Petition to retest at 70 years of age.

Forum for general chat, news, blogs, humour, jokes etc.

Postby hir » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:19 pm


jwatkins wrote:Let's be honest. There's one reason, and one reason only, why people are against retesting: They're worried their driving standards have slipped, and they'll lose their license!

If someone's no longer at the required standard, then they shouldn't be driving, whether they're 70 years old or 30.

It's time we had a serious reform of the current system. A driving license should permit you to drive for a finite amount of time, not for life!


How are you defining the "required standard"? The "L" test has always been predicated upon satisfying the examiner that the candidate can safely control the vehicle and is not a danger to other road users. Having passed the "L" test a licensed driver is deemed to meet these requirements until such time as he doesn't, ie. has a crash or injures someone. At that point his suitability to hold a driving licence is reviewed by the courts.

So, the problem surrounding the devising of a re-test is what does one re-test. It would be very simple to re-test for vehicle control and lack of danger to other road users, but what would it demonstrate during that 30 minutes of testing? Nothing more than that 99.99% of all licence holders, who will of course be on their best behaviour during those 30 minutes, can pass the test. It's pointless testing 100% of a population in order to identify the unacceptable 0.01%. Or, to express it statistically, one would have to test 30,000,000 licence holders in order to identify maybe 3,000 who are unable to pass a test. It would be neither practicable nor politically acceptable.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby jwatkins » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:06 pm


hir wrote:
jwatkins wrote:Let's be honest. There's one reason, and one reason only, why people are against retesting: They're worried their driving standards have slipped, and they'll lose their license!

If someone's no longer at the required standard, then they shouldn't be driving, whether they're 70 years old or 30.

It's time we had a serious reform of the current system. A driving license should permit you to drive for a finite amount of time, not for life!


How are you defining the "required standard"? The "L" test has always been predicated upon satisfying the examiner that the candidate can safely control the vehicle and is not a danger to other road users. Having passed the "L" test a licensed driver is deemed to meet these requirements until such time as he doesn't, ie. has a crash or injures someone. At that point his suitability to hold a driving licence is reviewed by the courts.

So, the problem surrounding the devising of a re-test is what does one re-test. It would be very simple to re-test for vehicle control and lack of danger to other road users, but what would it demonstrate during that 30 minutes of testing? Nothing more than that 99.99% of all licence holders, who will of course be on their best behaviour during those 30 minutes, can pass the test. It's pointless testing 100% of a population in order to identify the unacceptable 0.01%. Or, to express it statistically, one would have to test 30,000,000 licence holders in order to identify maybe 3,000 who are unable to pass a test. It would be neither practicable nor politically acceptable.


Periodically checking that a license holder is still able to drive at "L test" standard would seem like a reasonable starting point. You're not allowed to drive unsupervised until you've passed this test in the first place, so why should you be able to continue driving if you're no longer at that level? If 99.99% of drivers would pass a retest without any problems, you don't have anything to worry about, do you? Back to my original point: most people are probably worried that they'd fail a retest, hence producing all sorts of reasons, excuses and statistics as to why such a system wouldn't work.
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby waremark » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:47 pm


jwatkins wrote:Periodically checking that a license holder is still able to drive at "L test" standard would seem like a reasonable starting point. You're not allowed to drive unsupervised until you've passed this test in the first place, so why should you be able to continue driving if you're no longer at that level? If 99.99% of drivers would pass a retest without any problems, you don't have anything to worry about, do you? Back to my original point: most people are probably worried that they'd fail a retest, hence producing all sorts of reasons, excuses and statistics as to why such a system wouldn't work.

What proportion of crashes do you think periodic retests might hope to eliminate? Do you think there are less expensive and burdensome ways of eliminating a higher proportion of crashes?

Is the current DSA test the right sort of test for discovering whether drivers are still safe? Allegedly about half of experienced drivers would fail it, but are demonstrably much safer than those who have recently passed.
waremark
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:18 pm

Postby jwatkins » Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:46 am


waremark wrote:
jwatkins wrote:Periodically checking that a license holder is still able to drive at "L test" standard would seem like a reasonable starting point. You're not allowed to drive unsupervised until you've passed this test in the first place, so why should you be able to continue driving if you're no longer at that level? If 99.99% of drivers would pass a retest without any problems, you don't have anything to worry about, do you? Back to my original point: most people are probably worried that they'd fail a retest, hence producing all sorts of reasons, excuses and statistics as to why such a system wouldn't work.

What proportion of crashes do you think periodic retests might hope to eliminate? Do you think there are less expensive and burdensome ways of eliminating a higher proportion of crashes?

Is the current DSA test the right sort of test for discovering whether drivers are still safe? Allegedly about half of experienced drivers would fail it, but are demonstrably much safer than those who have recently passed.


Given that nobody has been able to provide a serious argument against re-testing, does it matter? If it saves one accident, it's worth doing, and if it improves the general standard of driving on our roads, then all the better. The cost will be met by the driver, and compared to the expense of running a car, fuel, insurance, etc. paying for a test every 10 years is pretty negligible.

As I said before, the only really reason for opposing such a logical procedure, is the fear of failing the test and losing your "right" to drive!
Last edited by jwatkins on Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby hir » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:30 am


jwatkins wrote:... and if it improves the general standard of driving on our roads, then all the better.


How do you envisage a 30 minute test, once every ten years, improving the general standard of driving on our roads? What improvements in the general standard of driving would you expect to see?

jwatkins wrote:As I said before, the only really reason for opposing such a logical procedure, is the fear of failing the test and losing your "right" to drive!


It's a given that "fear of failure" would be very high on the list of any licensed driver's fear and trepidation in taking a re-test. But, notwithstanding that fear, it doesn't necessarily follow that anyone would fail the test. And, if that were the case, there would be no point in subjecting 30 million licence holders to confront their worst nightmare! :shock:

To appraise your suggestion logically one has to look beyond the "fear of failure" objection to re-testing and look at the objective reasoning against re-testing as enumerated by myself and others on this thread. I'm happy to consider any counter arguments that you are able to put forward, but it is not particularly helpful to keep falling back solely on the "fear of failure" argument.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby jwatkins » Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:34 pm


hir wrote: I'm happy to consider any counter arguments that you are able to put forward, but it is not particularly helpful to keep falling back solely on the "fear of failure" argument.


Counter arguments for what? Nobody has had offered any sensible reasons why compulsory re-testing would be a bad idea. There's therefore nothing for me to counter!
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby hir » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:22 pm


jwatkins wrote:
hir wrote: I'm happy to consider any counter arguments that you are able to put forward, but it is not particularly helpful to keep falling back solely on the "fear of failure" argument.


Counter arguments for what? Nobody has had offered and sensible reasons why compulsory re-testing would be a bad idea. There's therefore nothing for me to counter!


The reasons offered, and there have been many, don't have to be viewed as being "sensible" by yourself before you refute them. Otherwise, you can simply dismiss any counter arguments put to you as being, well, just "not sensible", and we will wait forever before you put forward any meaningful counter arguments. Indeed, the reason that most contributors on here refute the suggestions of other contributors is because they don't regard their contributions as "sensible". So, as it would appear that your counter arguments are not self-evident, I await your refutation of each and every one of the "non-sensible" arguments that have been put forward by myself and other contributors.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby jwatkins » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:32 pm


hir wrote:
jwatkins wrote:
hir wrote: I'm happy to consider any counter arguments that you are able to put forward, but it is not particularly helpful to keep falling back solely on the "fear of failure" argument.


Counter arguments for what? Nobody has had offered and sensible reasons why compulsory re-testing would be a bad idea. There's therefore nothing for me to counter!


The reasons offered, and there have been many, don't have to be viewed as being "sensible" by yourself before you refute them. Otherwise, you can simply dismiss any counter arguments put to you as being, well, just "not sensible", and we will wait forever before you put forward any meaningful counter arguments. Indeed, the reason that most contributors on here refute the suggestions of other contributors is because they don't regard their contributions as "sensible". So, as it would appear that your counter arguments are not self-evident, I await your refutation of each and every one of the "non-sensible" arguments that have been put forward by myself and other contributors.


You're coming across as a pompous prat now. I'll leave you to it.
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby cufarley » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:42 pm


And so ends another fruitful discussion on ADUK.

Why are people still still bothering here?
cufarley
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:30 pm

Postby jwatkins » Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:36 pm


cufarley wrote:And so ends another fruitful discussion on ADUK.

Why are people still still bothering here?


I can't imagine they will if this is typical of how conversations go. I know I won't bother again.
jwatkins
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 am

Postby Gareth » Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:42 pm


jwatkins wrote:Counter arguments for what? Nobody has had offered any sensible reasons why compulsory re-testing would be a bad idea.

Perhaps I missed it but what was your counter to the suggestion that it would be disproportionate?
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...
Gareth
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:58 pm
Location: Berkshire




Postby hir » Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:33 pm


jwatkins wrote:
hir wrote:
jwatkins wrote:
Counter arguments for what? Nobody has had offered and sensible reasons why compulsory re-testing would be a bad idea. There's therefore nothing for me to counter!


The reasons offered, and there have been many, don't have to be viewed as being "sensible" by yourself before you refute them. Otherwise, you can simply dismiss any counter arguments put to you as being, well, just "not sensible", and we will wait forever before you put forward any meaningful counter arguments. Indeed, the reason that most contributors on here refute the suggestions of other contributors is because they don't regard their contributions as "sensible". So, as it would appear that your counter arguments are not self-evident, I await your refutation of each and every one of the "non-sensible" arguments that have been put forward by myself and other contributors.


You're coming across as a pompous prat now. I'll leave you to it.


That's fine. But why the ad hominem comment? I don't think I've been rude to you, unless you regard disagreeing with you as being rude. :?

All I've suggested is that you give us your reasoned counter arguments to the suggestions that we have made. I don't think that properly counts as either pompous or prattish, or indeed both. :D
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby hir » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:24 pm


jwatkins wrote:
cufarley wrote:And so ends another fruitful discussion on ADUK.

Why are people still still bothering here?


I can't imagine they will if this is typical of how conversations go. I know I won't bother again.


One shouldn't take umbrage just because others disagree with one's argument. However blindingly obvious your position may seem to be to you, there are others on here, myself for example, who don't share the same convictions as yourself. All we are asking, as with any forum discussion, is that you offer us some counter-arguments to the points that we have raised. I don't consider that it is sufficient to simply fall back on the position that... "the only objection to re-testing is fear of failure". It may well be a significant objection, albeit an irrational objection, but myself and other contributors have put, in our opinion, other rational objections to compulsory re-testing and we are still awaiting your considered response.
hir
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:20 am

Postby MGF » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:18 pm


hir wrote:
To appraise your suggestion logically one has to look beyond the "fear of failure" objection to re-testing and look at the objective reasoning against re-testing as enumerated by myself and others on this thread. I'm happy to consider any counter arguments that you are able to put forward, but it is not particularly helpful to keep falling back solely on the "fear of failure" argument.


You appear to misunderstand what is usually meant by "objective reasoning".

hir wrote:...It would be very simple to re-test for vehicle control and lack of danger to other road users, but what would it demonstrate during that 30 minutes of testing? Nothing more than that 99.99% of all licence holders, who will of course be on their best behaviour during those 30 minutes, can pass the test. It's pointless testing 100% of a population in order to identify the unacceptable 0.01%. Or, to express it statistically, one would have to test 30,000,000 licence holders in order to identify maybe 3,000 who are unable to pass a test. It would be neither practicable nor politically acceptable.


This may have the flavour of objective reasoning but is based on an unsubstantiated assertion that only 1 in 10000 drivers would fail a re-test. JW doesn't agree with the premise. Nor do I.

It isn't clear why any reader should accept your assertions as being correct. Perhaps you could elucidate?
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Postby MGF » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:33 pm


jwatkins wrote:Given that nobody has been able to provide a serious argument against re-testing, does it matter? If it saves one accident, it's worth doing, and if it improves the general standard of driving on our roads, then all the better. The cost will be met by the driver, and compared to the expense of running a car, fuel, insurance, etc. paying for a test every 10 years is pretty negligible.


For such a large scale investment of resources I would expect a better return than the saving of one life. If we took the test fee off all drivers every ten years or so we may achieve greater returns in safety by investing it in policing the roads.
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

PreviousNext

Return to General Car Chat Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests