www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/04/60th-time-lucky-learner-driver-breaks-uk-record-for-sitting-theory-test
Just the practical test to go!
That said the great nephew of my Indie cannot sit his driving test He cannot read & write.
Although clever handed his great uncle cannot employ him - not enough rebuild work.
Young man, early 20s, works at a motorcycle dealer - servicing, repairs, rebuild of gearboxes etc are all possible as he can push a bike around the workshop and somebody else can road test the bike.
|
>> That said the great nephew of my Indie cannot sit his driving test He cannot
>> read & write.
How? Why?
|
|
He cannot sit the theory test!
|
>> He cannot sit the theory test!
This is what .gov says about help with the theory test if you have learning difficulties:
www.gov.uk/theory-test/reading-difficulty-disability-or-health-condition
|
The young lad has many problems - I used reading & writing but these are 2 of his many issues.
He learns by watching others and then, with guidance, he repeats the steps needed to do a task - seems incredible for someone who cannot read & write.
|
>> The young lad has many problems - I used reading & writing but these are
>> 2 of his many issues.
Just to be clear I was making a general point about help for the Learning Disabled not specifically about the young lad you mention or suggesting folks had missed something..
|
>> How? Why?
It happens. Even though we've had compulsory education since 1870(?) it continues to happen. Even if our education system were perfect in every way there would still be people for whom reading is a skill they'll no more master that I could ski downhill for the Olympics.
AIUI there are adjustments available for the theory test including somebody to read for you etc.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 09:04
|
A relative of wifey is a traffic officer and it took 11 times to pass. The general consensus within the family is that he refused to ever pay the bribe that was normal at the time.
We see him every Christmas, and he's quite simply the tallest human I've ever seen. Very much a Lurch and a mean-looking one, too. Standing next to me makes me look like a toddler. I asked him if he'd ever pulled a gun on a suspect and he said, no, I've never had to. They just look at me and surrender.
His mother is tall, she was a pro basketball player and still does it on the mature scene. Which reminds me, she'll be there this Christmas. Tall, blonde, 60 and hot. I intend to sit next to her at the table. I'll engineer it somehow.
Last edited by: BiggerBadderDave on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 10:01
|
Surprising number actually. Many years ago when I worked for a motor insurance company would see quite a few. Most were reluctant to admit to it, often claiming they had forgot their glasses and asking that I read the questions and wrote down their answers for them.
I have a suspicion that there are actually more practically illiterate now than there were forty years ago.
|
>> I have a suspicion that there are actually more practically illiterate now than there were
>> forty years ago.
I'm not sure there are more or not. It could be that modern life has raised the bar required to 'get by' several notches. Or even if it's in the same place more people are in a position where they struggle.
Working in the courts c79/85 there were plenty who struggled with the oath card.
Today I speak to people with serious illnesses who cannot read the labels on their medication.
|
A surprising 16.4% of the adult population in England are functionally illiterate. Even higher in Scotland.
Never mind they all get to vote :-)
|
>> A surprising 16.4% of the adult population in England are functionally illiterate.
What's the bar to be functional?
|
Functional illiteracy
Can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 15:10
|
>> Can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from
>> everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems.
That's an interesting test and quite a high bar.
For benefit purposes (PIP) the former part of your example would count as complex information.
Simple would be the Exit sign.
|
>>Can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information
>>from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause
>>problems.
...that probably qualifies them better for voting than someone who regularly reads The Telegraph/Express/Daily Mail (other newspapers are available) ;-)
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 15:18
|
|
I have long thought that there would be a lot of merit in a voting licence. In order to obtain one it would be necessary to pass a test measuring basic literacy, numeracy and an ability to interpret that information. Absolutely and unequivocally not any kind of measurement of political views, just a confirmation that those putting their votes into the system are capable of understanding even at the most simple levels, what it is they are voting for.
|
>> I have long thought that there would be a lot of merit in a voting
>> licence. In order to obtain one it would be necessary to pass a test measuring
>> basic literacy, numeracy and an ability to interpret that information. Absolutely and unequivocally not any
>> kind of measurement of political views, just a confirmation that those putting their votes into
>> the system are capable of understanding even at the most simple levels, what it is
>> they are voting for.
How about plural votes?;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting
I'm thinking particularly of Nevil Shute's 'In the Wet' where one could have up to seven....
|
No, I am not in favour of that, but a credible measure of competence to understand and interpret basic information before voting would surely be beneficial.
|
"a credible measure of competence to understand and interpret basic information before voting would surely be beneficial"
That would have ruled out Liz Truss for sure.
|
>> That would have ruled out Liz Truss for sure.
Somebody said she was 12 before she could tie her own shoe laces.
I've just read Rory Stewarts memoir which covers a time where he was a junior minister in her dept.
She doesn't look good....
Mind you apart from for David Gauke his praise is spread pretty thinly.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Dec 23 at 16:05
|
>> I have long thought that there would be a lot of merit in a voting
>> licence. In order to obtain one it would be necessary to pass a test measuring
>> basic literacy, numeracy and an ability to interpret that information. Absolutely and unequivocally not any
>> kind of measurement of political views, just a confirmation that those putting their votes into
>> the system are capable of understanding even at the most simple levels, what it is
>> they are voting for.
>>
And those who failed this test would still have to pay taxes to a government they had no say in electing, obey the laws passed by a government they had no say in electing, and in times of national emergency be liable for conscription into the military to fight a war started by a government they had no say in electing.
A perfect model for a stable society.
|
The person, who has not been named, spent £1,380 and around 60 hours on the process at a test centre in Redditch.
That is more than anyone else in Britain, but only just: another learner in Hull failed 57 tests, another in Guildford 55, and a driver in Tunbridge Wells fell short 53 times.
My two went into the test together and were soon out again. "What was all that about ?"
They realised the span of ability/memory that exists.
|
Anyone with even a modicum of driving awareness and competence knows that the roads are infested by many others who apparently don’t have either.
I feel it might be reasonable to have a limit on the number of times it is permitted to take a driving test. If someone hasn’t grasped the basics well enough to pass multiple times, then perhaps they should be discouraged for their own safety, and that of the wider community, from driving at all.
|
Given enough attempts an orangutan hammering a keyboard will eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. It is not that they have developed literacy skills - just probability in action.
The driving theory test is shorter and simpler than the complete works - passing after 60 attempts seems more like luck than hard work.
|
>> Given enough attempts an orangutan hammering a keyboard will eventually reproduce the complete works of
>> Shakespeare.
Its a theory, never proven.
|
"Its a theory, never proven."
It has if Shakespeare was an Orangutan
|
|
Not sure if he had a keyboard though.
|
|
If an orangutan could write Hamlet knocking up a typewriter wouldn’t have been be an issue
|
"Given enough attempts an orangutan hammering a keyboard will eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare."
No, it won't. I love this kind of thing, it was drawn to my attention in Richard Dawkins's God Delusion (he signed it for me at a lecture) 20 years ago or so.
Forget the complete works of Shakespeare, just concentrate on one sonnet. 488 characters and 26 different characters to chose from. So to get the odds you have to multiply 26 by itself 488 times. In base 10, it's 10 followed by 690 zeros. And that's before punctuation, spaces, caps and returns.
Number of particles in the universe is 10 with 80 zeros after. So there wouldn't be enough paper to try.
There's a lot of this stuff on the web, often intertwined with religion and the origin of life by chance.
Stuff to read:
www.blogos.org/thinkabout/infinite-monkey-theorem.html
|
That may be the odds but of course it is statistically possible if highly unlikely that the orangutan comes up trumps at its very first attempt.
It would be statistically unlikely that you win the National lottery 1000 times on the trot but it is statistically possible.
|
>>
>> It would be statistically unlikely that you win the National lottery 1000 times on the
>> trot but it is statistically possible.
>>
...given that I don't buy a ticket, I would dispute that.... ;-)
|
>>given that I don't buy a ticket, I would dispute that.
I don't know, used to get emails telling me I won the Spanish lottery and I never bought a ticket for that. I wonder where it went, perhaps to that Nigerian guy who used to offer me huge sums of money?
|
|
...yeah, but the odds on getting financial return on anything like that are also statistically nil...
|
The ultimate odds of anything existing or happening could be said to be so remote as to in effect be nil.
What odds would an observer to the beginning of the universe 14 billion years ago give on the possibility that in 14 billion years time the billions of electrons, quarks and gluons of which you are comprised would somehow in the incomprehensible vastness of the universe come together in a relationship whereby you are said to exist
It’s so unlikely as to be statistically impossible . Yet you do exist! …. Probably.
|
>>What odds would an observer to the beginning of the universe 14 billion years ago
Where did the observer come from, or did they have acces to an infinite improbablity drive?
|
Well let’s say “ imagine an observer at the beginning of the universe”.
|
Passes theory test on 60th attempt - Duncan
