Is it time to make people resit driving test after a period of time?

Mebuntu

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I can't belive how people are so against thinking elderly people are more of a risk on the road.

Because they are not. Why do you think young drivers are being screwed by the Insurance companies? Because their grouping is the most reckless and dangerous on the road. You only have to travel a mile or two on the M50 to see this in action every day of the week. I was collected from the airport by a friend's son - as mild mannered a young lad as you'd meet in a day's walk - but, behind the wheel of a car I couldn't believe his change of personality.

I'm not saying that I agree with all young drivers being screwed by the Insurance companies but they're the facts.

07Lapierre

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah, by filling in a form! The driving test was only introduced in the early 60s so still plenty of drivers around who got their full licence by just going to the post office and paying the fee.

Then there were all the 'dog licences' handed out to learner drivers in the late 70s. Most of them will be still driving.

If they are still driving, they now have 40 years driving experience! No test can give you that!

lalababa

Alas no stats by me, BUT going on personal experience of myself and my friends/aquaintances/ community, alot of elderly should not be on the road. Even after a few incidents and bangs they motor on, with their relatives reluctant to intervene as it curtails their percieved Independence. Even then you have to 'persaude' the subject to give it up.

Hotblack Desiato

07Lapierre wrote: »

If they are still driving, they now have 40 years driving experience! No test can give you that!

Or they've been making the same mistakes for 40 years and now their eyesight, hearing and reactions are starting to go...

Any doctor certifying someone with dementia as fit to drive (tragic example in OP) really needs to be attending a malpractice hearing.

Sue Pa Key Pa

OK, to be serious. I'm 55, I passed my test 1st go. My only accident was when I was 22 and did something stupid. I slid on wet leaves going around a bend and dinged a 3rd party. While I don't think I could I could go and pass the modern test today, I could if I read up on what is now expected (which might not necessarily be to safest way to drive).

I used to speed at unsafe levels, but maturity and parenthood made me cop on. I've seen a lot of comments in the Motors forum when younger drivers talk about emergency reaction times etc., but I've driven an average of 30kms per year for decades now and I don't remember the last time I had to 'slam' my brakes or swerve to avoid a collision. It's called anticipation and it comes with experience. The majority of old codgers on the road don't get to drive for that length of time if they are generally unsafe. They would have been caught out by now or be dead.

Bottom line is that we could ALL improve our driving and if we obeyed the rules of he road, we would all get along much better as we go about our business. There are shlte drivers from every class, creed, colour, sex and generation

07Lapierre

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Or they've been making the same mistakes for 40 years and now their eyesight, hearing and reactions are starting to go...

Any doctor certifying someone with dementia as fit to drive (tragic example in OP) really needs to be attending a malpractice hearing.

Maybe, but everyone does make mistakes and nothing beats experience. BTW hearing? Besides not being able to hear the radio, hearing is irrelevant to driving. Eyesight? We have glasses/ contact lenses/ laser surgery. Slower reactions? Yep that’s why older motorists tend to drive slower then the “nothing will ever happen to me as I’m a brilliant driver” younger type drivers.

BattleCorp

Fann Linn wrote: »

CPC is a scam. Should be filed away with manual handling and safepass.

Just curious, why do you reckon they are scams?

Surely someone should be shown how to carry out manual handling tasks safely? Surely someone should be made aware of some of the hazards on a building site?

paleoperson

The dirty secret is that driver's tests aren't fair. They're too subjective and it's over too short a time frame. They also are in places where there's hardly any traffic. When my dad was young he said there wasn't any licence test at all, you just judged yourself whether you were safe or not. That actually didn't turn out so badly, the people are more responsible then and can't turn around and say "well I got my licence".

I wonder if there could be a "light traffic" licence and a "heavy traffic" licence. This possibility has been brought up before. Or maybe even an "old person's licence". Then you wouldn't have independant 82 year old aunt Berta driving on motorways and trying to follow confusing lanes, but she could drive down the road to do her weekly shopping without having to go into a home.

Hotblack Desiato

If you think hearing is irrelevant for driving then you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Why is your vehicle fitted with a horn?

biko

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Basically I think everyone should have to resit the driving test after say 10years of initially passing it and then ever 5 years from 65-80 and after that on a yearly basis.

Let me guess, you are in neither of these groups?

BattleCorp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you think hearing is irrelevant for driving then you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Why is your vehicle fitted with a horn?

It's not that important seeing as there are plenty of deaf people with driving licences.

1874

ANXIOUS wrote: »

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while and just haven't had the time to pull off the numbers and analyze them.

Basically I think everyone should have to resit the driving test after say 10years of initially passing it and then ever 5 years from 65-80 and after that on a yearly basis.

The data I need is age profile for crashes, cliams and deaths, as I believe I think there is a direct link with elderly drivers.

With Shane Ross's militant view on drink drivers I think this is the next natural step. The below cases got me thinking of it today.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-84-did-uturn-at-toll-plaza-and-drove-3km-the-wrong-way-on-motorway-before-being-killed-36551795.html

No, because as at least one person has said, it will turn into a money making scam and I think a box ticking exercise and then it will be used as a stick to beat us with.
The man you refer to, well he had dementia, it doesnt mean everyone else or all other older/elderly people should be put off the roads though.

Potentially, maybe a theory test
or
Nothing unless you have received some kind of court sanctioned penalty that is not a driving ban, so maybe a course of lessons geared to a licenced driver as a refresher, opposed to an absolute learner.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I dont think resitting the driving test even yearly would change driving manners in this country

It seems more about changing drivers habits of driving, and not their manners, I could be the best drive in the world (fingers crossed) I probably am, and my manners could be appalling, I dont see what minign nasal gold has to do with it

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

That are banned from driving yet get behind the wheel anyway
I'd love to see a law that if your off the road and caught driving, you serve the remainder of the ban in jail. If you can't resist the temptation, take it away

This is probably a good idea, Id definitely reserve it for drink drivers banned and caught on the road again especially if drunk.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe, but everyone does make mistakes and nothing beats experience. BTW hearing? Besides not being able to hear the radio, hearing is irrelevant to driving. Eyesight? We have glasses/ contact lenses/ laser surgery. Slower reactions? Yep that’s why older motorists tend to drive slower then the “nothing will ever happen to me as I’m a brilliant driver” younger type drivers.

I would not say that, drivers that have no or reduced hearing ability might be at a bit of a loss, its not about hearing the radio, but other sounds. Not that I think they shouldnt drive, but the ability to hear is better than not when driving.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Just curious, why do you reckon they are scams?

Surely someone should be shown how to carry out manual handling tasks safely? Surely someone should be made aware of some of the hazards on a building site?

Not a bad idea for a refresher, but many of those things are for insurance cover/sign off the fault to the individual and many are simply box ticking exercises. I'll do them because I think I can always learn something. I havent heard much about the CPC, better that its there I think, wouldnt surprise me if its a box ticking exercise in some places.

07Lapierre

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you think hearing is irrelevant for driving then you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Why is your vehicle fitted with a horn?

Give me ONE, Just one example where hearing is vital when driving?

07Lapierre

1874 wrote: »

I would not say that, drivers that have no or reduced hearing ability might be at a bit of a loss, its not about hearing the radio, but other sounds. Not that I think they shouldnt drive, but the ability to hear is better than not when driving.

Example please.

suicide_circus

Maybe connect it to insurance premiums. Voluntarily resit your test, pass and get 20% rebate on your premium....

vandriver

What politician will vote for this,when it will annoy and inconvenience practically every family in his constituency?
It's simply a non starter.

suicide_circus

Absolute political suicide

donegaLroad

Deal with reducing the spiralling cost of insurance premiums before introducing this new torture upon the nation.

knipex

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I can't belive how people are so against thinking elderly people are more of a risk on the road.

I cannot believe how one poster is so adamant that older people are more dangerous on the road without any evidence to support the idea.

FunLover18

Apologies if this has already been suggested and shot down but don't certain insurance companies offer discounts if you have a box inserted in your car that tracks speed and other factors. As you can tell I've only heard of them through hearsay but would it it not be more beneficial to make these mandatory, its not perfect and there would be ways around it but as others have said it's easy enough for people to drive well enough for half an hour to pass a test every ten years before slipping back into old habits.

Hotblack Desiato

07Lapierre wrote: »

Give me ONE, Just one example where hearing is vital when driving?

Sounding the horn when a vehicle may emerge carelessly from a minor road. A quick bip to get their attention, a proper beep if they're creeping without looking

In heavy fog you can hear vehicles you may not yet be able to see, if you open your window.

Pedestrians with headphones are always stepping out dangerously. They get a pre-emptive honk too

You should try riding a motorcycle, it'll give you a whole different perspective on observation, anticipation and communication with other road users.

The car with the booming bass you can hear 100m away is inevitably being driven like a twat. Hear and avoid.

1874

07Lapierre wrote: »

Example please.

Hearing audible warnings in your own car, vehicle horns from other vehicles, even the sound your vehicle makes over certain icy conditions or other audible warnings.
Im not saying people with a hearing impairment cannot or should not drive, but not having that sense reduces your awareness of your surroundings.
example,
I was reversing out of a driveway once, not fast, but on the path to where I was, a little boy had run along the path, the mother screamed up the road for him to stop, she could see him, he was running, she could see I was reversing, I could not see him with walls and such, while Im cautious reversing, I did not see that small boy running towards me, but I heard the mother scream to him to stop, if neither me nor the boy could hear or even one of us could not, in particular me, then that could have concluded in an accident, but it did not, not because I can see, but because my hearing is ok, thats just how it is, it is not an offence to anyone with reduce hearing or some kind of impairment or whatever it is more preferably called.

Im not critcising people who have that impairment, but its not correct to say a person that is deaf or has reduced hearing ability has the same awarness of their surroundings compared to a person that does not, and that applies to driving, I dont think its sufficient to limit or prevent people driving or doing so safely, but it seems to me to be an indisputable fact.

You seem a little rankled, dont just go off on a self righteous one please because you either have a hearing impairment or you know someone who has one or you have an opinion on it.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Maybe connect it to insurance premiums. Voluntarily resit your test, pass and get 20% rebate on your premium....

Can see that could easily be abused, that essentially would make it effectively not voluntary.

BattleCorp

knipex wrote: »

I cannot believe how one poster is so adamant that older people are more dangerous on the road without any evidence to support the idea.

Some old people on the road can be annoying, as in come on Miss Daisy, put the foot down. But that doesn't necessarily make them more dangerous.

jmayo

Cason Powerful Skateboard wrote: »

I've just seen a thread where a young driver a few years back had a puncture, with a flat spare, out of petrol and a flat battery. He shouldn't have been on the road with such a death trap and such poor preparation before taking to the roads.

Guess who it was?

That made me laugh and if anything made me take the poster's comments with a grain of salt.

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I wasn't on the road it was in an underground car park, but good story.

I can't belive how people are so against thinking elderly people are more of a risk on the road.

And you had to launch a thread on boards asking for help.

I wonder how all those elderly people handle those situations seeing as they are probably too past it to manage to launch a thread on an internet forum to find out how to solve the situation they have gotten themselves into.
Then again how many of those elderly doddery old people would have ended up looking at a car with a flat battery, flat tyre, flat spare and no petrol.

Pumps, petrol cans and battery charges are not new inventions.

PopePalpatine

suicide_circus wrote: »

Absolute political suicide

I can't believe it took 118 posts for this to appear.

07Lapierre

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sounding the horn when a vehicle may emerge carelessly from a minor road. A quick bip to get their attention, a proper beep if they're creeping without looking

In heavy fog you can hear vehicles you may not yet be able to see, if you open your window.

Pedestrians with headphones are always stepping out dangerously. They get a pre-emptive honk too

You should try riding a motorcycle, it'll give you a whole different perspective on observation, anticipation and communication with other road users.

The car with the booming bass you can hear 100m away is inevitably being driven like a twat. Hear and avoid.

Nice examples of reasons to use your own car horn if you wish, BUT all are irrelevant as they all involve sight.
You SEE car car coming out of a street so you use the Horn
You warn pedestrians that you've SEEN.
I do ride a bike..so yes its ALL about observation, which is exactly my point.
A loud car 100m away? how can you avoid it if you can't see it?

1874

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nice examples of reasons to use your own car horn if you wish, BUT all are irrelevant as they all involve sight.
You SEE car car coming out of a street so you use the Horn
You warn pedestrians that you've SEEN.
I do ride a bike..so yes its ALL about observation, which is exactly my point.
A loud car 100m away? how can you avoid it if you can't see it?

The poster is saying, someone can give them an audible warning, they havent seen you, either for not looking or whatever reason, edging out past a hedge or a gateway where the bonnet is out before the driver may be able to see whats coming, but if you alert them audibly they dont need to be looking or to be currently able to see the situation to notice such an alert, hence their ability to detect that.

07Lapierre

1874 wrote: »

The poster is saying, someone can give them an audible warning, they havent seen you, either for not looking or whatever reason, edging out past a hedge or a gateway where the bonnet is out before the driver may be able to see whats coming, but if you alert them audibly they dont need to be looking or to be currently able to see the situation to notice such an alert, hence their ability to detect that.

You can only give an audible warning if you SEE someone doing something they should be doing? As per your example: another motorist moving from a side road to a main road without LOOKING. By all means sound your horn to warn them or to protest, but there is no guarantee they will hear you.

the_syco

Testers should be tested on their feedback. A few tickboxes mean jack sh|t. Failed it a couple of times in Naas, always same reason, but they never said why. Failed once in Finglas, they told me what it was, passed next time.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Absolute political suicide

Complete lack of balls, more like it. So many issues should have been fixed, but lack of balls stops them from being fixed.

oceanman

older people are the ones that turn out in their droves to vote....so I cant see any government touching this with a barge pole....

ANXIOUS

oceanman wrote: »

older people are the ones that turn out in their droves to vote....so I cant see any government touching this with a barge pole....

Exactly but that shouldnt be a reason not to do something.

RDM_83 again

Mebuntu wrote: »

Because they are not. Why do you think young drivers are being screwed by the Insurance companies? Because their grouping is the most reckless and dangerous on the road. You only have to travel a mile or two on the M50 to see this in action every day of the week. I was collected from the airport by a friend's son - as mild mannered a young lad as you'd meet in a day's walk - but, behind the wheel of a car I couldn't believe his change of personality.

I'm not saying that I agree with all young drivers being screwed by the Insurance companies but they're the facts.

It's not automatically because they are more dangerous (they might be ).

A life changing injury for a 20 year old is a cost that's much bigger than life changing injury to an OAP.

ANXIOUS

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A life changing injury for a 20 year old is a cost that's much bigger than life changing injury to an OAP.

That's what I'm thinking it's not that young drivers crash more it's that when they do crash the costs involved are substantial.

The article I linked a couple of pages back alludes to what would be a serious injury in a young person is death for an elderly person.

So that's why they are gouged with insurance because when it goes wrong it costs more.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Exactly but that shouldnt be a reason not to do something.

Agreed, but what is the reason? You haven't produced a sound one as yet.

ANXIOUS

Cason Powerful Skateboard wrote: »

Agreed, but what is the reason? You haven't produced a sound one as yet.

I'll make my point very simply.

1. We've people on the road driving who've a full licence and have never taken a driving test.

2. We've people on the road who've passed a driving test 30 years ago and have had no follow up training.

Driving is an ongoing skill, cars are more powerful and the rules of the road change all the time.

The only thing I'm advocating is ongoing ability to pass a driving test. Driving is a privilege not a right and failure to be able to demonstrate ability to pass this test on an ongoing basis should see that privilege removed.

donegaLroad

ANXIOUS wrote: »

So that's why they are gouged with insurance because when it goes wrong it costs more.

Insurance hikes also have to do with the failure of successive governments to change legislation which would cap whiplash payouts to a more realistic level. It is 15k here, it is approx 3k in England.

Also, insurance companies are first and foremost in business to make money. The CEO of the former Hibernian insurance announced this on Matt Cooper back in 2004, when he was on air attempting to defend insurance hikes.

cnocbui

ANXIOUS wrote: »

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while and just haven't had the time to pull off the numbers and analyze them.

Basically I think everyone should have to resit the driving test after say 10years of initially passing it and then ever 5 years from 65-80 and after that on a yearly basis.

The data I need is age profile for crashes, cliams and deaths, as I believe I think there is a direct link with elderly drivers.

With Shane Ross's militant view on drink drivers I think this is the next natural step. The below cases got me thinking of it today.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-84-did-uturn-at-toll-plaza-and-drove-3km-the-wrong-way-on-motorway-before-being-killed-36551795.html

You clearly should, I don't need it, thanks all the same.

BattleCorp

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I'll make my point very simply.

1. We've people on the road driving who've a full licence and have never taken a driving test.

Are there any statistics to show that these people are more likely to have accidents than those who have sat a driving test?

2. We've people on the road who've passed a driving test 30 years ago and have had no follow up training.

Are there any countries that require you to re-sit a driving test after a certain period?

Driving is an ongoing skill, cars are more powerful and the rules of the road change all the time.

Agreed.

The only thing I'm advocating is ongoing ability to pass a driving test. Driving is a privilege not a right and failure to be able to demonstrate ability to pass this test on an ongoing basis should see that privilege removed.

The ability to pass a driving test isn't 100% doesn't mean that you are a safe driver. It just means that on the day of the test, you did what the tester required of you. You could drive like a lunatic once the tester gets out of the car.

There is also a huge anomaly with the driving test.

You can't drive on a motorway if you have a provisional licence. It's actually illegal. Therefore you can't practice or take lessons on a motorway.

Yet when you pass your driving test, having absolutely no experience of motorway driving, you are now legally allowed to drive on the motorway.

valoren

One of the best feelings going is after you pass the test and you drive away from the test centre knowing you'll never have to see that place again.

I can see a mandatory resit being applicable only in a situation where you accrue a certain amount of penalty points in a 10 year period for example. If you keep getting them, it's a fair assumption to say you're a sh1t driver. What that number might be is up for debate. You get banned for 6 months if you get more than 12 in a 3 year period as is.

While advertising etc can try to drive home (pardon the pun) the message of safe driving, nothing would make drivers focus on driving better than the prospect and accompanying dread of potentially seeing that fecking test centre again if they don't buck up.

ANXIOUS

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are there any statistics to show that these people are more likely to have accidents than those who have sat a driving test?

The only statistics I could find was that 100% if crashes prior to 17.03.64 were caused by people who'd never taken the test.

In relation to your second point, that's the essence of all tests. If for example someone gets nervous with a tester in the car and drives like a lunatic and fails but are perfectly safe without a stranger in the car, should they pass?

Your third point is valid, the whole system should be over hauled.

Fann Linn

BattleCorp wrote: »

Just curious, why do you reckon they are scams?

Surely someone should be shown how to carry out manual handling tasks safely? Surely someone should be made aware of some of the hazards on a building site?

I agree with you. However courses which are supposed to educate and which entail H&S legislation are suddenly relegated to farce as far as I'm concerned, when the instructor states from the start; .. 'Right no one has anything to worry about if they fail the little exam at the end of the day'.

If people fail an exam which has to do with H&S there should be a penalty in my opinion.

dxhound2005

paleoperson wrote: »

The dirty secret is that driver's tests aren't fair. They're too subjective and it's over too short a time frame. They also are in places where there's hardly any traffic. When my dad was young he said there wasn't any licence test at all, you just judged yourself whether you were safe or not. That actually didn't turn out so badly, the people are more responsible then and can't turn around and say "well I got my licence".

If it is a secret how did you find out? And how do you know the traffic conditions for thousands of tests at different locations? My two tests were in very heavy urban traffic, but I would not use that to assume they are all like that.

It turned out very badly for the thousands who died during the times when there were no licences. It is probably no coincidence that the numbers being killed fell dramatically following the ones with no licences being gradually taken out of the system.

dxhound2005

The biggest factor in road deaths is the volume of traffic. Leitrim had one fatality in each of 2016 and 2017. In Dublin which might be roughly the same size, it was 21 and 23. In the UK the number is around 1800, compared to our figure under 200.

Lia_lia

Would probably be more useful if they revised the current test. Like for example teaching learners how to drive on motorways (if it was even allowed!).

Riva10

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Should do. Older people are awful drivers I find, as a rule. Shouldn't be driving on the road like they do.

And an awful of newly qualified drivers still on N plates should not be driving in fields let alone our roads.

dxhound2005

Nobody ever drove on a motorway before passing their test. Despite this they are probably the safest roads to drive. So a motorway test is probably superfluous.

BattleCorp

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It is probably no coincidence that the numbers being killed fell dramatically following the ones with no licences being gradually taken out of the system.

That's not an accurate assumption to draw from the stats. There were a lot more factors involved. Roads have improved, cars have improved, far less dri k driving, introduction of speed cameras etc. I'd argue that all of those have been far more effective at reducing road deaths than removing licenced drivers who never sat a driving test.

Akrasia

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I can fire a gun but it doesn't mean I know how to do it safely.

There should be a rules of the road test at the very least before every new licence is issued. I'd support a driving test as well with a temporary licence to continue driving for 6 months until a failed test is passed similar to the current NCT system where you can test early and continue to drive it, unless the car is unsafe, subject to the car passing the NCT again.

Watching people driving around roundabouts leaves me with nightmares, especially older drivers who have never been told what they are supposed to do on a roundabout.

We could just enforce the rules of the road. A few thousand man hours of Gardai pulling drivers for not indicating properly at roundabouts should get the message across.

We have penalty points on licenses for a reason, they're supposed to put bad drivers off the road, and remind careless drivers to be more careful
.

dxhound2005

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's not an accurate assumption to draw from the stats. There were a lot more factors involved. Roads have improved, cars have improved, far less dri k driving, introduction of speed cameras etc. I'd argue that all of those have been far more effective at reducing road deaths than removing licenced drivers who never sat a driving test.

In which case well done to everyone. Because the number of miles being driven say in 2017 compared to 1987 must be much higher. More miles mean more accidents and more fatalities as the figures from Dublin and Leitrim demonstrate. If nothing had been done, we would be killing about 900 every year.

diomed

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Should do. Older people are awful drivers I find, as a rule. Shouldn't be driving on the road like they do.

Deaths 2017
0-15 ... 4
16-25 ... 33 ......<

---

26-35 ... 28
36-45 ... 22
46-55 ... 22
56-65 ... 16
66+ ... 33

19.1% of the population is 65+, and 20.1% of the fatalities.
Who caused the fatalities is another question.