CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Driving Licence Re-Testing

(16 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from fimm

No tags yet.


  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I was thinking, in a random way (yes, yes, as I usually do) about how long I'd had my driving licence for. I passed at 17, so next year will see me clocking up two decades with the ability to simply jump in a car and drive.

    Now that's fine, apart from the first 4-5 years of having the licence, when coming from a poor family meant I couldn't be bought a motor by mummy and daddy, nor afford one myself, and so I only drove every now and then... Since then I've not really had any big breaks in driving, and I think I'm fairly competent. But it does still strike me as odd that you can get your licence and that's it... Off you go, until you're a geriatric, or do something really wrong that means you've got to go to driver training school.

    I vaguely remember hearing that in the States there is regular re-testing. I'm not so naive as to think a lot of drivers simply wouldn't adjust their driving back to the requirement to pass, then go back to bad habits, but for some it might iron out things, especially if there was a chance you'd have to go back to a provisional, or if you could have insurance tied into a number of resits that were required to re-apss or whatever.

    Is there really a legitimate reason (I'm thinking administrative and financial burden may figure heavily) for not re-testing every 10 years or so? Personally I'd happily submit - I'm fairly sure the frothers on the EEN would think otherwise.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. thebikechain
    Member

    It should be mandatory IMO and it should be linked to insurance to provide an incentive.
    i.e. the more often you have an assessment you should be able to gain discounts on your insurance.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    If you think that for the vast majority of drivers a retest would simply confirm their ability to drive to a standard to pass that test then you wouldn't do it because it's wasteful. You'd be better focussing on people who demonstrate an inability to sustain a reasonable standard of driving on a day-to-day basis by, for example, requiring people who clock up 6 or 9 points or are convicted of careless driving or worse to have a retest.

    There was a proposal some time ago to use driver improvement training as an alternative to prosecution for some types of careless driving. Seemed effective but doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. wingpig
    Member

    A former colleague has recently had the rubbish lenses in his eyes wheeched out (he was way beyond the reach of mere corneal abrasion) and is now amazed how he was considered OK to drive in his former half-blind state. I've not been driven by him for a few years but it was the way he dealt with what he presumably could see rather than the way he failed to react to what he couldn't which makes me amazed that he considered himself OK to drive.

    Ideally, anyone stopped by the police whilst driving for any sort of driving-rule infringement (including carelessness or aggressive driving) should be immediately subjected to an on-the-spot partial theory test, with people failing it being compelled to attend further testing/re-training at their expense shortly afterwards if they wished to keep their license, in addition to any existing re-education for infractions.
    People would still be able to drive like morons even after memorising the Highway Code but it would hopefully make the general level of road-law-awareness somewhat higher than it appears to be at the moment amongst the holders of not-recently-acquired driving licenses.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. Morningsider
    Member

    anth - there isn't really an adminstrative or financial reason against running such a scheme. It could be self financing - test fees would only have to be set at a level to cover the costs of delivering the scheme. Start-up costs shouldn't be too bad, given there are already a network of tesing centres and staff, although these would have to be expanded to cope with the increase in tests.

    There could be problems with enforcement though. Assuming that even a small percentage of current drivers failed, that could amount to lots of un-licensed drviers (who own cars) out there who have driving built into their daily routines. The temptation to flout the law would be high and enforcement time consuming and possibly costly for police and prosecutors. I'm sure there would also be huiman rights challenges, as you could potentially be taking away someone's access to employment or ability to conduct family life without being able to drive (yes, I know we might argue otherwise).

    The real issue though would be a lack of political will - no major political figure would be in favour of this (see EEN frothers - voters - for details).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. fimm
    Member

    I have had a driving licence for over 20 years, but I've never owned a car (long story, don't ask). I am not sure that I would pass a driving test if I sat one tomorrow - I have my doubts about my ability to parallel park (which was not part of the test at the time I sat it) - I can do it, it just takes a bit of thinking about - and I wonder if I would also fail on the "making good progress" requirement as I tend to be a bit cautious (well, I drive like I cycle - assume no one has seen you - oh, yes, I'm now wrapped in a 1-ton lump of metal, I might be a bit more visible...)

    Trouble is, if everyone cycles more and drives less, you end up with more drivers like me who don't get to practice all that often...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. Roibeard
    Member

    At the risk of sticking my head above an already demolished parapet...

    ...you could sit the Advanced Test or take a Drive Check with the IAM! RoSPA do something similar if the IAM's press officer has put you off...

    Or take the Pass Plus, or even just engage a driving instructor for a lesson or two.

    Driving instructors are perhaps most focused on new drivers (as is the Pass Plus), so I'd lean towards the IAM or RoSPA.

    In practice, I'd be too embarrassed to do the advanced test (that's my wife's domain, passing both normal and advanced first time), but the assessment might be a good idea.

    Robert

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. recombodna
    Member

    You need to sit a test to drive???? Oh come on now you're just being silly!!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    " it was the way he dealt with what he presumably could see rather than the way he failed to react to what he could which makes me amazed that he considered himself OK to drive"

    I wish police could do a basic eye check on anyone they stopped - and order a proper check for anyone who seemed to be borderline (or worse).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Once worked with a guy who was an 'advanced' driver, and he used to remind us about it on an almost weekly basis.

    He also used to drive everywhere at breakneck speed, was constantly peeping his horn at lesser mortals who weren't as well trained as him, or skilled enough to drive as fast as him, or didn't know the highway code as well as him....

    Actually, he was just a twat, so I guess extra training, or extra assessment, for most will be positive, but for some just another reason to drive how they like because they are 'better' qualified.

    This type of initiative could also have a negative impact on the perception of *'untrained' cyclists.

    * Perhaps another debate on whether or not all road users should be trained?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. fimm
    Member

    @Roibeard, I'd not come across the IOM DriveCheck before, I might well consider that, thank you. I think if I was ever driving regularly I'd seriously consider the Advanced Driving test. The trouble is I don't drive that often - but I do need to sometimes!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. Min
    Member

    "Trouble is, if everyone cycles more and drives less, you end up with more drivers like me who don't get to practice all that often..."

    In my opinion, more drivers who are "cautious" at the expense of not being great at parallel parking can only be a good thing. What we have just now is too many people who think they are great drivers because they can use the accelerator and the horn simultaneously and prolifically.

    Having said that, since I am in the same boat as you some sort of refresher every so often would be a good thing for me too. It doesn't seem right that, technically, I need not have driven a car since I passed my test (mumble) years ago but could get in a one tomorrow and drive it.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. Min
    Member

    "What we have just now is too many people who think they are great drivers because they can use the accelerator and the horn simultaneously and prolifically."

    I did not want to make this up but I am not. We really do have far too many people who think they are great drivers -or above average at least, better than most other people. 80% in fact.

    What makes a good driver anyway. Being able to go fast? Or being able to go safely?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    @Roibeard, all true, but I was thinking of mandatory re-testing rather than a voluntary 'make yourself a better driver' thing, because the grand majority won't go for the second option.

    @chdot, on the eye test thing, I've got a ridiculous story about the husband of a collague of my wife, who is currently recovering from severe brain injury. The criminal case against the driver was thrown out on a technicality - the driver had been asked to read a numberplate from 20.5 feet instead of 20 feet.. He's half-blind, had been playing golf, and 'couldn't be bothered' putting his glasses back on. The family is considering a civil case, but this has been going on for ages and I think is pretty tiring for all concerned.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  15. sallyhinch
    Member

    I definitely drive like I cycle, and assume I'm invisible. I feel about 500 times safer on a bike than driving a car as well and despite living out in the sticks haven't driven for well over a year now. I'm certainly less likely to hit anyone, because I drive very cautiously but I've been hit (once) from behind because someone assumed I'd take advantage of a gap in a roundabout that I didn't think was safe. I'm not 100% confident that I could handle the car safely in a nasty situation either.

    My approach to parallel parking is to go and park somewhere else, even if than means parking miles away and walking. When I passed my test (first time, amazingly enough) the first thing my instructor said was 'I bet you didn't have to parallel park did you?'

    Posted 13 years ago #

  16. fimm
    Member

    Many years ago I got the friend I was giving a lift to to parallel park my mother's car because she could do it and I couldn't. Very illegal - not the parking space, but the face that she wasn't insured to drive the car...

    I'm better these days, but struggle with knowing how big the car I'm driving is (the fact that we choose not to own a car and I therefore drive a variety of hire and City Car Club cars doesn't help). My b/f is always on at me for giving parked cars too much space... (this is also true when we're cycling, but that's a rather different arguement!)

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin