I have not said if I passed or failed any tests. All I am saying is that this test does not involve any driving, just responding to hazards.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Driverless Cars - the future?
- Thread starter starrymarkb
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
From memory, the hazard perception test, whilst useful from a learning point of view is not really comparable to real life as the examples were mainly "potential" hazards that you were looking out for rather than testing how you deal with a hazard.
It is one thing to notice that there are a group of kids larking about by the side of the road, but another to deal with one of them running out either in front of or alongside you.
It is one thing to notice that there are a group of kids larking about by the side of the road, but another to deal with one of them running out either in front of or alongside you.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
You really have absolutely no idea about human behaviour, or human nature, do you?
I have had countless kids (and adults!) run in front of my car, intentionally or otherwise. It happens. A lot.
I can just imagine you commenting on a thread about the downfall of Glasgow Rangers Football Club - "It's alright, there's another big club in Glasgow called Celtic. You can support those guys if Rangers go bust".
I know that some kids will think it's a good game to play but that doesn't change the fact that it's stupid and that kids don't have to play it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Unless the job is going to involve driving then it should be of no concern to the employer.
Last edited:
It's only going to be useful if the job is going to involve some driving.
Talked yourself out of the job there I think.
However it is the concern of many companies how you will get to work as if you live far away relying on public transport etc might not factor in with their business hours.
SS4
Established Member
In a world where there are more applicants than vacancies employers can dictate pretty much whatever they like
There are disability discrimination laws though and it could be argued that requiring a driving licence is discriminating against people that can't drive due to health reasons. I also note this post by you at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59010&page=7
SS4 said:
SS4
Established Member
I fully agree and I stand by what I said in that thread. Just because it shouldn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen though
I am amazed how someone can be so desperate to avoid answering a simple question.
Of course, I think we all know the answer.
My last job didn't require me to drive anywhere for work, but it was deemed useful to have a licence as I often attended events for work. In 90% of cases, someone else would be paying for everything, including picking me up and taking me home. In many cases, I would take the train (e.g. to Gatwick, which I can get to quicker by train through London than a car sent to pick me up). In a few other cases, I'd drive as it suited me better. If they knew I couldn't drive, they'd have to make other arrangements.
I could have told my employer to get stuffed when asking me if I had a licence, and indeed a car that I could actually drive, but it would have seemed rather odd wouldn't it? I'd have either said yes, or no.
For the members of staff in the sales team, a licence was definitely a benefit as public transport could make it very hard to plan meetings (or expensive, as advance tickets aren't really good for ad hoc meetings, or speculative visits to businesses that might keep you there for hours, or back out in a matter of minutes).
Of course in some jobs you may not need to drive at all, or venture out of the office. I'd not expect to be asked then, but that's not to say you wouldn't be - as there might be plans to have you visit another site one day, or perhaps be considered for a possible promotion to a position that would require one. And a decent company might even contribute towards lessons, and provide a company car, so saying 'no' wouldn't automatically see you fail to get a job.
I apologise to others for stating the obvious above, but I thought it worth writing anyway!
Of course, I think we all know the answer.
My last job didn't require me to drive anywhere for work, but it was deemed useful to have a licence as I often attended events for work. In 90% of cases, someone else would be paying for everything, including picking me up and taking me home. In many cases, I would take the train (e.g. to Gatwick, which I can get to quicker by train through London than a car sent to pick me up). In a few other cases, I'd drive as it suited me better. If they knew I couldn't drive, they'd have to make other arrangements.
I could have told my employer to get stuffed when asking me if I had a licence, and indeed a car that I could actually drive, but it would have seemed rather odd wouldn't it? I'd have either said yes, or no.
For the members of staff in the sales team, a licence was definitely a benefit as public transport could make it very hard to plan meetings (or expensive, as advance tickets aren't really good for ad hoc meetings, or speculative visits to businesses that might keep you there for hours, or back out in a matter of minutes).
Of course in some jobs you may not need to drive at all, or venture out of the office. I'd not expect to be asked then, but that's not to say you wouldn't be - as there might be plans to have you visit another site one day, or perhaps be considered for a possible promotion to a position that would require one. And a decent company might even contribute towards lessons, and provide a company car, so saying 'no' wouldn't automatically see you fail to get a job.
I apologise to others for stating the obvious above, but I thought it worth writing anyway!
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
What rubbish. Of course employers are allowed to bin the applications of people who can't drive if the job requires driving. Just try getting a job with the police without a license and tell us how far you get.
Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
This thread is a gift that keeps on giving.
Zoe...I salute you for sticking to your guns but really you are on a different planet here. Surely you can see the obvious flaws in what you're saying?
Zoe...I salute you for sticking to your guns but really you are on a different planet here. Surely you can see the obvious flaws in what you're saying?
No I am not. Clearly if the job involves driving then there would be grounds to discriminate but this is not what I was referring to. The discussion earlier in the thread was about employers asking for a driving licence even when the job is not going to involve driving.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It is not rubbish. If the job requires driving then yes a licence will be required but this is not what I was referring to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was not saying that it would be unfair to discrimate against someone that can't drive if the job is going to involve driving. If it's a driving job then it's obvious that a driving licence would be required. The issue is when the job does not involve driving but the employer still asks if the person has a driving licence or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What I do or do not do has nothing to do with the subject of if people should be discriminated against or not when a job does not involve driving.
Last edited:
Zoe has a point regarding discriminating against someone who does not have a licence for health (e.g. eyesight) reasons, and not giving them the job on those grounds when the job content itself does not involve driving.
This has recently been an issue in my own organisation. I was indirectly involved with it myself, so i feel I am on rpetty solid grounds in commenting.
Anyway, this thread is now well off topic and is going around in circles. I don;t think there is anything else that can be said on this topic, everyone's views have already had a good airing.
This has recently been an issue in my own organisation. I was indirectly involved with it myself, so i feel I am on rpetty solid grounds in commenting.
Anyway, this thread is now well off topic and is going around in circles. I don;t think there is anything else that can be said on this topic, everyone's views have already had a good airing.
- Status