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 His driver's license was revoked for life.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?
It's the drug driving that get's me - virtually impossible to stop, unless some officers just stand at the side of the road - you'll catch most of the weed drivers. I can pin point which vehicle the smell is coming from when on the bike.
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?
