So Abby re-took her driving test today.
We paid for a parking lesson first with the examiner so she could pass the cone parking test.
Having taken her to this test, I can verify that the cone setup is quite simply ridiculous and its setup in a way to make you fail the test unless you know the specific tricks and test protocol for parking in that setup, not in the real world.
This of course makes the examiners more money as they can then sell a remunerative parking lesson followed by the road test.
If you want to see the cones in action, there's a (rather cringe-worthy - trust me skip to 2:33) Youtube video.
Abby faced a similar setup, but think of it setup diagonal to the parking stripes rather than in parallel with them as in the video and with her never parking with cones before you'll get why Abby had trouble with it originally. Especially as her car lacks a backup camera or beeper and she again had never parked in the cones before but only between real cars, so it's no wonder she got nailed the first time around.
In all of 7 minutes the examiner/instructor had shown her what she wanted with the conse, Abby did it and the examiner then declared she had passed the parking portion. In short, she can park and she could park before the lesson, but we needed to pay a little extra to get the method to park in the cones down . . . in 7 minutes. Again its not skills being tested in the parking segment, but your wallet.
Then she did her road test and passed with flying colors.
At least one legislator in Michigan has the right idea and had proposed a bill back in May 2019 to eliminate the parallel parking requirement from the driving test. She's reasonably proposing to eliminate it not just because its not a commonly used technique in most of Michigan, but mainly because enough people are ticked off about failing a driving test on the simulated stupid parallel parking cone course when they can driver perfectly well.
In short, this parking segment is designed and exists to make examiners money and make it cost more for people to get their licenses unless they pay the mordida of some special parking lessons so they can get used to the cones.
It's about time this cone scam got removed from the test.
5 comments:
Congratulations to your daughter!
Just imagine doing a cone course like that in a fire engine.
Hey Aaron;
Congratulations!!! and yes this is another way for the examiners to "wet their beak" at the driving public's expense.
I thought that it was just my daughter who had to pay the extra money for the parking portion of her driving test again. The tester was actually the same person who ran the driving school where she had to go to take her training.
I know, seemed strange to me too. And I am in Michigan also, in Muskegon. But this was about 9 years ago, and I am not sure if the thing was new or the tester was sick or what. I just know that when I was a kid, I took my training from the school, for free, and then I took my test at the police station. I took it with my twin brother, who got in the car, drove around the block, just drove up and parked, and then I got in the car and drove around the block and parked, and the cop said " good enough" and we went in and did the paperwork.
Lots of things have changed since 1976. I took my practice lessons in a Spirit of 76 Dodge Dart.
It became an issue of money, that the schools could not afford to pay for the training,and the schools popped up. Living in the rural area, like we did, I had driven for some time, so it was not a big deal. But having the license was.
Pigpen51
I took my driver's exam in Michigan - 1978. We took our driving tests at the Secretary of State's office. Driver's Education was mandatory and provided via the high school during the summer months. High School teachers provided the instruction. Being a farm kid and knowing how to drive was not an advantage - it was my first lesson in "Don't stand out - the nail sticking up is the first to be hit with the hammer". Pretty sure that one of the local car dealerships provided the cars. Different times indeed.
DaveS: Thanks, and Yes, doing that in a firetruck would be a bit of a challenge.
MrGarabaldi: Thanks and yes its bad incentives to give the people doing the examining the potential for higher income by failing the student so you can sell them a course and another test. Makes it cost $180 rather than just the $60 test, so if they fail them they make an additional $120, easy to see how and why they do it.
Pigpen51: Not just your daughter by mine too. They really need to separate the examiners from the instructors as the incentive to fail them to charge them more is far too strong otherwise.
DaveS: Yep that system likely worked better due to the incentive to teach them so they could pass the course rather than set them up to fail to get paid more.
Post a Comment