Would you take a re-test every 5years?

Should a re-test every 5 years be introduced ?

  • No

  • Yes

Results are only viewable after voting.
And you have missed the point. You can still appreciate that without knowing how to fix it.

Furthermore you really sound like a tinkerer. Nothing wrong with following the service schedule
 
Pookeyhead said:
Then you're wrong. Many people who don't know how their cars work do all manner of things that can effect it's reliability, simply though ignorance. Everything from clutch slipping, revving engines when cold, braking hard from motorways into queues of traffic and leaving the red hot brakes applied... I could go on here for some considerable time.

Then there's the lack of maintenance caused by people utterly relying on service schedules or MOT tests. For instance... When was the last time you checked your coolant hoses Viv?.. I mean properly checked them.. even the underside you can't see? Those things sit there in freezing temps in winter, then quickly go to a couple of hundred degrees in stop start traffic when the thermostat opens... sometimes twice a day in winter.. then that tine crack you couldn't be arsed looking for goes BANG.... and your engine pukes coolant. The vast majority of breakdowns on motorways are caused by coolant issues (RAC data). How often do you check the pressure in your spare, or whether you've even got a tyre wrench and jack in your boot? Can you even change a tyre? Alternator belt?... you just wait for a service schedule or do you check it yourself? A great many cars also use the same belt to drive auxiliaries.. like water pumps too. Simple, simple things like this can prevent so many delays on our roads. Break down in the Dartford Tunnel and you'd cause a delay for tens of thousands of people getting into London. An entire A road can be at the mercy of some idiot who can't be arsed checking their car for simple maintenance items.

You're missing the point. Every morning while in the shower I hear traffic reports on radio 2 of delays caused by a "breakdown". You don't NEED to know how they work to drive them, no, and you CAN call the AA when they break down... but my point is that knowing how they work can prevent them breaking down in the first place.

This should be part of the test. Failure to diagnose simple faults that could potentially cause a breakdown should prevent you from having a license IMO. The test is not strict enough, and I'm not just talking about the driving part either.

You're wrong. You DO need to know how they work.... [edit].. IMO
Click to expand...

Well there's a few minutes of my life I'll never get back.
My husband...(a driving instructor and former mechanic)...checks my car mechanically, and I mean thoroughly checks, very regularly thanks.
I myself check the tyres each and every time I take on fuel (so read weekly)...including the spare which is easily accessible.
Yes, I can change a tyre, and have had cause to, including on the Mway hard shoulder, following punctures. (Oh wait....I'm sorry, am I supposed to use my psychic abilities to anticipate punctures too?)
I have NEVER, in 27 years of motoring had a breakdown caused by a mechanical failure, be it in a brand new car, or an old girl like I drive now.
Nor have I ever had a "at fault" accident, or a speeding ticket.
Saying that every driver should know the ins and outs of an entire internal combustion engine simply because they drive a car is complete drivel.
Do train drviver...Pilots...check the vehicles they're in charge of each time they operate them, or do they leave it to the professionals?
I already stated above that my previous wording was poor and that of course proper maintenance should be carried out of car, so why don't you drop the bone and move along.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Do train drviver...Pilots...check the vehicles they're in charge of each time they operate them, or do they leave it to the professionals?
Click to expand...

Yes.. actually... they do. Teh captain will always check the aircraft... even a PPL will check all flight surfaces, pitot sensors, and sample fuel for water ingress prior to flying. Fact.

All you've done is say to me that you DO check your vehicle. I never said you need to know the workings of the internal combustion engine.. just the basics that affect reliability... and you seem to be doing that already, so why are you arguing? :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Yes.. actually... they do. Teh captain will always check the aircraft... even a PPL will check all flight surfaces, pitot sensors, and sample fuel for water ingress prior to flying. Fact.

All you've done is say to me that you DO check your vehicle. I never said you need to know the workings of the internal combustion engine.. just the basics that affect reliability... and you seem to be doing that already, so why are you arguing? :)
Click to expand...

Because when someone acts like an arse (see post 80), stamping their feet and whining "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" like a petulant child, it should be pointed out for the rest of the class to learn from ;)
 
viv1969 said:
Because when someone acts like an arse (see post 80), stamping their feet and whining "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" like a petulant child, it should be pointed out for the rest of the class to learn from ;)
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong.. deal with it.

I think if someone breaks down and causes mayhem and it's proven to be caused by poor vehicle maintenance and neglect, they should be fined. It should be part of the test to a much greater degree than it is now.

You just hate anyone disagreeing with you. (shrug). You already seem to be doing the things I suggest, and as you said yourself, you've never had a breakdown. Q.E.D.
 
Probably.

BTW.... not sure you've seen the checks pilots have to do on a commercial airliner before flying, but you'd be suprised how comprehensive it is. There's somneone on here who flies 747s for a living... can't remember his name, but I hope he sees this and puts in his 2 pence worth. I can assure you pilots know how their planes work. They may not be qualified jet engine technicians, but they'll be able to tell you exactly what happens when you push that, or pull this... precisely so.
 
Utter b*****s. I'm not suggesting in that quote, or any other you care to post (there is a quote function BTW... no need to actually screen grab :)) that you need to be a qualified auto technician to have a license, but you should have basic knowledge of how a car works, as it makes you far more sympathetic when driving it. It also enables you to undertake basic maintenance yourself. Like I said.. coolant hoses... drive belts, tyres (you also check the inside walls you can't see Viv?), coolant levels, steering fluid and brake fluid levels.

As for knowing how cars work... those who never lift the bonnet and leave it to others wouldn't know a coolant hose from their elbow. If you know how a car works, you can quickly identify all the vital parts in any car. If I asked my Mum where her alternator was she'd not have a clue. The only time she'd know anything about it is when she calls someone to replace the belt that failed.

I don't care where your vote goes. You're wrong as well.
 
Roflmao so now you are suggesting that deeper knowledge equals doing just the basic stuff. Oh come on, I admire any bloke wanting their cake and eat it but be a man and admit that is what you are doing.
 
Nod said:
The "skid pans" in use these days (or at least a few years ago when I did a course) were about as realistic as F1 2001 on a PC using the keyboard as a control pad. They can simulate what it feels like to lose the back end but where I did the course, it was possible to pull it straight with a hoofing... Not saying that the course was completely useless, just that they're not that realistic.

The car used was an FWD Escort on a trolley with individually lifting/dropping castors. It was better than nothing but not as good as a wet track would be. Far safer though!
Click to expand...

I've done the Castle Coombe skid pan course twice. Was great in the rwd, struggled with the fwd car. Instructor took one look at the cars in the car park and said "That's Capri's yours isn't it".

I also sent the missus on the course when she spun the mx-5 on a wet roundabout at 20mph, to early application of the throttle meant she ended up facing oncoming traffic.

The thing is - this are all additional add ons which should at least be strongly encouraged, as should pass plus.
 
Last edited:
I agree that they should be encouraged and ideally in the trainee's own vehicle on a wet pan rather than the rather unrealistic trolley cars. Might have a loot at the CC skid pan courses - it's not too far away! Might even think about a track day for Mrs Nod's birthday treat if she fancies it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Utter b*****s. I'm not suggesting in that quote, or any other you care to post (there is a quote function BTW... no need to actually screen grab :)) that you need to be a qualified auto technician to have a license, but you should have basic knowledge of how a car works, as it makes you far more sympathetic when driving it. It also enables you to undertake basic maintenance yourself. Like I said.. coolant hoses... drive belts, tyres (you also check the inside walls you can't see Viv?), coolant levels, steering fluid and brake fluid levels.

As for knowing how cars work... those who never lift the bonnet and leave it to others wouldn't know a coolant hose from their elbow. If you know how a car works, you can quickly identify all the vital parts in any car. If I asked my Mum where her alternator was she'd not have a clue. The only time she'd know anything about it is when she calls someone to replace the belt that failed.

I don't care where your vote goes. You're wrong as well.
Click to expand...

I'm old enough to remember when you could fix a car with a nail file and a stocking, yes I could strip down a carb amongst other things,
I've got many cars going again on girls nights out, when things went wrong
But these days, I lift the bonnet, check oil and water, fill washer bottle, scratch my head and walk away.
Things have become far too complicated, everything is electronic, not a lot you can do at the side of the road
 
Gremlin said:
I'm old enough to remember when you could fix a car with a nail file and a stocking, yes I could strip down a carb amongst other things,
I've got many cars going again on girls nights out, when things went wrong
But these days, I lift the bonnet, check oil and water, fill washer bottle, scratch my head and walk away.
Things have become far too complicated, everything is electronic, not a lot you can do at the side of the road
Click to expand...
And that is exactly where things get fun for youngsters like me. I love to plug in my laptop and reprogram stuff. I've been doing that for a long time now. Got into it with my original bmw 750 from 1988 which basically had everything doubled up and directed by the onboard computer system. It was a great system to read and modify.
 
Gremlin said:
I'm old enough to remember when you could fix a car with a nail file and a stocking, yes I could strip down a carb amongst other things,
I've got many cars going again on girls nights out, when things went wrong
But these days, I lift the bonnet, check oil and water, fill washer bottle, scratch my head and walk away.
Things have become far too complicated, everything is electronic, not a lot you can do at the side of the road
Click to expand...
Modern engines aren't too dissimilar. Most people are just put off when they lift the bonnet and see the engine cover
 
nilagin said:
Modern engines aren't too dissimilar. Most people are just put off when they lift the bonnet and see the engine cover
Click to expand...

Indeed, you can't make electronic pistons and crankshafts yet! The only limitation is stupid layouts like on mine where if you want to change spark plugs on the rear bank of cylinder then the whole inlet manifold has to come off!
 
Being sensible about this, it's a silly idea.

Approx 1.6m take a driving test each year. There are 30m drivers so every year there would be an extra 6m taking a test (and at an 80%pass rate 1m additional tests) so it would go from 1.6 to 8.5m - needing 5 times the resource. A complete waste of money.

In addition, most people would treat it as a test (ie. Not speed, hands in 10-2 position etc) and go back to normal after.

Plus that would mean a ban on foreign drivers as they are possibly more dangerous so why should they not be subject to the rules
 
I have 34 drivers working for me and you can tell the guys who don't know a thing about their vehicles as they are the ones that need repairs more often.

So I would say knowing more about the mechanics of a vehicle will help you look after it and will help it last longer more so than just getting it from service to service.

One couldn't understand why he went through front tyres quicker than rear tyres as he has never wheelspun so thought they should last the same amount of time.

Another has gone through a number of Turbo's because he doesn't let the oil get up to temp. He thinks as soon as the needle gets to the right temp he's good to go.

I could go on.
 
nilagin said:
Modern engines aren't too dissimilar. Most people are just put off when they lift the bonnet and see the engine cover
Click to expand...

So where is the dizzy cap and points then :thinking:
You need to carry a full tool kit to get covers off, makes roadside repairs damned awkward :(
 
I think a degree of mechanical sympathy is very preferable, particularly realising what things like potholes can do to your car . What does make me mad is when someone cant change a tyre , check the oil or know how to put coolant in - things which can get you out of trouble particularly when you are on the side of the road. The other thing that should be totally unusable in a car is a phone - yes I know there's handsfree but its a distraction and don't get me started about truck an van drivers with phones to ears. I think sight and reactions should be checked after say 60 but in general passing a test means nothing, its your attitude on the road that's important.
 
Overexposed said:
I think a degree of mechanical sympathy is very preferable, particularly realising what things like potholes can do to your car . What does make me mad is when someone cant change a tyre , check the oil or know how to put coolant in - things which can get you out of trouble particularly when you are on the side of the road. The other thing that should be totally unusable in a car is a phone - yes I know there's handsfree but its a distraction and don't get me started about truck an van drivers with phones to ears. I think sight and reactions should be checked after say 60 but in general passing a test means nothing, its your attitude on the road that's important.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with your post; however......


Overexposed said:
......a degree of mechanical sympathy ........
Click to expand...

.......are you, by any chance, a politician or a social worker? :lol:
 
When I was working, I had to have a driving assessment every 3 years. You made sure that you got everything right for the 3days but sad to say soon slipped back into bad habits.
 
I don't think it's the time frequency that's relevant, it's how many miles you drive.
however I would not want to re take a test as the way they teach people to drive these days is b*'ll*cks.
 
Gremlin said:
So where is the dizzy cap and points then :thinking:
You need to carry a full tool kit to get covers off, makes roadside repairs damned awkward :(
Click to expand...

They went in the 80s in favour of ignition that works.
 
Doesn't NEED to be fixed with a nail file
 
Steve Smith said:
Why not? If it's part of the original test, it should be part of any subsequent test.

And before you ask, no, I don't cross my hands on the wheel. It's much better to refine how you do it properly after passing your test rather than just ignoring it.

If you are right handed and turning the wheel clockwise (for example). If you have the wheel with your left hand at the four or five o'clock position and you let go with your your right hand to get a grip somewhere else on the wheel, you are now not in control. If you pass the wheel through your hands you always have control.

Also, when manoeuvring, you can count the number of times you turned then the same number of times back again, you will know that your wheels are pointing straight.

I bet you don't put the handbrake on and take the car out of gear at junctions and red lights too. That should also be a fail in a subsequent test.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Fifth gear did a program where they demonstrated that crossing hands on steering wheel, like racing drivers do, is more effective than 'shuffling'.
 
BBR said:
I don't think it's the time frequency that's relevant, it's how many miles you drive.
however I would not want to re take a test as the way they teach people to drive these days is b*'ll*cks.
Click to expand...

That's just it.
They don't "teach them to drive" in the manner you think....they teach them to pass the practical test.
You can't blame the examiners for doing their job.
 
Gremlin said:
So where is the dizzy cap and points then :thinking:
You need to carry a full tool kit to get covers off, makes roadside repairs damned awkward :(
Click to expand...
My full toolkit must be my hands then as the cover just pulls off, as did my last car. No dizzy cap or points so that's a couple of things that won't breakdown on you. ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't think a re test every 5 years is needed, I think a big change in keeping a licence is needed.

12 points which for most offences is 4 chances and even then there's mitigating circumstances.

I read somewhere possibly on here where a guy had kept his licence because losing it would affect his disabled son , hang on ,he had plenty of time to think about his son on each of his 4 offences.
 
I encountered 2 people this week who need a restest. Both slowing down on a dual carriageway to turn left when there is a perfectly good slip road beside them for doing so. The bloke I saw today in his Mercedes ML needs locking up and not allowed to drive again. Not only was the approx. 10yr old boy (I assume his son) in the front passenger seat not wearing a seat belt but his nearside front tyre had less tread on it than a cut slick. Chances are the other front tyre was in similar condition.
 
I am all for it especially in London. I drive quite a bit and the standard of driving in the capital especially after dark is appalling.
I see cars doing 40-50 on 20mph roads, jumping over speed humps, driving with the full beams on, fog lights are quite popular too.
Once you get out of London things seems to be a a lot better :)
So a re-test every 5 years Is a good thing and should improve the standard of driving
 
nikolarun said:
I am all for it especially in London. I drive quite a bit and the standard of driving in the capital especially after dark is appalling.
I see cars doing 40-50 on 20mph roads, jumping over speed humps, driving with the full beams on, fog lights are quite popular too.
Once you get out of London things seems to be a a lot better :)
So a re-test every 5 years Is a good thing and should improve the standard of driving
Click to expand...

It really wouldn't.
People would simply drive as needed to pass the test and then go on driving as they always do.
It's what learners do already.
 
I am sure small part will go on and drive as before, but the amount of drivers I see that haven't got a clue when they get to a roundabout is rather large.
It's more of a refresh, it could just be theory test, but I think an experiment/study needs to be done on the subject, and not a half arsed one but a proper 5 year one.
 
nikolarun said:
I am all for it especially in London. I drive quite a bit and the standard of driving in the capital especially after dark is appalling.
I see cars doing 40-50 on 20mph roads, jumping over speed humps, driving with the full beams on, fog lights are quite popular too.
Once you get out of London things seems to be a a lot better :)
So a re-test every 5 years Is a good thing and should improve the standard of driving
Click to expand...
I've always found the cab drivers to be worst in London, seemingly always trying to intimidate and bully other motorists. 25yrs ago I had a little beat up old Fiesta that was quite nippy, I may have taken the opportunity to turn the tables on London Cabbies on many a Saturday night. ;)
Here's a nice example of some London motorists, my apologies if there is any swearing.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsJQQVo9pk
 
London Cabbies are ok to me, it's the minicab drivers that are quite bad
 
viv1969 said:
It really wouldn't.
People would simply drive as needed to pass the test and then go on driving as they always do.
It's what learners do already.
Click to expand...

Exactly this, even the most stupid would keep to speed limits etc... on the test and then speed out the car park after.
 
I think an actual test every five years would be impractical. A theory test and a hazard perception test every five years would be good though. Just taking mock hazard perception tests on line gets you thinking differently whilst driving.


nikolarun said:
London Cabbies are ok to me
Click to expand...
Yes. It's just a pity they're too busy driving cabs to sort out all the problems with the world!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
nikolarun said:
I am sure small part will go on and drive as before, but the amount of drivers I see that haven't got a clue when they get to a roundabout is rather large.
It's more of a refresh, it could just be theory test, but I think an experiment/study needs to be done on the subject, and not a half arsed one but a proper 5 year one.
Click to expand...

Also, not sure how they'd implement it.
DSA can't keep up with the demand for new driver tests as it is, let alone adding millions of retests to the equasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top