Driving Licences

[sadjack]

I was going to post in another topic about cyclist deaths but I dont want to deflect attention from there.

On our club ride on Sunday we had a discussion about whether driving licences should only last say 5 years, at which point the driver should be assessed regarding their competence before given another 5 year licence. At the time of assessment any convictions could be taken into account.

Just maybe that would concentrate the mind to drive with more care, maintain a level of skill and knowledge because the driving licence does not last a lifetime and can be refused, not taken away by a court on conviction, if your not up to scratch.

Do you think shorter term licencing and assessment make any difference?

 

[sadjack]

On second thoughts maybe I should have posted this in Campaigning? Mods if you think it should be moved please do so, thanks.

 

[gaz]

I posted recently on my blog about this. The renewal process should come at a cost to cover the expenses it will bring

We should also increase the amount of traffic police on the roads to catch people who drive without a license.

But this is just another addition to the 'war on the motorist', they won't like it!

 

[sadjack]

I posted recently on my blog about this. The renewal process should come at a cost to cover the expenses it will bring

We should also increase the amount of traffic police on the roads to catch people who drive without a license.

But this is just another addition to the 'war on the motorist', they won't like it!

Maybe they wont. As a driver myself I don't really like it. But people are being killed, cyclists, pedestrians and yes other motorists. I like the angle of the more potentially dangerous the method of transport you use, the more care you should take. Hence more regular assessment. Maybe I don't want it, but if I am being responsible then perhaps I should be assessed to see if I can be trusted to drive?

 

[Davidc]

Ever since I took my test I've not understood why we don't have retests, every 5 years or after a conviction would be fine.

Along with driving competence and a theory test can we have an eye test and a medical please?

 

[snorri]

Do you think shorter term licencing and assessment make any difference?

No.
Poor driving seen on the roads is usually due to a combination of impatience, aggression, over confidence and selfishness. Until we can test for these characteristics in drivers, any retesting would be a waste of time and money.

 

[Mad at urage]

As a driver myself, I'd like it: It would clear the roads* of the many incompetent drivers.



*Well, it would if there were enough traffic police around to enforce it. Given the numbers we are told now drive illegally (whether no insurance or no licence), it might just increase the number of those; this would not be good for anyone trying to claim against an at-fault motorist, nor for those of us who pass and would be paying for insurance (as the price of that would increase to pay for the increased number of claims from their general fund).

 

[tyred]

No.
Poor driving seen on the roads is usually due to a combination of impatience, aggression, over confidence and selfishness. Until we can test for these characteristics in drivers, any retesting would be a waste of time and money.

+1

 

[John the Monkey]

I think it's evident that a lot of drivers drive in a particular way for their test, and never drive that way ever again.

I don't think increasing the frequency of testing would change that (other than on the day of the test, obviously).

 

[numbnuts]

If the boot was on the other foot, let's start assessing cycle riders as WE are far from perfect

 

[John the Monkey]

If the boot was on the other foot, let's start assessing cycle riders as WE are far from perfect

And even then, we injure a vastly smaller proportion of the population than the our fellow motorised road users. It makes sense to focus on those with most proven potential for harm, surely?

 

[mgarl10024]

Given the numbers we are told now drive illegally (whether no insurance or no licence), it might just increase the number of those;

I think very frequent retesting would just be an expensive waste and agree with your suggestion that it would significantly drive up the number of people who drive illegally without a license.

Along with driving competence and a theory test can we have an eye test and a medical please?

I think that this makes sense. Perhaps testing at certain life milestones? Every 15yrs? When someone reaches 40, 60, 80? More frequently beyond 80?

 

[Gixxerman]

I have always thought this would be a good idea.
How many people are driving with defective eyesight and don't realise?
Vision deteriates over time but usually at such a slow rate that the person does not notice it until it gets to quite bad levels.

I am not sure that a full formal retest is in order though, as most drivers pick up bad habits that are not necessarily dangerous, but nevertheless would make them fail a test.

For example:-
How many of you:-
1) Let the wheel slip through your hands and straighten itself out after coming out of a junction?
2) Drive with one hand on the wheel for short periods of time (not including changing gear)?
3) Turn the wheel whilst not keeping hands at 10 to 2 or quarter to 3 position and passing the wheel between alternate hands (e.g spinning the wheel using the ball of your hand or crossing over your hands as the wheel is turned).
Are these wrong and would lead to a fail? Well yes.
But are they dangerous? Well, IMO not really if they done with care and the conditions are acceptable (i.e speed low, traffic light etc.).

I can guess what you are going to say:-
"A good driver will know about these things and will make a conscious effort not to do them on the test."
Well that is fine in theory. But in practice, I am willing to bet that most of us would end up doing something along these lines without actually realising it, and thus failing the test, even though you are a competant driver.

I suggest that the test could be a refresher / validation type test.
This would consist of the standard eyesight test, and a short drive followed by a bit of reversing, hill start and parallel parking.
The whole thing should take about an hour. The examiner would be tasked to check for dangerous driving habits and lack of spatial awareness (which comes on with old age).
This IMHO would be sufficiant to weed out the majority of dangerous / incompetant drivers without unjustly penalising the competant drivers that just happen to have a few relatively harmless bad habits.

 

[sadjack]

In my original post I did not mention re-testing, rather an assessment of driving skills, knowledge and any convictions. Maybe after such an assessment a licence could be with held and lessons / re-test imposed.

Now its been mentioned I agree that a form of eyesight test etc could be part of it.

If we are saying that such an assessment would just drive up the numbers of people driving without a licence, then is banning people from driving by the courts also a waste of time?

Surely there must come a change in peoples attitudes, like over drink driving, to stop the carnage on our roads.

 

[gaz]

It's clear that this will only workif the roads are actuallyed policed.