Try again, fail better

[fivemack]

Well, nine rather than sixteen minor faults, but still three major ones.

Previously I'd tended to fail for lack of observations; this time I turned my head constantly, as if a partially-deaf owl seeking an especially succulent but somewhat stealthy shrew, and mostly failed for lack of steering.

(apart from hitting the curb on the parallel park; I don't see why this is an automatic failure, tyres being solid enough that it won't damage the council's curb, and probably only somewhat reduce the life of the tyres)

Fourth time pays for all, that's what they say ...

I've spent £1592 on driving lessons and tests to date. I can't help thinking at the moment that I might rather have a dual-processor PowerMac, or four weeks youth-hostelling in Australia.

Comments

[jojomojo.livejournal.com]

My commiserations :( Look at it this way, at least you'll be safe out on the roads...I could probably get through a US driving test easily, but I'm liable to smear myself over half a mile of tarmac either through my own incompetence or through that of the klutz next door who also breezed through the 'test'.

[ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com]

Sounds to me like you need to stop overcompensating for your faults and practise just plain driving around in ordinary traffic, until you've acquired your own comfortable understanding of what safe driving and accurate observation is. Being comfortable and confident as a driver is a good way to make an examiner feel secure in your competence..

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

Oh, what a pain! I think the kerb thing is lack of control rather than the strike per se...

Driving isn't cost-effective, I'm afraid :-)

[j4.livejournal.com]

(I don't see why this is an automatic failure, tyres being solid enough that it won't damage the council's curb, and probably only somewhat reduce the life of the tyres)

a) because they're testing that you can put the car exactly where you intend to, and they assume you don't intend to hit the pavement, because:
b) it causes wear on tyres (and you can scrape the hubcaps quite nastily if you hit the kerb, or pop them off altogether, as I have managed to do with sion_a's car since passing my test, oops), and
c) there might be a very very tiny child crawling on the pavement, and you'd endanger it. Apparently. (I suppose, more plausibly, there might be a cat or a dog or something, but they usually have the sense to get out of the way.)

It sucks, though, & I do sympathise. :-/ The only consolation really is that you only have to get it right once and then after that it isn't actually really a terribly bad thing if you do tap the edge of the kerb slightly, as the Great Hand of Deity-of-Your-Choice does not actually smite you with its great smiting powers.

In the meantime ... how much practice are you managing to get in? There's really no substitute for just getting used to driving in traffic, preferably with a friend/relative/accompanying driver who has had ALL their nerves removed so they don't yell "ARGH NO DON'T DO THAT" and panic you. (Or was that just me?)

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

Ouch. Getting there, though! :-(

My driving career is at about the six hundred quid mark, even before the theory test. These days fifteen hundred quid will pay for the tuition cost of about one sixth of a second BA, if you want to compare driving tuition costs to other tuition costs. Which would you rather have? Which would make your life better?

[aldabra]

Is it really automatic fail for that? I don't think it used to be, because I think I did it.

Anyway. Intensive two hour lessons for the week before the test, so you're utterly used to everything by then.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

The US state driving tests I've heard about or taken also have automatic fails for *touching* anything during parallel parking. And I, also, think it's stupid, because in fact in a tight space touching the cars ahead and behind, for example, is *completely normal*. And touching the curb isn't serious and is also fairly common (though never *deliberate*; whereas touching the cars I do on purpose when necessary).

I'm appalled at how much it's costing you, too. I believe my training cost $15 in the 1970s, plus some time from my parents and some time from a friend.

I'm curious how I'd do on the tests there (I'd have to study the rules, of course, since it's not where I'm used to driving). I've driven there a few times on trips, and didn't feel too seriously outclassed, but such self-evaluations are notoriously unreliable.

[antinomy.livejournal.com]

OOI, who are you learning with in your part of the world (since it's about to become mine, and I have a test to pass too)? How do you rate them?

[jvvw.livejournal.com]

It took me four attempts and probably spent about a similar amount (though hard to gauge as half of it was my parents' money when I was 17 and half mine when I was around 27). I'm very glad I did pass, but owning a car can be even more expensive than learning to drive.

I passed on an automatic in the end, partly out of desperation because of the amount it would cost me to pass on a manual. It hasn't proved too much of a restriction so far. I found an excellent instructor in the end (I got through five in total) who pretty much specialised in and enjoyed teaching people to drive who nobody else wanted to teach (people like me, disabled people, people who didn't speak English very well).

He had a magic method for doing reverse parking that always worked. It basically involved knowing to stop when you could see the kerb from a particular point on the edge the window. Alas I can't actually remember it now. The point of the maneouveures I think is to make sure you can control the car well enough that you stand a chance of being able to park without hitting another car. They can't give you authentic parking stuff because it's too big a risk that you will actually hit another car. It's more 'can you sensibly control a car' than 'can you safely control a car'. Though of course they want to check you hopefully wouldn't run a child over when you're reversing too.

Do make sure your instructor gives you lots of mock tests too.

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

I only passed on my third try, after changing instructors after the second failure. I didn't realise just how bad my first instructor was until I had lessons with my second instructor. Why the first one put me in for my test twice when I was so dangerous, I don't know. The second instructor had to get me to unlearn all the bad things that the first one had taught me and then teach me to drive correctly. When the second one put me in for my test, I knew I was ready and good enough, which I think is really important.

You don't have to be brilliant at the parallel parking/reversing round the corner to pass: on the test I passed, ISTR I got two minor faults for reversing round the corner (out of about 3 or 4 in total) after I went really wide, then almost hit the kerb. I'd like to think that not being able to see the kerb because of the freak hailstorm that happened *only* at that point in the test was the reason ;-).