Jump to content

DjDan

Regulars
  • Posts

    1,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DjDan

  1. This is funny! Who created an account for "IOM Examiners"?? LOL
  2. Okay, firstly - the proof that you talk of only confirms the reason for failure. What the form cannot prove is whether that 'reason' actually happened. That is the issue that I'm talking about here. They could put on the form that the candidate parked the car by doing a handbreak turn.... would the form prove that the candidate actually did so? no. Your second point is hardly a concern. More recently, examiners are known to give no allowances anyway..
  3. Just did. Seems like the man doesn't like the Catholic church. Shock. Horror.
  4. So, the candidate should have had the examiner write down that the reason for failure was for driving at 38mph...? That wouldn't make any difference. The whole issue is whether the candidate was actually driving at that speed - and this is the point that cannot be verified.
  5. Thank you Though somewhat extreme, I am only highlighting the issue that a candidate has no way of defending themselves even if in the right. In the most extreme situation.. it means that a candidate could be failed time and time again, because the examiners have chosen to fail this particular person. That is extreme - and I'm not saying that actually happens. However, in reality, they have the ability to do so - because it is quite easy for them to tick boxes on the form. I have a strong dislike for positions of authority that can make a decision that has a major effect on an individual's life patterns and yet cannot be challenged.
  6. Going back to WTF's comments: This is exactly the point I have been making. In my opinion, all candidates should be required to take the test in a designated car that has been equipped with appropriate technology to ensure that the decisions of examiners can be verified. That is the only way that the tests can be seen to be fair. Like WTF, I believe that if an examiner knows that his decision can be challenged with video proof... we will find a decrease in the failure rate of candidates.
  7. I passed my car test first time. My bike test second time. I know you do not need a clean sheet but you stated your friend failed only on speeding whilst doing the emergency stop. I think otherwise. I am sure he has alot more marks than you are letting on. I could be proved wrong though! Your point was that other than the speeding, the rest of the form should have no marks. That simply is not the case. You can have minors on other areas, and still pass. Likewise, you can have minors in other areas - and yet the only reason for failure can be one error - if the instructor believes it to be serious enough. On this partciular form, there were other minors (therefore the form is not perfectly clean) but the only more serious error was the 'speeding'. The instructor verbally confirmed that that was the reason for failure. How is it irrelevant? It is the only piece of information given to failed candidates which makes it the most relevant piece of information you have which you are not divulging to the people you asked advice from. Irrelevant - because whether or not you believe the reason given, it does not matter. Clearly you believe the candidate must be lying, but your opinion on that is what's irrelevant. The whole point I have been making is on the issue of being able to verify the decision of the examiners. Nope. Incompetent because the examiner clearly got the decision wrong... and failed the candidate because of it. Your assertion that the candidate cannot drive is nothing more than your opinion. I however have witnessed this person's ability many times - and been to the site and tested the speed and found it to be a ridiculous claim that the candidate could have been speeding within the small distance.
  8. You really need to stop coming online after a drinking session as you apparently lose all reason... and ability to think. Goodnight Mr Sausages. Go and sober up again please.
  9. Mr Sausages, I see you have nothing to add to the discussion. Your only purpose is to be facetious. As such, I don't see any need to respond to your posts.
  10. You clearly know nothing about driving test papers then do you. A perfectly clean sheet?? LOL. You don't need a perfectly clean sheet to pass. In any case, showing you the form will do nothing other than to help you believe the reason for failure. That is actually irrelevant. The point I have been making is simply that an examiner can fail a candidate - but there is no way to verify whether the examiner was right to do so. As such, it is quite possible for an examiner to get things wrong... and consequently fail the candidate; without the candidate being able to do anything! It is the word of the candidate against the word of the examiner. Can you challenge that point?
  11. and that would prove what exactly?
  12. And you know this because.... ? Oh wait.. you don't. You don't know anything. You are the idiot here mate.
  13. Yeah.... you're backing up my argument time and time again. No witnesses, no evidence, no proof... other than the word of the candidate. There simply is nothing a candidate can do once failed. It is their word against the examiner. Result --> Examiners have too much power, and their decisions cannot be verified. Thank you.
  14. I rest my case. Please go and sober up... you are making no sense at all.
  15. Thank you for supporting my argument. That's what I've been saying all along. The candidate has no defence - it is his/her word only against the word of the instructor. Therefore the instructor has absolute power to do whatever he likes. The candidate could have a perfect drive - but the instructor says he/she hit the curb and swerved all over the road. Failed. What can the candidate do? - to quote your words "no proof only the word of a failed candidate". Therefore, there is no appeal - nothing can be done.
  16. Goodnight Mr Sausages. Hope you sober up without too much of a hangover! Perhaps you'll forget you even posted in this thread.
  17. LOL okay wise guy, how can I prove it to you?
  18. Wrong. I have this mental image of your friends form looking more like a bingo card with all the crosses. Nails not included though. Why would they have nails on a bingo card?... oh wait... you must be trying to be funny? emphasis on 'trying'.
  19. No I am not. Even if you were to see it - you'd still say the examiner was right, and the candidate must have been at 38mph.
  20. My view is that in a situation like this, where one person has 'absolute say' over something so important as freedom to drive.. there needs to be a way of verifying the decision - in a similar way as suggested by WTF. Until then, an examiner can fail a candidate - and even if wrong to do so - no-one can do anything about it.
  21. Say what you like - that's exactly what happened. Hence the outrage.
  22. Driving Instructors car. It shouldn't ring true with how the examiners conduct a test... because they shouldn't be conducting tests like this. However, the reasons given in this thread have been reasons for failures. As I say, I passed first time - but in my test, the examiner said the tyres skid a little when i did my emergency stop. He just asked me 'what should i have done?' and i told him. He passed me. No doubt if I had done that today, I would have failed. Seems to me like they want to fail you now. I've heard many stupid reasons for failing friends in recent years. I count myself lucky... but an 'expert' when it comes to gloating to my mates who fail!
  23. Exactly WTF. It can't be too difficult to ensure that the tests are verifiable. Otherwise, what can an appeal do? It is your word against his. Crazy - but - if the examiner decides at the start of the test that he will fail the person, he can easily come up with a reason to do so. Even if made up... what can the candidate say? Not saying that is how it happens... but that is the amount of power they have. This same candidate failed a few months back because when parking the car, once within the two posts, he made 3 adjustments to the car position (forward a little, and backward a little). On the 3rd one, the examiner stopped him and said, that's enough, you've failed. Everything else was fine (examiner acknowledged) but because he adjusted the position of the car 3 times, that was a fail. The examiner proudly said that 'lots of people fail for this reason alone'. Again, just demonstrating that they can do what they like. When I had a problem with immigration, i was able to put in an appeal - and won. With the driving exam, what can an appeal do? (if there is one). It is your word against theirs... and mæŋksmən points out, if you annoy them by questioning their judgement... isn't there a greater chance they can just fail you again? (for that reason alone). haha.
  24. Yeah, I went to 34mph. Wow. Your taxi may be able to get to 38mph - but that's not the point. There is no way this candidate did so. He is not a taxi driver - and in any case, to get to 38mph you would have to try to do so. Bearing in mind that the candidate had just been told he was about to make an emergency stop... you really think he would go speeding off as fast as possible? get real. Examiner was wrong - and told my mate there was nothing he could do about it. Are you telling me that there is an appeal process? You know this? or you just assume it?
×
×
  • Create New...