To think that all drivers should be made to resit tests

[DoublyTroubly]

Given how bad some of the drivers I see on the road are (especially but not always older drivers) I think that everyone should be made to sit a light-touch test every 5 years. If you can afford to drive then you can afford to pay £40ish to take a test, it would ensure everyone kept up to date with the latest driving rules and have the added bonus of employing more driving test examiners. If you're not good enough at driving to pass a test then surely you're not good enough to be on the streets!

So, AIBU or is this a no-brainer?

YANBU. I think we should all be tested, every 10 years over the age of 40. Logistically & financially, I don't how we do it but, I certainly agree in principal

It would cost too much and be logistically difficult. However, I don't think it would be too logistically difficult to make everyone do a refresher course every 10 years. People do those courses if they've been caught speeding - maybe introduce something more detailed, not just on speeding, for everyone. I don't think waiting for people to get points on their licence is sufficient - there are plenty of bad drivers out there who never get caught - or not until it's too late - ie they've already killed or injured someone.

gen
what are 'grandfather' rights re driving a lorry?- I always thought it was based on the licence you held and if the driver of the horse lorry was 50 (it is not as if she never took a test )

This is a very ageist thread. The points made are not borne out by statistics.

Most accidents involve young drivers 18-25.

Larry - as I said before, this isn't just for older drivers. I think everyone should have to sit a test every 5 years

For the poster who said it wasn't fair on low income families. The current test is £62. I would envision a lite version so say about £50. However, even £62 every 5 years would amount to £1 per month. If you can afford tax / mot / insurance / petrol then you can afford that. It might even have the added benefit of reducing everyones insurance!

I agree op. I think everyone should be retested every 10 years, possibly every 5 after the age of 65

Most accidents involve young drivers. And it is generally young people I see driving dangerously. However maybe a compulsory eye sight test every 5 years for everyone, would be a good idea.

The DVLA gets letters from families every year saying that a relative is no longer up to driving. If your relative is not, then report them. Personally I have elderly relatives who are fine driving the local routes they know, but probably could not cope driving anywhere unfamiliar, particularly in a large city. But as they only drive the local routes they know, it is fine. They might fail a driving test as you are tested in all kinds of roads, but they actually are not a danger and do not have accidents.

"I think a driving skills assessment would be better than an actual 'test', especially for older people"

I would concur with this comment that Beauty has made. For instance it would have got my late FIL off the road a lot sooner rather than having his licence subsequently removed via court proceedings.

If you can afford to drive, you can afford £40ish for a test

I disagree. It wouldn't just be a test, you would be advised to take some sort of refresher course, buy a new copy of the highway code to revise road laws. You have to take a driving test in a dual control car now so would have to pay to hire an instructor's car, plus time off work and then paying for a new licence with your updated expiry date.

For anyone on a low income, running a car is their biggest expense, they wouldn't have the extra cash to re take a test every few years.

Most dangerous drivers are well aware of the rules of the road but choose to flout them. In a test they would be on their 'best behaviour' so it wouldn't be a measure of how they normally drive.

Yabu, because so many people have to drive for their employment they could make a mistake on their test day and that would be it, they also lose their job. Even the safest of drivers make mistakes occasionally.

Besides a lot of the bad driving is deliberate, speeding, tailgating, cutting people up, not indicating is usually by people who don't care and think they own the road. They could drive perfectly on test day but be back to form the next day.

The initial driving test is to make sure that you're competent, if you become a bad driver a retest isn't going to change this.

I do think that penalties should be harsher for dangerous driving and speeding and some people should just never be allowed back on the roads.

apologies gen I think you referred to the change that those who passed the test pre 1997 can drive a horsebox on their car licence but those who pass after that need an additional licence |(why on earth was it not made retrospective!) that said this does not equate to 'old people only' as many drivers who passed their test at 17 prior to 1997 will be in their 30s and 40s .

Pack in the ageism on here, for goodness sake. Statistics demonstrate that younger drivers are far more likely to be dangerous. Why do you think their insurance costs are so much higher?

Also if it was a full test, many older people would struggle with the computer part of the test. My FIL has never used a computer, drives fine, but would panic at this part of the test and would be unlikely to pass.

Also agree it's very ageist. Most accidents are caused by young drivers so they'd still cause many accidents before their 'retest'.

Yes, I think it's a brilliant idea. Maybe an update test 2 years after your first one (as others have said, young drivers the most dangerous), then every 10 years rather than every five the same way as a passport is renewed. I think you should campaign for it, OP!

I would also support raising the age for young people to drive tractors over a certain size on the roads to 21. The current legislation is wildly out of date because tractors were so much smaller - too many young men driving giant tractors / slurry trailers etc too fast pressurised to get work done quickly and risking their own lives as well as others.

Sorry - that sounds like sexism - but I don't see many young women driving giant tractors/trailers too fast - because of employment profile in agriculture.

Personally I have elderly relatives who are fine driving the local routes they know, but probably could not cope driving anywhere unfamiliar, particularly in a large city. But as they only drive the local routes they know, it is fine.

I don't think this is fine though. they are not really up to driving - what if there is an unexpected diversion?
Are they really able to deal with the small child running into the road, or the two cars in front going into each other?
I also don't get this not driving where I don't know/driving on motorway/at night/only if I know where to park (and this isn't necessarily an age thing). Either you can drive or you can't. You need to be able to deal quickly and competently with the unexpected when you drive, so should be able to drive in all circumstances.

I also agree with more regular testing - including every year for those aged 18-25.

I think statistics show that its youngsters that have the most accidents.
I know a lad who passed his test yesterday, and my first thought was ''I wonder how long before......'' His father is a bit of a road twat, drives too fast ( I apparently drive too slow so what do I know?)

When you pass your test, there should be a period of time in which the DVLA can revoke your licence, full stop. If you get a conviction with in the first 2 years, your licence goes and you start again.

Sounds harsh, but it would focus the mind, and imagine from boasting to your mates about the speed you'd driven at, that you had to tell them you'd lost your licence.........

Yes they can deal with all that. What they can't deal with is navigating somewhere they don't know. And I am not talking about only being able to drive along a few roads, of course they could cope with a diversion.

You do get bad drivers in all age groups and I understand that young people (or young men) statistically have more accidents.

But ime -just from those you see when on the roads- you get lots of bad driving from middle aged men who are just over confident and sometimes think they can take a domineering attitude from their daily lives onto the roads. I would like to see re testing to remind this group of how they should be driving as well as undoubtedly lots of other reasons that apply to different groups/individuals.

Totally agree with you OP on every point.

Reminded me of this very moving peice:

lifeasawidower.com/2014/12/22/tell-them/

Speaking as someone who's close family member was killed by an older person I can tell you that I am not sympathetic IN THE SLIGHTEST to those who claim this would be 'ageist'. How is that even an argument? If old age didnt incapacitate people then we presumably wouldnt die?! Older people are offered a variety of tests because they are..old - is that ageist too?!

This is a no brainer for me. It would be a great revenue creator and job creator as well as making roads safer. We all slip into bad habits and need our memories refreshing and reminding that we are in charge of dangerous machinery that can kill through only momentary distraction.

If there's a petition for this I will sign it.

It is ageist because it is not borne out by the statistics as to who has the most accidents.
Once you reach 80, you are already retested. So what age do you think retesting should start at?

Jessbow yes driving too slow i.e the speed limit.

Also my elderly relative who is fine on roads he knows is over 80 and has been retested on driving competence and passed. This is not a full test, so no computer to grapple with. The examiner gets you to drive around and perform some manoeuvres.