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?

[PaulDacreCuntyMcCuntFace]

Younger drivers have more accidents because they are inexperienced at judging speed and road conditions - which is logical because you're still learning even after you've passed your test. I was overtaken last week by a car full of teens, but the driver had chosen to do so on the approach to a hill summit - so he couldn't see what was coming over the crest of the hill. Lo and behold there was a car coming the opposite way and he had to pull across in front of me. I'd anticipated this - because it was a bloody stupid place to try and overtake - so had already braked slightly to create a bigger gap between me and the car in front, so that there was a space for him to pull into...because he didn't even check his mirrors, he just instinctively swerved back to the left. Had I not anticipated this then he would have shunted straight into the side of me at 60mph.

Older drivers can sometimes be hesitant and their spatial awareness and judgement of speed can be diminished. There are many retirement homes and estates near me, so lots of older drivers on the road. The majority are considerate and competent drivers, but occasionally you will see someone where it's obvious that they shouldn't be driving anymore. I was behind someone on a motorway slip road yesterday, where they were doing 15mph as they tried to join...

ALL drivers should have to complete a refresher test. The initial driving test should include mandatory night driving, parking and skid training. Then a refresher every 10 years - light touch and quick to test reflexes, judgement and general safety (so no need for lessons unless you want). If you have more than 6 points then the test should be longer and more stringent. The refresher should increase in frequency past 70 in line with the rules on renewing driving licences, with eyesight tests being mandatory.

[Seeline]

I don't think you are re-tested at 80. Once over 70 you have to re-new your licence every 3 years with a self-certification that you are fit to drive, but no test either medical or practical.

[MeeWhoo]

Here in Spain you have to renew your licence every 10 years, more often if you are over 65.

You don't have to resit the test but you have to have a quick medical exam that includes eye testing and other easy checks for your balance, etc. they also ask you about the medical conditions that would exclude you from driving, so if you suffer from these you would have to actively lie about it, rather than not informing, which -as per pp- could be done unwittingly. The you have to do a quick psico-motor test on the computer. I think it's something like keeping an advancing dot inside the road and driving two cars, one with each hand (it looks more like pacman than GTA).

I doubt the whole thing takes more than 30 mins, and, even though it doesn't get rid of bad or inconsiderate driver, it at least checks people are fit enough to drive a few times over their driving life.

[brasty]

The current driving test does include parking.

[Historygeek]

Totally agree Mrsdevere

[Sadik]

Jessbow - "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."

Also an excellent idea. We should recognise that cars are a major cause of harm in this country, and make the best efforts possible to mitigate that. In 2011 60 children were killed and 2412 killed/seriously injured on the roads. If there was an illness with that number of child fatalities every year just imagine the efforts that would go into vaccination / treatment etc. (and of course adults also killed/injured)

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I agree with the idea of people having to do a certain number of hours. A girl I was at school with did one of those intensive courses, passed her test very soon, and promptly skidded on a patch of mud in the dark, crashed, and blinded her passenger in one eye. And she was bloody lucky that a nasty scar across the face and one eye gone was all she did, which is a horrible thought. She'd just never skidded before.

I think people exaggerate or misremember how long some rules have been current. I had a thread yonks ago about the national speed limit on a dual carriageway (which is 70), and the thread was full of people assuring me that this was a very recent change, and bless me, was I very young, this must have changed so recently.

It isn't, but people misremember and justify their own lapses, and I think probably also attribute similar/worse lapses to older drivers.

[brasty]

25% of licence holders are over 65 years of age. So you should expect 1 driver out of every 4 you see driving dangerously, to be older.

[DoublyTroubly]

To all those who have said its ageist for the 3rd time I think this should relate to everyone of all ages

I concede that it could be devestating to someone who needs to drive and has an off day on their test so I think there should be some sort of safe-guard where you would be allowed to drive until you can retake your test (for example a 6 month grace period or emergency tests available for a higher price)

Yes, it won't pick up all bad drivers but it would certainly pick up some of them and anything that causes fewer accidents on the road can't be a bad thing!

[brasty]

For the first 2 years after you pass your test, if you get 6 points on your licence, you automatically have your licence taken away and have to resit.

Apologies, you are right, you do not have to be retested once you are over 80. You only have to be retested when older if someone has reported that you may not be fit to drive.

[paap1975]

I'm with you. I've been driving for over 20 years without so much as an accident, but I would be more than happy to have a session with a diving instructor to show me where I have picked up bad habits.

[Marynary]

Although it sounds like a good idea, I think it is a bit simplistic. Many bad drivers probably could pass the test e.g. by concentrating, not driving as fast or aggressively for the test as they normally do. Conversely, some reasonable drivers might fail the test by driving less well than they normally e.g. due to nerves or just having a bad day which could have a huge impact on the lives and may even result in them losing their jobs.

I do think that people should have regular eye tests though to keep their license. I have to do this because I have a condition that could affect my sight but I don't really see why the same rule doesn't apply to everyone.

[BarbaraofSeville]

It's wrong that to drive all you have to do is pass a test and then you can do what you like for decades and unless you fuck up repeatedly or spectacularly enough to lose your licence, no-one can stop you. If you passed your test 20/30/40+ years ago, cars and road conditions have changed so much. It's not an ageist thing either - some experienced drivers will be perfectly competent and better than younger or inexperienced drivers.

All other kinds of machinery operation (fork lift trucks etc, require regular refresher training). Why not car driving?

I think there should be a refresher session and eyesight test every 10 years, where you either pass to continue, require some minimal extra tutition to carry on if you are slightly bad, or if you are so terrible/dangerous, lose your licence until you can pass a full test again.

Yes, we would need more resources, but the cost would be covered by the fees. Even if it was £250 every 10 years, that's less than 50 pence a week, so trivial for anyone running a car.

The cost would be tiny compared with all the other costs of running a car and insurance costs would probably reduce if there were fewer accidents. Deaths and serious injuries would also reduce hopfully.

I'm old enough to have a licence that includes fairly large vehicles and/or trailers, but I would never drive anything bigger than a medium sized van, because I know I cannot do it safely. We have a caravan and I would never be able to manouvere it safely.

My DM has a driving licence but hasn't driven for years and has probably forgotten how to do so. But there is nothing to stop her buying a car and causing all sorts of mayhem in it.

[DoublyTroubly]

PaulDacre - excellent post. Absolutely agree with everything you say

To the poster who said about the cost of refresher courses. Surely if you are a competent driver you shouldn't need a refresher course. I'm confident that I could pass a test tomorrow and have been driving for nearly 20 years. To be honest, those that feel like they would need a refresher course to pass the test are exactly the ones who need to be tested!

[TheSolitaryBoojum]

I've lived and driven all over the UK, and it's always struck me as unfair that you do your test in the hinterlands of Norfolk, or do your test in London and it's the same test.
My cousin did hers on an island with one set of traffic lights, then went to uni in Glasgow. She said it was more like having a Legoland Licence than being a competent driver.
I think retests would need to be somewhat different to the initial one, less fussing about minute details and more assessment of someone as a safe driver.
I'd also ban drink-drivers for life, that'd remove a number of reckless individuals from the roads.
I'd also ban drivers for life caught drink-driving

[brasty]

There are statistics about the easiest and hardest place to pass your driving licence. If you are only going to drive on the island with one set of traffic lights, then it doesn't matter. But yes, in some cases it should be a licence to only drive in certain places.

Test centres with the lowest pass rates are all in big cities. Those with the highest in islands or very very rural areas.

[DoublyTroubly]

Re starting a petition. I don't dare as I don't want to put myself in here. I'm more than happy for any of you to do it and would sign it etc x

[Sadik]

Boojum, frankly, I think almost where-ever you passed your test, Glasgow (more specifically the M8) would be an interesting challenge!

[Sirzy]

I wish there was a way to make motorways part of the test, I know because of logistics of the country it wouldn't work but it is scary you can pass your test then just go on a motorway!

Even scarier is the amount of people I know who are so scared of motorway driving yet still do it!

[quickquicknamechange]

I live in a town where a teenage girl was killed on her way to college by an elderly gentlemen who should not have been driving. The police had already spoken to him two days previous due to another accident and advised him not to drive anymore.

The police need more powers to revoke driving licences if they feel somebody is a danger on the road.

[Sadik]

"But it meant rural driving was a mystery to me."

It's true, but I don't think it's so dangerous. I live in a very rural holiday area, and you have basically to double the time you leave to get anywhere at this time of year, not because of weight of traffic, but because people's natural reaction faced by narrow roads, mad bends and hills is to slow right down. Irritating if you're trying to get to work on time, but at least not dangerous.