Boohoo! Just failed my driving test!

[DT Ralge]

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?

 

Precisely, a "drain's width" from the kerb from start to finish allows room for error (and in petrol cars, getting a learner to have sufficient no-panic clutch control to get out of a deep drain is tricky.)

 

if you meant to ask why do you have to be further down the side road on a right reverse than a left reverse, it's because you finish up on the wrong side of the road and have then to make your way back onto the left side AND avoid anybody coming around the corner who EXPECTS (yeah!) you to be on the wrong side of the sideroad.

 

This can be scary and I'm constantly amazed that the DSA fosters the RRev. mano' as the thing to do if you have a van rather than do a turn-in-road or find a roundabout.

[Zomoniac]

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!

 

When you teach reverse-parking (or parallel parking, as it's apparently called now, because it's been too long since we last adopted an Americanism) do you end with the car a car length behind the car in front, or immediately behind the car in front? Just curious.

[Zomoniac]

Precisely, a "drain's width" from the kerb from start to finish allows room for error (and in petrol cars, getting a learner to have sufficient no-panic clutch control to get out of a deep drain is tricky.)

 

if you meant to ask why do you have to be further down the side road on a right reverse than a left reverse, it's because you finish up on the wrong side of the road and have then to make your way back onto the left side AND avoid anybody coming around the corner who EXPECTS (yeah!) you to be on the wrong side of the sideroad.

 

This can be scary and I'm constantly amazed that the DSA fosters the RRev. mano' as the thing to do if you have a van rather than do a turn-in-road or find a roundabout.

 

I don't think I've ever done a RRev unless it's the middle of the night and there's nobody around. It never feels safe to me. I usually find a street on the right and use it to do a TIR. I was never taught a RRev, but was taught 4 lengths back on an LRev, which I never understood, since I reverse back only as far as no longer obstructs the main carriageway.

[smsm]

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!

 

Are you an instructor?

I'm not sure I agree with you that it's due to the quality of the trainer and training. The way my boyfriend and I were taught it up to test standard and obviously other people pass under the impression that it's a parking manouver. I think it's more that instructors expect students to do a lot of theory reading themselves and to know what is expected which is sadly not the case. I think instructors just don't realise that students think it's a parking lesson so don't put us right.

[DT Ralge]

When you teach reverse-parking (or parallel parking, as it's apparently called now, because it's been too long since we last adopted an Americanism) do you end with the car a car length behind the car in front, or immediately behind the car in front? Just curious.

 

For the test, the candidate merely has to finish the mano' within two car lengths of the car in front.

If, say, with a single minor adjustment the candidate ends up very close, no problem, move off but reverse first to avoid the examiner having sphincters a-twitching!

If the pupil goes back to a position outside the 2 car lengths but then adjusts with a move forward the examiner may or may not consider it accurate enough [in my view.]

There are a good few "judgements" made by examiners (and probably fewer hard and fast rules and black/white situations than you think) and they mark very harshly AND very leniently on occasions (anecdotally AND in front of our eyes.)

 

On balance (before we get into THAT debate) if you are good enough you pass - but "good enough" has to be well above average because the "average" fail (+/- 56% of all L-tests are fails, 67% of all first-timers fail.)

[DT Ralge]

Are you an instructor?

I'm not sure I agree with you that it's due to the quality of the trainer and training. The way my boyfriend and I were taught it up to test standard and obviously other people pass under the impression that it's a parking manouver. I think it's more that instructors expect students to do a lot of theory reading themselves and to know what is expected which is sadly not the case. I think instructors just don't realise that students think it's a parking lesson so don't put us right.

 

Yes I am but have moved considerably away from 100% L-test work.

 

It can be the instriuctor's fault that this hasn't been mentioned (I am no longer surprised at things ADi's are reported as doing/not doing/saying) and it could be false memories on the part of the pupil.

 

I couldn't say for sure whether my old pupils would now know it wasn't a parking mano' - but they emphatically did not park the vehicle in this mano' and in any brief I give I make it clear that it is not a parking exercise.

 

The only published book I have ever seen that describes what the pupil should do on the test [with just one page on LRev] is the "DSA's - the official driving test." To expect pupils to read this on top of the other books they DON'T read (HC, Driving - the essential skills ...) would be whistling into the wind (to tidy up the phrase, so to speak.)

 

This book, unearthed from my car and unread for a while (!) has not a lot more than what I copied and pasted above other than a diag. that, I believe, shows it isn't a parking mano'. Need I scan it and email?

[Zomoniac]

For the test, the candidate merely has to finish the mano' within two car lengths of the car in front.

If, say, with a single minor adjustment the candidate ends up very close, no problem, move off but reverse first to avoid the examiner having sphincters a-twitching!

If the pupil goes back to a position outside the 2 car lengths but then adjusts with a move forward the examiner may or may not consider it accurate enough [in my view.]

There are a good few "judgements" made by examiners (and probably fewer hard and fast rules and black/white situations than you think) and they mark very harshly AND very leniently on occasions (anecdotally AND in front of our eyes.)

 

On balance (before we get into THAT debate) if you are good enough you pass - but "good enough" has to be well above average because the "average" fail (+/- 56% of all L-tests are fails, 67% of all first-timers fail.)

 

This is something I never understood as well. I was (by all instructors) taught to finish a car length behind the car in front. I was never taught to reverse park into a single space between two cars, presumably because instructors deem the risk of a collision too high. But what's the point of learning to reverse a car length behind? You would never, ever do it. If there were two spaces between cars you would go in forwards, it would be just as easy. Being able to reverse park over a fifteen foot distance is surely a useless skill, and could potentially have a negative effect as if a newly passed driver used the techniques everyone I know has been taught to try and get into a single space, one car length between two parked cars, they wouldn't be able to get it. I hope you don't take any of this as a bitchy rant or attempting to undermine you, I'm just curious to hear from a (clearly clued up) driving instructor your thoughts, as, despite having numerous instructors, I've always felt that what you're taught really doesn't provide what is necessary for practical driving. That a two-car-length reverse park is deemed more important than being able to drive on a motorway is beyond ludicrous.

[smsm]

No you definitely don't need to scan it in, I do very much believe you! I wish you didn't use so many abbreviations that I don't understand like 'L-test' and 'ADi's' though! I just think it's strange that we stay close to the curb and move so far back when in real life driving you would do it quite quickly and quite wide and usually just get back to the give way line and wait to pull out.

It's good that you made clear it wasn't a parking manouver but I don't think instructors are bad just because they haven't explicitly pointed that out. I think it would be helpful however if we were taught to then pull out of the road to travel in the opposite direction instead of always going back to where we were so that it was obvious we weren't parking. I've no idea what my Dad teaches but I think my instructor is brilliant and he's never pointed it out.

I think it's ridiculous how little pupils (including myself) read and learn outside of lessons and I intend to do a lot more reading before I think of myself as a qualified driver! It's scary how many people must pass and get on the motorway without ever having read the rules.

[Zomoniac]

It's scary how many people must pass and get on the motorway without ever having read the rules.

 

They all think they know the rules: get to the middle lane and stay there

 

(unless they're an over-confident male, in which case drive in the lane you can advance quickest over the next 5 seconds in.)

[DT Ralge]

This is something I never understood as well. I was (by all instructors) taught to finish a car length behind the car in front. I was never taught to reverse park into a single space between two cars, presumably because instructors deem the risk of a collision too high. But what's the point of learning to reverse a car length behind? You would never, ever do it. If there were two spaces between cars you would go in forwards, it would be just as easy. Being able to reverse park over a fifteen foot distance is surely a useless skill, and could potentially have a negative effect as if a newly passed driver used the techniques everyone I know has been taught to try and get into a single space, one car length between two parked cars, they wouldn't be able to get it. I hope you don't take any of this as a bitchy rant or attempting to undermine you, I'm just curious to hear from a (clearly clued up) driving instructor your thoughts, as, despite having numerous instructors, I've always felt that what you're taught really doesn't provide what is necessary for practical driving. That a two-car-length reverse park is deemed more important than being able to drive on a motorway is beyond ludicrous.

 

Oh boy, now you have started something .... takes deep breath.

 

The DSA and instructors are guilty as charged.

 

We do not routinely prepare drivers with ALL the skills they need.

RevParking between two cars on the road;

Motorway driving;

all-weather, night-time, unfamiliar rural (if you live in a big city, clearly)

dual-carriageways (if you live in the "quiet countryside")

Driving with fully-loaded cars

...

 

the list is endless.

The DSA are currently reviewing L-testing and instruction so some things may change.

 

The pupils and parents also have a (negative?) role in this - they want to pass quickly and have no real interest in doing it properly if it costs. That takes more time and more money - witness the PATHETIC uptake level of PassPlus.

They know, 'cos everyone says it is so, that we "learn to drive" after we pass the test but are not prepared to learn any more from the professionals but choose to learn from our mistakes!

 

The changes the DSA will most likely make will not be about how to park on the High Street - they may even decide to let ADI's sign off pupil's ability to manoeuvre and stop testing mano's on test day. The changes will more than likely be about changing attitudes in the youth and fostering a move towards staged testing and ongoing driver training and development post-test.

 

Why? Well, too many youngsters end up having a crash in their first rash years of driving. The crash may end up in a rueful smile but can end up with a scarred 100-year-old tree or two and a bunch of flowers and, in truth, the outcome is determined lottery-style - crazy driving results in a bruise or two whilst quite ordinary iffiness on the road ends in death.

 

As for instructors, well I know far more than I did when I started because I have gone the extra mile and got more qualified, spent more money and gnashed a few more teeth than most. The DSA are pushing us all down a Continuous Professional Development route which a good number of ADI's are greeting with open arms. For a good few others, though, it may be a rude awakening.