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

[classic33]

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

 

[User482]

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]

Three words: Dunning-Kruger Effect.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.