Driving standards

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

Urgh, far, far too 1984ish.

It is already with us. As an example a group of us hired a truck mounted reach platform, and it would only operate the platform with allocated passes, on the identified sites where it was to be used, and during  the 10 hour duration it had been contracted for. We didn't test operating it outside those limits, but did get a call when it was driven by a less direct route between two of the identified sites, as the party concerned realised that access to point of use would be easier if we used an alternative entrance to that site.

[Happy Hippo]

What a lot of people fail to realise (despite having taken a driving test) is that there is currently no requirement to do any night driving before taking  your driving test.

 

Likewise, if you are 74 and taking a driving test for the first time,  would you be classified as a young driver and be subject to the same restrictions?  New driver is a better and more accurate term...... And yes I did train a 74 yo, and got my 5 minutes of fame on Midlands Today when she passed her test first time.

 

As an ADI (now retired), I used to find that those I taught in the evenings, when the visibility was dropping, or were actually partially trained to drive in the dark,  had a much greater awareness of what was going on around the vehicle and well in advance of any hazards on the road ahead when driving during the day.

 

What I would like to know is how you would make the Pass Plus course harder as it is not an examination with a test at the end?

 

In an attempt to increase new  drivers knowledge and practical skills, anyone who took a Pass Plus course with me was presented with a copy of 'Roadcraft' prior to their course with instructions of which sections they should be concentrating on.

 

My observations about drivers these days are that new drivers are not so much the problem, but those who passed their test donkey's years ago and have allowed their skills to deteriorate from the day they passed their test.

 

We do not allow pilots or sailors to keep their licence for ever without quite stringent checks on their ability to control their craft, so why are drivers never checked after passing their test?

 

The govt could create a whole new industry based around that need!

 

 

 

 

  

Edited July 18, 2019 by Happy Hippo

[PatB]

Western Australia (and probably other Australian states) implemented similar restrictions on novice drivers some time ago, without, apparently, too many problems. For the first 6 months on the road solo there is a midnight to 5 am curfew, with exemptions for work or education related travel. I thought we also had a restriction on passenger numbers at night too, but, having looked, I can't find anything about it now. There is also a requirement (largely unenforceable) for a minimum number of supervised hours to be logged before going solo, at least some (12ish) to be in the dark. I'm not sure how well it's working. WAers as a species are still a bit rubbish at driving without running into things.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Re-testing makes sense to me, (say every 2 years under 25, 10 years until 65 and then back to 5 years), makes the roads theoretically safer and provides employment, what's not to like?, oh, I forgot freedom of choice to carry on driving like a tw*t until something happens.

Anyone passing their test in the 1950's/60's is driving in a totally different environment nowadays, and yes, whilst the human adapts to circumstances it is not necessarily in the correct way.

 

Mike.

[Hobby]

51 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

10 years until 65 and then back to 5 years), 

 

Why? As long as vision/health is checked regularly (and that should apply to everyone) then I see no reason to go to 5 years.

[Hobby]

As regards restrictions for young drivers, we can't even stop banned drivers so how are we going to police all these other ones! 

 

Technology is fine but those who want to drive illegally will easily find a way round it.

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Re-testing makes sense to me, (say every 2 years under 25, 10 years until 65 and then back to 5 years), makes the roads theoretically safer and provides employment, what's not to like?, oh, I forgot freedom of choice to carry on driving like a tw*t until something happens.

Anyone passing their test in the 1950's/60's is driving in a totally different environment nowadays, and yes, whilst the human adapts to circumstances it is not necessarily in the correct way.

 

Mike.

I agree in part.

Why every 2 years for under 25s? Their driving tuition will be fresher in their minds, so less unknown bad habits will have crept in.

If they are doing things badly, chances are they know & can't be bothered so a re-test would not achieve anything.

 

I think a 5 year test for everyone could be enforced. If you fail, then you have 6 months to get re-trained & pass. If you can't sort your driving out in 6 months, then you are clearly not safe to drive anyway.

The roads should be a better place & it will provide more employment for driving instructors & examiners.

 

 

[Nick C]

18 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I think a 5 year test for everyone could be enforced. If you fail, then you have 6 months to get re-trained & pass. If you can't sort your driving out in 6 months, then you are clearly not safe to drive anyway.

The roads should be a better place & it will provide more employment for driving instructors & examiners.

 

Professional drivers (lorries and buses) have to complete at least 35 hours of periodic training every five years to maintain their qualification. While that seems a bit high, perhaps 10 hours every 10 years for everyone would work?

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

If that means safer roads, that's the price to pay.

Unless they pass the PassPlus of course...

But I often find people suggest things against without another way to solve the problem  

Sorry no. The way to improve generally the standard of driving is more practice with driving in different conditions, under decent supervision. Of course it has to be a graduated process, it would be very bad to have a first lesson, on dark, wet and stormy night. 

Once they pass a driving test, they should have sufficient confidence to be drive in all, but the very worst conditions, otherwise they shouldn't be driving alone at all.

 

We all know that overconfidence is bad news, but I believe that far worse is underconfidence. The latter is almost certain to lead to panic and to do something very stupid. An example could be if they have stalled at an intersection, they might be tempted once the car is restarted, to pull out in front of someone, to avoid further delaying traffic behind them.

 

Sorry I'm in Australia, so no idea what 'PassPlus' is, I assume it's some sort of advanced driving?

[Hobby]

Extra driving tuition after passing would describe it better. Such as driving on motorways. Some insurance companies give a discount if it's taken.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Hobby

[PaulCheffus]

4 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The way I would tackle it is to require ten years experience of using a pedal cycle (or trike) as regular transport, before a provisional licence is issued. That builds the experience of caution on the road and defensive technique, and will cull the careless and idiotic before they get the chance of a lethal instrument under their control. Start in secondary school at 11, graduate to a provisional licence at 21.

 

Hi

 

So how do you propose the 17 - 21 year olds get to 6th form / college / work in rural areas? Where I live there is no public transport.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I agree in part.

Why every 2 years for under 25s? Their driving tuition will be fresher in their minds, so less unknown bad habits will have crept in.

If they are doing things badly, chances are they know & can't be bothered so a re-test would not achieve anything.

 

Lack of experience means that good habits haven't become habitual, so more frequent checks earlier on would be a way of ensuring ongoing development and experience is going the right way. Bad habits hopefully won't have crept in and more steering in the right direction early on should reduce the chances of them doing so. The human brain learns and acts based on repeating actions far more than remembering words until a behaviour becomes almost instinctive.

 

It's a good idea on paper at least (the biggest practical issue I can see is that it would require a big increase in testers and test centres to handle the additional work - a perfectly solvable problem but of course it will cost money).

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Why? As long as vision/health is checked regularly (and that should apply to everyone) then I see no reason to go to 5 years.

 

I know from my own experience, illnesses/disabilities  appear a lot quicker once your in advanced age. Fully agree with the vision/health bit though.

 

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Why every 2 years for under 25s? Their driving tuition will be fresher in their minds, so less unknown bad habits will have crept in.

If they are doing things badly, chances are they know & can't be bothered so a re-test would not achieve anything.

 

 

Primarily every 2 years for the very reasons you mention!

 

Mike.

[Pete the Elaner]

5 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Lack of experience means that good habits haven't become habitual, so more frequent checks earlier on would be a way of ensuring ongoing development and experience is going the right way. Bad habits hopefully won't have crept in and more steering in the right direction early on should reduce the chances of them doing so. The human brain learns and acts based on repeating actions far more than remembering words until a behaviour becomes almost instinctive.

 

That is a very good point which I had not considered.

 

5 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

It's a good idea on paper at least (the biggest practical issue I can see is that it would require a big increase in testers and test centres to handle the additional work - a perfectly solvable problem but of course it will cost money).

 

The additional tests should be appropriately priced to pay for additional testers & centres.

The issue is that implementing such a scheme would potentially lose more votes than it wins, so it is not in anyone's interest to introduce it.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

52 minutes ago, PaulCheffus said:

So how do you propose the 17 - 21 year olds get to 6th form / college / work in rural areas? Where I live there is no public transport...

I'll put you in charge of devising the necessary solutions.

[polybear]

Whilst night driving can cause issues, I think the biggest risk is due to young people thinking they are invincible/it won't happen to them/they know best/they know it's wrong but it's a good laugh/egged on by their mates etc. etc.

I very much doubt that any of us reading this thread don't look back and identify with a least one of the above, and probably all, and realise now just how lucky we were to get away with it.....

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

The additional tests should be appropriately priced to pay for additional testers & centres.

The issue is that implementing such a scheme would potentially lose more votes than it wins, so it is not in anyone's interest to introduce it.

 

Same issue as making public transport better and more widely available. Most people think it's a good idea but no-one wants to pay.

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, polybear said:

 

I very much doubt that any of us reading this thread don't look back and identify with a least one of the above, and probably all, and realise now just how lucky we were to get away with it.....

 

I think that's also part of the learning experience, how our brains have evolved to learn. Push the boundaries from an early age and get experience from when that bites back. Of course evolution doesn't care if a few come to a sticky end that way, so the challenge for us now is to make use of the mechanism without that downside.

[MarkC]

Comments above regarding "peer pressure" being mooted as a causal factor in many accidents regarding young drivers. I have to say that I concur with this line of thought; I have been saying this for many years. Interestingly, my elder son was driving a Smart (the 72bhp one - it could accelerate rather well...) for a couple of years after he passed his test; my younger son drove a C3. Of the two, the elder lad was reckoned by the family to be the more <ahem> 'adventurous' of the two, but guess who had the accident?

 

Perhaps a restriction on carrying passengers for the first year after passing one's driving test would work, but how would it be enforced?

[Sir TophamHatt]

18 hours ago, johnlambert said:

Which is all very well but how do you enforce that, If it becomes law?

 

I can't see it working in practice without recruiting a lot more police to patrol the roads (which isn't a bad thing but does seem to be the opposite of what has happened in recent years).

 

Good point.

But then you could say the same about mobile phone use at the wheel or paying for TV licences.

 

Perhaps the whole fine system needs overhauling, like Indians railways.

Tickets are cheap but fines are huge, so everyone buys.

 

Add a 0 to all fines and go from there.

£60 fine - I'll probably speed again.

£600, probably not!

 

And none of this "I have 50 points on my licence but because I need my van for work, then I can still drive it" business.  12 points (or whatever it is) and that's it, licence withdrawn, perhaps they should have to take a test and theory again too?  People who know what to say [to keep their licence] will never learn.

[PhilJ W]

Relevant to the current discussion?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-49041165

Edited July 19, 2019 by PhilJ W

[peanuts]

17 hours ago, Nick C said:

 

Professional drivers (lorries and buses) have to complete at least 35 hours of periodic training every five years to maintain their qualification. While that seems a bit high, perhaps 10 hours every 10 years for everyone would work?

35 hrs sat in a class room being told how to fasten straps lock a kingpin use a tachograph etc etc not actual on the road driving only time you get that is if you go for an interview and have a an assessment drive dcpc is useful but has no bearing on how the vehicle is driven out on the road 

[Hobby]

Do they not have managers/coaches periodically going out with them to assess their driving like train drivers?

[Enterprisingwestern]

33 minutes ago, peanuts said:

35 hrs sat in a class room being told how to fasten straps lock a kingpin use a tachograph etc etc not actual on the road driving only time you get that is if you go for an interview and have a an assessment drive dcpc is useful but has no bearing on how the vehicle is driven out on the road 

 

But it at least gives you a greater understanding of the vehicle you are driving and theoretically  encourages you to be a better driver?

 

Mike.

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

And none of this "I have 50 points on my licence but because I need my van for work, then I can still drive it" business.  12 points (or whatever it is) and that's it, licence withdrawn, perhaps they should have to take a test and theory again too?  People who know what to say [to keep their licence] will never learn.

I hate that they manage to get away with that. Getting caught once might be bad luck (anyone can creep over the limit without noticing, or miss the overgrown speed limit sign), but surely if you rely on your driving licence for work then you ought to be seriously careful about not breaking the rules, especially after getting the first points.

 

And even if there really was some truly extraordinary reason for letting them keep their licence at 12 points due to hardship, that really must only be once and once only - with a longer ban if they continue to break the law.