Would you take a re-test every 5years?

[Neil B]

Seeing as a lot of road laws have not been updated for the "new age" of road users maybe this would improve the standard of driving.

 

[dejongj]

Yes absolutely

 

[Simmotino]

Should be compulsory. The standard of driving on the roads is shockingly poor.

 

[Alastair]

Seeing as a lot of road laws have not been updated for the "new age" of road users maybe this would improve the standard of driving.

How would re-testing drivers compensate for out-dated laws? Are out-dated laws responsible for a poor standard of driving? Are the "new age road users" the cause of the laws being out-dated or is it a change in the vehicles and the roads? Are the laws really so out-dated?

Possibly a nice idea, but I don't see your logic. Maybe what you've written isn't what you mean..

 

[viv1969]

The standard of driving would remain shockingly poor.

People would drive in a specific fashion to pass the test, then return to their everyday fashion of driving.

Yes I would take the test if it were compulsory to do so, but I see little point in it.

I often wonder though, how perfect is the driving of those who complain about others?

 

[shreds]

It makes you wonder how some people passed in the first place!

 

[Yves Geza]

Should be compulsory. The standard of driving on the roads is shockingly poor.

... And has little or nothing to do with the also low and often irrelevant standards of the driving test.

FWIW, I passed my test some 41 yeaers ago when I was 17. I don't know how long ago you passed yours, but as an example the driving test will teach the stopping distance in metres [or yards] from 30 and 50 and 70 mph but it teaches nothing about actually hitting brakes hard at 70mph and where up the road you'll actually stop, adjacent to which tree or lamppost!

 

[Byker28i]

No, you wouldnt really want to do this, however it is ridiculous that you can pass a test at 17 and drive for ever. BUT, the current laws do allow for a licence to be taken away and a retest sat.

Some might say this should be enforced more rigidly, but under the current levels of policing, do you really want your licence to drive decided by a camera, no options, no human judgement, just right and wrong - send the letter, have points.


What's really causing bad driving is impatience, the roads being busier and how you react? Someones being a knob, slow down let them past, add 15 secs to your journey and they are gone.

 

[viv1969]

It makes you wonder how some people passed in the first place!

They passed because that's what they were taught to do...pass a test, not drive.

 

[Yv]

Pointless until the way people are taught to drive and what they are taught is improved upon dramatically. Not having a go at driving instructors, this is about learners being taught to pass a test to set of laws with precious little about broader awareness, conditions, car handling, etc. They are then let loose and develop their own habits and faults based on a what I think is [and always has been btw, same when I was learning] a very shaky foundation. Every new driver [and indeed most existing ones] should have to do a handling course for a start, should know what it feels like when you have to react, at speed, to a sudden event, and what it feels like to do the same on a wet surface. More simple stuff, how many people do you see daily that turn right from the left hand side of the road and vice versa? How many simply have no concept of the size of their vehicle? [I know some people have limited spacial awareness, but it can't be as many as you see that apparently have none]

 

[dejongj]

No, you wouldnt really want to do this, however it is ridiculous that you can pass a test at 17 and drive for ever. BUT, the current laws do allow for a licence to be taken away and a retest sat.

Some might say this should be enforced more rigidly, but under the current levels of policing, do you really want your licence to drive decided by a camera, no options, no human judgement, just right and wrong - send the letter, have points.


What's really causing bad driving is impatience, the roads being busier and how you react? Someones being a knob, slow down let them past, add 15 secs to your journey and they are gone.

And herein lies the problem, nobody lets me pass if anything it seems that many are as intended to enforce the law themselves.

 

[dejongj]

Pointless until the way people are taught to drive and what they are taught is improved upon dramatically. Not having a go at driving instructors, this is about learners being taught to pass a test to set of laws with precious little about broader awareness, conditions, car handling, etc. They are then let loose and develop their own habits and faults based on a what I think is [and always has been btw, same when I was learning] a very shaky foundation. Every new driver [and indeed most existing ones] should have to do a handling course for a start, should know what it feels like when you have to react, at speed, to a sudden event, and what it feels like to do the same on a wet surface. More simple stuff, how many people do you see daily that turn right from the left hand side of the road and vice versa? How many simply have no concept of the size of their vehicle? [I know some people have limited spacial awareness, but it can't be as many as you see that apparently have none]

And some of that is best taught with a little experience under the belt. Perhaps the focus on repeated driving tests should be different? And it should be mandatory for all to do it in London and Hemel Hempstead

 

[Neil B]

I'm a fork lift truck instructor so i see firms wanting regular training/re-test and medicals, not just for health and safety but insurance companies want to see that some sort of "skill" level is maintained.

 

[new2me]

I'm a fork lift truck instructor so i see firms wanting regular training/re-test and medicals, not just for health and safety but insurance companies want to see that some sort of "skill" level is maintained.

But the confines of the work premises are much easier to oversee than the national roadwork. As said by others, road users are taught to pass a test and learn to drive with relatively little policing.

 

[shreds]

It's taken almost as a "right" to drive/ride and 'it's only those awkward pernickety instructors who have an attitude against the driver that prevent people getting through'.

Far too many bad/ hesitant/ incompetent/ testostrone fuelled drivers on the roads.

The right to drive/ride on a public road should be earned and not easily awarded.

Bring on the five year testing.

 

[Yv]

And some of that is best taught with a little experience under the belt. Perhaps the focus on repeated driving tests should be different? And it should be mandatory for all to do it in London and Hemel Hempstead

Possibly, and in some ways I agree, but it also scares me that a learner can pass the test, leave the test centre and jump straight in a motorway with absolutely no experience. We put my daughter onto pass plus a few weeks after passing her test, which helped, but still wasn't really perfect. In fact, you could say there is an argument for 'staged testing' perhaps? So perhaps you can pass your test initially and drive on 'normal' roads, with further lessons and tests on car handling [at centres that can teach in safety] and followed by speed driving? or something of that ilk.

As for impatience, yes that is also a feature of poor driving, but again I go back to my original post, quite a bit of that would be reduced if all road users had some awareness of other road users and drove in a way that created less frustration in the first place, it's a two way thing. I guess what I am saying is that there is a lot of 'selfish' driving around, sometimes deliberate, but my general impression is that too many are totally unaware they are doing it.

 

[Neil B]

But the confines of the work premises are much easier to oversee than the national roadwork. As said by others, road users are taught to pass a test and learn to drive with relatively little policing.

I was actually referring to being able to pass a medical and drive to a required standard, surprises me that insurance companies don't request this and offer a discount to anyone who bothered doing it.
Some used to offer a discount for drivers taking the Advanced motorist test

 

[viv1969]

I agree that staged testing and limitations on the power of vehicles that are permissible to drive is a good idea.

 

[Yv]

I was actually referring to being able to pass a medical and drive to a required standard, surprises me that insurance companies don't request this and offer a discount to anyone who bothered doing it.
Some used to offer a discount for drivers taking the Advanced motorist test

Some still do, most used to offer discounts to new drivers that took pass plus too, but now we only found about a third of them did so.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have suggested this in the past. The problem is that it would mean about eight times as many tests as there are now which is probably not practical.

quite a bit of that would be reduced if all road users had some awareness of other road users

Having done a few large vehicle mock hazard perception tests recently, I think a practical approach would be a requirement to pass the hazard perception and theory tests every five years.

Another possibility is the method which I think is used in some US states of requiring drivers to go to the DMV office to apply for a licence where they will have a sight check and might be randomly selected for a practical test of their driving skills.

I was actually referring to being able to pass a medical and drive to a required standard

For group two vehicles (lorry and bus) a medical is required every five years after the age of 45 and a CPC test is required (35 hours of training every five years). A simpler version of this could be applied to car and motorcycle licence holders.


Steve.

 

[srichards]

The driving test has had elements of advanced driving added to it so I don't think the test itself is necessarily that inadequate. It's the attitude that drivers take once passed. It has to be one of continuous development so there should be opportunities for continuous improvement.

Perhaps re-training/re-test should be offered to anyone involved in an at fault accident?

If you are an EU citizen and move to another EU country do you have to take their driving test or are you free just to drive around freely after passing your own country's test?

 

[shreds]

Brain tests might be more appropriate in some cases...... To determine if they have one.......

No doubt that would bring on the PC brigade to say that it was discrimination to refuse them a licence just because they didn't have one.

 

[Ian D J]

It's not so much as people's ability to drive properly, whether you're a fresh faced 17 years old having just passed the test or a veteran driver of 45 years, it's more to do with the way the motor car had advanced over the years. What with all them safety features and most cars can do 0 to 60 in 8 seconds and then on top of all that are the rising amount of gadgets (be it portable or built in) all to distract even more, it's become all too easy to get complacent when driving.
The other issue is that there are more of us then, say, 30 years ago, so obviously there'll be more vehicles on our roads and the law is trying to catch up on that, that's why the driving test has become that little bit harder with the theory test included with the practical side of it.

 

[drounding]

It still amazes me that you can get in a car to learn to drive without even passing the theory test first.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'd do it, yes. I also think it's a good idea. I know many people who couldn't pass the current driving test, so why should they be able to drive just because they passed a completely different test decades ago? Airline pilots, train drivers, and many, many other professions where you are in control of a vehicle and responsible for the lives of others demand regular testing to ensure your skills and knowledge are sufficient, why should a driving license be any different? If you're dangerous, you can still cause carnage whether you're in control of a Ford Fiesta or a Boeing 747.

The only people complaining are those that aren't confident they could pass again I reckon. Bring it on I say.

I get the argument that many people will just drive differently to pass a test... sure, but my biggest worry are those that just got lucky on a driving test, and are truly awful drivers. I know a few of those too. How they passed is beyond me. It would certainly filter out those who are not in any way suitable to drive. It would also root out those who have just lost their faculties, such as the odd old person who ends up the wrong way on a motorway slip road etc.. you always get a fair few people like that in the news every year, and those are only the ones caught, or actually caused an accident... how many just get away with it due to the diligence of the better drivers around them?

The idea that you can pass at 17 and then that's it is ridiculous. Driving is not a RIGHT... it's a privilege you earn, and you should be constantly tested to prove you still have the means to earn that privilege.

 

[dejongj]

I don't think it is the law that is the issue. Very few of us will keep up with any changes there after. I know I don't. It would be good to be forced to do that.

I don't subscribe to rights versus privileges however do acknowledge the sentiment. To me it is simple, there are rules and those rules change over time, as such why not test against those updated rules.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'd also like to add that the test needs to be FAR more stringent and include more sophisticated simulation of emergency and hazard events. It should also include far more mechanical testing, as understanding how your machine works creates an empathy between car and driver, plus will help reduce the amount of breakdowns in sensitive areas that cause traffic mayhem... just because some idiot has not checked their vehicle before planning a 200 mile motorway journey.

You should also be able to demonstrate that you can handle your vehicle in a range of situations... understeeer, oversteer, aquaplaning etc. This is not a competitive way of establishing how GOOD you are, but a test to ensure that should the worst happen, you'll be doing the right things at the right times instead of screaming like a girl and standing on the brakes every time something goes pear shaped.

I think some sort of psychological screening should be used as well as part of the theory test.

Harsh? Yes. So what. A badly driven car is a really, really dangerous thing.

And....

Driving while on the phone, drinking, doing make-up and all the other scary shizzle I see every single morning should be an instant and permanent ban too. If you know you'll be banned for life by doing any of these things, and still do them, then you have made a choice. The times I see people putting make-up on while driving is truly frightening. Is your vanity more important than someone's life.. or even their no claims bonus? It is bollo**s. If a pilot was trying to land a plane while putting make-up on she'd (or he'd.... we're a broad church here ) be instantly suspended pending a full inquiry... why should this be any different? Just one reason why please... that's all I require.

If it was down to me I'd issue 3 points for having an animated conversation while driving!!

All of the above is far more serious and dangerous than speed alone.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't subscribe to rights versus privileges

Why not? You saying it's a RIGHT everyone has to drive? They have the RIGHT to attempt the tests that enable you to do so, but driving should not be regarded as a right you obtain by passing a test at 17, when essentially, you're still a child. It needs to be tested, and the ability to take that right away from you should be a very real, and possible outcome. Only then will standards improve. As it is, you've got to do something seriously wrong to lose your license. It needs to be a far more precarious situation drivers are put in... one where the only way you can guarantee retaining your license is to know you can be retested at any time, at random.

As it is... you pass your test, and then basically forget everything in the excitement of passing, and keep your license for the majority of your life without any means of actually establishing if those standards are being maintained. In what way is that a sensible system for ensuring the safety of our roads? Any good instructor will tell you that you actually do most of your learning AFTER you've passed your test... but we all just think, "yeah yeah.. yadda yadda.... just shut up and give me my license" then treat is a right from then on. That needs to change.

 

[dejongj]

We are agreeing I merely don't see it as a right, nor a privilige. Merely something governed by rules when pursuing on the public road.

 

[Byker28i]

Possibly, and in some ways I agree, but it also scares me that a learner can pass the test, leave the test centre and jump straight in a motorway with absolutely no experience. We put my daughter onto pass plus a few weeks after passing her test, which helped, but still wasn't really perfect. In fact, you could say there is an argument for 'staged testing' perhaps? So perhaps you can pass your test initially and drive on 'normal' roads, with further lessons and tests on car handling [at centres that can teach in safety] and followed by speed driving? or something of that ilk.

Yeah we did this with our eldest two, partly for the safety but also it significantly lowered their insurance.

....I go back to my original post, quite a bit of that would be reduced if all road users had some awareness of other road users and drove in a way that created less frustration in the first place, it's a two way thing. I guess what I am saying is that there is a lot of 'selfish' driving around, sometimes deliberate, but my general impression is that too many are totally unaware they are doing it.

LOL - stick everyone on motorbikes. That'll teach them awareness (or pain)

 

[Byker28i]

But - it's interesting again. It's always someone else that's the problem - everyone is always a great driver, it's everyone else thats to blame.

 

[Yv]

But - it's interesting again. It's always someone else that's the problem - everyone is always a great driver, it's everyone else thats to blame.

of course, though I am sure if we are honest with ourselves, we would all admit to failings, anyone who doesn't is undoubtedly lying to themselves

 

[redsnappa]

It is now much easier to get away with bad driving as there are less police patrol cars on the roads now. Even in a largish city like Birmingham you can go days without seeing a single police car out on the roads.

 

[SarahLee]

Pointless until the way people are taught to drive and what they are taught is improved upon dramatically. Not having a go at driving instructors, this is about learners being taught to pass a test to set of laws with precious little about broader awareness, conditions, car handling, etc.

Absolutely.
To take that to its extreme, I failed my test three times before trying again with a different instructor a few years later - and passed first time that time around.
The difference? I only realised later that the first instructor had only ever taught me test routes and not how to drive at all.
For example, he drilled me on the three corners they might ask you to reverse around on the test route and where/how to turn on each one - whereas the second instructor actually taught me HOW to handle and control a car.

OK. You could argue that the test did what it was supposed to do because I didn't pass under the first instructor . . . but I think that was purely because his teaching didn't suit my personal learning style at all.
He had a very good pass rate, so there are hundreds of his students out there who were released onto the roads without a clue how to drive unless they were doing circuits of the test route.

(Again, not a dig at driving instructors at all. There are good and bad out there as with all things. This is intended more as an observation about the inadequacy of the test to examine real driving skills!)

 

[Byker28i]

It is now much easier to get away with bad driving as there are less police patrol cars on the roads now. Even in a largish city like Birmingham you can go days without seeing a single police car out on the roads.

Our police presence is either via the helicopter, or the two unmarked cars (BMW) that patrol the M4 between Junc 15 & 17

 

[cambsno]

In theory I think some form of retest would be good, but not sure it would work. It would need to be different to the standard test, the fact I cross my hands for example should not be a fail. It should be based on how I pull away from junctions, roundabouts, overtake etc... But if someone failed they would simply retake until they passed and what would that achieve. Many of us at work take only tests like anti bribery, Health & Safety etc... and pass at the 3rd attempt, but a week later its all forgotten.

We all make mistakes, even the best drivers here will do so. So you do this on the test and you fail! That means I can't do my job tomorrow. At times, we have all broken the limit, not given 100% concentration etc, not got when we could and vice versa. So what about the tolerance here?

What about foreign drivers? How do they fit it - do we ban foreign vehicles unless they pass a test at Dover?

Just can't see it working - remember, our roads are very safe and despite more traffic deaths are a long way down n where they used to be.

 

[Steve Smith]

In theory I think some form of retest would be good, but not sure it would work. It would need to be different to the standard test, the fact I cross my hands for example should not be a fail.

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.

 

[johnnypanic]

Whilst, in theory, it would be a good practice and potentially improve the standard of driving I don't believe it is feasible.

Imagine how many more driving instructors / testers, would be required, to implement this. Also, I've no doubt the government of the day, would just use it as a revenue stream, i.e. another stealth tax.

Would be more sensible to give the police, the resources they require, to actually enforce the road laws (and I don't mean more speed cameras!).

 

[cambsno]

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.

Serious? No, normally never do the handbrake. While I accept that doing so makes best practice how does it make the roads safer? What point does it serve? This is something that bugs the hell out of me at work. Doing something for the sake of it that had no real purpose or result.

 

[Nod]

Yup, retest and compulsory eye test every 5 years and after any ban (or possibly even any conviction). Even a relatively simple hazard perception simulation on a computer, alongside a basic theory test would be better than the current system.

I'm also all for the equivalent of the biking CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) before a learner's allowed behind the wheel on the open road. Don't know about elsewhere in the country but here, learners are let loose in housing developments without the first idea as to any sort of car control beyond the round thing making the wheels point that way.