Drivers License

[nauseous_monkey]

Probably one of the most ridiculously difficult tests.

* If the car rolls back even a cm then you get automatic fail.
* Takes months to get booking, takes a second to fail.
* Traffic Cops all seem to share the ********* gene.
* Alot of things are tested which you will probably never do again in your life. e.g. pulling handbrake up when you fart
* Expensive process which might need repeating several times.
* Not a test of skill but a test of memory and meticulous gayness.


What's your views?

 

[The_Techie]

pulling handbrake up when you fart

I must admit that I don't do that...

 

[medicnick83]

Not yet...

Comes with age

 

[Kalvaer]

Well I agree with the rolling back part. Drive around joburg nowdays and you will see why. Everyone stops about 2 cm from your rear end forgetting completely that the law states you have to be able to see both back tires of the car in front of you clearly when you come to a stop.

So unforturnatly, you have to learn how to do it. When I did my test my Dad took me to a hill and put a match box behind one of the tires. I had to pull off over and over until there was not a single mark on the match box.

I would seriously like to see us have simulated driving tests in the future. Where they have kids running across the road, people who slam on brakes for no reason, Taxis that dive across lanes without indicators..

I swear 99% of the people who actually do have thier license now.. will have them revoked.

BUT I do agree that the process they are now doing is pathetic. The call centre you have to phone to book for your test has NO clue whats going on.

 

[BTTB]

Observations

What's your views?

Only experience I have is when my daughter did her Drivers last year.
She got her licence only on the third attempt.
The first two attempts were with the same examiner who failed her in the initial stages for the same reasons (observations) and she never even got out of the yard. My daughter did the test exactly the way we taught her the third time with the second examiner and she got out of the yard and passed. In my opinion she drives well. I made her travel to work and back for a month in peak hour traffic. Bit hectic for me, but it did the job.

As far as the first examiner goes I think his interpretation of the K53 is different to the other examiners. He failed my daughter twice for not doing the observations properly and when I questioned my daughter she said she did, with whiplash. What could have happened as one Officer told me is that the first examiner failed her for doing a full observation when you should only be observing the one side be it left or right. The officer I spoke to thinks the examiner was being silly if this was the case?
I suspect only people who have done the K53 will know what I am talking about.

Make sure you stretch that neck when you do your observations so that the examiner can see it and make sure your teacher explains to you the correct method for full and partial observations.

Where are you doing the test?

 

[Vox Populi Vox Dei]

Yeah the K53 is for 7-year-olds...there is no skill involved.

I praise my lucky stars I had a 'chilled' examiner on my first attempt . No more hanging around the outrageously inefficient traffic department anymore!

I did mine at Green Point...the easiest place to pass I think. I've heard some horror stories about Ottery though.

 

[Oculate]

Meh, going for my drivers on thursday next week

After the ball ache that was booking for it, i really hope i dont get a rubbish examiner

 

[kiepie]

Well I agree with the rolling back part. Drive around joburg nowdays and you will see why. Everyone stops about 2 cm from your rear end forgetting completely that the law states you have to be able to see both back tires of the car in front of you clearly when you come to a stop.

Helps when you in a hi jacking situation as well!

 

[Kalvaer]

Kiepie that is true, But explain that to mr taxi who likes to park in your boot.

With regards to the not observing though. I had a few friends who had failed for the same reason. They learnt that wearing a baseball cap helped. Basically it over exaggerates the movement of your head so it looks like your turning a lot more than you actually are when you check your blind spots.

When My wife did her test, she also wore a cap.. and the guy then failed her for OVER observing. I think the just want to make money, but also think there are tons of people on the roads who shouldn't be???

 

[Just_Ice]

**Gulp**
Still got like 8 months or so till I can do mine...

 

[Mastercarder]

I passed mine on my first attempt. At Hillstar, in late rush-hour traffic.

 

[Devill]

Lol, how the mighty have fallen, NM i thought you were a god?

Why would a simple test of memory and skill(10%) upset you so much?

Anyway K53 is retarded but it is better than most other things.....

I would also like to see virtual tests done

 

[Ivork]

They can teach a baboon to pass that stupid test.

Anyway, i don't use a hand brake when stopped on a hill and don't roll back a cm (ok maybe just one cm) - don't ride clutch either.


.

 

[gifs]

They can teach a baboon to pass that stupid test.

Anyway, i don't use a hand brake when stopped on a hill and don't roll back a cm (ok maybe just one cm) - don't ride clutch either.


.

What do you do then? Put a brick behind your wheels at every stop?

 

[HavocXphere]

* If the car rolls back even a cm then you get automatic fail.

Wait until you're driving and the car in front of you rolls back 30cm. Not a nice feeling. Clutch control is a reasonable requirement imo.

* Alot of things are tested which you will probably never do again in your life. e.g. pulling handbrake up when you fart

Yeah thats true. If one does all their stupid looking over the shoulder BS then one only looks at the road ahead 1/2 the time. The handbrake thing is useful though...it's the only way to guarantee that you won't roll.

* Expensive process which might need repeating several times.

Well someone has to fund the office parties...

* Not a test of skill but a test of memory and meticulous gayness.

I'd prefer to have drivers on the road who are thin on skill but know the rules as opposed to drivers who can beat schumacher but don't know which side of the road to drive on.

What's your views?

Annoyed by the incompetent bureaucratic monstrosity that handles all the licensing issues. The only aspect of the test that is difficult imo is that one screwed up intersection can flunk you.

When I did my test my Dad took me to a hill and put a match box behind one of the tires. I had to pull off over and over until there was not a single mark on the match box.

Some of the army people use a similar trick..only they "volunteer" the trainees wristwatch for the job and use trucks. Talk about motivation...

Optioncarduser, remember to be polite to the tester...nothing pisses them off more than a slapgat attitude.

 

[redarrow]

K53 has a few useful points, but a lot of it is just silly.

Checking blind spots especially before lane changes is a very good idea.

Handbrake at every stop is just stupid, it makes sense on an incline but even then is not necessary to prevent rolling back (depending on the driver).
"Push and pull" steering is really daft, I can steer much faster by crossing hands, and what's wrong with slipping the wheel when pulling out of parking lots or taking tight turns.
The whole "left foot must be flat on the floor away from the clutch" is also daft.
"Check blind spot before indicating" - ? Why? So long as you check your blind spot before actually changing lanes I see no reason to check it before indicating.

Anyway, I passed my license first time around when I did it, and I can't say that I found it difficult at all. But most of that nonsense I've dropped since then. In fact most driving school instructors will tell you "off the record" to just ignore a lot of it once you've gotten your license (mine did).

Another thing is those driving instructors tweak the engine idle speed on their cars makes "clutch control" soo much easier..

 

[Kalvaer]

Anyway, i don't use a hand brake when stopped on a hill and don't roll back a cm (ok maybe just one cm) - don't ride clutch either.
.

AND

Handbrake at every stop is just stupid, it makes sense on an incline but even then is not necessary to prevent rolling back (depending on the driver).

Thats not the main reason for the hand brake. Its in case somebody from behind hits you while you are stopped. If they do bump you, there is a really big chance you could let your foot slip off the brake. If the car is in gear it will surge forward into oncoming traffic... More than likely killing you and other people

My Brother-in-Law is from the UK and I've seen him nearly get out and beat the living day lights out of people who hold their foot on the brake at a traffic light. Its blinding for the people behind you at night, and its just something that he says is never done in the UK. Try it there, and the cops know right away you are not using your handbrake as the law states.. and you'll get a fine.

 

[Ivork]

My Brother-in-Law is from the UK and I've seen him nearly get out and beat the living day lights out of people who hold their foot on the brake at a traffic light. Its blinding for the people behind you at night, and its just something that he says is never done in the UK. Try it there, and the cops know right away you are not using your handbrake as the law states.. and you'll get a fine.

I've never noticed that before - fog lights yes, but not just brake lights - they have something wrong with their eyes if it blinds them! How do they handle oncomming traffic i wonder

Anyway, my foot stays on the brake pedal, handbrake or not!

Tell your brother-in-law to eat more carrots

.

 

[redarrow]

Thats not the main reason for the hand brake. Its in case somebody from behind hits you while you are stopped. If they do bump you, there is a really big chance you could let your foot slip off the brake. If the car is in gear it will surge forward into oncoming traffic... More than likely killing you and other people

I see your reasoning, and to be honest I never thought about that, however I think it's something of a stretch to say that it would "more than likely kill you and others"
If you're parked there idling away in gear holding the clutch and you suddenly let go of the clutch, at most you're going to put a dent in the bumper of the guy in front of you.

I suppose you actually meant in the case where you are at the front of the line, yea then you could be knocked into cross running traffic.
On the other hand if someone hits you from the rear all that hard, then even with the handbrake on it's probably still going to move you forward significantly..

I'm not personally aware of any accident situation like this having happened before..

My Brother-in-Law is from the UK and I've seen him nearly get out and beat the living day lights out of people who hold their foot on the brake at a traffic light. Its blinding for the people behind you at night, and its just something that he says is never done in the UK. Try it there, and the cops know right away you are not using your handbrake as the law states.. and you'll get a fine.

Heh.. well, I can understand that, but I can't say I've ever been behind a car with such bright brake lights that it's bothered me..

 

[stoke]

... Everyone stops about 2 cm from your rear end forgetting completely that the law states you have to be able to see both back tires of the car in front of you clearly when you come to a stop.

For real? Cos in that case, when I'm driving the Panelval the distance from me to the car i'm behind would be roughly 6 metres, and when i'm driving my little conquest, it would be about 500cm, and then .. if I angle my seat further forward .. the gap could be narrowed down to 400cm.