# Driving/Riding Tests



## StuartG (13 Oct 2009)

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 (13 Oct 2009)

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 (13 Oct 2009)

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 (13 Oct 2009)

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


----------



## marinyork (13 Oct 2009)

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 (13 Oct 2009)

marinyork said:


> 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 (13 Oct 2009)

gaz said:


> 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 (13 Oct 2009)

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 (13 Oct 2009)

StuartG said:


> 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 (14 Oct 2009)

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 (14 Oct 2009)

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 (14 Oct 2009)

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 (18 Oct 2009)

Bad Company said:


> 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 (20 Aug 2021)

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


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Aug 2021)




----------



## Profpointy (20 Aug 2021)

tyred said:


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



I've mixed feelings on that. With a modern car, you've got to be driving like a total twat to get into a skid in the first place, and if you are taught what to do, there's quite a temptation to explore
the limits of the car. 

Back in the day I had a '68 Cortina on East German cross ply tyres and I got used to sliding it round corners, admittedly at low speed, and totally in control. In due course got top quality Goodyear radials and it was much better, but of course, I went a bit quicker and was soon able to reach the limit of those too. A while later it failed the MoT on shock absorbers. I was cross about this nonsense fail until I drove it on the new ones - it felt like a Ferrari in comparison to the old shocks. I think you can see where this is going - a while later I had a modern diesel van, albeit a modest Maestro and again I drove it at the limit as I had before. However by this point I was going a bit quicker and found I wasn't as clever as I thought I was, and got into a tank slapper and put it through the
hedge, thankfully without involving anyone else. At first I analysed how I'd mis-handled the skid, or more to the point, mis-handled after successfully catching the skid, then I realised, the real cause was getting into such a pickle in the first place,
and whilst there was youthful folly involved I did learn my lesson which is not to drive like a twat.

OK granted skid handling may be of help on snow, you really shouldn't be anywhere even close to sliding a car outside a motorsport situation on closed roads/tracks, so it's at least arguable that training for a skid kind of normalises the idea that it's somehow OK.


----------



## classic33 (20 Aug 2021)

Phil Fouracre said:


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


You got the right thread?
This was only one page.


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Aug 2021)

I like the theory of this, ie, you have to experience other road users perspective, before you are let loose. 

Personally, I walk, cycle, ride a motorcycle, drive a car and, drive a medium size motorhome. I like to think the varied experience makes me a better pedestrian, rider and driver, perhaps, I am not best placed to judge that. 

But...

a) what about those who are physically unable to ride a bicycle and/or motorcycle, but, could drive a (possibly adapted) car?

b) why stop at cycle experience and motorcycle experience, why not insist on large vehicle experience too (eg, bus/lorry) ?


----------



## Solocle (23 Aug 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> I like the theory of this, ie, you have to experience other road users perspective, before you are let loose.
> 
> Personally, I walk, cycle, ride a motorcycle, drive a car and, drive a medium size motorhome. I like to think the varied experience makes me a better pedestrian, rider and driver, perhaps, I am not best placed to judge that.
> 
> ...


It pays to see things from the perspective of the more vulnerable. The more vulnerable are generally careful of big stuff that can hurt them, even if an occassional car driver manages to yeet themselves into a lorry...


----------



## Jody (23 Aug 2021)

classic33 said:


> You got the right thread?
> This was only one page.



Maybe they mixed up pages and the amount of years since the thread was started or last updated


----------



## Ming the Merciless (23 Aug 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> a) what about those who are physically unable to ride a bicycle and/or motorcycle, but, could drive a (possibly adapted) car?



Very few who can drive an adapted car but couldn’t ride an adapted trike or hand bike.


----------



## classic33 (23 Aug 2021)

Jody said:


> Maybe they mixed up pages and the amount of years since the thread was started or last updated


Always a possibility.


----------

