RTA dumbs down the new Red P's test... (1 Viewer)

[seremify007]

Just saw this on the cover of the Daily Telegraph and thought I'd post it up;

RTA dumbs down licence exams
By Heath Aston and Stephanie Wilson
April 21, 2007 12:00

THE State Government will cheat on its own new "tougher" driving test to ensure the same proportion of learner drivers qualify for their P-plates despite the more arduous testing.
The RTA has briefed driving instructors on how it plans to dumb down the enhanced test – and even supply students with the test routes – in a bid to avoid a backlash when pass rates "plummet" under the new system.
The new test was implemented as part of the Iemma Government's tough stance on improving the skills of P-plate drivers in the wake of the death of a number of teenage drivers.
The tweaking of pass marks makes a mockery of the tests, which are due to be introduced within nine months.
A leaked recording of a briefing for 60 driving instructors by RTA driver policy manager Duncan McRae reveals Government fears that the new test will slash the success rate from six in 10 to just three in 10.
"Our worst-case scenario is the pass rate plummets, the media rip into us and say the new test was a crock and we're forced to revert to the old test," Mr McRae said.
Such a high rate of failure is likely to anger drivers and their parents, who either pay for lessons or spend more than 120 hours teaching L-platers.
To avoid the potential stink, Mr McRae outlined how the RTA would dumb down the new test to make it "equally difficult" as the current one.
"If you roll out the 90 per cent pass rate and suddenly everybody fails because you've made it too high, you might actually need to roll it out with say 85 per cent pass rate to be equally tough with the current test and then tweak it back up," he said.
Central Coast driving instructor Mark Baker said he and fellow delegates were gobsmacked when Mr McRae suggested longer test routes could be provided to students in advance.
"What's the point of spending all this time and money to improve the standard of driving when the end result is exactly the same?" he asked.
In January last year, Roads Minister Eric Roozendaal said the new test would be "tougher, particularly focusing on (a driver's) ability to perceive potential dangers".
Opposition roads safety spokesman Andrew Fraser said: "All the fanfare about tougher criteria has gone out the door.
"This was pre-election promises from the Government but politics has no place where children's lives are being lost."

URL: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21592459-5001021,00.html

All I can say is 'hmmm....'

 

[mr_brightside]

For fucks sake.

 

[seremify007]

Gosh I wonder how many people are going to fudge even more hours now... knowing that the test is easier than before.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Failure rates are irrelevant. People have no right to complain. If you can't drive you shouldn't be given a license.

The only issue I can see is the cost of the test if you need to do it several times. Maybe they should reduce the cost of the test but they certainly shouldn't make it any easier.

So now it seems the one good change the were making is now not really happening... fuck people are morons.

 

[Legham]

I thought a lower success rate would be a good thing for the RTA :/ Cause then people would need to take more attempts at it, therefore more income.

 

[CieL]

I thought a lower success rate would be a good thing for the RTA :/ Cause then people would need to take more attempts at it, therefore more income.

Reaaaaddd!!

"Our worst-case scenario is the pass rate plummets, the media rip into us and say the new test was a crock and we're forced to revert to the old test," Mr McRae said.
Such a high rate of failure is likely to anger drivers and their parents, who either pay for lessons or spend more than 120 hours teaching L-platers.
To avoid the potential stink, Mr McRae outlined how the RTA would dumb down the new test to make it "equally difficult" as the current one.

So, what exactly will be different in the DART?
Ability to perceive potential dangers? Sif that's possible when we do our test in the middle of nowhere.. they always pick quieter streets for us to drive on.. and the DART was fucking easy to begin with, as if making it harder would change anything if you're a competent driver

 

[seremify007]

What makes me curious is how they improve potential danger perception if you are fully aware of the course you are taking in advance. After all, hazard perception skills would be more noticeable if the test was conducted in unfamiliar territory right? Sure there may be unexpected events such as a pedestrian running out onto a street, but if you can't perceive these- you probably shouldn't be driving.

 

[CieL]

What makes me curious is how they improve potential danger perception if you are fully aware of the course you are taking in advance. After all, hazard perception skills would be more noticeable if the test was conducted in unfamiliar territory right? Sure there may be unexpected events such as a pedestrian running out onto a street, but if you can't perceive these- you probably shouldn't be driving.

No, not everyone can afford driving instructors lol

I took my DART in Hornsby RTA cos it was close to school [dont even live in the area], but the guy made me drive all the way to Asquith... which I have never been in my life... I just suddenly saw the "WELCOME TO ASQUITH" sign through the torrential rain n flashing school zone lights...

 

[seremify007]

No, not everyone can afford driving instructors lol

I took my DART in Hornsby RTA cos it was close to school [dont even live in the area], but the guy made me drive all the way to Asquith... which I have never been in my life... I just suddenly saw the "WELCOME TO ASQUITH" sign through the torrential rain n flashing school zone lights...

I was referring to the first line of the article;

The RTA has briefed driving instructors on how it plans to dumb down the enhanced test – and even supply students with the test routes – in a bid to avoid a backlash when pass rates "plummet" under the new system.

I was under the impression this was different from the current system whereby driving instructors teach their students the route.

 

[Jiga]

I dont see what the problem is... I think they are being sensible about it. Instead of making it ridiculously difficult, they are just changing the test to test things that are more important, like hazard perception, in place of useless things like reverse parking.

And I cant stand the media and other older people having a go at it, half the bastards would fail the tests we have to go through now, afterall back in their day you rocked up and could get your license on the day. One of the radio stations actually did something along these lines, I THINK it was the ps test and everyone failed. Enough said!

 

[MuffinMan]

they are just changing the test to test things that are more important, like hazard perception, in place of useless things like reverse parking.

Why is reverse parking useless? You don't want to hit the car behind you or mount the kerb when you park do you?

 

[CieL]

Why is reverse parking useless? You don't want to hit the car behind you or mount the kerb when you park do you?

I think he meant that it should be something one should know how to do already...?

But I still dont understand how they're going to test hazard perception.... unless it's going to be driving in conditions displayed in the HPT... but how often are you going to get a truck blocking ur view... or someone pushing a pram across the road when you're driving?

 

[Jiga]

Why is reverse parking useless? You don't want to hit the car behind you or mount the kerb when you park do you?

I mean parrallel reverse park to clarify, but it is useless, most people like myself dont ever use it after passing (I can do them, but I couldnt be bothered stuffing around with it)!!! Its something which you dont have to use when driving (just move onto a bigger spot) and realistically is no indicator of whether you can drive or not... somehow Id prefer people practice hazard perception so they can actively seek out idiots reversing out of driveways etc whilst not looking so less lives are lost on the road rather then so someone doesnt scratch another persons car, property damage vs death hmm

And personally I think parrallel reverse parking should be BANNED.... it sh*ts me when on a main road some idiot decides to reverse park it, holding up traffic while they move in and often have to correct 1000 times before finally getting it right. The way I see it, get over having to walk an extra 100m and find a spot that doesnt inconvience other motorists!

 

[S1M0]

Great i guess. It'll make it easier for me to get my P's then....

Oh, and i didn't bother to read the article, too tired.

 

[becthelank]

i went for my ps a few days ago, and personally i think its pretty dumbed down at the moment. my tester even told me during the test that i was lucky because i had the easy route. there were seriously no other cars to be seen, just heaps of stop signs. i dont think the test was any real indicator of my driving ability, so i think that the rta dumbing it down even more is really stupid.

 

[seremify007]

IMO the driving test isn't so much to test how well you can drive, but how well you can follow the rules for 15minutes.

 

[CieL]

IMO the driving test isn't so much to test how well you can drive, but how well you can follow the rules for 15minutes.

Yeah, I guess that's pretty true...

However, the tests of parking [which should be made more difficult imo], and three point turns do sorta test how you can "drive"... as in, how well you can manoeuver your vehicle...

I like those tests, and the people that fail them.. so we get less cunts on the road that hold up traffic trying to parrallel park.. but seriously, parking behind a car is pathetic, at least make the test to park BETWEEN two cars..

I dont think the current DART simulates real life driving conditions well enough.. maybe they should also do a driving simulator.. those things are so fkn hard.. I did a simulator which was ancient [maybe made 15yrs ago], but you do get people darting across the road n crap..

 

[MuffinMan]

and three point turns do sorta test how you can "drive"

Umm, they kinda test if you know the procedure of doing a three point turn, like look right and left at the etc and when to look and stuff, when you should start a three point turn (you don't want to do a three point turn when someone is driving at 80k's in the opposite direction) and stuff like that.

 

[CieL]

Umm, they kinda test if you know the procedure of doing a three point turn, like look right and left at the etc and when to look and stuff, when you should start a three point turn (you don't want to do a three point turn when someone is driving at 80k's in the opposite direction) and stuff like that.

I cant remember.... but can you get screwed over for mounting a kerb when you're doing a 3 point turn?

If not, I wish it would be an instant fail item.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

IMO the driving test isn't so much to test how well you can drive, but how well you can follow the rules for 15minutes.

That's the biggest problem I have with it. Being able to drive around under the speed limit is not the same as being able to drive around and keep up with traffic... which is exactly what everyone does. That fact that it is illegal is irrelevant. You can't test following distance and reactions under normal conditions if there is no one in front of you.

Then there is the obvious problem of testing overtaking when everyone else is driving faster than you are. The number of people I see who just pull right out to overtake and force people in the right lane to slam on their brakes is ridiculous. These people should have never been given a license.

Y
However, the tests of parking [which should be made more difficult imo], and three point turns do sorta test how you can "drive"... as in, how well you can manoeuver your vehicle...

The parking part is completely useless. If definitely doesn't need to be harder. I haven't had to reverse park more than 5 times in the 2 years I have had my license. It is a waste of time testing it.