I'd back retests.
At work every 2-3 years my IRATA, PTS & COSS, First Aid, high risk confined space* all need updated to make sure I don't can keep people safe at work. Why shouldn't I have to be retested on my way to work.
*I have more qualifications/ tickets at work that need reassessed
My employer pays for all my reassessment but if I was self employed I'd be required to pay or I couldn't work.
If you fail your driving test as an independent assessor thinks your driving is substandard well that's on you. Maybe don't be so shit.
I agree with that sentiment but consider for a moment that as it would be essential for employment you just actually move the cost to employers (including state employers) to some extent and put a burden on other law abiding people for potentially minimum gain other than feeling your are doing something
Hmmmm. Do you also think that 20mph limits in built up areas makes a cost that's moved to employers? Slower drivers, more time on the roads, more fines.
Or is the reduction in road deaths a minimum gain? About 10 deaths a year saved, and 800 ish injuries in Wales alone. That feeling of doing something has a very real output.
Does anyone think the rapid acceleration of ev's is going to cause more of a problem for people not used to it or will autocity brake solve it? Because a lot of OAP accidents are down to pressing the whole pedal - I think the police even have a name for it.
OP reminds of a local driver who went the wrong way up the M40, he'd even been reported recently for a minor accident 🙁
Not just OAPs. We have several EVs at work which have been in more crashes than the other 12 diesels combined. Three or four separate low speed crashes where the driver accelerated into parked cars at low speeds. In one case from a standing start pushed two cars into a fence with enough force to demolish it. In none of the cases did the autobrake stop it. Some of the drivers have claimed the car surged by itself. I suspect driver error.
I keep telling the bosses to stick to diesel manuals where the worst that will happen is a stall. They don't listen though. The latest genius decision is buying 6 small people carriers (without consulting the users) then fitting perspex screens behind the front row stopping the driver seat going fully back. Result - anyone over about 5ft9 can't drive them.
I presume this car which went through the front of our local Home Bargains was a similar wrong pedal crash.
It's down to family members to police their older relatives. It's tough but has to happen.
Wasn't close to my old man, but he was still driving at 90. He messed up some parking and clipped a bollard, fractured his fuel line. My sister only noticed because the house was a bit whiffy (integral garage).There was a pool of diesel under the car, and fortunate it was diesel not petrol. She persuaded him that he had to stop driving. Suspect she had known earlier, but hadn't been brave enough.
I went up a month later and the garage still stank of diesel. If older folks have family, I am sure family knows that things are going off the rails, but too often don't want to confront that fact.
Not just "old" old drivers - this muppet is expecting an invite to a speed awareness course after not braking hard enough on a steep 30mph descent the other day at a mobile camera hotspot.
It's down to family members to police their older relatives. It's tough but has to happen
We have spent last 2-3 years gently broaching driving with my father. A recent move of home meant it was perfect to suggest that living within 500m of two supermarkets and numerous local shops, bus and train station meant he did not need the car anymore.
My father told me yesterday he has returned his license to DVLA (I didn't know this was a thing) due to his eyesight.
Not just OAPs. We have several EVs at work which have been in more crashes than the other 12 diesels combined. Three or four separate low speed crashes where the driver accelerated into parked cars at low speeds. In one case from a standing start pushed two cars into a fence with enough force to demolish it. In none of the cases did the autobrake stop it. Some of the drivers have claimed the car surged by itself. I suspect driver error.
Is this due to user error or some sort software glitch?
It's always assumed that drivers are to blame but software does not always play nicely.
It's down to family members to police their older relatives. It's tough but has to happen.
I agree many families don't have, or don't want to have, those tough conversations with oldies.
But, this thread is about how society can be protected by rules to try to ensure some drivers have their licence revoked/suspended or whatever by the state.
In my family, two people have surrendered their licences in the past few years. One hit a large stone wall in Halifax, walked home and sent it back to DVLA. The other had glaucoma, changed lane into a 'blank spot' without checking (but with no collision) and a few weeks later gave up driving (gave car away).
I think an in-law is about to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's, which is notifiable. Their side of the family is not prepared or not having those tough conversations to say enough is enough. Their car is collecting small marks which is, I think, evidence of this.
It should be easier to sort this or not have it happen in the first place.
It's always assumed that drivers are to blame
Years ago I saw an insurance claim where old bloke reversed off his drive, through his gate, across a road, up a pavement, through a hedge, through his neighbour's lounge, conservative and into their swimming pool.
"Got the wrong pedal".
I was actually asking a genuine question, not trying to make a point.
Electric cars are controlled by software it’s not inconceivable that this may not function correctly.
One person having a senior moment does not mean that software in cars may not be entirely reliable.
I agree with that sentiment but consider for a moment that as it would be essential for employment you just actually move the cost to employers (including state employers) to some extent and put a burden on other law abiding people for potentially minimum gain other than feeling your are doing something
Hmmmm. Do you also think that 20mph limits in built up areas makes a cost that's moved to employers? Slower drivers, more time on the roads,
well IF a road used to be safely and actually drivable at 30 and it’s reduced to 20 then clearly you just added 50% to journey times on those roads. IF those roads make up a significant proportion of someone’s day then yes clearly you just added a cost to the milkman, the district nurse, the social worker, the bus driver or the salesman’s employer. But it’s a false equivalence - the vast majority of 30-20 mph roads changes were either not drivable at 30 anyway or are very short distances which don’t make up the vast majority of journeys so have a proportionally very small effect. In some case 20 limits improved congestion and thus helped those making essential journeys.
im not aware of any employer paying employees fines, their MAY be some increases admin for s172 requests to ID the driver but unless you employ the worst drivers that is surely not a major burden.more fines.
But if you are an ambulance service or police force who already do extensive driver training and now have the union, not unreasonably, saying “you’ll need to pay for our retests (and the time to do them)” where do you find the money? Probably by cutting the specialist in house training!
I don’t have the stats to hand but my recollection is 25-65 yr olds with 5+ yrs driving experience are some of the lowest causes of insurance claims and KSI/deaths.
where is the evidence that either (a) most accidents are caused by pure incompetence not inattentiveness (b) any sort of regular retesting programme would reduce road deaths? By incompetence not inattentiveness I mean that someone doesn’t have the skills to get in a car and pass a test if they know they are being watched for that 30-60 minutes rather than how they drive when nobody is watching, they are in a rush, on their phone etc. How many of those responsible for road deaths would have been refused license renewal? How many of them would still have driven anyway? I’m far more concerned about people who have never sat a test or have been disqualified driving. General standards of driving ARE quite poor but we can all see that - we don’t need to pay driving examiners to watch people who are on their best behaviour to stop that - we just need enough resources and political will to enforce existing road traffic laws.Or is the reduction in road deaths a minimum gain? About 10 deaths a year saved, and 800 ish injuries in Wales alone. That feeling of doing something has a very real output
Excuses around "it MUST have been the car, because it CAN'T have been my fault" have always (and I do mean always) been present in motor insurance claims.
There is a more prevalent excuse, which is "it was the other driver's fault, not mine".
What I see these days is that drivers of all ages use the latter excuse frequently and vehemently. The former is less used as I should imagine it's easy to defend.
Even if the throttle opened entirely of its own volition (which would mean all the testing and regulation and safety standards had all been cast asunder), why didn't the driver hit the brake? Or steer? The operator has the responsibility to not hit the third party. Imagine the class action against the manufacturer.
This horrible incident had every sign of being an automatism defence (unforeseen medical episode) but has been moved to trial for death by dangerous driving. The amount of money this woman's husband has, I would think she'll be trying to show the software was unreliable.
BBC.CO.UK IF a road used to be safely and actually drivable at 30 and it’s reduced to 20 then clearly you just added 50% to journey times on those roads.
And
some case 20 limits improved congestion and thus helped those making essential journeys.
So, it did or it didn't add to employers' costs?
And what about the non-essential journeys?
Oh, and remember the cost of those dead or wounded people.
Changing mindsets takes time. Drink driving. Seatbelts. Driving is a privilege not a right <pending>
the vast majority of 30-20 mph roads changes were either not drivable at 30 anyway or are very short distances which don’t make up the vast majority of journeys so have a proportionally very small effect. In some case 20 limits improved congestion and thus helped those making essential journeys.
There's some stat that says that the majority of car journeys are urban and less than three miles - even if you assume that people are doing 30 mph for all of this (which they aren't, due to give ways, narrow sections etc) then the effect on journey time of slowing to 20 is minimal. I gather the same argument is made on speed awareness courses - you need to be going quite a long way for extra speed to make much difference to arrival time.
Of course the Dutch approach is to design out speed on residential streets, in contrast to here where we have massive wide roads with a 30 mph limit, which encourage speeding as the design speed is so high.
This horrible incident had every sign of being an automatism defence (unforeseen medical episode) but has been moved to trial for death by dangerous driving. The amount of money this woman's husband has, I would think she'll be trying to show the software was unreliable.
Let's wait and see what comes out in court. Until then we don't have the full facts here...
THEGUARDIAN.COM But if you are an ambulance service or police force who already do extensive driver training...
These days police training is to satisfy the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and it's baked-in.
Ambulance and fire service don't have the same requirements and don't have police advanced levels of driving,
(1A)Subsection (1B) applies where a designated person—
(a)is driving for police purposes (subject to subsections (1E) and (1F)), and
(b)has undertaken prescribed training.
...and now have the union, not unreasonably, saying “you’ll need to pay for our retests (and the time to do them)” where do you find the money? Probably by cutting the specialist in house training!
There would be a consultation probably leading to an exemption if your service training is maintained, in the same way that a police car maintained in an approved workshop is MoT-exempt.
So what? it was to illustrate that car software may be fallible, which it is in some cases but not all.
The BBC link in the by rich_s post was of a similar age why not point that out?
So what? it was to illustrate that car software may be fallible, which it is in some cases but not all.
The BBC link in the by rich_s post was of a similar age why not point that out?
Because that one is going to be examined independently so we'll get a current outcome with the benefit of a further two years of evidence. It also seems to involve her health.
In the Grauniad article "BMW challenged the claims" and the "degree of deceleration could only be achieved by application of the brakes".
The Hyundai is so "incredibly scary" that "a like-for-like replacement which is the preferred resolution of the customer.”
