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

[Electric_Andy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[classic33]

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]

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]

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]

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]

QED.

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