Driving licences

[Dead_One]

Is it just me, or is the driving test too easy?

Shouldn't people be tested on real world driving conditions, instead of staged ones?

And the idea that you can pass your test in a morning and then go flying down a motorway in a ferrari in the afternoon is silly.

2 things:

each car should have a tag that lets the police know remotely what class of licence the driver has, along with all relevant details, age, dob, address, insurance or tax details etc, so as cars drive along this could be monitored, which would help stop people driving with no insurance

secondly, there should be a tiered licence system, so a basic test would allow you to drive up to a certain performance of vehicle, say a micra or similar
then for higher powered vehicles you would have to take a further test at your own expense, and for towing caravans, driving 7.5 tonners etc.

This extra testing would show itself in lower insurance premiums for bettter drivers, and motorways would require a seperate licence.

Also, each 12-24 months all drivers should sit a re test to their current level, to catch up with anyone whos abilities have deterioted, this would again be at own expense, creating jobs etc.

Again, this would reduce the number of accidents therefore reducing insurance premiums, thereby working out cheaper in the long run for everyone

This would stop boy racers driving way overpowered cars with no insurance, or just driving cars in a manner they are unabvle to control..

What do you all think?

[The Pimp]

I agree again DeadOne. Although the 2 part test has made it a little more difficult than what it used to be, it still doesn't make it hard enough. There are already restrictions on new drivers with regard to offences, in that if they get 6 points on their license within the first 2 years (I used to think it was 12 months until recently) of holding it, they are automatically banned & have to resit their tests again if they want to continue driving after the ban.
Also new drivers should be limited to the size & performance of car that they can drive for the first year anyway.

[Sharky]

Originally posted by Dead_One


each car should have a tag that lets the police know remotely what class of licence the driver has, along with all relevant details, age, dob, address, insurance or tax details etc, so as cars drive along this could be monitored, which would help stop people driving with no insuranceThis extra testing would show itself in lower insurance premiums for bettter drivers, and motorways would require a seperate licence.

What about when more that 1 person drives the same car, one with a new licence and one who has been driving years??
How could the powers that be tell who was driving the car from the electronic tag?? Maybe people should be tagged?? :p
Originally posted by Dead_One


Also, each 12-24 months all drivers should sit a re test to their current level, to catch up with anyone whos abilities have deterioted, this would again be at own expense, creating jobs etc.


Do you know how hard it is to get a test, how long in advance you have to book and how few examiners there are?? If everybody was taking a test once every two years the system would collaspe under the pressure

I agreed somewhat to the issue of driving powerful cars, but driving a micra for 2 or even 20 years and then changing to a high powered ferrai doesn't mean you whould be any better at driving it than some one who only has 6 months experience of driving a car.

I think you main issue here seems to be with young drivers. Not all young drivers are idiots on the road, and not all older more mature are sensible on the road.:

[Dead_One]

but the point would be that to drive the higher powered car, you would have to take a test specific to the car, not your age etc
so at 18 you could take the extra tests, pass them and drive a ferrari, knowing that you were capable.
as for the tag, it would be easy to have a credit card sized tag that you put into a slot on the dash, a pocket on the window etc.
if the tag was per driver, it would stop people using someone elses as well, for instance imagine using your dads tag, and the police pull you up because you look 18 not 40, have brown hair not blonde etc...

it would require the police to take on extra responsibilities, but it beats them sitting in laybys catching speeders...

As for re taking the tests, if everyone was having to do a 1/2 hour test every 2 years, the fees would cover new test centers, and new examiners etc.

thereby creating jobs and safer drivers.

The tiered test system would mean that all drivers would have a licence suitable for their driving ability, nothing to do with age etc

[Craig]

cant comment on the actuall dificultness level of the test, ask me once i've sat it, but the theory test was just a 15min inconvenience

as for looking like your dad, when i wore a fake moustache for hallowe'en i was a 100% spitting image of my dad, could've used his driving license (nearly)

[Dead_One]

but crag, you need to remember that both you and your dad are a bit wierd, in the looks dept.....

[Craig]

i prefer the term different or unique to wierd

[Da_Rebel]

Originally posted by Dead_One
but the point would be that to drive the higher powered car, you would have to take a test specific to the car, not your age etc

I have to disagree with you again on that one. My Dad was 27 when he passed his test and his first car, I remember, was quite powerful. However, he is not exactly the boy-racer type, so he had no problem in controlling it. So I don't think he should've been restricted to a Micra. Therefore testing on the engine size alone (what about 4.3l Land Rovers, etc?) would not really work I don't think. Also, test examiners are generally ex-driving instructors, as the job requires a lot of experience of learner drivers. So if they all became examiners, who would teach the new learners? And as stated earlier, the system would undoubtedly collapse. There are millions of ppl driving in Britain. About 5 times as many test centres would be needed as there are now. And it would turn into a hassle with all the extra days off work ppl would need.

Sorry, nice idea but rather flawed in my opinion.

[AlastairM]

there should be a tiered licence system, so a basic test would allow you to drive up to a certain performance of vehicle, say a micra or similar

Isn't this how the motorcycle tests are done, so you can't learn on a moped then jump on a ducatti.

Much as i'd dislike to be retested every few years, or if i changed my car, if it'd help get the dosy bint who pushed me onto the kerb whilst going round whitletts roundabout (she didn't even notice) or the idiot who didn't realise he was in the bus lane at the lights beside the police station off the road I could be persuaded.

If i'd help reduce my insurance it might be worth it as well.

Also, newly passed drivers should be required to have some marking on their vehicles for the first 6-12 months. I would have resisted this when I was 17 but now I'd rather know that the reason for 'over cautious' driving is down to lack of experience ranther than the driver being a muppet. I'd certainly make me more courteous if I was being held up by someone.

cheers

alastair

[The Pimp]

Originally posted by Da_Rebel
I have to disagree with you again on that one. My Dad was 27 when he passed his test and his first car, I remember, was quite powerful. However, he is not exactly the boy-racer type, so he had no problem in controlling it. So I don't think he should've been restricted to a Micra. Therefore testing on the engine size alone (what about 4.3l Land Rovers, etc?) would not really work I don't think. Also, test examiners are generally ex-driving instructors, as the job requires a lot of experience of learner drivers. So if they all became examiners, who would teach the new learners? And as stated earlier, the system would undoubtedly collapse. There are millions of ppl driving in Britain. About 5 times as many test centres would be needed as there are now. And it would turn into a hassle with all the extra days off work ppl would need.

Sorry, nice idea but rather flawed in my opinion.

Age means nothing in driving experience (look at the pensioners on the road and you will see that the age theory is complete tosh). If you have just passed your test regardless of how old you are, you should be limited to what type of vehicle you can drive until you have sufficient driving experience (minimum 12 months) alone (totally different to driving with an instructor) to know how different conditions need handling. Put someone who has been driving a month or so out on the road in today's & yesterdays conditions & a good guess at 8/10 of them will have an accident wether it involves another vehicle or not or spin it. Put someone else who has been driving a while (5 years plus or so) in the same vehicle and they will know how to control the car a lot better & how tro drive in the conditions.

[Dead_One]

Originally posted by Da_Rebel
I have to disagree with you again on that one. My Dad was 27 when he passed his test and his first car, I remember, was quite powerful. However, he is not exactly the boy-racer type, so he had no problem in controlling it. So I don't think he should've been restricted to a Micra. Therefore testing on the engine size alone (what about 4.3l Land Rovers, etc?) would not really work I don't think. Also, test examiners are generally ex-driving instructors, as the job requires a lot of experience of learner drivers. So if they all became examiners, who would teach the new learners? And as stated earlier, the system would undoubtedly collapse. There are millions of ppl driving in Britain. About 5 times as many test centres would be needed as there are now. And it would turn into a hassle with all the extra days off work ppl would need.

Sorry, nice idea but rather flawed in my opinion.

did you read the post above?

the rating system would be based on car performance, who mentioned engine size?
and as for test examiners, surely they can be trained i'm sure there are plenty of people looking for jobs. And if people had to take a couple of hours off work, or do it on a weekend, i don't feel that is too much to pay for safer roads.

There would be nothing to stop a new driver getting tested on the more powerful cars, but surely anyone sensible would agree that with anything, it is better to walk before you can run.

[Sharky]

Originally posted by The Pimp
If you have just passed your test regardless of how old you are, you should be limited to what type of vehicle you can drive until you have sufficient driving experience (minimum 12 months) alone (totally different to driving with an instructor)

Yes, driving alone is totally different to driving with an instructor, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the principle of haveing experience. I passed my test 18 months ago. I am insured on my parents car and have been since the day I passed.

However being at university I only drive occasionaly when I go home for the weekend. I drive a lot more over the holidays. It's not like I am driving everyday. However, I'm totally confident on the roads and in my driving ability.
Does this mean I should be able to drive a more powerful car in your eyes or not?? I suspect not.


Anyway the point I am trying to make is how would you know?

How would your 12 months experience be recorded. If you have had 12 months of insurance and no claims doesn't mean you have 12 driving experience, your car may have been sat outside your house and not touched the entire time.

If there was a efficient way to record "experience" then fair enough, but there isn't

[Dead_One]

i never mentioned having to have experience, just being tested.

However, if you ever go along ayr seafront there are lots of boy racers, who in their eyes are perfect drivers.
And most weekends some of them end up in fields, other cars, hedges or innocent people as they show how good they are at driving.

If you are a sensible driver, that would show in the test.
And if you had the knowledge that being caught for any unsafe driving or speeding would ban you from the higher level licences for a few years, that might encourage you more....

[shifty.ricky]

Originally posted by Dead_One
details, age, dob, address, insurance or tax details etc, so as cars drive along this could be monitored, which would help stop people driving with no insurance

You have to show insurance docs when you renew the tax therfore a car that is not insured cannot be taxed. So they should be easy to spot.

[Dead_One]

unless you cancel the insurance the day after you tax it
or it runs out 2 weeks later
or you use a trade policy
or you buy the car ready taxed
or..........


plus, how often do people get pulled for not having tax if they aren't speeding?

[Da_Rebel]

Originally posted by The Pimp
Age means nothing in driving

Put someone who has been driving a month or so out on the road in today's & yesterdays conditions & a good guess at 8/10 of them will have an accident wether it involves another vehicle or not or spin it.

The point I was making about age is not that they can't control the car. You want to restrict ppl from driving more powerful cars. Why? Because ppl who drive like nuts have more power to help them get in an accident. But not all ppl drive like nuts, even if they have just passed their test. So why should a 30-yr-old with a wife and 3 kids, for example be forced to drive a micra with barely enough room for a football?

And the car ppl drive in bad weather makes no difference to the likelihood of an accident. I know someone who spun a 1 litre Metro. Why? Because he was going downhill, towards a corner, blinded by a moron coming round the corner on full-beam, and he hit black ice. Wouldn't've made a difference if he were driving a 2.0 litre cavvy or something like that.

[Dead_One]

would have made a difference if he were driving to the conditions, driving slow enough that he could stop if the need arose.

and age shouldnt come into it anywhere, is about skill and attitude.
If a 30 year old is taking there test 1st time, there is nothing to stop them taking a higher level test, in my plan

[Herminator]

I agree that more testing needs to be done but every two years would be too much. Testing should be aimed more at certain levels of drivers, so new drivers should be retested after 18months and then maybe again after another few years. Only after the second or third test should they be able to drive anything over 1.5litres and no engine mods allowed at all.
They should also test people as they reach 50 years old and then once every 5 years after that, it doesn't have to be an in car test, just a check on things like eye sight and general health, although a short car test would be useful too. I'm not saying everyone over 50 is too old to drive but it's when the body starts to deteriate more for most people, so you can start to catch anyone who may be dangerous on the roads.
This may cause problems with old age people not being able to travel out regularly but they should be offered cheap taxis.
If anyone is in an accident and it is deemed to be their fualt then they should be made to sit a refresher test, not licence threatening on the first try but if they fail they have to repeat the test in a couple months, at which time a fialure could possibly ban them or just limit them to a less powerful car or no motorway driving, depending on how badly the test goes.
Electronic tagging would be useful for the authorities but people won't be happy with more of big brother watching them all the time.
It's time the government spent some money on the roads though and eliminated a lot of the dangerous spots, including adding lanes to a lot of roads where frustration causes people to try and overtake where it isn't safe. They've just had to cut back on rail which is rediculas, they're never going to cut down on traffic jams if they don't improve existing rail lines and add some more where needed.

[Forthy]

I don't think that the problem is with testing, it's the fact that they give licences to people who go on to abuse the privelage and drive like fools. More power to revoke driving licences would be the place to start, I reckon.

[shifty.ricky]

Originally posted by Dead_One
unless you cancel the insurance the day after you tax it
or it runs out 2 weeks later
or you use a trade policy
or you buy the car ready taxed
or..........


plus, how often do people get pulled for not having tax if they aren't speeding?

Not pulled. In cardiff we had alot of cars clamped last week as they had no tax. I must have seen 4 - 5 in 3 days alone.

[Forthy]

Originally posted by Dead_One
plus, how often do people get pulled for not having tax if they aren't speeding?

Tax isn't a "moving traffic offence" it's an excise thing. Totally different rules to everything else traffic. Your local council will normally remove and crush vehicles that have no tax and no current keeper with DVLA if you tell them about it, anything else is just down to luck of the draw.

[Da_Rebel]

Originally posted by Dead_One
would have made a difference if he were driving to the conditions, driving slow enough that he could stop if the need arose.

That's not the point I was trying to make. ppl can still have accidents due to carelessness in any performance of car, so with situations like that, car power/performance has nothing to do with it.

[Olicg]

i have to say not all young drivers are bad drivers. i know several and i wouldnt say that even one of them was a bad driver. the only person i know who is a bad driver is considerabley older and drives really crazy style (like 70 in 3rd gear going up a hill in a 30mph speed limit i kid u not). i have nearlly been in a accident when i was in a car that a young person was driving but this was when he was observing the speed limit on a country lane going round a tight corner and another car came round doing at least 50 in the other direction. the person who was driving the car i was in braked hard and steered into the verge and the other driver just braked hard gave us a dirty look and without gesturing sorry or something drove off again.

[Dead_One]

why has this turned into a young drivers are bad discussion?

Young drivers are no worse or better than older drivers, and in some cases older drivers can be a lot worse, ie 70-80 yr olds"i've never had an accident in 60 years driving, but i've seen a few behind me...!"

the problem is inexperienced, and thoughtless drivers.
if you are capable of safe driving, there is no harm in driving at 100= on a motorway, in the dry if traffic is light, or for that matter on a deserted country roud when you have good visability.

But a lot of people seem to think that rain, snow darkness, heavy traffic don't make any difference, and young drivers especially seem to think they are invulnrable, and do stupid things...