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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
ok your talking oranges and apples.
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.
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??
Quote from: Grahamm on 03 October 2012, 01:27:14 pmI 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.