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

highgiant1985

I don't know if a resit of the test would be practical. e.g. If someone fails are you going to take the license back off them. Plus, the current waiting lists are long enough right now imagine adding testing of existing drivers to that!

My view would be that a more practical idea to improve driving standards / road safety is introduce a refresher training requirement in order to renew license. So set a time requirement (open to discussion on what this should be). Drivers would be required to spend that amount of time with certified instructors in order to renew their license every 10 years. I believe a similar type requirement already exists for certain professional drivers (refresher training as part of the Certificate of Professional Competence).

ANXIOUS

knipex wrote: »

No issue what so ever with resitting the test but I am curious as to how you continue to maintain a position and and push for something based on nothing but a personal bias.

You have posted data that doesn't support your claim and despite multiple attempts presented no evidence to support your theory but you just will not for a second reconsider your position.

We are striving for zero road deaths in this country, the mantra one death is too many is constantly repeated.

I'm merely saying that it's a good idea to have skills re accessed after a certain period of time. The facts are there are people driving on the roads that have never had to pass any test or observations and as you age your and reactions and observational skills change and I feel that after holding the license for certain periods of time you should be able to demonstrate that you still are capable of safely maintaining the privilege of driving.

ANXIOUS

highgiant1985 wrote: »

I don't know if a resit of the test would be practical. e.g. If someone fails are you going to take the license back off them.

If you look at models used in other countries they restrict when and where people can drive. Ie can't go more than five miles from home, can't use motorways and can only drive during daylight.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

ANXIOUS wrote: »

We are striving for zero road deaths in this country, the mantra one death is too many is constantly repeated.

I'm merely saying that it's a good idea to have skills re accessed after a certain period of time. The facts are there are people driving on the roads that have never had to pass any test or observations and as you age your and reactions and observational skills change and I feel that after holding the license for certain periods of time you should be able to demonstrate that you still are capable of safely maintaining the privilege of driving.

I agree to an extent. When you get older you need a medical clearance to renew your licence and for the most part it's just a rubber stamping by a GP with no real regard for whether the person is safe to drive. A short assessment to ensure the person is competent and safe would be acceptable - not a full driving test and just a measure that the person is competent enough rather than a 'perfect' driver.

southbound

The general standard of driving in Ireland is terrible. I would be in favour of retests but some people always stop their car completely at every roundabout regardless of traffic flow, undertake other cars for the hell of it etc etc etc

I understand some EU countries will cancel your car licence if you fail the test in an attempt for a different category e.g. truck licence.

Leaving aside the driving test itself for a moment, there are many drivers with physical conditions that should disqualify them from driving. I'm not just refering to the elderly - for example there are many people with really bad eyesight but again the whole road safety culture is just talk.

ANXIOUS

Cason Powerful Skateboard wrote: »

I agree to an extent. When you get older you need a medical clearance to renew your licence and for the most part it's just a rubber stamping by a GP with no real regard for whether the person is safe to drive. A short assessment to ensure the person is competent and safe would be acceptable - not a full driving test and just a measure that the person is competent enough rather than a 'perfect' driver.

I would have no problem with it being tailored, wouldn't care if they could reverse around a corner. Once they could demonstrate that they weren't a danger to other road users.

Completely agree the medical is a box ticking exercise and another idea I had was to put a legal obligation on doctors to report certain conditions to the relevant bodies. The link below is of someone who shouldn't have been driving.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/945193/?__twitter_impression=true

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

More inconvenient stats about drivers involved in crashes.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-less-than-6pc-of-fatal-collisions-in-past-four-years-involved-a-learner-driver-36685511.html

Perhaps if you read the full set of RSA stats for last year you might find it enlightening. If you want to use statistics as the basis for anything you should be suggesting that everybody outside dublin should be forced to resit the test. Dublin has nearly 1/3rd of the countries population yet only accounts for 1/7th of fatalities. Or if we look at age profiles it is enlightening. Older drivers as a rule are much less likely to be involved in fatalities. It isn't until drivers reach retirement age that the risk of fatalities increases.

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Perhaps if you read the full set of RSA stats for last year you might find it enlightening. If you want to use statistics as the basis for anything you should be suggesting that everybody outside dublin should be forced to resit the test. Dublin has nearly 1/3rd of the countries population yet only accounts for 1/7th of fatalities. Or if we look at age profiles it is enlightening. Older drivers as a rule are much less likely to be involved in fatalities. It isn't until drivers reach retirement age that the risk of fatalities increases.

I've looked at it and I've already stated I have leave shortly and will have a proper look at the figures then.

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I've looked at it and I've already stated I have leave shortly and will have a proper look at the figures then.

Its not a long document. I find it is best to have the facts straight before
making pronouncements.

btw the link is a pdf.

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

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Its not a long document. I find it is best to have the facts straight before
making pronouncements.

btw the link is a pdf.

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

Doesn't have any facts or figures on non fatal crashes.

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Doesn't have any facts or figures on non fatal crashes.

here you go. full set of figures for 2014. They show the same thing. drivers get safer as they get older until they reach the age of 65

table 30 on page 23.

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Road_Collision_Factbooks_and_Tables/Road%20Collision%20Facts%202014%20-%20Tables.pdf

knipex

ANXIOUS wrote: »

We are striving for zero road deaths in this country, the mantra one death is too many is constantly repeated.

And the starting point is that everyone has to re-sit the test after 20 years ??

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

here you go. full set of figures for 2014. They show the same thing. drivers get safer as they get older until they reach the age of 65

table 30 on page 23.

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Road_Collision_Factbooks_and_Tables/Road%20Collision%20Facts%202014%20-%20Tables.pdf

No good as it doesn't confirm who was at fault, just that they were driving. We can't penalize people for a crash that wasn't their fault.

ANXIOUS

knipex wrote: »

And the starting point is that everyone has to re-sit the test after 20 years ??

No, these are just ideas of how it work.

My overall point is that there should be some form of testing for drivers after they've passed the test to ensure that at the point of the follow up rest they are not a danger to other road users.

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

No good as it doesn't confirm who was at fault, just that they were driving. We can't penalize people for a crash that wasn't their fault.

Those are the best figures you are going to find. Work with what you have.

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Those are the best figures you are going to find. Work with what you have.

There is no point, hence I've said that I need to wait till I have leave so I can think about the way to approach this.

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

There is no point, hence I've said that I need to wait till I have leave so I can think about the way to approach this.

should you not have done that exercise BEFORE creating this thread?

highgiant1985

ANXIOUS wrote: »

If you look at models used in other countries they restrict when and where people can drive. Ie can't go more than five miles from home, can't use motorways and can only drive during daylight.

I'm not aware of driving rules in any other countries tbh so thanks that's interesting to know. I can do a general google search but if know off hand any of the countries that operate the above type rules please feel free to mention. Otherwise I'll see what crazy and fun rules I come across on a general search .

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

should you not have done that exercise BEFORE creating this thread?

No, because I honestly didn't think anyone would disagree with the idea of putting in place some follow up measure after you've passed your test to try and ensure dangerous drivers are removed from the road.

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

No, because I honestly didn't think anyone would disagree with the idea of putting in place some follow up measure after you've passed your test to try and ensure dangerous drivers are removed from the road.

so you presumed that their was a correlation between length of time since the driving test and how dangerous a driver is on the road?

looksee

southbound wrote: »

The general standard of driving in Ireland is terrible. I would be in favour of retests but some people always stop their car completely at every roundabout regardless of traffic flow, undertake other cars for the hell of it etc etc etc

I understand some EU countries will cancel your car licence if you fail the test in an attempt for a different category e.g. truck licence.

Leaving aside the driving test itself for a moment, there are many drivers with physical conditions that should disqualify them from driving. I'm not just refering to the elderly - for example there are many people with really bad eyesight but again the whole road safety culture is just talk.

What an amazing clatter of unverified and vague 'facts'.

'some people' 'always', 'every roundabout'. How do you know any of this? The only way you could know is if you are a passenger in a car with the same driver doing the same thing, all the time. If you are basing these 'facts' on observations while driving, then you simply cannot know.

'I understand' 'some EU countries' -why not be specific and tell us which ones.

'many people with really bad eyesight' if a person is wearing corrective lenses then they do not have effective 'really bad eyesight'. Where are you getting this information from?

highgiant1985

ANXIOUS wrote: »

No, because I honestly didn't think anyone would disagree with the idea of putting in place some follow up measure after you've passed your test to try and ensure dangerous drivers are removed from the road.

one could argue we have this in place already i.e. that's what the penalty point system does!

Johnnycanyon

I drove from age 17 up to 43 before doing a driving test.. I never had accidents claims or convictions during this time..
I eventually took a test and got my full licence..My point is I think anyone who has an unblemished driving record should not be required to resit the test, but people who have caused accidents, have a certain amount of penalty points or especially people who are convicted of drunk driving should be made take the test again.

ohnonotgmail

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

I drove from age 17 up to 43 before doing a driving test.. I never had accidents claims or convictions during this time..
I eventually took a test and got my full licence..My point is I think anyone who has an unblemished driving record should not be required to resit the test, but people who have caused accidents, have a certain amount of penalty points or especially people who are convicted of drunk driving should be made take the test again.

the most sensible post in the thread so far.

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you presumed that their was a correlation between length of time since the driving test and how dangerous a driver is on the road?

No the correlation is with age.

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the most sensible post in the thread so far.

So you drive for 26yrs on a provisional?

How is this sensible it would be akin to letting everyone drive without passing a test until they have an accident.

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

So you drive for 26yrs on a provisional?

How is this sensible it would be akin to letting everyone drive without passing a test until they have an accident.

good job on picking the completely wrong point of the post. that takes effort.

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

good job on picking the completely wrong point of the post. that takes effort.

That's the main point in what they said.

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

That's the main point in what they said.

so you decided to ignore the bit that starts with "my point is" ?

My point is I think anyone who has an unblemished driving record should not be required to resit the test, but people who have caused accidents, have a certain amount of penalty points or especially people who are convicted of drunk driving should be made take the test again.

highgiant1985

for any one interested I found this interesting from my quick google search:

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/old/what_can_be_done_about_it/assessing_the_fitness_to_drive_en

It's a link to page showing what different EU countries do in terms of assessment of an older person's fitness to drive.

beauf

ANXIOUS wrote: »

No, because I honestly didn't think anyone would disagree with the idea of putting in place some follow up measure after you've passed your test to try and ensure dangerous drivers are removed from the road.

Enforce the current rules before making up a whole load of other stuff that will have almost no effect.

TheBoyFromAus

highgiant1985 wrote: »

I'm not aware of driving rules in any other countries tbh so thanks that's interesting to know. I can do a general google search but if know off hand any of the countries that operate the above type rules please feel free to mention. Otherwise I'll see what crazy and fun rules I come across on a general search .

Australia.

ANXIOUS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you decided to ignore the bit that starts with "my point is" ?

Everyone who hasn't driven has an unblemished driving record.

Can anyone confirm if Irish Rail train drivers have yearly assessments or once they passed the test x amount for years ago they are good to go go indefinitely?

ANXIOUS

beauf wrote: »

Enforce the current rules before making up a whole load of other stuff that will have almost no effect.

Lowering the drink driving limit like or the abolition of non disqualifying punishments for drink driving will also have almost no effect.

Ewan Hoosarmi

What is it about the motorists of Ireland? There's a problem about drivers standards? Rather than solve the problem by enforcing the law, we'll get out the whip and lash everyone until things are better. Oh, wait maybe if we tax the fuck out of everyone things will get better then. We could do both I suppose, just to be sure. :rolleyes:

beauf

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Lowering the drink driving limit like or the abolition of non disqualifying punishments for drink driving will also have almost no effect.

I'm not entirely sure if this a question. A rhetorical question. A statement of fact or belief or sarcasm.

Of course we don't if anything has an effect if they are making up the figures o begin with.

ANXIOUS

beauf wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure if this a question. A rhetorical question. A statement of fact or belief or sarcasm.

Of course we don't if anything has an effect if they are making up the figures o begin with.

It's to do with the people who've been drinking and involved in a fatal crash are generally off the Richter scale rather than within our relatively low limits.

dasdenny

highgiant1985 wrote: »

one could argue we have this in place already i.e. that's what the penalty point system does!

It would be a very weak argument. The penalty points system doesn't come near to addressing the problem

UrbanFret

No you shouldn't have to resit test. The test tells you little about how capable a driver is , only how he drove for 45 mins at a given time in his life. Who drives with there two hands on wheel at 10 to 2 after they leave the test centre. Same as nct , you could put car in bits on way home from test centre, yet its still ok to drive for the duration of the nct.

dasdenny

UrbanFret wrote: »

No you shouldn't have to resit test. The test tells you little about how capable a driver is , only how he drove for 45 mins at a given time in his life. Who drives with there two hands on wheel at 10 to 2 after they leave the test centre. Same as nct , you could put car in bits on way home from test centre, yet its still ok to drive for the duration of the nct.

Really? Where would you be driving to exactly?

ohnonotgmail

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Everyone who hasn't driven has an unblemished driving record.

Can anyone confirm if Rail train drivers have yearly assessments or once they passed the test x amount for years ago they are good to go go indefinitely?

again you decide to willfully ignore what was said.

Johnnycanyon

ANXIOUS wrote: »

So you drive for 26yrs on a provisional?

How is this sensible it would be akin to letting everyone drive without passing a test until they have an accident.

Not all of the 26 years were on a provisional a lot of the time I had no licence at all, but I never caused any damage to anybody or their vehicles, never got done for speeding or drink driving..There are s lot of people on the roads today with full licences who cannot say the same and what's more some of them and I know many shouldn't even be on the road.. Maybe this is just a sad reflection on the driving test, and driver education but maybe this is a different argument for a different day.

dasdenny

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Not all of the 26 years were on a provisional a lot of the time I had no licence at all, but I never caused any damage to anybody or their vehicles, never got done for speeding or drink driving.

Sorry but I call BS

Feisar

The question is though, is driving a perishable skill? Surely the more miles done the better one gets. Up to a point, age may kick in at some stage.
I doubt retesting would increase road safety. Unless there are stats to prove people with a licence of 10 plus years (discounting old age) are more prone to accidents.

Feisar

dasdenny wrote: »

Sorry but I call BS

My Dad, 59, was given a licence back in the day, there was a big back log one time and they just handed them out at one stage, I think if one had a provisional for a certain period of time.

dasdenny

Feisar wrote: »

My Dad, 59, was given a licence back in the day, there was a big back log one time and they just handed them out at one stage, I think if one had a provisional for a certain period of time.

Same as my own, that wasn't what I was calling BS on :-)

Johnnycanyon

dasdenny wrote: »

Sorry but I call BS

Not so, it's all true and totally honest.

ahnowbrowncow

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Not all of the 26 years were on a provisional a lot of the time I had no licence at all, but I never caused any damage to anybody or their vehicles, never got done for speeding or drink driving..There are s lot of people on the roads today with full licences who cannot say the same and what's more some of them and I know many shouldn't even be on the road.. Maybe this is just a sad reflection on the driving test, and driver education but maybe this is a different argument for a different day.

Doesn't mean much if you drove 5km a year at 50km/h.

Which makes the elderly driver stats even more concerning as they be on the road a lot less and drive a lot slower too.

Johnnycanyon

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Doesn't mean much if you drove 5km a year at 50km/h.

Which makes the elderly driver stats even more concerning as they be on the road a lot less and drive a lot slower too.

In my case I drove hundred of thousands of miles.. I worked as a sales rep in the 80s and after that drove jeeps pulling horseboxes up and down the country, not to mention driving my own vehicle.. Remember this was back in the days when you could get away with driving on a provisional licence..But I get your point, although I never drove about at 50k an hour I have a slight reputation among my friends and family of being a slowish driver.

Melodeon

Feisar wrote: »

My Dad, 59, was given a licence back in the day, there was a big back log one time and they just handed them out at one stage, I think if one had a provisional for a certain period of time.

That was Sylvester Barrett's licence amnesty for people on their second provisional at the time, in 1979. It was an attempt to clear some of the then huge testing backlog, and only applied to those on their second provisional. People on their third (or more!) had already failed at least once.
These people are mostly now in their late-50s to mid-60s or thereabouts.

On the general subject of retesting drivers, I've been saying for years that you should need to have a current valid Theory Test to renew your licence, and pass a full test to reclaim your licence after a ban.

There doesn't appear to be nearly as much issue getting a Theory Test appointment as the full road test, and it's valid for 2 years. Plenty of time to get it sorted before the current licence expires, and anyone not willing or able to get up to date on the current rules of the road well enough to be able to pass it probably should be hanging up their driving gloves anyway.

Someone who has managed to get themselves banned should have to prove their abilities before being let back out in public again, in my opinion