take a test??
- Thread starter donnymac
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Terminator
New Member
PrettyboyTim said:
I hope mikey sn't getting worried.I didnt think his riding was that bad
summerdays
Cycling in the sun
- Location
- Bristol
I'd be all for it... or even better just get the police stop everyone who is observed not following the highway code to have to sit a test... and that would include RLJ'ers (2 and 4+ wheeled) and those using the bus lane etc. But it would cost a lot to operate ... could charge each person £10 everytime they had to sit it ... some people could then pay through the nose!!!
Lots of adults don't have the foggiest what some of the road signs mean ... I know of someone who thinks there is a sign for a church - sort of a cross shape
. Lots of no-parking cones were put on the road near my house ... all the residents didn't park and then were really annoyed by all the cars who did park there instead.
Only problem being with the highway code is not all of it is law ... some of it is only advice so you could say folk don't need to know those bits and therefore couldn't be tested on it.
Lots of adults don't have the foggiest what some of the road signs mean ... I know of someone who thinks there is a sign for a church - sort of a cross shape
. Lots of no-parking cones were put on the road near my house ... all the residents didn't park and then were really annoyed by all the cars who did park there instead. Only problem being with the highway code is not all of it is law ... some of it is only advice so you could say folk don't need to know those bits and therefore couldn't be tested on it.
Joe24
More serious cyclist than Bonj
- Location
- Nottingham
Not sure about the test every 5 years. You can drive well for that test then go back to your bad driving. Which will be what will happen.
Reading the highway code again might help, the fact they have to sit there and read it is boring. But my brothers have both passed their driving tests and when i asked if they had read the sections on cycling they said no. A test on the computer i think would be better. But all road users? thats just crazy.
Reading the highway code again might help, the fact they have to sit there and read it is boring. But my brothers have both passed their driving tests and when i asked if they had read the sections on cycling they said no. A test on the computer i think would be better. But all road users? thats just crazy.
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
Actually, i would like to see people tested more regualrly, and if there was a way to cover cyclists and pedestrians, I'd be happy to see that too. Ideally, I'd like all drivers to retake a test every 5 years or so. But I think that would be expensive and no government would bring it in. But a paper based test would have some benefits I think. OK, it wouldn't weed out all bad drivers, and some would just mug up, pass and then carry on ignoring the rules. But I think it might jolt some people, if they realised they didn't know something. I don't know that you could ban them until they passed (and how do you do that to cyclists and peds?) but just the act of taking the test, and realising you needed to know more, might improve some people, make them think about the rules a bit more.
How about running it alongside the census? Cover the whole population (all over 16's perhaps), every 10 years. Fails get a letter telling them they failed and what on (which could be fairly effectively done by computer). Not just the HC, but a general knowledge about roadcraft test.
Or do it on telly. Harder to make it compulsory of course, but I'd love to see one of those 'test the nation' shows cover roadcraft and safety. People love a quiz, and it hits them where it hurts, in the egos. Also, you have the opportunity to explain WHY the rules are what they are. People bother less if they think someone is just telling them to do stuff for the sake of it.
How about running it alongside the census? Cover the whole population (all over 16's perhaps), every 10 years. Fails get a letter telling them they failed and what on (which could be fairly effectively done by computer). Not just the HC, but a general knowledge about roadcraft test.
Or do it on telly. Harder to make it compulsory of course, but I'd love to see one of those 'test the nation' shows cover roadcraft and safety. People love a quiz, and it hits them where it hurts, in the egos. Also, you have the opportunity to explain WHY the rules are what they are. People bother less if they think someone is just telling them to do stuff for the sake of it.
if i remember correctly there is a 2 year probation on new drivers, 6 points and you loose your licence
when you loose your licence generally you should have to re-take your full driving test, my mum passed in the early 70's, the driving test has changed lots since (theory and hazard perception being added - i passed just before hazard perception) but if she lost her licence due to points or a ban from driving I think she should have to (myself too but my mum is a better example) do the full driving, theory and hazard perception) i think this would put some people off due to the cost and hassle
[joke]
the other option is to keep a bucket of hammers in the passenger foot space, then when someone is being a muppet you can lob hammers at them, the result will either be:
they will crash, and one less muppet on the road
or
"woah, my driving must be really bad if people are throwing hammers at me"
[/joke]
my pet hates when driving, especially when i'm driving something big and semi indestructible such as my uncles landrover are, people who cut me up while they're on the phone
people who go straight on at roundabouts in the left lane of the roundabout (ok, its allowed on the one i'm thinking of) past two exits (one of which i'm entering the roundabout from) while indicating left all the way round it!
i've nearly lost my car due to this, their road positioning and signaling implied they were going down the road i was on, so i went
its so tempting in the landy to just go, knowing that my vehicle will survive and the person driving like a prat will have to claim on their insurance
its proving it that would be the problem
i'd also quite like to bumper tap people on mobile phones
I do however restrain myself from doing the above because it is essentially a form of retribution, revenge and vigiolante justice
when you loose your licence generally you should have to re-take your full driving test, my mum passed in the early 70's, the driving test has changed lots since (theory and hazard perception being added - i passed just before hazard perception) but if she lost her licence due to points or a ban from driving I think she should have to (myself too but my mum is a better example) do the full driving, theory and hazard perception) i think this would put some people off due to the cost and hassle
[joke]
the other option is to keep a bucket of hammers in the passenger foot space, then when someone is being a muppet you can lob hammers at them, the result will either be:
they will crash, and one less muppet on the road
or
"woah, my driving must be really bad if people are throwing hammers at me"
[/joke]
my pet hates when driving, especially when i'm driving something big and semi indestructible such as my uncles landrover are, people who cut me up while they're on the phone
people who go straight on at roundabouts in the left lane of the roundabout (ok, its allowed on the one i'm thinking of) past two exits (one of which i'm entering the roundabout from) while indicating left all the way round it!
i've nearly lost my car due to this, their road positioning and signaling implied they were going down the road i was on, so i went
its so tempting in the landy to just go, knowing that my vehicle will survive and the person driving like a prat will have to claim on their insurance
its proving it that would be the problem
i'd also quite like to bumper tap people on mobile phones
I do however restrain myself from doing the above because it is essentially a form of retribution, revenge and vigiolante justice
Very few problems on our roads are caused by people who don't know the rules. They are caused by people who don't care enough about the rules to obey them.
Speeding, parking on pavements, the endemic red light jumping and accelerating through amber lights you see from motorists at every junction, dangerous overtaking, etc. People know they're breaking the rules but they don't care. Make them pass a test to show that they know what the rules are? Why, when they'll leave the test centre still 'knowing' that these aren't real rules.
The answer is simple; break the rules repeatedly? Fine, you can't drive.
Of course you could also target cyclists with such legislation, if you're not trying to improve road safety or reduce congestion.
Speeding, parking on pavements, the endemic red light jumping and accelerating through amber lights you see from motorists at every junction, dangerous overtaking, etc. People know they're breaking the rules but they don't care. Make them pass a test to show that they know what the rules are? Why, when they'll leave the test centre still 'knowing' that these aren't real rules.
The answer is simple; break the rules repeatedly? Fine, you can't drive.
Of course you could also target cyclists with such legislation, if you're not trying to improve road safety or reduce congestion.
Cab - spot on!
It's less an issue of getting people to redo the driving test periodically but making people aware of the consequences if they do something stupid. These can be legal sanctions which means we need better traffic policing. It can also be to remind people of the very real dangers they might be putting themselves and others in.
Which is why I think we need more of the hard hitting adverts we see about road danger these days. Scare a few people into behaving themselves.
It's less an issue of getting people to redo the driving test periodically but making people aware of the consequences if they do something stupid. These can be legal sanctions which means we need better traffic policing. It can also be to remind people of the very real dangers they might be putting themselves and others in.
Which is why I think we need more of the hard hitting adverts we see about road danger these days. Scare a few people into behaving themselves.
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
Yes, I'm afraid Cab is right in a huge number of cases. Although I'd love to see a poll of what "amber" means in a traffic light sequence to some people - I think a lot of people really do believe it just means "red next, but don't bother yourself too much". Saw two vehicles go over a clear amber just on my way in this morning. I don't think many people know it actually means stop, less unsafe to do so. (ie, you have to jam the brakes on,skid and cause the guy behind to rear end you)
tdr1nka
Taking the biscuit
- Location
- SE London, Bandit Country
With the advent of the CCTV and licence recognition cameras it would be very easy to set up 'test areas' in hotspots, wherein drivers will have advanced notice that their driving will be monitored over say, an area of 5 sq. miles. This way there would be chances to catch mobile phone users , VED avoiders and RLJ'ers as well.
- Location
- The TerrorVortex
I'll pay road tax if you insist.
At the same rate as the least polluting cars, naturally. That'll be nothing, then.
Insurance? Once all the cars have insurance, then maybe insist on it for cyclists. Not before. And good luck policing it.
At the same rate as the least polluting cars, naturally. That'll be nothing, then.
Insurance? Once all the cars have insurance, then maybe insist on it for cyclists. Not before. And good luck policing it.
Regarding tax and insurance, I am insured, and I'll pay 'Road Tax' at the same rate as every other person on the road... i.e. zero, because there is no such thing as road tax.
I pay the Vehicle Excise Duty appropriate to my carbon emissions (i.e. zero). Of course, as I'm burning energy to fuel my bicycle, I should pay tax appropriate to that. That fuel is what I eat, mostly veg from my plot and meat from local farms, with a few other bits I can't get, like, say, rice, spices, etc. Now all of the stuff from my plot has less than 1 food mile, that mile done by bicycle, and it is as near as damn it carbon neutral. I'll happily pay the environmental tax on that. As I'm a cyclist I'm also healthier and less of a drain on the NHS, so I should logically be rebated part of that too. I'd also like the proportion of my council tax that goes to pay for roads rebated, as I do an infinitessimal amount of damage to those roads. And as I'm not driving to supermarkets to fill up my bin with packaging, I'll have a rebate on my refuse collections too...
Which form do I need, and where do I send it, for my rebate? Do you think something like £300 per year would be an appropriate sum to claim for being a cyclist? More, do you think?
I pay the Vehicle Excise Duty appropriate to my carbon emissions (i.e. zero). Of course, as I'm burning energy to fuel my bicycle, I should pay tax appropriate to that. That fuel is what I eat, mostly veg from my plot and meat from local farms, with a few other bits I can't get, like, say, rice, spices, etc. Now all of the stuff from my plot has less than 1 food mile, that mile done by bicycle, and it is as near as damn it carbon neutral. I'll happily pay the environmental tax on that. As I'm a cyclist I'm also healthier and less of a drain on the NHS, so I should logically be rebated part of that too. I'd also like the proportion of my council tax that goes to pay for roads rebated, as I do an infinitessimal amount of damage to those roads. And as I'm not driving to supermarkets to fill up my bin with packaging, I'll have a rebate on my refuse collections too...
Which form do I need, and where do I send it, for my rebate? Do you think something like £300 per year would be an appropriate sum to claim for being a cyclist? More, do you think?
Similar threads
