Driving Test Appeal??

Inactive

GEEGEE8 wrote: »

Inactive - can I ask you, do you think that one day the driving test itself will be simulated and a computer will mark you? :eek: (serious question)

In a word NO.

No simulation, however good it maybe, could replicate all of the eventualities of the real test.

Inactive

GEEGEE8 wrote: »

Well, my error on my test was an automatic fail (according to my instructor and various others over the years) but I passed.. I also had about 12 minors too, so the rest of the test wasn't perfect.

.

Your Instructor, did not witness the event, ( I presume ) nor was he/she qualified to judge.

Driving Examiners are not looking for, or expect any driver to be perfect.

DaveF327

GEEGEE8 wrote: »

Well, my error on my test was an automatic fail (according to my instructor and various others over the years) but I passed..

That proves the source of the rumours. Instructors are not examiners. Instructors haven't a clue of half the circumstances that are considered by trained examiners. Various others.. would that include the bloke down the pub? The local hairdresser? The Daily Mail scaremongering correspondent? All those people are not trained like the examiners so they are not qualified to say what is and what isn't an automatic fail.

The one I hear about so much is "touching the kerb" on a manoeuvre. (Was that it, btw?) So many instructors declare that's an "automatic fail" yet it needn't be. If you require more proof, I'll be happy to elaborate on any test situation example.

alleycat`

Not much to add other than i passed my test in the afternoon on a Friday (15/10/93).

Legend would have it that it impossible to do if you believe in quotas.

GEEGEE8

But surely going up and over the kerb with both wheels on a corner in a town centre 'should' be an automatic fail?

I'm happy to be told otherwise.. I just always thought it sounded reasonable really, considering the damage I could have done to someone's feet had they been waiting to cross the road.

Various others - yes, people I've discussed driving tests with in general life. I've never felt the need to ask an examiner if I should have passed or failed, and why would I?

GEEGEE8

Inactive wrote: »

Your Instructor, did not witness the event, ( I presume ) nor was he/she qualified to judge.

Driving Examiners are not looking for, or expect any driver to be perfect.

No he wasn't there, I just told him what had happened.

DaveF327

GEEGEE8 wrote: »

But surely going up and over the kerb with both wheels on a corner in a town centre 'should' be an automatic fail?

I'm happy to be told otherwise.. I just always thought it sounded reasonable really, considering the damage I could have done to someone's feet had they been waiting to cross the road.

I love this one! It does sound quite serious by its description, but like I've already posted, there are circumstances considered that even driving instructors are not aware of. Instructors are quite right to teach their pupils not to go onto kerbs when turning, but that's as far as their remit goes. The weighting of the fault once committed on a test is where the examiner comes in.

Circumstances considered are:

• Kerb or pavement? Whilst this sounds like splitting hairs, it's only fair to weight the fault based on how far away from the defined outcome you really were. The examiner considers whether part of your tyre width mounted the kerb edge stone, but stayed off the actual paved area where any pedestrian should remain. If the ball goes out of play in tennis, it is still counted IN if it touches the line. Even if most of the ball is outside the line, but the smallest inner part still touches it, the ball is IN. The entire ball has to be out for the player to lose the point, so a similar (and fair) principle is usually applied to marking on a driving test - but see below.
• Height of the kerb. If the kerb is so low that it would be unreasonable to know if the front wheel was borderline, more leeway is given to the rear wheel. If the kerb is so high that the car becomes wedged, yet the learner revs ever harder to try to climb it, eventually succeeding, then we have a serious fault.
• Tightness of turn / obstacles preventing a correct turn. If the corner is such a biatch that even experienced drivers would have difficulty negotiating it without a kerb touch / encroaching over the centre line, then more leeway is given as the driving test is looking for a very basic standard of driving, rather than perfection or finesse. If an obstacle on the other side of the road prevented a correct turn, more leeway is allowed in avoiding it. You still cannot drive fully on a pavement, but the examiner considers all circumstances. where an impossible situation is faced, the examiner will usually step in and offer guidance.
• Speed. Creeping slowly over a kerb edge while slipping the clutch in first gear will be marked less seriously than walloping up a kerb at speed. If the car bounces up into the air, then the question of how far over the kerb no longer comes into play. Misjudging a kerb of that height at speed is usually a serious fault. Potential danger is the factor here as you risk tyre damage.
• View. If the view was so open that you could clearly see no pedestrian was there, or likely to be at that moment, there could not possibly be a dangerous fault, so taking the pedestrian away, you could not get a serious either, providing the other criteria have been considered similarly. If the pavement was narrow and the view restricted by a building and you arrived quickly, a pedestrian would be endangered. Take the pedestrian away and you are marked a step down from a dangerous fault: a serious.

So while Examiner A saw a learner struggle round a tight corner, avoiding roadworks, driving half an inch over the kerb with both nearside wheels at crawling pace then passed him, Examiner B failed someone for turning into a side road too fast, suddenly having to avoid an emerging car, then drove both nearside wheels well over the pavement by about a foot, jarring both occupants as the kerb was high.

Retold in the pub that night, Examiner A was really nice and being "lenient", but Examiner B is a complete b@stard, must have passed too many that week and instructor was worried he would lose business so says "he never passes anybody". See the difference now?

newbie007_2

So DaveF are you an examiner? What qualify you to say how the examiner marks the candidate?

No argument about GeeGee's wheels over kerb, under normal driving conditions that is an automatic fail for dangerous driving in a town centre.

GEEGEE8

From what I remember, it was 9 years ago now lol. But the car really did bang up and back down the curb. I just said to the examiner that I was very sorry about that, he didn't say anything and I drove on presuming I'd failed.

It was the type of junction where it's a one way street and you can turn left at one end or right, I was turning left and that's when it happened, I just turned too early and to be honest I'm suprised I didn't rip the wheels off the car.

alleycat`

Unless you are an examiner or experienced i have no idea how you come to that conclusion?

The actual terminology for Dangerous Faults are those that result in actual danger, either to yourself or to other road users. Any such fault will result in immediate failure.

Gently mounting a low kerb / rubbing a kerb doesn't count as "dangerous" in all circumstances (IMHO).

It could be classed as a serious/major fault but the wording (that i can find) for that suggests it has to be a repeated error.

GeeGee - did you really hit the kerb that hard or were you bricking it so badly it seemed that way?
Also in the circumstances you struck the kerb did it meet the criteria for a major / dangerous fault?

I know how i felt on my test and every small thing i did wrong felt like the end of the world.

I suspect you got a "minor" infraction for it.