Failed – crossed a line at the end of the “turn in the road.”

Example One:

A pupil is failed unfairly, contrary to the prescribed K53 standard.

After returning to the testing centre after doing their driving licence test, an applicant is told they have failed for not stopping behind the white line as they complete the “Turn in the Road.”

The K53 manual states:

3.1.4 Turn in the road (Module 19)
The examiner shall instruct the applicant:
(a) to position vehicle at starting point,
(b) turn the vehicle around within the 12 metre (should read 9m) roadway, without mounting any kerb and by using two forward and one reverse movements, to face in the opposite direction, without touching the demarcated line with any wheel, and

(c) complete the manoeuvre, the vehicle shall exit the demarcated area on the left hand side of the road. (It is not necessary to stop before exiting).

See “K53 Manual – Light Motor Vehicles” under Driving Tests on our website – Page 3.

The examiner turns away, having just unfairly ruined their chances of employment, which the applicant was really counting on.

The applicant protests, saying he or she was taught to do what he or she did.

The driving examiner is not happy and advises them to follow the appeal process, since they do not agree with the outcome of the test.

The driving instructor is incensed! This is an unfair failure, and advises the client of the correct appeal procedure. (Most instructors tell their clients the appeal process is not worth following, and advise them to just book again, which costs the client unjustified double booking fees, as well as double costs booking the driving school vehicle again, but months later, when they eventually get another appointment, they hope they will be tested fairly the next time.)

If they do decide to follow the appeal process and the driving instructor decides to send in supporting documentation, together with the appeal submitted by the client, they can expect to receive something like this answer received from the Gauteng Provincial Department:

Good morning

Please be informed again that an appeal only relates to the applicant not somebody else. Your letter in this case is irrelevant. In the Appeal section, there is no where that a third party will give a report, in view of that , the appeal will be based on what the applicant has written and the examiner respectively. Please treat these things as prescribed.

Regards

– While we agree that the correct appeal procedure must be followed, the fact of the matter is the applicant is not in a position to defend themselves. They do not always know the intricacies of the K53 standard quite as well as the driving instructor does. They do need our support. After all, we were paid by the client to train them to drive, and something we taught them to do was apparently unacceptable to the examiner.

Surely we should be held accountable for what we taught them? Why is our input not accepted? We feel this should be changed.

It is not that we are trying to throw our weight around. We take our responsibility to defend our clients and what we taught them very seriously.

We provide a comprehensive service when we accept them as clients, which includes assisting them if an appeal becomes necessary.

For example, this was the submission by the client’s father:

Dear Mr XXX

Attached hereto the the formal appeal and supporting documentation:

  1. Appeal written by my son.
  2. Letter written by my son’s driving instructor.
  3. Copy of my son’s learner’s licence.
  4. Copy of my son’s identity document.
  5. The test report

My son practiced very hard with a very professional instructor and it is then very demoralizing to come well prepared for a test only to find that the examiner did not test according to the set rules.

– Money and time was wasted today.

As his father, I request that you allow him to do a re-test free of charge as soon as possible, (the re-test was done, free of charge, after many unacceptable weeks of delay,) as well as paying the instructor’s fees to the driving instructor who accompanied him (which of course was not done, which meant that the client was either compelled to pay the instructor again for the appeal test, or go in another vehicle, which he was forced to do).