EXISTING DRIVER COMPETENCY TEST

[LEEGO]

What are peoples opinions on a continuing competency test every 4 years for existing drivers?

My thoughts are:

1) This could improve driving standard in general, at the moment too many people do not drive to basic DSA standard let alone advanced.

2) This would cut down congestion and pollution due to drivers below standard having licences revoked.

3) This would increase revenue to be spent on road improvement.

4) This should reduce the number of accidents on the road, by not falling into bad habits.

anyones thoughts on this topic?

[jont]

While it's something I imagine most people on here would favour, the practicalities are doomed for several reasons:

1) The DSA can't cope at the moment with current numbers of leaners, never mind the extra millions of existing drivers.
2) There would be a massive increase in the numbers of drivers who don't have valid licences, therefore drive uninsured too
3) If vehicle use did decrease, so would revenue from fuel duty so there wouldn't be any money to spend on road improvment (think about all the fuel vehicles caught in congestion burn)
4) People are quite capable of "driving to the test" so it may not lead to an overall improvment in driving standards.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I just don't think its ever going to be a workable scheme in practice.

[Nigel]

Good idea, but I doubt it'll ever happen.

Imagine, you drive for a living, have a bad drive on this test...your out of work !

It would be too costly, too difficult to implemnet etc

[BillZZR600]

As above.

[MiniClubmanEstate]

Maybe if you could have 3 attempts at the test maximum. You may fail test number one and be given feedback, a list of instructors who could help you. The other thing is that the government would have to work with advances driving organisations, namely the IAM. The reason for this is that most advanced driving organisations use Roadcraft which is slightly different from the DSA's aproach, it would be unfair to force advanced drivers switch between systems. Members of advanced driving organisations would have to retake the test atleast once every 4 years, this isn't a problem for ROSPA.
I think that this would overall improve the standard of driving as people who can't even be bothered to move their heads to look for cyclists, rest one arm on the window sill with the other at the bottom of the wheel, don't know how bus-lanes and Greenways work, don't know what lane they are suposed to be in despite the information signs and arrows who procede in the wrong lane, claim that driving is stresfull, don't like driving and blast their horns at you when you leave a yellow box clear would be forced to read theiir highway code, see the advantages in driving correctly, cause less problems, get where they want to go quicker and enjoy their driving more. If they don't want to they can buy a bus pass, save on the running expenses, tax, insurance and garage bills for their cars and relax whilst somebody else drives them home.

By the way although I'm a failed IAM'er I took a mock ADI part 2 test and passed which I had to do that as I wasn't sure wether it was a good idea for me to continue driving after the IAM test disaster, amazing what's easily achivable when I just shut-up and drive, but remember it was only a mock so there would have been less presure on me. All I did was exactly what my dad tought me when I learned to drive as we did everything the part 2 way as at the time that's all he knew as he was practicing for his Part 2 at the time.
So bring on 4 yearly driving tests.

Now I just have to try and find out when my observer is back from his holls and I'l try an un-commentated IAM test, trust me it's safer for everyboody that way.

[rlmr]

An excellent idea, but sadly I must endorse the pessimistic posts above and "put my money" on the fact it will not happen

Rennie

[waremark]

My vote is for a compulsory day's training instead of a test - that would reduce some of the resistance to the proposal and would make it more constructive.

The training would be modelled on the sort of course currently offered by the likes of IAM fleet to company drivers looking at attitudes and the key safety related issues, and including classroom and practical sessions.

I would introduce the requirement initially for new drivers only, with the first session after two years, and thereafter every 10 years. Making it for new drivers only would make it much less of a political hot potato, and would also give the driver training establishment time to build the necessary resources. In due course it could be extended to existing drivers.

I would also introduce some sort of assessment process for older drivers - not a conventional driving test, but something more like a test of their mental ability.

[christopherwk]

Yes, similar to Bikesafe?

Yes, I agree. Also what about people who take their driving test, then decide not to drive (for whatever reason - not required for work, can't afford to buy or run a car etc..), then some years later down the line, decide to buy a car and start driving. What will their driving be like? I would imagine if you haven't driven for a long time since passing your test, it's going to be pretty poor.

What do others think, since I have a friend, who passed his test four years ago and haven't driven since.

[MiniClubmanEstate]

One view I've heard is that it's insurance premiums which stop you from driving after the test, so what yu can do is not drive for a few years and go out after that and have more accidents.
I peronaly think the test should apply to all drivers, not just new ones. I can prove to you that hardly anybody out there understands the highway code. Find a totaly empty bus-lane or greenway outside of it's operational times and see if anybody actualy drives in it or do they hog the outside lane whilst not turning right, clearly not overtaking and with no obstructions in the left-hand lane. I can think of more but I'd be here all day.
Even a simple theory test would help in a way as it would force people to read the highway code, there is no excuse to fail the DSA's theory test unless you don't drive. I'm not a fan of the hazard-perrception test though, it doesn't relate to real life driving and we've got experienced instructors and advanced drivers failing it, and I'm not biased as I passed mine with 76%, but that doesn't say anything about me as a driver.

[waremark]

In my ideal world I would want to cover existing as well as new drivers. However that would be so unpopular that it is unlikely any government would introduce it, and there would be no way of instantly building up the enormous training or testing resources which would be required.

I stick to my view that refresher training rather than retesting would be the best way forward, and as already mentioned this would include a classroom theory element.

[theyoungen]

The is a topic close to my heart! Ages ago, I suggested compulsory re-testing (or re-assessment, whatever you want to call it) to my friends at uni. They immediately came back with the usual responses about insufficient infrastructure and the impractical logistics etc. But we thrashed it out for an evening and came up with the following:

ADIs could be given the power to conduct the re-tests, effectively elliminating the logistical problems. Therefore, the re-tests would (could) be fairly cheap - the ADI's hourly rate plus the DSA's inevitable admin fee!

Obviously, it would be impossible to simply disqualify those that failed and there would have to be the opertunity to re-test as has been mentioned already. We thought maybe if one failed the initial test, they would have to take it again within 6 months.

We also decided that Advanced Drivers who were subject to re-tests to retain their membership (i.e. RoSPA members) would be exempt from the standard re-test.

Professional drivers who failed the test and would lose their jobs as a result could perhaps be compelled to undertake training and be hit by a large, compulsory insurance premium until they can pass their re-test.

A point that was discussed at great length was what form a re-test would take. We decided it would probably have to be subjective rather than fault-based, as drivers may have developed habits over time which, whilst not adversly affecting their safety, would not conform to DSA standards.

When I mentioned this at the HPC Young Drivers' Day, it was greeted by an intrigued murmour throughout the room. Some suggested that it would be subject to corruption, with unscrupulous ADIs literally handing out re-test passes. At the HPC day, I just left it at that, but I feel that even if a minority of ADIs did do that, the overall effect would still be massivly positive.

As hpcdriver said, it would be a politically unpopular move and may well never happen. In the mean time, what about if the DSA put as much effort into publicising Advanced Driving as they do PassPlus. I know loads of people who have done PassPlus and, having done it myself, I consider it to be largely pointless. I certainly didn't learn anything from it and, like everyone I know who has done it, did it solely for the insurance discounts.

I fully expect to start a riot!

[LEEGO]

The main thought behind this thread is that something has to be done about the quality of driving, to keep a consistent standard on our roads.

The results so far from the poll suggest that the majority of people agree that the standard of driving needs to be higher.

I agree that ongoing training would be a better idea but feel that the majority of drivers think that the standard driving test is the be all and end all, once they have that pink licence everything goes out the window.

Most drivers when they passed the test(years ago) did not have to:

PARALELL PARK
BAY PARK
KNOW BASIC SAFETY CHECKS

Many (Not all) never retrain, some avoid said manoeuvres completely and others try and fail miserably.
Hopefully someone will do something about it!

Lee

[rlmr]

Many (Not all) never retrain, some avoid said manoeuvres completely and others try and fail miserably.

Interesting point Lee. It is not uncommon for some of my candidates to have excellent Commentary, drive to the system, make good observations and adopt good road positioning.... and perform like a week 1 learner on their reverse round the corner manoeuvre - something which has been in the L test for many many years!

[LEEGO]

The annoying thing is not all the manoeuvres are carried out on the standard test meaning you can be perfect in the T.I.R and BAY PARK but scarily bad at PARALLEL PARK and the LEFT REVERSE and if you pass the test, well we all know what that means!

Lee

[rlmr]

well we all know what that means!

I quite agree, but what can the poor DSA Examiner* hope to cover in 30 minutes (or less) on the road. They only have a short time with the candidate and have to cover the safety checks, eyesight test and start / finish documentation. After all whilst these things are important I still think that the actual driving around the town and country is the real test.

After all the DSA test +ve result is the issue of a certificate of competence, not a gold star and front row Grid Place in a F1 Grand Prix.

Like you I would like to see more done but time and finance are great constraints.

Rennie

(* other than a good friend who is a DSA Senior Examiner I have no links to the DSA)