Driving/Riding Tests

[StuartG]

Driving standards are poor resulting in preventable casualties. So successive governments 'tough-up' the driving tests. Has it improved standards?

I don't think so. Indeed it may be the reverse. There is a concentration on theory, regurgitatable knowledge and procedure. Can you really learn how to accommodate the cyclists and motorscyclists from reading the Highway Code with only passing the test as your objective?

Experience counts which is why older drivers are much safer lot. Surely a better way forward would be to graduate our roadcraft?

A first stage in age is the old National Cycling Proficiency Test. In my day (1950s) most schoolkids did it. Not now. Why not re-introduce it as a mandatory pre-condition to getting a motorcycle provisional licence. In turn a motor car provisional licence could require a mandatory full motorcycle licence. Hence the new car driver would have had years of good roadcraft experience and see the road from two other more vulnerable perspectives.

My car driving is influenced by my two wheel experience (eg never rely on the mirrors, always look over the shoulder before changing position) and I think it benefits everyone. I'm quite convinced I can spot many cyclists when driving by the way they treat us.

I've heard arguements that people can't ride a bike, can't balance, have bad legs and whatever. There are tricycles, there are handcranked cycles as used by war amputees. There is no reason why anyone but the blind and capable of handling a car cannot handle a bike of some sort.

Is this a better way forward then further complicating the driving test. If so how does one begin to get it considered?

 

[tyred]

Using the road on two wheels (either pedal powered or motor powered) improves hazard perception and the ability to read the road. I would be in favour of this and have argued for it for years.

 

[gaz]

I have noticed that by driving has improved since cycling more on the road. And thats becuase as a cyclist i have to read the road much more than i would in a car, because i can't stop as quick, and often aren't seen as well as a car. And thus you have to cycle in a manor that means you can always get out of a situation.

So i think it would improve overall driving if drivers where in the cyclists shoes more often.

I also think we should do driving lessons and tests like they do in sweeden, maybe a bit extreme. But the system over there is a 3 year course to get your license, including skid pans etc..

 

[tyred]

I would agree with skid pan training too. The majority of drivers are clueless when it comes to car control.

 

[marinyork]

I thought the CTC were campaigning on bikeability before the driving test?

I don't agree with the comments about theory. I think there is very little theory on the driving test/lessons/theory tests.

 

[gaz]

I thought the CTC were campaigning on bikeability before the driving test?

I don't agree with the comments about theory. I think there is very little theory on the driving test/lessons/theory tests.

When did you last take a theory test?

I past my test around 3 years ago, and had 35 questions to answer in my test, along with a few from the instructor on my test.

My sister took hers this year, and there where over 50 questions not including hazard perception! So it's not like there aren't many questions, but i'm sure the quality is debatable.

 

[marinyork]

When did you last take a theory test?

I past my test around 3 years ago, and had 35 questions to answer in my test, along with a few from the instructor on my test.

My sister took hers this year, and there where over 50 questions not including hazard perception! So it's not like there aren't many questions, but i'm sure the quality is debatable.

I'm well aware of the changes. 35 and 50 questions are not very many at all. I was one of the last to do 35 questions and hazard perception. One often hears people saying how easy the 50 questions of the theory test is and yet many of these people have an absolutely superficial understanding of the highway code. I would say 200 would be more reasonable.

 

[StuartG]

Ahem my mum didn't even have to take a test to get a licence and she is probably safer then most 50 question geeks. The issue is she, like most of her generation, cycled before she drove. So did most at my schools in 1950/1960s. Now that graduation from two wheels to four has been lost - and it shows in the way many motorists cannot anticipate what a cyclist may do and why.

Thanks for the heads-up on Bikeability - but that seems to have a low takeup at school level. If there is one thing that should be in the NC is .... catch 'em young!

So has CTC made any progress with bike before you drive?

 

[marinyork]

Thanks for the heads-up on Bikeability - but that seems to have a low takeup at school level. If there is one thing that should be in the NC is .... catch 'em young!

Low compared to what? Bikeability has a very high take up compared to what my generation had of cycling proficiency at school - practically zero. A lot of people are really excited about it. I was speaking again to someone I know who does it only tonight.

 

[MartinC]

I think that it's fairly clear that good road experience on a bike or motor bike helps you drive better and some demonstration that you've acquired these skill before you get a car licence would be good.

I agree that the driving test could be improved. To me there are 2 other big problems. First is that there's little enforcement of driving standards - people can pass the test and then drive pretty much however they like. The second is that you have only have to pass your test once - I think it would be better if you had to re-take it periodically and certainly if you were involved in a serious accident or were banned.

 

[gaz]

The majority of people that are driving unsafely on the road isn't the people who just passed (from the concern of a cyclists) So i take it those people didn't take a theory test, which would make it not such an important thing, But i see where your coming from Marin, more questions which covers more topics.

 

[Bad Company]

I passed my driving test in 1973 but took the new theory test and hazard awareness for a motorcycle license.

I found the theory test really good. There was lots of stuff which was either new or I had forgotten. The hazard test was a joke imo.

 

[thomas]

I found the theory test really good. There was lots of stuff which was either new or I had forgotten. The hazard test was a joke imo.

I failed one of the hazard video clips .... because of "random button bashing". No. I just found too many hazards . Heck, the time I clicked and failed was because I saw people playing football at the end of the road...and the football might go on the road/they run out to get it, causing a hazard. . Even though I was penalised for that I still did better overal than most of my friends.

For me, the theory test was probably a good thing. One of my friends got 35/35 and like hell I was going to be beaten. I went through every blooming question and the highway code.

I ended up getting 100% on the theory test too...and beated her on the hazard perception by one mark.

As for making people cycle/motorbike before hand I don't know. Certaintly, if people have an interest in cars and driving they will probably be better drivers. If I only drive because it gets me somewhere quicker than a bus and because I can't be bothered to walk/cycle/etc, I probably don't care how well I do it.

 

[Phil Fouracre]

I do love these threads!! 12 pointless pages :-) :-)

 

[Ming the Merciless]