Extended driving test

[SeniorAdviser]

Has anyone knowledge of this ? Expectations of examiner,manoevres etc etc

[daz6215]

Here is a quote from DT 1
1.48 EXTENDED TEST (ASSESSMENT OF FAULTS)
The normal methods of assessment should be applied. However, examiners are
reminded that most candidates are likely to have had considerable driving experience,
prior to their mandatory disqualification. Because of this, their method and standard of
driving will probably be quite different to that of the majority of learner drivers. For
example, their ability to take advantage of gaps in the traffic to emerge safely from
junctions is likely to be to a much higher standard than that of the less experienced
driver. They should not be penalised for this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... cedure.pdf

[Ancient]

Here is a quote from DT 1
1.48 EXTENDED TEST (ASSESSMENT OF FAULTS)
The normal methods of assessment should be applied. However, examiners are
reminded that most candidates are likely to have had considerable driving experience,
prior to their mandatory disqualification. Because of this, their method and standard of
driving will probably be quite different to that of the majority of learner drivers. For
example, their ability to take advantage of gaps in the traffic to emerge safely from
junctions is likely to be to a much higher standard than that of the less experienced
driver. They should not be penalised for this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... cedure.pdf

How - odd !
Presumably if they've been disqualified, it has been for a particularly serious misjudgement, a failure to drive at the level of a normal competent driver: Yet they are given 'benefit of the doubt' in their judgement of what constitutes safe driving! Another example of our society's assumption that driving is a right rather than an earned priviledge.

[driverpete]

How - odd !
Presumably if they've been disqualified, it has been for a particularly serious misjudgement, a failure to drive at the level of a normal competent driver: Yet they are given 'benefit of the doubt' in their judgement of what constitutes safe driving! Another example of our society's assumption that driving is a right rather than an earned priviledge.

Au contraire! A learner pulling out into traffic will generally need a bigger gap and will in all probability not get up to speed as briskly as an experienced driver. Examiners are generally aware of this and are thus less likely to feel the need to use the dual controls to prevent a dangerous error occurring.

[Ancient]

Au contraire! A learner pulling out into traffic will generally need a bigger gap and will in all probability not get up to speed as briskly as an experienced driver. Examiners are generally aware of this and are thus less likely to feel the need to use the dual controls to prevent a dangerous error occurring.

And I reiterate, a driver is only banned (particularly if they are also required to take an extended test) for a serious misjudgement of safety such that their driving falls well below a normally competent driver! Why should their judgement in (as an example) how safe it is to pull out, be trusted more than any new driver's? They have already proved they cannot be trusted to judge safety and that is why they end up taking a retest.

[trashbat]

I think you're reading far too much into it. It's just an acknowledgement that experienced drivers will behave quite differently, to avoid a false requirement of them having to ape the style of under-confident novices.

The judgement on safety is the examiner's.

[Ancient]

I think you're reading far too much into it. It's just an acknowledgement that experienced drivers will behave quite differently, to avoid a false requirement of them having to ape the style of under-confident novices.

The judgement on safety is the examiner's.

Experienced drivers?
"1.47 THE EXTENDED TEST
Drivers convicted of certain dangerous driving offences are required to take a
mandatory extended driving test following a period of disqualification; these will be identified on the DL34. "
Whose judgement can be trusted?
I don't think I am reading too much into it at all.

[sussex2]

Perhaps there will be a temptation on the part of the candidate to drive like a learner or how they think one should drive.
Many people who have been driving for a good number of years still drive like learners in any case. In particular in the manner in which they handle the car.
I remember being told before I took my ADI test that (once the man with the red flag had got out of the way) I should drive as I normally would.

[trashbat]

Experienced drivers?
"1.47 THE EXTENDED TEST
Drivers convicted of certain dangerous driving offences are required to take a
mandatory extended driving test following a period of disqualification; these will be identified on the DL34. "
Whose judgement can be trusted?
I don't think I am reading too much into it at all.

They are experienced. I didn't say anything about it being positive.

You're on about their judgement being trusted more. Well, it's not. The examiner is there to judge whether something is safe or not. The guidance merely sets expectations.

[Gareth]

I think you're reading far too much into it. It's just an acknowledgement that experienced drivers will behave quite differently, to avoid a false requirement of them having to ape the style of under-confident novices.

The judgement on safety is the examiner's.

Experienced drivers?
"1.47 THE EXTENDED TEST
Drivers convicted of certain dangerous driving offences are required to take a
mandatory extended driving test following a period of disqualification; these will be identified on the DL34. "
Whose judgement can be trusted?
I don't think I am reading too much into it at all.

I think you are - for example if a driver has been banned for driving under the influence of drink or drugs, the requirement to take the extended test may have no reflection of the standard of their driving, (as opposed to the condition in which they were driving).

[Ancient]

I think you are - for example if a driver has been banned for driving under the influence of drink or drugs, the requirement to take the extended test may have no reflection of the standard of their driving, (as opposed to the condition in which they were driving).

It would reflect on their ability to judge what is dangerous and what is not!
This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-28968229 lacks relevant detail, but after failing to see another road user in excellent visibility with minimal traffic (as if drivers should be excused for driving without care if there is poor visibility or heavy traffic - oh, yes they are ), one would hope that a retest would be required after his 10 year ban.
After 10 years a driver with such poor judgement can be trusted to judge safely how to (for example) pull out in front of someone (or overtake them)?

[trashbat]

And again, that's what the examiner is for.

What do you propose instead?

[Ancient]

I would expect that the examiner's normal judgement would be applied, along with the "normal methods of assessment" for examining a pupil - with no caveats; particularly no caveats that the driver being examined is likely to have better judgement than a newly (and properly) trained candidate.

[fungus]

The examiners normal judgement is applied. There is a difference between a learner with only forty hours driving experience, and a driver with two years experience. The examiner knows that. After all, they are experienced aren't they? The learner will understandably be more hesitant, due to their lack of experience and not reading the road the same as the more experienced driver. This will be evedent in their decision making, with the more experienced driver taking gaps that the inexperienced learner will be reluctant to take, and would possibly be dangerous if they did. That is not to say that the experienced driver is dangerous because they have a better judgement of traffic situations and are able to take opportunities that the inexperienced learner is not. The Highway Code states that you must not cause another driver to alter speed or position. If the driver meets that criteria, and has not compromised the safety of other road users, the examiner will not mark the manoeuvre as a fault. Pulling out briskly is neither a fault or dangerous.

Whatever misdemeanor the banned driver has committed, will not affect the outcome of the test. The examiner is simply judging whether the drive is safe. If it is, and no dangerous or serious faults are committed, then the result will be a pass. Why should a drivers previous poor judgement be called into question by the examiner?

[driverpete]

Couldn't have put it better myself.