Turn on thread page Beta

B241 - Driving Education and testing Bill watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I don't drive and have no plans to either so I shall abstain in the vote and not enter the debate any further than this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Retesting every 15 years is stupid. The waiting list to book a driving test is long enough as it is without having pretty much double the people (the people doing the test first time, and all of those from 15 years ago) doing their test.

    And what if they failed their retest because of nerves or something? It happens. How inconvinient would it be to not be able to drive.

    Completely stupid idea, there's nothing wrong with it as it is.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Does the EU control this stuff? Someone show me where and this gets withdrawn.
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/... />0060:EN:PDF

    Looks like you'll have to bin most of it. Ouch.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have to admit i was a little bit worried reading this then i saw that it was a liberal democrat proposal so its never going to happen
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rudeandidleboy)
    I have to admit i was a little bit worried reading this then i saw that it was a liberal democrat proposal so its never going to happen
    This isn't a real house of commons. And the lib dems are quite powerful in this model house.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure about this one. Personally I've never had a driving lesson in my life, but of course I still know a bit about it. Am I right in saying though that the pass plus test isn't actually a test? Rather it just includes more lessons on more difficult roads? If so then why not just make the initial test more diverse instead of forcing people to do the pass plus test with threat of fine etc? That is to say, if there is even a problem with the current standard of driving instruction and examination...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Hoist by the Lib Dem's own fanatically pro-EU petard?
    Good bill guys!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/... />0060:EN:PDF

    Looks like you'll have to bin most of it. Ouch.
    A link that worked would be very useful :p:
    (Original post by rudeandidleboy)
    I have to admit i was a little bit worried reading this then i saw that it was a liberal democrat proposal so its never going to happen
    this isn't real life
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    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.
    Well, this isn't hugely great logic, but I can see where you're coming from. Regarding your first point, it's not really that useful when trying to convince me that retesting is a bad idea. Using myself as an anecdotal example, I'd likely fail a driving test if given it now and I've been driving a fair while. Were I aware that I was going to have to take a retest, I'd be a better driver in terms of the driving test. Sure, the test isn't getting harder necessarily, but as I've said previously, technology, road practice and legislation changes over time, and a test now is different from a test in the 70s. Your second point is better, but other industries are showing that retesting is beneficial; look at military pilots, hell lifeguards have to take tests to check they're up to the task periodically. Why should driving, which a great many of our population do and which is potentially extremely dangerous, be different?

    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.
    I wouldn't say that I'm appealing to bias any more than you are. Both of our points on intuition are weak because they're based on intuition.

    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.
    Yeah but you're ignoring my point about the locking in of bad habits, which the majority of our driving population. If someone drives in a bad way for 10 years, they'll get better and better at driving badly. Most people don't indicate, most people speed on the motorways (well, less so on TSR), most people do all sorts of things which we should be looking to get off of the roads.

    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.
    Well, the idea is that people get better in order to pass the test and therefore we get better drivers on our roads. While perhaps naive and wishy washy, it's not a bad goal.

    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.
    But we know full well that this isn't the case, seeing as how insurance premiums are affected by factors that have nothing to do with your ability to be a good driver. You can use it as supporting evidence as you wish but to base an argument off of it is foolish.

    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.
    Fair enough, I shall go hunting as it appears that none of my minions colleagues have done my dirty work for me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Gah, now I remember why this bill took ages to put together, because none of us could b e bothered to wade through the tide of stuff relating to elderly drivers to find the useful stuff. Stupid need ot justify statements >.<
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    A link that worked would be very useful :p:
    Gosh, talk about fussy! :p:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/... />0060:EN:PDF

    EDIT grrr the link keeps coming out as TSR smilies because it has loads of colons and random letters. ******** sodding EU. Wait...

    EDIT TAKE 2: http://tinyurl.com/yd3jpej
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well damn. Although this does save me from rummaging through the mess of links I have in my favourites list.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    T&J - I sincerely hope you're not trying to compare driving a car to flying a fighter jet. The reason to continually test fighter pilots is, I think, two-fold. One is that the act of flying itself can cause damage to the pilot and the other is that even a small deterioration in quality of the pilot can have very expensive and sometimes extremely damaging consequences. Neither of these apply to cars.

    I'm also getting a bit miffed at your dismissal of the point about experience increasing skill. You're counter claim was that more bad drivers are older which, while possibly true, is completely irrelevant since it would be true only because more of all drivers are older drivers. The fact remains that in all walks of life we consider experience to increase skill and here you're suggesting that with driving the opposite is true. (Again, I point out that you must believe this to be the case in general because you cannot justify retesting everyone on the basis that a small minority are bad).

    On the point of insurance you said:
    "But we know full well that this isn't the case, seeing as how insurance premiums are affected by factors that have nothing to do with your ability to be a good driver."
    Of course your exact premium is determined by things like the cost of your car. But the point is that it is also determined by factors that indicate how good you are as a driver. Now, if you were correct that length of driving is not correlated to an improvement in quality then we would not expect to see any correlation between length of driving and cost of premium. But we do. We see exactly the relationship between the two that we would expect to see if length of driving increased quality of driving. Indeed, when you ask the man in the street why insurance is more for younger or less experienced drivers the reply is that they are more likely to have an accident - ie that they are better drivers.
    Indeed see this page from the AA listing reasons why young drivers face higher premiums: http://www.theaa.com/insurance/young...insurance.html
    Spoiler:
    Show
    2. Understand why insurance is expensive for young drivers
    A look at road accident figures helps explain why insurance premiums are so high for young drivers.

    Five facts about accidents involving young drivers
    1 in 5 drivers are involved in a crash during their first year on the road
    male drivers aged under 21 are 10 times more likely to have a car accident than male drivers aged 35 or over
    young drivers have a higher proportion of crashes at night than older drivers
    1 in 8 British drivers are under 25, but a quarter of drivers who die in traffic collisions are in this age group
    In 2007, 40% of passengers killed or seriously injured – meaning lost limbs, paralysis, brain injury and other life-changing injuries – were in a car driven by a young drive


    Your point about bad habits becoming locked in is not a case for retesting as much as a case for better initial testing. If a habit is dangerous then no one with it should be allowed to pass the first test.

    And finally, consider this. A bad driver is one who causes accidents and speeds etc. If he is a bad driver than at some point he will end up faced with the police because of his bad driving. At that point he receives points on his license which he might lose and be forced to retake the test. In other words, there already exists a system in place for dealing with drivers who pass their test but then get worse (or shouldn't have passed the first time) and that system targets the bad drivers. Do we need a system like yours that affects everyone when we already have a system in place that only affects the bad drivers who are the ones we want to target.

    From all these points I think it is clear that while your aims might be good (as a lot of Lib Dem ones are) your execution is poor.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm also getting a bit miffed at your dismissal of the point about experience increasing skill. You're counter claim was that more bad drivers are older which, while possibly true, is completely irrelevant since it would be true only because more of all drivers are older drivers. The fact remains that in all walks of life we consider experience to increase skill and here you're suggesting that with driving the opposite is true. (Again, I point out that you must believe this to be the case in general because you cannot justify retesting everyone on the basis that a small minority are bad).
    I disagree on your fundamental claim of experience increasing skill.
    Yes, of course it does to some extent. Overall, at the moment i understand psychology a lot better, because of increased experience. However, i have forgotten some of the more technical aspects on the duration of my psychological studies which has been displaced by other information. If i were to take my AS again, i would fail because i can't even remember the particular chemicals released during fight or flight.

    What T&J, and the lib dems are trying to get at is that you can drive 15 years after passing, but maybe not test standard.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    I disagree on your fundamental claim of experience increasing skill.
    Yes, of course it does to some extent. Overall, at the moment i understand psychology a lot better, because of increased experience. However, i have forgotten some of the more technical aspects on the duration of my psychological studies which has been displaced by other information. If i were to take my AS again, i would fail because i can't even remember the particular chemicals released during fight or flight.

    What T&J, and the lib dems are trying to get at is that you can drive 15 years after passing, but maybe not test standard.
    Your point is an indictment of the test not of reality. Just as you are undoubtedly better at psychology so a more experienced driver is probably a better driver. That this is not reflected in the ability to pass a given test says more about the test then about the ability of the test subject.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    T&J - I sincerely hope you're not trying to compare driving a car to flying a fighter jet. The reason to continually test fighter pilots is, I think, two-fold. One is that the act of flying itself can cause damage to the pilot and the other is that even a small deterioration in quality of the pilot can have very expensive and sometimes extremely damaging consequences. Neither of these apply to cars.

    I'm also getting a bit miffed at your dismissal of the point about experience increasing skill. You're counter claim was that more bad drivers are older which, while possibly true, is completely irrelevant since it would be true only because more of all drivers are older drivers. The fact remains that in all walks of life we consider experience to increase skill and here you're suggesting that with driving the opposite is true. (Again, I point out that you must believe this to be the case in general because you cannot justify retesting everyone on the basis that a small minority are bad).
    I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying it's not universal and it's not enough to counter the idea of retesting in order to check standards. And no, I wasn't really comparing the two, but the point is kind of made. Deterioration in driving skill can and does cost lives. Why is it a bad thing to try and escape that?

    On the point of insurance you said:
    "But we know full well that this isn't the case, seeing as how insurance premiums are affected by factors that have nothing to do with your ability to be a good driver."
    Of course your exact premium is determined by things like the cost of your car. But the point is that it is also determined by factors that indicate how good you are as a driver. Now, if you were correct that length of driving is not correlated to an improvement in quality then we would not expect to see any correlation between length of driving and cost of premium. But we do. We see exactly the relationship between the two that we would expect to see if length of driving increased quality of driving. Indeed, when you ask the man in the street why insurance is more for younger or less experienced drivers the reply is that they are more likely to have an accident - ie that they are better drivers.
    Indeed see this page from the AA listing reasons why young drivers face higher premiums: http://www.theaa.com/insurance/young...insurance.html
    Spoiler:
    Show
    2. Understand why insurance is expensive for young drivers
    A look at road accident figures helps explain why insurance premiums are so high for young drivers.

    Five facts about accidents involving young drivers
    1 in 5 drivers are involved in a crash during their first year on the road
    male drivers aged under 21 are 10 times more likely to have a car accident than male drivers aged 35 or over
    young drivers have a higher proportion of crashes at night than older drivers
    1 in 8 British drivers are under 25, but a quarter of drivers who die in traffic collisions are in this age group
    In 2007, 40% of passengers killed or seriously injured – meaning lost limbs, paralysis, brain injury and other life-changing injuries – were in a car driven by a young drive
    I agree, but I think that you're overvaluing the correlation. Of course the premium is going to be related, but it will also be affected by other factors. Because of this, I don't see that you can use this point to justify opposing retesting. It's simply not strong enough, though as I said before it's important. Probably more important than I considered earlier, you're right.

    Your point about bad habits becoming locked in is not a case for retesting as much as a case for better initial testing. If a habit is dangerous then no one with it should be allowed to pass the first test.

    And finally, consider this. A bad driver is one who causes accidents and speeds etc. If he is a bad driver than at some point he will end up faced with the police because of his bad driving. At that point he receives points on his license which he might lose and be forced to retake the test. In other words, there already exists a system in place for dealing with drivers who pass their test but then get worse (or shouldn't have passed the first time) and that system targets the bad drivers. Do we need a system like yours that affects everyone when we already have a system in place that only affects the bad drivers who are the ones we want to target.
    Your first point here is good in theory. The problem is that once people pass tests, they don't drive in the same way as they did with an instructor in the car with a foot on the dual clutch and brake. The second one is great, in that it points out the problems with applying a blanket system to everyone. However, I would counter with the point that it is better to have a blanket system targeting everyone than it is to have people slip through the cracks and kill someone.

    From all these points I think it is clear that while your aims might be good (as a lot of Lib Dem ones are) your execution is poor.
    True, in that it has been pointed out that this doesn't fit in with EU related stuff, so it needs fixing anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I get the feeling, T&J, and correct me if I'm wrong, that for you the key point is that some people are killed by poor drivers. So that no matter how small that number might be and no matter how big the inconvenience, cost and intrusiveness of the system you propose to stop it, you will still propose the system with the argument "it can save lives".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Your point is an indictment of the test not of reality. Just as you are undoubtedly better at psychology so a more experienced driver is probably a better driver. That this is not reflected in the ability to pass a given test says more about the test then about the ability of the test subject.
    Hardly.
    Whilst i am better at psychology as a whole, i can hardly be said to be better at, say, biological psychology. Important road signs may be forgotten by people, furthermore, most people drive around their town/cities more often, so whilst this will be rehearsed and reinforced in long term memory, the aspects they don't cover regularly will be displaced.

    Can you rely on rehearsal effects to decide who's a good driver for life? Certainly not, as one is unlikely to rehearse all aspects of driving throughout their lives then they will forget the ones they don't rehearse, and so need to be tested to make sure they're up to scratch.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    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.
    and my other points. You have omitted them in your responce.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Hardly.
    Whilst i am better at psychology as a whole, i can hardly be said to be better at, say, biological psychology. Important road signs may be forgotten by people, furthermore, most people drive around their town/cities more often, so whilst this will be rehearsed and reinforced in long term memory, the aspects they don't cover regularly will be displaced.

    Can you rely on rehearsal effects to decide who's a good driver for life? Certainly not, as one is unlikely to rehearse all aspects of driving throughout their lives then they will forget the ones they don't rehearse, and so need to be tested to make sure they're up to scratch.
    So then the justification for retesting everyone is that some will have forgotten details that they never need?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    and my other points. You have omitted them in your responce.
    Fair enough:

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    I see no point in the pass plus test being compulsory, it is simply another cost on an already expensive thing.
    Surely the pass plus is there to not only help new drivers but to ensure they remain safe, aware and vigilant as every new driver (and indeed every driver) should be.

    I see no reason why people should be re-tested every 15 years, perhaps every two years for people over 65.
    I think one good reason for this is that because the test these days (theory and practical) is arguably harder than it was say 30 years ago (when my father passed his driving test) or perhaps 20 years ago, I think this might be a good way to test the people who passed the test back when it might have been a little easier, just to try and make the roads somewhat safer.

    Hazard Percep test should definatly stay.
    Like I said, there's not point doing it on a screen. If you really want to test someone's awareness and reactions wait till they are actually in the driving seat during a driving lesson. They should learn and understand under the supervision of the driving instructor, providing the driving instructor is competent enough.
 
 
 
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
The home of Results and Clearing

2,107

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

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.