Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    B241 - Driving Education and testing Bill, Liberal DemocratPreamble: elements of the way new and existing drivers in this country are taught and tested are in need of reform. While some aspects of the tests are unfair and not representative of the realities of driving in Britain, other elements are not looked at enough and some drivers routinely risk the lives of others around them. This bill aims to rectify these concerns.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    Part 1: Reform of Driving Education and Tests

    1. The 'Hazard Perception' section of the Driving theory test is no longer compulsory and will not be part of the final test.

    (a) Anyone may choose to take the preexisting Hazard Perception test and may purchase the necessary materials from the DVLA.

    2. The 'Pass Plus' scheme is now compulsory for all new drivers who have a licence category B, excluding category B1 (covering the use of trailers on motor vehicles).

    (i) Drivers who fail to sit their Pass Plus test within twelve months will be fined £35.

    (ii) This fine is at the discretion of the DVLA, and in exceptional circumstances to be assessed on an individual basis, the fine can be removed.

    Part 2: Retesting of existing drivers.

    1. All road vehicle drivers (excluding heavy goods vehicles) registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will be required to re-sit both the Driving Theory Test and Driving Practical Test every fifteen years from the date they are first re-tested as part of this bill. The date of commencement is specified below onwards.

    (i) Re-testing will be compulsory for registered drivers with licence category P and A (mopeds and motorcycle categories A1 and A) and category B, excluding category B1 (covering the use of trailers on motor vehicles).

    (ii) Once this bill receives Royal Assent, the DVLA will notify all drivers who received their Full Driving Licence before the 1st January 1995 by post to provide sufficient time to book their theory and practical driving tests. This will alleviate demand on Driving Standards Authority test centre facilities.

    (iii) After this notification period, all drivers who have held their Full Driving Licence for a time period of over fifteen years will be notified and required to carry out both parts of their Driving Test according to the DVLA Driver’s Database.

    2. Regulation
    (i) Notified drivers will have a twelve month period in which to re-sit their test, allowing sufficient time for any tuition that may be required.

    (ii) Re-testing is compulsory. Drivers who fail to sit their Driving Test within twelve months of notification will be fined £100.

    (iii) This fine is at the discretion of the DVLA, and in exceptional circumstances to be assessed on an individual basis, the fine can be removed.

    (iv) All drivers in receipt of Unemployment, Disability or other DWP financial benefits will not be charged for either part of their Driving Test, excluding individual tuition which the individual may or may not arrange. Drivers over the age of 65 will be required to pay the reduced charges of £15 to sit a theory test and £40 to sit a practical test. Drivers who do not qualify for either requirement will be required to pay the full charges* of £31 to sit a theory test and £62 to sit a driving test. (*Charges are correct at the date of publication)

    (v) If a driver does not wish their Driving License to be continued and thus does not wish to resit their Driving Tests, they may notify the DVLA as such and, upon the final deadline for retesting that applies to the individual, their License shall become invalid.

    3. Promotion
    (i) The Department of Transport will create a promotional campaign commencing three months from the passing of this bill on appropriate media platforms to inform all drivers about the new requirements this bill will introduce from the date of commencement below.
    (ii) Online booking systems will be improved to enable ease of use for all candidates of compulsory driving re-testing. Paper based systems will be made easier to access in central Post Office locations to ensure candidates without Internet access can book their re-testing.

    Commencement, Short Title and Extent

    -This act may be cited as the Driving Education and Testing Bill.
    -This Act will come into effect 3 years after achieving Royal Assent.
    -This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Most of this is not in the remit of our Parliament, but is decided for us by Brussels.

    Hoist by the Lib Dem's own fanatically pro-EU petard?
    Offline

    8
    (ii) Re-testing is compulsory. Drivers who fail to sit their Driving Test within twelve months of notification will be fined £100.
    Drivers should lose their license if they fail to re-sit their Driving Test. HGV Drivers may have stopped driving HGVs so unless they renew their license, it should just become invalid.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, no thanks. This is pretty pointless, will cause chaos and undue hassle and expense for people.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I see no point in the pass plus test being compulsory, it is simply another cost on an already expensive thing.

    I see no reason why people should be re-tested every 15 years, perhaps every two years for people over 65.

    Hazard Percep test should definatly stay.

    Hate your little promotional campaign thing, as I hate all govt promotional campaign.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Sneaky way for the Lib Dems to remove cars from our roads. It won't improve road safety and will be expensive and silly. No thanks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    2. The 'Pass Plus' scheme is now compulsory for all new drivers who have a licence category B, excluding category B1 (covering the use of trailers on motor vehicles).
    What does that mean? If they already have category B then they already have a full driving licence. Do you mean provisional holders of category B?

    Category B1 IS NOT TRAILERS. Do some basic research please.

    (i) Drivers who fail to sit their Pass Plus test within twelve months will be fined £35.
    Ooh! Serious stuff!

    (ii) This fine is at the discretion of the DVLA, and in exceptional circumstances to be assessed on an individual basis, the fine can be removed.
    Words fail me.

    Part 2: Retesting of existing drivers.

    1. All road vehicle drivers (excluding heavy goods vehicles) registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will be required to re-sit both the Driving Theory Test and Driving Practical Test every fifteen years from the date they are first re-tested as part of this bill. The date of commencement is specified below onwards.
    For what it's worth, does that mean that if you hold an HGV licence you will be exempt from re-tests for both Cars and bikes?

    (i) Re-testing will be compulsory for registered drivers with licence category P and A (mopeds and motorcycle categories A1 and A) and category B, excluding category B1 (covering the use of trailers on motor vehicles).
    Again. B1 IS NOT TRAILERS. Basic research failure.

    So do you have to do a re-test for each of the above categories you hold? As all car licence holders have moped entitlment too, do they seriously have to have a "re-test" (they weren't test for that category in the first place)?

    (ii) Once this bill receives Royal Assent, the DVLA will notify all drivers who received their Full Driving Licence before the 1st January 1995 by post to provide sufficient time to book their theory and practical driving tests. This will alleviate demand on Driving Standards Authority test centre facilities.
    No it won't. It'll be absolute bloody chaos. 8 week wait already, and now you intend to retest the X million people who passed their tests more than 15 years ago. You're stark raving mad.

    (iv) All drivers in receipt of Unemployment, Disability or other DWP financial benefits will not be charged for either part of their Driving Test, excluding individual tuition which the individual may or may not arrange. Drivers over the age of 65 will be required to pay the reduced charges of £15 to sit a theory test and £40 to sit a practical test. Drivers who do not qualify for either requirement will be required to pay the full charges* of £31 to sit a theory test and £62 to sit a driving test. (*Charges are correct at the date of publication)

    (v) If a driver does not wish their Driving License to be continued and thus does not wish to resit their Driving Tests, they may notify the DVLA as such and, upon the final deadline for retesting that applies to the individual, their License shall become invalid.

    3. Promotion
    (i) The Department of Transport will create a promotional campaign commencing three months from the passing of this bill on appropriate media platforms to inform all drivers about the new requirements this bill will introduce from the date of commencement below.
    (ii) Online booking systems will be improved to enable ease of use for all candidates of compulsory driving re-testing. Paper based systems will be made easier to access in central Post Office locations to ensure candidates without Internet access can book their re-testing.

    Commencement, Short Title and Extent

    -This act may be cited as the Driving Education and Testing Bill.
    -This Act will come into effect 3 years after achieving Royal Assent.
    -This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.[/field]
    Will it affect people driving by virtue of holding EU and designated country licences? If they exchanged their licences for British ones will it be from the date of exchange, or from the date of passing a test in their home country? What if that information is unobtainable?

    Still, it's all totally irrelevant. The EU controls this stuff. Not us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does the EU control this stuff? Someone show me where and this gets withdrawn.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    100% support for this. There has to be a way in which we can assess over time if people's driving standards remain high over their driving lifetime. Some of our more elderly drivers are often unaware of modern signage, markings or practices because their test did not include this. Similarly, some drivers assume bad habits over time which can only be detrimental to road safety.

    It certainly is not a method to remove vehicles or drivers off the road. It is a way of ensuring all drivers remain at a high standard. I cannot see another method in which skills and knowledge can be re-assessed. Surely those in opposition to this can see that benefits of this Bill to overall road safety are high.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't 100% support it but I'd go as far as 50%. Will mention my objections later.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Is there any evidence the Lib Dems can produce indicating that experience of driving makes one a worse driver? Intuition suggests that the opposite is true.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Hazard Percep test should definatly stay.
    Hazard perception is quite pointless as although it makes you aware, all you need to successfully complete it is a bit of common sense.

    I wonder just how aware this might make a person. I would argue that they don't truly know how to become vigilant and aware until they actually start driving.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Is there any evidence the Lib Dems can produce indicating that experience of driving makes one a worse driver? Intuition suggests that the opposite is true.
    Bearing in mind that we are talking about fifteen years.

    You say that drivers are getting more experience of driving as they get older and so should theoretically become better and better, right? Well, not necessarily, since bad habits are rampant in drivers, legislation relating to driving and roads changes all the time (hell, we changed it last session) and, as you get towards the ages of 60 plus, your reaction times and other aspects of what makes you a good driver begin to falter. If you talk to most driving instructors they believe that there should be retesting.

    Regarding the hazard perception, most of them think it should be scrapped, by the way.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Bearing in mind that we are talking about fifteen years.

    You say that drivers are getting more experience of driving as they get older and so should theoretically become better and better, right? Well, not necessarily, since bad habits are rampant in drivers, legislation relating to driving and roads changes all the time (hell, we changed it last session) and, as you get towards the ages of 60 plus, your reaction times and other aspects of what makes you a good driver begin to falter. If you talk to most driving instructors they believe that there should be retesting.

    Regarding the hazard perception, most of them think it should be scrapped, by the way.
    I'm not discussing hazard perception - so far as I can tell if you can play a computer game you can do the hazard perception. Give the kids a laser gun rather than a mouse and the reaction times will probably fall dramatically (though the odd pedestrian may get caught in the line of fire).

    Anyway, I'm referring to what appears to be the main bulk of your Bill which is the 15 year retaking of driving tests. You have not provided any justification for the claim that someone is liable to be a worse driver at age 32 having driven for 15 years since passing their test at age 17. Insurance companies and intuition suggest that opposite is true.

    Now, you make the case that the elderly are indeed likely to be worse drivers because of deteriorating health. But this only helps you if your Bill was going to introduce testing for the elderly and it would be unnecessary because that is already a requirement.

    So, in short, the 15 year retesting requirement remains without justification and seems to go against what intuition and insurance statistics imply.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm not discussing hazard perception - so far as I can tell if you can play a computer game you can do the hazard perception. Give the kids a laser gun rather than a mouse and the reaction times will probably fall dramatically (though the odd pedestrian may get caught in the line of fire).
    I know, but I'm too lazy to quote Adam.

    Anyway, I'm referring to what appears to be the main bulk of your Bill which is the 15 year retaking of driving tests. You have not provided any justification for the claim that someone is liable to be a worse driver at age 32 having driven for 15 years since passing their test at age 17. Insurance companies and intuition suggest that opposite is true.

    Now, you make the case that the elderly are indeed likely to be worse drivers because of deteriorating health. But this only helps you if your Bill was going to introduce testing for the elderly and it would be unnecessary because that is already a requirement.

    So, in short, the 15 year retesting requirement remains without justification and seems to go against what intuition and insurance statistics imply.
    Well, frankly, my intuition tells me that yours isn't necessarily right, so I suggest that we leave it out of the argument.

    Now, insurance policy is an interesting way of looking at it, actually. I mean, as a 19 year old guy my insurance is ridiculous compared to a worse driver who happens to be, say, 26. Generally speaking, insurers have more to think about than simply how good a driver you are; there's also how responsible you are likely to be, how much you have to lose e.g. family, how many incidents you've had before etc. So to use the argument that insurance companies point to drivers getting better with age is flawed. Furthermore, it's not like said insurance companies test the capabilities of the drivers they insure depending on their age of 17, 28 or 50. Thus the blanket policies they may have in place are not particularly useful when trying to argue that people get better at driving with age.

    Now, as I've said, motor skills, reaction time etc. decrease with age. This is a generally accepted opinion. I grant you, it is more prominent as you get to ages 60+ where, yes, there is retesting already in existence (well, for elderly drivers). This alone, in my view, should be enough to justify retesting every 15 years. This is ignoring the potential for lives saved by keeping driving skill fresh, bearing in mind how many traffic incidents are due to driver error.

    One argument that no-one has come up with against this yet is that, since some excellent drivers fail their driving tests, this could be a problem for those who fit into such a category. I'm just thinking of a way around that problem for second reading.

    And, since someone said that Europe controls this, they should show me that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I know, but I'm too lazy to quote Adam.

    Well, frankly, my intuition tells me that yours isn't necessarily right, so I suggest that we leave it out of the argument.

    Now, insurance policy is an interesting way of looking at it, actually. I mean, as a 19 year old guy my insurance is ridiculous compared to a worse driver who happens to be, say, 26. Generally speaking, insurers have more to think about than simply how good a driver you are; there's also how responsible you are likely to be, how much you have to lose e.g. family, how many incidents you've had before etc. So to use the argument that insurance companies point to drivers getting better with age is flawed. Furthermore, it's not like said insurance companies test the capabilities of the drivers they insure depending on their age of 17, 28 or 50. Thus the blanket policies they may have in place are not particularly useful when trying to argue that people get better at driving with age.

    Now, as I've said, motor skills, reaction time etc. decrease with age. This is a generally accepted opinion. I grant you, it is more prominent as you get to ages 60+ where, yes, there is retesting already in existence (well, for elderly drivers). This alone, in my view, should be enough to justify retesting every 15 years. This is ignoring the potential for lives saved by keeping driving skill fresh, bearing in mind how many traffic incidents are due to driver error.

    One argument that no-one has come up with against this yet is that, since some excellent drivers fail their driving tests, this could be a problem for those who fit into such a category. I'm just thinking of a way around that problem for second reading.

    And, since someone said that Europe controls this, they should show me that.
    I don't think we can ignore intuition simply because yours is different. Mine is based on the observation that with almost every skill the more one practices the better one becomes at it (generally speaking). This implies that the longer one has been driving the better one will be at it. Don't call it intuition, if you want, call it observation. It is clearly an argument against accepting your claim that drivers need to be retested every 15 years.

    And the insurance companies argument should also not be dismissed. Insurance premiums relate, I think, to the bottom line of what is the probability that a claim will be made. And the probability of a claim being made is directly proportional to the probability of an accident occurring involving the person being insured. Since premiums decrease with age (ignoring the elderly who are already required to take a new test) this implies that the statistics (the basis of all insurance premium calculations) indicate that the probability of a driver being involved in a crash decrease with age and experience. Thus, this too forms an argument against accepting your claim that drivers need to be retested every 15 years.

    Furthermore, you have not provided a single argument for accepting it since your argument about deteriorating health only applies to people over a certain age who are already covered by a pre-existing law.

    In short then - your Bill is predicated on the proposition that drivers get worse as they drive more. I have provided two arguments that suggest that this is not true and you have not provided any arguments to suggest that it is.

    Can you provide an argument to back up your claim and would you agree that if the claim is false then the Bill should be withdrawn?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I don't think we can ignore intuition simply because yours is different. Mine is based on the observation that with almost every skill the more one practices the better one becomes at it (generally speaking). This implies that the longer one has been driving the better one will be at it. Don't call it intuition, if you want, call it observation. It is clearly an argument against accepting your claim that drivers need to be retested every 15 years.
    Well, ok, let's look at intuition. In which case, all I have to do is get you to look at the amount of bad drivers out there who are 30+, 50+. All I have to do is show you the amount of ******** on the motorways who are not, generally, young (though they are usually men, I grant you). So if you want to use intuition or observation then, actually, I'd say there's arguments both ways for this bill. Thus, better safe than sorry, no?
    And the insurance companies argument should also not be dismissed. Insurance premiums relate, I think, to the bottom line of what is the probability that a claim will be made. And the probability of a claim being made is directly proportional to the probability of an accident occurring involving the person being insured. Since premiums decrease with age (ignoring the elderly who are already required to take a new test) this implies that the statistics (the basis of all insurance premium calculations) indicate that the probability of a driver being involved in a crash decrease with age and experience. Thus, this too forms an argument against accepting your claim that drivers need to be retested every 15 years.
    I didn't dismiss it, I said it was flawed. And it is flawed, fr the reasons I've already laid out.
    Furthermore, you have not provided a single argument for accepting it since your argument about deteriorating health only applies to people over a certain age who are already covered by a pre-existing law.
    True, mainly because I've asked someone else to find it for me because I'm busy and only checking on here every half hour or so. Be patient, or google it.
    In short then - your Bill is predicated on the proposition that drivers get worse as they drive more. I have provided two arguments that suggest that this is not true and you have not provided any arguments to suggest that it is.

    Can you provide an argument to back up your claim and would you agree that if the claim is false then the Bill should be withdrawn?
    [/QUOTE]Were your assumption correct, I might. But it isn't. You have provided two arguments that provide some evidence that the claim you think we are making with this bill is true. Not only are they not watertight arguments, but that's not really why we're putting this forward anyway.

    At the end of the day, some drivers will get better as they get more experience. Some, however, will take their bad habits and build on them, resulting in their experience being of bad driving. Find a group of people on the street who've been driving for ten years and you'll find that not all of them are better drivers than when they first passed their test. this bill comes from the angle that, in a world where you have some drivers getting better and some staying the same, or even getting worse, it is better to test them periodically to make sure that we don't have bad drivers on our roads.

    Now, of course, this leaves us open to the 'nanny state' argument. Frankly if it saves lives, I'll get over it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And the insurance companies argument should also not be dismissed. Insurance premiums relate, I think, to the bottom line of what is the probability that a claim will be made. And the probability of a claim being made is directly proportional to the probability of an accident occurring involving the person being insured. Since premiums decrease with age (ignoring the elderly who are already required to take a new test) this implies that the statistics (the basis of all insurance premium calculations) indicate that the probability of a driver being involved in a crash decrease with age and experience. Thus, this too forms an argument against accepting your claim that drivers need to be retested every 15 years.
    Isn't that bad logic?
    Insurance companies would give cheaper insurance to a new 26 year old driver then a 18/19 year old that's been driving for 1/2 years, so a newly qualified 16 year old is a better driver then a 19 year old with experience?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I've rearranged your post so that I can deal with the crucial point first.

    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Were your assumption correct, I might. But it isn't. You have provided two arguments that provide some evidence that the claim you think we are making with this bill is true. Not only are they not watertight arguments, but that's not really why we're putting this forward anyway.

    At the end of the day, some drivers will get better as they get more experience. Some, however, will take their bad habits and build on them, resulting in their experience being of bad driving. Find a group of people on the street who've been driving for ten years and you'll find that not all of them are better drivers than when they first passed their test. this bill comes from the angle that, in a world where you have some drivers getting better and some staying the same, or even getting worse, it is better to test them periodically to make sure that we don't have bad drivers on our roads.
    You make two claims here, I think. The first is that some drivers get worse over time and the second is that even if it is only the case that some drivers do not get better we need retesting.

    The second claim is clearly wrong because if they were able to pass the first test and have not since worsened then there is no reason to suppose they would fail the second test, unless you are continually making the tests harder which you are not doing.

    So we are left purely with the first claim. The only reason why we might need to retest someone who has already passed a driving test is if we think they may have become worse than they were when they passed the first test. Unless I'm missing something this is unavoidable. If we think that the bast majority get better or stay the same then retesting is pointless because they must be assumed to pass the second test having already passed the first which is not easier than the second.

    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Well, ok, let's look at intuition. In which case, all I have to do is get you to look at the amount of bad drivers out there who are 30+, 50+. All I have to do is show you the amount of ******** on the motorways who are not, generally, young (though they are usually men, I grant you). So if you want to use intuition or observation then, actually, I'd say there's arguments both ways for this bill. Thus, better safe than sorry, no?
    What you're appealing to here is not intuition or observation but bias. You are making a claim about the relative number of bad drivers and appealing that I should accept your claim because there are more bad drivers out there who are older. This is true but is a bias error. There are a higher number of bad older drivers because there are a higher number of older drivers. What is key to supporting your Bill is the assertion that drivers get worse over time.

    Observation of humans suggests that the practice of a skill improves the quality of the execution of that skill in anyone capable of some basic level of execution. In other words, if someone is capable of doing something then all our experience suggests that the more they do it the better they will get (practice, we say, makes perfect). This implies that if someone has passed their test they will only get better, not worse.

    There may be some exceptions, of course, but we should not introduce retesting for everyone on the basis that some small percentage of people would fail a retest.

    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I didn't dismiss it, I said it was flawed. And it is flawed, fr the reasons I've already laid out.
    And I pointed out that those reasons were ********. You claimed that "there's also how responsible you are likely to be, how much you have to lose e.g. family, how many incidents you've had before etc." yet these factors are all factors affecting how good a driver you are which is the question under discussion. Being more responsible implies you are a better driver. Having more to lose from a crash implies you are a better driver. Having had fewer crashes before implies you are a better driver. This is the point I was making - insurance premiums are directly proportional to how likely you are to be involved in a crash and how likely you are to be involved in a crash is the measure of how good you are as a driver (that the DVLA should be using at any rate). So your claim that using insurance premiums as an indication that your other claim is wrong, is also wrong.

    I await your evidence that backs up your claim but in the meantime I do not accept your response to the evidence I have outlined that appears to go against your claim.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Isn't that bad logic?
    Insurance companies would give cheaper insurance to a new 26 year old driver then a 18/19 year old that's been driving for 1/2 years, so a newly qualified 16 year old is a better driver then a 19 year old with experience?
    Firstly I'm not sure you're right because insurance companies also include how long you've been driving for.

    Secondly, if true it doesn't affect the logic of my argument. As T&J pointed out there are other factors that affect how good you are as a driver besides length of experience. And one of the key ones is maturity. A 26 year old has maturity that a 19 year old does not and it may be that insurance companies consider that extra maturity worth more than a year or two of experience.

    What would make the logic bad is if either insurance premiums went up with age or up with experience. The opposite is true all else being equal, implying, I think, that the statistics show that increasing age (up to a certain threshold) and increasing experience both serve to decrease the probability of accidents which, being the measure of how good a driver is, imply that both factors make one, generally speaking, a better driver.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 11, 2010
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.