Driving test to be improved.

On 5 Oct, 08:33, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:35*am, Doug wrote:

On 5 Oct, 07:26, Derek C wrote:

On Oct 5, 7:16*am, Doug wrote:

On 4 Oct, 08:00, FrengaX wrote:

On Oct 4, 6:42*am, Doug wrote:

Is it any wonder that so many people, including cyclists, are killed
and injured on our roads when the driving test has been admittedly
faulty and in need of improvement for many years?

"Changes to the driving test coming into effect in the UK later will
see people following a route "independently".

Candidates will not receive step-by-step directions from their
examiner during the 10-minute section, which will test how they drive
unsupervised.

Test route maps will no longer appear online but the Driving Standards
Agency says learners can ask for reminders and will not be failed for
getting lost.

The number of reversing manoeuvres tested is to rise from two to
three.

The DSA says the introduction of an independent driving part of the
test will allow examiners to better assess whether drivers are ready
to drive unsupervised.

It says candidates will be tested on their ability to drive in more
realistic situations, rather than memorising a pre-defined test route.

DSA chief driving examiner Trevor Wedge said the aim was to see a
candidate's "ability to drive safely while making decisions
independently".

"It's not a test of navigation and candidates won't be failed for
going off route," he said.

"The test is being improved to help produce safer drivers, but that
doesn't mean it's getting any harder. We know many instructors are
already teaching independent driving."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11462155

So they admit the test is being improved to 'produce safer drivers'.
It follows therefore that the test in the past has been deficient and
has resulted in some unsafe drivers being allowed on our roads. Very
reassuring, not!

With such comments, no doubt you have the statistics to show us how
may of those killed and injured are due to things covered by the
changes, such as poor navigation. Do please share.

And anyway, as usual, your commnts are utterly facile. As if any
process, e.g. driving test, is ever going to be 100% foolproof,

Glad you agree. Maybe the emphasis should instead be placed on more
and better driver training, instead of on training of vulnerable road
users on how to try to avoid killer drivers.

and
always provides perfect results. Any process always has room for
improvement. Did you have any suggestions of your own, rather than
just standing at the sidelines shouting "Yah! Boo!" as ever?

My next suggestion is that any motorist who kills or injures a
vulnerable road user should be banned from driving for life, since the
driving test they passed was obviously useless and for that reason was
not worth repeating again for that particular driver.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see examples of stupid or poorly trained cyclists putting themselves
at risk almost every day! Why should the motorist automatically take
the blame for any accidents that may not be their fault?

Anecdotal.

I see examples of stupid or poorly trained drivers putting vulnerable
road users, such as cyclists, at risk every day! Why should those who
are actually killed or injured, by invulnerable drivers, be blamed at
all?

-- .

Also anecdotal!

Indeed, which means your anti-cyclist post is pointless, as usual.

-- .
Car Free Cities.
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

On Oct 6, 7:14*am, Doug wrote:
On 5 Oct, 08:33, Derek C wrote:



On Oct 5, 7:35*am, Doug wrote:

On 5 Oct, 07:26, Derek C wrote:

On Oct 5, 7:16*am, Doug wrote:

On 4 Oct, 08:00, FrengaX wrote:

On Oct 4, 6:42*am, Doug wrote:

Is it any wonder that so many people, including cyclists, are killed
and injured on our roads when the driving test has been admittedly
faulty and in need of improvement for many years?

"Changes to the driving test coming into effect in the UK later will
see people following a route "independently".

Candidates will not receive step-by-step directions from their
examiner during the 10-minute section, which will test how they drive
unsupervised.

Test route maps will no longer appear online but the Driving Standards
Agency says learners can ask for reminders and will not be failed for
getting lost.

The number of reversing manoeuvres tested is to rise from two to
three.

The DSA says the introduction of an independent driving part of the
test will allow examiners to better assess whether drivers are ready
to drive unsupervised.

It says candidates will be tested on their ability to drive in more
realistic situations, rather than memorising a pre-defined test route.

DSA chief driving examiner Trevor Wedge said the aim was to see a
candidate's "ability to drive safely while making decisions
independently".

"It's not a test of navigation and candidates won't be failed for
going off route," he said.

"The test is being improved to help produce safer drivers, but that
doesn't mean it's getting any harder. We know many instructors are
already teaching independent driving."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11462155

So they admit the test is being improved to 'produce safer drivers'.
It follows therefore that the test in the past has been deficient and
has resulted in some unsafe drivers being allowed on our roads. Very
reassuring, not!

With such comments, no doubt you have the statistics to show us how
may of those killed and injured are due to things covered by the
changes, such as poor navigation. Do please share.

And anyway, as usual, your commnts are utterly facile. As if any
process, e.g. driving test, is ever going to be 100% foolproof,

Glad you agree. Maybe the emphasis should instead be placed on more
and better driver training, instead of on training of vulnerable road
users on how to try to avoid killer drivers.

and
always provides perfect results. Any process always has room for
improvement. Did you have any suggestions of your own, rather than
just standing at the sidelines shouting "Yah! Boo!" as ever?

My next suggestion is that any motorist who kills or injures a
vulnerable road user should be banned from driving for life, since the
driving test they passed was obviously useless and for that reason was
not worth repeating again for that particular driver.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see examples of stupid or poorly trained cyclists putting themselves
at risk almost every day! Why should the motorist automatically take
the blame for any accidents that may not be their fault?

Anecdotal.

I see examples of stupid or poorly trained drivers putting vulnerable
road users, such as cyclists, at risk every day! Why should those who
are actually killed or injured, by invulnerable drivers, be blamed at
all?

-- .

Also anecdotal!

Indeed, which means your anti-cyclist post is pointless, as usual.

-- .
Car Free Cities.
*http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not anti-cyclist. I am against poorly trained, incompetent and
law breaking cyclists, who are a danger to themselves and other road
users. Drivers have to show a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge
of the law to get a full driving licence. Cyclists don't.

On Oct 6, 7:45*am, Derek C wrote:

I am not anti-cyclist.

In which case you are doing an exceptionally good job of pretending to
be so, well done.
--
Guy

On 6 Oct, 07:45, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 6, 7:14*am, Doug wrote:



On 5 Oct, 08:33, Derek C wrote:

On Oct 5, 7:35*am, Doug wrote:

On 5 Oct, 07:26, Derek C wrote:

On Oct 5, 7:16*am, Doug wrote:

On 4 Oct, 08:00, FrengaX wrote:

On Oct 4, 6:42*am, Doug wrote:

Is it any wonder that so many people, including cyclists, are killed
and injured on our roads when the driving test has been admittedly
faulty and in need of improvement for many years?

"Changes to the driving test coming into effect in the UK later will
see people following a route "independently".

Candidates will not receive step-by-step directions from their
examiner during the 10-minute section, which will test how they drive
unsupervised.

Test route maps will no longer appear online but the Driving Standards
Agency says learners can ask for reminders and will not be failed for
getting lost.

The number of reversing manoeuvres tested is to rise from two to
three.

The DSA says the introduction of an independent driving part of the
test will allow examiners to better assess whether drivers are ready
to drive unsupervised.

It says candidates will be tested on their ability to drive in more
realistic situations, rather than memorising a pre-defined test route.

DSA chief driving examiner Trevor Wedge said the aim was to see a
candidate's "ability to drive safely while making decisions
independently".

"It's not a test of navigation and candidates won't be failed for
going off route," he said.

"The test is being improved to help produce safer drivers, but that
doesn't mean it's getting any harder. We know many instructors are
already teaching independent driving."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11462155

So they admit the test is being improved to 'produce safer drivers'.
It follows therefore that the test in the past has been deficient and
has resulted in some unsafe drivers being allowed on our roads. Very
reassuring, not!

With such comments, no doubt you have the statistics to show us how
may of those killed and injured are due to things covered by the
changes, such as poor navigation. Do please share.

And anyway, as usual, your commnts are utterly facile. As if any
process, e.g. driving test, is ever going to be 100% foolproof,

Glad you agree. Maybe the emphasis should instead be placed on more
and better driver training, instead of on training of vulnerable road
users on how to try to avoid killer drivers.

and
always provides perfect results. Any process always has room for
improvement. Did you have any suggestions of your own, rather than
just standing at the sidelines shouting "Yah! Boo!" as ever?

My next suggestion is that any motorist who kills or injures a
vulnerable road user should be banned from driving for life, since the
driving test they passed was obviously useless and for that reason was
not worth repeating again for that particular driver.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see examples of stupid or poorly trained cyclists putting themselves
at risk almost every day! Why should the motorist automatically take
the blame for any accidents that may not be their fault?

Anecdotal.

I see examples of stupid or poorly trained drivers putting vulnerable
road users, such as cyclists, at risk every day! Why should those who
are actually killed or injured, by invulnerable drivers, be blamed at
all?

-- .

Also anecdotal!

Indeed, which means your anti-cyclist post is pointless, as usual.

-- .
Car Free Cities.
*http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not anti-cyclist. I am against poorly trained, incompetent and
law breaking cyclists, who are a danger to themselves and other road
users. Drivers have to show a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge
of the law to get a full driving licence. Cyclists don't.

Well clearly the driving test is not working as it should, in view of
the majority of motorists who routinely break the law.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.