Periodic Driver Retests.

[Dave48]

Was reading a letter in the Telegraph motoring supplement from a reader asking why the Government doesnt operate such a scheme to ensure ongoing competence/fitness to drive. "Honest Johns" reply was that since about 50% of British residents hold a driving licence such a scheme would be unworkable. I would have thought that say a 10 year assessment neednt be too costly to implement and might go some way to improving the generally very poor standard of driving we all see & unfortunately sometimes suffer from. This could address a multitude of sins from defective uncorrected vision to dangerous habits/practices-but I suppose any benefits from such a scheme wouldnt be immediately apparent in the road safety/casualty stats so would probably be dismissed out of hand,whereas speed cameras can be a nice little earner for govenment,insurers(via increased premiums) etc. I would like to know how many are on the road with the wrong type of licence as witnessed in Police TV progs where theyre always nicking someone with a strange foreign provisional licence!

[smithfz]

Does it really bother you how many people are on the road with a dodgy license l couldnt give a hoot personally.  Driving is very simple HOWEVER when there are at least 30 million drivers on the road you are bound to get accidents (of ALL KINDS the odds are there) i dont think its quite as easy as saying " lets retest every ten year" because the 30 million+ dont get it right all the time and there can be many reasons for an accident other than competency btw !!

[D4Delta]

I have thought for a long time that retesting at regular intervals would be a good idea. It would at least make people (self included!) read the highway code a bit more often.


How about if the test is failed the cost of insurance goes up say 25% until it is passed again? Likewise, if passed drop the cost of insurance by 25%?


Also how about a real incentive to do further advanced training by bigger insurance cuts, not the few % as at the moment?


David. 

[Grahamm]

there can be many reasons for an accident other than competency btw !!

Yes, there's people driving who can barely see beyond the bonnet and haven't had an eye test in the last 20 years. There's people who have no idea of the rules of the road and think that two wheels should give way to four wheels. Then there's the ones who simply don't care about other's right of way or the ones who are driving vehicles which are beyond their ability to deal with. Of course there's the mobile phone users, the texters, the drunks, the drug users, the ones with anger management issues...

... still, with 30 million people on the roads, you're bound to have accidents, so why bother trying to reduce that number...??

[Grahamm]

Also how about a real incentive to do further advanced training by bigger insurance cuts, not the few % as at the moment?

Hear hear!

IAM Surety (well, Adelaide Insurance actually) is supposed to give discounts to people who have passed their Advanced Test, but even *with* that discount they're still more expensive than the deal I can get through Bennetts.

[Raymy]

I can think of one group that wouldn't be in favour....






insurance companies.

[DryRob]

After 10 years the majority of drivers drivers think "I know it all already" so retesting wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, they would just slip back into their old habits the minute they've passed. More emphasis on better initial training/standards would help and how about a probational license that requires further assessment to be turned to full?

[D4Delta]

... still, with 30 million people on the roads, you're bound to have accidents, so why bother trying to reduce that number...??



(Hope I've got this quote right - still learning!)


It must make some difference & if I'm one of the ones not in an accident because someone has had extra training I'm all for it!


David   

[Rusty]

How about insurance costs that actually reward those who don't claim? What a novel idea! 


How many times have you heard that your insurance premium has increased this year due to the amount of claims/whiplash scams etc perpetrated by others? The simple answer must surely be to increase the policy of those that do claim and reward those that don't.  Perhaps you thought that's already the system in operation, but it can't be can it? I've not claimed since 1981 but each year my policy goes up by 15% or so.


On such a small island 30 million cars are going to bump into each other, especially when driven erratically, under the influence, or illegally. Speed camera's don't stop this from happening, Policemen on the beat do, so why the focus on speed cameras? (as if you didn't know [size=78%]) [/size]

The root 'problem' if it were to be admitted is overpopulation I reckon, and the insurance companies are simply spreading the inevitable cost of that between all. Plus insurance companies don't only have exposure in the motor vehicle field but many others, which means that someone must pay to rebuild after floods etc, which although coming under home insurance are losses covered by the same companies. It's not a stretch to imagine that just as all our road tax isn't spent on roads, all our insurance premiums aren't spent on vehicle related compensation.


Given that I would suggest that the introduction of re-tests and so forth is a different issue entirely to insurance costs. Why retest someone that has never had an accident?

[BBROWN1664]

Most people take lessons and have a flick through the highway code before taking their test. Some, a couple of years later may decide to take another (bike, truck etc) and have another read through the highway code but many will never pick up a copy of it again.

Its true that you only learn to drive after you pass your test but there are many people out there who are a danger to themselves and others through medical (eyesight) or mental (just dont give a shite) issues and these are the ones that need to be picked up.

Retesting is one way of doing it but the best way os to get more plod out on the road. Over the last 10 years or so the number of police cars on the road has fallen to the point that you can drive from one end of the country to the other and probably not see a single plod car and definitely not see a plod traffic car due to speed scameras taking over the role. Speed Cameras do not take your picture if you are doing 35mph on the motorway when everyone else is doing 70. Speed cameras do not see you swerving dangerously becasue you have no control of your car. Speed cameras do not see you tailgating the other cars at 70mph (or even 30mph outside the schools) because some tw@t in central government a few years ago decided that speeding was themajor issue on teh roads and scameras could pick that up.
 
 
Me, I took my car test at 17, bike test at 18, IAM cars at 18 too and still have an active interest in what laws/rules change meaning when I see a new roadsign I dont ignore it if it havent seen it before, I find out what it means.

[smithfz]

Let us remember that its not just competency that constitutes a road accident.Equipment Failure
Roadway Design
Poor Roadway Maintenance
Driver Behavior
What about Road Maintenance do you not think the roads of the UK, Scotland inparticular have some well up kept roads i mean the pot holes and rubble are non existent in these parts  .  I'd rather kick up a riot and get them to at least sort out the fecking roads -  for a start!!!.  God dam i pay my road tax and million others too i dont see them keeping there end of the bargain - i dont see roads getting fixed

[Chillum]

God dam i pay my road tax and million others too i dont see them keeping there end of the bargain - i dont see roads getting fixed

That because some ingenious fuckwit in government decided to disconnect the road fund tax from actually paying for road stuff and now we have the Vehicle Excise Duty - a general tax that can be spent on hookers bribes to the electorate every 4 years.

[smithfz]

god dammit l wasnt at that meeting

[tex]

 
 I think it would be good to have  compulsory10 lessons and a assesment every 5 years, if you pass the asesment you get cheaper insurance. I dont think retests would work. Most people know how they should drive, but as soon as you get a bit of traffic, or they are late for somthing the rules go out the window.

[Grahamm]

... still, with 30 million people on the roads, you're bound to have accidents, so why bother trying to reduce that number...??

It must make some difference & if I'm one of the ones not in an accident because someone has had extra training I'm all for it!

Erm, I was being a little bit sarcastic there...

[Grahamm]

Why retest someone that has never had an accident?

Because when someone is in control of a couple of tonnes of metal moving at 70mph or more, it's nice to know that their skills are up to date!

[Grahamm]

That because some ingenious fuckwit in government decided to disconnect the road fund tax from actually paying for road stuff and now we have the Vehicle Excise Duty - a general tax that can be spent on hookers bribes to the electorate every 4 years.

Yeah, that was back in 1936 yet still people think they "pay to use the roads" and have a go at cyclists because they don't "pay to use the road".

You are taxed on your ownership of a vehicle and have been for around three quarters of a century, but people still say it's "Road Tax"

[Dave48]

Thats why its called VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY!!

[Rusty]

Why retest someone that has never had an accident?

Because when someone is in control of a couple of tonnes of metal moving at 70mph or more, it's nice to know that their skills are up to date!

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?

 I think it would be good to have  compulsory10 lessons and a assesment every 5 years,

'Compulsory?' <shudder> You don't happen to be a driving instructor by any chance?     Would all these lessons be FOC then?  And the subjects compelled to take them regardless of an exemplary driving record? You guys kill me.

[tex]

Why retest someone that has never had an accident?

Because when someone is in control of a couple of tonnes of metal moving at 70mph or more, it's nice to know that their skills are up to date!

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 think it would be good to have  compulsory10 lessons and a assesment every 5 years,

'Compulsory?' <shudder> You don't happen to be a driving instructor by any chance?     Would all these lessons be FOC then?  And the subjects compelled to take them regardless of an exemplary driving record? You guys kill me.

 
 Lol, What makes you think that .!! It would solve half the unemployment problem !! It would keep people up to date with the highway code, and changes to  driving laws, even with exemplary driving record, you are never to old or wise to learn!

[Rusty]

Hmmmm.... you're never too experienced to learn from someone with less experience eh? That's one from the 'Let's teach father how to fuck' school of thinking there Tex. To keep up with the highway code you only need to read one.   I can understand medicals or eyesight tests but not what's being suggested. Are you up for the governed 70mph maximum on all vehicles idea too? I bet I can make a better case for that than you can for testing people who don't need it.

[tex]

Hmmmm.... you're never too experienced to learn from someone with less experience eh? That's one from the 'Let's teach father how to fuck' school of thinking there Tex. To keep up with the highway code you only need to read one.    I can understand medicals or eyesight tests but not what's being suggested. Are you up for the governed 70mph maximum on all vehicles idea too? I bet I can make a better case for that than you can for testing people who don't need it.

  I did not say test,  - - How many people read the highway code after they pass there test! Im not for the 70mph, but like you say there is good argument for it. How do you know if people dont need a test? They would have to take one to find out  right !!!
 
 
 
 

[smithfz]

compulsory 5 years  retesting haha gd one

[Rusty]

 How do you know if people dont need a test? They would have to take one to find out  right !!!

No! - You know it by them not having accidents. 
Isn't it odd that few appear to mind imposing compulsory this or that on others in the name of 'safety', yet no one wants to own a vehicle that is capable of no more than the national speed limit?  Remember kiddies - Speed kills!

[tex]

 How do you know if people dont need a test? They would have to take one to find out  right !!!

No! - You know it by them not having accidents. 
Isn't it odd that few appear to mind imposing compulsory this or that on others in the name of 'safety', yet no one wants to own a vehicle that is capable of no more than the national speed limit?  Remember kiddies - Speed kills!

 
  If you owned a vehicle that  was capable of the national speed limit? on what road? dual carridgeway , or a 60 limit, You could still do 70 past a school and kill someone!! Its the driver that speeds! I passed my test in 1977, it was a lot  different  then. no theory, or hazzard p, and lots of changes. When i did the adi trainning i realised how much i did not know about driving. Scary