B615 - Driving Re-Test Bill 2013 (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
B615 - Driving Re-Test Bill 2013 (Second Reading), TSR Government




Driving Re-test Act 2013

An Act requiring multiple testing of drivers, to ensure safety standards are maintained.

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:—

1 Re-test
1.1 Every 10 years (or 5 years for those aged 65 and above) following the issuing of their current Driving Licence, drivers must undergo a re-test.
1.2 Driving re-tests can be applied for at any point during the aforementioned period and,
1.3 There is no limit to the amount of times a re-test may be attempted per year (except in the case of 1.7),
1.4 For the purposes of this Act, 'Driving re-test' refers to the test that is to be taken only by people currently holding a driving license and shall:

(a) consist of the practical component from the standard Driving Test, with an additional section on Motorway driving;
(b) last around 30 minutes in duration;
(c) cost £30 for weekdays, and £40 for evening, weekend and bank holidays;
(d) follow the regulations as set out for the original Driving test as seen on gov.uk's information about the Driving Standards Agency's (DSA's) Driving test website.https://www.gov.uk/practical-driving...-cars/overview

1.5 Upon passing a re-test, a 10 year (or 5 year for those aged 65 and above) Driving License will be issued.
1.6 Those who have not yet passed their original driving test must continue to take the standard theory and practical Driving Tests,
1.7 If failure of the re-test is due to a 'dangerous fault' (which involves actual danger to the examined, the examiner, the public or property), a further re-test may only be applied for after attending a Compulsory Basic Training course run by DSA approved instructors.
1.8 Retests for drivers who obtained their original licence prior to commencement of this Act begin six months following what would have been deadline for their next retest were this Act to have commenced prior to the issuing of their original licence.

2. Enforcement and Punishment

2.1 The enforcement of this Act is the responsibility of the Department for Transport;
2.2 The driver's license will be temporarily revoked if:

(a) A re-test is failed;
(b) A re-test is not passed during the 10 or 5 year period as specified in 1.1.

3. Commencement, short title and extent

3.1 This Act may be cited as the Driving Re-test Act 2013
3.2 This bill shall extend to England; and
3.3 Comes into force immediately following Royal Assent.


Notes:
Spoiler:
Show
There are hundreds of people who may have never taken a stringent driving test, or more likely passed over 40 years ago and have slipped into very bad driving habits. Which can happen after just 1 year of driving without instruction.This bill is designed to keep drivers regularly aware of the highway code and good driving practice, ensuring safer drivers and fewer road incidents. A current driving test is £62, but as this is a shortened version, a smaller fee is expected and so £30 seems appropriate, without severely denting personal finances over a 5 year period.

0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
This still doesn't address the key issue of how exactly the system will cope with such increased demand.
0
talentedlobster
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
I like it as there are a lot of arrogant middle aged drivers who can't actually remember the basics or just decide not to use them, but I don't like being harsh to the elderly, what if you were an 80 year old who lived by themselves with very limited support and are then told you can't drive to the shops to buy your essential food and before you say shop online, you have got to remember many of these people are unable to turn a computer on, let alone work out how to order their shopping online.
0
Cheese_Monster
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
As per Endless Blue' comments, if you put in place a re-examination, naturally you need the same amount of examiners to cope with demand, which I can't see that this bill does.
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
As per Endless Blue' comments, if you put in place a re-examination, naturally you need the same amount of examiners to cope with demand, which I can't see that this bill does.
this^
0
nixonsjellybeans
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Still a nay for the above reasons and more.
0
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
Why not just institute an IQ test for car ownership, and eliminate the lower orders from the roads entirely? It would be much cheaper.
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Observatory)
Why not just institute an IQ test for car ownership, and eliminate the lower orders from the roads entirely? It would be much cheaper.
I assume you got that from the Boris Johnson school of (non) thought?
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Observatory)
Why not just institute an IQ test for car ownership, and eliminate the lower orders from the roads entirely? It would be much cheaper.
I don't think middle lane hoggers on motorways, people in Chelsea tractors travelling half a mile instead of walking, or Jeremy Clarkson would consider themselves as being of the lower orders.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
A shorter re-test period shouldn't just apply to the elderly- what demographic makes up the vast majority of crash statistics?
0
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by SciFiRory)
I assume you got that from the Boris Johnson school of (non) thought?
I'm not advocating the policy; I'm saying it's equivalent to the one proposed, and the previous requirements for IQ-loaded theory tests and practical tests with much stricter requirements than those observed by most people in daily life. The effect is simply to bar people with low IQs and poor manual dexterity from driving entirely.

Here's a problem: that actually would be expected to reduce road accidents, possibly significantly. It's probably the largest source of reductions in accident rate due to stricter test requirements. Do you believe that's a sufficient justification for such a policy?

(Original post by barnet)
I don't think middle lane hoggers on motorways, people in Chelsea tractors travelling half a mile instead of walking, or Jeremy Clarkson would consider themselves as being of the lower orders.
Those people will jump the administrative hoops to renew their licenses and then do what they wanted anyway. Intention to drive a large car a short distance isn't grounds for failing a driving test. People don't hog the middle lane because they don't realise it's illegal, but because it's convenient and don't believe they will get caught. The effect of this law is purely to ban low-aptitude people from driving. They're most likely to not be on high incomes.
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Observatory)
I'm not advocating the policy; I'm saying it's equivalent to the one proposed, and the previous requirements for IQ-loaded theory tests and practical tests with much stricter requirements than those observed by most people in daily life. The effect is simply to bar people with low IQs and poor manual dexterity from driving entirely.

Here's a problem: that actually would be expected to reduce road accidents, possibly significantly. It's probably the largest source of reductions in accident rate due to stricter test requirements. Do you believe that's a sufficient justification for such a policy?.
ah okay, I agree IQ tests are pretty daft a way to judge how well people can drive, I don't care for IQ tests at all in fact, I regard them as nothing more than puzzles that some people will or won't be good at.

true, I don't rightly know what would reduce road accidents other than less people driving tbh, I am reluctant to support this policy when the staffing levels haven't been sorted out anyway, but thinking it through I don't know I could support it being based so heavily on these tests only, do you have alternative ideas as to how testing could be done?
0
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by SciFiRory)
ah okay, I agree IQ tests are pretty daft a way to judge how well people can drive, I don't care for IQ tests at all in fact, I regard them as nothing more than puzzles that some people will or won't be good at.

true, I don't rightly know what would reduce road accidents other than less people driving tbh, I am reluctant to support this policy when the staffing levels haven't been sorted out anyway, but thinking it through I don't know I could support it being based so heavily on these tests only, do you have alternative ideas as to how testing could be done?
I think the only way to stop 'competent but inconsiderate' drivers is greater surveillance of the roads and stricter enforcement of traffic laws after people have passed the tests.

Alternatively we could accept the current level of risk of road accidents. Any further reduction is going to involve increasingly expensive trade-offs, and we probably already went too far.
0
Superunknown17
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
It's a nice idea but without an increase in the number of examiners it's going to create a bottleneck and people will end up waiting even longer to start driving or continue driving which is entirely impractical. A nay unless this is changed.
0
Republic1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
It's still a Nay from me I'm afraid. Not workable and an very inefficient way of improving driving standards
0
MacDaddi
Badges: 15
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
I like how it's been raised, but I appreciate the concerns some of the Hon. Gentlemen have raised, therefore I cannot vote Aye with the Bill in its current format
0
Endless Blue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Observatory)
I'm not advocating the policy; I'm saying it's equivalent to the one proposed, and the previous requirements for IQ-loaded theory tests and practical tests with much stricter requirements than those observed by most people in daily life. The effect is simply to bar people with low IQs and poor manual dexterity from driving entirely.

Here's a problem: that actually would be expected to reduce road accidents, possibly significantly. It's probably the largest source of reductions in accident rate due to stricter test requirements. Do you believe that's a sufficient justification for such a policy?


Those people will jump the administrative hoops to renew their licenses and then do what they wanted anyway. Intention to drive a large car a short distance isn't grounds for failing a driving test. People don't hog the middle lane because they don't realise it's illegal, but because it's convenient and don't believe they will get caught. The effect of this law is purely to ban low-aptitude people from driving. They're most likely to not be on high incomes.
I'm not sure that's true at all. Reckless driving is the cause of far more accidents than accidents caused by poor technical ability.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Endless Blue)
I'm not sure that's true at all. Reckless driving is the cause of far more accidents than accidents caused by poor technical ability.
That is probably true, but the tests do not filter out reckless drivers. They filter out people with poor technical ability and/or people who are too stupid to restrain their reckless tendencies for about half an hour.

The only way you can filter out reckless drivers is retrospective policing. But that is very expensive and invasive, especially considering the mortality rate from car accidents is only 0.003%.
0
Will95206
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
A much improved Bill from its first stages....

Will most probably be voting Aye.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#20
This is in cessation.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (161)
17.5%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (81)
8.8%
No I am happy with my course choice (547)
59.46%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (131)
14.24%

Watched Threads

View All