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.
Have done several of the hazard perception tests and have failed most of them. Why because I had seen the hazard before i was supposed too.
 
Yv said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think this is the best solution. I agree it's a bit scary that you can be a terrible driver, but if you do OK for just 60 minutes once in your life, you're good to go.
Staged testing is a great idea. Or at the very least refresher tests.
First test is to allow you to drive on your own.
Second test is after 6 months / 1 year, and includes high stress / possibly difficult situations. eg High Traffic, poorly built up areas, country driving, motorway etc.

The problem we have is that society isn't what it used to be. I'm wording this like a Daily Mail article which annoys me, but it's the easiest way to get my point across :p
Nowadays it's all 'me me me', and many people (especially youngsters) often have a sense of entitlement and that everyone is living in *their* world, rather than they living in everyone elses.
So when you take that attitude behind the wheel, straight away it's aggressive.
How dare you cut ME up? How dare you driver slower than *I* want to drive. You're getting in MY way, when *I* need to get to work.
The whole societal attitude of self self self affects how we all behave everywhere, including out on the roads.

If more people were sensitive towards sharing the road with others, a lot of the problems we face would be minimized.

Naturally there are some incredibly stupid people out on the road too, who shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.

I agree about the standard of instruction too. One thing my dad taught me before I learned to drive was "Your driving test isn't a test to see if you can drive, it's a test to see if you can learn on your own" and it kinda stuck with me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't profess to be a brilliant driver. I like to think I am, but we're all infallible. I cross my hands, I coast to a stop. I ride the clutch at lights, and don't always use the handbrake / gearbox into neutral.
That said, I do like to think I'm not a bad driver. I rarely feel I don't have proper control of my car.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You should also be able to demonstrate that you can handle your vehicle in a range of situations... understeeer, oversteer, aquaplaning etc.
Click to expand...
I did all that 35yrs ago, aged 17 in empty car parks. My son also did the same 5yrs ago, aged 17 in empty car parks.
 
Yup, I did too. 19 years ago in a very snowy car park :D (Empty of course).
 
Marcel said:
Yup, I did too. 19 years ago in a very snowy car park :D (Empty of course).
Click to expand...


Not legally you didn't.... and besides... drifting on snow is easy when you've no real measure of why you're doing it. Next time set some cones up to simulate a traffic lane... see how easy it is to stay inside it. Getting it sideways on a car park in the snow makes you feel like Walter Röhrl, sure, but that's because there are no lamp posts or trees for your back end to whack into. Besides... it's the wet you need to train for, not snow. It hardly snows here, and when it does, you should be driving extremely carefully (or not at all), not arsing about in it. The problem with rain, is we think it's "normal" and no one actually slows down.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not legally you didn't.... and besides... drifting on snow is easy when you've no real measure of why you're doing it. Next time set some cones up to simulate a traffic lane
Click to expand...

We used to see if we could slide sideways into a marked parking space. My brother was better at it than I was. Our reasoning was that if you can't control a sliding car when you're doing it on purpose, you won't be able to when it happens by surprise... and it was fun!


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not legally you didn't
Click to expand...

What has legality got to do with it. It's just learning about car control within a safe environment without the expense of paying for a course.

Steve Smith said:
We used to see if we could slide sideways into a marked parking space. My brother was better at it than I was. Our reasoning was that if you can't control a sliding car when you're doing it on purpose, you won't be able to when it happens by surprise... and it was fun!
Steve.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Car handling courses were always done on a skid pan and now with the car on a rig designed to induce aquaplaning, oversteer and understeer. They are all done in a wide open place with no street furniture. As you say the idea is to learn how the car will handle in such conditions and how to best control it when the need arises.....
 
nilagin said:
What has legality got to do with it. It's just learning about car control within a safe environment without the expense of paying for a course
Click to expand...

Just saying it should be part of the test, and not something you have to do yourself.. as most won't.
 
We definitely need retesting, though I'd say every 10 years would be sufficient.
 
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!
 
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...
That is how a fwd car is brought under control, turn the steering wheel in the direction you wish to go and floor it.
View: https://youtu.be/_FYEV66U-Go?t=12

Rwd you aim the steering and back off the accelerator.
 
Marcel said:
I think this is the best solution. I agree it's a bit scary that you can be a terrible driver, but if you do OK for just 60 minutes once in your life, you're good to go.
Staged testing is a great idea. Or at the very least refresher tests.
First test is to allow you to drive on your own.
Second test is after 6 months / 1 year, and includes high stress / possibly difficult situations. eg High Traffic, poorly built up areas, country driving, motorway etc.

The problem we have is that society isn't what it used to be. I'm wording this like a Daily Mail article which annoys me, but it's the easiest way to get my point across :p
Nowadays it's all 'me me me', and many people (especially youngsters) often have a sense of entitlement and that everyone is living in *their* world, rather than they living in everyone elses.
So when you take that attitude behind the wheel, straight away it's aggressive.
How dare you cut ME up? How dare you driver slower than *I* want to drive. You're getting in MY way, when *I* need to get to work.
The whole societal attitude of self self self affects how we all behave everywhere, including out on the roads.

If more people were sensitive towards sharing the road with others, a lot of the problems we face would be minimized.

Naturally there are some incredibly stupid people out on the road too, who shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.

I agree about the standard of instruction too. One thing my dad taught me before I learned to drive was "Your driving test isn't a test to see if you can drive, it's a test to see if you can learn on your own" and it kinda stuck with me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't profess to be a brilliant driver. I like to think I am, but we're all infallible. I cross my hands, I coast to a stop. I ride the clutch at lights, and don't always use the handbrake / gearbox into neutral.
That said, I do like to think I'm not a bad driver. I rarely feel I don't have proper control of my car.
Click to expand...

That's what I think the problem isn't lack of ability to drive but bad attitude driving aggressively
 
Yv said:
..and even if they do, many don't actually understand what to do and why, they are just messing around.
Click to expand...

But that would be part of the course... to ensure they DO understand... they'd be with an instructor.
 
Marcel said:
Nowadays it's all 'me me me', and many people (especially youngsters) often have a sense of entitlement and that everyone is living in *their* world, rather than they living in everyone elses.
So when you take that attitude behind the wheel, straight away it's aggressive.
Click to expand...

A comment my mother made to me about her father, was that when he drove he would be angry, and she then went on to observe that everyone who drove was angry while they did it. That was probably around 45 years ago, and although I agree about the entitlement aspect, driving requires considerable concentration to do well, and often does induce a relatively short temper and all the attitudes that go with it. I suspect we see more 'easy' drivers and expect more relaxed attitudes now because cars do not require so much care or attention to drive any more.
 
nilagin said:
Knowing the answers is not an indication of understanding.
Click to expand...

No.. I'm well aware of this, but being a wholly practical, hands on task, it's far easier to demonstrate understanding by DOING it. If you can DO it, you probably understand in this case.
 
I don't think there's any necessity to hold a deeper knowledge of cars mechanically. ..not at all.
That's like saying no one should own a computer, or a mobile phone, or a microwave (!) Unless they understand how it operates. Nonsense.

My car breaks down, I call the AA. That's why I pay them.
 
viv1969 said:
I don't think there's any necessity to hold a deeper knowledge of cars mechanically. ..not at all.
That's like saying no one should own a computer, or a mobile phone, or a microwave (!) Unless they understand how it operates. Nonsense.

My car breaks down, I call the AA. That's why I pay them.
Click to expand...
I knew someone with the same philosophy, Except he had to call them out so often they and several other breakdown companies, would no longer give him cover. It depends on what you mean by deep, knowledge doesn't have to be particularly deep to know whether a car is dangerous and shouldn't be used, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who continue to use cars in a dangerous mechanical condition. That is more likely to cause a death or accident than a computer, mobile phone (unless used whilst driving) or a microwave.
 
There is probably a reasonable minimum knowledge that one should hold about vehicles, but I doubt that any 'reasonable' minimum amount of knowledge would be sufficient to make a reasonable judgement call on safe condition, were the nature of the mechanical failure not blindingly obvious (like brakes not working).
 
nilagin said:
I knew someone with the same philosophy, Except he had to call them out so often they and several other breakdown companies, would no longer give him cover. It depends on what you mean by deep, knowledge doesn't have to be particularly deep to know whether a car is dangerous and shouldn't be used, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who continue to use cars in a dangerous mechanical condition. That is more likely to cause a death or accident than a computer, mobile phone (unless used whilst driving) or a microwave.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but all the technical knowledge in the world won't enable (even) you to carry out roadside repairs in most cases.

The fact that your friend required the assistance of roadside call outs so often simply means he was ignoring the general upkeep of his car.

That doesn't affect one's ability to drive.
 
viv1969 said:
I'm sorry, but all the technical knowledge in the world won't enable (even) you to carry out roadside repairs in most cases.

The fact that your friend required the assistance of roadside call outs so often simply means he was ignoring the general upkeep of his car.

That doesn't affect one's ability to drive.
Click to expand...
It's not about technical knowledge and carrying out roadside repairs, it's about knowing tell tale signs something is wrong with the car, or how you treat the car such as not leaving a car with it the tyre wall ridden up against the kerb so the tread isn't touching the road. Even parking with a portion of the tyre tread on a kerb and the rest in mid air for a length of time can weaken the tyres structure, but cars can often be seen left in such positions and drivers probably none the wiser of the consequences. I've pointed out flat tyres to people and they have still continued to drive on them. Some even said they already knew. Knowing how your car handles, a flat tyre will alter that and you should be able to feel the change in handling, realise something is not right and do something about it immediately.
 
Fully agree with the last comments. I find it amazing how little feel some people seem to have for thinks like tyres pressures. Then again when you see some s***boxes with four different tyres it doesn't surprise me.

However if the basics are so badly identified, then what about other serious stuff like the brakes, the steering? Ever wondered why the indicator indicator flashes so quickly? Or do people realise brake light bulbs can fail?

Heck a lot of people don't seen to get the basics regarding demisting their windows, so please help us regarding identifying that something mechanical might be wrong.

But you know what, I don't believe many actually care. The only way to hit home would be to impound the vehicle and a temporary driving ban :p Failing that use the new business model of employing a grandpa; hell come out and will check your tyre pressures, oil/coolant/water levels, and even polish your mirrors for you with his hanky. Every single journey. and happily gets up at 4am so you wont be late and will always be neatly dressed with tie and matching special grandpa grey shoes to his suit trousers.

Ps. We are looking to employ more grandpas applications via a postcard please.
 
I've been to many fatal road traffic collisions. In most cases death(s) has been caused by driving to fast for the conditions, speeding, distracted / not paying attention, alcohol, drugs or a combination of both or mechanical failure. I'm not convinced that anyone of those drivers taking re-test would still be alive today.
 
viv1969 said:
The fact that your friend required the assistance of roadside call outs so often simply means he was ignoring the general upkeep of his car.

That doesn't affect one's ability to drive.
Click to expand...

Failing to maintain brakes, tyres etc certainly prevents the ability to control the vehicle when being driven particularly at speed. This most certainly effects your ability to drive !
 
I'd happily have a retest every five years but the test would need changing with things like

driving in difficult conditions,
better road awareness,
basic maintenance,
common sense about journeys (checking fluids, light and tyres before long trip), and
journey planning(could none of the hundreds seen in queues on motorways have avoided the problem by starting a long journey at a different time?)

included.

Unfortunately I can't see it happening. This (and every government for many years) wants everything on the cheap and either it would not be done because it would be deemed too expensive, or it would be done badly.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Failing to maintain brakes, tyres etc certainly prevents the ability to control the vehicle when being driven particularly at speed. This most certainly effects your ability to drive !
Click to expand...

No....it really doesn't.
My tyres, brakes etc., are regularly checked.
Just not by me.
 
Maybe a re-test every 10 years, as 5 years seems to come around quickly. Plus, you can guarantee it would be costly!

It is a good idea. I think I'm a moderately good driver (but we all think that don't we). But someone I work with passed her test a year ago, and says she still doesn't feel confident!! She drives round and round the car park to find an easy spot, she's still very nervous etc etc. I do wonder how she passed her test!!

I think all drivers should have to have a eye-sight test every 3 years. I was out with my an older person once, who missed the turning twice because they couldn't see it!!! Someone else who I work with daren't drive at night "because they can't see very well." Which scares me!

There could be stiffer rules for new drivers, as well as young drivers. Maybe for the first 6 months, no more than one passenger? Or limited driving time (ie no driving between 11pm/midnight and 5am)?

There needs to be more theory as well. You only have to drive in certain areas and roads to see people who see (or not see or understand) the "national speed limit" sign (white sign, black border, black stripe across), and witness people driving at 40mph constantly on these roads, get to 42mph and slam on.........then continuing to drive at 40mph through 30mph villages. Or people who hog the middle lane on the motorway.

It also does depend where you take your test. I passed in Leeds, which has a low pass-rate. It's very busy, very complicated and full of hazards. Whereas you can get someone who passes in a small town which is far easier to drive in. Scarborough, for example, has a 70% pass rate (the last stats I know of, anyway).

You can't compare the two.
 
Personally i think the retest should be after any ban or after being at fault in any accident that renders a vehicle unroadworthy or where an injury occurs - that way you wouldn't penalise those who are driving responsibly but would reassess those who have form for driving like a knob
 
big soft moose said:
Personally i think the retest should be after any ban or after being at fault in any accident that renders a vehicle unroadworthy or where an injury occurs - that way you wouldn't penalise those who are driving responsibly but would reassess those who have form for driving like a knob
Click to expand...
Hmm just because someone hasn't been caught don't exclude them from driving like a knob. I can imagine a fair few on here who are the first to say they never speed or do this or that, drive like total big fat knobs ;)
 
dejongj said:
Hmm just because someone hasn't been caught don't exclude them from driving like a knob. I can imagine a fair few on here who are the first to say they never speed or do this or that, drive like total big fat knobs ;)
Click to expand...

this is true - but at least anyone who has been caught is known to drive like a knob and thus needs a retest (and the test needs to focus on can they drive responsibly rather than whether they cann reverse round a corner)
 
viv1969 said:
No....it really doesn't.
My tyres, brakes etc., are regularly checked.
Just not by me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who does it as long as it's done competently. For you to state that "Ignoring the general upkeep of the car doesn't affect your ability to drive" is a dangerous and silly thing to imply. Of course if you drive a car and fail to maintain it the consequences could be fatal. Sadly, I've witnessed first hand on numerous occasions.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
It doesn't matter who does it as long as it's done competently. For you to state that "Ignoring the general upkeep of the car doesn't affect your ability to drive" is a dangerous and silly thing to imply. Of course if you drive a car and fail to maintain it the consequences could be fatal. Sadly, I've witnessed first hand on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...

You're miscronstruing what I said.
I'm simply saying that an in depth mechanical knowledge is completely unnecessary in order to be a safe and responsible driver.
I did not mean to imply that ignoring general maintenance shouldn't be carried out, of course it should.
 
viv1969 said:
You're miscronstruing what I said.
I'm simply saying that an in depth mechanical knowledge is completely unnecessary in order to be a safe and responsible driver.
I did not mean to imply that ignoring general maintenance shouldn't be carried out, of course it should.
Click to expand...

Well that's how it came across when I read it Viv, fair one. That makes more sense, your normally quite Savy so I didn't expect that from you :)
 
Abolish tests, make it compulsory to spend a set amount of hours being taught to drive instead of learning a test route. A refresher every 5 years would be palatable if thats all it was. How many people who drive for a living, may loose their livelihood if they fail. Some good drivers fail due to nerves rather than being a bad driver.

I had my first driving lesson and was told by my instructor to put in for my test as the waiting list was long. I had another lesson, a cancellation cropped up and I was in. Another lesson ( the hour before my test, as was standard then ) and I passed. My other mate at the time also had 1 or 2 lessons and passed.

The rules are all there. Texting, phoning, eating, drinking are all distracting whilst behind the wheel. Speeding and dangerous driving aren't being punished by the police due to lack of their presence on the road. I drive as part of my job. I will see bad driving due to mobile phones every time I get behind the wheel. Young girls in particular can't leave their phones alone. What's so important on your phone that can't wait till you finish your journey. 7 points immediately, second offence then gets an instant ban !!!
 
Blank_Canvas said:
It doesn't matter who does it as long as it's done competently. For you to state that "Ignoring the general upkeep of the car doesn't affect your ability to drive" is a dangerous and silly thing to imply. Of course if you drive a car and fail to maintain it the consequences could be fatal. Sadly, I've witnessed first hand on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...

I drive every day at work, l check the basics on the van daily/weekly, l rely on it.
Any strange noises are liked at,same with my car.
Downside is it is popular when someone needs to use a van when I've finished for
the day
Others just tick the boxes in the log book and then moan when they have problems.
Told one guy a few weeks back that he had a brake light out, his reply was it wasn't his
Problem, he's not a mechanic !
 
I'm amazed that so many of today's drivers managed to get a licence in the first place. I'm firmly in favour of periodic retests, but I'm resigned to the fact it either won't happen, or if it did the government would make it an expensive and inefficient process.
 
viv1969 said:
I don't think there's any necessity to hold a deeper knowledge of cars mechanically. ..not at all.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top