Govt announce increased speed limits.

myhooose

A system like the NPPL flying licence might work which requires an hours lesson with an instructor every 2 years. It is not a test and its purpose is to try and eliminate any bad habits that have crept in.

Maybe every 2 years is a bit too frequent, perhaps every 5 years?

neilmcl

myhooose wrote: »

A system like the NPPL flying licence might work which requires an hours lesson with an instructor every 2 years. It is not a test and its purpose is to try and eliminate any bad habits that have crept in.

Maybe every 2 years is a bit too frequent, perhaps every 5 years?

Maybe they should do this as part of, or in addition to speed awareness courses.

almillar

Speeding Kills? With the unfortunate exception of motorbikes, the faster you go, the safer you are. Up to and including air travel, down to cycling.
Driving tests - I've always thought it would be a good idea to simply have to to a test every time you want a licence. That means everyone gets tested at least every 10 years, over 65s (is that age right) more often, anyone disqualified or even that loses a licence will have to too. Honestly don't know what the extra cost would be, but a lot of people will either be off the road or will have to at least demonstrate an ability to drive to the L standard.
People who say they wouldn't want to do the test again? Get off the road! What do you think that licence is for?

Johno100

AdrianC wrote: »

Apart from a few stickers on the back of trucks (placed entirely voluntarily by the hauliers), there is no signage to redo. And the HC gets republished regularly anyway.

I couldn't agree more about retraining, but I'd include mandatory retests.

Retest 1yr after passing your test, then after another 2yrs (3yr from pass), then another 5 (8 since pass). Then every 10yrs until age 70, 75, 80, every 2yrs to 90, then every year. Fail a retest, and you get one resit within a month or two before your licence is revoked and you're back to L-plates. It'd be self-funding, too, from test fees - and that's ignoring the economic benefits of reduced collisions and traffic chaos due to bad driving.

When you have a government (and opposition parties) pledging to have a smaller public sector and less red tape I wouldn't hold your breath.

alleycat`

Even if this was possible i suspect it would be an interesting experiment in putting people out of work or, possibly, a boon for public transport (assuming it could take up the slack, which i doubt it could).

-
Edit: There is also the interesting side impact of what it would do to the new and used car market, insurance industries and the like.
-

As to the original point.

Allowing HGV's to make progress closer to that of "normal" traffic on single track carriageways, where appropriate, is probably a sensible solution.

There is little sense in allowing a car to travel at 60mph and a HGV at 40mph on the same roads where you are quite likely to put the car in conflict with traffic in the opposite direction.

Everyone will still be snookered when the HGV ends up behind a tractor mind you.

sh0597

So long as we don't see an increase in HGV accidents due to HGV's cornering too fast on country roads.

AdrianC

sh0597 wrote: »

So long as we don't see an increase in HGV accidents due to HGV's cornering too fast on country roads.

Nope, sorry, you're going to have to expand on the logic there...

photome

sh0597 wrote: »

Who is going to pay for all these extra tests?


Personally I find bad driving is usually wilful rather than due to lack of ability. Or it is down to lack of experience, which can only be improved by actually driving the car.

a driver may get more experience but doesnt mean they will improve, they may even get worse if they are bad to start with

retesting is a possible solution IMO paid for by the driver

Bantex_2

Nearly every serious accident seems to involve an HGV.

AdrianC

Bantex wrote: »

Nearly every serious accident seems to involve an HGV.

No, it really doesn't.