Driving standards

[D860 VICTORIOUS]

Has the time come for some form of driver refresher training and/or re-tests? Probably wouldn't be at all popular,but for my part,it's forty years this year since getting a HGV licence,and the fab company I worked for who paid for it had their own HGV driving school,and I do remember having a couple of occasions where I was given refresher training.That's not happened since.Once we get our car licence,we more or less have it for life too.

With what seems like ever more crowded roads,smart motorways,ordinary cars being capable of high speeds and the many examples of questionable driver behaviour given in this forum,maybe some form of re-think might happen...  

[leopardml2341]

I'd happily take periodic refresher assessments; I suspect I'm in the minority!

Edited January 18, 2022 by leopardml2341

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, D860 VICTORIOUS said:

Has the time come for some form of driver refresher training and/or re-tests? Probably wouldn't be at all popular,but for my part,it's forty years this year since getting a HGV licence,and the fab company I worked for who paid for it had their own HGV driving school,and I do remember having a couple of occasions where I was given refresher training.That's not happened since.Once we get our car licence,we more or less have it for life too.

With what seems like ever more crowded roads,smart motorways,ordinary cars being capable of high speeds and the many examples of questionable driver behaviour given in this forum,maybe some form of re-think might happen...  

Today in fact I passed my test, 54 years ago. I have not a blemish on my licence, not even a parking ticket. I have taken a couple of 'refresher' tests so that I could legally drive my employers vehicles. On one I was told of a couple of bad habits* I had picked up and I resolved to not do them. That was on the first refresher, on the second I wasn't picked up on anything. *Crossing hands/arms when steering and declutching and braking at the same time. The first is definitely a no-no now as if an airbag goes off with your arms across the steering wheel you end up with two broken arms and facial injuries. 

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, Titan said:

 

Or you could have just stopped, because you were travelling at an appropriate speed and not relying on sheer luck...

What is an appropriate speed, and what is Sheer luck ?

 

These are variables not constants, indeed they could be constantly adjusting variables that are adjusted to time and environment and may be uniquely occurring instances that may never repeat. Indeed this could change at a split second due to a totally unexpected event that is inappropriate to expect, or adjust too.

Are you assuming too much ?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by adb968008

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, D860 VICTORIOUS said:

Has the time come for some form of driver refresher training and/or re-tests? Probably wouldn't be at all popular,but for my part,it's forty years this year since getting a HGV licence,and the fab company I worked for who paid for it had their own HGV driving school,and I do remember having a couple of occasions where I was given refresher training.That's not happened since.Once we get our car licence,we more or less have it for life too.

With what seems like ever more crowded roads,smart motorways,ordinary cars being capable of high speeds and the many examples of questionable driver behaviour given in this forum,maybe some form of re-think might happen...  

Compulsory re-education sounds a bit Chinese to me.

If you fail a re-test and you drive for a living, that's you out of work ... can't see that being too popular with the electorate.

 

I do think the current test is a bit unsatisfactory though.  Theory needs you to learn braking distances at certain speeds (or it did when I did mine over half a century ago), but knowing the numbers is not much use if can't judge those distances when you see them, which is not tested.  The practical test is necessarily somewhat subjective, but a skid pan session would be good training for everybody.  It's not there only because there aren't enough skid pans to learn on.  If you go for a private pilot's licence, you have to practice recovery from stall and spin before you go solo.

[Titan]

50 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

What is an appropriate speed, and what is Sheer luck ?

 

These are variables not constants, indeed they could be constantly adjusting variables that are adjusted to time and environment and may be uniquely occurring instances that may never repeat. Indeed this could change at a split second due to a totally unexpected event that is inappropriate to expect, or adjust too.

Are you assuming too much ?

 

 

 

 

 

No assumptions at all.  An appropriate speed is one that is slow enough to be able to stop in the distance that you can see ahead. This is something that there is no excuse for being ignorant of, and therefore should not need to be asked.  If this speed is not exceeded no luck, sheer or otherwise is necessary.

 

A very feeble and pathetic attempt to try and get one over on me for pointing out your assumptions on another thread.  Clearly you have no idea what is, and is not an assumption.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Titan

[Enterprisingwestern]

9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If you fail a re-test and you drive for a living, that's you out of work ... can't see that being too popular with the electorate.

 

Whereas there are many motorists with an excess of 12 points on their licence who are still driving because it would cause them "difficulties" if they were banned.

That doesn't seem to give the electorate any problems, perhaps it's a good idea to keep all the proven crap drivers on the road?

 

Mike.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whereas there are many motorists with an excess of 12 points on their licence who are still driving because it would cause them "difficulties" if they were banned.

 

It's infuriating.

If you need your license don't drive like a tit then.

 

[Reorte]

11 hours ago, Titan said:

 

No assumptions at all.  An appropriate speed is one that is slow enough to be able to stop in the distance that you can see ahead. This is something that there is no excuse for being ignorant of, and therefore should not need to be asked.  If this speed is not exceeded no luck, sheer or otherwise is necessary.

Although I pretty much agree with this (there's no argument against the idea that an appropriate speed is one where you can stop in the distance you can see) there are still luck factors - someone stepping out in to the road, car pulling out of a side road when it shouldn't, idiot hurtling around the corner ahead on the wrong side of the road at a speed that would be far too high even if they were on the right side and so on. The best you can hope to do in these situations is be aware of your surroundings, looking out for the warning signs, but it's not always possible.

[Reorte]

12 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If you fail a re-test and you drive for a living, that's you out of work ... can't see that being too popular with the electorate.

 

Make the re-test doable in a period before the licence expires, and for the fail to not be an instant expire. That'll give you time to have another. No-one's perfect so we'll all potentially make a mistake that could fail us (need to be careful of people who seem to insist that perfection is possible, and anyone who falls short of it simply isn't trying hard enough).

 

Generally speaking I quite like the idea of having to do re-tests on occasion (I'd say perhaps every ten years). Whether the costs and practicalities of it mean it's plausible - would need masses more testing capacity - I'm less sure.

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whereas there are many motorists with an excess of 12 points on their licence who are still driving because it would cause them "difficulties" if they were banned.

Especially when you see that some of them have used the "exceptional hardship" excuse several times. I can understand that there might be (very rare) circumstances where it might be needed once, but that should be on the condition that if any more points are gained, the driver will have the book thrown at them. 

[Legend]

I think there could be scope for compulsory refresher courses. No test at the end , but certificated to say you attended . I'll be honest , the last time I looked at the Highway Code was 1980 when I passed my test . Maybe a refresher every 10 years . I think the new photo Licences last 10 years anyway , so it could be an opportunity that you have to produce your certificate before renewing . 

[Titan]

51 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Although I pretty much agree with this (there's no argument against the idea that an appropriate speed is one where you can stop in the distance you can see) there are still luck factors - someone stepping out in to the road, car pulling out of a side road when it shouldn't, idiot hurtling around the corner ahead on the wrong side of the road at a speed that would be far too high even if they were on the right side and so on. The best you can hope to do in these situations is be aware of your surroundings, looking out for the warning signs, but it's not always possible.

 

True, but in this particular example it was a stationary road sign, so nothing to do with an unlucky event.

[PhilJ W]

A refresher would be far preferable to a re-test. As I mentioned earlier I have taken a test a couple of times so that I could drive my employers vehicles and a couple of minor bad habits were picked up and I changed the way I drive accordingly. These were more of a refresher than an actual test (though I did 'pass' them). I think that some driving schools do refresher courses.

[leopardml2341]

14 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If you fail a re-test and you drive for a living, that's you out of work ..

 Isn't that the point?

 

If you drive for a living, you SHOULD (want to) meet the required standard either through your own pride in your job or periodic reassessment. If you have don't have the first and feel you've nothing to learn from the latter, to me that says an awful lot about your attitude to your job and others who rely on you meeting the required standard.

 

Or maybe I'm being just a tad old fashioned for the 2020's?

Edited January 19, 2022 by leopardml2341

[caradoc]

19 hours ago, Titan said:

Or you could have just stopped, because you were travelling at an appropriate speed and not relying on sheer luck...

 

Which I would have been able to do (or more likely, I would have had enough time to move safely into the main carriageway) had the warning sign been placed more than a couple of yards from the van parked blocking the cycle lane. But clearly the guys who placed it, just like yourself I suspect, have never cycled down a hill. 

 

[Titan]

16 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Which I would have been able to do (or more likely, I would have had enough time to move safely into the main carriageway) had the warning sign been placed more than a couple of yards from the van parked blocking the cycle lane. But clearly the guys who placed it, just like yourself I suspect, have never cycled down a hill. 

 

 

My daily commute involves cycling down a steep hill, with a blind bend at the bottom. I have never had a problem, even when the road was iced over.  Almost all of the time there is nothing around the corner, but there have been road works with signs, parked cars and even in one case an ambulance and stretcher across, and none of them caused me the slightest problem.  And I have been cycling this route for around 20 years.

[caradoc]

8 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

My daily commute involves cycling down a steep hill, with a blind bend at the bottom. I have never had a problem, even when the road was iced over.  Almost all of the time there is nothing around the corner, but there have been road works with signs, parked cars and even in one case an ambulance and stretcher across, and none of them caused me the slightest problem.  And I have been cycling this route for around 20 years.

 

Thanks, and well done for cycling safely, but I regard myself too as a careful cyclist, and the example I used was, IMHO, a situation where lack of thought by others caused an unnecessary risk, in response to the query why cyclists do not always use cycle lanes.

 

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Thanks, and well done for cycling safely, but I regard myself too as a careful cyclist, and the example I used was, IMHO, a situation where lack of thought by others caused an unnecessary risk, in response to the query why cyclists do not always use cycle lanes.

 

I'm afraid I'm definitely on the other side of this, a stationary object should not be regarded as an unnecessary risk (unless made very hard to see), it's only a risk if you put yourself in a position to make it one, and I'm not keen on measures designed to protect people from themselves no matter how often it's said "but it'll stop X number of people from getting hurt."

[Reorte]

50 minutes ago, leopardml2341 said:

 Isn't that the point?

 

If you drive for a living, you SHOULD (want to) meet the required standard either through your own pride in your job or periodic reassessment. If you have don't have the first and feel you've nothing to learn from the latter, to me that says an awful lot about your attitude to your job and others who rely on you meeting the required standard.

 

Or maybe I'm being just a tad old fashioned for the 2020's?

How do you feel about the idea of a bit of a grace period for a re-test, seeing as no-one's perfect? If you take enough tests every driver will fail one sooner or later, the odds of a good driver failing are much closer to zero than for a bad one but no-one will ever reach zero.

[Nick C]

20 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Thanks, and well done for cycling safely, but I regard myself too as a careful cyclist, and the example I used was, IMHO, a situation where lack of thought by others caused an unnecessary risk, in response to the query why cyclists do not always use cycle lanes.

 

So what if it had been, instead of a road sign, a small child just round that corner, who'd just fallen off their bike? 

[leopardml2341]

26 minutes ago, Reorte said:

How do you feel about the idea of a bit of a grace period for a re-test, seeing as no-one's perfect? If you take enough tests every driver will fail one sooner or later, the odds of a good driver failing are much closer to zero than for a bad one but no-one will ever reach zero.

Interesting question, brought about perhaps because you misquote me. 

 

I say assessment for a very good reason, because there are no pass or fail criteria when simply assessing something. Yes the outcome of the assessment might be a recommendation to complete further and/or remedial training, based on the assessors findings. Maybe followed by a formal test to demonstrate the training has been effective. That gives the 'grace period' to which you refer?

 

My view is that drivers, amateur or professional, who have passed a test and then not learned from gained experience are those most likely to benefit from such an assessment.

 

S'pose it all depends on whether a driving licence is viewed by the holder as a retained right or an earned privilege?

[Titan]

54 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I'm afraid I'm definitely on the other side of this, a stationary object should not be regarded as an unnecessary risk (unless made very hard to see), it's only a risk if you put yourself in a position to make it one, and I'm not keen on measures designed to protect people from themselves no matter how often it's said "but it'll stop X number of people from getting hurt."

 

Can't agree on this one I am afraid, whilst I regard it as my responsibility to do all I reasonably can to avoid risk, I don't think that absolves anyone else of the responsibility of not making it any more difficult for me or anyone else to avoid that risk than it has to be.  I have had far too many cases of experiencing things that were too close for comfort, that whilst I have managed to avoid the problem/risk I would far rather do without the momentary (and sometimes not so momentary) stress it causes.

[Reorte]

14 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

Can't agree on this one I am afraid, whilst I regard it as my responsibility to do all I reasonably can to avoid risk, I don't think that absolves anyone else of the responsibility of not making it any more difficult for me or anyone else to avoid that risk than it has to be.  I have had far too many cases of experiencing things that were too close for comfort, that whilst I have managed to avoid the problem/risk I would far rather do without the momentary (and sometimes not so momentary) stress it causes.

Whilst it's always possible to make exceptions (there's a bit of one in my post, with the "unless you make it hard to see") I think it's really a question of where do you draw the line. My simple starting point is that it's up to us to fit in with the world rather than shape the world to fit in with us.  That's a generalisation - there are all sorts of nuances and exceptions, but it's where I usually come from. Don't force me in to danger, sure, but don't protect me from it either please.

[leopardml2341]

Recently I had to do an online hazard perception test as part of a company fleet vehicle driving assessment.

 

Perhaps you how the type of thing, a scene where you're asked to click on hazards within a set time frame.

 

I was astounded at some of the things that had to be ticked as hazards to get 100%. One that particularly sticks in my mind was a roadside sign advising of a change to 30 mph. You had to actually  click 'on' the sign to register the correct answer.

 

Being aware and acting upon the mandatory speed limit is one thing, but why on earth is the sign itself, beyond it in the scene there were parked cars which I'd already identified as a hazard, onsidered to be a hazard?

Edited January 19, 2022 by leopardml2341
Misspelling