Alberta drivers lack basic skills: survey

[Pinner]

LoL I'll figure it out someday

[McG]

i would like to see mandatory drivers tests given whenever your license was renewed.

at the very least...it would get a bunch of people off of the road at least for a short while.

my personal pet peeve is that car manufacturers have made it an option to have a turn signal on your car.

[tete]

Originally Posted by SebC

I would guess that most of the people failing this are older drivers, not newer ones. If you've just studied for the test, chances are you still know the answers.

Exactly. If I had 30 minutes to read over the driver's handbook, I'm sure I would have come close to acing this test.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Who else checked the often box for follows closely (tailgates) to make the driver infront move over or speed up?

I do this only to the morons who are going 90 in the left lane on highway 3 clogging things up for people trying to get to Lethbridge in the morning. I would totally be in favour of RCMP handing out tickets for cruising in the left lane, especially when going 10+ kph under the speed limit.

[JD]

There is a different between skills and knowledge. To be a good driver one requires both.

This quiz tests your knowledge and they can't judge your skill from its result.

Nonetheless I would say that Albertan drivers are among the worst, from personal experience. Driving over here in the UAE is just a completely different experience. There are still major idiots but they seem to be a much smaller percentage of the total.

[Acey]

The problems I see are more a lack of courtesy and people not paying attention, as opposed to not actually knowing the rules of the road.

[Flames0910]

In general, the questions are very specific (ie. "how close a distance should you follow, 2 seconds, 6m, 10m, whatever's safe")

If you had just finished cramming for a learner's test you could easily get these. 20, 30, or even 50 years later? Doubtful.

I'm not saying these results should be ignored...or that it wouldn't be a bad idea to test every X years...but if you think about it, the results aren't that surprising.

Furthermore skills and knowledge are not interchangeable words...

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

the questions seem to be taken from these two tests (results available at the end)

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...quizmaker.html

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...quizmaker.html

Yup the questions are pretty much identical.

I am no Pinner, but I passed em both. The questions that got me were the parallel parking distance from curb questions. My MO has always been as close as possible but no so close to wreck my 18"alloys. I can honestly say i can get within 2 inches of the curb on every first try, so my applied skill would fall within the required applied knowledge set. Also the following distance one got me I think. I put 3 seconds, and it just occurred to me it is two. I guess I am on the safer side of being wrong on that one.

I guess not bad as its been 20 yrs since I took my test.





Kinda humbling as I thought I would ace em both. If you cannot pass these tests, I honestly don't think you should have a license period.

[Addick]

I wouldn't be surprised if these results were replicated in similar studies across the rest of northern North America. With driving being such a common task for many people in Canada and America, I think there is a lack of both attention and seriousness paid to it both countries. In addition, I think driver training is really relaxed compared to other developed countries (e.g. Germany, Finland, and the UK). Subsequently, the required knowledge is not ingrained in most operators' minds and the necessary skills are not mastered.

[NBC]

Addick, don't get me started on the DVLA and its horrible bureaucratic processes!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

the questions seem to be taken from these two tests (results available at the end)

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...quizmaker.html

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/doctype47/production/quiz/PracTestTwo/quizmaker.html

On the first practice test, I got 28/30. Interestingly, however, one of the answers went completely against what we were taught in both Driver's Education and quizzed upon in the written exam.

Q: When driving behind another vehicle under normal conditions, a driver should maintain a minimum following distance of:
I answered: Four seconds
Correct answer: Two seconds

I took driver's education over ten years ago, but I've always been a bit of a nerd when it came to knowing the rules of the road, and it was always stressed to follow at a distance of four seconds (which I always maintained was horribly excessive).

The other question I answered incorrectly was in regards to the 'Slow Moving Vehicle' signage. My car has a top speed of over 300 KM/H, believe me when I say I don't need or care to know when I need to affix the 'Slow Moving Vehicle' sign.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I took driver's education over ten years ago, but I've always been a bit of a nerd when it came to knowing the rules of the road, and it was always stressed to follow at a distance of four seconds (which I always maintained was horribly excessive).

I took mine in 2007. They taught 2 seconds. So it's possible that times have changed? Or brakes have advanced enough that a 4 second gap is much more than necessary for you to stop should the car in front of your suddenly braked?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

I took mine in 2007. They taught 2 seconds. So it's possible that times have changed? Or brakes have advanced enough that a 4 second gap is much more than necessary for you to stop should the car in front of your suddenly braked?

Keep in mind I also took mine in Manitoba, so the test was probably tailored to "You all drive crapboxes so four seconds is probably a good idea."

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

I took mine in 2007. They taught 2 seconds. So it's possible that times have changed? Or brakes have advanced enough that a 4 second gap is much more than necessary for you to stop should the car in front of your suddenly braked?

No - I was taught 2 seconds back in the late 80's, and again when I took a collision avoidance course at work in 1997.

[Joborule]

In my course it was said that 2 seconds was goverment recommended for non-ideal conditions, but 4 seconds was recommended by the instructor.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Joborule

In my course it was said that 2 seconds was goverment recommended for non-ideal conditions,

I hope you meant ideal conditions.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Joborule

In my course it was said that 2 seconds was goverment recommended for non-ideal conditions, but 4 seconds was recommended by the instructor.

I bet that is where the discrepancy is coming in.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I hope you meant ideal conditions.

The government said 2 seconds distance between cars in general. It never specified different distances for rain or icy weather. This is why the instructor mentions the 4 second distance.

[nik-]

29/30 on the first one. 27/30 on the second.

I took this test in 1996. Apparently I do retain some information in my brain.

[Pinner]

It's hard enough to keep 2 seconds following distance as somebody will take that spot just to be infront of you. Or tailgate you so they can be 50 ft. closer to their destination. LoL