Failed VicRoads Driving Test for Being Overly Cautious to NOT Hit Pedestrians on The Road!

gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 12:06

Hi everyone,
I hope you can help me with a dillemma:

So, my daughter had her 1st driving test after the pandemic, but she was failed for "creating a road hazard by stopping in the middle of the road", this was the examiner's explanation.

The facts:
- She was taking the driving test with only the instructor and examiner with her in the car
- There was no dash cam, body cam, or anything else to corroborate her story
- The incident happened at an UNFLAGGED school crossing
- The time was approximately 2.40pm (within school times of 2.30-4.00pm) but there were no flags or crossing supervisor (Council cutbacks?)
- She was turning left at a roundabout, and immediately 50 meters later was the said school crossing.
- This was a divided road, with a school crossing on each side of the divider island.
- There were 2-3 young people (drunk/drugs/skylarking) around the other side of the road, going back and forth, pushing each other, eventially making their way to the divider in the middle of the road
- She slowed down, for fear they would run onto the road,
- When the people were close to her side of the road she genuinely thought they would step onto the road, and she stopped to let them cross
- Another car in the lane next to her also stopped
- The young people then crossed the road in front of her car
- The examiner immediately after that pulled her over and said she created a traffic hazard by stopping, and failed her on the spot.
- There is no dispute regarding the facts above.

The examiner AND instructor are sticking to their story: that the said "school crossing" was not officialy a crossing unless there are RED FLAGS erected on the poles next to the road. So this is to be treated as a normal open road. (After reading the Vic road rules, I reluctantly agree that this is correct in the road rules).

She was essentially asked to ignore the fact that young people/adolescents were skylarking around the road, ignore that may run onto the road at any time, and DRIVE ON!

Now, I did my driving test more than 45 years ago (in Qld in the good old days of Joh Bjelke Petersen), but I learnt from some of my copper frieds at the time that on the road THE PEDESTRIAN IS KING! No matter what, you are not allowed to hit a pedestrian. If you hit a pedestrian, you WILL be investigated, and unless you have all your ducks in a row (you were not speeding, not drunk, alert, braked on time, took reasonable action etc,) you WILL BE charged, EVEN IF THERE IS NO CROSSING MARKED.

According to (everyone) she has no course of redress or appeal to VicRoads

Our view in this case that, (forget the fact that it was a school crossing in school times) my daughter should have been commended for taking extra care to not injure people on the road while driving, SHE WAS FAILED!

I would appreciate you thoughts what she should do. I think she should forget it and move on, and she does not want to complain and get a "black mark" on her Vicroads records for fear of future discrimation.

Thanks for your attention in reading this, please advise.

Automotive

Related Stores

VicRoads
VicRoads

Comments

    • Mechz on 05/02/2022 - 20:50
      +1

      Man, you should drive around Auckland CBD, people walk out in front of the cars like they're invincible. Yoi really have to be on high alert if you're not used to it.

      • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 22:51
        +1

        Yes, in Rome, Paris, just about any other european city people just walk out infrint of cars as they please, then we see the cars weaving around the pedestrians, almost comical when you first see it :)

    • greatlamp on 06/02/2022 - 07:40
      +2

      Well, since the vehicles record everything all the time, they could log and report incidents, send the video in for facial recognition, and the police state will deduct social credit points from the offending pedestrian and garnish their wages to ensure the appropriate penalty is paid.

      Have some optimism for the future.

    • wtfnodeal on 07/02/2022 - 22:56

      You can’t encourage or discourage bad behaviour when the pedestrians are drunk can you?

  • Jugganautx on 05/02/2022 - 13:59
    +2

    I failed my first vort test 30 seconds from the finish line because i turned a corner apparently cutting off a pedestrian that was 20metres away from the curb and i didn't wait for them to cross the road.

    I also had instructor and examiner in the back seat. Sh*t Happens.

  • bdl on 05/02/2022 - 14:07
    +3

    skylarking

    • John Kimble on 05/02/2022 - 14:15
      +4

      I did my driving test more than 45 years ago

  • baer on 05/02/2022 - 14:12
    +5

    This post needs a MS Paint birds-eye view of the situation.

    • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 22:53
      -4

      Sorry mate no patience for ms paint any more, last time was in 1985 on windows 3.1 workstation :)

      • tomlikesbeetroot on 07/02/2022 - 21:48
        +2

        That's a little difficult to beleive since windows 3.1 was released in 1992.

    • juki on 05/02/2022 - 22:55
      -1

      there might have been a kayak on the roof blocking the view from above

  • bongom on 05/02/2022 - 14:14
    +5

    As OP stated, the instructor failed her because she didn't understand that the unmanned unflagged crossing is not a pedestrian crossing and thus should be treated like the rest of the road. Unfair but legally correct. I previously had a local school that used the unflagged school crossing as a pedestrian crossing as the school was on both sides of the road. The school teachers would also cross in front of cars as though they were entitled to obstruct the traffic. Eventually the school crossing changed to a pedestrian crossing so they now have right of way.

    • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 22:53

      This was never in doubt

    • Eeples on 08/02/2022 - 19:06

      No such thing as right of way.

  • El cheepo on 05/02/2022 - 14:16
    +4

    She technically did the wrong thing but morally did the right thing. Don’t hate the people forced to enforce the rules, hate the unbending regulations.

    Be happy you have a sensible kid that will be a safe driver when they eventually do pass.

    • iamherenow on 05/02/2022 - 15:22
      +11

      She created a hazard by unnecessarily stopping. Lots of people get rear ended when they stop in unexpected places on the road. Instructors it seems deemed it was safe to proceed. They were the ones who have experience and saw the situation. She put herself in danger as well as the peds who then walked on the road in front of her car because she stopped.

      • El cheepo on 05/02/2022 - 15:39
        +1

        I am not saying what she did was legal, I’m saying what she did was right (probably just slowing down would have been suffice and probably still got her to pass). The legal thing and right thing don’t always go hand in hand.

        Just like i know I’m legally in the clear in my truck if someone pulls out stupidly or brake checks me (with dashcam proof) and i punt them 200 meters up the road and kill them.
        Doesn’t mean i do it or I’d kill people regularly.

        Part of being a good driver in any vehicle is being prepared for any sudden change of circumstance which she was. The laws are one thing, but things happen and sometimes you need to act outside the law. Unfortunately for her it was mid test and the rules say thats a no no, so she didn’t pass.

        As far as creating a hazard goes, that happens on the road…sudden/ unexpected/ illegal/ dangerous situations pop up, how you handle them as a driver can be the difference between life and death.

        Personally, I’d rather risk getting rear-ended by the car behind me (which if they are at a safe distance and alert, shouldn’t happen) then clean up a bunch of pedestrians.

        Sounds like she will be a good defensive driver in the future.

        • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 22:55
          +1

          I agree, shoukd have just slowed down, but probably thought they would run out on the road, panicked and slammed on the brakes, lucky for the instructors car was not rear ended

          • camr00 on 06/02/2022 - 14:12
            +5

            @gomelbcityfc: This text seems to be missing from your original summary of the situation. Slamming on the brakes is very different to your understatement of "and she stopped to let them cross"

          • Eeples on 08/02/2022 - 19:07

            @gomelbcityfc: Did she slam on the brakes in this case?

      • p1 ama on 05/02/2022 - 23:47
        +1

        She created a hazard by unnecessarily stopping.

        What's considered "unnecessary" and "necessary" stopping? That's something that the driver has to decide in real time. In most low-speed local streets, the biggest risk posed are cars to pedestrians and as such, that should be what is prioritised in making safety decisions.

        Clearly the harm from hitting the idiots crossing the road would be much greater than any harm from stopping.

        Lots of people get rear ended when they stop in unexpected places on the road.

        So what you're saying is that some idiot walks out in front of her car, she stops to avoid hitting them, then another idiot who wasn't paying attention rear-ended her and somehow she's the one who is in the wrong?

        Clearly the ones in the wrong are (i) the idiot who crossed the road without looking, and (ii) the idiot behind her who wasn't looking out or following too closely.

        Ultimately, we can talk in hypotheticals all we want, but the best outcome is the one where nobody gets hurt - nobody got run over and she didn't get rear-ended, so for all that it's worth, I think the outcome was perfectly acceptable.

        • CocaKoala on 06/02/2022 - 18:22
          +4

          nobody got run over and she didn't get rear-ended, so for all that it's worth, I think the outcome was perfectly acceptable.

          Driving exams are not testing the outcomes the specific scenarios of ones driving but whether the driver followed the road rules during the exam. If I reached speeds of 200kph during a driving exam and then nobody got hurt that doesn't mean I should pass the exam.

          In that sense, the outcome of the exam result was perfectly acceptable.

          • p1 ama on 06/02/2022 - 22:35
            -1

            @CocaKoala:

            Driving exams are not testing the outcomes the specific scenarios of ones driving but whether the driver followed the road rules during the exam.

            So you're suggesting that she just run them over? At the end of the day, that's what it comes down to - the driver who is in control of the car has to assess the risk in front of them.

            If I reached speeds of 200kph during a driving exam and then nobody got hurt that doesn't mean I should pass the exam.

            This is a reduction of my argument to absurdity - the risk of slowing down or coming to a stop on a small suburban street where the speed limit is 40 - 50 km/h, and drivers should be well alert for various hazards (including people running onto the street, objects rolling onto the streets, cars turning…etc.), is not even in the same ballpark as the risk of driving at 200 km/h.

            What I'm saying is that this is that there is nuanced, and the consistent reduction of risks into something binary "dangerous / not dangerous" is stupid and unintelligent. The trade-offs at play are the risks associated with slowing down / coming to a stop, and the risks associated with potentially running the idiots crossing the road over. The driver has to make the judgement.

            • CocaKoala on 07/02/2022 - 15:23
              +1

              @p1 ama: Every Tom, Dick and Harry will think that they should have been given pass marks, but thank God there are impartial professionals grading the exams. As it is we've plenty of dangerous drivers on our roads.

              So you're suggesting that she just run them over?

              That's what you understood from my post?!

              The assessment officer would have had a much better sense of whether stopping the car there was warranted or not. They do this for a living and they are professionals.

              Contrary to that your assessment of the situation is based purely on your own imagination, and therefore your entire argument is stupid, unintelligent and irrelevant.

              That is unless I've missed some dashcam footage, in which case I'll be happy to take a look at it before commenting further.

              • p1 ama on 08/02/2022 - 00:06
                -1

                @CocaKoala:

                Every Tom, Dick and Harry will think that they should have been given pass marks, but thank God there are impartial professionals grading the exams. As it is we've plenty of dangerous drivers on our roads.

                I think that teaching drivers how to think for themselves, rather than blindly following rules will generally make people safer / better drivers.

                If you read what I said again, you'll see that I clearly said that drivers have to assess the risks in front of them.

                That's what you understood from my post?!

                That's exactly what you are suggesting - if you are driving and there is a risk that a group of people step out onto the road in front of you, what would you do?

                Would you stop, or would you run them over? Remember that you genuinely believe they will step onto the road.

                I think you should be honest - if that's what you want to do (because you believe they deserve it or whatever the case may be), then you should just say that and I would actually respect your POV more because it's consistent.

                For reference, it is not just the daughter who stopped, but it seems another car also stopped as well, so there was clearly enough risk as assessed by another driver.

                The assessment officer would have had a much better sense of whether stopping the car there was warranted or not. They do this for a living and they are professionals.

                Appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy. Just because they are in the position they are in does not mean that they are always correct. Funny that you complain about dangerous drivers, then defend the "professionals" who will give you a license as long as you can take a few corners around some local streets.

                At the end of the day, she made the right call. Maybe the wrong call because of her inexperience, and that's something she should work on, but hardly the most dangerous thing in the world.

                • CocaKoala on 08/02/2022 - 00:13

                  @p1 ama:

                  If you read what I said again, you'll see that I clearly said that drivers have to assess the risks in front of them.

                  The crux of the matter is that the examiner concluded that this driver did not asses the supposed risk in front of them appropriately.

                  And examiners are qualified to make that conclusion. Unless you were there or there is video footage, you're basing your argument purely on imagination.

                  It's the word of the examiner vs the word of the precious daughter's father, and I'm going to trust the examiner.

                  Yeah, it's a 50 road yadda yadda but how do I know that this person will not stop their car in the same manner on an interstate freeway with a b double and four road trains behind them because they thought they saw a wombat?

                  This failure was a much needed lesson for them. It will make them a better driver and that's for the good.

                  Appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy. Just because they are in the position they are in does not mean that they are always correct

                  Totally irrelevant bs unless there's video footage or other sort of proof to back your claims that stopping there was essential to avoid a collision. Somehow I seriously doubt that.

                  Would you stop, or would you run them over?

                  Once again a strawman argument, because there's no proof that someone was going to get on the road. But I'll slow down before I stop and wouldn't mind a short tooting of my horn to warn the pedestrians if it came to that.

                  Stopping the car in the middle of the road must be the last resort. What's so difficult to understand?

                  • p1 ama on 08/02/2022 - 14:00
                    -2

                    @CocaKoala:

                    But I'll slow down before I stop and wouldn't mind a short tooting of my horn to warn the pedestrians if it came to that.

                    This was exactly what she did:

                    • She slowed down, for fear they would run onto the road,

                    This is exactly what you are saying you would do - i.e. slow down.

                    • When the people were close to her side of the road she genuinely thought they would step onto the road, and she stopped to let them cross

                    This is also what you are saying, that stopping the car is a last resort as she genuinely thought they would step onto the road.

                    Once again a strawman argument, because there's no proof that someone was going to get on the road.

                    According to the driver, there was proof that someone was going to get on the road.

                    Case closed.

                    Yeah, it's a 50 road yadda yadda but how do I know that this person will not stop their car in the same manner on an interstate freeway with a b double and four road trains behind them because they thought they saw a wombat?

                    For someone who likes to moan about irrelevant BS, "thought they saw a wombat" is the literal definition of just that. For all we know, the kids crossing the road did exist, it's not that the driver thought they saw them, they were actually there. They were also 4 kids, not a wombat.

                    If you think they deserve to be run over for doing something so brazen, just say so. Don't pretend to be little mister goody two shoes, own what you believe. I don't know why people like to lie to themselves.

                    • CocaKoala on 08/02/2022 - 14:54
                      +1

                      @p1 ama:

                      According to the driver, there was proof that someone was going to get on the road.

                      Case closed.

                      What arrant nonsense. The instructor and the examiner disagree with this bullshit claim, so the driver simply lied to their overprotective father. In all likelihood the driver was too timid and stopped the car where there was no need, which was graded appropriately by the examiner.

                      Once again, there's no proof of the claims you're basing your argument on, and therefore your drawn-out strawman argument is based purely on your imagination.

                      I'm not going to bother with you any longer as you seem to be too invested in the drivers bullshit story, are ignoring the lack of proof, and think that an examiner is an "authoritative figure" (perhaps the instructor is too afraid of the examiners authority in your twisted imaginative world).

                      • p1 ama on 08/02/2022 - 21:07
                        -1

                        @CocaKoala:

                        In all likelihood the driver was too timid and stopped the car where there was no need, which was graded appropriately by the examiner.

                        Sure, say what you want, but next time you're driving and someone steps out onto the road, I bet you'll shriek to a stop because you don't want to end up in jail.

                        Case closed.

    • Stopback on 05/02/2022 - 15:36
      +4

      We have no clue what happened

      How dangerous it looked etc.

      Ideally she should slow down in speed when passing them

      • El cheepo on 05/02/2022 - 15:42
        +2

        I agree, but just purely on what was described thats my opinion.

        Stopping was probably over cautious, slowing down would have been suffice.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2022 - 22:18
          +4

          And that's likely why she was failed. What would have been a simple encounter for an experienced driver became a panic situation for an inexperienced one, which became an instant fail.

  • dizzle on 05/02/2022 - 14:39
    +13

    The fact is you were not in the car with them. It is your daughters word against both the instructer and examiner that both say it was a fail.

    If the instructor disagreed with the examiner that would be one thing, but why would you not beleive the two experienced drivers over the inexperienced driver (that is probably also scared/embarrased to tell her parents that they dailed and will cost more money? Now i'm by no means saying your daughter is dishonest, but kids (and even adults) when put in similar positions will try to minimise the fault.

    • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 22:56
      -2

      As i saud above the facts are not in dispute, as confirmed by the instructor when i spoke to her on the phone later

      • dizzle on 06/02/2022 - 13:04
        +7

        But you're still trying to interpret the facts the way you want to…By convincing yourself that the inexperienced driver was in the right and the two experienced drivers were wrong.

      • brendanm on 06/02/2022 - 16:20
        +6

        How old is your daughter? Does she really need you calling instructors on her behalf?

        • nson on 08/02/2022 - 22:28

          because that would be pointless for her to call the instructor to have the same conversation they already had in person wouldn't it. It's not like she suddenly acquires more wisdom to talk with them differently somehow?

          • brendanm on 09/02/2022 - 11:15
            +1

            @nson: How is it changing when daddy does it? I'm assuming ops daughter is in her 20s from ops age.

          • Baysew on 09/02/2022 - 11:19
            +2

            @nson: There is no point anyone calling the instructor or the examiner. (or OzBargain)

            The driving test was terminated and they will have to re sit the test no matter what.

      • Eeples on 08/02/2022 - 19:10

        The instructor said that the young ppl were on the other side of the road and your daughter slammed on the breaks?

        What did your daughter reply when the instructor asked her why she had stopped? (Did she say 'because it is a crossing'?)

        The point I am making is that unless you have dashcam or was there you don't know really what happened.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2022 - 15:08
    +3

    A similar thing happened during my test in NSW. A few teenage dumbasses decided to go for a nice slow stroll across a multi lane highway. I slowed to give them enough time to get out of the way, but after the test the assessor said it was their job to hurry up not mine to slow down lmao. He also said I didn't check my rear mirror to see if there was traffic behind me. Still passed.

    • AndyC1 on 05/02/2022 - 18:43
      +2

      There are rules written down and there are the better rules of keeping an eye on your environment and as you did taking those conditions into consideration and not killing or causing an accident that would occur if you followed the rules. The dumb thing is that if you caused the accident by following the rules you would be charged by the police!!!

  • Euphemistic on 05/02/2022 - 15:19
    +1

    Learn from it. Do the test again until she gets a licence.

    It took me 4 times to get my licence. First time I’d learnt bad habits from my parents. Second time the differnt examiner picked me up for something different I hadn’t learned from the rule book or my parents.. Third time was ‘unlucky’ circumstance, I crossed the stop line while waiting to turn right by about half a car length, then turn arrow turned amber and I didn’t continue through the red light, had the traffic been in my favour I would have passed. I learned each time and eventually passed. Been driving since last century now with a minor nose to tail incident as a p plater as my only at fault incident.

    • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 22:58

      Me too took me 3 gos, but i had been driving for a couple of years unlicenced in "outback" queensland… different times :)

  • bobbified on 05/02/2022 - 15:53
    +17

    She slowed down, for fear they would run onto the road,
    When the people were close to her side of the road she genuinely thought they would step onto the road, and she stopped to let them cross

    Slowing down is correct, stopping is not.
    Stopping in a non-designated area to let someone cross can be dangerous, not only for yourself (could get rear-ended if someone's behind), but also dangerous for the pedestrian. It sends mixed messages to the pedestrians on whether they can cross or not. Also, because it's not a crossing, the car behind won't know what you're doing and may try go around you. If the pedestrian has already started crossing in front of your car, they can easily walk into the path of the overtaking car (or any other car if there's more than one active lane).

    • plmko on 05/02/2022 - 16:59
      +2

      ^ this exactly.

    • camr00 on 06/02/2022 - 14:10

      As a parent this infuriates me. Please dont pretend you're doing the right thing by teaching my kids that its ok to cross in a spot which is not designated as such. The next car which comes down the road the next time is probably not going to stop.

      Did she stop and then they crossed? Or were they already crossing?

      I will also point out a previous quote above from the OP which states "I agree, shoukd have just slowed down, but probably thought they would run out on the road, panicked and slammed on the brakes, lucky for the instructors car was not rear ended" - this seems to be omitted from the original text which says "- When the people were close to her side of the road she genuinely thought they would step onto the road, and she stopped to let them cross".

      I'm sorry, but it sounds like your daughter was right to be failed on the spot.

    • BobLim on 07/02/2022 - 00:26
      +1

      Also stopping way back to let people in/out of side streets or driveways - begging for a cyclist or motorcyclist to get t-boned. Just drive to the rule book at all times, and everyone can be predictable, safe and efficient.

      If only the police were as committed the road rules as this assessor (in both their own driving and enforcing against other)

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2022 - 15:55
    +7

    School crossings are not pedestrian crossings, unless they are manned. So they were right to fail you.

    What you should have done instead, if you were concered about the safety of the children, you should have just passed by very slowly, I say about 20-30 km/h. At this speed you will have plenty of reaction time to stop if in case they somehow ended up on the road.

    What you should not have done is come to a complete stop, as it does cause hazard for other drivers, as you are legally not expected to stop there.

    And think about the cars coming from the other direction. It was a good thing that the other driver had that awareness and followed suit and stopped, but if cars on the other direction fails to stop, it creates even more of dangerious situation for the kids.

    • GourmetFoodie on 05/02/2022 - 19:50
      +4

      I agree. Best approach. Coming to a complete stop IS dangerous.

  • Porker on 05/02/2022 - 16:21
    +7

    Her stopping could have also encouraged the pedestrians to cross the road when they were not supposed to, which may have caused issue elsewhere. Eg. By her stopping, the peds may think they can cross safely and do so without caution for vehicles in other directions, or may generate expectation that they can cross there in the manner they did, etc.

    Similar situation happened to my dad where he stopped to let some stupid kids J-walk across a multi-lane road. I yelled at him to keep going and not stop, but he did anyway. Kids crossed in front of my dad's car only to jump back about 2 metres when the car next to us slammed their brakes on to avoid hitting them. I never felt so going telling my dad 'I told you so'.

  • randomusername2017 on 05/02/2022 - 16:49
    -1

    Hi everyone "lots of words"…

    No mention of shoulder or mirror checks?

    • pegaxs on 05/02/2022 - 17:59

      For what? Pulling up for pedestrians right in front of you?

      • morse on 06/02/2022 - 06:58
        +1

        To see if there’s a car behind you that will be effected by you slowing unexpectedly.

  • Janko on 05/02/2022 - 17:32
    +3

    It sounds like it was two lanes each direction from when you said "car in the lane next to her"?

    If so, I would consider it appropriate for that other car to stop if your daughter did first - as her stopping would have prompted the guys to cross and thus created a very commonly seen dangerous situation for pedestrians - as Porker described.

  • Herbse on 05/02/2022 - 17:54
    +3

    Imagine if she stopped to let the people through, but the other lane vehicle didn't because there's nothing indicating that they need to stop for any reason. That car would have run over the people they didn't see.

  • oscargamer on 05/02/2022 - 18:16
    +1

    Haven't read any replies. Just the OP

    1. You weren't there. You didn't see what happened. You are relying on your daughter's account. Your daughter is not an experienced driver. The experienced driver who was there, is an examiner and she was found to fail her test.
    2. There is no number 2
    • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 23:01
      -2

      Again, the facts are not in dispute, it is more a moral "think on your feet" moment, do i stop, or risk hitting them if they run out

      • oscargamer on 05/02/2022 - 23:05
        +5

        There are no "facts" in your OP, as you weren't there, and you are relying on another person's version of events. You are then stating that version as 'factual'.

        She needs more practice (with a decent instructor) and needs to try harder to get things right next time.

      • katykat on 06/02/2022 - 03:39
        +6

        If she had slowed down and was being cautious then she would have been able to stop if they had actually run out. Rather she stopped prematurely and gave them right of way ie. stopping when she had right of way and thus creating a traffic hazard.

        I don't get this "moral" argument you're running. You make it sound like people who understand traffic hazard laws never stop for pedestrians and that we all run over them willy nilly if they do something stupid and step out.

        Pro tip: It's not a "moral" failing of the instructor for following traffics rules and failing her, and it's not a "moral" one up for your daughter that she prioritised the pedestrians to the point that two professionals felt she'd created a traffic hazard.

        It might seem harsh because anyone who drives knows that pedestians can do dumb shit and it's fairly normal to occassionally wave a pedestrian across if you're coming up to a crossing and they're wavering on the footpath, even if you know you have right of way and it's against the rules. 99.9% of the time there is no consequence for this as long as you do it safely. It doesn't mean that VicRoads should pass everyone who does it during their test, because it is against the rules, and the whole point of a driving test is to see if the person knows and can follow the rules.

      • Eeples on 08/02/2022 - 19:11

        "thinking on her feet" will come with more experience and knowledge of the road rules.

  • USER DC on 05/02/2022 - 18:25
    -4

    I had failed my test too for being too careful on pedestrian on roads.

    She was on Island (I thought she was going to jump on road), examiner failed me saying I stopped traffic behind me.

    Honestly duck that bloody examiner. These idiots only look to make more money for them. they dont give a dam about anyone else. That's why I have always now been recommending CBTA to everyone, (as it will be the same examiner and instructor always).

    So no behind the back dealings between examiner and instructor for looting innocent people.

    • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 23:03

      So, if this happens regularly (failing for being "too careful") then it is up to driving instructors generally to point this out to their students, just my 2c worth

  • baker bob on 05/02/2022 - 18:51
    +1

    I failed my first test the same way 30 years ago. Some drunk dude was hovering around a pedestrian crossing and as I approached it looked to me like he was going to cross. I stopped, he didn't cross, fail. Just get over it and go back next week, don't argue with the referee, it's a waste of time.

  • BoredGhost on 05/02/2022 - 19:03
    +4

    Well, let's look at this another way.

    Since the driver of interest (one that failed) was the first to stop, there is effectively a hazard created as it tempts the young people to cross the road when the other side of the traffic is still on-coming. It is irrelevant that the driver in the other lane stopped as well, because they were not obliged to. The young people might have attempted to cross before the other car stopped, therefore leaving the pedestrians stranded in the driver of interests' lane.

    • StalkingIbis on 06/02/2022 - 08:45

      YES! So true! I see this so many times each week out the front of a school.

      Some driver thinks they are being nice when seeing a group of kids rightly waiting to cross the street, so they stop to let kids run out through their lane that they've held up, across the other lane which is still moving!

  • Kamsi on 05/02/2022 - 19:15
    -5

    They can and they will fail you regardless, this is only way the bastard can get more money out of you. Time have changed.

    • Euphemistic on 05/02/2022 - 23:40
      +2

      There’s enough shit drivers out there that is rather they made it harder to pass the test. Driving licence is a privilege that allows you to control 2tonne of steel at quite fast speeds. If anything there should be stricter, longer testing in place.

      They aren’t failing people to make money. They are failing people who don’t display enough skill to pilot a deadly weapon.

      • random12 on 06/02/2022 - 13:09
        +1

        There are still far too many idiots with driver licenses, and it's not like they have to redo the test every 10 years to at least try and get rid of crap drivers.

        • Euphemistic on 06/02/2022 - 13:17

          I don’t know why they don’t even do a quick knowledge test when you renew. Use the same infrastructure as the learner test. Wouldn’t be hard and would ensure that people are required to keep a decent rules knowledge.

  • ribze1 on 05/02/2022 - 19:32
    +8

    Absolutely that is a fail.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2022 - 19:49
      +4

      … but precious can't 'fail' we should issue 'participation licences', after all she had met the driver training and experience requirements. Driving may be necessary for community participation and social wellbeing - it shouldn't come down to just a single subjective examination.

  • Lockieasy on 05/02/2022 - 19:38
    +1

    I remember stopping to let a jaywalker cross when I did my driving test years ago (I was driving at under 30km/h due to traffic and the woman was already in the middle of the street afterall).

    Straight after the instructor said not to stop as cars have right of way, but luckily didn't fail me.

    • wtfnodeal on 07/02/2022 - 23:09
      +1

      But if you did run over the jaywalker the instructor would say why didn’t you stop.

  • saliya on 05/02/2022 - 19:41
    +2

    "I know I was not required to give way but it was unsafe to continue driving" …

  • CalmLemons on 05/02/2022 - 19:43
    +3

    If she is a genuine confident decent driver then just take the next test.

    Shit happens. Life isn't fair. Mum cannot protect her all the time.

    Bad luck unfortunately if the next test may be a while away due to covid backup.

    Would take the positive side in this and learn a lesson that life doesn't have any obligation to give you what you deserve unfortunately.

  • GourmetFoodie on 05/02/2022 - 19:47
    +1

    There is nothing you can do to change the outcome given it’s your kid’s word against the instructor’s. It sounds like that instructor was on a power trip and took a dislike to your kid for whatever reason.

    But if you have the time, ask you speak to a manager and demand a test re-sit at no cost with a different instructor. I’d be requesting a different instructor no matter what.

    • John Kimble on 05/02/2022 - 19:51
      +1
      • She was taking the driving test with only the instructor and examiner with her in the car

      You mean examiner?

      • GourmetFoodie on 05/02/2022 - 19:52
        +1

        Yes thanks for the correction

        • John Kimble on 05/02/2022 - 20:03
          +1

          Instructor sided with the examiner too though.

    • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 23:07
      -2

      Thought about that, but daughter refused, for fear of getting a "black mark" on the record as "argumentative, rude etc.." leading to further duscrimination down the road

      I think colloquially we call that "letting sleeping dogs lie" :)

      • HelpMeiCantSee on 06/02/2022 - 12:00

        Absolutely nothing wrong with her asking why, and putting her point of view forward, but you’re also right about letting sleeping dogs lie, especially when it’s clear it’s a hard line for them.

  • JimmyF on 05/02/2022 - 20:04
    +2
    • She slowed down, for fear they would run onto the road,
    • When the people were close to her side of the road she genuinely thought they would step onto the road, and she stopped to let them cross

    While I can see her issue and why she may have slowed down at least, it sounds like they stopped for no reason other than they 'thought' someone might be going to cross.

    How long did they wait for after stopping?

    But as many have said, at the end of the day the outcome can't be changed. book a new appointment and try again.

  • ozaym on 05/02/2022 - 20:22
    +1

    Good life lesson, sometimes you got to kick a few people down to get what you want 😂 but she did the right thing, take your daughter out for a nice dinner or something.

  • burningrage on 05/02/2022 - 20:25
    +1

    I remember when I took a P plate test I was failed because I created a hazard by not giving way.

    It was a T intersection and I was turning right. Back in the old days, the examiner would have said "When it is safe to do so, please turn right or left".

    In this case, the examiner, obviously knew my instructor was chatting and forgot to tell me whether I needed to turn left or right. I was too close to the intersection and decided to turn right and unfortunately for me, there was a car approaching coming my way and although the car turned left (remember I turned right from T intersection) and I was safe. I was failed instantly.

    I protested but the result stand and my instructor said next time you can stop at intersection and asked the question, "Which way should I go sir?". Boy didnt remember seeing that in driving handbook!

    Anyway took 2nd test almost immediately and I was driving down south along Springvale road turning left to Burwood Highway, and I can see a car from opposite side on Springvale road turning right into Burwood Highway and although the car was far I didnt give way.

    I passed the test but was cautioned of my failure to give way.

    So the point I am trying to make is mood plays a big part I think

    • random12 on 06/02/2022 - 13:16
      -1

      Wait, you were not sure what to do, so you just did whatever you wanted?

      Duh, its obvious that you can ask the examiner to clarify a request on whether they want you to turn left or right. Don't need a rule from the book. Its called basic common sense. If you don't have common sense, you should not have a license.

      • burningrage on 07/02/2022 - 09:44

        Back in those days, when you were young and stupid and you were already nervous being scrutinized while driving under observation, pretty much I didn't think of that as 100% of the time during practice and trial run, I would always be given the instruction.

        But thanks for that "common sense" comment. Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

  • Rumbaar on 05/02/2022 - 20:33
    +2

    Seems like it has created a lifelong lack of care for pedestrians, of all the driving habits a person to have. Being cautious at defined crossing areas, isn't a negative thing to have.

  • apple2016 on 05/02/2022 - 20:48
    -2

    Look like the examiner was being an prick.
    While i agree as per the rules, the school children crossing in only 'active' or inuse when the flags are displayed and is usually done only in school hrs, most cars do generally stop to give way to pedestrians crossing the road at all times.
    There is nothing wrong in being cautios.
    Just book another test in a different centre and she will be fine.

  • ddhar on 05/02/2022 - 21:27
    +1

    Sounds similar to the P test I took years ago. I was instructed to change lane on a busy 4-lane road. The late afternoon sun however was in my side & rear mirrors and made it challenging/dangerous to change lane. So I slowed down (a lot) to make sure the next lane was clear before crossing over. I was failed for that.

    I didn't challenge it and instead re-took the test at a different centre (to avoid any possibility of sitting with that examiner).

  • DarkOz on 05/02/2022 - 21:37
    +6

    Should have only slowed down and be prepared to stop if needed. Stopping completely to give way is over-anticipating it and could potentially cause an accident.

  • bmerigan on 05/02/2022 - 22:04
    +7

    What if she stops but the cars in the other lane don't? The people start to cross and get hit because she encouraged them to step onto the road.

  • cookie2 on 05/02/2022 - 22:07
    +3

    I think it's a bit subjective. The slowing down and stopping while being tested would've been different thanhow it may have been played out if there wasn't a test. Or if the person had been driving for a few years. There is such thing as being overly cautious on the road and this too can be dangerous as it's unpredictable and unexpected.

  • rambao9 on 05/02/2022 - 22:17
    +1

    Haven't read all the comments, but I'm assuming your daughter may have signalled for those kids to cross (or by stopping completely in front of them, implied) or else I just cannot imagine them crossing on their own accord with a vehicle in motion.

    But as far as I understand it… my instructor has told me, as a driver you are not an authorized person to control who and who does not cross the road. For example, as a pedestrian, you'll see it all too often, people waving and signalling telling you to cross. This is grounds to fail your test.

    It sounds like, your daughter may have done just that.

  • kabammi on 05/02/2022 - 22:19
    +6

    Good! The examiner did the right thing. I'm sicking of these sort of people on the road doing this sort of thing. I got an X when I was doing the same thing when I pulled up to a roundabout and waited too long for cars on the other side to cover around the roundabout… So I learned it because I was holding other cars up. Fair enough, I learned and now I'm more forward about it and I keep the road more moving.

  • cloudy on 05/02/2022 - 22:22
    +4

    I hate cars that stop on the road to let people cross when there is no reason to. Honestly its the most unexpected maneuvers on the road.

    Unless the students were on the road, the car shouldn't stop, slowing down enough to stop if required is the appropriate course of action, especially on a multi lane road, where the car next to you might not stop, yet the pedestrian now feels entitled to cross could cause an accident.

  • Rillanon on 05/02/2022 - 22:56

    I would've taken the same action as your daughter if I genuinely believe they will cross the road. Stuff the rules. How many traffic rules are there in the book? How many can you remember in a split second when a dynamic situation arise when driving?

    Not everyone driving on the road follows all the rules, it's an imperfect system, you gotta adapt with it, that's part of driving experience.

    I will always take the option that reduce risk of danger for people or vehicles. Does it matter if you are right and rules are followed, but some kid's brain matter ends up on your windshield?

  • Matteo27 on 05/02/2022 - 23:07
    +1

    Rebook a test somewhere else. It’s not safe to stop in the middle of a road and risk having a car run up the back of you because you think someone might cross so it’s a fail that’s part of learning how to drive

  • gomelbcityfc on 05/02/2022 - 23:15
    -2

    Thank for all the advice, all good answers, and in a way there is no opinion i disagree with

    Sure my daughter was being overly cautious and will pay the price, in money, but also in time as there are no available tests until May, so 3 more months without a licence

    Personally I always err on the side of pedestrians, like i said in my OP rant some copper friends told me a very long time ago that on the road the pedestrian is king! If you hit someone on the road, you better hope all your ducks are in a row, i.e., car is roadworthy, you are not drunk or under the influence, you were alert, braked on time, took all reasonable steps to avoid them, and this was even before mobile phones were around….

    Otherwise you could be looking at time behind bars if they are seriously injured

    But that's just me

    • field1985 on 06/02/2022 - 12:08
      +9

      That sure is "just you" (and the poor kid you've made overly anxious). You aren't "looking at time behind bars if they are seriously injured", that's absurd.

      I've hit a pedestrian at 60km/h, caused serious injuries and had absolutely no legal issues, because I obeyed the road rules.

      The guy I hit was drunk and jumped into my path. He hit the bonnet, dented my A-pillar and left a smear of his face on the passenger window. He suffered numerous injuries, the worst was fractured/compressed vertebrae.

      After the crash, his drunk friends were threatening violence, so I had to drive off. I immediately called and 000 and only returned to the scene when ambo's were present. I was still assaulted by the guys two drunk mates (the ambo's witnessed it). The cops pulled up shortly after and arrested them.

      They gave me a breathe test (clear) and let me go. I had to go to the station a week later and give a statement about what occurred, and to press charges for the assault. I was never "looking at time behind bars".

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join