ADUK Archive

zadocbrown wrote:Out of interest, does anyone remember what the public reaction was when the driving test was first brought in? I'm nowhere near old enough!

No, but Chris Kay might be.

I hadn't arrived in 1935. I'm not sure if I have even now.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Oh, there are lots of drivers on the road who never had to take their test... until they're caught and given a ban for a license they didn't have in the first place. That program "Traffic Cops" is full of 'em.

Sorry Chris, I know what you meant. Back to my padded cell

I think there ought to be retesting of some sort. It would be political suicide though. Perhaps they could start off be making anybody convicted of DD or DWDC or more than 9 points in two years take a retest every two/three years for a fixed period. Gradually include other categories at a later date. People over seventy five, people under 25, and then the rest to be tested at X yearly intervals.

If the insurance industry as a whole would insist the worst offenders had to take some further training, then the government would have an easier time implementing such schemes.

IMVHO

Gromit37 wrote:Oh, there are lots of drivers on the road who never had to take their test... until they're caught and given a ban for a license they didn't have in the first place. That program "Traffic Cops" is full of 'em.

Sorry Chris, I know what you meant. Back to my padded cell

I think there ought to be retesting of some sort. It would be political suicide though. Perhaps they could start off be making anybody convicted of DD or DWDC or more than 9 points in two years take a retest every two/three years for a fixed period. Gradually include other categories at a later date. People over seventy five, people under 25, and then the rest to be tested at X yearly intervals.

If the insurance industry as a whole would insist the worst offenders had to take some further training, then the government would have an easier time implementing such schemes.

IMVHO

Why not require people who get banned under totting-up or who have been fault at fault in a KSI collision, are requried to undertake a re-test?

Or, perhaps if they have a DWDCA or Careless Driving conviction?

ipsg.glf wrote:Why not require people who get banned under totting-up or who have been fault at fault in a KSI collision, are requried to undertake a re-test?

Or, perhaps if they have a DWDCA or Careless Driving conviction?

Stable door?

zadocbrown wrote:

ipsg.glf wrote:Why not require people who get banned under totting-up or who have been fault at fault in a KSI collision, are requried to undertake a re-test?

Or, perhaps if they have a DWDCA or Careless Driving conviction?

Stable door?

DWDCA, Careless Drviving, Dangerous Driving, totting-up - All these things can occur without anyone being injured.

Without a huge increase in TrafPol to target unsafe driving behaviour, how else can driving standards be improved?

ipsg.glf wrote,

"Why not require people who get banned under totting-up or who have been fault at fault in a KSI collision, are requried to undertake a re-test?

Or, perhaps if they have a DWDCA or Careless Driving conviction?"

New drivers who tot up six points within two years of passing their practical driving test have to re-take both theory and practicle tests again. Upon passing the practical test, the two year probation period starts again. Those who commit more serious offences can be ordered to take an extended test, which IIRC lasts for 1.5 hours.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer