Should everyone have to resit their driving test every five years?

[Smokin Joe]

So? That's what test fees are for.

The whole idea of population wide retesting is that everyone does it - not just those who are caught doing something wrong, who we know are a small percentage of those who are actually poor drivers.

If I thought there would be a benefit I'd agree with you, but I don't. It would be a huge trouble and expence with little or no difference to safety. Targeting those who got six or more points would have a real effect however, few would certainly make people think twice about using mobile phones or speeding. Most people can shrug off a fine or absorb the points from a couple of offences but the prospect of having to take another test would be a different matter.

As for the suggestion that driving standards are falling, I've never seen any evidence to back that up. I think we look back at some golden age through rose tinted glasses.

 

[Colin_P]

Mod note: Split from https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/100-year-old-driving-school.224291/

Everyone should have to resit their driving test every five years. If you don't pass you lose your license. I don't care if you're a 'professional driver' and you'll lose your job. I don't care if you live in the country with no buses. I don't care for whatever excuse you come up with. Driving is a privilege - not a right.

An excellent idea.

Sadly it would turn into a money making circus where the point of the exercise will be lost and forgotten. And when first implemented chaos would ensue as there would not be sufficient capacity in the testing system to cope, people would find themselves no longer able to drive through no fault of their own as they would be waiting for a test date to come up.

A bit like the everyone has to take their shoes off at the airport thing all over again.

 

[classic33]

As someone who's never held a license and has no intention of getting one, i fully support the idea of regular re-testing. Of course if i was driver i might have different feelings, unless i knew when taking my driving test that the licence would last for (eg) 5 years and i'd need to retest at my own expense.

I could choose not to retest. I might be skint. I might have been a bit disillusioned with the supposed convenience of a car and as my re-test date neared, i might start seriously considering if i really need, want or can afford to drive for the next five years.

Making people really consider if they need their car or not could be a good thing. They might spend the re-test money on a bike instead.

As someone who's never held a license and has no intention of getting one, i fully support the idea of regular re-testing. Of course if i was driver i might have different feelings, unless i knew when taking my driving test that the licence would last for (eg) 5 years and i'd need to retest at my own expense.

I could choose not to retest. I might be skint. I might have been a bit disillusioned with the supposed convenience of a car and as my re-test date neared, i might start seriously considering if i really need, want or can afford to drive for the next five years.

It could be a good thing. I might spend the re-test money on a bike instead.

The easiest change to the system in place. The licence only valid for a certain period, from the date of issue.

 

[Smokin Joe]

You can find some figures here but they're only since 2008. What is interesting is that the older you are when taking the test the less likely you are to pass...

That I can confirm to be true, but again speaking as an ex instructor that is mainly due to a lack of confidence among older test candidates leading to a nervous performance and more likelihood of screwing up on the day. For the same reason women have a lower pass rate than men, but they were easier to teach and had a much better attitude to safety. They generally went to test at the same or slightly higher standard then their male counterparts.

 

[gavroche]

I don't agree with having to re-pass your test every so many years but I do think everyone should be re-assessed every ten years.

 

[gavroche]

"Re-assessed" how? Some sort of test perhaps?

By a qualified driving instructor going for a 1 hour drive with an assessment of your driving at the end, with recommendations if needed, as opposed to a driving test when it is either pass or fail.

 

[srw]

The graphs don't measure quality of driving though, do they?

No, but they measure something more important - one of the key negative outcomes of poor-quality driving. If, in a hypothetical world, everyone was a really terrible driver, but the roads were perfectly safe and no-one was ever injured, I don't think anyone would

Regarding your statistics, a few points:
1. There's been no statistically significant change in road deaths since 2011. So no, there is no continuation of a downward trend.
2. Road deaths are less than 1% of all reported casualties
3. The official statistics do not include all casualties
4. The official statistics do not measure no-injury accidents
5. What @glasgowcyclist said
6. The number of cyclists being seriously injured appears to be increasing.

7. I can make a numbered list that cherry-picks any number of sentences that argue anything at all about any set of statistics.
8. Something's changed since 2011 (I blame Cameron) - but the general trend has been down since the 1960s. It's impossible to tell whether the trend since 2010 is a plateau or the beginning of a bounce-back.
9. The same long-term downward trend is true whether you look at people killed, seriously injured or slightly injured.
10. the official statistics are the best we've got, and are better now than they've ever been.
11. I don't particularly care about bent metal. If someone's hurt - that's bad. If @User could demonstrate that mandatory retesting for all would reduce the number of people being hurt then I'd support his campaign.
12. The number of cyclists being seriously injured, or killed, or slightly injured, relative to the number of cyclists on the roads and the distance they ride, is roughly static, or going down a bit, depending on how reliable you think the exposure figures are.
13. The more that cyclists paint drivers as "other" rather than as people, the more that cylists are treated as an out-group rather than as just people.

 

[srw]

So a test you mean?

Slow day at work, Reg?

 

[Colin_P]

Gosh! How do we cope with things like MOTs? Or passports?

They have been in place before the time where we as a nation forgot how to do things.

Anything new is likely to be a mess.

I blame the EU

 

[glasgowcyclist]

While I like the idea of regular testing, I can see the logistical challenges with that.

I think I'd rather see the introduction of
1) a test to a higher driving standard, nearer that of RoSPA or IAM
and
2) compulsory fitting of telematics boxes to all motor vehicles, to be made available to police/insurers in assessing culpability for RTCs or dangerous/careless driving prosecutions.

 

[gavroche]

So a test you mean?

No, not a test, an assessment. I have done a few of these when I was a driving instructor, mainly with older people when their children were concerned. Also with people going back to driving after a few years without. I just gave them a report on their driving and weaknesses to work on.

 

[classic33]

They have been in place before the time where we as a nation forgot how to do things.

Anything new is likely to be a mess.

I blame the EU

Thing is though they are for a set period any way. Known about from the outset, a big difference.

 

[srw]

And what do you think the driving test is? That's right..... an assessment.

Psst.....

I think what @gavroche is suggesting is an assessment without a pass-fail outcome. Which might be a test of driving ability, but isn't a driving test in the sense we usually use the words. If you'd like to turn your attention to arguing positively why compulsory retesting would be a good thing it might be more interesting.

 

[srw]

If 'better' drivers are going to pass driving tests more easily yet be prone to proportionately more accidents, through complacency. Then its the complacency that needs addressing, which is answered via a high frequency of testing.

@User might be on to something.

You might want to reread your first sentence, which is (politely) internet logic.

Let's target the people who cause accidents.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

No, but they measure something more important - one of the key negative outcomes of poor-quality driving.

The number of fatalities is a key factor, yes, but let's remember that the generally hostile design of roads, together with the cavalier nature of a lot of drivers, makes public spaces an uncomfortable place to share with these drivers. Poor driving standards needn't result in collisions with injuries, they create an environment where people are discouraged from walking or cycling and that can make life more restrictive for those who don't drive. Overall, the quality of life for those who don't drive (or don't drive badly) is diminished.

If, in a hypothetical world, everyone was a really terrible driver, but the roads were perfectly safe and no-one was ever injured, I don't think anyone would

I'm not sure if that's an incomplete sentence but I don't follow what you're saying there.