Following introductions I was politely informed that if it were a real testing situation, I would have already failed because I was five minutes late.

However I think this is bullshit.

My dad tried to give me driving lessons when I was going learners > restricted and it just ended up in arguments. I had pretty low driving confidence when I went into the tests, which is probably what affected me. I'm definitely shelling out for lessons for my kids when they're of driving age.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think it's too much to ask for people to be on time. I bet they ask people to be there 5 or 10 mins before their scheduled time too (so she was actually 10-15 mins late).

If they start the test late then the next person is late and it flows on like a doctor's office. Given the big wait times it seems reasonable for them to require you are on time.

I for sure think lessons should be required. The tricky bit is the cost. The answer should be that driving is a privilege not a right, but to be able to say that earnestly we need a true alternative which most of the country doesn't have.

[–] eagleeyedtiger@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh I agree being on time is good. But it shouldn't count as a "fail", just needs to be rescheduled if they're too late. The test is for assessing driving competency, not time management. Unless I'm reading it too literally and that particular comment in the article was hyperbole.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago

Ah I see what you're getting at.

I "failed" my first test, because I showed up and my car didn't have a warrant (it was warrantable, just had missed a reminder).

Is it semantics, though? I guess when they say X number of people failed their test then you need to take that into account. But I don't think there is any impact on the person, there's no penalty for a fail other than the cost - and that's now gone with free resits.