|
And any drivers with hopelessly out of of date habits, like using gears to slow down rather than brakes and block changing should be failed! ;) (Very much TIC)
|
If there is concern about certain sections of the population falling below expected standards in certain areas of driving competence, wouldn't it make more sense to target those specifically rather than having a totally impractical blanket retest?
Why not incorporate an aggression test for candidates under 25?
An eyesight test (simple certificate from an optician) for the over 60's? An AA "successfully kicked the habit" cert for drink drivers?
|
An AA "successfully kicked the habit" cert for drink drivers?
IMHO [i]repeat[/i] offenders should be imprisoned for life.
|
IMHO [i]repeat[/i] offenders should be imprisoned for life.
HTML for Beginners? ;-)
|
|
indeed
|
|
Can I ask a really anal question? The photo on my photocard looks nothing like me anymore, plus it's years old. Can I get it changed?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
how many people use "3 point" turns like on the driving test or reverse round a corner like they did on the driving test . i am not saying people dont use these manouveres just that the way you do them isn't quite to driving test standard as once you have passed the test do you care if you nudge the kerb when "3 point " turning ...cheers...keo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
While we're busy stereotyping what about an indication test for BWM drivers?
An 'in control of the vehicle' test for smokers?
A 'correct use of mirrors' test for career women (ie, they're angled for views of the road, not make-up application)?
A lane discipline test for 90% of the drivers in the UK....
|
Bazza, my post certainly wasn't stereotyping. I'm not for a moment suggesting that ALL eldery drivers are dangerous. However, there are many of them with poor eyesight, slow reactions, poor knowledge of modern road signs etc. I don't wish to cause offence (I'm sure I will be an old codger myself in fifty years time) and I acknowledge that some of these guys may have many more years worth of experience of driving than I do. However, eyesight/reaction times/ability to control a modern car are critical to the safety of all of us on the road, and times have changed significantly since these guys passed their test.
And keo, the point of regular retesting is not to make people do 3 point turns etc "by the book". They're necessary because people fall into bad habits after passing their test e.g. not using mirrors correctly, not indicating, and driving too fast in built-up areas. A retest every 5 years or so would focus people's minds on their responsibilities when driving.
|
However, eyesight/reaction times/ability to control a modern car are critical to the safety of all of us on the road
>>
Really? I'd have thought that driving within the limits of yourself, the car and the road conditions were more important. If leaving an extra 1 second gap gets around even the dullest of reaction times then surely that's as safe as anything?
|
Fair point - now go ahead and enforce an extra 1 second gap between everyone. That would be even less workable than regular retests! What about all the other problems - not using mirrors, not signalling, driving too fast in urban areas etc?? Will an extra 1 second gap help in all of those cases??
Regular re-testing is the only way to go. I'm sorry if I sound obsessed with this issue, but I get very frustrated with the small minority on the roads who neglect their responsibilities behind the wheel (knowingly or otherwise). Re-assessment should hold no fears for any competent driver who pays a sufficient level of attention to his/her driving.
|
|
|
|
<< However,eyesight/reaction times/ability to control a modern car are critical to the safety of all of us on the road, and times have changed significantly since these guys passed their test.
In point of fact modern cars are far easier, far safer, and far more forgiving to drive than the 1950s cars that I started out in. Anyone who hasn't driven a 1950s car on crossply tyres in the wet doesn't know they're born. Times have indeed changed, but only for the better. I'm a much safer driver in my modern car than I was in my 1950s car even though I am now 50 years older.
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
L'escargot, I am not for a moment suggesting that you or any other specific person is dangerous, and I acknowledge the benefits of radial tyres, ABS, airbags etc. I did not want to put an "ageist" slant on this thread, my point was that many drivers (irrespective of age) have slipped into bad habits which can be dangerous to other road users, and that regular re-testing would help to focus their minds.
While modern cars are unquestionably far safer (for the occupants of the car) than they were 50 years ago, they are also far quieter at speed, and thus it is very easy to find yourself travelling faster than you think, especially if you are used to older, slower, noisier cars.
|
While modern cars are unquestionably far safer (for the occupants of the car) than they were 50 years ago, they are also far quieter at speed, and thus it is very easy to find yourself travelling faster than you think, especially if you are used to older, slower, noisier cars.
It?s just that I am somewhat amused at suggestions that us oldies might have problems with modern cars, modern roads, and modern traffic conditions. I?m laughing my socks off at how easy it has all become. Cars with superb dynamic characteristics, heated front screens, seat belts, airbags, wipers that wipe practically everything except your bottom, MOT tests, high friction road surfaces, signs and road markings warning of impending hazards, slow signs, stop signs (at crossroads), traffic lights at junctions, speed limits (plus all manner of devices to check whether one is obeying them), single carriageway roads straightened out, dual carriageways straight to start off with, fog warning signs, steep hill signs that even tell you how steep, white lines, double white lines, cat?s eyes in practically every colour of the rainbow, yellow lines, double yellow lines etc. etc. etc. etc????..These days you?re barely allowed to have an accident!
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
I think your labelling of yourself as an 'oldie' has made you paranoid about what others think L'Escargot. If you're still able, then where is the problem. Mind you, I'd see an argument for the proposed test to not be a full driving test. maybe even a purely medical / eyesight one.
It is surely undeniable that some people, as they get older, become medically less able to safely drive a car. This suggested system is surely just designed to catch these people (who may not even be aware themselves how much their driving is suffering).
My own grandad continued to drive until, making a U-turn in a ridiculous place, he got T-boned by an oncoming car. Luckily no-one was hurt, but he basically should not have been driving at that point, but no-one could tell him that.
|
|
|
It?s just that I am somewhat amused at suggestions that us oldies might have problems with modern cars, modern roads, and modern traffic conditions.
But don't you get confused at junctions by not having indicators which pop out on stalks? And existentially traumatised before setting off when you can't find where to insert the starting handle? ;-)
::runs-away-fast::
|
|
|
|
|
I think they would be a brilliant idea. It would mean a lot less traffic on the roads and more people using public transport. Mmmmm.... I wonder if 'Two Jags' reads these forums?
|
Those who think regular retests would be a good idea would think again if they became a reality. Apart from the logistics, an extra six million tests a year if the time was set at five years, plus retests for those who fail.
So how many attempts should you be allowed? Two has been suggested. You really would like to be given two attempts to pass a test or lose your licence? I have seen people being physically sick in test centre waiting rooms, then go out and drive so far below what they were capable of because the stress of the occassion had shot their nerves to pieces and the examiner had to terminate the test. And this is with L drivers, who have nothing to lose because they are only going to have to take it again. Imagine if your job and your whole lifestyle were at stake, be a doddle, wouldn't it.
And what standard would this retest be set at? L test standard? I don't think so, an examiner would expect a far higher standard from an experienced driver. Remember, the L test is only to show that you are capable of continuing to learn without a supervisor, nothing more.
And the guy in the BMW who sits two feet from your bumper at 90 then swerves across three lanes without indicating would sail through it, because he is an arrogant prat who can bullstuff his way through any test when he has to, and then goes back to his own selfish ways for another five years. It would be the concientious ones who get hit, not the bad guys. Add to that the people who would ignore their fail and drive illegaly, not bothering to insure either because if you are going to be an outlaw you might as well go all the way.
If you think it would be easy and only the incompetant would fail, then phone a local driving school and tell them you would like to book a mock test at a very strict DSA standard and see how you do. You might get a shock.
If you want to improve the standard of driving then you have to increase the number of traffic police and target the cowboys, not burden everybody else with a scheme which would cost billions overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
