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



## User (27 Sep 2017)




----------



## Levo-Lon (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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.




Couldn't agree more.


----------



## roadrash (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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.




^^^^^^post of the day, right there^^^^^^


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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.


Why everyone?
Why 5 years?
Why not 4, or 6, or .......?
Plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air makes no sense.
I agree with retesting, but it should be targetted.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Five years post getting a license is the peak period for bad habits.
> 
> Why not everyone? Why should any particular group be exempted from the requirement to retest?
> 
> Driving is a privilege - not a right.


Evidence on the 'peak bad habits'?
Why should law abiding drivers, with no record of accidents or convictions, be targetted for a retest?


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Because lots of "law abiding drivers, with no record of accidents or convictions" drive poorly and have bad habits. It's sheer luck and a lack of policing that means they have no record of accidents or convictions.


Still no reason for a blanket approach to retesting.


----------



## Profpointy (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Why shouldn't there be retesting then? Why shouldn't we ensure on an ongoing basis that those driving 1+ tonnes of metal on roads are able to do so safely and competently?



Given huge numbers of drivers transgress in some way, often seriously, I'd clamp down on them rather than people apparently driving OK.


----------



## Levo-Lon (27 Sep 2017)

A basic driving test every 5 years would show up poor eyesight and weed out those who just dont care.

By basic I mean an hour with a instructor to assess the driving ability and a general knowledge of the highway code.
Everyone has minor bad habits and that's not the issue.
It's the reckless and damn right selfish drivers that need weeding out.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Why shouldn't there be retesting then? Why shouldn't we ensure on an ongoing basis that those driving 1+ tonnes of metal on roads are able to do so safely and competently?


I am not anti retesting.
In my opinion, retesting should be targetted and evidence based.


----------



## Profpointy (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Nobody is suggesting not clamping down on drivers who transgress. Why do you think it's either/or?



It's not either or, but anything is a matter of priority.

If may use a topical comparison, we have a single tragic death caused by crap cycling leading to calls for an overhaul of cycling safety, whilst the thousand kiiled by vehicles are seemingly being handled ok. 

Blanket re-testing for everyone seems a strange way of allocating finite effort.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

meta lon said:


> It's the reckless and damn right selfish drivers that need weeding out.


Do you really think that retesting would alter their behaviour post test?


----------



## Profpointy (27 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> RoSPA's Advanced Driver testing only lasts three years, they don't assume that once you've shown you are capable of driving at an advanced level you will continue to do so forever. After three years, if you want to keep the qualification you have to do the whole test again.



after all Advanced drivers might forget they must only use indicators as a last resort and might change down into the right gear. ....

sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## Profpointy (27 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> That's a distraction, and doesn't bear any resemblance to my experience of it, but never mind.



I was being mischevious, but you must admit internet proponents of advanced driving do seem obsessed about not indicating. Well OT now.


----------



## Profpointy (27 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> Well done for the thread derail guys



to be fair you started it :-)

Nevertheless you are right


----------



## Profpointy (27 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4973383, member: 259"]There was a motoring correspondent for the Torygraph who was absolutely obsessed with not indicating unless totally necessary, and he regularly had slanging matches with readers who disagreed with his column. He was sacked in the end, don't know if it was for that, though![/QUOTE]

OT now - actually I really liked his articles. I assumed he was sacked for not being petrol headed enough and his safety message wasn't pandering enough to the readership's predjudices; responsibility on the driver etc


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

I couldn't agree less. 

It would be a logistical nightmare with little or no benefit. Bad driving is down to bad attitude, not an inability to control a car. The most aggressive and dangerous drivers have generally got superb car control skills, they misuse them because they are basically peanuts. They also have bags of confidence so would have no trouble in driving like a saint for the duration of the test, it would be the concientious people who would more likely let nerves get the better of them on the day and fail.

I spent two decades as an ADI, teaching both learners, drivers who the police had referred in lieu of prosecution and those trying to reach an advanced standard. You get to quickly suss out the ones who are going to be a problem once they get the bit of paper in their hand, and it is very rarely those who struggled to learn.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Five years post getting a license is the peak period for bad habits.


More likely to be down to the fact that most people with five years post-licence experience are still in their twenties.

I've got no strong views one way or the other - road safety is generally pretty good, but could be a lot better - but practically speaking what you're suggesting would be tricky. 800,000 people pass their car test every year, so you'd need to provide for about 8,000,000 driving tests a year. That's a substantial overhead.

My suspicion is that targetted mandatory retesting - say, after five years of driving, after certain convictions, after a period without experience, and at the age of 65 and regularly thereafter - would be as effective. It would also be much less controversial and so much more likely to get a hearing.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> More likely to be down to the fact that most people with five years post-licence experience are still in their twenties.
> 
> I've got no strong views one way or the other - road safety is generally pretty good, but could be a lot better - but practically speaking what you're suggesting would be tricky. 800,000 people pass their car test every year, so you'd need to provide for about 8,000,000 driving tests a year. That's a substantial overhead.
> 
> *My suspicion is that targetted mandatory retesting* - say, after five years of driving, after certain convictions, after a period without experience, and at the age of 65 and regularly thereafter - would be as effective. It would also be much less controversial and so much more likely to get a hearing.


That is by far and away the best option. I'd be quite happy with a retest for anyone who got six points in three years. 

There are 45 million licence holders in the UK. To retest every five years would mean an extra nine million driving tests every year, the DVSA can barely manage now with less than one million. It would also cost a fortune to recruit and train the massive increase in examiner numbers and billions to build new test centres. It's just one of those oft muted ideas that will never happen.


----------



## Levo-Lon (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> Do you really think that retesting would alter their behaviour post test?



It would if a fail meant a ban or a driver watch box like the kids can have for insurance ?
Or better still a ban to help them appreciate the privilege


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> That is by far and away the best option. I'd be quite happy with a retest for anyone who got six points in three years.
> 
> There are 45 million licence holders in the UK. To retest every five years would mean an extra nine million driving tests every year, the DVSA can barely manage now with less than one million. It would also cost a fortune to recruit and train the massive increase in examiner numbers and billions to build new test centres. It's just one of those oft muted ideas that will never happen.


Help another business though. Getting someone else to sit the test for you. "School" charged £400+ for this. Found out when the driver(taxi) ran over and killed his passenger who'd fallen out.

Test the vehicles would be a better idea. If they're invloved in anything.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (27 Sep 2017)

Sound advice and ideas upthread particularly resits and bans. Insurance? Hit them in the pocket and that'll learn them. 

The general quality of driving and self discipline on the UK's roads is getting silly. We're giving Russia a run for it's money.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> What's so special about the age of 65?


Knowing just a _little_ bit about relative driver risk by age, it's an age at which drivers start getting riskier again.



User said:


> Why do we think it's OK for someone to get a license at 17 and then not need to be retested for almost 50 years unless they're caught doing something wrong?


Unless you've got some real evidence that there's a big problem that would be solved by recruiting thousands more driving testers, what's the evidence that a massive programme of mandatory retesting would materially change road safety? Isn't it usually the person who's proposing a change who has to argue why it's a good thing?



Heltor Chasca said:


> The general quality of driving and self discipline on the UK's roads is getting silly. We're giving Russia a run for it's money.


I think you'll have to argue against the following two graphs:





(and anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that that's the continuation of a 50-year downward trend in road safety)
and...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Knowing just a _little_ bit about relative driver risk by age, it's an age at which drivers start getting riskier again.
> 
> 
> Unless you've got some real evidence that there's a big problem that would be solved by recruiting thousands more driving testers, what's the evidence that a massive programme of mandatory retesting would materially change road safety? Isn't it usually the person who's proposing a change who has to argue why it's a good thing?
> ...




The graphs don't measure quality of driving though, do they?
The downward trend in fatalities might be owed to improved vehicle design and life-saving medical procedures.

Is there data on whether driving standards are going up or down, say, from ratio of test fails to passes, or police records of offences detected?


----------



## Levo-Lon (27 Sep 2017)

We could start with insurance companies insisting on proof of eye test every 5 years?
Eyesight is a real problem with vain people who think they can see ok.
Mot for driver etc

As said it won't happen but we could improve some safety aspects


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

meta lon said:


> We could start with insurance companies insisting on proof of eye test every 5 years?
> Eyesight is a real problem with vain people who think they can see ok.
> Mot for driver etc
> 
> As said it won't happen but we could improve some safety aspects


As is substance abuse, drink/drugs. Given the way some people react when they're asked to do the roadside test makes you wonder if they ever passed a test with no drink in their system.

Blind drunk has never been better applied than by the person who drove into a wall, that was there before the pub they were leaving, and saying they never saw it. It was only, what'd he say now, about ten foot high.


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Knowing just a _little_ bit about relative driver risk by age, it's an age at which drivers start getting riskier again.
> 
> 
> Unless you've got some real evidence that there's a big problem that would be solved by recruiting thousands more driving testers, what's the evidence that a massive programme of mandatory retesting would materially change road safety? Isn't it usually the person who's proposing a change who has to argue why it's a good thing?
> ...


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.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (27 Sep 2017)

meta lon said:


> We could start with insurance companies insisting on proof of eye test every 5 years?
> Eyesight is a real problem with vain people who think they can see ok.
> Mot for driver etc
> 
> As said it won't happen but we could improve some safety aspects



Good thinking. I had a chainsaw accident in February. I bipassed the local surgery and went straight to an optician. All ok. Minimal damage but I was advised I was 'illegal'. I was honestly shocked, but since then the quality of life has improved. Detail is still a new delight to me. I descend on a bike quicker than ever and I feel more cheerful. I mainly use contacts as my field of work isn't great for specs.

Ramble out the way: The optician said if I had been involved in a prang, the courts and the insurance lot would 'take care of my negligence.' Gulp.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

Then again the Irish have a better system.
Your age will determine the licence term you can apply for:

Under 60: 
10-year cars and motorcycles, or 5 year for buses and HGVs. 
60-66: a licence that will expire when you reach 70 
67-69: 3-year licence 
70 or over: 3-year or 1-year licence (subject to certification of fitness to drive by your doctor

And you've to pay for the medical. Your doctor will also have full proof of drink related illness/injuries.


----------



## Jason (27 Sep 2017)

excellent idea, but one that will never see the light of day due to some (not all of the following)

1. cost to implement retesting
2. lack of political will
3. vote loser
4. society accepts bad driving and associated injury/death (until it happens to a loved one)
5. counter argument that drivers don't become safe after testing, just revert to old habits
6. eyesight,drink,drug testing needs to be far more vigorous


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Sep 2017)

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 result might not be overall improved road safety but less cars on the roads.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> *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 (27 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> 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.





MontyVeda said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

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 (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> "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 (27 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 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 


User482 said:


> 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
> ...


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 (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> So a test you mean?


Slow day at work, Reg?


----------



## Colin_P (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

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 (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

Colin_P said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> 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 (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> 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.



srw said:


> 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.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iLJafvfotFM


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> 7. I can make a numbered list that cherry-picks any number of sentences that argue anything at all about any set of statistics..


I know that you can cherry-pick statistics to suit your argument, because you already have.


> 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.


Across the board, we have seen little or no improvement for the last five years, and we know that the picture is incomplete. I think this is a problem.


> 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.


You may not care about bent metal, but that doesn't make it unimportant when assessing driving standards


> 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.


See point 10.


> 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.


In this debate about accident statistics, the numbers for different groups matter a great deal, regardless of your sensibilities.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Three words: Dunning-Kruger Effect.



Not sure how you're applying that to what I said. (I admit I had to look it up)



User said:


> I'd see that as 'in addition to'...



Well obvs, that's why I wrote 'and' !

Ah, wait, you mean in addition to _your_ opening post?


----------



## gavroche (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


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


And why do you think it is called a driving TEST and not driving assessment?


----------



## SteveF (27 Sep 2017)

Would an increased frequency of testing of drivers put some focus on other road users as a by product e.g. should horse riders need to be tested/licenced, horse drawn vehicles and of course cyclists??

All in theory have responsibilities according to the highway code and should have a certain level of skill.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 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.


RoSPA and IAM testing is done on the basis that the candidate is an experienced river and is going to be tested to demonstrate they have reached an advanced standard not achievable by novices.

Telematics are on the way and will be here sooner rather than later.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

What surprises me (well, actually it doesn't ) is how authoritarian, regulatory and illiberal some people are regarding the subject of driver behaviour and testing.
It's funny how it seems to be the ones who tend to proclaim their libertarian views on so many other subjects.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> RoSPA and IAM testing is done on the basis that the candidate is an experienced river and is going to be tested to demonstrate they have reached an advanced standard not achievable by novices.
> 
> Telematics are on the way and will be here sooner rather than later.


What's water got to do with it?


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> What surprises me (well, actually it doesn't ) is how authoritarian, regulatory and illiberal some people are regarding the subject of driver behaviour and testing.
> It's funny how it seems to be the ones who tend to proclaim their libertarian views on so many other subjects.


Often they've just been caught and now feel everyone else should be made do the same as them.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


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


It's an incomplete sentence. 

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 particularly care about driving quality.

I think you're putting the cart of driving quality before the horse of road safety for all users - and before anyone jumps in, road safety _for all users _has increased a lot over the last 50 years. I look forward to @User (or anyone else) explaining exactly what a massive compulsory driver retesting would achieve in terms of the outcomes that people care about - roads that feel safer and that are safer - that a softer approach wouldn't


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

classic33 said:


> Often they've just been caught and now feel everyone else should be made do the same as them.


There may well be something in that.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I presumed that your your use of quotes in 'better' drivers was an indication that the "better" aspect was subjective



I haven't used the word 'better' in this thread. Are you mixing me up with someone else?



User said:


> I'd also like to see average speed cameras on all dual carriageways and motorways (and quite a few non-dualled NSL A roads)...



Agree with that and I'd go further by allowing them to be the same colour as all other street furniture, with no publication of targeted areas for mobile safety cameras.


----------



## gavroche (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> A test is an assessment...


Not when it comes to the driving test. Like I said before, it is a test because there is a result at the end of it, pass or fail. If you want to split hairs, yes, the examiner assesses the driving but it is all done on paper with no verbal recommendations.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2017)

gavroche said:


> Not when it comes to the driving test. Like I said before, it is a test because there is a result at the end of it, pass or fail. If you want to split hairs, yes, the examiner assesses the driving but it is all done on paper with no verbal recommendations.



What would be the outcome for a driver who didn't reach the required standard?


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> There may well be something in that.


I know one who's decided to fight the DUI charge, having been pulled over on the M6, and failed the roadside test. He loses, his job is lost as well.


----------



## Firestorm (27 Sep 2017)

Would those with multi category licences , which required seperate tests at the start ie Car and Motorcycle, be required to take a test every 5 years ?
Would the Re test for motorcycles apply to the CBT and then the test ? Or would it just be the over 33 bhp bit which needs to be retested ?
A lorry driver with a car and a large motorcycle could have to take 4 tests every 5 years.....


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> What surprises me (well, actually it doesn't ) is how authoritarian, regulatory and illiberal some people are regarding the subject of driver behaviour and testing.
> It's funny how it seems to be the ones who tend to proclaim their libertarian views on so many other subjects.


As a tree hugger, I'd like to see fewer cars on the roads, and by making driving less convenient and more costly might help people decide if they actually need, or simply want a car of their own... and in my ideal world, a retest every five years or so might make them think again, and again, and again.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> As a tree hugger, I'd like to see fewer cars on the roads, and by making driving less convenient and more costly might help people decide if they actually need, or simply want a car of their own... and in my ideal world, a retest every five years or so might make them think again, and again, and again.


QED.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

Firestorm said:


> Would those with multi category licences , which required seperate tests at the start ie Car and Motorcycle, be required to take a test every 5 years ?
> Would the Re test for motorcycles apply to the CBT and then the test ? Or would it just be the over 33 bhp bit which needs to be retested ?
> A lorry driver with a car and a large motorcycle could have to take 4 tests every 5 years.....


Check the Irish system.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

What happens when "self driving vehicles" hit the road?


----------



## biggs682 (27 Sep 2017)

Yes I think we should all re sit every 5 years


----------



## gavroche (27 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What would be the outcome for a driver who didn't reach the required standard?


If it is part of the test: fail. If it is just an assessment, then he/she would be advised to have lessons with a qualified instructor to work on weaknesses.


----------



## gavroche (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> OK... and what happens when this "assessment" uncovers someone who driving is so poor they pose a significant risk to other road users?
> 
> It's no use just giving people 'recommendations'. You need to be able to take decisive action.


At the moment, instructors don't have the power to do anything about that. Only the police and dvla can.


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> What surprises me (well, actually it doesn't ) is how authoritarian, regulatory and illiberal some people are regarding the subject of driver behaviour and testing.
> It's funny how it seems to be the ones who tend to proclaim their libertarian views on so many other subjects.



I think the needs of the "vulnerable many" outweigh the needs of the "protected few". I am of course entirely unsurprised that you seem to think the opposite.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2017)

gavroche said:


> If it is part of the test: fail.



I don't see that as being any different to a resit of the original test.


----------



## FishFright (27 Sep 2017)

Other than cost I can't see any problems with mandatory retests.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

FishFright said:


> Other than cost I can't see any problems with mandatory retests.


Nor can I. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. As a matter of principle, interventions should be a proportion and effective response to a particular problem. I don't think that across seven pages anyone's even _tried_ to argue that mandatory retests are either proportionate or effective.


----------



## FishFright (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Nor can I. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. As a matter of principle, interventions should be a proportion and effective response to a particular problem. I don't think that across seven pages anyone's even _tried_ to argue that mandatory retests are either proportionate or effective.



I consider mandatory retests are a proportional and effective response to to the hundreds of really rubbish drivers out there killing and injuring people everyday.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I think mandatory retesting is a proportionate response to the c. 1,800 deaths and 180,000 injuries on the UK's road each year.





FishFright said:


> I consider mandatory retests are a proportional and effective response to to the hundreds of really rubbish drivers out there killing and injuring people everyday.



*ahem*
_Evidence? Argument?
_
This two posts are arguments by assertion. I think the moon's made of green cheese and it would be effective to farm it to solve the world's hunger problems.


----------



## slowmotion (27 Sep 2017)

I think Michael O'Leary has hacked @User's account.


----------



## gavroche (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Exactly! So your suggested "assessment" doesn't really do anything - whereas a test with the potential for your license not to be renewed does.


Except that the dvla don't have enough examiners to carry out those extra tests. It would be a logistic nightmare.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> So every time logistics might be an issue then we shouldn't change the rules? That a frankly ludicrous position to take.


So is the position that we should change the rules without demonstrating that the change is a proportionate and effective response to a particular problem. As I'm sure you'd agree.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> I think the needs of the "vulnerable many" outweigh the needs of the "protected few". I am of course entirely unsurprised that you seem to think the opposite.


OK, let's have mandatory retesting every 5 years, with an automatic ban for anyone failing, as no doubt you and others would support.
Apart from making little difference to driver behaviour, in my opinion, where do you think it would get us?
Do you think the motoring lobby would take this lying down?
For, as sure as night follows day, there will be plenty of parties around who would be aggressively pressing for parity.
I wouldn't rule out an aggressive campaign for mandatory licensing, compulsory helmets, compulsory insurance, testing and retesting for cyclists.
Some of it could stick.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## bigjim (27 Sep 2017)

gavroche said:


> 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.


Not much confidence in pupils trained by the instructors around here. I have almost been taken out a couple of times by instructors. On the phone, not looking, speeding etc. Passing too close with the learner driving and there is one that regularly has the pupil stop and block the cycle lane, this involves crossing a solid white line to park while he has a chat.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> So every time logistics might be an issue then we shouldn't change the rules? That a frankly ludicrous position to take.


Little point in having unenforceable rules.


----------



## Andrew_P (27 Sep 2017)

Every 3-5 years for general drivers, I am fairly sure this would reduce the number of drivers on the road just by people who couldn't be bothered for the amount they drive.

Mini Cabs licence holders should have to take an extended re-test to include how to drive safely whilst concentrating on the 10" Tablet right in their eye line with Google Navigation on...!

A side note from my point of view we should have a complete ban on anything being allowed to be attached to the windscreen


----------



## slowmotion (27 Sep 2017)

About 740,000 people take their driving test each year. The average waiting time is supposed to be ten weeks. There are about 45 million drivers in the UK. How exactly are they going to be tested every five years?


----------



## Andrew_P (27 Sep 2017)

slowmotion said:


> About 740,000 people take their driving test each year. The average waiting time is supposed to be ten weeks. There are about 45 million drivers in the UK. How exactly are they going to be tested every five years?


Employ people double bonus get people in to employment. Win-Win.

Not sure how it would work in all honesty but something has to be done on two fronts firstly the quality of driving and secondly the number of vehicles on the road. After that maybe look at short trips, then time bans in around schools. 

I think the future is that Car Tax moves in to a usage system insurance companies can monitor drivers style of driving with consent now so it can be done. - Keep type of vehicle flat rate. - heavy charges for short trips - heavy charges for peak time short trips.


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> OK, let's have mandatory retesting every 5 years, with an automatic ban for anyone failing, *as no doubt you and others would support.*
> Apart from making little difference to driver behaviour, in my opinion, where do you think it would get us?
> Do you think the motoring lobby would take this lying down?
> For, as sure as night follows day, there will be plenty of parties around who would be aggressively pressing for parity.
> ...


My, aren't you full of assumptions today!


----------



## lazybloke (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Nor can I. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. As a matter of principle, interventions should be a proportion and effective response to a particular problem. I don't think that across seven pages anyone's even _tried_ to argue that mandatory retests are either proportionate or effective.



The driving test (at 17) assesses a number of things which are not static. 

The include:
a) knowledge of road signage and the highway code (hence indirectly, knowledge of relevant legislation)
b) eyesight
c) the general competence of the driver

Those things must peak somewhere between 17-30 and then decline gradually. Partly due to the aging process of the driver.
It would therefore be proportionate and effective to reassess driver ability periodically. I'd say every 15-20 years.

I have no fear of retesting.


----------



## Jody (27 Sep 2017)

To think people can buy a bike and cycle on the highways with no formal training, no licence, no insurance or be identifiable with number plates.


----------



## raleighnut (27 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4973808, member: 43827"]How would we treat immigrants who passed the driving test in their own country or those visiting the UK on holiday/business? Make them sit a test on entry, or give them five years grace and retest every five years after their immigration date?[/QUOTE]
Test before they drive in UK, if you saw the driving standards of some foreign drivers here in Leicester.


----------



## Jody (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> Kinetic energy = 1/2 × mass × speed2



Charlie Alliston?


----------



## Jody (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> 1800 per year?



Cyclists still kill and injure. You know the point I was trying to make!


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> The death of 17 people was considered grounds enough to outlaw handguns and impose severe restrictions on ownership and use of other firearms.


That would explain the 42% increase in London gun crime last year.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39578500


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> My, aren't you full of assumptions today!


No more so than others making assumptions about the effectiveness of compulsory retesting.


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

Jody said:


> Charlie Alliston?



As @User3094 says, there are around 1800 road deaths each year. I believe that, on average, one death per year is from a cyclist hitting a pedestrian. Subjecting cyclists to the controls you listed would make cycling less safe (because it would reduce participation), worsen public health (ditto) and be out of all proportion to the risks it poses to pedestrians and other road users.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> Without even opening the link, 42% compared to what?


Thats what the link is for......


----------



## FishFright (27 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> *ahem*
> _Evidence? Argument?
> _
> This two posts are arguments by assertion. I think the moon's made of green cheese and it would be effective to farm it to solve the world's hunger problems.



As evidenced by the wording of my posts so well done , have a gold star


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> No more so than others making assumptions about the effectiveness of compulsory retesting.


As I haven't advanced an argument in favour of compulsory retesting, I suggest you direct your comment elsewhere.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> As I haven't advanced an argument in favour of compulsory retesting, I suggest you direct your comment elsewhere.


It was, but your ego didn't recognise it.


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> OK, let's have mandatory retesting every 5 years, with an automatic ban for anyone failing, as no doubt you and others would support.





User482 said:


> As I haven't advanced an argument in favour of compulsory retesting, I suggest you direct your comment elsewhere.






Dirk said:


> It was, but your ego didn't recognise it.



Firstly, you assumed that a desire to more-closely regulate motoring is illiberal. Then you assumed I supported something I had made no comment on. Really, it's difficult to see what you're trying to do here apart from wind people up. It's a bit sad.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> RoSPA and IAM testing is done on the basis that the candidate is an experienced river and is going to be tested to demonstrate they have reached an advanced standard not achievable by novices



That's wrong.

There are new drivers in both of those groups, from teenagers upwards. If anything, higher driving standards are easier to achieve if done before bad habits become set.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> Firstly, you assumed that a desire to more-closely regulate motoring is illiberal. Then you assumed I supported something I had made no comment on. Really, it's difficult to see what you're trying to do here apart from wind people up. It's a bit sad.


Give over - you're just after a bun fight.
I ain't playing your game mate.


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> Give over - you're just after a bun fight.
> I ain't playing your game mate.


The thing about chat forums is that there is a record of what you said:



Dirk said:


> What surprises me (well, actually it doesn't ) is how authoritarian, regulatory and illiberal some people are regarding the subject of driver behaviour and testing.
> It's funny how it seems to be the ones who tend to proclaim their libertarian views on so many other subjects.


You were looking for a fight. Now you want to take your ball home.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Do we? What was it and how is it relevant to a discussion on the periodic retesting of drivers?



Proportionate and effective responses to perceived problems.


----------



## slowmotion (27 Sep 2017)

[geek alert]

There are currently about 1600 driving examiners. If there are to be re-tests every five years_, _there will have to be about nineteen thousand_._
I think.
_

_


----------



## Levo-Lon (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> When was the handgun ban?



After Dunblane iirc 1996 , one of the saddest days i can remember.


----------



## lazybloke (27 Sep 2017)

Jody said:


> To think people can buy a bike and cycle on the highways with no formal training, no licence, no insurance or be identifiable with number plates.



Best Steve McNamara impression of the day


----------



## Andrew_P (27 Sep 2017)

slowmotion said:


> [geek alert]
> 
> There are currently about 1600 driving examiners. If there are to be re-tests every five years_, _there will have to be about nineteen thousand_._
> I think.
> ...


I will do 2500 of them at £49.99 a pop in their own car or £79.99 in mine. I could live with 25% to Gov coffers.


----------



## Crackle (27 Sep 2017)

Mod note:

Interesting discussion so far. Can we keep it civil please. Thanks.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

slowmotion said:


> [geek alert]
> 
> There are currently about 1600 driving examiners. If there are to be re-tests every five years_, _there will have to be about nineteen thousand_._
> I think.
> ...


With a proportionate increase in the DVSA estate, test routes etc.
I believe they have trouble finding suitable places for test centres at the moment; an increase in demand of such a magnitude would probably be unserviceable.


----------



## slowmotion (27 Sep 2017)

The fees generated by the extra nine million tests per year would be about £760 million.


----------



## Jody (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Do we? What was it and how is it relevant to a discussion on the periodic retesting of drivers?



That certain user groups do not need qualifications or test to use the highways. Sometimes being a danger to both themselves and others. Plenty of people call for licencing and insurance for cyclists. 

Mandatory retests will do little to improve standards on the road. Telemetry, increased police presence and abaility to act with a range of different deterents would be more effective. 

As it stands there is little chance of being caught for serious offences let alone poor standards, inability to take action against poor standards of driving and no resources to chase all but the most serious of driving offences even when evidence is procuced. While retests seem like a good solution it won't change all that much.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

Andrew_P said:


> I will do 2500 of them at £49.99 a pop in their own car or £79.99 in mine. I could live with 25% to Gov coffers.


Believe me, the training and testing required to become an examiner would make your eyes pop. I knew a former instructor (Ex plod and army too) who said the driving tuition was so tough he was almost reduced to tears). Don't for a second think that anyone could jump in and do it.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's wrong.
> 
> There are new drivers in both of those groups, from teenagers upwards. If anything, higher driving standards are easier to achieve if done before bad habits become set.


But all drivers who have experience of being out on there own and getting plenty of miles under there belts before taking advanced lessons.

You could always qualify as an instructor ans show how to get provisional licence holders to advanced standard yourself.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> Are instructors retested?


I was told once that, theoretically, Driving Examiners don't actually need to hold a driving licence!
Apparently it's because, in the eyes of the law, an examiner is not an 'accompanying driver' and therefore, whilst on test the learner is effectively legally driving 'unaccompanied', the examiner merely being a passenger.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> But all drivers who have experience of being out on there own and getting plenty of miles under there belts before taking advanced lessons



Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.



Smokin Joe said:


> You could always qualify as an instructor ans show how to get provisional licence holders to advanced standard yourself.



Why?


----------



## Andrew_P (27 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> Believe me, the training and testing required to become an examiner would make your eyes pop. I knew a former instructor (Ex plod and army too) who said the driving tuition was so tough he was almost reduced to tears). Don't for a second think that anyone could jump in and do it.


I am part 1 & 2 qualified (well not now long expired) I stopped when I realised what a nightmare job it would be the big hourly rate almost impossible to fill a 9 hour day, plus being taught how to break someone's grip on the wheel put me off! The Driving Instructor Schools were the money spinners loads of people like me changing their minds having paid a lump of money over.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> You can't say that categorically. As I pointed out further up the thread, there is evidence in those cases where retesting is mandated, that the quality of driving improves


Not quite. You pointed out that there was _limited_ evidence that _in some special cases where the driver was already known to be risky_ retesting improves driving quality. And you didn't explain what "driving quality" is and whether it relates to meaningful outcomes - like reduced injuries.


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Told by whom? It's bollocks!
> 
> Become a driving examiner


It was a thoretical point of law; not a practical proposition.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> Are instructors retested?


Instructors have to take a Test of Continued Ability, every four years for those who achieve a high grade and two years the rest. That consists of giving a driving lesson with a supervising examiner sitting in the back of the car.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> I was told once that, theoretically, Driving Examiners don't actually need to hold a driving licence!
> Apparently it's because, in the eyes of the law, an examiner is not an 'accompanying driver' and therefore, whilst on test the learner is effectively legally driving 'unaccompanied', the examiner merely being a passenger.


Not quite. The examiner has a duty to intervene in order to protect life and limb, but not to prevent vehicle damage. Instructors who consistently take below standard candidates for test are quite likely to get the car back with a few dents here and there.


----------



## slowmotion (27 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> Instructors have to take a Test of Continued Ability, every four years for those who achieve a high grade and two years the rest. That consists of giving a driving lesson with a supervising examiner sitting in the back of the car.


The only time took a driving test, there was an examiner for my examiner sitting in a back seat of the test car. I'm not sure who was the most nervous of the two people in the front.


----------



## mustang1 (27 Sep 2017)

Probably.

I also reckon people in general, and especially bankers, should get a lesson in morality every year. Preferably in a pragmatic sense. 

Car drivers, yeah.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2017)

In Great Britain, from 2011 to 2015: Cycles accounted for about 2.3% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were involved in *just over 1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.8% of serious injuries to pedestrians;*

ONS November 2016


----------



## Dirk (27 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> Are instructors retested?





User3094 said:


> ... and to answer my own question...
> 
> *Periodic training*
> You have to take periodic training to keep your skills up to date. You have to take:
> ...



Your question was about instructors; your perceived answer concerns examiners.
There is a difference.


----------



## alicat (27 Sep 2017)

> The only time I took a driving test, there was an examiner for my examiner sitting in a back seat of the test car. I'm not sure who was the most nervous of the two people in the front.



And mine! The burly chap in the back moved so I could see to reverse round the corner. After too long a time lapse, I realised he was blocking the view from the rear view mirror....

I support retesting every five years. I think it will sharpen up the average driver's attitude and encourage elderly drivers to give up at the right time.


----------



## pawl (27 Sep 2017)

Who's going to play devils advocate and suggest that 65 plus cyclists be tested


----------



## pawl (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> What particular risk does that group of cyclists pose?





I am sure all of us on this site are paragons of cycling etiquette.We still see examples of iresponsible cycling.

Jumping red lights,yes we see motor vehicles doing it.A cyclist who does may not lnjure or kill anyone other themselves.Lets think about the motorist who kills or severely injures the amber gambler.
A example of inconsiderate cycling happened to me two weekends ago.a group of approximately ten cyclists passed me as I ambled along at my usual13 MPH ,they were so close if I had put my hand in my jersey pocket it was likely that I would have brought the whole group down,no warning to the riders to move out or to me. Not all cyclists are paragons who ride around with there halos shining above there helmets.


----------



## SteveF (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Edit:
> 
> Ah - they come from CyclingUK. And they’re a bit misleading (well, wrong really).
> 
> ...



17 dead people is still 17 dead people, how many or what percentage is acceptable??


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

SteveF said:


> 17 dead people is still 17 dead people, how many or what percentage is acceptable??


I would humbly suggest that 17 is rather more tolerable (a word I prefer) than 2,108 killed but _not_ by cyclists.


----------



## pawl (27 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4974433, member: 43827"]Were they over 65?[/QUOTE]

If they were they must have been on e bikes the speed they were going.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

It's the Party Conference season. Lots of people get up and spout new ideas about how to boss the citizens about. Has anybody got any data about how testing drivers every five years is going to improve KIA figures, and if so, by how much? When we have that information, we can all decide whether the cost and inconvenience of this (possibly) bonkers idea is a good one.

Edit: Sorry, KSI not KIA.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2017)

slowmotion said:


> It's the Party Conference season. Lots of people get up and spout new ideas about how to boss the citizens about. Has anybody got any data about how testing drivers every five years is going to improve KIA figures, and if so, by how much? When we have that information, we can all decide whether the cost and inconvenience of this (possibly) bonkers idea is a good one.


A system where the licence was only valid for a set period, was looked at and then forgot about.

Re-applying for the licence involved a re-test. Similar to the Irish system mentioned earlier.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> Still no reason for a blanket approach to retesting.


Why have a blanket approach to initial testing? Retesting of all drivers is not the illogical position, the lack thereof is.


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why have a blanket approach to initial testing? Retesting of all drivers is not the illogical position, the lack thereof is.


When did logic ever have anything to do with government transport policy?


----------



## srw (28 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why have a blanket approach to initial testing? Retesting of all drivers is not the illogical position, the lack thereof is.


A blanket initial test of basic competence is common for all sorts of things - many jobs, many dangerous pastimes, many sports. It's usually assumed, normally correctly, that competence tends to increase with experience, there's a regulatory regime of some kind in place, and failures are dealt with retrospectively.

Regular mandatory blanket retesting of competence to the same standards as the initial test is relatively uncommon.

(Cue anecdata....)


----------



## srw (28 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Cue anecdata....





User said:


> revalidation for doctors and nurses for example



Bingo!

5 minutes - really! You're slipping.


----------



## srw (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Revalidation isn't anecdata. The fact that you are resorting to describing it as such says a lot...


Cherry picking one example familiar to you, especially one subject to massive political interference, is definitely anecdata.


----------



## Electric_Andy (28 Sep 2017)

I agree up to a point. Many people with no previous claims etc could still be poor/dangerous drivers. They could have had (or been the cause of) several near misses a month. I would be in favour of a refresher perhaps every 10 years. Evidence may suggest otherwise (5 years), but this 5 year rule could be applied to drivers over 60 who are more likely to regress quicker in terms of diminished eye sight, confidence and reaction time, than a younger population would.

The test should not focus on parallel parking etc, but could perhaps just drive around a random selection of per-determined routes that take in roundabouts, mini-roundabouts, t junctions, and commuter routes with a broad mix of road infrastructure (shared cycle lanes, zebra crossings etc).

However, there are limitations. Inconsiderate/dangerous/aggressive drivers would (you'd think) not repeat these behaviors on the test. It would weed out some people who genuinely have no clue about driving, but I would think those people would be a minority. I don't know how you'd do this without discriminating against certain populations of drivers (as I have already done in my post!).

But in theory, I'd have no complaints about a 10-yearly test. perhaps if this "refresher" type test was failed, you'd have 3 chances to re-take your standard test?


----------



## Electric_Andy (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> What's so special about the age of 65?


 I realise that this is subjective, but my Dad passed his test in 1966 (he's 67 now). He doesn't often drive in cities, but when he does he is incredibly poor at forward planning and decision mkaing. I was with him when approaching a busy mini-roundabout. He attempted to go when there was a car to his right. At the last minute he e-stopped and he did this 3 times throughout the day. I kept fearing we'd be rear-ended! Ok, the drivers behind should not be following too close and should be able to stop in time, but it's all about reading the traffic and obeying simple rules in good time without making snap judgements.

It could be because he lives in the country, so hardly ever practices peak-time driving. But I really do think the length of time he has had any testing or instruction does play a part.


----------



## Electric_Andy (28 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> I could choose not to retest. I might be skint.....The result might not be overall improved road safety but less cars on the roads.


 Yes, it might price some people out, or encourage more illegal driving for those who can't/won't take the re-test. I imagine it would get quite afew extra cars off the road, but councils would also have to think about upping the quality of public transport etc.


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Sep 2017)

Electric_Andy said:


> I realise that this is subjective, but my Dad passed his test in 1966 (he's 67 now). He doesn't often drive in cities, but when he does he is incredibly poor at forward planning and decision mkaing. I was with him when approaching a busy mini-roundabout. He attempted to go when there was a car to his right. At the last minute he e-stopped and he did this 3 times throughout the day. I kept fearing we'd be rear-ended! Ok, the drivers behind should not be following too close and should be able to stop in time, but it's all about reading the traffic and obeying simple rules in good time without making snap judgements.
> 
> It could be because he lives in the country, so hardly ever practices peak-time driving. But I really do think the length of time he has had any testing or instruction does play a part.


When my dad got older he was an absolute menace - just oblivious to other road users. 'I'm going _there_.' We managed to persuade him to stop after he joked about how a bollard had 'jumped out at him', telling him there was nothing to joke about and it could have been a child. To his credit, he took it on the chin & sold his car. I suspect, though, that very many others would simply get indignant and become even more self righteous/assertive on the road.


----------



## Electric_Andy (28 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4975246, member: 9609"]but are older drivers the big danger out there ? [/QUOTE] True, I'm just generalising from my experiences of close calls (especially on 2 wheels). The nutters will, as you say, be able to drive perfectly on the day and will slip through the net. With mandatory dashcams, I'm not sure this is doable. I know in eastern Europe many drivers have these through choice to assist with insurance claims. There would have to be a minimum standard camera for people to fit to their vehicle, and then how many people would "forget" to charge it up, essentially not recording their activity anyway?


----------



## adscrim (28 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4975246, member: 9609"]
The big dangers are probably the most skilful at handling a vehicle, take the enormous sprinter type vans favoured by the parcel delivery companies, these drivers are amazing in how they weave in and out of the traffic at high speed (sometimes even texting a the same time) their skill levels are tremendous but they drive like maniacs.[/QUOTE]
Are they though? Modern vehicles make driving at speed easy. The danger is that people think they're amazing and can drive like a professional racing driver - right up to point where they kill someone. Actually past that point because that was the other persons fault. Obviously.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> A blanket initial test of basic competence is common for all sorts of things - many jobs, many dangerous pastimes, many sports. It's usually assumed, normally correctly, that competence tends to increase with experience, there's a regulatory regime of some kind in place, and failures are dealt with retrospectively.
> 
> Regular mandatory blanket retesting of competence to the same standards as the initial test is relatively uncommon.
> 
> (Cue anecdata....)




Isn't it common in compliance environments for folk to have to re-certify on a regular basis... often via testing?


----------



## Jody (28 Sep 2017)

Electric_Andy said:


> and then how many people would "forget" to charge it up, essentially not recording their activity anyway?



They are hard wired to the vehicle and make sure insurance is void if the camera isn't rolling.


----------



## srw (28 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Isn't it common in compliance environments for folk to have to re-certify on a regular basis... often via testing?


Well, if you want to exchange cherry-picked anecdata - yes, it's certainly true that testing is commonly used for absolutely basic compliance 101 knowledge in large general insurance firms. Do I think that's a proportionate and effective response to any problem of poor behaviour among the staff of those firms? Based on a sample size of one - no. There are far more effective ways of improving outcomes, which focus on risk-assessing potential problem areas and then targeting them, together with public post-failure post-mortems, with consequences.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2017)

Re-test, as per the thread title, appears to have become re-assess.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2017)

Just been listening to the defence of a driver involved in a crash on the motorway.

The driver of the vehicle with which he collided swerved out into his lane to avoid something that had fallen off the vehicle in front. He(driver now facing the claim against him) never moved out of his lane because he was on his mobile at the time, so couldn't see to his left, and what was happening there. 

Handset blocked his view, and his attention was on the call "which was important".


----------



## Lonestar (28 Sep 2017)

classic33 said:


> Just been listening to the defence of a driver involved in a crash on the motorway.
> 
> The driver of the vehicle with which he collided swerved out into his lane to avoid something that had fallen off the vehicle in front. He(driver now facing the claim against him) never moved out of his lane because he was on his mobile at the time, so couldn't see to his left, and what was happening there.
> 
> Handset blocked his view, and his attention was on the call "which was important".



Jaysus firking christ.


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 Sep 2017)

classic33 said:


> Just been listening to the defence of a driver involved in a crash on the motorway.
> 
> The driver of the vehicle with which he collided swerved out into his lane to avoid something that had fallen off the vehicle in front. He(driver now facing the claim against him) never moved out of his lane because he was on his mobile at the time, so couldn't see to his left, and what was happening there.
> 
> *Handset blocked his view, and his attention was on the call "which was important".*


No amount of retesting on earth is going to stop people doing that. A penalty stiff enough to make people think twice about using a mobile while driving would have far greater effect.

T


----------



## derrick (28 Sep 2017)

No amount of retesting is going to change bad drivers habits, most people are going to get through a test, then go back to how they normally drive.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> QED.


So wanting cleaner air, safer streets and a better environment for everyone is authoritarian and illiberal?


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Oh well, nothing to be done then.


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.


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> So wanting cleaner air, safer streets and a better environment for everyone is authoritarian and illiberal?


It seems a bit Draconian, to me, to use compulsory blanket retesting as a sneaky way of improving air quality and the environment.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> It seems a bit Draconian, to me, to use compulsory blanket retesting as a sneaky way of improving air quality and the environment.


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.


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> 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 (28 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> 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.


I doubt if the majority of Cycle Chatters would vote you into power on that ticket, let alone out in the wider world.


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Reducing car usage could be viewed as liberating.


Indeed it could; but at least be honest in the methods used to achieve it.


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I fail to see how removing the more dangerous drivers from our roads constitutes an underhand way of making them safer and more pleasant all round.


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.


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Why on earth would you not want safer roads and less polluted air?


Who said I didn't?


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Why on earth would you not want safer roads and less polluted air?


The motor vehicle has reduced deaths, not increased them -

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I fail to see how removing the more dangerous drivers from our roads constitutes an underhand way of making them safer and more pleasant all round.


Their original tests didn't stop them driving badly. Why should a test every five years?


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Well, you seem to be arguing against positive suggestions the other way.


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 (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> We don't need to settle for more of the same.


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.


----------



## User33236 (28 Sep 2017)

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.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Education? I am not talking about education. I am talking about putting people in simulators and testing them for a good length of time under varied conditions. Long enough that most people will struggle to keep up an act.


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.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> Why does extra testing rule out effective law enforcement anyway?


It doesn't. I'm just questioning the utility of five yearly tests.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> Weird reasoning. People will tell lies in police interviews, because they hope to get off scot free. That's not a reason to stop interviewing people.


I don't see the parallel.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not both? Why not retesting and greater enforcement?


see #245


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Education? I am not talking about education. I am talking about putting people in simulators and testing them for a good length of time under varied conditions. Long enough that most people will struggle to keep up an act.


One problem with putting people in simulators, that even airforces realise, you can kill as many you want and walk away not having injured anyone.

I passed the theory side, easy enough. I've also "passed" the driving test in a simulator. Granted it wasn't up their with the airplane simulators in quality, but there was no need to be. Will there be different models available as per their aircraft counterparts? I'd say the interiors of no three vehicles(Different models) on the road are the same.

I'm not able to drive, so I've never bothered about it. I've accepted years ago, it wasn't going to happen. That puts me in a minority on here.

Its not stopped licence applications being made, nor someone actually sitting the test in my name. That last part has a rate of £400-£500 round here, for a normal licence.

Why not cut those out first. They're on "the system" as having sat & passed, so should be easy enough to find. Then move onto those who passed, but are now driving without insurance, tax or MOT.

This thread has gone from a re-test, which would end in either a yes or a no, to a re-assessment, meaning further training required & not a simple yes or no.

The opportunity to have a time limit on the licence has raised its head a number of times over the years. I think the last time it was raised it was a case of all newly qualified drivers only being affected. What came out of that, the photo ID licence.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (28 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> 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.



Surely prevention is better than cure?


----------



## Dirk (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> People may well try to behave well but will they be able to maintain that for long?


I managed it for 30 years in my last job before I retired.


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 Sep 2017)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Surely prevention is better than cure?


I doubt it would have any benefit.

Anyway, seventeen pages and it's now starting to go round in circles now like many SC&P threads so that's my lot. Back to the serious stuff like smoking and cycling.


----------



## gavgav (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> *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.


Whilst I think the idea has merit, there simply isn’t the resource to implement this.


----------



## srw (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Again, it’s not anecdata. It’s a response to your somewhat erroneous suggestion that:


We now have a sample size of two bits of anecdata. One of which I'm not familiar with (but I understand is evidence based), one of which I know quite a lot about, know is definitely not evidence based and believe is ineffective.

Given the size of the universe of domains I suspect a more nuanced approach might be more useful.


----------



## srw (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Cars make our world a less pleasant, and more dangerous place in general



That's an untested assertion for which I think there's little evidence and less public support.

It's certainly true in some domains - many cities for instance - but outside of that narrow sphere I think you'd struggle to justify it.


----------



## srw (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Walking on a country lane?


Yes, but don't you think that's still a bit narrow? I'd hoped that you'd at least have extended to the destruction of public transport and an obesity crisis in children.

Other people's cars more often make our world less pleasant and more dangerous than our own. Our own cars usually make our world more pleasant, because they open up pleasurable journeys that would otherwise be unavailable. The danger point of our own cars is probably moot.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> People may well try to behave well but will they be able to maintain that for long?


You made your re-test sound like Alex's aversion therapy in A Clockwork Orange.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I am including my own driving, which I always set out to find a pleasurable and liberating experience but which very seldom fails to disappoint.


By nature of my disposition I set out in SE England expecting to find a disagreeable, stressful, pleasure free experience and it usual manages to deliver beneath my low expectations....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Our experiences are precisely the same, I am just a slower learner.


Or a glass half full guy? At least it was half full before it got smashed.


----------



## derrick (28 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Oh well, nothing to be done then.


Plenty to be done. larger fines, Hit them in the pocket.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2017)

derrick said:


> Plenty to be done. larger fines,* Hit them in the pocket.*


And that should be instant, not given time to pay(If the fine is handed down in a court). Police taking money on the spot is open to going wrong.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Sep 2017)

Five yearly tests are a complete non-starter. The whole concept is completely barking at every level, except during the Conference season. It ain't going to happen.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Excellent. It is always good to see a discussion brought to a close with a well constructed and fully referenced argument.


I'm not closing any discussions at all. I'm just painfully aware that bandwidth is a limited resource and I'll do my bit to preserve it.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> By posting something that you would like to be definitive, yet without substance? Double fail I'm afraid.


What are you on about? Feel free to discuss away. I just have nothing more to add, that's all.


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2017)




----------



## the snail (29 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> Weird reasoning. People will tell lies in police interviews, because they hope to get off scot free. That's not a reason to stop interviewing people.


Maybe everyone should have to report to a police station every 5 years for interrogation too. I don't think testing would achieve much anyway. It's not like people forget how to drive. I'd rather see the VED raised by say £50 a year and the money spent on speed cameras and more policing, and actually enforcing the law, maybe lose your licence after six points, proper sentences for dangerous and careless driving, serious consequences for anyone who kills or injures someone rather than a slap on the wrist. People need to be on the ball every time they drive, not just once every five years.


----------



## theclaud (29 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> The motor vehicle has reduced deaths, not increased them -
> 
> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/


Well that'll tell all the people who are arguing for a return to horse-drawn carriages then. Let me know when they show up.


----------



## growingvegetables (29 Sep 2017)

Lots above along the lines of 


the snail said:


> I don't think testing would achieve much anyway. It's not like people forget how to drive.


Just guessing - that's why lorry and bus-drivers are required to do 35 hours training every five years? Lorry drivers have to renew their licence every five years, if they're 45 or older/every year if 65 or over?


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2017)

slowmotion said:


> What are you on about? Feel free to discuss away. * I just have nothing more to add, that's all*.



That ship sailed a while ago.


----------



## Profpointy (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> And if retesting/regular assessment achieves nothing, why do pilots have to be retested so frequently? Surely it would be a big waste of money...



Well if retesting is universally a good thing, presumably we should test, and re-test cyclists too


----------



## Crackle (29 Sep 2017)

What about refresher courses linked to accident stats. I read the highest contributory accident factor is a failure to observe. I tend to think anyone can prepare to pass a test but education might be a more effective method tailored to the current accident stats.


----------



## User6179 (29 Sep 2017)

slowmotion said:


> What are you on about? Feel free to discuss away. I just have nothing more to add, that's all.



Maybe in the future you could run your post past Adrian first to see if it they are acceptable!?


----------



## MontyVeda (29 Sep 2017)

Dirk said:


> Yup - authoritarian and illiberal.


Ask yourself about the cars' contribution to climate change. Imagine how far it could go. Wonder if that's a good thing or not. Then lash out at those wanting something better.


----------



## Profpointy (29 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Ask yourself about the cars' contribution to climate change. Imagine how far it could go. Wonder if that's a good thing or not. Then lash out at those wanting something better.




Fair enough to make radical changes to reduce car use. What I can't support is adding rules merely to cost money and be a nuisance where (from most of the posts above) the motivation is mostly to punish drivers rather than safety.

Banning a few old biddies who struggle to reverse park and do hardly any miles anyway isn't really going to help safety or the environment.


----------



## srw (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Excellent. It is always good to see a discussion brought to a close with a well constructed and fully referenced argument.


...a discussion which started with a well-constructed and fully referenced argument. That's kinda neat, I think.


----------



## derrick (29 Sep 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Fair enough to make radical changes to reduce car use. What I can't support is adding rules merely to cost money and be a nuisance where (from most of the posts above) the motivation is mostly to punish drivers rather than safety.
> 
> Banning a few old biddies who struggle to reverse park and do hardly any miles anyway isn't really going to help safety or the environment.


People who cannot reverse park should never have been given a licence in the first place.


----------



## Tanis8472 (29 Sep 2017)

Quite suprised at some of these posts by folk I thought were more logical 

I would rather see more marked and unmarked police out on the roads. You will notice a huge difference in driving behaviour when police cars are about.
I have seen an unmarked car around here catch quite a few knobheads out recently. I actually laughed out loud at one when a knob on a motorbike overtook a queue of traffic on the wrong side of an island and then proceeded to stop in an ASL while lights were still on red. He probably got a nice set of points for that.

This sort of thing will not be caught by retesting as a lot would behave for the test.


----------



## Profpointy (29 Sep 2017)

derrick said:


> People who cannot reverse park should never have been given a licence in the first place.



Umm, depends when they did their test. I never did reverse parking in my test, but because of where I now live I'm bloody good at it of necessity. My Mrs struggles with reverse parking our too-big car but she did do it on her test.


----------



## green1 (29 Sep 2017)

the snail said:


> Maybe everyone should have to report to a police station every 5 years for interrogation too. I don't think testing would achieve much anyway. It's not like people forget how to drive. I'd rather see the VED raised by say £50 a year and the money spent on speed cameras and more policing, and actually enforcing the law, maybe lose your licence after six points, proper sentences for dangerous and careless driving, serious consequences for anyone who kills or injures someone rather than a slap on the wrist. People need to be on the ball every time they drive, not just once every five years.


I'd far rather get rid of speed cameras and get traffic police back on the roads in far bigger numbers. Best way to increase driving standards if people know plod is back on the highways enforce.


----------



## green1 (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I would get rid of static, marked speed cameras. I would replace them with unmarked mobile cameras and average speed cameras.
> After that, 12 points and you are out. No bleating, no special pleading. If your license is important to you, behave as though it is.


Speed cameras only prosecute one type of dangerous driving, there are plenty of other things people do on the roads that can be as if not more dangerous that they do not pick up on. The only way to discourage them is if people think they might get caught doing them, for that you need plod.


----------



## green1 (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Why does it have to be either/or? Why not have both? The speed cameras could help pay for the extra traffic police. Win-win!


Or you save the money spent on cameras and get even more traffic police who then pay for themselves.


----------



## User6179 (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Or he could chose to advance an argument with some reason for his opinion, rather than a lofty pronouncement with nothing behind it. Just a thought but, in the long run, that might prove to be more constructive.



Sorry I didn't realise you had already ruled on this.


----------



## green1 (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> So cameras don’t pay for themselves?


Of course they do. They are a easy cash cow, that has led in a reduction in traffic police as the overheads are less. I play cricket with a traffic cop (1 of 6 in the area) who is leaving because he is fed up of roads policing policy being driven by fixation on speed and speed cameras.


----------



## Tanis8472 (29 Sep 2017)

User3094 said:


> Manufacturers should be made to install devices which stop the car and decapitate the driver and electrocute all of its occupants the second it goes over the speed limit.
> 
> Why not, the technologies there?


----------



## green1 (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> You do know that traffic officers don’t pay for themselves, don’t you? The fines they raise go to the Treasury. With speed cameras ‘netting off’ means that some of the income goes back to the camera partnership and can be use to fund police officers...


Yes I'm well aware. Around here all traffic would have to do is take a walk around the local taxi ranks on a Friday/Saturday night or any supermarket carpark at any time and check for bald tyres. The they fines they'd generate would more than cover the expense of their employment for a few weeks.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Sep 2017)

*Mod Note *Thread moved to Advocacy and Cycling Safety as it has matured in that general direction.


----------



## Dirk (29 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Ask yourself about the cars' contribution to climate change. Imagine how far it could go. Wonder if that's a good thing or not. Then lash out at those wanting something better.


You totally missed the point of my objection to mandatory retesting being used as an underhand means of improving air quality and the environment.
They are separate issue from driver licensing and behaviour.
That is not 'lashing out' by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## RichK (29 Sep 2017)

For my other hobby,l I am a signalman (on a steam railway). We are re-tested every three years to ensure continuing competence.


----------



## User6179 (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> This aside, did you have any opinions about the subject of the thread?



I would put it in the road tax/insurance for bikes category, pointless and never going to happen!


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2017)

RichK said:


> For my other hobby,l I am a signalman (on a steam railway). We are re-tested every three years to ensure continuing competence.


That'll be for a private company, similar to the K&WVR. Where they have more staff than there would have been, before it became private.


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2017)

User said:


> OK, let's see your positive suggestions then.


Place a time limit on any new licence. To renew would involve a medical, paid for by the applicant, before any test could take place.

Manage that and it may be possible to do it for every driver, with a licence.


----------



## Andrew_P (29 Sep 2017)

classic33 said:


> Place a time limit on any new licence. To renew would involve a medical, paid for by the applicant, before any test could take place.
> 
> Manage that and it may be possible to do it for every driver, with a licence.


What I do not understand is why HGV & PSV drivers have these medicals every so many years yet other drivers do not. I accept that a Lorry or Bus is more dangerous than a car but only more dangerous, a Car is just as much of a lethal weapon just cannot do as much carnage in one go as Bus or HGV


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Sep 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Ask yourself about the cars' contribution to climate change. Imagine how far it could go. Wonder if that's a good thing or not. Then lash out at those wanting something better.



Ha, that reminds me of this...


----------



## Sharky (29 Sep 2017)

One of my Uncles, never took a driving test.

He was taught to drive a tank in the army (WW2) and it qualified him for his driving licence.


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2017)

Andrew_P said:


> What I do not understand is why HGV & PSV drivers have these medicals every so many years yet other drivers do not. I accept that a Lorry or Bus is more dangerous than a car but only more dangerous, a Car is just as much of a lethal weapon just cannot do as much carnage in one go as Bus or HGV


The last time pre-test medicals were raised as a posibility for new drivers it just faded away.

The political will to enforce it wasn't there.

The biggest "error" at present is being allowed to plead hardship if you were to lose your licence, and have it accepted. That makes the point system useless.

A "Three strikes & you're out" policy may work better. Would it stop them driving with no licence, who knows.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Sep 2017)

The Swiss have quite a clever driving test. Within three years of passing the initial test you have to do two additional one day courses.

https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/switzerland/transport/driving-licences/driving-test


----------



## Ming the Merciless (29 Sep 2017)

We create a simulator and you tell the driver they must cross the finish line within a set time limit. We then have pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders appear in the simulation. Every time they make a close pass, bad manuevers, speed, drive too close, 10 seconds is added to their time. Hit anyone and they fail. You do not tell them the real test is to see that their driving remains at the standarda expected when under time pressure.


----------



## Dirk (29 Sep 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> You do not tell them the real test is to see that their driving remains at the standarda expected when under time pressure.


The second person to take the test would probably know that.


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> We create a simulator and you tell the driver they must cross the finish line within a set time limit. We then have pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders appear in the simulation. Every time they make a close pass, bad manuevers, speed, drive too close, 10 seconds is added to their time. Hit anyone and they fail. You do not tell them the real test is to see that their driving remains at the standarda expected when under time pressure.


Driving on the roads shouldn't be seen or treated as a race.


----------



## StuAff (30 Sep 2017)

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that the standards between vehicles are inconsistent. Just renewed my CBT for the bike this morning, with a view to taking a full licence course in a few months (I had October pencilled in for that, but even if I took to a geared bike very quickly, the wait for the local test centre is now up to December...!!). Consider what a newly qualified young learner can drive and ride..
At 17, on an automatic-only licence, you can *drive* a Bugatti Chiron if you can pay the bills. 1479 hp......not recommended unless you're Max Verstappen.
What can you *ride* at 17? Max 125cc, 14.75 bhp (A1 category, same as you can ride with a CBT certificate).
For A2 (47 bhp): 19 years old
A (unrestricted licence)- anything road-legal, even Honda's RC213VS (MotoGP for the road) bike or 200+ bhp screamers...24, or 21 if you've held A2 for two years.
To me, that's nuts...


----------



## jarlrmai (2 Oct 2017)

The most crazy thing is cars and motorbikes can be as powerful as they want and the only real thing keeping the numbers down is price and insurance cost.


----------



## StuAff (2 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 4981012, member: 45"]Yeah, it looks daft, but it's based on likelihood and risk. A 17 year old is never going to get their hands on a super car, but could buy a motorbike capable of stupid speeds and acceleration for a few hundred quid.[/QUOTE]
You've got a point, indeed, the likes of a Fireblade/R1 are much more accessible in financial terms, at least in purchase price, but there's one class for cars, regardless of power and weight, with no requirement to demonstrate competency in moving from something small and slow (though, of course, still a potentially lethal weapon) to something massively faster. And a 17 year old on a fast bike is far more likely to come off worse in an road traffic incident than one in any car.


----------



## KnackeredBike (2 Oct 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> The most crazy thing is cars and motorbikes can be as powerful as they want and the only real thing keeping the numbers down is price and insurance cost.


Car power has been increasing for decades.

Take a Corsa, a very typical first car.

Corsa B in 1992-2000 - the entry level 1.0 car had 40kW. Top of the range 1.6 has 78kW.

Corsa E today the entry level 1.0 is 66kW. Top of the range 1.6t is 152kW. I know they are a bit fatter but that is still a lot more potential energy under the control of an inexperienced driver.


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Oct 2017)

Fatter makes it worse they are just more kinetic energy as they are heavier and have a more power to get that mass moving.


----------



## byegad (3 Oct 2017)

I'm 66, and have been riding motorbikes and then driving cars for 50 years and would happily retake the test and face having my licence revoke should I fail.

I would suffer some hardships without the ability to drive, but if it meant that roads in the UK became safer for all it would be well worth the individual price.


----------



## Randy Butternubs (9 Oct 2017)

Sorry if this has already been said but it's a long thread.
Some back of napkin calculations:
As of late 2014 there are 45.5m licensed drivers in the UK. I'm assuming it hasn't changed that much.
The driving test costs £62. I'm making a big assumption that it pays for itself - neither subsidised nor an earner.
If all license holders drive and need retesting every five years (obviously not but bear with me) that's (45.5m*62)/5 or £564m a year spent on tests.
The entire UK population was 65.64m in 2016 so that's enough to spend £8.60 per capita per year on, say, cycling infrastructure on top of the quid or so we spend now.


----------

