Sony Xperia XZ Premium review: Hands-on with the new 4K HDR phone with Motion Eye camera and Snapdr5…
when they take instruction and their driving test. click here
Quote: "He said psychometric tests could help to identify people with the wrong attitude to the road...."
You can give all the guidance you like to certain people, whilst under instruction or examination, but once they get their licence then anything goes. Unfortunately, some will become just another road accident statistic with possible innocents included as well. TC.
That is a load of lemon curd, they can't just stop people driving based on a psychology test. People have a right to drive if they show they are responsible on the road by passing their driving exam.
It is the older ones you wanna watch out for.
"People have a right to drive if they show they are responsible on the road by passing their driving exam."
Nonsense. The driving test bears no relationship to real life. You may 'pass' the test but, even then, you won't have driven on a motorway or driven unsupervised.
In my opinion you only start to earn the "right" to drive if you pass the test and then spend another 4 or 5 years of accident-free, legal motoring learning your craft and improving your skills.
It's crazy that you can take your test at 17, pass & never have to take a driving lesson again.
When i passed my car test 20 years ago there was less traffic on the road & the highway code has changed a lot, only because i have HGV/LGV & PCV licences have i taken a more advanced test.
People should have to take refresher tests every 5 years just like HGV/LGV/PCV holders have to!
I have seen psychometric tests used in industry to decide who is right for the job - what a mess that turned out.
Unless you know exactly what to ask, the reaction to expect and know everything there is to know about people, their mental attitudes and the subject (in this case driving), you will have extreme difficulty.
In trying to put the right person in the job, we lost many hundreds of years of experience, ended up with the wrong people and de-motivated most of the workforce. How on earth are you going to assess people with no real experience of driving across the whole, variable, combination of roads, traffic and weather conditions.
I don't think this the way to go but disagree strongly with Si_ls comment "It is the older ones you wanna watch out for" that may be true in some cases but the majority of road accidents are caused by young drivers who through either poor judgement or speeding have an accident, hence the insurance costs for young drivers is that much dearer, younger drivers are more prone to accidents.
Some older drivers may well be a problem but most accidents involve the younger ones.
Can someone define "younger" driver and "older" driver?
Si_l. I have been driving for many years, I'm a member of the IAM and have been for years. I have re-taken my IAM test and am quite happy to take any driving test. Yet according to you I am one of the drivers to watch out for. You are wrong in many ways. But age has nothing whatever to do with bad driving. There may be related things like deteriorating eyesight etc. and I happen to think we should all take an eye test at regular intervals before having a licence renewed, but that goes for youngsters as well. Just stop picking on us "Oldies" we're as good as you youngsters any day. Many of us are better. Just ask the insurance companies.
would not expose suppressed road aggression when learning to drive. Anyone revealing it would automatically fail any driving test, or at least they should.
Leaving aggression out of it for a moment, I think it would help other road users if newly licensed, inexperienced drivers were legally obliged to display signs announcing their new driving status for a year from passing the test. I admit it's not 'street cred', or whatever the correct term is today, but it should alert other drivers to take notice. TC.
I was interviewed for a job, (my last in fact before retirement) there were a number of applicants and a shortlist of 8.
We had 3 days of interviews and the first included psychometric tests. I have always had a healthy (dis)respect for such tests and decided to "test" them.
BIG mistake. Having deliberately answered in a way which "confused" the tests at the end of the first morning I was asked to resit the tests while others had coffee, in the same room in which I re sat the test.
The moral is, psychometric tests are for the weak interviewers. Did I get the job?
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.