![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
MGF, I think we're boring everyone!
a) The minimum standard obviously has to remain the same, at each re-test, otherwise it's not a minimum standard. But you can still recognise a higher level of achievement. Some insurers already give discounts for further driving qualifications. If everyone was being assessed, the evidence would soon mount up. It's not true that you can't get a better idea of the risk a driver poses by testing. Otherwise why have a test at all?
b) Testing is educational. It gives objective feedback and advice on how to improve. Most people don't get this at present.
c) Compulsory training could be a viable alternative, but it's not automatically more economical. I'd rather have set standards (i.e. testing) and let people decide how much training they need to get to the level they aspire to, or that is required of them.
d) Do you have a better solution?
a) The minimum standard obviously has to remain the same, at each re-test, otherwise it's not a minimum standard. But you can still recognise a higher level of achievement. Some insurers already give discounts for further driving qualifications. If everyone was being assessed, the evidence would soon mount up. It's not true that you can't get a better idea of the risk a driver poses by testing. Otherwise why have a test at all?
b) Testing is educational. It gives objective feedback and advice on how to improve. Most people don't get this at present.
c) Compulsory training could be a viable alternative, but it's not automatically more economical. I'd rather have set standards (i.e. testing) and let people decide how much training they need to get to the level they aspire to, or that is required of them.
d) Do you have a better solution?