Just a quick...Aaaarrrgggghhhhhh!

Mikesphotaes said:
Never been such a thing as 'life savers" for umpteen years now.

Police motorcyclists are taught that mirrors are safer than looking over their shoulders:eek:
Click to expand...
Interesting I was taught to do them 10 yrs ago on my bike test - still use them in the car as a matter of habit - Oh and 64!
 
ChasG said:
Interesting I was taught to do them 10 yrs ago on my bike test - still use them in the car as a matter of habit - Oh and 64!
Click to expand...

Car drivers should always do a blind spot check. Newer designs of car have mirrors that minimise reduce blind spots but it's important to do it as an incorrectly adjusted mirror, failure to see something is no excuse when an over the shoulder check would prevent a collision
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Never been such a thing as 'life savers" for umpteen years now.

Police motorcyclists are taught that mirrors are safer than looking over their shoulders:eek:
Click to expand...

Can you please link the proof to back up the above statements !

You obviously don't ride a Motorcycle !
 
Byker28i said:
Interestingly thee are almost as many in incidents related to drivers over 70 as there are for drivers aged 17-19 if you look at the statistics, however deaths are significantly lower, probably as a result of the lower speed. There are indicators that drivers over the age of 80 pose an increased risk, especially at junctions.

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn02198
Click to expand...

The problem with all the road collision statistics collected is that no apportion of blame is attached, so whilst 13% of those who were KSI were over 70 years old there is no measure of whether the dead/injured was responsible for the collision. It may be that a 70+ year old was KSI in a collision but it may just as equally have been a 17-19 year old that caused the collision but escaped uninjured.
 
Whilst I am an advocate of periodic retesting (both theory and practical tests) I appreciate that it would come at a cost to both the motorist and the general tax payer (imagine all the extra examiners that would need to be employed and trained) and politically would be very unpopular. You also potentially run into problems with timing; what happens if you're due to take your retest by (for arguments sake) 1st April. You book, take and pass the theory test and then book the practical test for the last week in March. The day before your test you get a call from the test centre to tell you that your test has been postponed until the 14th April due to staff shortages/illness/industrial action/whatever. What happens? You know the Government isn't going to allow you to continue driving because a) it's too complicated to organise and b) they'd miss a chance to persecute you if you did.

How about this as an alternative: When you pass the DSA L test you have to carry a "P" plate on your vehicle and are limited to the engine size and number of passengers you can carry until you take and pass an advanced criving test run by an approved provider (e.g. the IAM or RoSPA who currently offer these). Once you have passed that test your restrictions are removed but you have to retake and pass the test every five years or the restrictions are reimposed. There is little cost to the taxpayer of this system as training and testing is carried out by suitably trained and qualified volunteers, as it is now, and all the costs are borne by the driver. The only bit of additional work by DVLA would be to record test results and impose/remove restrictions on their database.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Car drivers should always do a blind spot check. Newer designs of car have mirrors that minimise reduce blind spots but it's important to do it as an incorrectly adjusted mirror, failure to see something is no excuse when an over the shoulder check would prevent a collision
Click to expand...

Glad you clarified car drivers , if I look over my shoulder in the van all I see is a inside of said van :)

TBH I always reverse using my wing mirrors, even in the car, find it's far safer and more accurate
 
Bristolian said:
How about this as an alternative: When you pass the DSA L test you have to carry a "P" plate on your vehicle and are limited to the engine size and number of passengers you can carry until you take and pass an advanced criving test run by an approved provider (e.g. the IAM or RoSPA who currently offer these). Once you have passed that test your restrictions are removed but you have to retake and pass the test every five years or the restrictions are reimposed. There is little cost to the taxpayer of this system as training and testing is carried out by suitably trained and qualified volunteers, as it is now, and all the costs are borne by the driver. The only bit of additional work by DVLA would be to record test results and impose/remove restrictions on their database.
Click to expand...


The big problem with all these ideas are what about those that depend on driving for a living ?
Driving on a regular basis does keep you in tune with changing traffic situations so perhaps something a little different
for those who might lose their jobs if they failed, no company is going to keep emplying someone who can't do
the job, and that means another person claiming benefits.
Yes I do see that there is possibly a need for something, I know of at least one perrson who passed their test over 40 years ago
and has never driven since but still has a licence in case they need it !!! :banghead:
 
Bristolian said:
The problem with all the road collision statistics collected is that no apportion of blame is attached, so whilst 13% of those who were KSI were over 70 years old there is no measure of whether the dead/injured was responsible for the collision. It may be that a 70+ year old was KSI in a collision but it may just as equally have been a 17-19 year old that caused the collision but escaped uninjured.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. It's always the other persons fault ;) :D
 
Nikon_Nick said:
**Quick rant that doesnt necessarily require any responses but will make me feel better**

If I had been travelling at any speed over and above the posted limit there would have been an collision.
Click to expand...

Probably fortunate that you weren't breaking the speed limit then.
 
Gremlin said:

The big problem with all these ideas are what about those that depend on driving for a living ?
Driving on a regular basis does keep you in tune with changing traffic situations so perhaps something a little different
for those who might lose their jobs if they failed, no company is going to keep emplying someone who can't do
the job, and that means another person claiming benefits.
Yes I do see that there is possibly a need for something, I know of at least one perrson who passed their test over 40 years ago
and has never driven since but still has a licence in case they need it !!! :banghead:
Click to expand...

Indeed, although there are also a lot of people who don't drive for a living but who rely on being able to drive to be able to get to work.

A lot would have to depend on what a retest would entail as well. A full test every X years wouldn't be practical. Everyone has off days where certain aspects of their driving may not be 100% (although not necessarily dangerously so), do we really want to cost people their livelihoods because they rolled back 2 inches on a hill start or didn't parallel park perfectly?
 
The retest could be as simple as a simulation on a screen. Hazard perception, observance of speed limits etc. Lob in some theory questions as well. Oh, while we're at it, have a screen showing the password for the test set up at 25m as an automatic sight test!
 
The driving test as it stands now has sod all to do with everyday driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top