Boohoo! Just failed my driving test!

[smsm]

I didn't say that the little I do know was imparted to me as part of a degree, and I'm not throwing my weight about with it on an internet forum

 

If you'd like to know my educational/experience status - read my posts - it's all there somewhere

 

I gave up reading the link I provided as it wandered off somewhere else - but I assumed a degree student would be capable of reading the relevant part, rather than needing to be spoon fed. My apologies if you're not capable

 

Now having established that there is evidence that male and female eyes are different, can we get back to the topic of the thread?

 

I think I must need my eyes testing, as I've never had any trouble reversing round corners, or picking wallpaper to match the curtains. Perhaps I'm just plain odd

 

 

I am perfectly capable of reading the relevant information in the article and I read more than you. The author suggests there may be problems with the experiments done and that you can't neccessarily trust what the books say. What I was trying to say is that the link isn't relevant and it's you who brought the thread further off topic. Discussing the technicalities of the eyes and brain in relation to this lady's struggles seems like reasonable conversation in this thread but just accusing me off not being a capable reader and of doing a 'dumbed down' degree is not on topic and is insulting. I have no interest in reading your other posts, I was just interested in whether you had a degree and remembered all from it, as you seemed to be implying that because I didn't know EVERYTHING about the eye my psychology degree had been dumbed down which I don't think you have a right to do. Quoting my post as containing 'other ranty stuff' implies you haven't read and understood the rest of it. All I was saying was that I couldn't be expected to know EVERYTHING after one module in my first year, how is that a rant? It's a response to your accusation. If you can't back up your accusation don't make it.

[DT Ralge]

I successfully did a corner reverse in my test. 5 years later and I've never had a need to do one. A complete waste of time.

 

Passing your driving test =/= being able to drive.

 

you don't have a drive to reverse onto then or you reverse out onto the road?

[Zomoniac]

you don't have a drive to reverse onto then or you reverse out onto the road?

 

That's not slow and steady corner hugging to stay close to the side. If I reverse around a corner to turn the car round I do it in the middle of the lane and at a reasonable speed, I don't try to have the car at the kerb when I've finished reversing, there is no useful purpose for that. If you're parking so close to the corner that you can't easily get in with a standard forward or reverse park then you're unsafely close to the corner.

[DT Ralge]

That's not slow and steady corner hugging to stay close to the side. If I reverse around a corner to turn the car round I do it in the middle of the lane and at a reasonable speed, I don't try to have the car at the kerb when I've finished reversing, there is no useful purpose for that. If you're parking so close to the corner that you can't easily get in with a standard forward or reverse park then you're unsafely close to the corner.[/QUOTE]

 

You were never meant to be parking the vehicle on a left reverse - so you either got the wrong end of the stick or you had an instructor who told you wrong.

The LRev. is merely to "turn the vehicle around using an opening on the left."

[Zomoniac]

You were never meant to be parking the vehicle on a left reverse - so you either got the wrong end of the stick or you had an instructor who told you wrong.

The LRev. is merely to "turn the vehicle around using an opening on the left."

 

How strange. It was always called "reverse around a corner", and I went through four instructors who all taught me the same method, to reverse and finish off in a parked position. I never could see any use for it whatsoever. Must be a Bradford teaching thing.

[smsm]

That's not slow and steady corner hugging to stay close to the side. If I reverse around a corner to turn the car round I do it in the middle of the lane and at a reasonable speed, I don't try to have the car at the kerb when I've finished reversing, there is no useful purpose for that. If you're parking so close to the corner that you can't easily get in with a standard forward or reverse park then you're unsafely close to the corner.[/QUOTE]

 

You were never meant to be parking the vehicle on a left reverse - so you either got the wrong end of the stick or you had an instructor who told you wrong.

The LRev. is merely to "turn the vehicle around using an opening on the left."

 

He had lots of different instructors as he has said so I find it hard to believe that they all told him wrong. My instructor has certainly given me the impression that your are taught the 'reverse round a corner' to park. When I was taught this manouver I was taught to reverse very close to the kerb and then move back about 4 car lengths from the corner and stop, as I don't need that distance to move off again if I was just turning round I can't see why I'd be taught that unless I was parking. If I was just being taught how to turn the car round why would I be asked to stay close to the kerb and move back so far? I don't know how long ago you learnt to drive but I suppose it is possible that when you learnt you were simply taught to "turn the vehicle around using an opening on the left" but that they have since changed it to be a parking manouver. I am going for a drive with my Dad tomorrow who is an instructor so I'll check what he thinks. I don't think you can argue with what 6 different instructors say. I think that you should be taught to "turn the vehicle around using an opening on the left" rather than taught to park by reversing round a corner as it would be a lot more useful but I don't believe it's the case.

[DT Ralge]

 

He had lots of different instructors as he has said so I find it hard to believe that they all told him wrong. My instructor has certainly given me the impression that your are taught the 'reverse round a corner' to park. When I was taught this manouver I was taught to reverse very close to the kerb and then move back about 4 car lengths from the corner and stop, as I don't need that distance to move off again if I was just turning round I can't see why I'd be taught that unless I was parking. If I was just being taught how to turn the car round why would I be asked to stay close to the kerb and move back so far? I don't know how long ago you learnt to drive but I suppose it is possible that when you learnt you were simply taught to "turn the vehicle around using an opening on the left" but that they have since changed it to be a parking manouver. I am going for a drive with my Dad tomorrow who is an instructor so I'll check what he thinks. I don't think you can argue with what 6 different instructors say. I think that you should be taught to "turn the vehicle around using an opening on the left" rather than taught to park by reversing round a corner as it would be a lot more useful but I don't believe it's the case.

 

Believe me, you are NOT intended to finish off in a parked position. If you do end up next to the kerb it does not matter but "a drain's width away from the kerb to start and a drain's width away to finish" is good enough.

 

From the DSA's "Test Notes for Examiners" the instruction form the examiner asking a candidate to do this mano':

 

LEFT-HAND REVERSE

The candidate should be asked to bring the vehicle to rest BEFORE he reaches the opening on the left-hand side into which it is intended that he should reverse, and then told to drive past and subsequently reverse into it. He should be asked to continue to drive the vehicle in reverse gear for some distance after he has straightened up, still keeping reasonably close to the kerb. "Reasonably close" is not "parked"

 

On this mano' the candidate should back into the side road far enough to clear the junction to allow others to get to the giveway line with ease NOT for any parking reason.

 

Don't forget that anyone presenting for test in a solid-sided van would not be asked to do this mano' but might be asked to do a RIGHT-reverse i.e use an opening on the right to turn the vehicle around. Definitely not a parking mano'!

 

RIGHT-HAND REVERSE

The candidate should be asked to pull up on the left-hand side well before the opening on the right into which it is intended that he should reverse. He should next be asked to continue on the left until he is past it and, THEN, to move across to the right-hand side of the road and stop in order to reverse into the opening. He should be asked to continue to drive the vehicle in reverse gear well down the side road i.e even further than on the LREv.keeping reasonably close to the right-hand kerb. The latter point is important because, in moving away after completing the reversing movement, the candidate will need to safely regain the left-hand side of the road.

 

The "DT" stands for driver trainer but you are right, I passed a long time ago!

[Zomoniac]

Believe me, you are NOT intended to finish off in a parked position. If you do end up next to the kerb it does not matter but "a drain's width away from the kerb to start and a drain's width away to finish" is good enough.

 

From the DSA's "Test Notes for Examiners" the instruction form the examiner asking a candidate to do this mano':

 

LEFT-HAND REVERSE

The candidate should be asked to bring the vehicle to rest BEFORE he reaches the opening on the left-hand side into which it is intended that he should reverse, and then told to drive past and subsequently reverse into it. He should be asked to continue to drive the vehicle in reverse gear for some distance after he has straightened up, still keeping reasonably close to the kerb. "Reasonably close" is not "parked"

 

On this mano' the candidate should back into the side road far enough to clear the junction to allow others to get to the giveway line with ease NOT for any parking reason.

 

Don't forget that anyone presenting for test in a solid-sided van would not be asked to do this mano' but might be asked to do a RIGHT-reverse i.e use an opening on the right to turn the vehicle around. Definitely not a parking mano'!

 

RIGHT-HAND REVERSE

The candidate should be asked to pull up on the left-hand side well before the opening on the right into which it is intended that he should reverse. He should next be asked to continue on the left until he is past it and, THEN, to move across to the right-hand side of the road and stop in order to reverse into the opening. He should be asked to continue to drive the vehicle in reverse gear well down the side road i.e even further than on the LREv.keeping reasonably close to the right-hand kerb. The latter point is important because, in moving away after completing the reversing movement, the candidate will need to safely regain the left-hand side of the road.

 

The "DT" stands for driver trainer but you are right, I passed a long time ago!

 

Why do you need to be any closer to the kerb than if you were just driving down the road? Is there any logical reason other than it leaves more room for error?

[smsm]

How bizarre! Everyone I've spoken to about learning to drive has been under the impression that it is a manouver taught so you can park and instructors have never said otherwise so I wonder if they realise we don't understand! If you're being taught to drive well, surely you should be quick enough to reverse round a corner to turn the vehicle without having to go back far enough for people to overtake you, maybe that's just for the purposes of allowing the instructor/examiner to tell you what to do next. I do think it's worth learning how to turn round this way but I think I know the reason people are confused by it. Whenever I practiced this with an instructor I've stopped about 4 car lengths back at the end and then either gone back to my starting position to do it again or gone back to where I started to continue along the road (test route). I've never done the manouver and then turned the other way (which is what you do in real life driving) so it's never appeared to be for that reason. I can only assume this is what other people have done and that's why they assume it's for parking. Thanks for looking it up and clarifying. I'm sure a lot of people will breathe a sigh of relief/understanding/something when they ask about it in future and I can now tell them the facts.

[DT Ralge]

How bizarre! Everyone I've spoken to about learning to drive has been under the impression that it is a manouver taught so you can park and instructors have never said otherwise so I wonder if they realise we don't understand! If you're being taught to drive well, surely you should be quick enough to reverse round a corner to turn the vehicle without having to go back far enough for people to overtake you, maybe that's just for the purposes of allowing the instructor/examiner to tell you what to do next. I do think it's worth learning how to turn round this way but I think I know the reason people are confused by it. Whenever I practiced this with an instructor I've stopped about 4 car lengths back at the end and then either gone back to my starting position to do it again or gone back to where I started to continue along the road (test route). I've never done the manouver and then turned the other way (which is what you do in real life driving) so it's never appeared to be for that reason. I can only assume this is what other people have done and that's why they assume it's for parking. Thanks for looking it up and clarifying. I'm sure a lot of people will breathe a sigh of relief/understanding/something when they ask about it in future and I can now tell them the facts.

 

 

it's all down to the quality and standard of the trainer/training as with anything else!

I'm afraid the industry can, on occasions, be accused of being a bit of a cottage industry!