Turn on thread page Beta

B241 - Driving Education and testing Bill watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    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.
    Not being a driver I just take this from the point of view that if a person has forgotten something through lack of use, the very reason why they have forgotten it is not something that can be solved through expensive re-testing is it! If a person driving on flat roads their entire life forgets how to do a hill start then so be it, it's not pertinent to their driving needs. I thought driving was, beyond the basics, about common sense and who are we, as parliamentarians, to decide how a person's common sense should operate in a given circumstance?

    There are reckless drivers out there, many reckless drivers, but again this bill seeks to penalise the majority who are not for the failures of the minority who are. If anything we should make the law tougher to deal with the consequences of the idiots who pass their test. Make it so that death by dangerous driving is still manslaughter and therefore subject to the fullest extent of manslaughter law not DBDD law which is pretty piss poor frankly.

    That's the failings, not whether a person has forgotten some detail of the highway code in the space of twenty years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First question has any liberal democrat MP actually got a driving license ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    First question has any liberal democrat MP actually got a driving license ?
    Well if T/J drives between Keele and his home in Suffolk, you'd hope he does
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (i) Drivers who fail to sit their Pass Plus test within twelve months will be fined £35.
    So, your choice is pay probably a three-figure sum to do Pass Plus, or £35 not to do it. Easy choice for me. Similarly...

    (ii) Re-testing is compulsory. Drivers who fail to sit their Driving Test within twelve months of notification will be fined £100.
    Again, I'll pay £100 every 15 years rather than be re-tested. That's less than 10% of what my car costs me on an annual basis.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    You don't consider killing multiple people by crashing a car to be extremely damaging consequences? The only difference between the two is that a plane crash is more serious and kills many more people. They're both large hunks of metal travelling fast enough to kill everyone inside as well as people outside if they crash badly.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    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".
    Or it could be weighing up the inconvenience, cost and intrusiveness of the system against the lives it will save. I think you put the dilemma quite clearly here - there are clear costs on both sides.

    As for the argument about experience, this bill may be there to catch people like me, who passed their test a while ago but haven't driven much for a few years and so are very much out of practice.

    Having said that, new drivers has such a vastly higher likelihood of crashing that I think this may be a lot of cost for a smaller benefit. But I keep an open mind as people do forget and become blase about driving and this would go some way towards ensuring they know what sensible driving is and can do it.

    (Original post by ThePants999)
    So, your choice is pay probably a three-figure sum to do Pass Plus, or £35 not to do it. Easy choice for me. Similarly...

    Again, I'll pay £100 every 15 years rather than be re-tested. That's less than 10% of what my car costs me on an annual basis.
    I was about to write this as well. The fines are so small I'd never bother.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Whichever way you spin it, Drogue, this is a costly exercise that will at best catch a small minority of drivers who ought not to be driving.

    And the point about deaths and serious injuries resulting from car crashes fall into two groups - those caused by negligence on the part of the driver and those not. Those that are not will not be avoided by this Bill. Those that are, like all crimes, are best prevented by ensuring that those who commit them are appropriately punished. They are not prevented by punishing everyone.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Whichever way you spin it, Drogue, this is a costly exercise that will at best catch a small minority of drivers who ought not to be driving.

    And the point about deaths and serious injuries resulting from car crashes fall into two groups - those caused by negligence on the part of the driver and those not. Those that are not will not be avoided by this Bill. Those that are, like all crimes, are best prevented by ensuring that those who commit them are appropriately punished. They are not prevented by punishing everyone.
    All crashes are avoidable by better driving. Yes, it will be a costly exercise, but it won't just catch those who ought not to be driving. I'm a perfectly reasonable driver, but I've forgotten quite a bit that I learned for my test, as you get into a habit of driving in your own style. Pushing people out of that and forcing them to evaluate their driving style will improve a lot of people's driving.

    As for accidents being best prevented by punishing those who do, that's a ridiculous assertion. How do you punish those that already died from their own bad driving? Deterrents don't work that well when it comes to crimes or accidents with serious consequences. Moreover, deterrents don't take into account the huge element of chance involved. A good driver might have a 1% chance of crashing, a bad driver a 5%. Punishing them to such an extent to deter bad driving might catch good drivers who deserve no punishment while still being ineffective because bad drivers aren't that likely to crash.

    It's not punishing people to force them to take a driving test any more than it's punishing a doctor to force them to take a medical degree. In a situation where lives are at risk, I don't think regular checks that you're fit to perform that act are inappropriate. Now, this doesn't mean I'm for this bill, as you say it'll be costly and inconvenient. But dismissing car driving as some safe activity or focusing just on the costs misses the point that almost 3000 are killed and 30000 seriously injured on the UK's roads each year. Car driving is not a safe activity, and the high cost may be justified if it saves a few hundred people from being killed and a few thousand from being injured.

    If anything, your arguments are convincing me that this is a good idea, as they seem to be largely removed from the evidence. Theoretically punishing those that have accidents is a good idea, except where they're already killed, that in practice it would be political unfeasible to punish them enough, that it doesn't take into account the significant amount of chance involved and simply doesn't work as a deterrent. None of that makes this a good idea, but it makes it a damn sight better one than yours!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You seem to be contradicting yourself.

    First you say that all crashes are avoidable by better driving then you say that there is a huge element of chance involved. Those things seem to be mutually exclusive. Either crashes are entirely avoidable (in which case chance has nothing to do with it) or they're not and they are mostly caused by "poor luck" with poor driving contributing. Yet you've said that they're entirely avoidable when it suits your argument that retesting will remove accidents and seem to say that they're mostly by chance when it supports your claim that harsh punishments for poor driving are ineffective.

    Moreover, your claim that people forget things has been mentioned before, but it was pointed out that if people have forgotten things it is because they never (or very rarely) use those pieces of information.

    And your comparison to a medical degree is obviously unhelpful since drivers do indeed pass a test initially. In fact the analogy probably shoots you in the foot because, as far as I know, doctors do not repeat their medical degrees or their exams every so often.

    Your own comments rebound on you again when you discuss deterrents. For here you note that death to drivers from crashes is not a deterrent to poor driving. Yet death is the most serious deterrent, if it isn't working then something must be wrong. And, I think, it is that the probability of crashing, even if driving very poorly, is very small. Indeed, this is so with the ONS (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208) reporting that deaths on the road are at the rate of 48 deaths for every 100 million vehicle kilometres.

    So we're left to conclude, I think, that deaths from car crashes are rare (thus not serving as a deterrent to people) and that when they do occur they are caused by chance as much (if not more) than by bad driving. The point still stands, though, that if poor driving were punished properly it would decrease. Poor driving results in many accidents and infringements that cause no death or injury. If we want to stamp it out then we already have a system in place designed to do so - the police and law courts.

    I don't think it is a crazy idea to actually use them to discourage poor driving and it certainly is a damn sight better than the proposal here which is extremely costly and will disproportionately affect those drivers who are already driving properly. The argument that people forget driving skills is void as soon as we realise that they forget them through lack of use meaning that they never need them and also when we realise that a safe driver is not going to crash simply because they come across a road sign they don't know the meaning of.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    You seem to be contradicting yourself.

    First you say that all crashes are avoidable by better driving then you say that there is a huge element of chance involved. Those things seem to be mutually exclusive.
    But they're not. Something having an element of chance doesn't make it unavoidable.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Moreover, your claim that people forget things has been mentioned before, but it was pointed out that if people have forgotten things it is because they never (or very rarely) use those pieces of information.

    And your comparison to a medical degree is obviously unhelpful since drivers do indeed pass a test initially. In fact the analogy probably shoots you in the foot because, as far as I know, doctors do not repeat their medical degrees or their exams every so often.
    No, they take harder ones and then do professional development ones.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Your own comments rebound on you again when you discuss deterrents. For here you note that death to drivers from crashes is not a deterrent to poor driving. Yet death is the most serious deterrent, if it isn't working then something must be wrong.
    Yes, deterrents don't work, as I said. Strange as it may seem, chance death isn't a great way of stopping people doing things, as the evidence around the death penalty shows.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And, I think, it is that the probability of crashing, even if driving very poorly, is very small. Indeed, this is so with the ONS (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208) reporting that deaths on the road are at the rate of 48 deaths for every 100 million vehicle kilometres.
    It is. So is the probability of crashing a plane, yet you tried to claim they were somehow completely different. Causing death by driving does have a very small chance per mile driven. But with billions of miles a year driven, thousands of people still die. Is the inconvenience of repeating a test every 15 years worth saving a few hundred lives a year? I don't know, but it seems plausible. I'm not arguing for this bill, I'm arguing that your earlier point - it's about weighing up the cost and inconvenience against the lives, injuries and damage saved. It's plausible that this will be worth it, so your automatic ruling it out based on, what seems to be, to be entirely flawed reasoning, strikes me as a bit blase. Your proposals simply won't work.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    The point still stands, though, that if poor driving were punished properly it would decrease.
    No it doesn't! Did you miss the point of my post that deterrents don't work very well when the chance is small. The death penalty doesn't reduce offending, just as punishing drivers for killing others will do little.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I don't think it is a crazy idea to actually use them to discourage poor driving and it certainly is a damn sight better than the proposal here which is extremely costly and will disproportionately affect those drivers who are already driving properly. The argument that people forget driving skills is void as soon as we realise that they forget them through lack of use meaning that they never need them and also when we realise that a safe driver is not going to crash simply because they come across a road sign they don't know the meaning of.
    Yeh, because the driving test is about road signs. As for never using them, you tend tend to use emergency stops that often, but every driver needs to be able to.

    No contradiction here, but a staggering missing of most of my points it seems.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I can't be bothered for a multiquote battle.

    You say:
    "The death penalty doesn't reduce offending, just as punishing drivers for killing others will do little."

    I agree, because few deaths are caused by driving and even fewer by bad driving alone. But, as I said, bad driving leads to plenty of other infringements, like speeding, running red lights, drunk driving, overtaking illegally etc. If the aim of the Bill is to tackle poor driving then I stand entirely by what I said earlier that we already have a system in place designed to catch poor drivers. Why not use it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I can't be bothered for a multiquote battle.

    You say:
    "The death penalty doesn't reduce offending, just as punishing drivers for killing others will do little."

    I agree, because few deaths are caused by driving and even fewer by bad driving alone. But, as I said, bad driving leads to plenty of other infringements, like speeding, running red lights, drunk driving, overtaking illegally etc. If the aim of the Bill is to tackle poor driving then I stand entirely by what I said earlier that we already have a system in place designed to catch poor drivers. Why not use it?
    Because we do and it doesn't work well enough. Over 3000 people a year are killed by driving, and I think that's enough to make classing it as "few" callous and to suggest we need to do more to reduce this number. Why do we accept that thousands of people die every year from a common, every day activity?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Because we do and it doesn't work well enough. Over 3000 people a year are killed by driving, and I think that's enough to make classing it as "few" callous and to suggest we need to do more to reduce this number. Why do we accept that thousands of people die every year from a common, every day activity?
    I was wondering how long it would be before someone accused me of being somehow "evil" or uncaring.

    In the UK 500,000 people die every year. 3,000 deaths caused by traffic accidents amounts to 0.6% of the total deaths each year. (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...2008/DR_08.pdf [it's fairly large]) Couple this with the data from earlier that there are about 48 deaths per 100 million vehicle kilometres and I think it becomes increasingly difficult to claim that road deaths are a major problem.

    We should also remember that a disproportionately large number of accidents are caused by young and inexperienced drivers leading to the conclusion that experience and maturity make one a safer driver.

    All these points lead to the conclusion that road safety is not a major problem that requires spending billions of pounds to fix and that people do not, in fact, get worse the more they drive.

    As for the system not working, do we have evidence of its failure? The statistics show that the death rate is falling which could indicate that the system is working. But the key point here is that there is a system that is designed to catch the bad drivers. If the House is convinced that poor driving is so terrible let it pass a law requiring retesting of anyone caught speeding, for example. This would be cheaper and better targeted than a catch-all retest everyone based on either the wrong assumption that people get worse the more they drive or else on the emotional argument "think of the children!"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I was wondering how long it would be before someone accused me of being somehow "evil" or uncaring.
    Oh FFS, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I post. I never mentioned evil or uncaring, nor did I make a personal comment. I said calling 3000 deaths few seems callous, a comment about the action, not you, and callous is a world away from evil.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    In the UK 500,000 people die every year. 3,000 deaths caused by traffic accidents amounts to 0.6% of the total deaths each year. (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...2008/DR_08.pdf [it's fairly large]) Couple this with the data from earlier that there are about 48 deaths per 100 million vehicle kilometres and I think it becomes increasingly difficult to claim that road deaths are a major problem.

    We should also remember that a disproportionately large number of accidents are caused by young and inexperienced drivers leading to the conclusion that experience and maturity make one a safer driver.

    All these points lead to the conclusion that road safety is not a major problem that requires spending billions of pounds to fix and that people do not, in fact, get worse the more they drive.

    As for the system not working, do we have evidence of its failure? The statistics show that the death rate is falling which could indicate that the system is working. But the key point here is that there is a system that is designed to catch the bad drivers. If the House is convinced that poor driving is so terrible let it pass a law requiring retesting of anyone caught speeding, for example. This would be cheaper and better targeted than a catch-all retest everyone based on either the wrong assumption that people get worse the more they drive or else on the emotional argument "think of the children!"
    This isn't an emotional argument. As I've kept saying, it seems pretty simple, and one which the number of people dying of other things doesn't come into:

    3000 deaths is a major issue, or at least major enough to consider action. We need to weigh up how many lives we'd save with different options and the cost (monetary and inconvenience) of them. Ignoring 3000 deaths and 30000 serious injuries a year without considering methods of reducing doesn't seem like the best course of action to me.

    I very much like the idea of retesting bad drivers in a more targetted way actually. Needing to retest is a very sensible punishment for driving offenses and will hit the people most likely to crash while leaving the rest without the inconvenience.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    First question has any liberal democrat MP actually got a driving license ?
    Why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Why?
    Because they might understand the topic a bit better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    Because they might understand the topic a bit better.
    Interesting. The answer is yes, and the obvious flaw in your reasoning is that driving tests change all the time so having a license does not actually make you an expert in driving tests.

    Also if you drive in real life like you do in your test, you will piss everybody off.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why are we still debating a bill that can't legally come into force?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Interesting. The answer is yes, and the obvious flaw in your reasoning is that driving tests change all the time so having a license does not actually make you an expert in driving tests.

    Also if you drive in real life like you do in your test, you will piss everybody off.
    So why make pass plus complusary ? I never said having your license made you an expert in driving tests. So stop trying to put words in my mouth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    So why make pass plus complusary ? I never said having your license made you an expert in driving tests. So stop trying to put words in my mouth.
    That was the implication of what you said.

    Also, pass plus is not the same as the driving test. But you knew that I'm sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    That was the implication of what you said.Also, pass plus is not the same as the driving test. But you knew that I'm sure.
    Incorrect, that was your interpretation of what was said. Half of the pass plus program is incoperated into driving lessons as it is. You want young drivers to pay extra money for training they learn and develop on the road. Because you've stereotyped all young drivers together as fast and reckless drivers. The driving is more than adqauete to access safe driving on our roads.
 
 
 
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
Which accompaniment is best?
  • create my feed
  • edit my feed

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.