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

[Crackle]

Mod note:

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

 

[Dirk]

[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]

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

 

[Jody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Why?

 

[Andrew_P]

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]

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]

Told by whom? It's bollocks!

Become a driving examiner

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

 

[Smokin Joe]

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]

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]

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]

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.