Looks like it's happening at last. Fits in well with the 3 year licence renewal period for over 70s. Just need to do something about those mad young 'uns now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c205nxy0p31o
Regular random stops for drink and drugs would probably have more effect on road safety, along with the enforcement of the traffic rules that already exist.
@wheelsonfire1 I agree but there seems little downside to this change. In Scotland I qualify for a free eye examination every year anyway so there's no additional hassle for me.
My unpopular opinion is that every driver should re-sit their test every five years anyway but it won't ever happen!
Can't ague against the eye test, it makes perfect sense. However, we had a horrible incident in our town a few years ago that resulted in a leg amputation. That was caused by an older driver mixing up the accelerator and brake pedals and panicking. This was cognitive confusion. I wonder if anyone has analysed incidents involving older drivers to see which is the greater risk, eyesight or cognition?
My unpopular opinion is that every driver should re-sit their test every five years anyway but it won't ever happen!
With the current balls-up in the testing system no one would be driving at all as no-one would be able to book a test!! Imagine how many more examiners would be needed.
Typical government policy by press release! Was this not also considering cognitive impairment? Did the cycling offences already get dropped? Some reports say no insurance fines to double, if they mean the fixed penalty, I'm not sure how many people who don't have insurance will be able to find £600 in 28 days? Surprised the hospitality industry hasn't made more fuss about the proposed reduction to drink drive limits.
Another unpopular opinion is caravans and braked trailers should have an MOT.
Pedal mix-up in our town a little while ago:
Last week, the pensioner was sentenced by the Bad Säckingen District Court to two years' probation and a fine of 1,500 euros. He must also bear the costs of the trial. His driver's license was revoked for life.
According to reports, the pensioner confused the accelerator and brake pedals of his automatic car in May of last year and drove uncontrollably into a crowd of people. A 63-year-old woman and a 60-year-old man were killed. 27 pedestrians were injured, nine of them seriously.
The accident in the center of Bad Säckingen, near the Swiss border, sparked a nationwide debate about the competence of senior citizens in road traffic.
Don’t disagree but think it’s appeasement/soft target/cuddly headline politics, testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better - but probably be a bit of a vote loser.
Driving, you just have to be good enough on one out of as many goes as you can afford to be able to do it.
With the current balls-up in the testing system no one would be driving at all as no-one would be able to book a test!! Imagine how many more examiners would be needed.
Don't promise us a good time (remembers the sunny spring of 2020 and empty back roads for cycling on).
This was cognitive confusion. I wonder if anyone has analysed incidents involving older drivers to see which is the greater risk, eyesight or cognition?
My Dad voluntarily gave up his license because of his eyesight but he probably would have had no problem passing an eye test.
After a severe illness that took a lot of recovery, when he started driving again the way he describes it was he could see things fine but his brain wasn't interpreting the signals fast enough.
I guess that would be cognitive decline but I don't know if/how it would be measured and tested for. I'd imagine cognitive decline that affects driving could come in many different flavours that can't possibly all be checked for.
Anyway, at least no one has to worry about my Dad on the road but you have to wonder how many people have the self awareness to know when to call it a day.
This was cognitive confusion. I wonder if anyone has analysed incidents involving older drivers to see which is the greater risk, eyesight or cognition?
Considering my friend mother has just been sectioned with dementia (partner is suffering with cancer, so struggling to support her, especially when she lapses and decided she doesn't know him), but her Dr. happily approved her continuing to drive, not two weeks previously....
Don’t disagree but think it’s appeasement/soft target/cuddly headline politics, testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better - but probably be a bit of a vote loser.
Given all the recent governments' positions that oldies must be protected at all costs (TM), it'd be a relatively simple thing to start at the younger/more recently qualified end of the market and issue a licence for a 5 or 10 year period. After all, photocards need to be replaced every 10 anyway.
It's like the NZ idea of banning tobacco on a rolling basis. The younguns would never know anything different.
But, it'll never happen because the motor manufacturing lobby is too strong in this country.
Personally, a 5 year rolling licence on private car would be enough of a pain in the ass to mean people take driving standards more seriously.
While I'm on my soapbox, I can't understand why the fees for driving tests aren't hiked up massively. The problem with test availability at the moment, and all the associated re-selling of appointments simply shows there's drivers' money available to throw at the problem. So why not increase wages, add more examiners and fix it properly? And take the profits away from the resellers? Then use those new examiners to re-test on the 5-year basis.
And yes, I have 3 kids. The first will be 17 in 2027, so this will affect me/us.
testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better - but probably be a bit of a vote loser.statistics show that driving standards improve with age/experience for quite a while. (I think until about 50?) so the data doesn't really suggest any reason to retest frequently. Although as rules and signs change - perhaps there is at least an argument for going the theory test - and hazard perception.
With current test lead times that is a very slow process! I'm not sure a regular retest would stop the idiots - can they focus for 45 minutes and pass - then get in the car and go back to zombie mode? Meanwhile, it might take people who are actually OK drivers 98% of the time and with the stress of a test doing test manoeuvres etc see courteous, attentive drivers failing!Driving, you just have to be good enough on one out of as many goes as you can afford to be able to do it.
None of it will really matter - there's loads of people driving without licenses, or driving with provisionals and no L-plates. Without enforcement, we will continue the current approach of waiting till something bad happens before working out the punishment!
Can't ague against the eye test, it makes perfect sense. However, we had a horrible incident in our town a few years ago that resulted in a leg amputation. That was caused by an older driver mixing up the accelerator and brake pedals and panicking. This was cognitive confusion. I wonder if anyone has analysed incidents involving older drivers to see which is the greater risk, eyesight or cognition?
The eyesight thing needs to happen so this is a good thing.
The problem with other conditions (including cognitive impairment) is that they still rely on self-certification, and while GPs are apparently obliged to do this, the problem is that people won't go to the GP if they think they're going to lose their license, which causes more problems down the line.
We could really do with making it easier for everyone to get around without a car, to break the perceived link between driving & independence.
Still need to deal with kids who pass their tests and manage to crash the day after killing several of their friends.
The impatient and angry.
The apprentice racing drivers.
Lower speed limits which have reduced casualties in Wales.
The lower drink driving limit in Scotland seem to have had little effect on casualties, possibly due to lack of enforcement.
Makes perfect sense to me.
testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better - but probably be a bit of a vote loser.
That would be great, but it would increase the number of driving tests from about 2 million a year to somewhere north of 12 million. There's a shortage of instructors as it is!
That was caused by an older driver mixing up the accelerator and brake pedals and panicking.
That's a well known occurrence, MIL gave up driving after such an event, luckily only her pride, car and a fence were damaged. Me I'm planning on giving up driving at 80.
The problem with other conditions (including cognitive impairment) is that they still rely on self-certification, and while GPs are apparently obliged to do this, the problem is that people won't go to the GP if they think they're going to lose their license, which causes more problems down the line.
Getting to see a GP is interesting, I got to the morning of having hand surgery before I saw a doctor, its not always a case of avoidance.
While I'm on my soapbox, I can't understand why the fees for driving tests aren't hiked up massively. The problem with test availability at the moment, and all the associated re-selling of appointments simply shows there's drivers' money available to throw at the problem. So why not increase wages, add more examiners and fix it properly? And take the profits away from the resellers? Then use those new examiners to re-test on the 5-year basis.
I think there is scope to manage the test demand through pricing, but it
Provisional license = £34
Theory test = £23 (pass rate ~ 46%)
Practical test = £62 (pass rate ~ 48%)
Minimum cost to get a full license = £119.
In reality, most people get instruction - rates vary but £45/h is common; no of lesson vary but I suspect the average spend will be over £1k. Now the "bots" scalping tests are apparently reselling some tests at £200+ and the rebooking bots charge £50+, so there IS money... but who is disadvantaged most? Poorer "kids". Which young people might actually have their life prospects improved the most by having a driving license - poorer "kids". Higher test fees would let mummy and daddy of middle class kid buy them a license they can probably live without!
I don't think examiners are particularly badly paid - it's civil service pensioned, not physically hard work, long hours, decent holidays etc. IIRC salary is similar to a new teacher or nurse without needing a degree first. Could it be better? Probably - but is that really the barrier to recruiting more examiners?
My unpopular opinion is that every driver should re-sit their test every five years
It's popular with me.
I was idling away time earlier looking at accident statistics and whilst it is clearly apparent that 25% of fatal accidents involve 70+ drivers the stats don't seem to show who was responsible for the accident (the 70+ driver or some else who drove into them). Interestingly taking fatalities and injuries together the percentages for 70+ and the population as a whole are about the same, so maybe it's just that 70+ age group are more likely to die of their injuries. There is no denying though that accident rates per mile driven are far higher in the 70+ group that the population as a whole.
As an aside, another statistic I came across was that in 25% of fatalities seatbelts were not being worn. If only there was a law to fix that eh?
As an aside, another statistic I came across was that in 25% of fatalities seatbelts were not being worn. If only there was a law to fix that eh?
The lack of enforcement remains one of the major issues with road safety. It'll be interesting to see how this is addressed in the Road Safety Strategy when this is announced, I think tomorrow.
You can bet it would get sorted though if typical voters were being affected rather than young people!testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better - but probably be a bit of a vote loser.
That would be great, but it would increase the number of driving tests from about 2 million a year to somewhere north of 12 million. There's a shortage of instructors as it is!
You can bet it would get sorted though if typical voters were being affected rather than young people!testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better - but probably be a bit of a vote loser.
That would be great, but it would increase the number of driving tests from about 2 million a year to somewhere north of 12 million. There's a shortage of instructors as it is!
Retesting doesn't necessarily need to be done with human examiners - it could be done with q and a, hazard perception and eyesight check on a self-service kiosk. If the machine doesn't print you a pass certificate then you don't get an automatic renewal, and you get allocated to manual testing.
Still need to deal with kids who pass their tests and manage to crash the day after killing several of their friends.
We need Australian-style rules on new drivers (esp young drivers) for that reason. And then enforcement...
Me I'm planning on giving up driving at 80.
Its a nice idea - but setting an arbitrary date means:
- if you are 78 and starting to get a bit dodgy, do you tell yourself its OK because you will stop at 80
- when you turn 80, do you really give up the car, or do you keep it on the driveway for emergencies or just going to the local shop and so actually lose capability/experience
- if you just mean you are planning to no longer "need" a car, what if health or eyesight decides that for you much earlier.
Another issue is the instant acceleration from a standing start by many modern EVs and hybrids. Mix up pedals in a manual you will probably stall. In an auto not so much. A driver at my work in an was in an unfamiliar Volvo hire car. Failed to put the electric handbrake on. Either left in drive or she nudged the lever into drive as she leaned. In any case as she leaned into the back seat to get a sandwich she inadvertantly hit the accelerator. The car launched across the carpark with enough speed within a car length or so to damage (poss write off) 3 cars. Luckily nobody was walking past and it was our cars or hire cars that were damaged not a third party. Also the cars she hit were stopped by a chain link fence or they would have been into the next row of cars as well.
I was driving an identical Volvo a few days later. I googled it - 6s 0-60 time and over 250hp. Heavy cars with that performance can do a lot of damage.
As an aside, another statistic I came across was that in 25% of fatalities seatbelts were not being worn. If only there was a law to fix that eh?
The lack of enforcement remains one of the major issues with road safety. It'll be interesting to see how this is addressed in the Road Safety Strategy when this is announced, I think tomorrow.
"Police should be dealing with real criminals...."
Local facebook group, people complaining about enforcement cameras being installed on a pedestrian area that has been for decades.
The lower drink driving limit in Scotland seem to have had little effect on casualties, possibly due to lack of enforcement.
Alternatively it isn't drivers with one pint in them who are crashing.
"The change in the law was accompanied by a targeted public information campaign. Messages included “one drink can get you a criminal record” and “don’t let one drink after work ruin your life”. The Scots took this warning seriously and abided by the new rules; there was no increase in arrests for drink-driving after the limit was lowered and pubs complained about losing business. "
If the previous level of enforcement had continued arrests would have increased if drivers hadn't changed behaviour.
https://www.cityam.com/from-scotland-with-love-indulgent-drink-driving-laws-get-us-nowhere/
Its a nice idea - but setting an arbitrary date means:
- if you are 78 and starting to get a bit dodgy, do you tell yourself its OK because you will stop at 80
- when you turn 80, do you really give up the car, or do you keep it on the driveway for emergencies or just going to the local shop and so actually lose capability/experience
- if you just mean you are planning to no longer "need" a car, what if health or eyesight decides that for you much earlier.
It's more about having a plan in place, moving to somewhere a car will be less necessary etc Obviously if I or any of my family feel my driving is not up to scratch before I hit 80 then so be it, definitely won't keep a car on the drive "just in case" there are always taxis, trains & buses where I intend to live out my days. Been through seeing my dad & in-laws resistance to giving up driving to know you need to have a plan.
I don't think examiners are particularly badly paid - it's civil service pensioned, not physically hard work, long hours, decent holidays etc. IIRC salary is similar to a new teacher or nurse without needing a degree first. Could it be better? Probably - but is that really the barrier to recruiting more examiners?
"£28,119 + excellent benefits" advertised 2 weeks ago.
Minimum wage for a 40 hour job is something like £25,400.
not physically hard work
Can you imagine the stress though?!? Must be like being a football referee.
What's missing is the gov having a mindset where licencing needs to change.
[quote data-userid="128134" data-postid="13681668"> https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/driver-and-rider-licences/driver-licences/provisional-p1-licence#toc-rules-for-provisional-p1-licence <
We need Australian-style rules on new drivers (esp young drivers) for that reason. And then enforcement...
In principle, I support graduated licenses for new/young drivers BUT Australia has it and had road death rates approx twice the UK.
New Zealand have something similar and are worse still. ROI have it but are marginally worse than GB whilst NI is worse than theirs (also with a scheme).
Australia has it and had road death rates approx twice the UK.
New Zealand have something similar and are worse still. ROI have it but are marginally worse than GB whilst NI is worse than theirs (also with a scheme).
I don't know about Ireland and NI, but two thirds of Australian road deaths happen in regional and rural areas, despite the population being 98% or so urbanised. These are places with long distance journeys, higher speeds, no public transport, a long response time for paramedics/firefighters, heavier and larger vehicles, little or no police presence etc. It's just a completely different environment from urban Australia and the UK where a much larger population has a much lower rate of road deaths. I imagine the same is true for NZ but don't know.
As an aside, another statistic I came across was that in 25% of fatalities seatbelts were not being worn. If only there was a law to fix that eh?
That's a really interesting dataset!
Show that proportionally more fatalities occur in 17-44 year old men travelling in rear seats, between 2200-0400 on weekend.
Pissed blokes on way home after a night out, bravado/lack of habit means they don't wear a seatbelt?
OK I thought it was slightly more than that - I thought low 30's.I don't think examiners are particularly badly paid - it's civil service pensioned, not physically hard work, long hours, decent holidays etc. IIRC salary is similar to a new teacher or nurse without needing a degree first. Could it be better? Probably - but is that really the barrier to recruiting more examiners?
"£28,119 + excellent benefits" advertised 2 weeks ago.
Its a 37h a week job! So min wage would be £23.5k.Minimum wage for a 40 hour job is something like £25,400.
Nah, football ref there's loads of people shouting at you that you got it wrong. Really the only person saying that is the candidate - very few of whom will even argue back. The bit I'd find stressful is having to sit there with random's driving and not saying anything or touching the brake unless it was really dreadful... just from having taken my kids out that was hard enough. But compared to driving for Amazon, getting shouted at in a call centre or nursery staff - I'd be applying tomorrow if I was doing any of those jobs!Can you imagine the stress though?!? Must be like being a football referee.
does it? we are one of the safest countries in the world for road deaths (7= from top IIRC and none of the countries above us have massively different license regimes AFAIK). Getting a license today is harder than its ever been. Imagine if we just enforced the existing laws, how much better it could be without actually making everyone's life more complex/expensive. If unmarked* cars pulled over every car reeking of cannabis, driving whilst using a phone or jumping a red light, those drivers would very quickly learn or get banned. Despite being one of the safest countries in the world the casualty rates and deaths are still far too high - but I'm not sure that licenses are the solution, people can just be on their best behaviour on test days.What's missing is the gov having a mindset where licensing needs to change.
* a traffic cop tells me he sees way more offending on his days off than he does at work because most people seem to spot his high vis battenburg.
How about 12pts actually meaning a ban? No excuses about how much you need the licence. If it is that important obey the law.
"The DVLA replied that as of 9 April 2019, the number of people with 12 penalty points or more who have an entitlement to drive was 11,105."
@irc Cycling UK did a good report a few years ago that showed that people often continue to offend (which, TBH, when they've had several opportunities to change behaviour they haven't taken, isn't a surprise)
Another unpopular opinion is caravans and braked trailers should have an MOT.
OT really but the police turned up at a trackday I went to and were doing "advisory" checks, you know the sort, "We could charge you for this but we won't on this occasion, just get it fixed aye?". Good policing I think but they found a defect on the majority of the trailers they inspected. And that's trackday guys, car enthusiasts, often with expensive purpose built trailers so god knows what it must be like for the average trailer.
(and they weren't even checking for overload, which being realistic probably half of the rigs there were overloaded once they'd piled up all the tools and spare tyres and suchlike)
Why assume it's just their eyesight that needs retesting up to 53 years after they first drove? Why is medical fitness the only consideration for a 70yo to resume driving, has their GP ever seen them drive? Make them (re)sit the theory / practical tests when their licence expires at 70. If competent, now't to fear, if not, bus is free and there'd be fewer cars on the road.
Given that the Highway Code and statute law aren't static instruments, would it really hurt for the rest of us to update our knowledge and resit every 10 years when our photocard expires?
The DVSA examiner shortage has been ongoing for years, largely due to poor financial reward for quite a responsible job. DVSA now expects examiners to work weekends, so add unsociable hours to the deterrent factors. I did consider it but the remuneration and hours put me off.
The cost of obtaining a provisional and sitting the theory / hazard perception & practical tests is relatively low for such a safety critical life skill and, once the cost of owning and insuring a car is factored in, is a small proportion of the overall cost of getting on the road. DVSA could charge far more for provisional licences and testing to self fund test centres with sufficient staff numbers but here we are.
Every provisional licence holder has a driver number. Allowing each provisional licence holder to book no more than one theory / HP test, then one practical test using said driver number would eliminate block booking and profiteering from slot selling overnight. Naturally, learners would be guided by their instructors as to when they might be ready for test and book dates accordingly. They could also be permitted to switch their practical to an earlier / later date if progress dictates. Surely one driver number = one test slot isn't a difficult concept?
@irc Cycling UK did a good report a few years ago that showed that people often continue to offend (which, TBH, when they've had several opportunities to change behaviour they haven't taken, isn't a surprise)
I stopped reading after the first case study for sake of my blood pressure. The govt and the courts have blood on their hands.
"Christopher Gard
Thirty-year-old Christopher Gard’s licence was stacked with penalty points for using a
mobile phone at the wheel by the time he pleaded with Aldershot magistrates in June
2015 not to take his licence away.
The occasion not only marked his tally of 12 points, but also his eighth conviction for the
offence. The chances of being caught for driving while texting or chatting on a mobile are
arguably not as high as they ought to be, so this is astounding.
Gard had twice avoided a conviction and points by attending a driver awareness course.
Offender’s ‘exceptional hardship’ plea (June 2015)
Gard, a self-employed plasterer and former cage fighter, said that, if disqualified:
• he would lose his living
• his young son and the boy’s mother, his former partner, would suffer financially.
The magistrates allowed Gard to keep his licence. He promised to lock his phone in the
boot while driving thereafter.
Subsequently …
Just over six weeks later, Gard was texting at the wheel again, this time about a dog walk.
With his young son in the passenger seat of his transit van, he ploughed into the back of
cyclist Lee Martin on the A31 near Bentley, Hampshire.
Lee, 48, a father of two, was thrown onto the front windscreen and killed."
"
The driver was jailed for 9 years. Why did he have to kill a cyclist before being banned from driving? Six previous convictions for phone use at the wheel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-3728399
My unpopular opinion is that every driver should re-sit their test every five years anyway but it won't ever happen!
Can't ague against the eye test, it makes perfect sense. However, we had a horrible incident in our town a few years ago that resulted in a leg amputation. That was caused by an older driver mixing up the accelerator and brake pedals and panicking. This was cognitive confusion. I wonder if anyone has analysed incidents involving older drivers to see which is the greater risk, eyesight or cognition?
Ive always argued it should be a re-test every 3 years ! It's ludicrous that someone could scrape through a test in a 1 litre 50hp Micra in 1983, and yet currently be driving a 3+ tonne 500 hp Chelsea Tractor capable of 260mph some 40+ years later with no checks in between.
By comparison a Cessna 182 carries 4, weights under 2 tonnes, and has a lower max speed. Yet everyone would think it utterly reckless to not be required to have regular medicals, assessments, regularly fly, etc etc to drive one of those.
In fact everyone should be forced to ride a small motorbike for 12 months before being allowed to drive - that would do more for long term road safety because it teaches you to see WTF everyone else is doing around you, and not be dicking around on a phone.
According to reports, the pensioner confused the accelerator and brake pedals of his automatic car in May of last year and drove uncontrollably into a crowd of people.
I have done that, but it was through changing from a manual to an automatic, and vice versa! Embarrassing in front of a bunch of blokes at a dealership!
Still need to deal with kids who pass their tests and manage to crash the day after killing several of their friends.
A limit on the size of car?
It's ludicrous that someone could scrape through a test in a 1 litre 50hp Micra Chevette in 1983 1975, and yet currently be driving a 3+ tonne 500 hp Chelsea Tractor capable of 260mph some 40+ years later with no checks in between.
My licence allows me to drive a vehicle up to 7.5 tonnes. I was driving two, three a day, five days a week, of all types up to my limit in my 60’s, eight or nine years ago.
I’d have no problem with having an eye test now, in my 70’s; my eyesight is now better than it has been for decades, thanks to having cataract surgery on both eyes a few years ago.
we are one of the safest countries in the world for road deaths (7= from top IIRC and none of the countries above us have massively different license regimes AFAIK). Getting a license today is harder than its ever been. Imagine if we just enforced the existing laws, how much better it could be without actually making everyone's life more complex/expensive.
Simply put, UK isn't the safest so we can do better. And even if we were 'top' we could do even better.
Mindsets need to change. Drink driving pre-80s was very much a tolerated thing. Massive government as campaigns had a huge impact on that. Yes, enforcement too. But education from an early age about driving being a privilege, not a right, would (I think) be a better way forward.
And yes, apply the rules more rigidly, drink, drugs, 12 points for a ban, people arriving in the UK with overseas licences - mandatory licence numbers when applying for motor insurance - retest at least theory every 5 years, graduated licences for new drivers, etc etc.
Oh, and put up duty on petrol. £1.40 a litre? It's been that level or thereabouts for a couple of decades. Use the duty to sort out road markings.
Edited to add, average petrol price in 2011 was £1.40 a litre. Inflation is roughly 58% to now, so petrol should be £2.21 per litre.
people arriving in the UK with overseas licences
I have a number of overseas colleagues and it depends where they're from. Some countries have mutual recognition (for a period at least, after which there needs to be a UK test), others do not. There is a widely abused need for vehicles in Scotland/England/Wales to be registered in the UK after 6 months (including from NI) but again this comes down to enforcement.
mandatory licence numbers when applying for motor insurance
Do they not ask for this already? A bigger problem remains the 1.2m unlicensed/uninsured drivers on UK roads, and again, this comes down to a lack of fear of getting caught.
Road Safety Strategy out today - will be interesting to see if it goes far enough on things like designing street layouts to be safer
Don’t disagree but think it’s appeasement/soft target/cuddly headline politics, testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now - just like everyone else would.
Most people do actually know how to drive as required by test conditions, they just don't care.
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now - just like everyone else would.
Ok, let's play around with that idea. If you routinely test people, do standards go up, down or stay the same?
Further up in the thread there's a point about a private pilot who needs regular testing (on various aspects of their health and flying).
If that testing has zero impact on standards, then why carry it out at all?
I do get that people think they can improve the.quality of their actions for a test only, but from my experience in training and compliance I'd say that regular testing works. As it simply becomes easier to stay at a compliant standard than not.
If the magnitude of the consequences of failure is much bigger, then that (in my experience) impacts the quality of the routine. So, if you were a professional driver and could lose your job on a test failure, you'd probably be likely to maintain a higher quality of work.
Having worked at an insurer, I've seen how a lax approach to compliance meant widespread testing failure (under the old regulator). I've also seen how better/tighter training and monitoring improved that.within that company. There will always be those who 'wing it', but as standards improve they generally become fewer and less tolerated.
Qv drink driving...
If it was up to me I would reduce speed limits by 10 mph, except the 20 mph limits.
i would enforce the limit with un marked cameras and all traffic lights would have cameras on them.
You could use the revenue for walking, cycling provision and public transport.
The lack of enforcement remains one of the major issues with road safety. It'll be interesting to see how this is addressed in the Road Safety Strategy when this is announced, I think tomorrow.
Very much this. Mandatory eye tests every 3 years for over 70s is a tiny step in the right direction (would be better being ALL drivers IMO) but the lack of visible road policing must surely be a huge factor in road safety. If folk know there's next to zero chance of their dodgy driving shenanigans being caught, then they'll continue to do it.
I'm still a youngster but we thought ahead to old age when buying our current house. I appreciate not everyone has the luxury of this choice. Even with the current shite public transport (which will surely improve over the next decades) we could live without driving in older age. House on main road, bus stop within 60sec shuffle from the front door, direct buses to hospital. Shops, pharmacy, hairdressers, takeaways and pub within easy walking distance. Just wish my parents had thought about that when they moved to their current house in their late 60s - my dad can't walk for 5mins let alone the 20mins to the nearest bus route...
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now
So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
I wonder if anyone has analysed incidents involving older drivers to see which is the greater risk, eyesight or cognition?
First Google result says bad eyesight caused six deaths last year. And how many of those would testing have prevented? Seems like the government is going after the minows while the sharks swim free.
The known risks are:
https://www.dsfire.gov.uk/safety/on-the-road/driving-safety
And yet you can still buy a car that will do three times the motorway speed limit. Cars need limiters.
You can still have a phone in the passenger compartment of a car. I don't care if your kids or passengers want to use them, they can watch the road or fall asleep like we used to. Likewise jam sat navs unles the car is stationary. Bizarrely my car won't let me connect Android auto if the car is moving but once connected lets me play with it till my heart's content.
Eyesight testing sure, but first ban 200mph cars and phones anywhere but in the boot.
So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
I'm sure we all still drive with both hands on the wheel at ten-to-two and shuffle the steering wheel through our hands when manoeuvring.
So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
Oh yes, most definitely, as is the vast majority of peoples driving. The day after I passed my test at 17 I was already driving in a way that would not pass a test.
Test me every 5 years by all means but you are a fool if you think I am going to be driving as if I were under test conditions for the next 5 years.
that is not required in the test (I don’t know if it ever was, but it doesn’t even seem to be how people are taught these days.)So are saying your normal standard of driving is below that required to pass a test?
I'm sure we all still drive with both hands on the wheel at ten-to-two and shuffle the steering wheel through our hands when manoeuvring.
but first ban 200mph cars and phones anywhere but in the boot.
How many deaths are caused by cars capable of 200 mph? How many of those were even significantly exceeding the limit at the time? As with many of the issues people identify it isn’t really tackling the problem.
phones in the boot would still connect to CarPlay so not sure what it achieves! My car play sat nav is voice activated so I can ask Siri to navigate me somewhere just as easily as it used to be to ask my wife to tell me where to turn.
using a satnav and following signposts to navigate without turn by turn instructions from the examiner are part of the test now - most people here will have sat a test before those changes.
the new drivers I encounter are pretty religious about not touching their phones (even if, because they are in lower spec cars their phone is in a holder as the sat nav) - it’s actually millennial and older drivers who seem to be worst at texting whilst driving IME, probably because getting caught once as a new driver would mean retaking both tests, whilst getting caught once as an old fart would be embarrassing but cost less than replacing the tyres.
Oh dear Poly, you've entirely missed my point as usual. Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph. On old classic cars have device to cut the ignition at 70mph and if you disable it and speed the car gets crushed ( or a fine to the value of the vehicle if not owned).
And while we're at it limit acceleration to .2g
phones in the boot would still connect to CarPlay so not sure what it achieves!
It stops people texting with the phone on their lap like I see all too often when out on foot or on my bike.
I'm sure we all still drive with both hands on the wheel at ten-to-two and shuffle the steering wheel through our hands when manoeuvring.
I'm a quarter to three man.
The day after I passed my test at 17 I was already driving in a way that would not pass a test.
What were you doing? Speeding, jumping red lights...?
Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph.
What percentage of accidents are caused by accidents on motorways due to speeding (genuine question, i dont know)? I imagine it's far more dangerous to drive at 40 in a 20, than 100 on a motorway. To be clear I do either.
The other point is one of safety. I firmly believe a fast car, driven correctly is safer than a slower one. For the simple fact if you overtake you are on the wrong side of the road for less time. Similarly I'd hate to try to overtake, misjudge it, but my foot down to speed up and get out of trouble, only to find I can't.
Obviously fast cars in the hands of knobbers are not a good idea either.
But back on topic about eye sight checks for over 70s. I'm totally on board with it.
But id go further than that. There should be mandatory eye tests for every driver ever 5 years or so. It's not just old folks with crap eyesight, especially in the dark.
The eye tests that exist are a bit of a joke, my mother has had them for ages (glaucoma) and always passed just fine even though her eyesight was awful.
I say "was" because she just had her 2nd cataract done and she's good now!
Obviously fast cars in the hands of knobbers are not a good idea either.
And let's face it who buys fast cars? That's right, those who you refer to as "knobbers". When I stereotype car owners on an MTB forum it always goes badly because there are probably more "knobbers" with fast cars driving them too fast on an MTB forum than in the general population. And who gets banned on STW, the member calling out the outrageous bragging or the hog? to be fair this was pre-hack and there's a more responsible attitude on STW now. The "making progress" types are thinner on the ground now.
I suggest riding down some narrow lanes to an MTB event. MTBers tend to fall into two categories 1/ Berlingo or similar pootling along taking care around cyclists - the majority. 2/ flash pick up, 4x4, Audi, Beamer, overbiked bike on rack, impatient "skills" pressing on and taking risks around someone actually riding their MTB to the same event.
The very people who society would be better off not being in fast, flash, pedestrian unfriendly vehicles are exactly the "knobbers" who buy them. They don't buy a fast flashy car to drive carefully and courteously they buy a fast flashy car to drive fast and be flashy.
I'll give you there are exceptions but if you have any doubts drive along the 'bahn from Berlin to Munich on a Friday evening and then check my correlation: the bigger, faster and flasher the car the more chance there is a knobber taking stupid risks overtaking behind the wheel.
Limit all cars to 70 and you remove one attraction of big fast cars, and it would limit to how "knobbish" the "knobbers" can be.
You might want to rephrase this
What percentage of accidents are caused by accidents on motorways due to speeding (genuine question, i dont know)? I imagine it's far more dangerous to drive at 40 in a 20, than 100 on a motorway. To be clear I do either.
Audi
I have an A4 and I definitely don’t drive like that. But mine is relatively low powered and un-flash and there are a lot of total weapons about behind the wheels of S-series Audis.
That one on the M66 was horrific. The driver involved should never drive again when he gets out of the clink.
That's right, those who you refer to as "knobbers
In fairness I have 2 cars on my drive capable of over 150mph and I never drive either over 70! In fact I'm well known in my circle of friends for driving like a granddad! I like nice cars, but I don't like driving fast!
Limiting a car to 70mph won't stop someone driving like a tosser in a 30.
Double post was my fault this time, no glitches, wrong icon clicked to edit.
But a 70mph limiter will stop the kind of accident I linked. And as someone who has lived within ear shot of an urban race circuit used once a year it'll stop the worst excesses of urban mad driving. The road past our house is a 30kmh limited 400m straight on the GP circuit diversion route, you tell me what a Porsche GT4 driven by a knobber in a baseball cap will do having gone through a bend at maybe 60kmh and then flat out for 400m. We campaigned for 20years to get a Stop junction before the school, before that it was 450m straight between bends.
It's the same in the UK:
The highest recorded speed on 30mph roads was 122mph in South Yorkshire. For 20mph roads, the top speed was logged by North Wales Police at 88mph.
Don’t disagree but think it’s appeasement/soft target/cuddly headline politics, testing everybody every 5 years would definitely be better
Total waste of time and money. I would pass my test every 5 years as I would damn well make sure I would, but straight after passing I would drive however I drive now - just like everyone else would.
Most people do actually know how to drive as required by test conditions, they just don't care.
you make a very strong case for mandatory black boxes for all drivers.
it wouldn’t stop people taking their supercars to track days. Because those would show by gps as not public highway.
Oh dear Poly, you've entirely missed my point as usual. Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph. On old classic cars have device to cut the ignition at 70mph and if you disable it and speed the car gets crushed ( or a fine to the value of the vehicle if not owned).
It’s not really my fault if you don’t actually make the point you wanted to make!
I’m not horrifically opposed to the idea of speed limiters but would be more interested in them enforcing 20/30/40 than 70 on the safest roads in the UK. Personally I think it might be better to invest that effort in so more traffic cops who when they catch people who don’t know how to control their speed will check their tyres, breath, insurance details etc.
The idea that the UK acting alone would implement such a change is nonsensical. IIRC there is speed limiting tech being gradually introduced which required drivers to consciously exceed the limit. Presumably that will mean with increased culpability England and Wales will stop sending people on courses and actually impose points!
However, I’m just back from the south of France and I’m not going to take lectures on road safety from anyone there - the standard of driving was atrocious! It’s going some to make the Italians seem sensible!
Oh dear Poly, you've entirely missed my point as usual. Limit cars to 70mph whether they are capable of 200mph or 70mph. On old classic cars have device to cut the ignition at 70mph and if you disable it and speed the car gets crushed ( or a fine to the value of the vehicle if not owned).
I’m not horrifically opposed to the idea of speed limiters but would be more interested in them enforcing 20/30/40 than 70 on the safest roads in the UK.
they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
there’s good evidence that motorways flow better at lower speeds. When an average speed camera enforced limit is in place overtaking and tailgating drops. If it happens at 69 the same would happen at 70.
Black box way to go. Can't be hard nowadays to link GPS to speed. Ie there will be a record of travelling at 40 in a 30
One thing thst amazes me is how when I drive at the speed limit on dual carriageways that have variable limits I'm by far the slowest driver on the road.
Not so long ago I was driving at 50 across the Queensferry crossing, limit was 50. I was in the inside lane. There was a large arctic behind me hooting his horn and flashing his lights telling me to speed up, because, whilst he wasn't fast enough to overtake, he felt I was going too slow.
The fact is knobbers drive all kind of vehicles, not just audis and the like.
I’m just back from the south of France and I’m not going to take lectures on road safety from anyone there - the standard of driving was atrocious!
You were in a car rather than on foot or on a bike then.
I don't think anywhere has the monopoly on bad driving. One of the the features I noted in the UK was that I was usually several mph below the limit or stationary in a continuous stream of traffic - great for road safety!
It's surprising how much driving standards vary even between towns a few km apart down here. Pau is courteous, Tarbes is more aggressive and Bordeaux is properly **** you! It's no doubt similar in the UK. Have you driven in Birmingham? 😉
Were you at 50mph speedo or GPS, Tpbiker? In these parts people are often at the limit plus what the government allows you over -1 gps. In an 80kmh limit that means you'll often have 87/88kmh on the speedo as people are doing 84/85 gps. When I trundle along in the truck lane I've often got 96kmh on the speedo and if I dropped to 90kmh speedo I'd expect justified irritation from the truck drivers.
they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
Do you conifer the economic impact caused by delays to be more important than the higher rate of deaths and injuries on rural and urban roads? I'm aware that how cost/benefit analysis works but I think there is an alternative moral argument.
Good and about time
Black box / greater enforcement would be top of my list but people will scream "what about my privacy" & greater enforcement adds more cost to the already cash strapped police forces.
You only have to see how slowly people drive past cameras & average speed recorded zones to know either of those options would work.
I'd rather be in with someone who drives quickly and concentrates on the task in hand than some who drives casually but isn't focussed.
My wife will be driving along an A road at 50mph then start talking about something and you can see her concentration drift. From 50 we've eased down to below 40 and she hasn't noticed. She'll then re-focus and be back to 50 again. I hate being a passenger with her.
Motorways - now so many are smart motorways and have blanket speed camera coverage I'm not sure how anyone gets away with going to far over the limit.
they might be safest per mile but the economic impact of collisions on motorways must be huge. I’ve had journeys extended by hours a few times this year after motorway crashes.
Do you conifer the economic impact caused by delays to be more important than the higher rate of deaths and injuries on rural and urban roads? I'm aware that how cost/benefit analysis works but I think there is an alternative moral argument.
not at all - I just think we should enforce limits everywhere. Motorways are by far the easiest to do as you could start with average cameras between junctions and densify it from there.
Rural roads need much lower limits - I’ve written this before, but anything that’s not a motorway should be 20mph if it doesn’t have pavements for a start. That would lead to a lot of calls for pavements, which could predominantly be made wide shared use for people to cycle on too. That would go both for Singletrack country lanes and rural a roads . (How you enforce rural limits other than black boxes is another matter).