Learner driver failed theory test 60 times. How many time is too many?

All well and inclusive but we don't know why they failed.  And safe driving is far more than just the "motor skills" of controlling a vehicle.  It must be backed with others for safety.  Including understanding the behaviour of other road users, symbol recognition et

The theory test has more than just written stuff - it's not an essay.  They may have failed the hazard perception test (also part of "theory test" in UK).  I don't think failing that makes you an "excellent driver".  Even though it's not exactly the same as driving.

Adaptions for people are possible though you need to be able to read.

 Reading may not be listed as essential (we don't test the English skills of foreign drivers IIRC) but you're unlikely to pass if you struggle (the "read the numberplate" test for vision for one).  Fair enough, I'd say, given the amount of important text we have eg. on warning signs.

For the record I think we'd all benefit if we made private mobility options beyond the car much more attractive and inclusive.  I also think we have set the skill / concentration bar for driving too low - or rather there's no incentive to maintain or improve ability.

According to the regulations, the answer can be "none whatsoever".

Becoming a "licenced driver" is exactly a rite-of-passage: once per lifetime.  Unless you manage to get a conviction and driving ban (and points don't need to mean prizes either).

No expectation we'll see it but the whole "graduated licencing" thing not only sounds logical but (for young folks) has some research behind it.

Though I'd graduate it further...

mdavidford wrote:

Maths question for anyone who can be bothered:

Given that the theory test is multiple choice, with four choices per question, and a pass mark of 86%

• What are the odds of you passing in 60 attempts if you just pick answers at random?
• What kind of error rate would give you a better than evens chance of passing in 60 attempts?

Maybe if you fail, the pass mark for each subsequent attempt should be increased a little.

So, on your third attempt ... 110% in order to pass. I confess that appeals. 

As for the rest of your question. Not high. There is a reason the infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters are given infinite time to come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. 

Given an infinite number of attempts, you would, at some point, reach the pass mark ... possibly even on your first attempt. 

mdavidford wrote:

Maths question for anyone who can be bothered:

Given that the theory test is multiple choice, with four choices per question, and a pass mark of 86%​

According to the binomial distribution calculator at WolframAlpha, the probability of getting 43 out of 50 in a single test with 1/4 chance on each question is 1.819e-19, I think I'd go with actually knowing the answers to the questions.

According to the binomial distribution calculator at WolframAlpha, the probability of getting 43 out of 50 in a single test with 1/4 chance on each question is 1.819e-19
Insert '43 or more out of 50' and '1.81884 x 10^-19'

mdavidford wrote:

 

• What kind of error rate would give you a better than evens chance of passing in 60 attempts?

If you know the answer to 35 questions and then completely guess the remaining 15, the chance of getting at least 8 (in order to pass) is 1.7%, which would mean if you did that 60 times, you would have a 65% chance of passing at least once. 

Obviously the reality is it won't be a dichotomy between "know" and "complete guess" - some you might know, others you might narrow down to two or three options etc. 

It won't be compeltely accurate as the probability of getting a question right will vary from question-to-question and test-to-test, but we can still use the binomial distribution to consider statistics, but by considering the probability of answering each question correctly (p_success). If you're perfectly knowledgeable, you will answer every question correctly (p_success = 1), and so are certain to pass. If you are perfectly ignorant (completely guessing i.e. p_success = 0.25), you will basically never pass (as per mark1a's calculation). You need a p_success of 0.85 in order to have a >50% chance of passing first time.

Assuming p_success remains constant, in order to have a >50% chance of passing at least once in 60 test sitting, your p_success needs to be above 0.71. 

In other words, on an "average" test sitting, you could expect to score about 36/50 - a definite fail. But keep doing that enough times, without actually learning anything new, and just by chance you will eventually pass.

Blimey - I didn't expect that anyone would actually bother. And a somewhat disturbing answer. Especially given that, unless it's changed significantly since I did it, you can usually, unless you're completely lacking in common sense, discard at least one of the answers for being completely implausible*, which would mean you could be guessing even more of the time.

[* "Travelling at speed on a dual carriageway, you see brake lights coming on on the cars in front of you - what should you do?

a) Jam your foot down hard on the accelerator...]

Can't be the answer to that one, that's "when you see an amber light...?"

mattw wrote:

Good comment, and a good question to raise.

One thing we could consider is making this part of the needed Graduated Licensing scheme, as proposed by groups such as Brake. The idea seems to be one of those which may be able to get political traction at present.

"You received X marks", so yo uare entitled to drive Y category vehicles in Z circumstances.

eg Quadricycles capable of up to 28mph in daylight hours only.

One of my suggestions for Graduated Licences for starting-out drivers to reduce the KSIs on themselves and others, is that it restricte for 3 years or up to age 21, which can be reduced to 2 years or age 20 by more advanced training.

I'd suggest a similar thing for less competent elderly drivers as a way of easing them out.

so anyone that racks up points can see their vehicloe classification going down until they can only use a mobility scooter?

It's a thought, isn't it?

Imagine if the first of her X (X = 3 or 5 or something?) drink driving offences for Katie Price had restricted her to a Citroen Ami or a Renault Twizy for three or four years after she got her driving license back, and she had to do an extended test to get *that* or use of a full sized car after that period.

I'd more go for pedal car than mobility scooter , as a mobility scooter is a liberation for mobility impaired people, and has a positive image.

We need to talk about these things as publicly and thoughtfully as we can, and in public fora, to create the opportunity for different policy to be *conceivable* to the public (and political) mind.

It's like all the other stuff such as eg contraflow cycling on one-way streets - just not entering the public mind. Totally normal and accepted as safe in Cambridge for about 30 years, and now on every one way street. But suggest it in Macclesfield, Mansfield or Maidstone, and the entire town will have a coronary.

Very much on-board with this.

The tricky thing is getting people to see the obvious:
a) the whole system is set up to facilitate mass motoring and this has made "licencing" a rite of passage, driving a "right" that at best the authorities can only request be temporarily suspended (and if you ignore them , they'll ask you again...)
b) this has many consequences for those who can't, including the young (and older people who probably should stop but "have to drive")
c) this is not the only way it could be!

The issue for the UK is just how much we have favoured motoring over all other modes (inc. public transport) and also "expect" that people will be able to drive.  So if they look at alternatives in many parts of the UK it will seem that - even for short distances - they do indeed have to drive.

It's also one part of why driving bans are seen as very severe / "cruel and unusual punishment".