Periodic Driver Retests.

[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]

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=4835.msg41614#msg41614 date=1349267234]

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.
[/quote].

  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.

[tex]

Yes, one of my pet hates, late indication, or non!! And they will argue the toss even if they are wrong.

[Grahamm]

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=4835.msg41832#msg41832 date=1349380733]
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.[/quote]

Which is absolutely no proof at all. You could drive (or ride) like a complete twunt, carve people up, speed, do foccing hand-brake turns in the middle of the M25 and still, if you're lucky, get away with all of that with a clean licence etc (your conscience is your own business). It does *NOT* mean that you're a good road user!

So now can you tell me why I might need compulsorily educating further?

Who said anything about "educating"? I said you (and everyone else) should need to *prove* that you can still drive to an acceptably safe standard. And, yes, that includes me and all bikers too, before you start on that one. Simply saying "well I've done this for X many years and not had an accident" is not proof.

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?

Erm, it was *you* who tried to pull that old chestnut, not me! And I've already addressed it once, I'm not going to give a different answer just because you're trying to pull it again.

[Lawrence]

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.

Add to that people that think the national speed limit for cars on a single carriageway is 50mph  >:

The other party's insurance company who I am in the process of claiming off for my accident is trying to get out of paying because I was undertaking and entered a box junction.  I was undertaking because the left lane (bus lane, motorbikes are allowed in it) was empty and the right lane was stationary (highway code rule #163).  I entered the box junction because my lane was empty (rule #174).  Do the people who deal with motor claims day in day out actually not know the rules of the road either or are they just trying to wiggle out of it by any means?

I find the best thing to do is assume that everyone else is going to drive like a retard, then at least when they do something stupid at least I'm ready for it.

[Rusty]

[size=1em]Grahamm what you're saying here doesn't make sense. You appear to be saying that a clean license and unblemished driving record over many years means that you are still just as likely to be a person that simply goes out and drives like a lunatic. Am I understanding that right?[/size]

[size=1em]Given that's the premise, how often do you feel such a person might pull off a stunt like that before coming unstuck? Once? Twice? Forever?  If forever I'd like to understand how, and if not I'd like to understand why you believe they would do it occasionally? Especially given that all the evidence points otherwise?[/size]

[size=1em]Under your position everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That's deemed an unacceptable premise even when dealing with murderers, so why so for motorists? [/size]Were insurance companies to operate under your logic there would be no such thing as a no claims bonus. You are advocating the re-appraising of all, rather than incentivising good drivers by being exempt, and discouraging bad driving by retesting or re-appraising those with bad records.

[size=1em]
Erm, it was *you* who tried to pull that old chestnut, not me! And I've already addressed it once, I'm not going to give a different answer just because you're trying to pull it again.[/size]

[size=1em]I'm afraid you'll have to humour me on this one then because I must have missed your answer. All I recall is you stating that regardless of the top speed of a vehicle it can also go a lot slower, but still break any urban limit imposed. Was that your answer? If it was then you appear to have answered a question I didn't ask. What I asked was:[/size]

[size=1em] 'Should vehicles be limited to the 70mph maximum speed as a safety measure?"[/size]

[size=1em]As far as I'm aware you didn't answer that. You appear to have body-swerved into speaking of urban safety and driver awareness while completely ignoring motorway driving and the excess speeds involved. Kind of a huge elephant in your room though isn't it? The government could make an excellent case for the 70mph thing as a large percentage of driving is by motorway.  If it's all truly about road safety and not creeping nanny state bullshit then you should be all for it. So, are you? Fancy a 70mph FZ1?[/size]

[size=1em]Or is the truth that the government wouldn't dare restrict vehicles to the legal maximum as it would harm both the economy and their own revenue in fines, thus making the safety issue pure hypocrisy? Perhaps also the retesting idea would be a rather lucrative business for a number advanced motorist type examiners, who would naturally see it as a great idea?[/size]

[Grahamm]

Do the people who deal with motor claims day in day out actually not know the rules of the road either or are they just trying to wiggle out of it by any means?

They're probably hoping that you don't know the rules of the road and will think "oh, I must have been in the wrong then" and drop the claim.

I find the best thing to do is assume that everyone else is going to drive like a retard, then at least when they do something stupid at least I'm ready for it.

I can agree with that!

[Grahamm]

[size=1em]Grahamm what you're saying here doesn't make sense. You appear to be saying that a clean license and unblemished driving record over many years means that you are still just as likely to be a person that simply goes out and drives like a lunatic. Am I understanding that right?[/size]

Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written  or do you just skim it and then your mind fills in (or makes up) what you think you would have like them to have written and then you create Straw Man arguments based on that?

Go back and read my posts again and actually try to *comprehend* them and you'll find all your answers are already in this thread.

[Rusty]

Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written?

Yes Grahamm, even what you write. 

Go back and read my posts again and actually try to *comprehend* them and you'll find all your answers are already in this thread.

I thought I hadn't missed the answer but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and went back as instructed to, or was that ordered to? Painful as it was to have to re-read all the evasive reasoning you have been using I did do, and oddly enough found no direct answer to my question.  Fancy that. The only thing I can find is the bit below.

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?"

Now perhaps it my lack of *comprehension*, but does all this woffle about prevailing conditions and of how 70mph is often too fast constitute in your mind the answer to my question? Which was do you believe vehicles should be capable of greater than the national maximum speed limit? And does your sudden willingness to incorporate links to terms you've just learned into your reply explain why you haven't yet addressed any of the other points I raised in my last post?


So should all people be considered guilty until they are proven innocent Grahamm? As you said here. See I do read your posts.

I said you (and everyone else) should need to *prove* that you can still drive to an acceptably safe standard. Simply saying "well I've done this for X many years and not had an accident" is not proof.

Do you know THIS word Grahamm? 

[Grahamm]

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=4835.msg41929#msg41929 date=1349443724]
Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written?

Yes Grahamm, even what you write.  [/quote]

And yet still you fail to comprehend.

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=4835.msg41614#msg41614 date=1349267234]
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?"

Now perhaps it my lack of *comprehension*, but does all this woffle about prevailing conditions and of how 70mph is often too fast constitute in your mind the answer to my question? Which was do you believe vehicles should be capable of greater than the national maximum speed limit? [/quote]

Yes, Rusty, it *is* your lack of comprehension (unless, of course, you've swallowed the Government's argument that "Speed kills" as if it's a fact).

What matters is not absolute speed, but inappropriate speed for the conditions. Come, answer me this: is 30mph less dangerous than 70mph? If so, is doing 30mph past a school when the kids are leaving less dangerous than doing 70mph on an empty motorway?

Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make doing 30mph past that school safer? No, of course not.

Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make it safe to do that speed on a crowded and wet motorway in driving rain in the dark? No, of course not.

Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make it safe to drive at that speed in the fog? No, of course not.

Restricting speed in that way does nothing for road safety, it is *inappropriate* speed for the *conditions* that is really what is dangerous.

If you have road users who fail to adjust their behaviour to the prevailing conditions because they blithely think that "well I've passed my test so I can drive" that is where the danger exists and that's why I said it's nonsense.

I thought you would be aware of this, but perhaps I was mistaken.

And does your sudden willingness to incorporate links to terms you've just learned into your reply explain why you haven't yet addressed any of the other points I raised in my last post?

Lol! Oh deary me, Rusty, I think you might find I've been using terms such as Straw Man, False Dilemma, Ad Hominem and many others for a *LONG* time now  :lol

Look, here's one from the old Foc-U Yuku forums back in 2007 and if I could be bothered to find a link to let me search for the old Common Room echo of the Fidonet Bulletin boards on Usenet from 20 years ago, I could show you an example from that too.

So should all people be considered guilty until they are proven innocent Grahamm? As you said here. See I do read your posts.

But, yet again, you fail to comprehend.

The Right of Presumption of Innocence (you could try searching on that term linked to my name too, BTW, and find that it's a Right I strongly support) is to do with Criminal Law, it has nothing to do with the *privilege* (it's not a Right) of being allowed to be in control of a vehicle on the road.

Do you know THIS word Grahamm? 

Do you know the Political Compass site, Rusty? FYI on that site I score -0.3 on the Left Wing/ Right Wing scale, but -7.75 on the Authoritarian/ Libertarian scale.

I am entirely willing to stand up for Rights, but I always remember that there are also Responsibilities to consider too. If you are going to be in control of a vehicle, you have the *responsibility* to control that vehicle in a way that does not risk harm to others. As such it is, similarly, your responsibility to ensure that your skills are adequate to doing so. Unfortunately not everyone considers this and thus it becomes necessary to enforce those responsibilities.

We already have such enforcement, for example when someone is banned from driving and then has to take another test to prove(!) that they can act responsibly on the roads again. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that they should not be required to take another test because "well, they've passed one already"?

If not then it is only a matter of degree that we are arguing about.

[phillywilly]

its all well and good some euro mp demanding that we all take a re-test (because if it does ever happen thats who will make uk do it )(i see on news tonight the uk is facing blackouts in a couple of years time because we got to shut down so many power stations to keep BRUSSELS happy)but what happens if like me who does a 70 mile commute to work ,has to do a re-test ....and fails !!! :'(
goodbye job,goodbye home ,and family ,thanks a lot eec

[smithfz]

which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?