Periodic Driver Retests.

[Rusty]

Coincidentally, that's the same year I passed my test. No, my point isn't to argue that you don't need to keep up to speed...er so to speak, but that each time you take a vehicle out on the road you are refreshing your skills. If you're not crashing you're doing something right. The speed limit thing will come in soon enough anyway, they already have plans for that, your vehicle will be governed by satellite link to do a maximum of 20mph, 30mph etc depending on it's location.


I'm all for less interfering and governing of peoples lives by the state not more.

[tex]

You cant really go off accidents to judge a driver. you could have ten. and none of them your faultwould you be a bad driver?.you could cause ten and still claim to be accident free!. I agree with the satalites though. either that or average cameras .

[Dave48]

Interesting to follow this thread to see where were going/not going. I believe that not only would such a scheme be unworkable but that it would be a bit like the MOT test-the vehicle may be ok on the day of test but develop a fault immediately after-we could perhaps drive to the REQUIRED STANDARD for the assessment & then revert to previous bad practice. Just based on daily observation surely most of us would agree there is a lot of scope for improvement but the difficulty remains in persuading people that the driving test is only a starting point not simply an obstacle to be overcome?
In an ideal world all road users would be courteous and considerate to others but it seems to me that as the pressure on road space increases-the "Im alright Jack" mentality takes over & hence the aggression & impatience & downright dangerous practices.
In the past the Government had regular road safety awareness campaigns for things like wearing seatbelts/drink driving/use of headlights in fog etc & there was a marked police presence on the roads.
Now it seems that all they need to do is put up speed cameras/cctv & tell us that "Speed Kills"-which we all know is not the entire story/truth.
Periodic testing/reassessments would only weed out the eyesight problems-a friend of mine is an optician & he is frequently shocked to discover people coming for eye tests with serious problems-cataracts/tunnel vision etc who are still driving-the system of course relies on self reporting of certain health conditions to DVLA.
Driver education is all well & good but only works if those being taught see the relevance.
I think the unfairness of the system is the relative ease in which inexperienced drivers can be in charge of powerful machinery by simply passing a very basic test of car control under controlled conditions with no further training(night/adverse weather/motorway etc) while the powers that be try to legislate motorcycling out of existence by discouraging young ridersfrom starting what is going to be a long & expensive process.
Any one who has taken the ADI training will know that at the start of process the trainee has their current driving assessed & this is then analysed-bad faults noted & eradicated & then taught to a proper standard. A good part of the theory test for ADIs consists of questions about psychology/learning process as teaching is the name of the game.
Someone said Driving is a simple process -yes the actual mastery of basic controls-but controlling a motor vehicle in real life driving & remaining safe requires a good deal of skill which depends on learning/experience.
So I believe its driver/rider psychology that is the key factor& thats beyond the scope of legislation.

[Grahamm]

That's just intrusive, more nanny state ideas we could do without. Target and educate those that need it, and leave alone those whose records show they don't.  Were there anything wrong with their skills they'd be highlighted by points on their license or the accident records of insurers.

I have to disagree. There are, indeed, many Nanny State intrusions which I will (and have) objected to, however just because someone has been driving for X many years and hasn't had an accident or got points on their licence doesn't mean that their skills are current and up to the requirements of what is needed these days.

It also doesn't mean that their eyesight isn't failing or their reactions are slowing or their attention wanders etc etc. Remember that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to demonstrate your ability to get that privilege in the first place, I see nothing wrong with being required to prove that you're still fit to hold that privilege.

Why is it when people are coming up with these great ideas for road safety they never hit on the idea of restricting all road vehicles engines to a maximum of 70mph I wonder? Because it would affect everyone including those making the rules perhaps? There's a good case for it being the national maximum is 70. Yeh, I think that's a great idea too, perhaps you could have your vehicle governed while you sat your compulsory re-education?

This is nonsense as I'm sure you're well aware. There are times and places and situations where even doing 70mph is going to be much too fast for the prevailing road conditions, yet drivers still use such inappropriate speeds because they think "Well, I've passed my test, so I can drive" not "should I be using this speed in these conditions?"

[smithfz]

Yes driving is very simple unless you have a problem.  When you pass a driving test its allows you to travel on the roads because you show competency and confidence controlling a vehicle within legal limits.   if you've done this once we dont need to do it again!!!!  this all sounds like discrimination. 

[Grahamm]

When you pass a driving test its allows you to travel on the roads because you show competency and confidence controlling a vehicle within legal limits.   if you've done this once we dont need to do it again!!!!  this all sounds like discrimination. 

Passing a Driving Test simply shows that you have *once* demonstrated the *bare minimum* level of competency to be allowed out in charge of a car. Remember "Maureen from Driving School"? That woman was a menace on the road, yet she was again and again allowed to try demonstrate that she could achieve that bare minimum standard once.

But what after that? Given that she'd repeatedly shown a lack of competence and ability prior to passing that Test, is there any guarantee that, having passed, she wouldn't go straight back to how she used to behave on the roads??

[Dave48]

On the subject of speed restriction devices(limiters). When they brought in compulsory speed limiters on vans up to 4.6tonnes GVW around 2007 I found it not only frustrating but occasionally downright dangerous. Example On Motorway approaching slip road with traffic say HGVs joining motorway. Pre-restrictor days would be able to move out to lane 2 with due regard to other traffic but with a safety margin of acceleration if required. At that time very few HGVs realised that vans were becoming speedlimited. In congestion with HGVs in Lanes 1 & 2 there was nowhere to put yourself.   Oh yes, the Irish trucks were limited to 100kph(approx 64mph)which made life more stressful. Even fully laden the Merc Sprinter was perfectly safe @ 70mph so they could have set the limiter @ that speed  and given us a bit of margin. The thinking behind limiters is sound as regards goods vehicles but a bit of common sense would have made life much simpler

[smithfz]

I like to see you've picked the most outrageous example (and the the uk's worst example, fact! - as the programme was britains worst learner or something like that).  I'II be honest l've never came across an example like her before.  Those people easily get found out the hard way!!!

[Dave48]

I wish she was an isolated case! Ive met more than a few over the years and I wouldnt get in a car with any of them.   Its not just a case of lacking essential psychomotor skills its the BELLIGERENT ATTITUDE and the refusal to accept that they could ever be even slightly wrong! If they can be on the roads  what does it say about the standard of the basic driving test? Periodic reassessment might weed some of them out along with helping the estimated 300,000 people driving with uncorrected vision defects pay a visit to the opticians. Sorry cant agree that a once in a lifetime test is sufficient for a possible 60 year driving career

[Grahamm]

 

[tex]

 
 Good points made by all.

[smithfz]

personally i think that would come under a MEDICAL rather than retesting!!!!!!!!!!!! aahhhh!!!!!!

[esetest]

If  the government were concerned about saving lives they wouldn,t let old people die from the cold every winter , and start illegal wars , and the last thing our economy needs is more red tape and more costs  [size=78%]  [/size]

[smithfz]

sorry rephrase that-


Poor vision has nothing todo with driving competency, a medical would be best suited to this situation.  I certainly dont have a problem getting a medical.  As i said earlier once passed a test i really dont need to prove i can do it again, there is no logic in that.

[Grahamm]

As i said earlier once passed a test i really dont need to prove i can do it again, there is no logic in that.

Next time you get on an aeroplane, ask yourself if the Pilot thinks the same way...

[smithfz]

ok your talking oranges and apples.

[DILLIGAFF]

IMHO the problem with driving is that it is almost entirely self-regulated and you rarely, if ever, hear someone confess to being a bad driver.


For example, I think myself to be quite a competent cook. Why?  Because nobody ever evaluates me.
Just imagine if I was put under scrutiny by Ramsey for half an hour.
Although my delusions and ineptitudes are most unlikely to affect anyone else.


Sadly it is a fact that we are NOT all born with the natural ability to be a safe and competent driver.

[BBROWN1664]

From the BBC News website today
 

The ABI said an 18-year-old was more than three times as likely as a
48-year-old to  be involved in a crash

If they are only 3x more likely to have an accident, why do they pay 10x (or more) the insurance premium???

[Rusty]

I have to disagree. There are, indeed, many Nanny State intrusions which I will (and have) objected to, however just because someone has been driving for X many years and hasn't had an accident or got points on their licence doesn't mean that their skills are current and up to the requirements of what is needed these days.

Grahamm I think the only requirement needed, either these days or in any other period is the ability to set off and arrive without either having or inadvertently causing an accident.  What more can you ask? As for eyesight tests and medicals I already said above that I can see the sense in those.

[Grahamm]

ok your talking oranges and apples.

Why? The difference is only one of degree.

If you are in control of something that could cause others to die if you get it wrong, why should you not be required to demonstrate that you're not a hazard to others?

[Grahamm]

IMHO the problem with driving is that it is almost entirely self-regulated and you rarely, if ever, hear someone confess to being a bad driver.

In a survey for safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%...!

[Grahamm]

Grahamm I think the only requirement needed, either these days or in any other period is the ability to set off and arrive without either having or inadvertently causing an accident.  What more can you ask?

I think I'd ask whether you are capable of driving (or riding!) without deliberately or through carelessness, recklessness or simple inability, causing others to have to rapidly adjust their speed or direction because of your actions.

If you pull out on someone at a roundabout and they have to slam on their brakes to avoid you, but it doesn't actually result in an accident, do you think that there's nothing wrong with that? If you do an overtake into on-coming traffic making someone have to swerve out of your way (but not physically crashing), is that acceptable? If you decide to do 60mph in a 30mph limit and nearly hit someone coming out of a T-Junction because you were going too fast, do you not think there might be a problem with your road use??

[Rusty]

I think I'd ask whether you are capable of driving (or riding!) without deliberately or through carelessness, recklessness or simple inability, causing others to have to rapidly adjust their speed or direction because of your actions.

Yes to all of that.

If you pull out on someone at a roundabout and they have to slam on their brakes to avoid you, but it doesn't actually result in an accident, do you think that there's nothing wrong with that? If you do an overtake into on-coming traffic making someone have to swerve out of your way (but not physically crashing), is that acceptable? If you decide to do 60mph in a 30mph limit and nearly hit someone coming out of a T-Junction because you were going too fast, do you not think there might be a problem with your road use??

No to all of that. Need proof? See 31 years no claims (if only) clean license, clean conscience.


So now can you tell me why I might need compulsorily educating further? Oh, and the old chestnut you pulled back there about vehicles being able to do 70 in a 30 still doesn't answer the point - do you want all vehicles limited to 70mph on the grounds that it is the legal maximum? There can be no possible excuse for going any faster regardless of what speed you do in town etc, so how about the legislation 'in the name of safety' starts with that?


What say you.

[tex]

I have to disagree. There are, indeed, many Nanny State intrusions which I will (and have) objected to, however just because someone has been driving for X many years and hasn't had an accident or got points on their licence doesn't mean that their skills are current and up to the requirements of what is needed these days.

Grahamm I think the only requirement needed, either these days or in any other period is the ability to set off and arrive without either having or inadvertently causing an accident.  What more can you ask? As for eyesight tests and medicals I already said above that I can see the sense in those.

.
 
  Agreed, but how will you inforce it? if you dont like manaitory

[noggythenog]

I think it's mainly attitudes that are at fault with most dodgy driving antics, like people playing the game to get out've jail people will play the game to get passed any tests but it prob wont change their attitude once back on the road by themselves again,


I would agree to having some periodic highway code updates through the post or maybe an online highway code test to highlight some simple but commonly misinterpreted rules,


A pet hate of mine is people commonly unable to use roundabouts properly, even simple ones, i used to go crazy about it but now i just expect them to do it wrong as ive realised that most of them actually dont realise they are in the wrong lane and would probably even argue that they were in the right.