Driving Licences

[pshore]

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.

It is easy to self test for these driver traits. When I read Motorcycle Roadcraft, there was a big section at the start that concentrated on attitude and how different attitudes contributed to likelihood of accidents. If spoon fed that info with a teacher, you will easily recognise your own bad driving style, and then once you've seen horrific crash victim videos I am sure that the majority of people will change their driving style for the better - for a short time at least.

So, testing doesn't really come into it so long as they have attended the course. I have heard that the driver improvement courses work, if so, why not make them compulsory for all ?

The driving test is much harder now than it used to be and I know that many older drivers need their skills increased to match the current test, including the theory test. Complacency and old bad habits need to be tackled and that could be achieved on the same day course.

 

[gavintc]

No, It would simply be a job creation scheme for thousands of expensive civil servants running re-test centres and would have no discernible difference.

 

[Woz!]

Given how hard it is for a new driver to get a test, can you imagine the problems if EVERYONE was being tested?
And presumably, when their license expired they would no longer be able to drive until they got it renewed?
Imagine the impact on the workforce! There would be whole swathes of people sitting at home.

Can't see a workable solution to this to be honest.

Maybe for certain offences, the license should be revoked and can only be returned with a retest (say any event causing an injury or speeding over 100 mph?). Or is that already the case?
Maybe these optional 'training courses' you get to avoid points should include a test?

 

[Mad at urage]

Not necessarily true.
Take this scenario.
A cyclist is riding badly (say swerving into the middle of the road without warning, or entering major road without giving way). Said cyclist causes motorist to swerve to avoid him/her and has head on collision with vehicle coming in the opposite or road furniture. The impact kills driver and / or driver in vehicle he hit.
Driver who swerved and / or driver who was hit are both innocent, but have been killed by at fault cyclist.
I know it is unlikely, but it could happen (and expect has happened) at some point.

We as cyclists have the same resposibility and duty of care to ride safely on the public highway as motor vehicles have.

Given the number of cyclists vs the number of car drivers on the roads, given the fact that there are plenty of numpty car drivers out there, it is statistically far more likely that such a scenario will occur if you replace the "cyclist is riding badly" with "car driver is driving badly"; add to that the increased likelyhood of such a car driver taking someone out (whether a passenger or someone outside their vehicle) and it is clear that overall, it is the bad car drivers who are more of a danger to the rest of society than the (admittedly existing) bad cyclists.

 

[Piemaster]

NHS is now offering health screening for those over 40 (like me) every 2 years. Would it be too much of a stretch to include a quick check to assess suitability for driving into it. I have to have a medical every 2 years anyway for my job.

 

[PBancroft]

I voted yes to both. I had this discussion with a driving instructor friend a while back, and we are both on the same page - according to him, many instructors feel the same way.

Some people do drive a particular way for their tests and then revert back to bad behaviour afterwards. However in his experience many people just get into bad habits. Where he has retrained people he has been surprised at how (for example) simply reinforcing the idea that the speed limit is a limit and not a target really hits home. This is great for those people who are retrained for one reason or another, but then they get back out on the road with everyone else who has forgotten.

Personally, I reckon ten years is about right. In that time the DVLA think that my face will have changed sufficiently to require me to have a new card, so why not do a new test then. £60 and if I pass I get a fresh card - if I don't I have to get a few more lessons.

 

[Gixxerman]

Given the number of cyclists vs the number of car drivers on the roads, given the fact that there are plenty of numpty car drivers out there, it is statistically far more likely that such a scenario will occur if you replace the "cyclist is riding badly" with "car driver is driving badly"; add to that the increased likelyhood of such a car driver taking someone out (whether a passenger or someone outside their vehicle) and it is clear that overall, it is the bad car drivers who are more of a danger to the rest of society than the (admittedly existing) bad cyclists.

I totally agree with what you have said.
However, at the risk of seeming pedantic, davidc said "WE don't kill other people", which is not true.

 

[Underdog1964]

A re-test for drivers 5 years? Sounds like the most stupidest idea ever to me.


How about just harsher punishments on the drivers who are found guilty of reckless driving. Scratch that, harsher punishments for all crimes. Enough of this softy soft approach.

 

[sadjack]

Some interesting posts. Some seem to have latched onto "re-test" when it has not been suggested that there be one, rather some way to assess a driver before handing out a new driving licence.

I am not sure what that assessment might entail, maybe a classroom "update" on theory, eye test, review of any convictions, perhaps a short drive.

My thoughts are that being able to drive a large metal object around our streets should be seen as a privilege rather than a right.

People pass their test at 17 and let loose until they fall foul of the law in some way. I understand that renewing a licence at the moment is a trivial matter.

I am sure if fully embraced the government could make it self funding

Then again maybe I am chasing rainbows and we should just ignore what's happening on the roads.

 

[gaz]

People pass their test at 17 and let loose until they fall foul of the law in some way. I understand that renewing a licence at the moment is a trivial matter.

Which won't affect most since the police are hardly on the road. You can basically get away with murder on the roads.

 

[subaqua]

I'm not certain. However, I do think that any sort of driving ban should be accompanied by loss of licence & therefore a re-test. I also think driving licences should be revoked a lot more readily.

As an OT aside - for my other hobby, I'm a signalman on a preserved (steam) railway where we are re-examined on rules & regulations every three years.

in my job as HV authorised person i am reassesed on the relevant rules and regs on every appointmet on a different site, as are all those who do this role for the company i work for, it doesn't mean we work any safer.

those who are going to drive like a tw@ will do whatever the conditions. the only way to penalise is to fine but take it direct at source. if person is on benefits take it from that, they obviously have enough cash available to be able to run a car. ( motability is excluded here)

 

[GrumpyGregry]

A re-test for drivers 5 years? Sounds like the most stupidest idea ever to me.


How about just harsher punishments on the drivers who are found guilty of reckless driving. Scratch that, harsher punishments for all crimes. Enough of this softy soft approach.

That's the spirit. Bring back hanging, especially for, say, convicted terrorists and sex murderers. Then those buggers like the Guildford four and Birmingham six, or Stefan Kizsco couldn't empty the public purse with their endless appeals.

 

[subaqua]

That's the spirit. Bring back hanging, especially for, say, convicted terrorists and sex murderers. Then those buggers like the Guildford four and Birmingham six, or Stefan Kizsco couldn't empty the public purse with their endless appeals.

yeah thats the bit that always bothered me about the death penalty. what if the justice system got it wrong.

Guiseppe Conlon in effect served life for a crime he did not commit and that in itself is terrible. ( Ok he was sentenced to 12 years not life but at 52 12 years in prison is not going to be easy)

 

[potnoodle]

Complete waste of time in my veiw.

I only took my driving test just over 2 years ago (am 37 and left it late in life). I failed on the first attempt and had to wait over 6 months to get a second test which i passed with flying colours. Can you imagine how hard it would be and the man power needed if everyone had to resite every few years.

Also not being funny but what is to stop someone from passing there test and then driving like a complete head case with no regard for any other road users any how. They would have already passed the test once to get there liscence in the first place and that has not stopped them driving like mad men/women.

What you need is more police on the roads pulling up dangerous drivers but this is not going to happen too as of the cost involved.

 

[Mad at urage]

I do think that any sort of driving ban should be accompanied by loss of licence & therefore a re-test. I also think driving licences should be revoked a lot more readily.

This might be an achievable objective to campaign for, may well get the support many of car drivers (even Jeremy Clarkson fans, since they think they drive so well?) and would move us in the right direction.