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

the_pen_turner

i think that every time you get 1 penalty point you should have to do a driver training course . basically a driving lesson with a theory part .
so speeding is 2 points so 2 classes, 6 points 6 classes.

also I would have it so you get 2 points you do 2 classes , get 2 more you do 4 classes etc .
failure to attend should be 6months off the road

paleoperson

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.

Yes, and yet we never hear about all the accidents people who never took a driving test get into. An amnesty was granted years ago and where is the horror that occurred? The truth is, I'm not going to go so far as to say that we'd be better off with no driving test at all, but it's certainly not the be all end all. The people without a test have to have full responsibility for their driving ability, they can't turn around and say well I passed the test. If anything putting up a test sets a sort of challenge for people, can they do it. And there's a lot of bureaucracy and subjectiveness about it, it's not so simple as that.

ANXIOUS wrote: »

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

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

30 years ago? So they'd typically be 50-55 now, you joking? Directly in the bracket of the lowest of insurance costs and the absolute safest drivers of all?

Also you keep acting like driving properly is a highly intensive skill like playing videogames, it's not. It's about looking out for dangers and not causing a dangerous situation yourself. It's much more about attitude than as you call it "skill". That's the main reason why 50 year olds don't get into as many accidents as 28 year olds. It's not a competition.

ANXIOUS wrote: »

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

Cars aren't really more powerful. How many priuses and small cars do we have nowadays? Besides, what would cars being more powerful have to do with anything? Even though it might sound like old people couldn't control a more powerful car somewhere in the back of the mind... that's not the case in reality.

Driving is vastly easier now. Cars are vastly safer and easier to control now. Roads are vastly easier to navigate now. Before it was a jungle, now it's all wide lanes and clear marks. People who were driving fine many years ago were doing it on hard mode. eh? I mean, there is no possible way to argue otherwise.

ANXIOUS wrote: »

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 mantra "driving is a privilege not a right" is a meaningless platitude. If you are fit and able to drive and have not been convicted of a crime then driving is a right of every citizen.

07Lapierre

diomed wrote: »

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.

A 65+ is more likely to be seriously/fatally injured than a fit/healthy 16-25 year old.

dxhound2005

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i think that every time you get 1 penalty point you should have to do a driver training course . basically a driving lesson with a theory part .
so speeding is 2 points so 2 classes, 6 points 6 classes.

also I would have it so you get 2 points you do 2 classes , get 2 more you do 4 classes etc .
failure to attend should be 6months off the road

That would only improve things if everyone who should have got points was caught in the first place. I am certain that tens of thousand broke the speed limit today and were not caught.

gozunda

ANXIOUS wrote: »

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.

You are taking the proverbial surely! All drivers before 17.03.64 did not have to "pass a test" so not really surprising that 100% of crashes back were caused by those never taking a test. Plus you do realise that is nearly 55 years ago :rolleyes: hardly current findings are they?

Are you describing your own experiences of the driving test by any chance in the above scenario?

07Lapierre

paleoperson wrote: »

The mantra "driving is a privilege not a right" is a meaningless platitude. If you are fit and able to drive have the money to buy a car, can afford the mainentance, fuel, insurance and have not been convicted of a crime then driving is a possibility of every citizen.

Fixed your post and I'd add.. That IMO, much stricter enforcement of the existing rules of the road would do far more for road safety than any driving test for existing drivers.

paleoperson

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fixed your post and I'd add.. That IMO, much stricter enforcement of the existing rules of the road would do far more for road safety than any driving test for existing drivers.

So if your licence was revoked tomorrow with no reason given you'd say "ah well, shur t'was a privilege anyway and I should be thankful for all the time I was allowed to drive"?

dxhound2005

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fixed your post and I'd add.. That IMO, much stricter enforcement of the existing rules of the road would do far more for road safety than any driving test for existing drivers.

The only solution is to seize and destroy every car which is detected speeding, or crossing a solid white line. Lots more cameras to enable enforcement. That would soon bring people to their senses.

07Lapierre

paleoperson wrote: »

So if your licence was revoked tomorrow with no reason given you'd say "ah well, shur t'was a privilege anyway and I should be thankful for all the time I was allowed to drive"?

Revoked for no reason? Why would that happen?

paleoperson

07Lapierre wrote: »

Revoked for no reason? Why would that happen?

Doesn't matter, someone reported you for bad driving. As driving is a "privilege" then you have no right or entitlement to be on the road, it is a privilege that is bestowed on people and can be taken away and you have no expectations you can keep it right?

dxhound2005

paleoperson wrote: »

Doesn't matter, someone reported you for bad driving. As driving is a "privilege" then you have no right or entitlement to be on the road, it is a privilege that is bestowed on people and can be taken away and you have no expectations you can keep it right?

What sort of bad driving?

07Lapierre

paleoperson wrote: »

Doesn't matter, someone reported you for bad driving. As driving is a "privilege" then you have no right or entitlement to be on the road, it is a privilege that is bestowed on people and can be taken away and you have no expectations you can keep it right?

It does matter..it would have to be a legitimate reason. if I was caught drink driving and convicted in a court of law for that offence...I'd have no issue with losing my driving privileges! Do you?

Sue Pa Key Pa

ANXIOUS wrote: »

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.

More flawed logic. It doesn't matter what injury a young driver does to himself, it's the damage he/she can cause to others. They are a higher risk of doing this compared to mature drivers.

ANXIOUS

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

More flawed logic. It doesn't matter what injury a young driver does to himself, it's the damage he/she can cause to others. They are a higher risk of doing this compared to mature drivers.

That's the point I was making. It's that when they crash they cause expensive crashes.

ANXIOUS

gozunda wrote: »

You are taking the proverbial surely! All drivers before 17.03.64 did not have to "pass a test" so not really surprising that 100% of crashes back were caused by those never taking a test. Plus you do realise that is nearly 55 years ago :rolleyes: hardly current findings are they?

Are you describing your own experiences of the driving test by any chance in the above scenario?

Read back to see what he said, I didn't bother quoting his whole post.

ANXIOUS

paleoperson wrote: »

So if your licence was revoked tomorrow with no reason given you'd say "ah well, shur t'was a privilege anyway and I should be thankful for all the time I was allowed to drive"?

But if it was revoked for not being bale to demonstrate you can pass a skills test, that isn't no reason.

pudzey101

what about people like me that hold multiple categories ? (car, bike , truck , artic) ? id happily resit any of the tests if i didnt have to pay to be honest ,

looksee

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Provisional_Reviews_of_Fatal_Collisions/RSA%20Provisional%20Review%20of%20Fatalities%2031%20December%202017.pdf

The chart on page 12 of the document quoted shows that 16 to 25 year olds had the highest rate of driver death and the next grouping was 'over 65' which could easily cover 25 years rather than the 10 quoted in the other groupings. Further an old person in a serious accident would be more likely to die of associated issues rather than directly as a result of the crash.

This document does not prove an awful lot as one bad accident could completely skew the results. Also it does not show who was at fault in the accident, just who died.

I completely agree that there are some poor older drivers. There are poor younger drivers too. Agreed older people may not have the fast reaction times of a younger person, they are also unlikely to be using their phone or fiddling with the radio or trying to sort out fighting kids in the back seat or drinking coffee or showing off to their mates. Almost by definition they are less likely to be speeding.

I am one of the 'ould wans' and have to get a cert every 3 years. I have been driving since I was 22, just short of 50 years. I had an accident two weeks after getting my licence and not another accident since, nor points nor any other incident. If I were to have an accident now it would not be because of my age, and when I become aware that my skills or faculties are deteriorating I will stop driving, as do many older people.

Ursus Horribilis

If they were to bring this in, they'd have to recruit a large number number of testers and bring the horrendously long waiting lists right down to an acceptable level. As in, someone who has lost their licence should be able to resit it within days. For most people who've been driving for a while, the consequences of losing their licence are absolutely dire. Anybody who depends on their car will understand exactly where I'm coming from here. While we all like to think that we'd pass the test, anything can go wrong on the day. The stakes are so high, anyone could have a bad day and make mistakes. I wouldn't be against some mandatory driving lessons every decade or so, as a refresher.

The biggest problem on our roads is the lack of law enforcement. It looks like your average motorist can drive appallingly and never have to pay the price for it. If there was a realistic chance of being caught for bad driving and acting the maggot, it'd bring a lot of people into line.

gozunda

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Read back to see what he said, I didn't bother quoting his whole post.

To whom are you referring? - who is "he"?

This is your post to which I replied

ANXIOUS wrote: »

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.

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?



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


Agreed.



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.

This

Capt'n Midnight

Just base it on the car you drive.

Yaris drivers ? - annual test with emphasis on failure to progress - big time.

BMW drivers - indicator use

White Van drivers - due care and consideration


Taxi drivers - if you aren't driving like loosing your licence means loosing your livelihood then guess what ? - And changing direction while using hazards means you'll have to walk home and you'll be fined if you don't remove your cube pronto. :mad:

Noveight

It'd be some money racket if it did happen. X amount of compulsory lessons before re-sitting would no doubt come hand in hand.

Hotblack Desiato

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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.

The population of Dublin is 42 times that of Leitrim, which makes Dublin twice as safe...

gozunda

Noveight wrote: »

It'd be some money racket if it did happen. X amount of compulsory lessons before re-sitting would no doubt come hand in hand.

Driverless cars should solve all those problems - even that of bringing back the local pub ...

king size mars bar

Would not agree with having to do my test again, passed it once that's enough. There is enough money making scams going on at the moment when it comes to driving and cars, insurance and nct the main two.

cnocbui

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The population of Dublin is 42 times that of Leitrim, which makes Dublin twice as safe...

I think you are forgetting public transport. Not everyone in Dublin drives a car every day.

Capt'n Midnight

FishOnABike wrote: »

As the driving test was only introduced in 1954, a substantial number of drivers 70+ would never have had to sit a driving test. You just went in to the motor tax office, paid your fee and walked out with your licence. I think my father got his licence before he ever sat in a car.

And everyone holding a provisional licence in 1979 when they gave the amnesty.

But the OAP problem will sort itself out in time :pac:














Because of self driving cars

diomed

I am 67.
My opinion is I am a safe driver.
One reason I am safe is I drive very little. This week I will drive the car twice, a total of about four miles.
I passed two driving tests, a motorcycle test, and a car test.
As far as I remember the licence without a test ended in the mid-1960s.

A test for older drivers is a good idea.
It would not have to half as rigorous as the full test.
People who are not able to drive to a moderate standard would be spotted immediately. You could then ask them to take the full test.

ANXIOUS

diomed wrote: »

I am 67.
My opinion is I am a safe driver.
One reason I am safe is I drive very little. This week I will drive the car twice, a total of about four miles.
I passed two driving tests, a motorcycle test, and a car test.
As far as I remember the licence without a test ended in the mid-1960s.

A test for older drivers is a good idea.
It would not have to half as rigorous as the full test.
People who are not able to drive to a moderate standard would be spotted immediately. You could then ask them to take the full test.

The most sensible thing that has been said on this thread including everything I've said.

Terrible to see another elderly person die on our roads today in a single vehicle crash.

Charles Babbage

In this day and age it should be possible to design a simulator that can assess if a person is generally competent, people with poor scores on this could be asked to do a real road test.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Charles Babbage wrote:

In this day and age it should be possible to design a simulator that can assess if a person is generally competent, people with poor scores on this could be asked to do a real road test.

Too many lads out there already who think driving is like a video game

oceanman

Charles Babbage wrote: »

In this day and age it should be possible to design a simulator that can assess if a person is generally competent, people with poor scores on this could be asked to do a real road test.

it would just turn into another big money making racket.

dxhound2005

Charles Babbage wrote: »

In this day and age it should be possible to design a simulator that can assess if a person is generally competent, people with poor scores on this could be asked to do a real road test.

They already exist. How would you propose to put this into practice. Would you have one in every town? Would they be open at times to suit people who have to work? Who would staff them? Who would verify the results? If someone was identified as really incompetent, would it be possible to take them off the road immediately, and require them to take driving lessons.

If all the ideas on this thread were put in place we would have a mighty bureaucracy and many billions of euros would have to be found from somewhere.

davidglanza

Just another way for the government to screw us for more money..

If you lose your licence over speeding etc
then I think before you can get it back you should have to resit test..

1874

gozunda wrote: »

Driverless cars should solve all those problems - even that of bringing back the local pub ...

I wonder in the event driverless cars do start appearing on the scene, would the powers that be embrace it or bring in some legislation that you have to be fit to drive and in command of your functions, to take over in the event the car screws up? Id imagined people hammered, getting into the back of the car, getting it to bring them home and going off for a snooze, Im sure it will be a while.

diomed wrote: »

I am 67.
My opinion is I am a safe driver.
One reason I am safe is I drive very little. This week I will drive the car twice, a total of about four miles.
I passed two driving tests, a motorcycle test, and a car test.
As far as I remember the licence without a test ended in the mid-1960s.

A test for older drivers is a good idea.
It would not have to half as rigorous as the full test.
People who are not able to drive to a moderate standard would be spotted immediately. You could then ask them to take the full test.

If someone cannot drive to a moderate standard in a test half as rigorous as the full (normal) test, what would the point of getting them to do the full test? thats equivalent to saying they are off the road as you will have determined they are highly likely to fail.

ANXIOUS wrote: »

The most sensible thing that has been said on this thread including everything I've said.
Terrible to see another elderly person die on our roads today in a single vehicle crash.

No its not, the most sensible thing to do would enforce the rules as they are now, catch anyone breaking them, then apply the rules regarding enforcement, it would seem to be better to ensure reeducating drivers regarding their failures/offences. If that is not even being done now, what is the point of just arbitrarily sending anyone (everyone) based on the time they have had their licence, because that is no indicator of how good or bad any one persons' driving will be, this sounds like the kind of thing some clueless politician thought up and imagines is a fantastic idea.

diomed

1874 wrote: »

If someone cannot drive to a moderate standard in a test half as rigorous as the full (normal) test, what would the point of getting them to do the full test? thats equivalent to saying they are off the road as you will have determined they are highly likely to fail.

I'll have a guess.
Is it because the test of driving ability is passing the (full) test, and nobody will accept they can't drive without getting the opportunity to do the full test?

ANXIOUS

I have to say that my eyes have really been opened when I started looking into this. Seems Shane Ross actually supports re-testing as well.

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-elderly-drivers-3258167-Feb2017/

America seems to be leading the way with this. Two examples are that elderly drivers in California and Illinois have to sit a written test with every renewal, doctors are subjected to mandatory reporting of some conditions and some states impose restrictions such as hours of driving or a maximum distance from home.

When I have time I'll pull more things together, but looks like other regions have accepted that there is an additional risk associated with elderly drivers no matter how unpalatable it seems to be to accept.


This case sparked change in Massachusetts, terrible that the other 4 accidents never triggered a response.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/88yearold_massachusetts_driver.html

Fann Linn

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I have to say that my eyes have really been opened when I started looking into this. Seems Shane Ross actually supports re-testing as well.

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-elderly-drivers-3258167-Feb2017/

America seems to be leading the way with this. Two examples are that elderly drivers in California and Illinois have to sit a written test with every renewal, doctors are subjected to mandatory reporting of some conditions and some states impose restrictions such as hours of driving or a maximum distance from home.

When I have time I'll pull more things together, but looks like other regions have accepted that there is an additional risk associated with elderly drivers no matter how unpalatable it seems to be to accept.

A year old Journal.ie poll and Shane Ross.
Btw the same Lord Ross thought it a good idea to intervene in Norh Korea also.

ANXIOUS

Fann Linn wrote: »

A year old Journal.ie poll and Shane Ross.
Btw the same Lord Ross thought it a good idea to intervene in Norh Korea also.

I wasn't referring to the age or what the link was I was clearly saying Shane Ross the minster of transport is in favour.

Just ignore the rest of it.

Fann Linn

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I wasn't referring to the age or what the link was I was clearly saying Shane Ross the minster of transport is in favour.

And im just saying the same minister was in favour of intervening in north Korea. Just as an example of the calibre of the man.

ANXIOUS

Fann Linn wrote: »

And im just saying the same minister was in favour of intervening in north Korea. Just as an example of the calibre of the man.

The more people that agree the more chance we have of change.

Powerhouse

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

There is nothing in the driving test which really tests someone's ability in a potentially dangerous situation. I have often over the years seen elderly drivers pulling out inappropriately off side-roads or in car parks and almost cause a collision. Bit I recall nothing in the driving test that would test this and find them deficient in that regard. Instead they operate in random road conditions. In the same way young drivers will not speed during a driving test yet many will do so under normal conditions.

I would be surprised in an increasingly nanny-state if someone at some stage does not look to introduce this from what I can see, while preparation for a driving test does involve inculcating good habits. I'm not sure too many people walk away from an actual driving test convinced it was useful for anything other than getting them their licence. Good driving seems to relate more to experience, courtesy and common sense than to being able to point out where the battery is in your car or reversing around a corner.

BattleCorp

Powerhouse wrote: »

I would be surprised in an increasingly nanny-state if someone at some stage does not look to introduce this

I've said it earlier in this thread but if you started to put drivers off the road for failing their re-sit driving test, it would be an economic disaster.

And a political disaster too. I wouldn't support it for fear I might be put off the road at some point in the future. And I wouldn't be alone in that line of thinking.

ANXIOUS

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've said it earlier in this thread but if you started to put drivers off the road for failing their re-sit driving test, it would be an economic disaster.

And a political disaster too. I wouldn't support it for fear I might be put off the road at some point in the future. And I wouldn't be alone in that line of thinking.

It shouldn't matter, the mantra that is continously rolled out particularly in relation to drink driving is that one road death is too many.

AndrewJRenko

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've said it earlier in this thread but if you started to put drivers off the road for failing their re-sit driving test, it would be an economic disaster.

And a political disaster too. I wouldn't support it for fear I might be put off the road at some point in the future. And I wouldn't be alone in that line of thinking.

Are you sure about the 'economic disaster'? Imagine the reduced healthcare costs and reduced disability costs from the reduced collisions caused by these crap drivers? Imagine the reduced insurance premiums for the rest of us decent drivers when these reduced claim costs flow through the system. Imagine the reduced healthcare costs arising from when some of these crap drivers turn to cycling or walking instead and improve their fitness and general health? Imagine the reduced commute times for the remaining decent drivers.

There is a lot of upside here.

I remember all this 'political disaster' talk about the smoking ban too.

dxhound2005

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you sure about the 'economic disaster'? Imagine the reduced healthcare costs and reduced disability costs from the reduced collisions caused by these crap drivers? Imagine the reduced insurance premiums for the rest of us decent drivers when these reduced claim costs flow through the system. Imagine the reduced healthcare costs arising from when some of these crap drivers turn to cycling or walking instead and improve their fitness and general health? Imagine the reduced commute times for the remaining decent drivers.

There is a lot of upside here.

I remember all this 'political disaster' talk about the smoking ban too.

If there was full enforcement of the rules all the "good" drivers on this thread and hundreds of thousands more would be off the road in a week with 12 points for speeding. Then when everyone kept to the speed limits there would be traffic chaos. Maybe it would save some lives, but are people ready for this politically?

I could see a protest movement happening in which hundreds of thousands with 12 points would just continue driving. What would happen then?

Unless everyone at all times who break the rules are detected and punished, then I can't see the sense of making life hell for the small percentage who get caught. Or requiring anything more for older drivers than the existing medical examination for fitness to drive.

If people want a zero tolerance approach then my plan is the best one. Seize all vehicles breaking the rules and destroy them.

donegaLroad

it wont matter when the driver-less cars start taking over.

dxhound2005

I have another plan. Self policing. All the good drivers should note any occasion where they go over the speed limit or use a mobile phone while driving. Award yourselves penalty points and when you reach 12 hand in your licence. Let your insurance company know and take yourself off to a driving school for re-education. If you wait around for the Gardai to catch you it might take years before you are found out.

If you are not prepared to do this, I don't want to hear you laying down the law for the unfortunate minority who get caught.

Charles Babbage

dxhound2005 wrote: »

They already exist. How would you propose to put this into practice. Would you have one in every town? Would they be open at times to suit people who have to work? Who would staff them? Who would verify the results? If someone was identified as really incompetent, would it be possible to take them off the road immediately, and require them to take driving lessons.

Of course there would be one in every town. They could be open 24/7, put one at the Garda station and you just put your driving licence and credit card in the slot. I think a role is then needed for emergency testers or the Gardai to perform some assessment to see if the person should then be put off the road if they perform really badly. Anyone not happy with this format should be able to book a human tester, if they wish.

All of this might seem too elaborate, but as I said in my earlier post said they should have started with a simple rules of the road MCQ when you go along to get your new format licence.