Driving standards

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, Coldgunner said:

Thinking of the weight of vehicles, do many think that changing the licensing would perhaps make a significant change. For example, my mum can drive a 7.5t lorry on her license due to when she took her test. I'm limited to 3.5t on my license (same license, harder test, go figure lol). Should we change the licensing to maybe limit weight of a standard license to something like 1600kg, and anyone wanting a heavier vehicle has to have an enhanced license?

1600 sounds a bit on the low side these days, a quick Google suggests that the heaviest version of the Ford Focus for example is only just under that, so it would go over with a couple of people in it (or one if they're my size).

 

I don't have a problem with changing what categories you get with a standard licence (in principle, there'll always be devil in the detail of course), but as you point out it can raise the type of odd situation you mention. But I suppose that's the lesser evil than suddenly removing entitlements from people, e.g. it wouldn't have made much sense to expect everyone already with a licence to take a re-test when the written part was introduced (if nothing else it wouldn't have been practical).

Edited April 18 by Reorte

[PhilJ W]

My car was written off in an accident in January. Suspicions were raised from the other drivers behavior that it was a crash for cash scam. This morning I had a call from the insurers telling me that the other driver had put in a personal injury claim. I gave them the details of what happened and they seem very interested especially when I pointed out that he was the sole occupant and there was an independent witness to that fact.

[stewartingram]

I do wonder if there is a case for introducing a 2nd driving test, based on what I saw the other day.

At the moment, you get your full license after passing the theory and practical tests (with certain age-related restrictions for age, of younger drivers, which don't relate to me so I haven't followed with interest). You then have to show a P plate from

12 months I believe.

I followed a youngish girl this week, who was showing a P plate. To me she had developed some bad habits. She was driving at around 35mph in the 30 limit, and she turned off to the right into a side road. There was no flasher used until a second after she started turning, no use of brakes either so the brake ights gave no warning. Her speed didn't reduce much, and her right turn  cut off the corner. All relatively small points, but showing bad habits deveoped. Maybe a 2nd practical test before the P plate is removed? Everyone is a novice when they first pass their test, they haven't driven solo before and have to learn more skills pretty quick.

[Reorte]

9 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I do wonder if there is a case for introducing a 2nd driving test, based on what I saw the other day.

At the moment, you get your full license after passing the theory and practical tests (with certain age-related restrictions for age, of younger drivers, which don't relate to me so I haven't followed with interest). You then have to show a P plate from

12 months I believe.

I followed a youngish girl this week, who was showing a P plate. To me she had developed some bad habits. She was driving at around 35mph in the 30 limit, and she turned off to the right into a side road. There was no flasher used until a second after she started turning, no use of brakes either so the brake ights gave no warning. Her speed didn't reduce much, and her right turn  cut off the corner. All relatively small points, but showing bad habits deveoped. Maybe a 2nd practical test before the P plate is removed? Everyone is a novice when they first pass their test, they haven't driven solo before and have to learn more skills pretty quick.

It doesn't sound like a bad idea, and I think a retest maybe once every ten years wouldn't be either. There may well be practical problems - we keep hearing stories (although admittedly not as many as a year or two ago) of test centres struggling to handle the demand for tests under the current rules.

[PhilJ W]

46 minutes ago, Coldgunner said:

Thinking of the weight of vehicles, do many think that changing the licensing would perhaps make a significant change. For example, my mum can drive a 7.5t lorry on her license due to when she took her test. I'm limited to 3.5t on my license (same license, harder test, go figure lol). Should we change the licensing to maybe limit weight of a standard license to something like 1600kg, and anyone wanting a heavier vehicle has to have an enhanced license?

The licencing laws were changed to bring licencing limits in to line throughout the Europe* about twenty years ago. I like your mother I passed my test before the changes came in so I kept the right to drive 7.5 tonne trucks (and minibuses up to 18 seats) under what is known as 'Grandfather rules'** which only applied within the UK. You can take an extra test to cover 7.5 Tonne lorries and 18 seat minibuses if you wish.

 

40 minutes ago, Reorte said:

1600 sounds a bit on the low side these days, a quick Google suggests that the heaviest version of the Ford Focus for example is only just under that, so it would go over with a couple of people in it (or one if they're my size).

 

I don't have a problem with changing what categories you get with a standard licence (in principle, there'll always be devil in the detail of course), but as you point out it can raise the type of odd situation you mention. But I suppose that's the lesser evil than suddenly removing entitlements from people, e.g. it wouldn't have made much sense to expect everyone already with a licence to take a re-test when the written part was introduced (if nothing else it wouldn't have been practical).

*NOT the EU but to introduce compatibility throughout Europe.

** Grandfather rules were applied so that those whose job required them to drive those categories didn't have to take the extra test but was applied to all drivers. I took and passed the extra test because it was required by my employers.  They ceased at age 70 unless you take a medical.

Edited April 18 by PhilJ W

[Hibelroad]

I have always advocated retests every few years. I know I have some bad habits and probably some I am not aware of but there is no incentive to sort it out. Maybe compulsory refresher lessons before licence renewal would do the trick. The trouble is that this sort of thing would be very unpopular, so no politician will attempt to introduce it. 

[petethemole]

SWMBO (60), already mobility impaired, had a nasty fall resulting in a hip replacement. She was unable to drive for several months and had to change her Motability car for one with higher ground clearance, a Qashqai.  She realised she had developed some bad habits and also was lacking confidence and becoming nervous in certain urban traffic situations. She took a series of refresher lessons with a instuctor who targeted her particular concerns.  She's now much happier and confident.

[johnofwessex]

Firstly I suggest that the biggest issue isnt testing its enforcement and the knowlege that if you drive like a than you will find yourself waiting at the bus stop.

 

I would also suggest that there should be a restriction on the maximum weight and power that you are allowed to drive as a 'new' driver.  I would also suggest a similar restriction for anyone with more than say 6 points on their licence.

 

So its an Izetta for you Wayne until you have had a clean licence for two years....... 

[admiles]

17 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Not where I live

 

I presume you live in a more affluent area than I do then. Here EVs are still very much in the minority.

[Coldgunner]

Looking at how overbooked the DVLA test centres are, maybe there could be an opportunity for a shorter assessment rather than a full re-test? Not fully thought it out, but could it be a case where a re-assessment could be taken with an instructor rather than an examiner, and signed off by said instructor. That way if there's a serious incident, you could also look at who signed them off (to stop dodgy assessments).

[admiles]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

I do wonder if there is a case for introducing a 2nd driving test, based on what I saw the other day.

At the moment, you get your full license after passing the theory and practical tests (with certain age-related restrictions for age, of younger drivers, which don't relate to me so I haven't followed with interest). You then have to show a P plate from

12 months I believe.

I followed a youngish girl this week, who was showing a P plate. To me she had developed some bad habits. She was driving at around 35mph in the 30 limit, and she turned off to the right into a side road. There was no flasher used until a second after she started turning, no use of brakes either so the brake ights gave no warning. Her speed didn't reduce much, and her right turn  cut off the corner. All relatively small points, but showing bad habits deveoped. Maybe a 2nd practical test before the P plate is removed? Everyone is a novice when they first pass their test, they haven't driven solo before and have to learn more skills pretty quick.

 

There's no requirement to display a P plate after you pass your test. They're purely optional and have no legal standing.

 

What helps curb the "enthusiasm" of young drivers is an insurance "black box" which many people choose to have to keep insurance costs down to merely "obscene".  They detect speeding, harsh acceleration and braking etc and deduct points. Lose too many points and to get your insurance cancelled.  

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Hibelroad said:

I have always advocated retests every few years. I know I have some bad habits and probably some I am not aware of but there is no incentive to sort it out. Maybe compulsory refresher lessons before licence renewal would do the trick. The trouble is that this sort of thing would be very unpopular, so no politician will attempt to introduce it. 

The problem with that idea, is that they go unchallenged for years, from the very day they pass their test, then years later you want bad habits picked up and rectified, before they can continue driving?

Simply not going to happen, the only way is to pick up bad habits BEFORE the licence is given to them. Virtually impossible given that a driving test takes less than an hour.

[woodenhead]

14 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

There's no requirement to display a P plate after you pass your test. They're purely optional and have no legal standing.

 

What helps curb the "enthusiasm" of young drivers is an insurance "black box" which many people choose to have to keep insurance costs down to merely "obscene".  They detect speeding, harsh acceleration and braking etc and deduct points. Lose too many points and to get your insurance cancelled.  

Mrs W's car does all that for free and no black box, we get a report of our driving at the end of every journey in the name of driving efficiently which also goes back to Toyota and is accessible from other devices.

 

You can imagine over time those black boxes will extend to other age groups especially as the younger ones age and are used to being constantly monitored.   It's a slow creeping surveillance, without going down the conspiracy theory blackholes, ANPR detectors all around the country, growing use of average speed zones and more and more motorway cameras monitoring/enforcing the 70 mph limit.

 

Clearly good at maintaining the law, aids serious incident evidence gathering and lets the police deal with other matters, the genie is out of the bottle.

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

The problem with that idea, is that they go unchallenged for years, from the very day they pass their test, then years later you want bad habits picked up and rectified, before they can continue driving?

Simply not going to happen, the only way is to pick up bad habits BEFORE the licence is given to them. Virtually impossible given that a driving test takes less than an hour.

Ideally you try to deal with as many as possible before the test (preferably by stopping them from starting to form in the first place), but without checks most people will drift over time. Equipment needs calibration from time to time, and it's not a bad analogy for people.

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Mrs W's car does all that for free and no black box, we get a report of our driving at the end of every journey in the name of driving efficiently which also goes back to Toyota and is accessible from other devices.

 

You can imagine over time those black boxes will extend to other age groups especially as the younger ones age and are used to being constantly monitored.   It's a slow creeping surveillance, without going down the conspiracy theory blackholes, ANPR detectors all around the country, growing use of average speed zones and more and more motorway cameras monitoring/enforcing the 70 mph limit.

 

Clearly good at maintaining the law, aids serious incident evidence gathering and lets the police deal with other matters, the genie is out of the bottle.

Something I find very depressing, and a big part of that is because there's no hope whatsoever of that changing (in the direction I want it to). I'd much, much rather live with the (not massively higher in the grand scheme of things) risks, and that's not because I want to drive like a maniac but fear getting caught either.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

Ideally you try to deal with as many as possible before the test (preferably by stopping them from starting to form in the first place), but without checks most people will drift over time. Equipment needs calibration from time to time, and it's not a bad analogy for people.

I'm not sure what the backlogs are like now for new drivers trying to get their test, can you imagine how bad it would be if everyone at licence renewal needed a test to renew and who do you prioritise with a risk of people losing a licence because there is no test available even with an allowance period to get the test done.

 

Sounds like a rather good little money earner for HM Government though.

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I'm not sure what the backlogs are like now for new drivers trying to get their test, can you imagine how bad it would be if everyone at licence renewal needed a test to renew and who do you prioritise with a risk of people losing a licence because there is no test available even with an allowance period to get the test done.

 

Sounds like a rather good little money earner for HM Government though.

I agree that it's simply impractical considering how things are set up at present, but from various chats and observation there are quite a lot of drivers who aren't maniacs but do simply seem to have fallen in to some bad habits. It's very much a "would be nice in theory" idea.

 

That said I do wonder how many serious accidents are caused by those people, and how many are caused by the type of lunatic who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place (far fewer of the latter but they're a much bigger risk, so where it shakes out I don't know). If it's the latter any change of rules isn't going to make a great deal of difference - people who knowingly break existing rules aren't going to start paying attention to new ones.

Edited April 18 by Reorte

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, admiles said:

What helps curb the "enthusiasm" of young drivers is an insurance "black box" which many people choose to have to keep insurance costs down to merely "obscene".  They detect speeding, harsh acceleration and braking etc and deduct points. Lose too many points and to get your insurance cancelled.  

 

I can think of at least one fatal accident where the teenage driver was rushing to get home before the black box night time curfew started. Unintended consequences.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

A while back I looked at school spending - the amount spent per pupil is much higher, even after adjusting for inflation, than it was when I was at school. Is that money well spent?

 

Optimally, 85% - 90% of a school's budget currently goes on staffing. The school at which I am a governor is in an affluent area, so gets minimal additional funding through pupil premium. We have an experienced staff, which means that we get excellent results, but they are relatively high up the pay scale. It's a smallish primary, so the leadership isn't on vast salaries. We're looking at 100% of school budget going on staffing next year, without making any allowances for future pay increases. We are in the good position of being full for next year, unlike other schools in the area which are facing falling rolls. The staffing cost problem is directly the consequence of government action, in not fully funding teacher pay increases, increasing employer NI contributions and pension contributions without providing matching funding, and imposing the apprenticeship levy, funding a scheme from which schools do not benefit.

 

So there's very little headroom for spending money "wisely" or otherwise.

 

I suggest you volunteer as a School Governor! 

[admiles]

1 minute ago, 30801 said:

 

I can think of at least one fatal accident where the teenage driver was rushing to get home before the black box night time curfew started. Unintended consequences.

 

Very true but it's the only way now a lot of young people/new drivers can get insurance.  For my 17 year daughter it was the difference between driving or not.

[DaveF]

Changing the subject a bit to speed limits I wonder how many people follow the signs displayed on car screens picked up by the car's built in camera.  

 

Near home mine always displays 20 on one piece of road actually limited to 30 as going round a sharp bend the camera picks up the 20 sign from a side road.

 

Then on a stretch of road recently changed from 40 to 30 it displays 40 as it picks up a sign on the exit before mine as I drive round a roundabout.

 

I wonder how many people have been caught speeding as a result of that.  I simply don't believe what I see on the in car display most of the time.

 

David

[woodenhead]

Just now, DaveF said:

Changing the subject a bit to speed limits I wonder how many people follow the signs displayed on car screens picked up by the car's built in camera.  

 

Near home mine always displays 20 on one piece of road actually limited to 30 as going round a sharp bend the camera picks up the 20 sign from a side road.

 

Then on a stretch of road recently changed from 40 to 30 it displays 40 as it picks up a sign on the exit before mine as I drive round a roundabout.

 

I wonder how many people have been caught speeding as a result of that.  I simply don't believe what I see on the in car display most of the time.

 

David

Such as 5mph on a motorway because it didn't see any signs before the motorway and didn't notice this time the motorway symbol, but sometimes it does. 

 

When we first got the car I wondered if it was using something more sophisticated such as a gps/satnav (but we hadn't paid for it so we couldn't see it), but then I realised it was simply a the forward looking camera reading the signs.  Lots of times it does not know the actual speed because it missed the sign that we saw with our mk1 aging eyeballs.

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

I can think of at least one fatal accident where the teenage driver was rushing to get home before the black box night time curfew started. Unintended consequences.

That curfew is set because they know the most dangerous time for a teenage male driver to be on the road, from what I have read it is a male thing with the brain not maturing as fast as the female brain leading to more risks being taken.  I think it is the mid twenties when the male brain catches up.

 

So in some respect we might think the black box is constraining on the person, but perhaps what it is actually doing is acting as a helping hand or aid to stop the person doing some excessive because their mind may not be up to the challenge yet of calculating the true risk.

 

In the example given, the driver saw it was better to rush home than leave the car somewhere and use a taxi or some other alternative, it's that risk awareness that is lacking because the brain has not developed to full maturity.

[Reorte]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Optimally, 85% - 90% of a school's budget currently goes on staffing. The school at which I am a governor is in an affluent area, so gets minimal additional funding through pupil premium. We have an experienced staff, which means that we get excellent results, but they are relatively high up the pay scale. It's a smallish primary, so the leadership isn't on vast salaries. We're looking at 100% of school budget going on staffing next year, without making any allowances for future pay increases. We are in the good position of being full for next year, unlike other schools in the area which are facing falling rolls. The staffing cost problem is directly the consequence of government action, in not fully funding teacher pay increases, increasing employer NI contributions and pension contributions without providing matching funding, and imposing the apprenticeship levy, funding a scheme from which schools do not benefit.

 

So there's very little headroom for spending money "wisely" or otherwise.

 

I suggest you volunteer as a School Governor! 

Just going with the numbers I've seen. Scroll down on this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63304224 - a big increase between 2000 and 2010, and a fall from there, although not to anywhere near pre-2000 levels. I think it's reasonable to ask what's going on there.

[kevinlms]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

That curfew is set because they know the most dangerous time for a teenage male driver to be on the road, from what I have read it is a male thing with the brain not maturing as fast as the female brain leading to more risks being taken.  I think it is the mid twenties when the male brain catches up.

 

So in some respect we might think the black box is constraining on the person, but perhaps what it is actually doing is acting as a helping hand or aid to stop the person doing some excessive because their mind may not be up to the challenge yet of calculating the true risk.

 

In the example given, the driver saw it was better to rush home than leave the car somewhere and use a taxi or some other alternative, it's that risk awareness that is lacking because the brain has not developed to full maturity.

But the assumption is in such a case that ALL young males will do the same - something clearly not true. Some are downright dangerous, but not all.

 

You could clearly say in that example the curfew combined with the black box, led to the outcome. Some young people don't have spare cash for a taxi.

Driving safely home was a FAR better option, even if it meant a late arrival. That would be my choice. Not that we have curfews in Oz.