Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do you think if people who are caught doing something which would fail them a driving test, be made to have their driving examined, and if it isn't up to scratch have their licence revoked? Then, if they want to drive they'll have to do the test again. This only is not only a way to improve safety, but also will be fairer, as if a learner makes a mistake on a test causing them to fail, why should someone keep their lincence if they get caught doing the same thing?

    I know it would be hard to police but I'm putting safety first above anything else and we just don't do things because they're "hard".

    The only people I can see who will be against this are people who shouldn't be on the road anyway as hey know they're a bad driver.

    NOTE: Passed my test second time with 1 minor. Also have a full motorbike license, and training to be a train driver.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with this idea, but like you say it'd be fairly difficult to enforce
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Everybody should be retested every x years, ideally 5, but more practically 10.

    Anyone who fails has to learn how to drive from scratch, including a minimum number of lessons before they can take a new test.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    So if I don't correctly reverse round a corner or check my mirrors every 2 seconds I'll have to be retested? It's a nice idea but wouldn't work.
    A reapproach to teaching ensuring that driving at night, on a skid pan and in various unfamiliar locations would be the best way to improve safety. And if we could stop pretending that speed is dangerous when a lack of attention is far more likely to cause an accident, that'd be good too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Everybody should be retested every x years, ideally 5, but more practically 10.

    Anyone who fails has to learn how to drive from scratch, including a minimum number of lessons before they can take a new year.
    That would be a better way of approaching it I agree.


    (Original post by Prince_fancybum)
    So if I don't correctly reverse round a corner or check my mirrors every 2 seconds I'll have to be retested? It's a nice idea but wouldn't work.
    A reapproach to teaching ensuring that driving at night, on a skid pan and in various unfamiliar locations would be the best way to improve safety. And if we could stop pretending that speed is dangerous when a lack of attention is far more likely to cause an accident, that'd be good too.
    Theoretically yes as you do not meet the standards set out by the DVSA - if not there's no point in testing in the current way. Anyway, I favour testing someone over a period of a month or so, as that would give a better indication of a persons ability to drive or not rather than 40 minutes.

    Nobody's pretending speed is dangerous although if everyone drove 10mph slower the roads would be safer. Plus if you're not checking your mirrors to the standard set by the DVSA, you do have a lack of due care and attention.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    -Someone needs to enforce this... Probably the police.
    -The police will then be forced to waste time and money on enforcing these things.
    -Waiting times for driving tests would increase significantly, maybe even to the point of having a waiting list spanning SEVERAL YEARS which could spark a sudden increase of illegal drivers.

    Not to mention that 3 of the same minor is also a fail... Also, some more reasons why this is pretty damn stupid.
    - Forward parking, currently, would result in you failing. Should be forced to re-take the test if they're caught driving into a space forward?
    - Adjusting more than 3 times (parking) would fail you, should you be forced to re-take the test for that?
    - Mirror use while reversing, should you be forced to re-take your test for using your mirrors to reverse rather than looking over your shoulder? Keeping in mind this is good practice for when you can't look out the rear window, and in some vehicles, you have no other option.
    - Should you be forced to re-take the test because you won't overtake a vehicle that's going a bit slower than the limit?
    - Should you be forced to re-take the test because you're not eco friendly enough?
    - Should you be failed for not taking a gap that you could've taken? Keeping in mind that it's far safer to hang back if you aren't sure rather than rush and try to take the gap...


    I could go on, there are so many harmless things that can make you fail your test, and it'd only cause havoc for new drivers being forced to sit on a HUGE waiting list (especially if you re-test test everyone every few years).


    TL;DR
    Virtually unenforceable
    Waste of time and money to enforce
    Waiting times will shoot up, leading to more illegal drivers
    There are so many harmless ways to fail your driving test that you'd effectively be banning a lot of people for minor things that'd realistically have little, if any impact. Not to mention a further increase in illegal drivers driving without insurance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMcSame)
    -Someone needs to enforce this... Probably the police.
    -The police will then be forced to waste time and money on enforcing these things.
    -Waiting times for driving tests would increase significantly, maybe even to the point of having a waiting list spanning SEVERAL YEARS which could spark a sudden increase of illegal drivers.

    Not to mention that 3 of the same minor is also a fail... Also, some more reasons why this is pretty damn stupid.
    - Forward parking, currently, would result in you failing. Should be forced to re-take the test if they're caught driving into a space forward?
    - Adjusting more than 3 times (parking) would fail you, should you be forced to re-take the test for that?
    - Mirror use while reversing, should you be forced to re-take your test for using your mirrors to reverse rather than looking over your shoulder? Keeping in mind this is good practice for when you can't look out the rear window, and in some vehicles, you have no other option.
    - Should you be forced to re-take the test because you won't overtake a vehicle that's going a bit slower than the limit?
    - Should you be forced to re-take the test because you're not eco friendly enough?
    - Should you be failed for not taking a gap that you could've taken? Keeping in mind that it's far safer to hang back if you aren't sure rather than rush and try to take the gap...


    I could go on, there are so many harmless things that can make you fail your test, and it'd only cause havoc for new drivers being forced to sit on a HUGE waiting list (especially if you re-test test everyone every few years).


    TL;DR
    Virtually unenforceable
    Waste of time and money to enforce
    Waiting times will shoot up, leading to more illegal drivers
    There are so many harmless ways to fail your driving test that you'd effectively be banning a lot of people for minor things that'd realistically have little, if any impact. Not to mention a further increase in illegal drivers driving without insurance.
    With the same logic if everything mentioned is harmless, should you fail a test for it?

    And what do you suggest to improve the safety of our roads? As there are a huge amount a people who are on the road who really shouldn't be, but they are because they behaved themselves for 40 minutes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well there are a lot of things that you can fail your test for that would be very unfair to take your license off you. I'm sure we've all misjudged a gap once and pulled out when we maybe shouldn't have, or not done a test standard turn-in-the-road etc.

    Plus the government wouldn't make many laws that would damage the economy. If loads of people had lost their ability to drive then the economy would probably take a hit.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There already are rules that exist than can force a retest in certain circumstances
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    That would be a better way of approaching it I agree.




    Theoretically yes as you do not meet the standards set out by the DVSA - if not there's no point in testing in the current way. Anyway, I favour testing someone over a period of a month or so, as that would give a better indication of a persons ability to drive or not rather than 40 minutes.

    Nobody's pretending speed is dangerous although if everyone drove 10mph slower the roads would be safer. Plus if you're not checking your mirrors to the standard set by the DVSA, you do have a lack of due care and attention.
    Checking your mirrors constantly takes your eyes away from the road, unless you're changing lanes, turning, overtaking or braking there's no need to check your mirrors, but on your driving test you're constantly checking them without due reason.The roads wouldn't be safer if everyone drove 10mph slower, people would be more bored and pay less attention making them more likely to use their phones / other distractions. If people were taught to drive properly, i.e braking correctly, line choice, throttle control, weight shifting you can safely drive at a much higher speed whilst remaining in perfect control.

    Also a month long test would be ridiculously expensive so therefore completely impossible to implement.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    With the same logic if everything mentioned is harmless, should you fail a test for it?

    And what do you suggest to improve the safety of our roads? As there are a huge amount a people who are on the road who really shouldn't be, but they are because they behaved themselves for 40 minutes.
    What do you suggest to decrease waiting times for driving tests? They're already as bad as 6 months in some places, forcing people to retake their test because of minor things will only bump that time up further.

    Also, you mention that if they're caught they should have their driving monitored. Who's going to monitor it? More unnecessary costs.
    The logic of someone behaving for 40 minutes also applies to this monitoring...

    Also, you seem to be under the impression that roads in the UK are unsafe to drive on. Yes, there are certainly a fair share of idiots, but British roads are some of the safest in the world, being beaten by only 5 countries, 4 of which are only slightly better in terms of road fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles. It's also worth noting that the population of the UK DWARFS the population all 5 of those countries.

    - Monaco had 0 deaths. Keeping in mind that Monaco is a microstate with a population of less than 40,000
    - San Marino had 1.8 deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles. Much like Monaco, San Marino is a microstate with a population of less than 40,000
    - Finland had 4.4 deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles. While comparable in size, the small ~5.5 Million population doesn't make a dent in the UK's ~65 Million population
    - Sweden and Switzerland both came in at 4.7 deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles, and again, both populations being below the 10 million mark.
    - The UK had 5.1 deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles with a population of ~65 Million.

    Roads in the UK are among the safest in the world when you consider the size of the population vs other high performers. Every other country that has less deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles also has a significantly smaller population.

    So what changes would I suggest?
    Well, looking at the data, chopping down a good portion of our population could have quite an impact.

    On a serious note...
    Reducing the amount of NSL roads, especially rural roads. Roads should only be NSL if the NSL is suitable for that road. Speed limits higher than what's suitable for the road gives people a false sense of security. I also presume that's why rural A roads are some of the most dangerous in the country, you have speed limits that aren't suitable for the road.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Retest every 5 years until age 60, then every year. Reaction times slow as we age.

    Optional motorway add-on before being allowed on motorways. Details stored on a database the police can access (like MOTs).

    Increase maximum motorway top speed for certain suitable stretches.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What you're asking for pretty much already exists; Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.36(4)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think there should be a limit on the number of attempts to pass the practical test. Someone who takes 37 attempts to pass their test is clearly a danger to the public and should be banned.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    Retest every 5 years until age 60, then every year. Reaction times slow as we age.

    Optional motorway add-on before being allowed on motorways. Details stored on a database the police can access (like MOTs).

    Increase maximum motorway top speed for certain suitable stretches.
    First point would see half the population have their licence revoked.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Reaction times may slow but experience increases awareness.

    The highest percentage of collisions is in new, young drivers.

    To counter your argument, how about an annual test for the first 5 years of a licence, then two years for the next ten and so on?

    Again massive blockages would be forced into the testing system.
    But almost all the accidents that have happened to people that I know have been new drivers being overconfident. One older friend of the family was on the correct side of the road when a maybe 5 year qualified driver overcooked it and actually drove over her car. She nearly died.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for the feedback guys! I know that what I suggested would be impossible to implement. I just thought of it in the siruisrion my friend was.

    Failed his first test for coming "too fast" into a junction, even though he had full control of the car (confirmed by his instructor who happens to be my neighbour). He hen passed his second test and then the next day did same thing at the same junction (same speed) that he failed his first test for. See the point I'm trying to make? Or is to driving test flawed in some way? I'm not saying I'm a perfect driver btw, but most of the time I ride around on my motorbike or cycle now, when I'm not driving a train!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ATW1)
    First point would see half the population have their licence revoked.
    I have no problem with that. If people want to keep their licence they would have to drive to the Highway Code. As they're supposed to.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Stop the scrapping of hard shoulders on newly widened motorways and increase the amount of road lighting in fog prone areas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    Thanks for the feedback guys! I know that what I suggested would be impossible to implement. I just thought of it in the siruisrion my friend was.

    Failed his first test for coming "too fast" into a junction, even though he had full control of the car (confirmed by his instructor who happens to be my neighbour). He hen passed his second test and then the next day did same thing at the same junction (same speed) that he failed his first test for. See the point I'm trying to make? Or is to driving test flawed in some way? I'm not saying I'm a perfect driver btw, but most of the time I ride around on my motorbike or cycle now, when I'm not driving a train!
    The driving test is flawed.

    As I said in earlier, your idea *is* actually law. Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.36(4) gives the power of license disqualification until test passed for committing ANY road traffic offence, if a court feels your driving warrants it.

    That is to say that in you very well can have your license taken away and made to do a retest for bad driving, speeding, etc.

    But this power isn't really used as (in addition to the comments about the huge pressure it'd put on the test system), the driving test isn't a good indicator of being a good driver.

    It's no different to how most people slam on the breaks and don't go above 60 when they see a police car join the motorway. When people know they're being watched, they'll change their driving style.

    The fact you may drive faultless on a driving test doesn't mean you're not going to go and start badly driving the moment you get your full license.

    In your friend's case, you could send him back to do his test but it wouldn't stop him passing again and doing the exact same thing.

    Furthermore, the driving test is ultimately a comprised system that's designed to test if you have a an adequate level of driving in a very artificial set of circumstances. It is not, and cannot, ever replicate any real world driving experience as any such test would last forever.

    I've been driving 10 years (and that's obviously nothing compared to some) and yet every day I still find myself having to deal with completely new situations that I was never tested to see if I could cope with.

    To conclude, passing a driving test doesn't mean you're going to be a good driver, it simply means you've shown you CAN be a be an adequate driver in an extremely limited set of scenarios.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.