MOT for driver?

MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So why all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?

Reply to
Mark
Loading thread data ...

"Mark" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.

Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there ought to be periodic retests for all drivers.

Reply to
Adrian

A beg to differ. (Metaphorically speaking).

Reply to
Mark

Could be a good idea considering some of the idiots I get to follow each day. My 18-year-old daughter who only passed her test 10 months ago is already a better driver than many of them.

Reply to
asahartz

asahartz,

But statistically far more likely to have an accident caused by her inexperience (or stupidity) - that's why insurance companies charge extortionate premiums for the under 25s - and only charge me £225 all-in for full comp.

And as for idiots - you certainly can't beat an arrogant youngster who thinks that they are the best thing since sliced bread; yet can't drive in bad weather or the dark - and girls are the worst around here!

An example, twilight, me doing 50 mph with lights on and on a single carriageway road with a 50 mph speed limit (I prefer not feed the speed camera), hatch markings down the centre, bends and with oncoming traffic.

A car screams up behind me well in excess of the speed limit, rides shotgun on my arse for about a 1/4 of a mile (thought the driver was trying to f*ck my car) another car then catches up to said idiot and both overtake me at a high rate of knots (for the pedantic MPH) forcing three oncoming cars up onto the kerb and me to brake heavily, to avoid a disaster.

Yes you got it in one - two empty headed females racing each other and both around 18-19 years old.

As a matter of interest, unless you are a passenger in a car driven by your daughter every time she drives it (or hide a surveillance camera in said vehicle [a better method]) - how *do* *you* *know*[she] " is already a better driver than many of them" - you don't really do you?

You can only guess by the fact that she returns with the vehicle in one piece and her uninjured - otherwise, she could be up to anything!

Never mind, you'll learn.

Unbeliever

An unblinkered father who's reared and taught two children to drive - and heard the hair raising tales about their driving from their mates and others!

Reply to
Unbeliever

Arthur C Clarke addressed a similar point in '2001:A Space Odyssey'.

Reply to
Mark W

I agree.

Two weeks ago I was driving along a straight residential road and saw a car driven by what I now know to be an 18 year old female who'd just passed her test coming the other way. She was driving down the middle of the road. No real problem when no traffic around but as I approached I expected her to move over to her side of the road as we passed. She didn't!!! Realising at the last second she wasn't moving over I took evasive action and finished up with two wheels on the pavement. She still hit me! She had no idea she was driving down the middle of the road and seemed quite clueless about her spatial awareness. Obviously still had plenty to learn.

I still remember the scrapes I got into when I first passed my test. I was fortunate that I didn't do anything serious but I reckon it took me a year after my test, driving daily, to get competant and learn from the mistakes I made. I've now seen the same in my kids as they've learned to drive.

Back to the OP, the problem is you'll have more people driving around with no licence because they can't manage to pass. This is the problem with making the test harder. I prefer the Australian approach where the test is fairly straightforward, like do it in an auto if you can't manage gears, you still get a full licence. But then you are a probationary driver with P plates for I think a year, with strict rules re speed (80kph max.), alcohol (zero) etc and the police keep a close eye on you. Mess up and you lose your licence. Back to square one.

BobC

Reply to
BobC
[...]

That sounds very sensible. I also understand that there is a system in Australia where at 70 years old you must re-take a driving test. If you fail, you can continue to drive, but only have 12 months to demonstrate competence. You can take driver training, and further tests, as long as you pass within that year.

Chris

Reply to
Chris Whelan

They do wear out without the driver noticing though.

Reply to
Conor

BobC gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Fine. If they're that bad, they'll be blindingly obvious, get tugged, and banned. Continue to drive after a ban, and pack a toothbrush when you go to see the magistrate. You won't be able to get insurance, so the car will be untaxed, so clamped and confiscated regularly. It'll be flagged on ANPR, so tugged regularly.

Stopping the incompetent from driving is a problem?

Umm, I'd rather that people who can't manage gears aren't permitted to drive a car with gears.

Yep, that'd be better.

As here. The first two years see you with half the number of points allowed, get to 'em and you have to re-sit the test.

Reply to
Adrian

I'd say compulsory written tests every 5-10 years also with an eyesight test. No need for a practical if own-fault accident free ...

Reply to
Adrian C

Adrian C gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I'd rather see a practical than a written. Eyesight? Oh, yes. Definitely.

Reply to
Adrian

I don't think it would be practical (pun?) to do a practical for every driver, however tempting that would be (I could see congestion coming down and sensible multi-passenger use of cars going up with fewer people passing that!) - but traffic laws and signage change and missunderstandings of that are the cause of more than a few prangs, together with eyesight issues.

For people involved in serious accidents, I think the courts already can demand a practical retest. Maybe extend that. A collected own-faults points system (including accidents and speeding) should guarantee a compulsory practical test at the next 5/10 (whatever) year aniversary if enough collected. I've never done a written test - back when I took my test it was easy... just stare at nearby traffic lights while the examiner asks which colour(s) come after green.

We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it is taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing - it could be done easily either online or at colleges / driving centres.

  • according to the US Army...
Reply to
Adrian C

Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers as people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they crash into you, you're shafted.

And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things occasionally. Do you really think that would change?

Reply to
Willy Eckerslyke

Seems a rather defeatist. If implemented sensibly, these things can work. Perhaps make it more carrot than stick. Just an idea off the top of my head. Instead of a compulsory test, you get plus points for passing the test, which no doubt insurance companies would favour. Or rather they would change more to people who don't take the test.

In general there is a geat deal of stick out there, but very little carrot. No amount of careful and considerate driving can give any advantage, but the moment you do the slightest thing wrong, you are a criminal in the same class as the thugs that race around with no regard for anyone.

Reply to
Mark

There's catch all insurance for that though, & if the insurance company hasn't managed to work out they're uninsured they're going to have difficulty in avoiding paying.

Reply to
Duncan Wood

I kind of like the idea of a report system for bad driving but not sure how you get over the vindictive complaint aspect. It would be so easy to stitch someone up, using a few acquaintances !

I saw the worst bit of driving I have ever seen on the Shoreham by-pass the other day but admit I failed to see his number plate, though if this was a well known facilty, perhaps we would be more prepared.

Reply to
Andy Cap

Erm, I'm not blinkered, as a teacher of teenagers I know exactly what they're like. I've followed her, she's followed me. I've very rarely sat in her car since she's passed her test. She can handle her car (and it's not powerful enough to get out of hand - 998 Mini), but she is sensible about it too. She's certainly no girl-racer, though she's content enough at motorway speeds too, because she knows how much she needs her driving licence, especially as she heads off to university next week.

My son will be 17 next summer; and even though he's sensible compared with many lads his age, I'll worry far more about him on the road than about her - yes, I used to worry when she first passed her test, but she's put enough miles on now that I'm happy that she's a safe driver - she drove in Birmingham city centre, which is something even my wife, a good driver of 25 years, wouldn't even consider.

So please don't jump at me as if I haven't thought about what I've said

- I never post anything on usenet without thinking very carefully about it.

Reply to
asahartz

Admit it, you work for Nu-Labour, don't you? That's exactly how they like to introduce new laws. Think nothing through, ignore all criticism as "defeatest" and just blunder on blindly on the premise that it'll work if we all have faith.

Or drivers could be encouraged to take advanced driver training, with the promise of a cut in insurance premiums...

Reply to
Willy Eckerslyke

Total bollocks. Its the antithesis of what those wankers do. They just tell us NOT to do this or that. My idea thought up as I was writing and admit it was only an idea off the top of my head as I wrote. At least it has the carrot element and not just the hammer they deal out these days.

There are proper ways around all these things if pragmatic and practical people who live in the real world develop them. Not those tossers in government. Now we have thought it through a bit further I would add that draconican laws for no insurance or mot should be added to the idea. Something like £10,000 fine/3 years inside and vastly ramp up ANPR so no one can get away with it. Makes me F***ing furious people drive without insurance or mot. If I can run a perfectly legal car for the past 20 years without income from a job, then those little bits of scum are just sticking two fingers up and should be put inside.

Yeah good idea. Amounts to about the same doesn't it.

Reply to
Mark

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.