Run! Run to Kings Park while there's still time!

[sqbr]

Things you don't want to hear in the first minute of your driving test:
"It might work if you turn on the engine"
"No, I said left...Nng. Fine. I guess we'll have to do a different route then."

And then:
"You..haven't practiced reverse parking much have you?"
"So you do know you're supposed to look in your mirror before breaking, yes? Consider this a warning. From now on I will watch you like a hawk."
"So I make you nervous do I?" *starts deliberately clicking pen to make me nervous*

And then we got to the end, and all I had to do was forward park to the left, and I fluffed it so badly I had to do it three times to get remotely between the lines.

And then...HE PASSED ME ANYWAY!! WOOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

He emphasised several times to me and my driving instructor that I had only just passed and really need to work on various things but HAHAHA I DON'T CARE I HAVE IT NOW!!!

*dances the dance of joy*

(title refers to the license saying I'm not allowed to drive in Kings park for some reason(*))

(*)For those who got their licenses back in ze old dayz: I'm now on my L2s, and have to do 25 hours of supervised driving and then a stupid computer test to get onto my Ps. And apparently driving in Kings Park is up there with drunk driving and speeding for Things Learners Shouldn't Do.

Comments

[greyreviews.livejournal.com]

Well i was going of how you presented in your initial post. Your clarification does put things in a better light.

However, frustrating other drivers with your parking does cause accidents. Frustrated drivers lose concentration or attempt unsafe manuevers because they can't be bothered waiting for someone to do a 48 point turn.

A common police anecdote is "20 year olds doing 80 dont cause accidents, 80 year olds doing 20 cause accidents."

Whilst it can be argued that the 20yr olds should all just chill and wait for grandma to take 30 minutes to do a 4 second manouver, human nature being what it is, the standard required for ALL drivers (me included) to have a license should be raised considerably.

To be perfectly honest when i first started driving (2 years before i had a license) i was rubbish, and I would only say that i was of an acceptable level when i did get the license because for those 2 years and for 5 years after i was employed as a driver for a car auction yard where i was required to drive literally thousands of different cars some in dubious states of repair.

[alias_sqbr]

Heh. You've made me realise I need to add a section to the TOS on how my posts (esp. anecdotes) need to be read on the assumption that I am using lots of hyperbole, self deprecation, and/or selective reporting to make them more interesting to read.

I have a feeling the instructor only passed me because he decided that I was obviously very aware of my shortcomings and willing to work on them. And yeah, it would be pretty bad if I parked in a busy carpark at my current level of crapness, I see no immediate end to I and Cam's current process, where I drive to the shops then get out and Cam parks. But of course long term I do have to learn.

The problem with increasing standards, as with the current system with log books, is that it restricts license access to people who have the opportunity to get enough practice. While obviously you don't want standards too low, set them too high and you make things incredibly difficult for the next generation of drivers, especially those too poor to pay for lots of lessons. Of course if we had better public transport that wouldn't be so bad...