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

[slowmotion]

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]

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]

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]

 

[the snail]

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]

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]

Lots above along the lines of

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.