"L" TEST- WHAT SHOULD IT INCLUDE?

[ROG]

As a follow on from the recent programme on the BBC "inside story" about the inadequate L test, lets have some ideas about what should be included or excluded.

My idea - scrap the HPT and have the examiner drive whilst the candidate tells them what hazards they are seeing.

[Gromit37]

Well, for a start, some proper parking, compulsory night driving, motorway driving (either before or just after passing the test). More time spent on observation and planning skills. A stricter minimum number of ADI lessons.

As an aside :

An annual retest for the first two years, and a limit to engine size/power for newly qualified/young drivers. Perhaps similar to motorbike regs?

Apologies if I sound a little too zealous

[Susie]

Have a look at New Zealand's system - google.co.nz and put in the necessary search criteria. They analyse their crashes into useable statistics as well.
Some of the Canadian provinces are doing good work too. The trouble with this country's approach, is that we cherry pick bits from here, other bits from there and end up with an unpalatable fruit salad. There is a very simple solution - and it wouldn't cost much to implement.

Susie

[martine]

How about pyschometric profiles of drivers? I was amazed how accurate a short questionairre was in depicting my personality. The only problem would be if someone shows up as being aggressive or a risk-taker does that mean they can never get a licence?

Certainly M-way driving and night-time. A log of hours of instruction would be good and a min. no. of ADI lessions as well.

I'd be much more inclined to put more weight during the test on courtesy, cautiousness, observation skills and less on slow speed manouevering. I like ROG's idea of a basic commentary.

Restrictions on new drivers would seem sensible...I hate the people like Amir who are young yet can seemingly afford an Audi A4 turbo (but that might be because I'm jealous!). What do you reckon the insurance for a 17 year old is on an A4? <Actually I've just checked and the cheapest was £4985 for 3rd party f&f!!!! And that wasn't for the turbo which he had>

I think the Californian idea of limiting no. and age of passengers that novice drivers can have needs to be explored - it helps stop the 'showing off' syndrome.

[jont]

I hate the people like Amir who are young yet can seemingly afford an Audi A4 turbo (but that might be because I'm jealous!). What do you reckon the insurance for a 17 year old is on an A4? <Actually I've just checked and the cheapest was £4985 for 3rd party f&f!!!! And that wasn't for the turbo which he had>

But was it his, perhaps it was a company car or one of his parents? At 17 I was working for my Dad's company for a summer job and was insured on any car in the company, including his rover 620 turbo and a colleagues V6 Mondeo. (not that I got anywhere near driving them - which in hindsight was probably very sensible)

When I was on the Year In Industry scheme it was common practice for some of the students to be given hire cars for the training weeks we had. A couple of years before my time there were some serious accidents with 18 year olds driving high power saloons which were hire cars.

As others have said, I think a log should be kept and M'way, night and driving in adverse weather should be included. And while I know some aren't keen on Skid Pan training, I think it should be essential. In aviation, you train for all eventualities. You hope you'll never end up in those situations, but at least if you do, you know how to cope.

Jon

[Angus]

My two penneth worth:

HPT - fine in theory, crap in practice. Instead of randomly clicking a mouse, use a touch screen & touch the (potential) hazard area. Oh, and use higher resolution screens

Test itself currently works the wrong way - you don't pass it, you fail it. The initial assumption is that you are a perfect driver & the examiner marks your errors. As an example a friend took his test some years ago when the test centre was close to the middle of town. There had been an accident and the traffic was all snarled up. I don't think he drove much more than a mile in the allotted time and passed. No manoeuvres, no emergency stop, barely used 3rd gear

Otherwise the current test is fine as a starter. Limiting the new driver to a car of certain power/top speed/acceleration/insurance group/curfew. Come back for a more stringent test after 3 to 6 months to increase/remove restrictions.

(and if your name is Amir, no licence, ever )

Angus

[Nigel]

My opinion isn't going to be popular....but, I think people miss the point of the DSA driving test.

All this test is supposed to show ( I think) is that the candidate has displayed basic car handling skills, to reach a min level to be allowed onto the roads to mix, unsupervised, with other traffic.

Now by all means put restrictions on them, for example they can only drive during daylight hours (not really practicle, just a thought), they must display "P" plate, no motorway driving until a futher course is completed...whatever.

I think this constant thought that the Ltest must be harder, must include this or that is missguided. Its ok for us, were already allowed to drive, I for one never completed a dsa basic driving test for cars (and I'm 45, not 145 ).

What perhaps is wrong is the fact that the basic dsa driving test is all were required to do.

[novicecross]

After having to go through adding HGV's to my licence a year or so ago, I think I have a feel for what the current L-test is like. My general impression is that it is a test that is focussed on drivers being able to show specific sequences in specific orders rather about whether a person can drive safely.

Mirror checks for example seem to be more focussed on the precise order rather than whether they are being done well and adequately for the situation at the time. Clearly at times they need to be done in a particular order - at other times this is really just convention. Also, needing to move your head to prove you are checking mirrors is almost required rather than the better practice (in my view) of scanning with the eyes and minimising head movement (comes from instrument flying where head movements affect balance).

And the whole concept of minor/major faults is silly. If an examiner wants to fail you, they just get you to repeat something that they don't like so you get a major for it and test over.

The whole thing is form over substance.

Let's just say, I didn't find it a pleasant experience.

[Gromit37]

My opinion isn't going to be popular....but, I think people miss the point of the DSA driving test.

All this test is supposed to show ( I think) is that the candidate has displayed basic car handling skills, to reach a min level to be allowed onto the roads to mix, unsupervised, with other traffic.

Now by all means put restrictions on them, for example they can only drive during daylight hours (not really practicle, just a thought), they must display "P" plate, no motorway driving until a futher course is completed...whatever.

I think this constant thought that the Ltest must be harder, must include this or that is missguided. Its ok for us, were already allowed to drive, I for one never completed a dsa basic driving test for cars (and I'm 45, not 145 ).

What perhaps is wrong is the fact that the basic dsa driving test is all were required to do.

You're right about what the DSA test should be doing, but that 'minimum' level is too low. Hence all the accidents, and not just with young drivers either. Start at a low level, and then pick up bad habits, and you end up with a very low level. Start higher, then perhaps after the bad habits creep in, you end up with a slightly higher standard of driving. Amir and that girl just go to show that the level is too low. I was stunned by their lack of knowledge and regard for other people. IMVHO of course!

[nuster100]

I think that once you pass you test you should be limited to certain roads and powered cars until you complete a further advanced test.

e.g no motorway driving, nothing above 1.8

I would also make the advanced test compulsory after 2 years.

Very much like the cbt will get you on the road, but you need the full test for more powerful bikes.

Jay

[Angus]

The points about additional training & testing are very valid.

Some years ago, Essex County Council ran a "drive alive" scheme with the IAM and RoSPA groups in the county for teenage drivers. I went out with several, who had already picked up some interesting habits. But because these habits weren't ingrained they could easily drop them. (OK they could probably pick them up again, but at least they were aware of how easily these habits could be picked up)

[Nigel]

I'm not sure present test levels are too low.

Does anyone think they are lower than say 20 years ago ?

Are there really more accidents now than 20 years ago ?

Or are we getting older, perhaps done a bit of extra training, and want to impose conditions on others that we didn't have to do ?

[vonhosen]

I'm not sure present test levels are too low.

I doubt those doing the test will say so.

Does anyone think they are lower than say 20 years ago ?

1982
Tests taken 2,005,296
Tests passed 966,845
Percentage passed 47.6%


2002
Tests taken 1,159,038
Tests passed 503,022
Percentage passed 43.4%

Are there really more accidents now than 20 years ago ?

1985
Vehicles 21.2 million
Fatalities 5,165
Injured 312,000


2005
Vehicles 32.8 million
Fatalities 3,201
Injured 268,000

Or are we getting older, perhaps done a bit of extra training, and want to impose conditions on others that we didn't have to do ?

It's called creeping excellence.

[stefan einz]

It's called creeping excellence.

I can only assume, Von, that this is a slight jest. I hope so, because I doubt if there is any real evidence to causally link driving test standards to accident rates, given the huge number of variables involved.

What is indisputable is that the test today could be significantly more effective. It is only the weakness of our Government to show real leadership around road safety that prevents it from being so.

Kind regards

Steve

[vonhosen]

It's called creeping excellence.

I can only assume, Von, that this is a slight jest. I hope so, because I doubt if there is any real evidence to causally link driving test standards to accident rates, given the huge number of variables involved.

What is indisputable is that the test today could be significantly more effective. It is only the weakness of our Government to show real leadership around road safety that prevents it from being so.

Kind regards

Steve

The numbers were provided, simply because that's what the numbers are in relation to some of the points raised. I don't seek personally to attribute or attach any correlation between them.


However, with that comment specifically quoted, I'm talking about how we each struggle with the learning & testing ourselves, but if we are not careful as we become more accomplished, we have a tendency to forget how hard we actually did struggle & to show empathy for others who now do so. We expect more & become less forgiving of others, with an attitude that it's something we've always been able to do, when in truth we couldn't, we had to learn & that took time.

It's easy to be dismissive of others when we ourselves have been more fortunate with the training we received.

I'm not applying that comment to the DSA tests alone, but to whatever level people get to & then watch others trying to attain that level.

It's easy sometimes to look at what passes as an advanced driver in some places & scoff, because in truth advanced is not what one might call it from one's own perspective.

I certainly remember struggling with DSA training & test, plus plenty of other courses afterwards. I don't think those starting out find it easy now either, but the problem is that they do mostly consider it the end of their training & there is little to encourage them to think otherwise.

If you make the initial driving test too hard though, you run the risk of more people not actually bothering with the test. Drivers in the main are not very tolerant of the less skilful around them on the roads & even drivers that call themselves advanced drivers, don't actively go out of their way a lot of the time to make it easier for those less skilled than themselves when they interact with them. They simply see them as a burden.

How many times we hear people complaining (not necesarily here but in general) about someone holding them up by driving at a speed slower than they personally wish to travel, when in truth if they want to pass, it's up to them to do so safely, not rebuke the less skilled for simply making the progress that they were comfortable with.