Well done to Catherine, who passed with just 4 driver faults back in August. She was off to university in London at the end of September, so this was important to her.
Another one who has already done Pass Plus with me, and a great little driver.
Category - Driving Tests
Well done to Danielle who passed with just 3 driver faults back in July. She’d just bought a small car and I saw her out in it with her mum about an hour after I’d dropped her off – that always gives me a good feeling.
I know this pass was important to her for personal reasons.
Well done to Darren, who passed first time in July with 7 driver faults. Another older driver who has shown that age doesn’t have to be a barrier to learning to drive.
He’s already completed Pass Plus and he’ll now be able to drive his grand kids around.
Well done Tamara, who passed first time in June with 6 driver faults. She was an older driver who had stopped taking lessons when she was younger due to nerves. She was still nervous, but once she realised she could actually drive it was straightforward.
She was also another one who needed to drive for her job (as I pointed out to her, the job she did didn’t tally with her nerves over driving). This pass will make life a lot easier for her.
I’ve not been writing up my test passes since June, so here’s a bit of a catch up. Well done Carla, who passed in June with just 2 driver faults.
She’s not from the UK, but has a lot of driving experience from her home country in the Americas. She needed this for her new job and a house move. In the end, she passed easily.
This article is from 2010, and I wrote it because someone found the site using this precise search term, and then seemed to spend a bit of time looking at driving-related posts. More recently, I noticed an ADI asking for advice about a pupil he had who was a good driver, but who went completely to pieces on test when she had an examiner sitting beside her.
Don’t give up!
If you are having serious problems with nerves to the extent that you are unable to perform during your test, go and see your GP. Obviously, it is your GP who must decide – not me – but in cases where my pupils have had really debilitating nerves, their GP has sometimes prescribed beta blockers.
These are usually used for treating certain heart conditions, but actors sometimes use them for stage fright (performance anxiety).
A few months ago one of my pupils had been having major issues, and she kept failing her test (well, a couple of times, anyway). I told her about beta blockers and she went to her GP, who immediately prescribed them.
On her tests, she was stoney-faced and serious, even though she was normally bubbly and chatty. The test really affected her. With beta blockers the change was astounding. She was her usual self on her next test, and she passed easily.
Beta blockers don’t turn you into a brilliant driver. But what they can do is turn you into a person who can become a brilliant driver, but who is prevented from doing so due to chronic nerves. I can’t guarantee they’ll work for you, but from what I have seen they certainly drop the nerves down a good few notches. However, there may be a reason why you can’t have them (two of my pupils were refused them due to other medication they were using, and pregnancy).
Let me stress again: I am not a doctor, so this is just advice to go and speak to your GP and explain the situation to him. He may be able to help you.
DO NOT TAKE ANYONE ELSE’S MEDICINE – LET YOUR DOCTOR DECIDE.
DVSA has advised candidates to turn up for tests as normal when industrial action involving fossils who are members of the PCS Union takes place on 19 and 20 November.
Remember that not all examiners are stupid enough to be in the union in the first place, and of those who are, they’re not all that stupid that they’ll be involved in the action. Remember that the further north you are, the more likely you are to be affected (sorry, but based on previous strike action, this is true).
To claim out of pocket expenses, you MUST turn up.
Amusingly, I noticed someone defending the examiners recently. They said that a strike is necessary when negotiations on pay rises come to a stalemate, and when one party is behaving pig-headedly and saying “that’s all you’re getting”. They say that negotiation is about give and take.
Interesting – and either very naive or blindly utopian. Tell you what, next time you’re on a lesson and a pupil tries to negotiate a lower price, instead of telling them that your rate is £23 and that’s it, let them name a price instead. I’m sure you’ll both live happily every after for a long time afterwards.
In actual fact, reasons for the strike this time around are somewhat confusing. Pay is certainly one issue that keeps being mentioned, and this has definitely been the core reason for numerous strikes over the last few years. However, other reports suggest that it is also due to protests over the proposed changes to the driving test, and an increase in the number each examiner has to conduct. This article makes it clear what the main issue is this time around. It is the plans to increase the number of tests they have to conduct which is the reason for the strike. There’s no mention of changes to the test – and this is coming from a source which would support the strikers no matter what.
Going on strike remains an antiquated left wing activity, which has no place in the 21st century unless you live more than 53°N (or in London) – then, it becomes a way of life. The examiners have a valid point on this occasion, but striking is not the way to resolve it. Indeed, they have cried wolf by striking over so many things in the last three years (which is why some news sources are saying it is about pay) that when something like this comes along few people can see the distinction. A “work to rule” would be have been far more effective because it wouldn’t have hurt test candidates.
This article in the Independent makes interesting reading. It reports that the Government is planning a shake up of the driving regulations – the “biggest since 1935”, if you believe the hype.
There is talk of partly privatising the driving test itself, closing test centres, and increasing the age of self-certification from 70 to 75 years. The article states:
Ministers want to improve the driving test pass rate, which is languishing below 50 per cent. The document states that there is “anecdotal evidence” that ill-prepared learners are booking their test date after only a handful of lessons, possibly because of concerns over waiting times between booking and taking the practical examination.
This is complete bollocks. The pass rate has gone up every year since 2002, and 47% is hardly “languishing” below 50. And waiting times have only gone up over the last year, so God only knows where this “anecdotal evidence” has come from. Here are the historical pass rates:
|
2002/3 |
2003/4 |
2004/5 |
2005/6 |
2006/7 |
2007/8 |
2008/9 |
2009/10 |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
2014/15 |
|
43.2 |
42.8 |
14.9 |
42.6 |
43.3 |
44.2 |
45.3 |
45.9 |
46.3 |
46.9 |
47.1 |
47.1 |
46.9 |
I couldn’t find any data from before 2002, and that figure from 2004/5 has to be an error, but here’s what the data look like (without 2004/5) when plotted on a graph:
It’s bad enough that the Independent hacks didn’t research it properly, but I really do wish that those people cutting-and-pasting it on to forums would do their homework first. The situation is not as the Government (or the Independent) is reporting it, and that makes it invalid as the justification for change. The Government is merely pursuing an agenda – more on that in a moment.
The driving test pass rate has always “languished” below 100% for the simple reason that not everyone passes the test! The reason they don’t pass is because there is effectively a “pass mark” – dictated by the driver fault/serious fault boundary – which quite simply means that if they don’t drive well enough on the day then they will fail. It’s nature in action, and it results in a national pass rate of around 47% at the moment. You wouldn’t expect it to change much year on year unless someone was fiddling the results.
But that’s what the Government is proposing. One of the ways they will do it is already being trialled, and the actual changes being looked at include replacing most of the existing manoeuvres (which people can currently easily fail at) with ones that only a complete idiot could fail at. I mean, they are looking to replace the turn in the road and reverse round a corner manoeuvres with “pulling over on the right” and “reversing”!
To get an idea of what the Government is trying to do, you only have to look at the GCSE grading system. GCSEs are graded A to G and – like it or not – every one of those grades is officially considered to be a “pass”. It means that the “pass rate” for GCSEs has been above 97% since 1989, and every year you have people walking around with Es, Fs, and Gs pretending – having been led to believe – that they have a “pass”, when the reality is that no employer (or university) in the land is going to be demanding a handful of Gs in order to be considered for a position with them. The only grades that mean anything are the As, Bs, and Cs, and that brings the “pass rate” down to around 60%. Consider also that under the old O Level system, I believe that around 40% of candidates achieved an A-C grade (anything below that was NOT a pass), and you can see how the figures have been artificially elevated – don’t get me started on how GCSEs are far easier than ‘O’ Levels were.
But this is what they are proposing to do with the driving test. They want to make it so easy only a complete moron would ever fail it, and this will bring the “pass rate” up. What they blatantly fail to realise is that the higher pass rate will bear no relation to actual driving standards. In fact, it will mask a serious decline, as candidates will not be required to master more difficult skills and will only be asked to demonstrate much easier ones. Yet these people will be sent out on the roads with full driving licences.
There is mention in the Independent article of “the private sector [being] asked to help to fill any shortages of examiners and test centres.” I can’t get as worked up over this as some ADIs seem to be doing. It doesn’t specify who the “private sector” are, and it’s only the usual bunch of anti-DVSA instructors who are assuming that it means random people taken off the streets.
Another change that looks like it is going to happen anyway is that people will no longer have to declare themselves fit to drive when they reach 70. The age limit will be raised to 75. This is frightening.
Completely rewritten in August 2015 due to further hits. Original article from 2010, and updated in 2012.
In late 2011 it was announced that there were plans to scrap tests where candidates cannot speak English. From 7 April 2014 this came into effect, and it is now no longer possible to have an interpreter on the Theory Test, nor will there be the provision of voiceovers. Tests will have to be conducted in plain English (or Welsh, or British Sign Language). Interpreters are also no longer allowed on the Practical Test.
I get quite a few hits on the search term “dsa [or dvsa] changes to interpreter” or something similar. I also get quite a few hits from people searching for information about having an interpreter with them on their driving test.
Note that at the time of writing, in Northern Ireland, it IS still possible to use an interpreter, and voiceovers in multiple languages are still provided on the Theory Test. In the UK mainland, you cannot.
My main concern over translated tests has always been the elevated risk of cheating. I know this is a taboo subject, but like it or not those people most likely to want to use an interpreter are frequently the ones most desperate to get a driving licence – whatever it takes. Interpreters tended to come from within their own communities and many of them created lucrative businesses out of it. Unfortunately, for cultural reasons which are even more taboo, fraud and deception easily crept in.
Don’t shoot me (especially that crazy woman from Manchester). I’m just the messenger. Those linguistic options have been removed is for precisely the reasons I have given. The government spokesman said:
It will also help us to reduce the risk of fraud by stopping interpreters from indicating the correct answers to theory test questions.
You wouldn’t believe how often I get people coming to the blog on the search term “how to bribe driving examiner”. Cheating and fraud is only held in check by how much money those assisting in it are prepared to charge for it.
As I’ve mentioned in another article, I once had a Chinese girl who spoke very little English. One time she didn’t see a 30mph limit sign because – as she explained to me herself (and it took a lot of effort to get it out of her with the language problems) – when she panicked she “only saw things only in Chinese!” That’s obviously a major problem, and it would apply to anyone who didn’t speak English – and more so to those whose first language doesn’t use the Western alphabet.
How do I become an official DSA [DVSA] interpreter?
Someone found the blog on that exact term. You can’t be an official DVSA interpreter, because there’s no such thing. There never was.
This old post is attracting a lot of hits, lately. It contains a valid point that is valid all the time – not just in the case I described – so I’ve polished it a little.
I had a pupil fail her test on the parallel park (back in 2011). She only got five faults in total.
Now, I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: I have never had a pupil fail the test for a reason that I didn’t agree with, or which wasn’t valid. This particular situation is no different – not technically, anyway. My pupil didn’t complete the parallel park properly and finished partly on the pavement, and the examiner is not at fault for failing her.
However… the examiner had chosen a location where the driveways didn’t have a raised kerb (it was one of those you can drive a car over). At the time they were doing it, the heavens opened and there was a torrential downpour. I can vouch for it, because in the waiting room back at Chalfont Drive (this was 2011, remember) I was watching it out of the window, thinking “wow!” after it went dark like someone had just turned out the lights.
My pupil was quite upset at failing, as they usually are. In this case, though, I had a lot of sympathy, because she said that she couldn’t see the kerb and had finished perfectly straight otherwise. Apparently, she asked if they could go somewhere else, but the examiner had asked her to continue.
The pavement is the pavement, and you can’t drive or stop on it, and especially not in reverse and on your test. But it does make you wonder why some common sense couldn’t have been exercised by the examiner, and the manoeuvre repeated or resumed after the rain had stopped – perhaps in a new location with a clearly defined kerb. Other examiners sometimes allow ordinarily serious faults to pass because the drive was otherwise excellent (I have no argument against that), so when you hear of things like this you .
No matter how long you’ve been driving, in order to parallel park properly you have to be able to see the kerb! If you can’t see it, you can only guess where you are, which is dangerous. Furthermore, if you can’t “feel” the kerb (i.e. detect if the wheels nudge it) you can’t react to it and correct it. My pupil had no chance – there was rain on the windows, rain on the mirror, rain on the road, no visible kerb line, and no physical kerb to feel with the wheels.
Expecting a learner to do a parallel park as if they were wearing a blindfold in such poor conditions – conditions that 99% of all other candidates don’t experience – is wholly unreasonable. It’s no wonder stories about “quotas” start circulating when an examiner basically forces someone into a fail like this.
I repeat, this article refers to a test in 2011. I can’t even remember who the examiner was, or if he (it was a “he”) is still working.