Smokin Joe
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
More traffic police.
At a fraction of the cost of increasing the number of test centres and examiners at least twentyfold, not accounting for retests.
Should everyone have to resit their driving test every five years?
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
At a fraction of the cost of increasing the number of test centres and examiners at least twentyfold, not accounting for retests.
It seems a bit Draconian, to me, to use compulsory blanket retesting as a sneaky way of improving air quality and the environment.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
Put people off their desire to own a car of their own by any means necessary. They're a menace to society. Retesting could be just one of many initiatives.
Yup - authoritarian and illiberal.
Smokin Joe
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
I doubt if the majority of Cycle Chatters would vote you into power on that ticket, let alone out in the wider world.
Indeed it could; but at least be honest in the methods used to achieve it.
But removing drivers from the road by 'any means necessary' under the guise of road safety, when the real agenda is air quality and the environment?
That doesn't sit easily with me.
Who said I didn't?
Smokin Joe
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
The motor vehicle has reduced deaths, not increased them -
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Their original tests didn't stop them driving badly. Why should a test every five years?
That's your perception.
I'm merely against using a piece of proposed legislation, which purports to be solely about road safety, being touted as a sneaky way to address a problem that could be dealt with by other means.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Fair enough, but I don't share your optimism about education. There will always be drivers who "drive well" when they are being tested or when there is a police car on the inside lane of a motorway. The only way to discourage them from recklessness is for there to be a realistic chance of being caught and punished. That means better enforcement of existing laws, I suggest.
U
User33236
Guest
Not read anything beyond the first two pages so apologies if this has been covered before.
I'm all for mandatory retesting of all drivers at an interval to be defined. If stat show 5 yrs is best then why not retest then? Alternatively the photo license gets renewed every 10 yrs so why not make a retest a mandatory requirement at that point?
As a young kid I recall my alcoholic father was disqualified from driving for one year due to excess alcohol. Due to self imposed changes in that year he then didn't drive again until 32 years later when he hired a car to attend a funeral held at a location difficult to reach by public transport.
The fact that any individual is able to get in a car and drive after such a time gap simply should not be allowed to happen. If I had been aware he was even thinking of doing so I would have been compelled to stop him.
I know people will argue that why test everyone because of a thoughless, reckless few but who decides which individuals fall into that group without some form of testing? I also know that not having a license doesn't and can't stop selfless people physically driving but it this day on ANPR and real time access to DVLA records by the police enforcement could be semi-automated to some respect with the, over stretched, police force stopping cars picked up by the system.
I'm all for mandatory retesting of all drivers at an interval to be defined. If stat show 5 yrs is best then why not retest then? Alternatively the photo license gets renewed every 10 yrs so why not make a retest a mandatory requirement at that point?
As a young kid I recall my alcoholic father was disqualified from driving for one year due to excess alcohol. Due to self imposed changes in that year he then didn't drive again until 32 years later when he hired a car to attend a funeral held at a location difficult to reach by public transport.
The fact that any individual is able to get in a car and drive after such a time gap simply should not be allowed to happen. If I had been aware he was even thinking of doing so I would have been compelled to stop him.
I know people will argue that why test everyone because of a thoughless, reckless few but who decides which individuals fall into that group without some form of testing? I also know that not having a license doesn't and can't stop selfless people physically driving but it this day on ANPR and real time access to DVLA records by the police enforcement could be semi-automated to some respect with the, over stretched, police force stopping cars picked up by the system.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
People will behave well in your simulator because they know that they will be not be allowed on the road if they don't. That doesn't mean that they will behave well on the road if there is no disincentive to behaving badly. That's just how people are.
Last edited:
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
It doesn't. I'm just questioning the utility of five yearly tests.
