Driving test

[ian s]

I remember some years ago my sister, having just passed her driving test, was given a brief lesson by instructor in "driving properly" as he put it, on the way back home from the test centre

[thirdcrank]

...
I'm unsure about the changes they are "evaluating" (I suspect people do sometimes go the wrong way and 3 point turn; and reversing round a bend is not dissimilar to reversing out of a parking space).

But, any changes to the test will apparently go through a full consultation first - which is really good news. I hope the CTC and other bodies are already in preparation and will be canvasing members and the cycling community for ideas about how the test could be "adjusted" to ensure drivers understand the rules, needs and limitations, etc. of vulnerable road users. Maybe a few mandatory questions about aspects of Highway Code that apply to non-motorised road users. Must be loads of possibilities that can be input to "tweak" the test - if only to ensure that driver training includes a bit of non car stuff (appreciation of non motorised road users). (My emphasis)

IME, the suggestions will already have been prepared in the preliminary consultations with the bodies they listen to. This stage of consultation is unlikely to be any more than selecting from options. They can play about as much as they like looking at a candidate's technical ability to control a vehicle but IMO in the long run, what really matters is their psychological capability to be in charge of a potentially lethal machine.

[Psamathe]

...
I'm unsure about the changes they are "evaluating" (I suspect people do sometimes go the wrong way and 3 point turn; and reversing round a bend is not dissimilar to reversing out of a parking space).

But, any changes to the test will apparently go through a full consultation first - which is really good news. I hope the CTC and other bodies are already in preparation and will be canvasing members and the cycling community for ideas about how the test could be "adjusted" to ensure drivers understand the rules, needs and limitations, etc. of vulnerable road users. Maybe a few mandatory questions about aspects of Highway Code that apply to non-motorised road users. Must be loads of possibilities that can be input to "tweak" the test - if only to ensure that driver training includes a bit of non car stuff (appreciation of non motorised road users). (My emphasis)

IME, the suggestions will already have been prepared in the preliminary consultations with the bodies they listen to. This stage of consultation is unlikely to be any more than selecting from options. They can play about as much as they like looking at a candidate's technical ability to control a vehicle but IMO in the long run, what really matters is their psychological capability to be in charge of a potentially lethal machine.

"A Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) spokesman said: “We are carrying out initial research to explore how the driving test could better reflect real-life driving. Any future changes to the test would be subject to full public consultation.”
From http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/28/uk-driving-test-turn-learner-driver-satnav-three-point

Which is what I based my comment on.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

... "A Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) spokesman said: “We are carrying out initial research to explore how the driving test could better reflect real-life driving. Any future changes to the test would be subject to full public consultation.”
From http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/28/uk-driving-test-turn-learner-driver-satnav-three-point

Which is what I based my comment on.

I've no problem with what you wrote and I'm sorry if it seemed otherwise. I edited it with the capitals to emphasise what I thought was the most important bit. Having said that, this is the same bunch who have responsibility for revising and publishing the Highway Code. IME based on the HC, you can offer what you like when they go out to public consultation but the main proposals will already have been identified. IIRC, the CTC only sees the proposals at the public consultation stage, whereas the likes of the AA and RAC are in at the start.
================================================
PS, Like so much else, this is one of my hobbyhorses.

viewtopic.php?p=385492#p385492

While searching for what I'd posted before, I found another similar post where I made the point that this was the reason that the govt was taken by surprise by the CTC's Highway Code petition. The "Driving Standards" Agency had not paid attention to what people other than drivers had said.

[pete75]

Anyone have any thoughts on the 'plans' to revise the test? Heard on the radio that the idea is to dispense with the 'three point turn', and include more sat nav use!! So are we going to get more idiots not looking where they're going, then being unable to turn round when they get lost? Not what I'd call progress.

These days any youngster worth his salt knows how to do a hand brake turn.

The newspaper article linked to describes the new measures as designed to better reflect real-life driving. If that is the case then they are surely to be welcomed.

[661-Pete]

Some excellent suggestions on how to re-model the Driving Test have just been published in the good old Grauniad. Enjoy!

[LollyKat]

Brilliant!

[jezer]

Fantastic

[661-Pete]

I plead guilty to having added a (cycling-related, of course) suggestion of my own, in the comments section. Sadly, it attracted the attention of a troll. Ah well, you can't have everything...