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

[Smokin Joe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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?


I think you'll have to argue against the following two graphs:
View attachment 375616
(and anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that that's the continuation of a 50-year downward trend in road safety)
and...
View attachment 375617

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]

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]

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]

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?


I think you'll have to argue against the following two graphs:
View attachment 375616
(and anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that that's the continuation of a 50-year downward trend in road safety)
and...
View attachment 375617

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.