Compulsory Retesting

[jont]

Drivers who are most at risk, the inexperienced, are those who have recently passed their test.

I also think we are long past the time when we can realistically claim that driving is an expression of freedom that is a fundamental right anymore than the gun lobby in the US can claim the same of gun ownership.

With respect to your former comment, the other risk area is people who are already driving outside of the law (unlicensed, drunk, speeding etc). Again, it's unclear how more restriction is supposed to make any difference to those.

For the latter, our country (at least outside of London) is essentially reliant on roads transport and infrastructure that while it might not be a right to drive, I suspect much of the economy would collapse if a significant minority of people had their entitlement to drive taken away.

[f3racer]

jont and ancient: Why jump into the conversation at this stage just to have a go at me? I'm not contradicting anyone, least of all myself, but merely trying to have an intelligent discussion on this topic. If you don't wish to join in constructively, perhaps finding an alternative place to attack people would be a good idea.

Drivers who are most at risk, the inexperienced, are those who have recently passed their test.

I also think we are long past the time when we can realistically claim that driving is an expression of freedom that is a fundamental right anymore than the gun lobby in the US can claim the same of gun ownership.

That's a very good point regarding young drivers. I think the problem creeps in after a few years along with complacancy. The knowledge alone of a retest in a few years time might even help keep people mindful of what they were taught prior to their test. For the rest, a failure, or pass with advisory notes might kick them back into shape.

Driving certainly isn't and shouldn't be a right, and on that basis, doesn't it make sense for us to have to periodly prove that we still meet the required standard? As for the cost, I don't think the cost of a test every few years amounts to much compared to what we spend on cars, fuel, tax and insurance!

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

jont and ancient: Why jump into the conversation at this stage just to have a go at me? ... If you don't wish to join in constructively, perhaps finding an alternative place to attack people would be a good idea.

Point 1 - jont's first post was the second in the thread, just after your original one.
Point 2 - forums are about debate. Discussion is one thing, but you can't always expect everyone to agree. Then you get debate.

Keep your end of the discussion up, I'm sure there are valid points on all sides.

[f3racer]

jont and ancient: Why jump into the conversation at this stage just to have a go at me? ... If you don't wish to join in constructively, perhaps finding an alternative place to attack people would be a good idea.

Point 1 - jont's first post was the second in the thread, just after your original one.
Point 2 - forums are about debate. Discussion is one thing, but you can't always expect everyone to agree. Then you get debate.

Keep your end of the discussion up, I'm sure there are valid points on all sides.

Ok, fair point in part. I expect different points of view, but not accompanied with a derogatory tone.

[michael769]

Because effective monitoring is a useful took in law enforcement.

I don't agree.

Rules are in place to protect the innocent from the stupid for our own benefit.
{/quote]

What rules?

If cameras all over the place help the police to identify criminals whilst acting as a deterrent,

Do they though?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc ... 090979.pdf

Very little evaluative research into the effectiveness of CCTV has been conducted
since the year 2000.

There is minimal evidence to suggest that CCTV effectively deters crime, and in cases
where crime does appear to be deterred, this effect is generally short-lived.

Thing is that criminals put some effort into avoiding surveillance (which is made easier by their willingness to break the laws set up to make surveillance effective) so in practice it is those who supposedly have nothing to hide that get monitored more effectively than those who do have something to hide.

So I ask again why does the state want to monitor us if we have nothing to hide?

[f3racer]

So I ask again why does the state want to monitor us if we have nothing to hide?

To catch those that do.

Let's be honest, the reason people are against compulsory retesting is nothing to do with politics or their belief that it won't improve the quality of driving. It's simply because they're worried they might fail the test.

Members of Rospa and the IAM are as worried as anyone about that, because although they have been appraised by their own organisation as "advanced", it could be many decades since they learnt to drive the DSA way.

[MGF]

...Point 1 - jont's first post was the second in the thread, just after your original one.
Point 2 - forums are about debate. Discussion is one thing, but you can't always expect everyone to agree. Then you get debate.

Keep your end of the discussion up, I'm sure there are valid points on all sides.

Evidently not from you.

...Because effective monitoring is a useful took in law enforcement.

I don't agree...So I ask again why does the state want to monitor us if we have nothing to hide?

It appears to me that it is manifestly the case that monitoring is a useful tool in law enforcement. Evidence gained from monitoring is routinely used to secure convictions.

The purpose of monitoring is twofold. First, it provides a bank of information that might be used as part of an investigation into completed or ongoing crime. We often don't know who we should be monitoring until after the fact. We are all potential suspects. Just as we are when we approach a speed camera because all drivers' speed is monitored.

Second, when people know they are being monitored they are generally deterred from breaking the law at least until they can evade being monitored.

The problem of using monitoring as a deterrent is that people have to be monitored continuously or believe that there is a serious risk of the same for there to be a change in behaviour.

Asking for more Police Officer to patrol the roads to detect bad driving is just another way of asking for more of our driving to be monitored. (Police Officers are, ultimately, agents of force of the State).

I don't think f3's reliance on monitoring is necessarily unacceptable but I do think we need to get the right kind of monitoring.

I'm not convinced retesting would be likely to deliver significant improvement in driving behaviour bearing in mind the increase in resources need to retest the entire driving population. Those resources would be better used targeting high risk groups of drivers.

[michael769]

So I ask again why does the state want to monitor us if we have nothing to hide?

To catch those that do.

How does the monitoring do that then? (Clue: have a read of the report I posted. TL;DR There is no evidence that surveillance prevents crime).

[f3racer]

I'm very surprised that so called advanced drivers are so against the idea of having to prove they're safe and capable. It would seem to be a mere formality for good drivers, whilst providing a means of flushing out some of the dregs.

I like a good debate but I'm not interested in being the small voice in the corner being put in his place by the more established and accepted experts.

I'll leave you all to it.

[michael769]

I'm very surprised that so called advanced drivers are so against the idea of having to prove they're safe and capable.

I do this voluntarily every 3 years.

It would seem to be a mere formality for good drivers, whilst providing a means of flushing out some of the dregs.

But the dregs would simply refuse to participate. There is already a significant and growing underclass of unlicensed and uninsured drivers out there (and ANPR and vehicle seizure is proving to be somewhat ineffective), and enforced testing would just provide such people with a further incentive to drive without a license or insurance.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I'm personally not against the idea at all, as michael769 said, I do it every 3 years (albeit not to a strict DSA set of criteria). I do, however, agree with those who think it's unlikely to happen given the costs and political unpopularity of such a move. Motorists are already up in arms about being victimised - imagine if they were then told "oh and by the way we're going to retest you every x years, and it'll cost you £100 a time"...

[MGF]

So I ask again why does the state want to monitor us if we have nothing to hide?

To catch those that do.

How does the monitoring do that then? (Clue: have a read of the report I posted. TL;DR There is no evidence that surveillance prevents crime).

Michael, you appear to be confusing the detection of crime ("to catch those that do") with deterrence (prevents crime).

...It would seem to be a mere formality for good drivers, whilst providing a means of flushing out some of the dregs.

But the dregs would simply refuse to participate.

I don't agree that it is as simple as that. Some would continue to drive even if they failed a retest as some do so when they are disqualified but there are plenty of people who would not.

The purpose of retesting doesn't appear to be to identify the criminal element - who Jont has already pointed out would not be affected - but the rest of us, some of whom, are not driving sufficiently well to re-pass the DSA test.

[michael769]

Michael, you appear to be confusing the detection of crime ("to catch those that do") with deterrence (prevents crime).

I am not. The evidence that surveillance catches criminals is as lacking as it is for deterrence. The experience of my local force is that there is no difference in clear up rates or overall crime rates between comparable areas with and areas without surveillance.

The police openly admit that CCTV makes life easier for them (refer to the report I liked to earlier), but if that is not equating to lower crime or better clear up rates, then it is not their detection and prevention of crime activities that are being made easier.

[michael769]

Back to the subject of retesting. Forcing people to undergo a DSA test is not going to change their attitude to driving. Nor will it cause a person who has already shown an unwillingness to maintain the standards they demonstrated on their first test, will do any better after they manage to pass a re-test.

What is needed is a drastic change in people's attitude to driving and being in control of a 1.5t+ ptentially lethal machine. Forcing them to relive a traumatic (which it is for many) test will not do that - resentment is not conducive to learning and attitude change.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I am not. The evidence that surveillance catches criminals is as lacking as it is for deterrence. The experience of my local force is that there is no difference in clear up rates or overall crime rates between comparable areas with and areas without surveillance.

The police openly admit that CCTV makes life easier for them....

Does the previous paragraph refer to CCTV as well? I think some surveillance methods probably do catch criminals - ANPR, for instance - both by the Police and by VOSA.