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

[classic33]

In Great Britain, from 2011 to 2015: Cycles accounted for about 2.3% of all urban, non-motorway vehicular traffic and were involved in just over 1% of pedestrian fatalities and 1.8% of serious injuries to pedestrians;

ONS November 2016

 

[Dirk]

Are instructors retested?

... and to answer my own question...

Periodic training
You have to take periodic training to keep your skills up to date. You have to take:

• 5 days of driver training in every 5 years
• 4 days of test training in every 2 years

Your question was about instructors; your perceived answer concerns examiners.
There is a difference.

 

[alicat]

The only time I 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.

And mine! The burly chap in the back moved so I could see to reverse round the corner. After too long a time lapse, I realised he was blocking the view from the rear view mirror....

I support retesting every five years. I think it will sharpen up the average driver's attitude and encourage elderly drivers to give up at the right time.

 

[pawl]

Who's going to play devils advocate and suggest that 65 plus cyclists be tested

 

[pawl]

What particular risk does that group of cyclists pose?

I am sure all of us on this site are paragons of cycling etiquette.We still see examples of iresponsible cycling.

Jumping red lights,yes we see motor vehicles doing it.A cyclist who does may not lnjure or kill anyone other themselves.Lets think about the motorist who kills or severely injures the amber gambler.
A example of inconsiderate cycling happened to me two weekends ago.a group of approximately ten cyclists passed me as I ambled along at my usual13 MPH ,they were so close if I had put my hand in my jersey pocket it was likely that I would have brought the whole group down,no warning to the riders to move out or to me. Not all cyclists are paragons who ride around with there halos shining above there helmets.

 

[SteveF]

Edit:

Ah - they come from CyclingUK. And they’re a bit misleading (well, wrong really).

In 2011, 453 pedestrians were killed, 2 by cyclists. That’s 0.46%
In 2012, 420 pedestrians were killed, 2 by cyclists. That’s 0.48%
In 2013, 398 pedestrians were killed, 6 by cyclists. That’s 1.5%
In 2014, 446 pedestrians were killed, 5 by cyclists. That’s 1.12%
In 2015, 408 pedestrians were killed, 2 by cyclists. That’s 0.5%

Over the five year period, 2,125 pedestrians were killed, 17 by cyclists. That’s 0.80%

All of the information is available in the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain annual reports (table RAS40004).

17 dead people is still 17 dead people, how many or what percentage is acceptable??

 

[srw]

17 dead people is still 17 dead people, how many or what percentage is acceptable??

I would humbly suggest that 17 is rather more tolerable (a word I prefer) than 2,108 killed but not by cyclists.

 

[pawl]

[QUOTE 4974433, member: 43827"]Were they over 65?[/QUOTE]

If they were they must have been on e bikes the speed they were going.

 

[slowmotion]

It's the Party Conference season. Lots of people get up and spout new ideas about how to boss the citizens about. Has anybody got any data about how testing drivers every five years is going to improve KIA figures, and if so, by how much? When we have that information, we can all decide whether the cost and inconvenience of this (possibly) bonkers idea is a good one.

Edit: Sorry, KSI not KIA.

 

[classic33]

It's the Party Conference season. Lots of people get up and spout new ideas about how to boss the citizens about. Has anybody got any data about how testing drivers every five years is going to improve KIA figures, and if so, by how much? When we have that information, we can all decide whether the cost and inconvenience of this (possibly) bonkers idea is a good one.

A system where the licence was only valid for a set period, was looked at and then forgot about.

Re-applying for the licence involved a re-test. Similar to the Irish system mentioned earlier.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Still no reason for a blanket approach to retesting.

Why have a blanket approach to initial testing? Retesting of all drivers is not the illogical position, the lack thereof is.

 

[Dirk]

Why have a blanket approach to initial testing? Retesting of all drivers is not the illogical position, the lack thereof is.

When did logic ever have anything to do with government transport policy?

 

[srw]

Why have a blanket approach to initial testing? Retesting of all drivers is not the illogical position, the lack thereof is.

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....)

 

[srw]

Cue anecdata....

revalidation for doctors and nurses for example

Bingo!

5 minutes - really! You're slipping.

 

[srw]

Revalidation isn't anecdata. The fact that you are resorting to describing it as such says a lot...

Cherry picking one example familiar to you, especially one subject to massive political interference, is definitely anecdata.