Do driving test examiners prefer driving schools?

robatwork

almillar wrote: »

but I hope that you do believe the general 'rule' (no I can't quote it) that on your driving test you should be demonstrating your ability to observe and obey the speed limit. That means changing speed up to and down to the speed limit before and after the sign respectively, if safe to do so. If you potter around at whatever speed you like, you'll be failed.

Yes and no, but mainly no.

Agree a driver should be able to demonstrate his ability as you stated.

Disagree that it means changing speed TO the speed limit. This is just wrong-headed thinking.

You can't point to anything documented about this because there isn't any such thing.

You mention pottering around and I already said doing 30 when it's a 50 zone and safe to do 50 could be called pottering. Doing 45 in a 50 on a clear road on a dry sunny day with no traffic around or with traffic all doing 50 is by no definition pottering.

Car_54

robatwork wrote: »

Yes and no, but mainly no.

Agree a driver should be able to demonstrate his ability as you stated.

Disagree that it means changing speed TO the speed limit. This is just wrong-headed thinking.

You can't point to anything documented about this because there isn't any such thing.

.

Something documented? From the DVSA test report:

"In order to pass your test you must show that you can drive at
a realistic speed appropriate to the road and traffic conditions. ... Driving excessively slowly can create dangers for yourself and other drivers."

In a 50 limit, if there was no traffic, driving at 45 would not create a danger.

But if there was a queue of cars behind you, and it was safe to do 50, it would. And so it would be marked as a fault.

im-lost

fivetide wrote: »

I didn't say they would have a set limit but do you not think that a 100% pass rate would raise some suspicions? Best to be extra harsh on a couple once in a while and play it safe.


One day a borderline case might make it, one day they might not. I don't think it is any big conspiracy theory, just logic.

so you really believe everybody that goes in for a test is completely test ready?

100% pass rate, what kind of fantasy land do you live in?

There's enough mongs out there that haven't got a chance in hell of passing when they go on test, without any need to doctor the outcomes.

Things that could be a fail are overlooked by examiners everyday, there's no if buts or maybe's about it, examiners aren't stupid, if they feel a person is capable and they slightly mess something up like their maneuver, they'll get a minor instead of a major.

Take my test as an example, I made a right dogs dinner of my reverse around the corner, really wide, not enough observations and scraped the curb, more than enough for a fail he said in the debrief, but then went on to say my general standard of driving was good, and that there was nothing that he could really fault bar that dodgy reverse and gave a couple of minors for that bit

it happens all the time, but I don't think for a second that examiners will doctor passes and fails to meet a percentage.

robatwork

Car_54 wrote: »

Something documented? From the DVSA test report:

"In order to pass your test you must show that you can drive at
a realistic speed appropriate to the road and traffic conditions. ... Driving excessively slowly can create dangers for yourself and other drivers."

In a 50 limit, if there was no traffic, driving at 45 would not create a danger.

But if there was a queue of cars behind you, and it was safe to do 50, it would. And so it would be marked as a fault.

Your last paragraph is simply your opinion, not a policy you can quote. Are you an instructor or examiner? Would any examiners care to comment on that?

Car_54

robatwork wrote: »

Your last paragraph is simply your opinion, not a policy you can quote. Are you an instructor or examiner? Would any examiners care to comment on that?

I have quoted the policy: it comes from the explanatory notes given to all candidates.

Driving at a less than realistic and appropriate speed does not demonstrate that you are a safe driver, and holding up other road users (if you could safely and legally go faster) is inconsiderate and creates a danger.

I am an instructor; I have sat in on many tests and occasionally seen faults awarded in these circumstances.

However, I didn't sit in on the OP's test and can't say whether or not 45 was appropriate in his case. What I can say is that candidate's recollections of the detail of their tests are often distorted, which is hardly surprising since most find it a fairly stressful experience.

MacMickster

Car_54 wrote: »

For as long as I can remember, there have been conspiracy theories about driving examiners having quotas to meet.

It just isn't true.

Apart from anything else, if it was true it would have to be the best-kept government secret ever. There are about 1,000 examiners at any one time, so since the test started in 1935 many thousands have left, yet not one of them has ever revealed evidence of this conspiracy. Does that sound likely, if there really was a secret?

Especially when you consider that during the same period most of our really important secrets went straight to the Russians.

Of course there are no quotas, but every examiner will know the average percentage pass rate both nationally and for their own centre.

If the average pass rate was, say, 60% then any examiner who consistently passed 55% to 65% of candidates would probably get very little managerial scrutiny of their decision making. On the other hand, if someone consistently passed 80% or only 40% of their candidates then I am certain that they would feel the eyes of their managers uncomfortably upon them. Most will ensure that they stay close to the average.

Incidentally, going back into the dim and distant past when I was both learning to drive and living within 200 yards of a test centre, for some reason you could see instructors cleaning their cars as the examiner came out of the test centre with the candidate to take the test. Almost invariably these candidates would leave with smiling faces and clutching their pass certificate half an hour later.

Some sort of signal between instructors and examiners that this candidate is really ready to drive? I doubt that you would ever have got anyone to admit it - and certainly wouldn't happen now (would it?)

cajef

MacMickster wrote: »

Of course there are no quotas, but every examiner will know the average percentage pass rate both nationally and for their own centre.

Some sort of signal between instructors and examiners that this candidate is really ready to drive? I doubt that you would ever have got anyone to admit it - and certainly wouldn't happen now (would it?)

The test centre pass rates are in the public domain.

http://www.driving-test-success.com/dsa_driving_test_centre_pass_rates.htm

As far as collusion between examiners and ADI's, do you really think either would risk their livelihood by doing that.

The only thing I would say is that examiners do get to know which instructors have a good pass rate and present pupils for test that are fully prepared and up to the required standard, but that should never and does not influence their decisions on any individual candidate or test.

silverwhistle

I'd have to go back a bit for my test, but I passed first time at the advanced age of 28 after 4 lessons (1.5 hours each). My practice was in the old banger of a fellow lodger in my digs, and I did make a mistake on the test, but as somebody who had a small motorbike I think the examiner could tell that I had road sense. In addition I was aware of the mistake I 'd made (sucking through teeth!). Awareness and attitude are quite important for driving, and to give examiners their due, I think they take that into account.

It took me three times to get my bike test, but I wasn't a very confident rider, so I can understand those failures too..

almillar

robatwork:

Disagree that it means changing speed TO the speed limit. This is just wrong-headed thinking.
You can't point to anything documented about this because there isn't any such thing.

Yup, but it's what I was taught for my L test, and for my advanced test. It's in the book Roadcraft, but that doesnt' apply to L tests obviously. We've got all the caveats out of the way - if it's safe to do so, road conditions permitting, so yes, I still say that on your L test, if the sign says 40, you should be getting up to 40 quickly enough. Being 5mph out, or not holding a steady speed, would show either a lack of awareness or control, and I would certainly hope that a candidate would be penalised for this.

Ah, thank you Car54 - that's the kind of guidance I had floating around in my head.

CountryHeart

I don't think anybody gets treated better than others, as long as you drive well you will pass