Periodic Driver Retests.

[Rusty]

[size=1em]
Please try to understand the difference between "speeding" (simply going above an arbitrary posted limit) and "inappropriate speed for the conditions" and then you will understand that I have already answered you.[/size]

I fully understand the premise of inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions Grahamm. You are saying that despite having a maximum speed discretionary considerations need to be made within that maximum. I don't see why you think that is something so difficult for others to grasp?


The point you don't seem to be addressing is the point I'm making. Which is that of record. The government puts any new legislation under the larger umbrella of 'road safety'. That's their justification for the introduction of new intrusions on personal liberty, after all who can argue if it makes the world a safer place? Therefore we must wear seatbelts, observe 70 mph speed limits, undergo  MOT's and a myriad of other things all within that broad road safety justification.


[size=1em]Now you're saying the government are bullshitting, and I'm not going to argue as that's what governments do for a living. You won't address the 70 mph maximum question because both you and I know it is a complete fallacy that 'speed kills' just as it is that 'alcohol kills', - it's all down to when and how you use it.[/size]

[size=1em]Driving examiners are charged with training people to a standard that is deemed competent to drive on our roads. If this isn't happening then the standard required needs to be raised before one can drive. That's number one. Someone failing their test must undergo a retest, which means a system is already in place.[/size]

[size=1em]Inexperience causes accidents due to youthful over confidence, or lack of the experience in adapting driving to driving conditions. Such accidents result in increased insurance premiums, and/or points on the licence. I dare say a lesson is learned too. The potential for huge additional costs to young drivers go some way to encouraging caution.[/size]

[size=1em]Medical examination, eye tests and possibly hearing tests will address natural atrophy of those faculties. I agree that these should be introduced.[/size]

[size=1em]Inconsiderate, aggressive, abusive or downright dangerous drivers are out there. It is a character trait. It won't be cured by sitting them down and talking to them, they're just like that  If and when they cause accidents, they get points, bans, dearer insurance and so on. Therefore, as before there is a system in place.[/size]

[size=1em]The final two groups consist of uninsured/banned dickwads in a £50 car from the auctions, and those[/size] who drive well, don't speed, have lots of experience and are rewarded with cheaper insurance as the assessors consider them to be a low risk.  In the first instance they won't even be turning up to your proposed new re-test scheme.  In the second these are people who are doing everything right, have demonstrated that they have been doing so for a number of years, and just want to go about their business.

[size=1em]So here we have it. The point I am making is this:[/size]

[size=1em]You know (although won't openly admit) that the 70mph legislation is bullshit, and that we can (and do) travel at speeds in access of that in complete safety depending on the conditions and situation. Right? But although you or I may be capable of doing so we can't, because we are restricted to 70 mph by law.[/size]

[size=1em]What you are proposing then is a similar situation. We know that some people are bad drivers, we know that some are inexperienced, and we know that yet more just don't give a shit. And as mentioned there are already mechanisms in force that deal with this'[/size]

[size=1em]So like the blanket 70mph limit that you know is bullshit but won't come out and say so, you would like to see a blanket re-test that applies to all and tests the good with the bad.  So your argument consists of a strange schism in that what you seem to be saying is you know the 70 limit is nonesense and restricts those will the knowledge and ability to safely exceed it, yet you want to introduce retesting system that includes those with the knowledge and proven ability to avoid accidents.[/size]

[size=1em]You can't have it both ways mate.[/size]

PS I'm still not going to address your Straw Man arguments.