Should driving tests be 3 strikes and out?

[jont]

Taken from a BBC news article about failing standards in teacher tests, there's an interesting quote at the end:

Prof Smithers also questioned whether it was necessary to offer unlimited chances to re-sit the test.

"I am not too happy being on the road with someone who has failed their driving test nine times," he said. "I think there's probably a case for limiting it to perhaps three times and you are out. <talking about 3 strikes and out for teacher tests>"

So.... what do people think of limiting the number of resits for a driving test? The practicalities might not work (eg people driving unlicensed increasing, number of appeals etc), but do people think it's acceptable that you can keep sitting the driving test until you pass? I think there's currently a short cooling off period within which you can't resit (also limited by DSA inability to cope with the number of candidates), but should there be a hard limit such that if you fail pehaps 10 times, that's it - you've had 10 attempts to demonstrate your ability and failed, so any future pass is likely to be a fluke? (who remembers Maureen from Driving School?) Or from a road safety point of view is the problem actually young males passing first time and therefore being overconfident?

The last option in the poll is somewhat facetious, except that if you only had 1 chance to pass, your driving standard when you took the test would be significantly higher than if you knew you could just keep resitting. It wouldn't address the long term loss of abilities though

I'll keep my opinion to myself for the time being (for once!)....

[James]

Taken from a BBC news article about failing standards in teacher tests, there's an interesting quote at the end:

Prof Smithers also questioned whether it was necessary to offer unlimited chances to re-sit the test.

"I am not too happy being on the road with someone who has failed their driving test nine times," he said. "I think there's probably a case for limiting it to perhaps three times and you are out. <talking about 3 strikes and out for teacher tests>"

So.... what do people think of limiting the number of resits for a driving test? The practicalities might not work (eg people driving unlicensed increasing, number of appeals etc), but do people think it's acceptable that you can keep sitting the driving test until you pass? I think there's currently a short cooling off period within which you can't resit (also limited by DSA inability to cope with the number of candidates), but should there be a hard limit such that if you fail pehaps 10 times, that's it - you've had 10 attempts to demonstrate your ability and failed, so any future pass is likely to be a fluke? (who remembers Maureen from Driving School?) Or from a road safety point of view is the problem actually young males passing first time and therefore being overconfident?

The last option in the poll is somewhat facetious, except that if you only had 1 chance to pass, your driving standard when you took the test would be significantly higher than if you knew you could just keep resitting. It wouldn't address the long term loss of abilities though

I'll keep my opinion to myself for the time being (for once!)....

Its OK for those of us who passed first time, but can't say I would be too agreeable if I was one of the failures.

[Slink_Pink]

Yes, 3/year - given that luck/fate can be against you in your driving test. As an example, you will fail if you hit someone (rather obvious you might think) but it may have been impossible to avoid, despite an otherwise excellent test drive.

[Nigel]

As long as they keep paying the fee, I'd rather they keep trying to attain basic standard than give up and drive anyway.

I voted never.

[Angus]

I would feel happy with a new driver being given 3 or 4 chances, but what then?

ADIs are given 3 chances for each practical stage within a 2 year period, and if they fail then it's back to square one. Might that be an alternative for new drivers?

Angus

[MGF]

Failing your driving test means only one thing. You failed to demonstrate your competence during the 30-40 minutes during the test.

This could be for a no. of reasons:-

a) You or not yet competant enough.

b) You are competant generally but screwed-up on the day.(me)

c) You are competant but unable to deal with the anxiety of test conditions.

If a) applies then limiting the amount of times to pass the test would not automatically improve driver competance however it might make people better prepare before applying for their test which might result in people learning to a standard beyond the minimum just in case.

If b) applies then a limit will not make much of a difference. If you are competant and don't have a problem with test conditions then, in my view, it follows you would pass at least once out of, say, three times.

If c) applies then there would be no improvement in driver competance as once you have passed your test you no longer drive under 'test' conditions.

So it really depends on why people fail their tests. I don't agree with any limit unless I see evidence that there would be a marked improvement in overall driving standards and only then the improvement would have to be compared with how many people would be banned from the roads and whether it is reasonable to make that sacrifice.

[MGF]

One day I will compose a short post, I promise.

[SammyTheSnake]

I haven't voted because my black/white brain can't quite subscribe to any of the options given. I think limiting re-tries makes sense, but I'm not sure I agree with the numbers given. I don't think a flat number in a lifetime makes sense, what if a person rashly takes 10 tests in a year when they're 17, then wants to have another go when they've grown up a bit and are now pretty a pretty capable driver at the age of 25 or whatever?

In terms of limiting a number of tries in a year, I'd say 3 would be one too many for my liking, but maybe a cooling off period would be the better way to regulate that anyway.

My suggestion would be to make subsequent tests more critical, to avoid the situation where somebody who's failed N times (because they're just incapable of meeting the standards required) and passes on the N+1th test because they just fluked it. A bit like disqualified drivers have an extended test...

I also think that there are probably other things that can be done to help those who just find the test scenario difficult, perhaps judging their performance based on cockpit videos taken during lessons or something...

On a slightly different note:

Failing your driving test means only one thing. You failed to demonstrate your competence during the 30-40 minutes.

Actually, with the DSA standard test, it means something subtly different, it means you demonstrated your INcompetence in the 30-40 minutes. What I mean is that if you successfully pull out into unmoving traffic and sit there for the duration of the test, you pass without having demonstrated any competence beyond pulling out of the car park without crashing! A small difference, but potentially quite a significant one. I understand the tests for ADI qualifications work the other way around, if you don't get through your checklist of stuff to demonstrate competence in, you can't pass, maybe the DSA test should follow that lead?

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[ststeve]

Three a year sounds fair to me as it would give four months between each test for improvement/practice.

My other half's daughter is learning to drive at the moment and all her friends are "really good drivers" according to her yet took about 3 tries on average to pass their test. My view would be that they can't be that good but I may have my judgement clouded by the tarted up Saxos they drive .

I can't see how you could ban someone from taking their test ever again if they failed ten times as they would just drive illegally in any case.

[Lynne]

..


Actually, with the DSA standard test, it means something subtly different, it means you demonstrated your INcompetence in the 30-40 minutes. What I mean is that if you successfully pull out into unmoving traffic and sit there for the duration of the test, you pass without having demonstrated any competence beyond pulling out of the car park without crashing! A small difference, but potentially quite a significant one. I understand the tests for ADI qualifications work the other way around, if you don't get through your checklist of stuff to demonstrate competence in, you can't pass, maybe the DSA test should follow that lead?

Don't know where you got that from Sammy but round my way you will be taken around test route be made to perform certain manoeuvres and, if necessary the examiner will be back late and cancel next test.

One of my nicest drivers failed her test 8 times, on something silly and different each time. Poor girl got herself into a worse state each time just before her test, but in between she would hardly put a foot wrong.

The backlog at some test centres mean you could be waiting 3 months for a another test anyway!

[Standard Dave]

I think there should be some sort of system based on the degree of fail like the system for applying for some government jobs where by they give you a time in which you cannot re apply or give feedback on how your application could be improved.

Possibly a system where people have to take a certain number of hours of instruction like the system for obtaining a pilots licence would be an option.

[MGF]

There used to be a time limit of a month before you could re-apply. Does this still apply?

[SammyTheSnake]

..


Actually, with the DSA standard test, it means something subtly different, it means you demonstrated your INcompetence in the 30-40 minutes...

Don't know where you got that from Sammy but round my way you will be taken around test route be made to perform certain manoeuvres and, if necessary the examiner will be back late and cancel next test.

*shrug* that's what my motorcycle instructor told me (in Rugby, don't know if that makes a difference? I didn't think there were regional variations, though)

Just to clarify, are you saying that if the driver was in static traffic indifinitely, the test would continue for as many hours as were needed for the traffic to clear and allow the necessary maneouvres? Surely there is a time limit of some kind (an hour? two hours?) Certainly if I were organising this kind of thing, I would want a time limit and I'd fail anyone who was unable to demonstrate the necessary maneouvres, though I might give them a discount on a re-test if it wasn't their fault. (traffic jams, other person crashing into the car etc.)

One of my nicest drivers failed her test 8 times, on something silly and different each time. Poor girl got herself into a worse state each time just before her test, but in between she would hardly put a foot wrong.

That's one example of somebody who would benefit from the "test" being in a different format, such as the pass/fail being based (maybe in part) on video evidence from driving lessons. Of course, you'd have an absolute nightmare stopping people photoshopping their driving lessons :-p

The backlog at some test centres mean you could be waiting 3 months for a another test anyway!

I thought the 6-8 weeks here in coventry was bad enough :-p

Interestingly, I could do my test at any of 4-5 test centres, if I was willing to travel 20 miles, but the waiting list was pretty much exactly the same length in each of them...

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[Lady Godiva]

I realise this may be just me, but I really don't understand the logic.

If someone fails the test, why on earth should they be prevented from taking more lessons, and then re-testing when thought appropriate.

Obviously they shouldn't be allowed to drive unsupervised if they fail, but that already applies in the first fail, 2nd fail, 100th fail, etc.

Are we saying that repeated failure means that you cannot ever achieve something. That is terrific, I must go tell that to my children. If you fail to get into the football team trials three times, then give up, you will never be capable. I can hear the cries of "but this is different, someone could be dangerous". Yes, they could be, on their first, or second, or third attempt, or 4th , 5th, etc. The test is there to identify that and stop them driving.

Or are we saying that a previous failure means you are not safe this time (rather a strange logic). So presumeably you shouldn't take a 2nd test after failing the first one.

I can't help thinking that this attitude is slightly patronising and condescending. Unlessof course there is statistical evidence that demonstrates that those who have failed a certain number of times go on to be more likely to have an accident.

Regards
Sally

[OneDragons]

I think the logic is that if you take the test enough times, purely by the law of averages you might have one day when the examiner is in a good mood, perhaps misses a couple of small points and you have an uncharacteristic excellent drive (by your own standards) and you have a licence.

I know a couple of people who have failed the driving test several times (more than 3 or 4 ). One eventually passed and even her husband at the time thought she was a liability behind the wheel. Clutch control was awfull, she woke up the neighbourhood every morning before the car started moving. And once he let her behind the wheel of his land rover, whilst reversing in to the drive she took out the gate post (about 2-3 foot wide and about 5 foot high and built of brick) and a good section of the brick wall alongside it. This was after they had the entrance widened.
Now at one time she managed to produce 45 mins when one examiner thought she passed the minimum standard.

Another guy I know is seemingly lacking in coordination and fine motor control and cant split his concentration to 'multitask' (yes yes he is a bloke etc. ) and keeps missing things, like speed keeps creeping up, doesnt spot things on the road like mini roundabouts, the list goes on. He is hoping to pass his test before his mid thirties and started learning in his early twenties.

Sometimes I really do believe some people are not cut out to be a driver. It comes back to the belief that everyone is 'entitled' to drive. Perhaps this is something that should change.