If there were to be a cycle test...

greg66_tri_v2.0

davmaggs wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

That's as much an argument in favour of abolishing the driving test completely as it is to not introduce retesting; you do realise that, don't you?

It's a pretty weak argument whichever way you choose to deploy it, but it works both ways.

Actually it doesn't work 'both ways' at all, you have presented an entirely false premise.

It is entirely possible to say that a driving test ensures a minimum standard of mechanical competence is achieved (enough to be safe) along with a certain level of legal/rules understanding. It is entirely possible to go to an extreme and say that increasing the severity of this test massively (e.g 10,000 of supervised track driving or something) would make the roads safer, and to use this as a scale to work out where the trade-offs are in cost & effort vs risk reduction.

Advocates for re-testing are in effect saying that the safer people on the road (experienced vs nearly qualified insurance figures) should resit an exam that can be passed by a 17 year old without thousands of hours of experience. It does not make sense at all.

Yeah. This always works better when you chop off the point that was being addressed.

Competence =/= safety. Understanding of legal/rules =/= safety. As was said:

davmaggs wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Very true davmaggs.

Just because people pass a test, it doesnt follow that they will obey the law, or use common sense.

We all know that, and yet people still insist that more tests and more exams would be the big solution.

Your position amounts to: one test, which you seem to regard as pretty trivial ("can be passed by a 17 year old without thousands of hours of experience"), is better than (a) no test; (b) two or more tests.

If experience is key let's skip the test in favour of a set mileage of accompanied drives. But that's obviously not a bad idea.

The trouble with relying on experience is that it assumes that the experience has been reinforcing good habits, whereas we all know that it is just as easy to pick up and reinforce bad habits through experience.

slowbike

davmaggs wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

The advantages of retests are that it encourages refreshed learning and the exam tests that you've at least paid attention to what driving standards are required. It could also bring the driver up to date with the current requirements.
And ultimately - remove some dangerous drivers from the road.

Except all these are unfounded assertions. Admittedly you've used the caveat "could", which normally means that it's a really weak argument.

edit; typo

The only bit of "could" I used was in the assertion that retesting COULD be used to bring drivers up to current requirements - as in, it would be possible to include that bit - not that drivers may or may not be up to current requirements....

you part quoted me - missing out the line:

but the problem is legislation clobbers all - the many who are perfectly ok as well as the few that need it ...

which was supposed to say that I don't believe retesting (for all) or cycle testing is the answer - education is the answer, but the problem is that some just don't want to learn - which is where a (re)test has the opportunity to remove them from the road.

If people just slowed down a bit - not in such a rush - then perhaps more of these "accidents" could be avoided (damit I've used "could" again)

davmaggs

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

That's as much an argument in favour of abolishing the driving test completely as it is to not introduce retesting; you do realise that, don't you?

It's a pretty weak argument whichever way you choose to deploy it, but it works both ways.

Actually it doesn't work 'both ways' at all, you have presented an entirely false premise.

It is entirely possible to say that a driving test ensures a minimum standard of mechanical competence is achieved (enough to be safe) along with a certain level of legal/rules understanding. It is entirely possible to go to an extreme and say that increasing the severity of this test massively (e.g 10,000 of supervised track driving or something) would make the roads safer, and to use this as a scale to work out where the trade-offs are in cost & effort vs risk reduction.

Advocates for re-testing are in effect saying that the safer people on the road (experienced vs nearly qualified insurance figures) should resit an exam that can be passed by a 17 year old without thousands of hours of experience. It does not make sense at all.

Yeah. This always works better when you chop off the point that was being addressed.

Competence =/= safety. Understanding of legal/rules =/= safety. As was said:

davmaggs wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Very true davmaggs.

Just because people pass a test, it doesnt follow that they will obey the law, or use common sense.

We all know that, and yet people still insist that more tests and more exams would be the big solution.

Your position amounts to: one test, which you seem to regard as pretty trivial ("can be passed by a 17 year old without thousands of hours of experience"), is better than (a) no test; (b) two or more tests.

If experience is key let's skip the test in favour of a set mileage of accompanied drives. But that's obviously not a bad idea.

The trouble with relying on experience is that it assumes that the experience has been reinforcing good habits, whereas we all know that it is just as easy to pick up and reinforce bad habits through experience.

You're back to making the assumption that a re-test would lead to an improvement in driving, and yet there's no evidence.

An experienced person is probably going always be better than the 17 year old in the physical driving manoeuvres required to pass, so the only improvement would be on presentation e.g pretending to drive correctly for the 30 minutes. So, no gain there.

The next area of gain is to hope that by reading the highway code the experienced person would have an epiphany and start obeying it. Do you really believe that?

You are proposing an expensive and wasteful process based on hope and 'something must be done'.

I'd take those millions of pounds of wasted economic activity and spend it on policing.

slowbike

davmaggs wrote:

An experienced person is probably going always be better than the 17 year old in the physical driving manoeuvres required to pass, so the only improvement would be on presentation e.g pretending to drive correctly for the 30 minutes. So, no gain there.

Oh - probably ... so there's no evidence that that is the case then?

What about bad habits that drivers pick up over time .. ?

I assume you dont believe the speed awareness courses make any difference and the advanced driving test is a waste of time (not done either so I couldn't comment personally eitherway - however, I have heard that both are useful.)

SteppenHerring

The driving theory test is administered on a computer. Photo licenses need renewing every 10 years. Could have an online theory test required to get a renewal. OK, so no proof that someone else didn't take the test for you but ... cheap.

tgotb

My car has to be retested at regular intervals to demonstrate that it's still safe to be driven, so it's actually inconsistent not to do the same with drivers.
I can't provide *evidence* but a couple of illustrative examples:
I have friends with elderly parents who refuse to give up driving; their children would love to see them fail a mandatory test and be removed from the road before they kill themselves or someone else, but as it stands they'll probably continue driving until they have a serious accident.
There's someone living near me who has no understanding whatsoever of where her car is on the road. She's written off two cars in as many years, in incidents thatfortunately didn't involve anyone else; in one of those incidents she managed to destroy the front of her car whilst in reverse gear. Judging from the state of her cars she's had quite a lot of other bumps and scrapes. She's also clipped me with her wing mirror when overtaking (whilst exceeding the speed limit). I very much doubt she could pass a driving test, and maybe the prospect of a mandatory test would encourage her to get some instruction.

You demand evidence; what evidence do you have that a retest *wouldn't* lead to an improvement in driving?

Funding? Same as MOTs, get drivers to pay. A practical driving test costs less than a tank of fuel; paying for a test every 5 years isn't going to make a tangible difference to the cost of motoring.

davmaggs

Slowbike wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

An experienced person is probably going always be better than the 17 year old in the physical driving manoeuvres required to pass, so the only improvement would be on presentation e.g pretending to drive correctly for the 30 minutes. So, no gain there.

Oh - probably ... so there's no evidence that that is the case then?

What about bad habits that drivers pick up over time .. ?

I assume you dont believe the speed awareness courses make any difference and the advanced driving test is a waste of time (not done either so I couldn't comment personally eitherway - however, I have heard that both are useful.)

The evidence is provided by the insurance industry, the most ruthless of data gatherers, and arguably the most influential people when it comes to changing behaviour.

The advanced driving test is not what is being advocated so far by anyone on this forum, so it's irrelevant to the point at hand. And, importantly I support it fully in that it is voluntary.

As to 'bad habits', how are they solved by a test other than some reliance on an epiphany from the driver who will suddenly realise the error of their ways?

So, now we are reduced to "awareness" as the remaining option. I don't have the evidence as to their efficacy, but as they are voluntary too, then I say let them continue.

slowbike

davmaggs wrote:

As to 'bad habits', how are they solved by a test other than some reliance on an epiphany from the driver who will suddenly realise the error of their ways?

Do you know your bad habits as a road user? I'm sure an instructor could point out a few for me ... and once pointed out then I can change. We know what we know, We don't know what we don't know ...

Oh - and Insurance companies are there to make money - they don't particularly care about the standard of your driving - they'll adjust your bill accordingly ...

Think about it - if everyone was perfect then there would be no accidents and no need for insurance - they'd then be out of business ...

davmaggs

Slowbike wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

As to 'bad habits', how are they solved by a test other than some reliance on an epiphany from the driver who will suddenly realise the error of their ways?

Do you know your bad habits as a road user? I'm sure an instructor could point out a few for me ... and once pointed out then I can change. We know what we know, We don't know what we don't know ...

Oh - and Insurance companies are there to make money - they don't particularly care about the standard of your driving - they'll adjust your bill accordingly ...

Think about it - if everyone was perfect then there would be no accidents and no need for insurance - they'd then be out of business ...

It doesn't matter if an instructor points out my bad habits, none whatsoever unless I change my behaviour and internalise what they tell me. Your entire premise is based on the person walking away from the re-test as a changed (wo)man who will go forth and be better. That is not based on logic.

Insurance companies are the ones who punish those caught commenting offences years after the law catches them. They are the ones getting black boxes fitting willingly into cars by the public. They are the ones who keep the metrics on risk. Insurance companies know who is or is not statistically more likely to be a costly problem on the roads.

tgotb

davmaggs wrote:

It doesn't matter if an instructor points out my bad habits, none whatsoever unless I change my behaviour and internalise what they tell me. Your entire premise is based on the person walking away from the re-test as a changed (wo)man who will go forth and be better. That is not based on logic.

Insurance companies are the ones who punish those caught commenting offences years after the law catches them. They are the ones getting black boxes fitting willingly into cars by the public. They are the ones who keep the metrics on risk. Insurance companies know who is or is not statistically more likely to be a costly problem on the roads.

Gotcha. Focus on the people who have actually had accidents or broken the law, rather than trying to prevent it happening in the first place. Punish those people via their wallets rather than by giving them advice which they might ignore. I see where you're coming from...

bigmat

davmaggs wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

As to 'bad habits', how are they solved by a test other than some reliance on an epiphany from the driver who will suddenly realise the error of their ways?

Do you know your bad habits as a road user? I'm sure an instructor could point out a few for me ... and once pointed out then I can change. We know what we know, We don't know what we don't know ...

Oh - and Insurance companies are there to make money - they don't particularly care about the standard of your driving - they'll adjust your bill accordingly ...

Think about it - if everyone was perfect then there would be no accidents and no need for insurance - they'd then be out of business ...

It doesn't matter if an instructor points out my bad habits, none whatsoever unless I change my behaviour and internalise what they tell me. Your entire premise is based on the person walking away from the re-test as a changed (wo)man who will go forth and be better. That is not based on logic.

Insurance companies are the ones who punish those caught commenting offences years after the law catches them. They are the ones getting black boxes fitting willingly into cars by the public. They are the ones who keep the metrics on risk. Insurance companies know who is or is not statistically more likely to be a costly problem on the roads.

Aren't you kind of missing the point? If you have enough bad habits you'll fail the test. Then you won't be allowed to drive anymore. That might encourage an "epiphany" as you put it. I think it makes sense for some form of re-testing to be introduced, if nothing else it would allow us to test people who obtained their licences overseas and who might not be up to the standard we expect over here. Not sure if every 5 years isn't overkill, but how about if you get sufficient points on your licence, fail a compulsory theory test, reach a certain age etc? I already have to reapply for my licence every few years on medical grounds so it wouldn't be a massive shift, but it would be a step away from this assumption by drivers that once they have passed their test it is their right to drive forever more, no matter what.

davmaggs

TGOTB wrote:

Gotcha. Focus on the people who have actually had accidents or broken the law, rather than trying to prevent it happening in the first place. Punish those people via their wallets rather than by giving them advice which they might ignore. I see where you're coming from...

And your point is?

tgotb

davmaggs wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Gotcha. Focus on the people who have actually had accidents or broken the law, rather than trying to prevent it happening in the first place. Punish those people via their wallets rather than by giving them advice which they might ignore. I see where you're coming from...

And your point is?

made

davmaggs

BigMat wrote:

Aren't you kind of missing the point? If you have enough bad habits you'll fail the test. Then you won't be allowed to drive anymore. That might encourage an "epiphany" as you put it. I think it makes sense for some form of re-testing to be introduced, if nothing else it would allow us to test people who obtained their licences overseas and who might not be up to the standard we expect over here. Not sure if every 5 years isn't overkill, but how about if you get sufficient points on your licence, fail a compulsory theory test, reach a certain age etc? I already have to reapply for my licence every few years on medical grounds so it wouldn't be a massive shift, but it would be a step away from this assumption by drivers that once they have passed their test it is their right to drive forever more, no matter what.

I think you are missing the point.

Every person with a licence did exactly as you propose now when they did the test first time around, and yet you say that the solution is to keep repeating the test again and again. Basing it on dates means that you drag the even the safest (statistically) drivers into the process.

slowbike

davmaggs wrote:

It doesn't matter if an instructor points out my bad habits, none whatsoever unless I change my behaviour and internalise what they tell me. Your entire premise is based on the person walking away from the re-test as a changed (wo)man who will go forth and be better. That is not based on logic.

Ye gods you're being thick on this one!

If there was a mandatory retest every X years - do you not think that the ordinary driver would benefit? Of course they would, if they were given an advisory on doing XYZ - I'd hazard a guess that many would also take a couple of driving lessons with professional instructors to ensure they pass - and as I said, I'm sure they could point out a few bad habits that we've fallen into. Most drivers are not "bad" but could improve - like that woman who overtook me this morning just before a blind bend - without thinking about what could've been coming around the corner.

So on that basis - yes, I think the mandatory re-education driven by a re-test COULD improve general driving standards.

davmaggs wrote:

Insurance companies are the ones who punish those caught commenting offences years after the law catches them. They are the ones getting black boxes fitting willingly into cars by the public. They are the ones who keep the metrics on risk. Insurance companies know who is or is not statistically more likely to be a costly problem on the roads.

Yes - and I doubt they don't make more money from those who drive badly ..

greg66_tri_v2.0

davmaggs wrote:

Basing it on dates means that you drag the even the safest (statistically) drivers into the process.

So what?

These are just the people who should not give two hoots about being retested - they will pass with flying colours.

It's those who object to retesting that concern me, because the objectively most probably reason to object to taking a retest is a fear of failing.

Driving is a privilege, etc, so why shouldn't it be a privilege for a limited period of time?

davmaggs

Slowbike wrote:

Ye gods you're being thick on this one!

If there was a mandatory retest every X years - do you not think that the ordinary driver would benefit? Of course they would, if they were given an advisory on doing XYZ - I'd hazard a guess that many would also take a couple of driving lessons with professional instructors to ensure they pass - and as I said, I'm sure they could point out a few bad habits that we've fallen into. Most drivers are not "bad" but could improve - like that woman who overtook me this morning just before a blind bend - without thinking about what could've been coming around the corner.

So on that basis - yes, I think the mandatory re-education driven by a re-test COULD improve general driving standards.

You are making entirely unfounded assertions that re-testing would make an improvement greater than the economic cost of the process. I'm not "being thick", I am pointing out that you have no evidence at all to support this position other than gut feel that testing is the answer.

You then chuck in some anecdotes about bad driving in an attempt to claim that these would no longer happen. Logic doesn't support this at all. The driver that went past you passed a test educating them about all the things you say that they should know, and yet they aren't following them.

So, your case is entirely founded on the principle that drivers forget how to behave, rather than chose how to behave. That a reminder is the fix required based on an arbitrary time period.

One evidence base that might work in several years time is to see how 5 year re-certifications has impacted on HGV standards.

daviesee

Slowbike wrote:

...Most drivers are not "bad" but could improve - like that woman who overtook me this morning just before a blind bend - without thinking about what could've been coming around the corner...

Devils advocate.......
How do you know she didnt pass her test yesterday?

davmaggs

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

So what?

These are just the people who should not give two hoots about being retested - they will pass with flying colours.

It's those who object to retesting that concern me, because the objectively most probably reason to object to taking a retest is a fear of failing.

Driving is a privilege, etc, so why shouldn't it be a privilege for a limited period of time?

So, why clog up the system and cost the economy millions on tests with no value?

As for the "privilege" line, please won't somebody think of the children............

slowbike

daviesee wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

...Most drivers are not "bad" but could improve - like that woman who overtook me this morning just before a blind bend - without thinking about what could've been coming around the corner...

Devils advocate.......
How do you know she didnt pass her test yesterday?

I don't - but driving like that she wouldn't have passed today!

slowbike

davmaggs wrote:

You then chuck in some anecdotes about bad driving in an attempt to claim that these would no longer happen. Logic doesn't support this at all. The driver that went past you passed a test educating them about all the things you say that they should know, and yet they aren't following them.

Logic does support this - we learn things through life - can you remember everything you were taught when you learnt to drive? I can't remember what I've forgotten ... so it would be prudent to brush up on driving skills - the easiest way to ensure ppl do this would be to make them take a re-test.

Why did that woman overtake in a dangerous location? Ignorance or impatience or just didn't think it was dangerous (it's a subjective matter anyway) - the more lessons we have, the more we learn - provided we're open minded enough to take it - and that will be the problem - some of us wouldn't be open minded enough to take constructive criticism - and it'll be those that need to improve their driving skills that would have closed minds ...

In many professions there is an element of continuous education/testing/certification that has to be kept up to date - IMHO, driving is one of those areas that could do with following that example - and I don't think cycling is far behind.

bigmat

davmaggs wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

So what?

These are just the people who should not give two hoots about being retested - they will pass with flying colours.

It's those who object to retesting that concern me, because the objectively most probably reason to object to taking a retest is a fear of failing.

Driving is a privilege, etc, so why shouldn't it be a privilege for a limited period of time?

So, why clog up the system and cost the economy millions on tests with no value?

As for the "privilege" line, please won't somebody think of the children............

yeah Greg, you commie!

I still think you're missing the point. Re-testing wouldn't bea touchy feely let's encourage everyone to improve their bad habits, it would be to get drivers who aren't up to the requisite standard off the road. Yes, the same thing happens when taking an initial test and yes, some of those who pass turn out to be bad drivers, butthe ones who can't even pass the test really shouldn't be behind the wheel, agreed? Your whole position seems to be that once you have passed your test you must be a competent driver and any subsequent poor driving is just a conscious choice. I disagree.

greg66_tri_v2.0

davmaggs wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

So what?

These are just the people who should not give two hoots about being retested - they will pass with flying colours.

It's those who object to retesting that concern me, because the objectively most probably reason to object to taking a retest is a fear of failing.

Driving is a privilege, etc, so why shouldn't it be a privilege for a limited period of time?

So, why clog up the system and cost the economy millions on tests with no value?

As for the "privilege" line, please won't somebody think of the children............

Thought so. Your position is an economic one. Your claim that retesting would have "no value" is palpably wrong, and I suspect from your sly repositioning of your argument towards an economic basis that you've finally realised this.

So you really think with the amount of duty charged on fuel, and the rates of VED charged these days, that the Govt would give two hoots about the economics of making retesting compulsory? No, thought not. Especially as it will save lives. You can't put a cost on a human life, etc.

Bye bye...

davmaggs

BigMat wrote:

I still think you're missing the point. Re-testing wouldn't bea touchy feely let's encourage everyone to improve their bad habits, it would be to get drivers who aren't up to the requisite standard off the road. Yes, the same thing happens when taking an initial test and yes, some of those who pass turn out to be bad drivers, butthe ones who can't even pass the test really shouldn't be behind the wheel, agreed? Your whole position seems to be that once you have passed your test you must be a competent driver and any subsequent poor driving is just a conscious choice. I disagree.

No, my point is that people do enough to pass the test for that moment of the day that they need to. My secondary point is that people don't forgot those rules, they chose to ignore them and the entire premise of the pro-test crowd in this forum is that people would be great drivers if only they could remember what to do.

In short; a re-test for all based on time is pointless because they will do enough to pass, and then go back to driving as they did before.

My solution would be focused more on the policing of the roads.

davmaggs

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Thought so. Your position is an economic one. Your claim that retesting would have "no value" is palpably wrong, and I suspect from your sly repositioning of your argument towards an economic basis that you've finally realised this.

So you really think with the amount of duty charged on fuel, and the rates of VED charged these days, that the Govt would give two hoots about the economics of making retesting compulsory? No, thought not. Especially as it will save lives. You can't put a cost on a human life, etc.

Bye bye...

There's nothing "sly" about being able to hold more than one thought in your head and to produce several points for or against a proposition. You've tuned into one or two words to fit your own agenda.

Your "palpably wrong" comment is merely an assertion based on no evidence, you have not pointed to a single thing from a reputable source. If a research organisation comes along with evidence then I am more than willing to support a change to the law, what I am not willing to do is to support pet ideas based on people's intuition or bias.

daviesee

Bloody drivers.
Why bother discussing the merits of sitting tests?
Get them all off the road and cycling would immediately become safer.

rjsterry

Nobody seems to have picked up the main benefit of re-testing: bringing those who got there license years ago or in another country up to the latest standards. It's no different from most professions, which require some sort of annual demonstration that their members are up to scratch.

Initialised

SteppenHerring wrote:

The driving theory test is administered on a computer. Photo licenses need renewing every 10 years. Could have an online theory test required to get a renewal. OK, so no proof that someone else didn't take the test for you but ... cheap.

Do the Theory in the Post Office photo-booth when your renew your licence. But if you fail Theory you have to take the Practical. Weed out the genuine idiots who can't swot up for an exam in a few hours and the bigots who think they know it all and don't need to revise.

EKE_38BPM

Nearly a quarter of a century ago I took and passed my driving test. I was supposed to learn the stopping distances at various speed. I couldn't remember them the day I passed* and I can't remember them now. If I can't remember that (and I bet you can't remember them either), what else have I forgotten?
Also, in that time, car's braking has improved through technology (ABS, better tyres etc). I'm pretty sure today's new Fiesta will brake from the same speed in a much lesser distance than a new Fiesta would have 25 years ago, so what I didn't learn then will now be outdated.
My point is that things change. When ASL's were introduced did you get a new copy of the Highway Code to learn what the new rules were? No? Neither did I and I doubt the VAST majority of motorists did either. That is just an example off the top of my head but I guess there are other things I don't know about. I don't know what I don't know, but a retest would make me, and others, learn.

As for epiphanys (epiphanies?), I remember going to a late night showing of Pulp Fiction at the cinema when it first came out. I left the cinema all hyped up and drove home like an idiot (massively breaking the speed limit, stupid overtakes, ducking down a parade of shops to avoid a red light and not being able to negotiate a staggered junction without going onto the wrong side of a traffic island are the dumb things that I can remember) but I was stopped by the police. After a show of force by 5-0 and checking my documents were all correct, a sergent took me to one side and said that I was obviously an intelligent bloke so don't drive like a shortened version of the name Richard. That made more of an impression on me than all of the collisions I had had previously (and I had many).
Drivers can have an epiphany. The penny can drop. It is better that that happens by a professional instructor pointing out a bad habit than by causing a collision.

Old drivers scare me.
I was a passenger with my Dad driving a couple of years ago and the road curved to the left. He didn't follow the curve and was drifting onto the wrong side of the road. I assumed he would correct the path of the car but was forced to grab the steering wheel and save both of our lives as an oncoming car got closer and closer. For ages he wouldn't admit that he hadn't seen that car and had the serious hump with me for grabbing the wheel, usually by using the argument "I've been driving for over 50 years!". He eventually admitted that he didn't see that car and he has now had two cataract operations. He can now see better than he has in years but has stopped driving. How many aged drivers use the same "I've been driving for X years!" argument but wouldn't pass the driving test now?

With regard to the argument about retesting not being fair on professional drivers. Retesting (and passing the retest) should be one of the conditions of keeping the job. A forklift driver in a scrapyard needs to be periodically retested, but not a van driver?! I assume bus drivers, coach drivers, taxi drivers etc are already retested. They must be, right?

*The examiner asked me what the stopping distance was at 70mph. I looked him in the eye and told him I didn't have a clue but I knew I should stay at least two seconds behind the vehicle in front. He must have liked my answer because I passed.

tl:dr?
Retesting will force drivers to keep up to date with changes in the law and technology.
Better an epiphany by bad habits being pointed out than by a collision.
"I've been driving for X years!" is the argument FOR retesting, not against it.
Professional drivers should pass retests as a condition of keeping the job.

edited for typos and stuff

Initialised

So EKE 5 or ten years or just a collision/driving offence for the retest?