remember much about my test it was so long ago, but what i do know is that the standard needed to pass today is a hell of a lot higher than it was back in 1972, the roads are a lot busier now, and there are many more roundabouts and some very complicated ones on the roads today, as a result the items on the syllabus has increased and there is much more to cover on lessons than there ever was. They are just some of the reasons why it takes longer to get to a competent level of driving ability than it did all those years ago. Around 3500 people are killed on our roads every year and to help reduce this figure we have to teach people to drive safely for the rest of there driving lives by teaching defensive driving techniques and it cant be done in 6 or 10 lessons, not on todays roads.
Thanks for reading this.
Les.
I think we have to separate two issues here - both are legitimate concerns
- road safety and the need for proper driver training
- the cost of undertaking a function of everyday life that is scarcely a matter of discretionary choice for many people in many parts of the country (namely, driving a car or motorcycle)
Arguably (and it has been mentioned) even pedestrians should be trained in road use.
It seems to me that this is an argument for having a substantial amount of pre-driver and early driver training in schools, thus reducing the cost to the individual, while it should improve road safety for all road users (not just car drivers). Yes, there is still a cost in taxation - but taxation is where one raises money for the benefit of the community, and this training should be of benefit to the community, not just to the individual. It will not remove the requirement for driver training, but should substantially reduce the number of lessons required, and so the cost of it.
-
Is this how you see us?
HA HA
We have had a spate of teen crashing within a month of passing the test.
One of them within 3 days, he left his instructor ( a good instructor) saying he was too slow and found a new instructor. Test passed car smashed in 3 days.
-
Another Someone - excellent suggestion.
The DofT have been looking at introducing something similar, and encouraging schools to introduce this from year 1 onwards. Unfortunately at the most important stages (years 10 thru 13) there are far too many demands on teachers and schools curriculum space.
There is usually a reduction in costs to the tax payer from extra training which either outweighs or is commensurate with the costs of implementing the training. This is why many companies are finding that the company driver training that they felt they were forced into taking (with H&S laws and the threat of corporate manslaughter charges) is actually saving them more than it costs.
-
Relevant to general road skills rather than driving, but...
Once upon a time, there used to be a cycling proficiency test offered in schools in about year 6 (5?).. age 10-11ish, anyway, to instill a bit of road sense into kids before they went out and got paper-rounds/themselves killed. They had to learn to use hand-signals, road positioning etc. Of course, it wasn't compulsory (not everyone had a bike/could ride one) but it meant that they at least knew how they should be riding.
I came to university (in Cambridge, UK) and was horrified by the standard of road-riding displayed by cyslists who had regarded their bike as a toy rather than a mode of transport until they were 18, some of them shouldn't have been allowed out. If at least the british ones had been trained the roads would be a bit less difficult (and motorists would be less obnoxiously anti-bike!)
-
Dont get me started on cyclists!
-
I have returned, Micky, you still around my friend?
The Chief
-
Not old enoght to drive..2 or 3 years. LoL I could though. I drive a go kart.
-
Not old enoght to drive..2 or 3 years. LoL I could though. I drive a go kart.
I think you'll find that driving in Europe is slightly tougher than driving in the US, and the driving tests are commensurately tougher.
-
I am US, so yeah IDK I am drive pretty good I have, just don't tell anyone. LOL
-
huh?
-
Not old enoght to drive..2 or 3 years. LoL I could though. I drive a go kart.
LoL
I think you'll find that driving in Europe is slightly tougher than driving in the US, and the driving tests are commensurately tougher.
I am US, so yeah IDK I am drive pretty good I have, just don't tell anyone. LOL
-
yes i read it all, but what you said doesn't make sense
-
Sorry I am US, I drive pretty well, I have drove just don't tell anyone. LoL.
-
have driven
-
sorry the only class i don't get an a in is engligh lol i get an a minus.
-
KD Lynn,
Don't you know it is not good etiquette to pick someone up on their grammer or spelling on forums?
-
UK Micky,
Once again I am trying to contact you, are you still around old friend, I have been away for a while. Do you remember me? How could you forget? I am so upset, you never called when I was gone.
Hope you are well!
The Chief.
-
Hi Chief
How could i forget you and its nice to see your back even if we did have opposing views at the time.
This time stay around a bit longer and have a look at the rest of the forum you never know their maybe a topic or two which you would like to take part in.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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]
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hmmm, not advertising are we MMMMMMMMMMMMM???????
-
Yes you are right ! Advertising indeed! NOT ALLOWED!
-
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. [:(!]
-
Well, thanks for the warning theboy. I never took any defensive driving course and my driving is perfectly fine. [:)]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscrapetv.com%2FNews%2FNews%2520Pages%2FEntertainment%2FImages%2Fcar-crash.jpg&hash=2fdfa2fdf932db755cbad7f4ea353189)
-
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.
-
im sorry you have not passed this time sir
-
Oh I passed, I just don't know how to drive. [:)]
....or how to park my car.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geekologie.com%2F2007%2F07%2F06%2Fthailand-car-crash-thumb.jpg&hash=a038cbce2b7f2d5de3168c420684744e)
-
What is wrong parking that way. Women drivers do it all the time while on their cell phones.