Petition to retest at 70 years of age.

Forum for general chat, news, blogs, humour, jokes etc.

Postby waremark » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:34 am


MGF wrote:
jwatkins wrote:Given that nobody has been able to provide a serious argument against re-testing, does it matter? If it saves one accident, it's worth doing, and if it improves the general standard of driving on our roads, then all the better. The cost will be met by the driver, and compared to the expense of running a car, fuel, insurance, etc. paying for a test every 10 years is pretty negligible.


For such a large scale investment of resources I would expect a better return than the saving of one life. If we took the test fee off all drivers every ten years or so we may achieve greater returns in safety by investing it in policing the roads.

Or public service broadcasting of more road safety material. Or making all drivers attend some form of retraining, perhaps along the lines of the current speed awareness courses, every few years. Or other initiatives more targeted at high risk groups. To offer another subjective view, I would expect all of those to deliver a better return than regular retests.

By the way, the idea that opponents of retests are motivated by fear of failure is palpably ludicrous. You are talking to a group most of whom put themselves forward for voluntary tests of their driving, be it observer tests, Rospa retests, IAM Masters or whatever.
waremark
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:18 pm

Postby jwatkins » Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:43 pm


waremark wrote:By the way, the idea that opponents of retests are motivated by fear of failure is palpably ludicrous. You are talking to a group most of whom put themselves forward for voluntary tests of their driving, be it observer tests, Rospa retests, IAM Masters or whatever.


And none of these tests have the consequence of loss of license if failed. That's the difference!
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby hir » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:28 pm


jwatkins wrote:
waremark wrote:By the way, the idea that opponents of retests are motivated by fear of failure is palpably ludicrous. You are talking to a group most of whom put themselves forward for voluntary tests of their driving, be it observer tests, Rospa retests, IAM Masters or whatever.


And none of these tests have the consequence of loss of license if failed. That's the difference!


Exactly. And therein lies the built-in weakness in the "re-testers" argument. The inability to judge how many licensed drivers would lose their licence. Are you, as an advocate of re-testing able to answer the following?

1. What are the specific criteria that the test would identify that would necessitate the withdrawal of a licence?
2. How would you structure the test to identify those criteria?
3. Would the re-test have graduated sanctions in the event of failure with regard to withdrawal of a licence. For example, an immediate ban on driving the vehicle away from the test centre; a requirement to further re-test and pass within (say) three months; a restriction on driving during the hours of darkness, etc?
4. What proportion of licensed drivers would you anticipate having their licence withdrawn? [Note: I made a wild guess at this question and was told by MGF that neither he nor yourself believed a word of it. Neither did I as it happens. So, what number of re-test failures do you envisage, please?]
5. What mechanisms would society need to put in place to deal with hardship caused by the withdrawal of a significant number of licences from the general public? Would plans need to be put in place to improve public transport before re-testing commenced? How would withdrawal of a significant number of driving licences affect rural communities?
6. If it is envisaged that the number of failures on re-test, and therefore the number of withdrawn licences, is likely to be small, would the re-testing of 30 million licence holders be a proportionate response to the perceived problem?
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby jwatkins » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:42 pm


hir wrote:
jwatkins wrote:
waremark wrote:By the way, the idea that opponents of retests are motivated by fear of failure is palpably ludicrous. You are talking to a group most of whom put themselves forward for voluntary tests of their driving, be it observer tests, Rospa retests, IAM Masters or whatever.


And none of these tests have the consequence of loss of license if failed. That's the difference!


Exactly. And therein lies the built-in weakness in the "re-testers" argument. The inability to judge how many licensed drivers would lose their licence. Are you, as an advocate of re-testing able to answer the following?

1. What are the specific criteria that the test would identify that would necessitate the withdrawal of a licence?
2. How would you structure the test to identify those criteria?
3. Would the re-test have graduated sanctions in the event of failure with regard to withdrawal of a licence. For example, an immediate ban on driving the vehicle away from the test centre; a requirement to further re-test and pass within (say) three months; a restriction on driving during the hours of darkness, etc?
4. What proportion of licensed drivers would you anticipate having their licence withdrawn? [Note: I made a wild guess at this question and was told by MGF that neither he nor yourself believed a word of it. Neither did I as it happens. So, what number of re-test failures do you envisage, please?]
5. What mechanisms would society need to put in place to deal with hardship caused by the withdrawal of a significant number of licences from the general public? Would plans need to be put in place to improve public transport before re-testing commenced? How would withdrawal of a significant number of driving licences affect rural communities?
6. If it is envisaged that the number of failures on re-test, and therefore the number of withdrawn licences, is likely to be small, would the re-testing of 30 million licence holders be a proportionate response to the perceived problem?


You're talking shit and you know you are. If an "L" test is a valid means of assessing someone's competence to drive, it's an equally valid means of testing whether they're still competent 5 or 10 years later.
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby waremark » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:52 am


jwatkins wrote:[
You're talking shit and you know you are. If an "L" test is a valid means of assessing someone's competence to drive, it's an equally valid means of testing whether they're still competent 5 or 10 years later.

You may think so, others may not agree. I don't.

Why not answer some of HIR's questions?

As to the consequences of a poor result in a Rospa retest, perhaps you underrate the level of humiliation some of us would feel if we achieved a poor result!
waremark
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:18 pm

Postby jwatkins » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:37 am


waremark wrote:Why not answer some of HIR's questions?


Because they're loaded questions from someone who has already made his mind up and think's he's always right.

Anyway. Not sure why I was tempted back to this really. Once again I'll leave you all to it.
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby hir » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:42 pm


jwatkins wrote:
waremark wrote:Why not answer some of HIR's questions?


Because they're loaded questions from someone who has already made his mind up and think's he's always right.


These are not valid reasons for avoiding answering the questions. Of course I think I'm right, as indeed you have no doubt that you are right. But, That doesn't hinder me in putting forward my point of view and posing questions of you that I believe would have to be addressed if compulsory re-testing were introduced. Please, at least make an attempt to answer the question regardless of how stupid you happen to think they might be.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby MGF » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:29 pm


jwatkins wrote:You're talking shit and you know you are....


Of course. He is quite happy to make unsubstantiated assertions himself but wastes his time composing long lists of questions to which - he appears to suggest - you should have considered the answer to before making your assertions.

waremark wrote:You may think so, others may not agree. I don't.

Why not answer some of HIR's questions?


Perhaps hir could start the ball rolling by answering mine?

Ay least you had the good sense not to agree with his assertion that retesting the over 70s would be ineffective at identifying incompetent drivers. He appears to prefer to leave the assertion unsubstantiated. Why should others be subject to an interrogation?
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Postby hir » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:47 pm


MGF wrote:
waremark wrote:You may think so, others may not agree. I don't.

Why not answer some of HIR's questions?


Perhaps hir could start the ball rolling by answering mine?



Rather than dismissing your questions as a waste of time I shall be happy to address any questions that you raise and shall treat them with the respect that they deserve rather than swearing at you as another contributor is wont to do or, what is worse, just ignoring them. To save me the time of ploughing back through 4 pages of convoluted arguments would you be so kind as to list the specific questions that you feel that you would like addressed and I shall endeavour to respond to them.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby hir » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:59 am


MGF wrote:
jwatkins wrote:You're talking shit and you know you are....


... composing long lists of questions to which - he [hir] appears to suggest - you should have considered the answer to before making your assertions.



And what is wrong with that suggestion? I'm sure that, to use the vernacular... both you and jwatkins will always most carefully "engage your brain before opening your mouth", or hitting the keyboard, and that your arguments are always meticulously well thought through before you express them. So, what is wrong with making a request for an articulation of that thought process regarding re-testing that undoubtedly must exist in the mind of jwatkins. The only reason I ask is because the reasoning behind the assertion is not obvious to me. The only thought we've so far had from jwatkins on the subject is that the only reason everyone is against re-testing is fear of failure. Even you must realise that that assertion is not an adequate intellectual argument in favour of automatic re-testing. :(

Why is jwatkins unable to respond personally? Why is MGF having to respond alone to any critique of jwatkins arguments? Why will neither of you answer my direct questions? Why? Why? Why? :lol: :lol: :lol:
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby Nocturne » Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:57 pm


Hi everyone,

I came across this site randomly. What a heated debate!

I also cannot agree with the sentiments expressed in the petition. It's discriminatory hence against the law. It's also a blunt instrument and unfair. The main issue isn't the driver's age but their competency and driving skills.
I'm a long term supporter/advocate of making the driving test not a once-in-a-lifetime test but regular and progressively more advanced and difficult. Similar to education: gaining higher qualifications to improve job prospects. An incentive scheme should reward the good driving behaviour of regular drivers who are without own fault accidents and incidents. Passing more advanced driving tests as a testimony to increased competency should be rewarded by a substantial reduction in insurance premiums.

Our current drivers licensing is outdated and unfit:
- One can pass a driving test but not drive often (or at all) for years and yet retain his license to drive on public roads. Currently, he only needs to be passing a rudimentary eye test every 10 years to be still legal 50 years after he passed his test. That's outrageous!
In contrast, one looses his earned NCD entitlement after 1-2 years (depending on insurer) of having no insurance to prove regular driving, no matter how illustrious and impeccable one's driving record. Admittedly they're flexible.

We know that our driving skills, the perception of danger, judging time, space and distance needed, ability to read the road condition, our reflexes and reaction, decision-making speed and quality... all deteriorate drastically if we don't drive regularly.
Regular driving on public roads should be made a condition of holding driver's license.

====

Technology shows the way:
- The driver-less car is here. Soon (in our lifetime) cars drive themselves. We won't need to have driver's license to have transport. Sitting a driving test may become optional; before that
- Monitoring driver's behaviour (Dash-cam and telemetric systems: they collect driver behaviour data and regularly send out) will be norm and/or obligatory;
Nocturne
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:44 am

Previous

Return to General Car Chat Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests


cron