foxtrot_mike wrote:fungus wrote:and that she is not being pushed enough. He apparently knows another instructor who will push her much harder. I get the feeling he is one of these who think that twenty lessons is enough to pass the test.
I take issue with this based on my experiences, she must do it at her own pace there seems to be a huge push to get students through as fast as possible in as few lessons as possible, with an emphasis on learning how to pass the test rather than learning to drive, bad for road safety in my opinion.
I know lessons are expensive but the cost of failing a test and then further lessons before retakes wouldn't be cost effective.
I'm not sure why this is, maybe they want the figures for numbers of students passed or something
If i took lessons again (PCV or HGV) id be looking for quality not speed.
This is what I was doing.
She had become reasonably independent with approaching junctions and assessing safe gaps when emerging. Clutch control was generally good and she was able to plan ahead better than some that have had more lessons. We had been reversing in a straight line, and correcting position with the car facing both nose in to the kerb and out. This she accomplished with a good degree of accuracy and control.
Incidently she has not yet passed the theory test, and apparently has not practiced the hazard perception as her computer would not load the programme.
waremark wrote:Surely the order in which you teach things is not the issue here; if the father is indeed dissatisfied, it is with the general level of the pupil's progress, and the approximate number of lessons which are going to be needed. Presumably instructors often have to deal with two clients - the one learning to drive and the one paying the bills. A good instructor also has to be a good salesman and has to be able to get both these clients to buy into the approach he intends to take. I should have thought you would meet the father and review the situation with him.
Incidentally I have recently read a thread about numbers of lessons taken to pass the driving test. A number of posters were claiming very low numbers, several lower numbers than 20 - I have no comment to make on how well they learned to drive.
I was speaking to the father yesterday afternoon. He came across as the type of person who knew better than everyone else. He passed his test then drove to Plymouth a couple of days later as easily as if he'd been driving for years, but this must have been twenty odd years ago when traffic conditions were not as demanding as they are today.
I'm not sure of the figures for the present, but four or five years ago the DSA issued a leaflet by the then chief driving examiner, which was given to candidates who had passed their theory test. In this leaflet it gave the top ten reasons for practical test failure. There was also the opinion of the chief driving examiner as to why so many fail the test, simply lack of experience. Research shows that on average, those that take around forty hours professional tuition along side plenty of private practice, stand the best chance of passing.
I took my test in early 1969 and passed after only ten lessons. However, when I was in the final year of secondary school, we had two cars in which the science master used to teach us basic clutch control etc. and simple maintenance procedures. My brother also used to take me out on gravel tracks over downland at the back of Badbury Rings, an Iron Age fort near where we lived. This was on a fairly regular basis, and by the time I was seventeen, I had all basic control skills and could also reverse the car to the left, and do a three point turn. We only had the two manoeuvres in those days, not the four that they have now. There were also only about seven million cars on the roads then, as opposed to thirty two million today.
I have had pupils pass a test in fifteen lessons, but they have also had a lot of private practice.
