Proposal for driver testing

[zadocbrown]

Here are some ideas for a potential re-testing scheme. It's not a fully worked out scheme, of course, but I think it could create a framework to support the improvements in training we want to see.

It's based around the idea of re-testing every 3 or 10 years, with DSA offering basic and 'advanced' tests, complimented by alternative qualifications from IAM/Rospa etc. Providing for grading of drivers into 3 levels.

Drivers to be licensed as level 1, 2 or 3.

level 1
L test standard. Gained by passing L test, or getting level 1 for check test. Has to be renewed within 3 years. Only allowed to drive low or medium powered vehicles.

level 2
A competent all round performance. Similar to present adi part 2 standard. Gained at check test. To be renewed within 10 years.

level 3
A very high standard of drive. Similar to cardington or DIAmond special. Renewed within 10 years.

IAM/Rospa and similar tests would be accredited as level 2 or 3; providing an alternative pathway for those who prefer a roadcraft based qualification, and who want to make use of the voluntary observed runs.

DSA would offer 2 types of test. The basic L test would be similar to what we have now, perhaps with some improvements, and would still be pass (level 1) or fail.

The DSA 'advanced' test would be longer and more demanding and would give access to the higher grades, as well as level 1 or fail.

For check tests people could choose between simply retaking the L test; or taking the longer test.

After failing a check test, a driver would have 6 months to pass, before reverting to provisional entitlement.

Benefits

1. Doesn't make it more difficult or expensive to get started i.e. pass L test

2. People are not forced to do anything other than maintain the minimum required standard to pass the L-test (can anyone really object to that?)

3. There is a clear incentive to get beyond the basic level (less frequent re-tests, access to wider choice of vehicle)

4. The stage is set to enable insurance companies to determine whether more qualified drivers are a better risk; which could lead to further financial incentives.

5. There is a clear incentive for people to get training if appropriate i.e. to keep their license or grade.

6. People can choose between a test that covers the basics to a high standard (DSA), or one which treats driving as an art (advanced organisations)

7. There is a clear structure around which we could base improvements to or additions to driver training. eg, if we made training compulsory there would be something specific to work towards, and a measurable gain from having achieved it.

[vonhosen]

Here are some ideas for a potential re-testing scheme. It's not a fully worked out scheme, of course, but I think it could create a framework to support the improvements in training we want to see.

It's based around the idea of re-testing every 3 or 10 years, with DSA offering basic and 'advanced' tests, complimented by alternative qualifications from IAM/Rospa etc. Providing for grading of drivers into 3 levels.

Drivers to be licensed as level 1, 2 or 3.

level 1
L test standard. Gained by passing L test, or getting level 1 for check test. Has to be renewed within 3 years. Only allowed to drive low or medium powered vehicles.

level 2
A competent all round performance. Similar to present adi part 2 standard. Gained at check test. To be renewed within 10 years.

level 3
A very high standard of drive. Similar to cardington or DIAmond special. Renewed within 10 years.

IAM/Rospa and similar tests would be accredited as level 2 or 3; providing an alternative pathway for those who prefer a roadcraft based qualification, and who want to make use of the voluntary observed runs.

DSA would offer 2 types of test. The basic L test would be similar to what we have now, perhaps with some improvements, and would still be pass (level 1) or fail.

The DSA 'advanced' test would be longer and more demanding and would give access to the higher grades, as well as level 1 or fail.

For check tests people could choose between simply retaking the L test; or taking the longer test.

After failing a check test, a driver would have 6 months to pass, before reverting to provisional entitlement.

Benefits

1. Doesn't make it more difficult or expensive to get started i.e. pass L test

2. People are not forced to do anything other than maintain the minimum required standard to pass the L-test (can anyone really object to that?)

3. There is a clear incentive to get beyond the basic level (less frequent re-tests, access to wider choice of vehicle)

4. The stage is set to enable insurance companies to determine whether more qualified drivers are a better risk; which could lead to further financial incentives.

5. There is a clear incentive for people to get training if appropriate i.e. to keep their license or grade.

6. People can choose between a test that covers the basics to a high standard (DSA), or one which treats driving as an art (advanced organisations)

7. There is a clear structure around which we could base improvements to or additions to driver training. eg, if we made training compulsory there would be something specific to work towards, and a measurable gain from having achieved it.

What about people who pass a test in an EU country & are allowed to drive any vehicle that licence covers in the UK until they are 70 ?

[Jack Russell]

Far too complex!

A gentle campain of encouraging drivers to have a better attitude and to pride themselves in a 'good drive' would have a better effect.

Encouragement in a positive manner would win more support than the thought of endless tests for life.

Do bear in mind that I'm refering to the average driver and not rare driving nuts like us, who'd probably not mind a 3-10 year re-test.

[waremark]

Far too complex!

A gentle campain of encouraging drivers to have a better attitude and to pride themselves in a 'good drive' would have a better effect.

Encouragement in a positive manner would win more support than the thought of endless tests for life.

Do bear in mind that I'm refering to the average driver and not rare driving nuts like us, who'd probably not mind a 3-10 year re-test.

Don't believe this is a realistic thing to hope for.

I like Mr ZB's proposal, but don't see any chance of that happening either.

[ROG]

Far too complex!

A gentle campain of encouraging drivers to have a better attitude and to pride themselves in a 'good drive' would have a better effect.

Encouragement in a positive manner would win more support than the thought of endless tests for life.

Do bear in mind that I'm refering to the average driver and not rare driving nuts like us, who'd probably not mind a 3-10 year re-test.

Don't believe this is a realistic thing to hope for.

I like Mr ZB's proposal, but don't see any chance of that happening either.

I produced something very similar a while ago and got asked this question - Will there be enough assessors/examiners to do it?

By the way, on the Trucknetuk forums we use [ZB] instead of swear words

[daz6215]

level 3
[/u]A very high standard of drive. Similar to cardington or DIAmond special. Renewed within 10 years.

.

But Cardington is just a glorified L test!

[TripleS]

I appreciate the thought that Mr ZB has put into this, but I agree with JR.

Some may feel that what JR suggests sounds too close to doing nothing, but I think quite worthwhile benefits could emerge if it were to be pursued through a comprehensive and positive campaign by government. They at least should have the resources to do a meanigful job of that, but the form and detailed content of the campaign would need to be established by outside specialists, i.e. people with some enthusiasm and sensible expertise in the subject. Once again, far from me seemingly forever to be knocking the IAM, I think this is an opportunity for them to get to grips with the problem and achieve something really good.

However this is done it will not be easy. Getting people to take a real interest in driving would be a major task, but IMHO that is the way to try to do it, but it would need some very attractive packaging and selling points.

I much prefer this approach to a regime of formality and compulsion, partly because formal training and repeated testing for all drivers just doesn't look to be a practical proposition. We need a change in the general climate surrounding our road usage - by all road user groups - and I tend to feel that we should seek to persuade people that driving can be more than just a useful practical skill; it could be a new form of enjoyment for them too.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ROG]

I found that when I get trainees coming to do their LGV training they 'THINK' about their driving again.

Perhaps we need something that just makes drivers think again about their driving and not just at a proposed retest/assessment time.

What that something should be........ - any thoughts folks

[TripleS]

I found that when I get trainees coming to do their LGV training they 'THINK' about their driving again.

Perhaps we need something that just makes drivers think again about their driving and not just at a proposed retest/assessment time.

What that something should be........ - any thoughts folks

Only what I've said before.

As I get out and about more, meeting plenty of new people in the course of my volunteer driving job, I'm finding most people are fed up of the ever increasing intrusion of petty laws and rules into our lives, and they want much less of that, so it's not just me!! What they seem to want is more freedom to run their lives in their own way, but with a sense of responsibility and awareness of/concern for the interests of others. Given a bit of a lead and some encouragement I reckon most people will be found to behave fairly decently in that respect.

Admittedly, living (as I do) in a rural area there is more community spirit and general concern for others, moreso than might prevail in other parts, but the feeling is probably still there in most people, and IMHO we should be seeking to enhance that spirit and build on it more widely.

Handled properly I don't see why an improved driving and road safety environment shouldn't be part of this.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[zadocbrown]

What about people who pass a test in an EU country & are allowed to drive any vehicle that licence covers in the UK until they are 70 ?

Leave them alone? We already offer various concessions to drivers from certain countries, for economic reasons I imagine. Mind you, maybe we should be lobbying the other EU countries to follow suit. In which case the anomaly disappears.

Don't believe this is a realistic thing to hope for.

I like Mr ZB's proposal, but don't see any chance of that happening either.

I'm not holding my breath, of course! However, If we think something should be changed (I do) we have to believe it's worth fighting for. Just because change won't be welcomed immediately doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing, or that we can't succeed eventually, or that when we do succeed it won't be viewed in retrospect as a good thing.

We're talking about deliberate social change and it doesn't happen easily. But there are plenty of cases in history where a minority of people campaigning (against popular opinion) for change have eventually had their way, and subsequently been thanked for it. Eg end of slave trade, votes for women and so on. It can be done.

[ScoobyChris]

I like some of the ideas put forward, but my only real concern would be how low or medium powered vehicles are defined and how would this restriction be enforced? I'm guessing power/weight would have to be the restriction to stop people putting average engines (eg 130-150bhp) in kit cars weighing half a tonne!

On a similar sort of theme, the government seem to be doing a pretty good job of pricing people out of medium and powerful cars with their greener taxes!

Chris

[vonhosen]

What about people who pass a test in an EU country & are allowed to drive any vehicle that licence covers in the UK until they are 70 ?

Leave them alone? We already offer various concessions to drivers from certain countries, for economic reasons I imagine. Mind you, maybe we should be lobbying the other EU countries to follow suit. In which case the anomaly disappears.

Won't people leave this country to obtain an EU licence then return & drive on that, so that they don't ever have to do re-tests like everyone else ?

[MGF]

Wouldn't you need to be resident in another EU country to be entitled to take their driving test? This would normally mean staying for at least 6 months. That is certainly the case when EU residents come to the UK.

I believe the purpose of this is to prevent citizens of the EU shopping around for the easiest test to pass.

[jont]

I like some of the ideas put forward, but my only real concern would be how low or medium powered vehicles are defined and how would this restriction be enforced? I'm guessing power/weight would have to be the restriction to stop people putting average engines (eg 130-150bhp) in kit cars weighing half a tonne

The issue then might become what the onus is on the owner to demonstrate the power/weight as many (most?) kit cars are unlikely to be running standard engines so the power output will be unknown. Would be fun to see people finding rolling roads that give a low reading rather than a high one for a change However I'd imagine the number of people using kit cars is probably low enough not to matter significantly.

IIRC bike licenses are limited on both absolute power and power-to-weight prior to direct access.

[vonhosen]

Wouldn't you need to be resident in another EU country to be entitled to take their driving test? This would normally mean staying for at least 6 months. That is certainly the case when EU residents come to the UK.

I believe the purpose of this is to prevent citizens of the EU shopping around for the easiest test to pass.

Hmm 6 months working overseas in Ibiza when you leave school & no driving re-tests for life (when everyone else is having to do them).