ADUK Archive

Of course, if we tested new drivers thoroughly they wouldn't crash either.

Oh, hang on . . .

Drivers should be retested every 5-10 years regardless of age. I've never heard of anything as ridiculous as a system where you're tested once, then have a right to do something indefinitely, regardless of your competence.

If you still safe 10 years after passing your test, then you have nothing to fear. If you're not, you should be prevented from driving until you have been sufficiently retrained.

jwatkins wrote:Drivers should be retested every 5-10 years regardless of age. I've never heard of anything as ridiculous as a system where you're tested once, then have a right to do something indefinitely, regardless of your competence.

If you still safe 10 years after passing your test, then you have nothing to fear. If you're not, you should be prevented from driving until you have been sufficiently retrained.

There are two problems with this suggestion. The first is, how does one define "safe" and then measure it? The second is, the "boy racers", the inconsiderate drivers, the aggressive drivers, the non-focused, easily distracted drivers, et al. will modify their behaviour on test in order to pass said test. After all, it'll be just forty minutes in ten years of driving activity and I don't doubt that 99.9% of those whom one might consider to be the drivers mainly at risk will easily be able to fool the system by being on their best behaviour for forty minutes.

hir wrote:

jwatkins wrote:Drivers should be retested every 5-10 years regardless of age. I've never heard of anything as ridiculous as a system where you're tested once, then have a right to do something indefinitely, regardless of your competence.

If you still safe 10 years after passing your test, then you have nothing to fear. If you're not, you should be prevented from driving until you have been sufficiently retrained.

There are two problems with this suggestion. The first is, how does one define "safe" and then measure it? The second is, the "boy racers", the inconsiderate drivers, the aggressive drivers, the non-focused, easily distracted drivers, et al. will modify their behaviour on test in order to pass said test. After all, it'll be just forty minutes in ten years of driving activity and I don't doubt that 99.9% of those whom one might consider to be the drivers mainly at risk will easily be able to fool the system by being on their best behaviour for forty minutes.

If a test can't be used as a means of deciding whether or not someone's safe, why do we have one at all? Why not just hand out driving licenses after a few lessons and keep things simple? Yes, some people will modify their driving style just for a retest, but some people's driving has genuinely deteriorated to un unsafe level. Someone who cannot drive safely would be unable to pretend otherwise for the sake of a test.

jwatkins wrote:
If a test can't be used as a means of deciding whether or not someone's safe, why do we have one at all? Why not just hand out driving licenses after a few lessons and keep things simple? Yes, some people will modify their driving style just for a retest, but some people's driving has genuinely deteriorated to un unsafe level. Someone who cannot drive safely would be unable to pretend otherwise for the sake of a test.

The driving test, ie. the "L" test, is primarily designed to ensure that the candidate is able to control the vehicle and doesn't present a danger to other road users. I would posit that requiring all licence holders to re-take the "L" test periodically would serve no useful purpose for the reasons already stated. The vast majority of drivers do not crash and do not present a danger to other road users. we may not approve of the way that some of them drive, we may consider that they're too aggressive, too distracted, too disconnected with what they're supposed to be doing, but I can't see that re-testing them will make any difference. I agree that further training would, if the licence holder was amenable to such a course of action, improve their driving. But re-testing is not going to identify to any large degree those who would benefit from further training. And, their driving would need to be dangerous during the forty minutes of test, which is going to be very unlikely, for the sanction of licence suspension to be invoked.

So what purpose would a re-test at 70 have then?

jwatkins wrote:I've never heard of anything as ridiculous as a system where you're tested once, then have a right to do something indefinitely, regardless of your competence.

That's the IAM test for you

jwatkins wrote:So what purpose would a re-test at 70 have then?

I presume that those who advocate such a test would say that it's purpose would be to remove dangerous drivers from the road. As I have already said, I believe that mandatory retesting at 70 years of age would, in my opinion, be ineffective in this respect, arbitrary and inequitable.

Yesterday I had two lengthy sessions on the M25 from M40 to M1 and back again. It was all running quite smoothly. Nothing spectacular was happening, I saw no really bad driving, people were trundling along calmly without incident. It's quite remarkable. Driving isn't a black art, and there are a lot of people out these who do it quite well ....

triquet wrote:Yesterday I had two lengthy sessions on the M25 from M40 to M1 and back again. It was all running quite smoothly. Nothing spectacular was happening, I saw no really bad driving, people were trundling along calmly without incident. It's quite remarkable. Driving isn't a black art, and there are a lot of people out these who do it quite well ....

Quite right. And for those people (who are probably in the majority) a retest would be a formality which would present no concern. However, for those whose driving standards have deteriorated unacceptably, it would be a means of identifying the fact that they require further training before continuing.

jwatkins wrote:

triquet wrote:Yesterday I had two lengthy sessions on the M25 from M40 to M1 and back again. It was all running quite smoothly. Nothing spectacular was happening, I saw no really bad driving, people were trundling along calmly without incident. It's quite remarkable. Driving isn't a black art, and there are a lot of people out these who do it quite well ....

Quite right. And for those people (who are probably in the majority) a retest would be a formality which would present no concern. However, for those whose driving standards have deteriorated unacceptably, it would be a means of identifying the fact that they require further training before continuing.

I am with hir. I believe most dangerous driving is done by people who are capable of driving quite safely. Now, that's not to say that there would be no potential for improvement and my recipe for this, after an improved learning system, would be a 10 yearly classroom half day along the lines of the course I attended after an incident with a camera.

hir wrote:

jwatkins wrote:So what purpose would a re-test at 70 have then?

I presume that those who advocate such a test would say that it's purpose would be to remove dangerous drivers from the road. As I have already said, I believe that mandatory retesting at 70 years of age would, in my opinion, be ineffective in this respect, arbitrary and inequitable.

I can see MGF's point that mandatory testing would catch people who shouldn't be driving - it would probably have caught my father after the onset of dementia but before his wife agreed to having the car taken away - but also agree that it would be disproportionate in that, to be effective, re-testing would need to be fairly regular (annual?) and it would be a big inconvenience for the majority of active drivers who probably aren't suffering from dementia.

Perhaps a better solution would be for an additional duty on doctors to report people who are starting to show symptoms of dementia to DVLA, so that those people in particular can be required to take retests?

waremark wrote:... I believe most dangerous driving is done by people who are capable of driving quite safely.

How do you account for the increased risk in drivers over 70 and even more so over 80? Do you genuinely believe that competent drivers who have been driving safely prior to aged 70 choose to drive less safely subsequently? Perhaps they believe that as their days are numbered they may as well take more risks,

MGF wrote:

waremark wrote:... I believe most dangerous driving is done by people who are capable of driving quite safely.

How do you account for the increased risk in drivers over 70 and even more so over 80? Do you genuinely believe that competent drivers who have been driving safely prior to aged 70 choose to drive less safely subsequently? Perhaps they believe that as their days are numbered they may as well take more risks,

Of course not.

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!