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. :lol 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.
02-10-12, 11:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-10-12, 11:01 PM by tex.)
(02-10-12, 10:43 PM)Rusty link Wrote: 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. :lol 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 !!!
the night i was born, lord the moon stood a fire red., my poor mother her crying,
she said the gypsy was right, and she fell right dead
compulsory 5 years :rollin retesting haha gd one :lol :lol
02-10-12, 11:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-10-12, 11:17 PM by Rusty.)
(02-10-12, 11:00 PM)tex link Wrote: 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. :lol
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 ! :lol
(02-10-12, 11:13 PM)Rusty link Wrote: [quote author=tex link=topic=4835.msg41563#msg41563 date=1349215203]
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. :lol
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 ! :lol
[/quote]
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
the night i was born, lord the moon stood a fire red., my poor mother her crying,
she said the gypsy was right, and she fell right dead
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.
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 .
the night i was born, lord the moon stood a fire red., my poor mother her crying,
she said the gypsy was right, and she fell right dead
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. :rolleyes
(02-10-12, 10:18 PM)Rusty link Wrote: 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.
Quote: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?"
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.
(03-10-12, 01:44 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: 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??
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. :'( :eek 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
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!!!
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. :eek 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
Good points made by all. 
the night i was born, lord the moon stood a fire red., my poor mother her crying,
she said the gypsy was right, and she fell right dead
personally i think that would come under a MEDICAL rather than retesting!!!!!!!!!!!! aahhhh!!!!!!
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]
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.
(03-10-12, 09:55 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: 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... :pokefun
|
