Poll: Would you re-sit your driving test

Steve

There are countless posts on motors about idiots on Irish roads who apparently don't know how to drive.

To name a few:
lane hoggers
amber gamblers
indicatorphobes
wrong lane at roundabouts
80kph is 'my' speed and I'm stickin to it
fog light fanatics
bus lane busters
tailgate Tom
free license brigade
the speed limit is 100kph, so what if it's snowing / freezing / can't see 20ft 'cos of the fog, I'm going 100kph

The question is:
Would you be prepared to re-sit the driving test every time your license expired in order to either educate these people or weed them off our roads?

This would only involve giving up one day of your life every 10 years - a small price to pay for better safety.

(Personally I would prefer licenses to expire sooner than this)

Please don't post about the logistics of doing this - I know it could not be done under the current system. I'm interested in what you think about the principle of it.

Atomic Pineapple

yeh definately! would be prepared to sit my driving test every ten years as long as i didn't have to wait endless months to get a test booking or pay an extortionate amount.

I think every ten years would be an appropiate time for re tests maybe coming down to every 5 years in older age groups

Mena

Good idea but what's the point? The current license test is a sham, I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it... :mad:

javaboy

Mena wrote: »

Good idea but what's the point? The current license test is a sham, I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it... :mad:

Exactly, it's an absolute bare minimum so there should in theory be no problem with somebody repassing it. If they can't repass it, they don't meet the shambolic bare minimum and shouldn't be on the road.

zilog_jones

They'd need to get rid of the backlog before trying to implement anything like having to re-sit for every renewal. And regardless, the test teaches nothing about proper foglight use, (depending on where it's taken) weird roundabouts and driving on dual carriageways, driving on motorways, etc.

Also, from my experience of just passing the test last week it's very easy to find out what route the testers take - there's a cul de sac in Milford Grange in Castletroy (one of the routes they use from the test centre in the NCT place) where it seems there's always at least one person at the end of the road doing a 3-point turn and someone else nearby reversing around a corner. I'm sure there's some people who will just learn how to drive properly on the test routes without actually heeding any of this information and applying it to their normal driving.

I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it...

I'd say this is true for the tests run by SGS (the NCT people), but the real government-operated testers can be real hard-asses - the ones in Limerick are anyway. I failed the first time mainly due to being nervous and not being prepared properly (went on a bad start forgetting what the clearway sign was!). My second test was in the SGS-run place and it was piss-easy in comparison.

Steve

Mena wrote: »

Good idea but what's the point? The current license test is a sham, I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it... :mad:

Yes, it's a sham - far too easy.

The point is it might force people to re-educate themselves on the rules of the road and safe driving methods. The current theory test is way more comprehensive than the one I did 16yrs ago.

The standard of the practical test sould be increased to reflect the minimum 10yrs experience you should have.

cantdecide

Another example of motoring problems where adequacy is a distant aspiration. We should set the standard like we did with the smoking ban. A bare minimum isn't enough, isn't it obvious?

heyjude

As has been said by others already, I would have no problem with re-sitting the driving test every ten years when my licence comes up for renewal, subject to the proviso that you wouldn't have to wait months for this test. But given that there are hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied drivers on the roads at present, that have never passed a test, such a proposal wouldn't make any sense.

It also would never happen as older drivers 50yrs+ that either were never required to pass a test or who passed their test over 30 years ago, would probably find the test difficult to pass and so they would force the government to abandon any such idea immediately, remembering that a much higher proportion of older age groups actually vote at elections.

Biro

They should start by introducing a mandatory theory test (like the provisional one) for all full license renewals. That way, in the interm, they wouldn't be adding to an already swamped back log of tests, and have people up in arms about it.
Rules of the Road can change in 10 years, and people can forget. So that at a very minimum should help cases like roundabouts and two people on a main road turning right, one waiting for the other to pass them first (as the ROTR says) and the other waving them on in front of them.

javaboy

Biro wrote: »

They should start by introducing a mandatory theory test (like the provisional one) for all full license renewals. That way, in the interm, they wouldn't be adding to an already swamped back log of tests, and have people up in arms about it.
Rules of the Road can change in 10 years, and people can forget. So that at a very minimum should help cases like roundabouts and two people on a main road turning right, one waiting for the other to pass them first (as the ROTR says) and the other waving them on in front of them.

Very good idea. Simple and cheap and the DTT doesn't have anywhere near the backlog the driving test does.

Wertz

Until we get a test that includes mway and low light/night driving, such a resit is pointless....why not prove once that people can drive safely and know how to use mways and drive in nighttime conditions, instead of having them drive a 50kmph urban route for 30 minutes and then giving them free reign on every road at every time?

I would have no problem resitting every 10 years or whatever, once I wasn't paying through the nose...but until the above is implemented it's pointless...

Steve

heyjude wrote: »

It also would never happen as older drivers 50yrs+ that either were never required to pass a test or who passed their test over 30 years ago, would probably find the test difficult to pass and so they would force the government to abandon any such idea immediately, remembering that a much higher proportion of older age groups actually vote at elections.

If they "would probably find the test difficult to pass" then they shouldn't be on the road.

I don't see what arguement they could put forward against it.
"I can't drive properly so I don't want to re-sit a test"?

_Kaiser_

stevec wrote: »

If they "would probably find the test difficult to pass" then they shouldn't be on the road.

I don't see what arguement they could put forward against it.
"I can't drive properly so I don't want to re-sit a test"?

If certain members of our current government get their way these people will be allowed drive anyway regardless of whether they've failed the test! (such as it is) :rolleyes:

javaboy

stevec wrote: »

If they "would probably find the test difficult to pass" then they shouldn't be on the road.

I don't see what arguement they could put forward against it.
"I can't drive properly so I don't want to re-sit a test"?

Unfortunately as heyjude pointed out, they vote in greater numbers than younger people. They don't need an argument to put forward against it. Their vote is all they need.

Wertz

To all those making the point about 50+ drivers/voters and them forcing the government to abandon such an idea....surely road safety (what this measure is about) is an issue that nearly all the main parties agree on...so it shouldn't make a difference whther it be FF,FG, Lab or whoever getting voted in....they shoul all have a coherent policy on an issue like this.
Any one party that adjusted those policies to suit their voters isn't really serious about road safety at all and thus anyone that votes for them isn't either so should STFU calling for "something to be done", "disgrace" etc when it comes to road deaths...

javaboy

Wertz wrote: »

To all those making the point about 50+ drivers/voters and them forcing the government to abandon such an idea....surely road safety (what this measure is about) is an issue that nearly all the main parties agree on...so it shouldn't make a difference whther it be FF,FG, Lab or whoever getting voted in....they shoul all have a coherent policy on an issue like this.
Any one party that adjusted those policies to suit their voters isn't really serious about road safety at all and thus anyone that votes for them isn't either so should STFU calling for "something to be done", "disgrace" etc when it comes to road deaths...

All politics is local. A lot of voters make their decisions based on what affects them personally the most. If one candidate says "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you sit your test again. Sure didn't you buy your license fair n' square?" and another candidate says "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in compulsory retests.", I can guarantee that a lot of those voters would pick the first one. Politicians know this and some don't want to be remembered as the one who made the decision that put a lot of regular voters off the road.

Some politicians have the liathróidi to make a hard decision e.g. the smoking ban and some don't. If enough politicians from one party hear opposition to a measure from enough doorsteps, you can bet you won't find it on their manifesto.

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

All politics is local. A lot of voters make their decisions based on what affects them personally the most. If one candidate says "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you sit your test again. Sure didn't you buy your license fair n' square?" and another candidate says "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in compulsory retests.", I can guarantee that a lot of those voters would pick the first one. Politicians know this and some don't want to be remembered as the one who made the decision that put a lot of regular voters off the road.

Some politicians have the liathróidi to make a hard decision e.g. the smoking ban and some don't. If enough politicians from one party hear opposition to a measure from enough doorsteps, you can bet you won't find it on their manifesto.

I'm sure they weren't told "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you do random breath tests, I know you enjoy yer pint".
More like "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in random breath testing."

Who got the vote that time?

Wertz

That's a fair point and being from the arsehole of nowhere myself, I know that's how it works...but you can't have every biddy in the country calling Joe Duffy about boy racers and throwing their hands up to heaven over all the deaths on the road, when they're unwilling to step up and make the hard choice themselves.
That's the overall trouble with Irish motoring in general; we all just want to blame someone else for the state of affairs instead of taking personal responsibility...the "I'm a great driver, it's everyone else who is sh*t" attitude; if you're that good then a test to prove as such shouldn't be such a huge obstacle...having to reprove yourself after a decade would be a logical step.

A decision to legislate for something like this would need to be done after a party gets into office...get the thing in the statute books and then no gombeen can come along and repeal it later.

But like I said back up the thread, the test as it is is lacking...so passing it multiple times doesn't actually prove that you are safe to be let loose on the motorway network...

javaboy

stevec wrote: »

I'm sure they weren't told "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you do random breath tests, I know you enjoy yer pint".
More like "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in random breath testing."

Who got the vote that time?

Fair enough good point. Any politician who was quoted opposing drink driving legislation would be slaughtered in the meeja.

But on the retesting issue, they could put it very far down their list of priorities e.g. when we sort out learner drivers and speeding and housing and the ozone layer, then we will look at retesting. That's good enough for Jimmy Nod and a wink job as always in local politics.

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

But on the retesting issue, they could put it very far down their list of priorities e.g. when we sort out learner drivers and speeding and housing and the ozone layer, then we will look at retesting. That's good enough for Jimmy Nod and a wink job as always in local politics.

True but the point of this thread was to get peoples opinion on the idea itself - not the logistics of implementing it (leave that to uncle Gaybo).

As Wertz correctly pointed out, we spend all day complaining that nothing is being done to cut road deaths (bar scameras). Nobody offers any solutions though.

As Biro pointed out - even a theory test would make a huge difference.

pburns

This thread does nothing but add to the hysteria about road deaths that is already rampant in certain sections of the media. I don't believe driving standards in this country are so bad. Can anyone point to definitive statistics that show that our per capita road accident fatalities are significently worse than other EU countries?

I don't have stats to hand but I'm willing to bet there are a dispropotionate number of (a.) young males and (b.) foreign drivers (*ducks from inevitable PC backlash) involved in many of the serious accidents on our roads. Target the demographic(s) involved and move the feck on from all this hand-wringing...

BTW, even the language used in the poll is risable and skewed -
'Great idea it would get rid of the idiots!'
...
'No way Jose, I'm holding on to my free licence'
...
:rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Two-tiered restricted driver licence system FTW!

javaboy

pburns wrote: »

This thread does nothing but add to the hysteria about road deaths that is already rampant in certain sections of the media. I don't believe driving standards in this country are so bad. Can anyone point to definitive statistics that show that our per capita road accident fatalities are significently worse than other EU countries?

I don't have stats to hand but I'm willing to bet there are a dispropotionate number of (a.) young males and (b.) foreign drivers (*ducks from inevitable PC backlash) involved in many of the serious accidents on our roads. Target the demographic(s) involved and move the feck on from all this hand-wringing...

BTW, even the language used in the poll is risable and skewed -
'Great idea it would get rid of the idiots!'
...
'No way Jose, I'm holding on to my free licence'
...
:rolleyes:

Yes the language in the poll is a bit dodgy but this is boards not an MRBI poll At least there's no Atari Jaguar option!

There is an issue with drivers who have passed their test years ago not obeying the rules of the ROTR. Most of the evidence is anecdotal I know but I find the worst people for indicating incorrrectly/not at all are 40+. Any near miss I have had was caused by a middle-aged man except one which was a learner in a school car mid-lesson.

It's not top of the agenda as far as road safety goes but that doesn't mean it's hand wringing.

Wishbone Ash

stevec wrote: »

The question is:
Would you be prepared to re-sit the driving test every time your license expired in order to either educate these people or weed them off our roads?

This would only involve giving up one day of your life every 10 years - a small price to pay for better safety.

What about those of us who hold many categories. I have a full Driving Licence in 14 categories. Re-testing for me would be very expensive and time consuming. :eek:

It's handy enough for all you one category wonders!

heyjude wrote: »

older drivers 50yrs+ that either were never required to pass a test

61 or older - the driving test was introduced in 1964.

javaboy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What about those of us who hold many categories. I have a full Driving Licence in 14 categories. Re-testing for me would be very expensive and time consuming. :eek:

It's handy enough for all you one category wonders!

That's two categories for anyone who got the freebie <50cc category

Did it actually take 14 tests to get your 14 categories or are a lot of them under the umbrella of one test?

At the very least you've a B and a W which only needs one test.


Either way you're even more of a reason to bring this in. Think of the money to be made off you

D_murph

javaboy wrote: »

Either way you're even more of a reason to bring this in. Think of the money to be made off you

. shhhh, dont give them any ideas

to answer the poll though, i know its a moot point because its an impossibility given the current waiting times etc, for L drivers alone but i fail to see why the majority or all drivers should be inconvenienced by something like this because of a small minority of incapable people.

i could see the safety benefits of having the idiots off the roads all right but to hassle the rest of us like that when proper policing of the roads sounds absurd to me in fairness.

i was a passenger in a van with a buddy last saturday behind one of these "free license" candidates who obviously never had to pass any test (both by his age and "skill" behind the wheel) on a single lane main road with 100kmh limit and he was doing 70kmh out in the middle of the road and would not pull over to let traffic out :rolleyes: clearly oblivious to the tailback that was growing ever longer behind him and the fact that his right indicator was still on for over 3 miles FFS. no sense of awareness whatsoever!!!

these types cause accidents when frustrated people pass them at the wrong time IMO.

i know they dont "force" the other driver to overtake them but you cant deny the fact that if they were not there in the first place the accident would most likely not happen either.

when i did my driving test a few years back i was astonished at how easy it was. i do believe its too easy to pass it TBH and the results of this are out there every day doing stupid things and killing themselves and others because even if they fail the test, they can still drive home afterwards :rolleyes:

WHITE_P

Yes, I would love the oppertunity to retest, preferably every 5 years. I've been driving 22 years now and I know that my driving has changed considerably over the years, not always for the better either.

When you consider that the driving environment is always changing, as anyone with alot of experience will tell you, it is only right that we should all requalify, at least every 10 years but sooner than that in an ideal world.

Look at the safe pass accreditation, (anyone who is working in the building industry will know what I'm talking about), without it you can not legally enter a building site. You are required to resit the course every four years, and you must pass it (not hard really as most of it is common sense).

Within industry, driving is considered one of the most dangerous aspects of working, next to working at height. In order to be legally able to work at height, (rigging telecom's towers etc.) you need to recertify every year I think, if you are climbing on a daily basis.

Therefore, having to requalify to drive every 5 or even 10 years shouldn't represent a real issue, to anyone who cares or takes pride in their ability to drive properly.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

I think mandatiry re-tests are a good idea in principal, but I don't think it would do much for the current state of driving. A fair percentage of the 'idiots' I see on the roads every day would be certified Liscence holders, but they are still doing stupid things and putting themselves and everyone else at risk.

This leads me to conclude that these people are either driving badly because they have already passed their test and no longer care for the rules of the road, or they managed to pass there test as a fluke or something. So the test dosen't weed out people who are willing to drive dangerously, and passes some people who really shouldn't be allowed drive. What we need is to address the attatiude towards driving in this country, not force people to repeat a test which already passed people who are a danger on the road.

WHITE_P

FuzzyWuzzyWazza wrote: »

I think mandatiry re-tests are a good idea in principal, but I don't think it would do much for the current state of driving. A fair percentage of the 'idiots' I see on the roads every day would be certified Liscence holders, but they are still doing stupid things and putting themselves and everyone else at risk.

This leads me to conclude that these people are either driving badly because they have already passed their test and no longer care for the rules of the road, or they managed to pass there test as a fluke or something. So the test dosen't weed out people who are willing to drive dangerously, and passes some people who really shouldn't be allowed drive. What we need is to address the attatiude towards driving in this country, not force people to repeat a test which already passed people who are a danger on the road.

Thing is if those idiots who are qualified drivers, knew that they would have to retest every few years, they might try and not develope too many bad habits in the meantime. Afterall can you imagine someone with years of experience not passing their retest, particularly if it was going to have an affect on the cost of their insurance, and if driving a company car, was to see them, maybe losing the keys to the company Beemer or like to be given a smaller less prestige car to drive till they did pass the test again.

Steve

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What about those of us who hold many categories. I have a full Driving Licence in 14 categories. Re-testing for me would be very expensive and time consuming. :eek:

You make a very good point.
Don't take offence, I'm playing devils advocate in what I'm saying:

If you actually use all 14 categoires, meaning you drive heavy vehicles, coaches etc on an ongoing commercial basis then yes - all the more reason to be up-to-date on your licenses. Airline pilots have to re-certify several times a year because they are carrying passengers / cargo, why shouldn't you?

If you don't use them and you have them because you ticked all the boxes on the giveaway then yes - lets see if you can actually drive what you are licensed for.

If you worked hard for them and passed every test (fair play) but don't use any of them, don't you think it might be time for a refresher after 10 years?

Steve

D_murph wrote: »

but i fail to see why the majority or all drivers should be inconvenienced by something like this because of a small minority of incapable people.

Everyones accepted that you have to do a NCT every 2 yrs, or a DOE every year.

How is once every 10 yrs such an inconvience.
If it got rid of the guy (and many like him) you described in your post, would it not be worth it?