84 yr old wrong way on motorway

Car_54

Ashingtonian wrote: »

It would be logistically impossible to retest everybody once they reach a certain age, the waiting list for normal driving tests now is between 2-3 months.

Not at all. The DVSA which runs driving tests is self-financing.

However, if we had tests every 10 years (say) that would mean an extra 3 million tests annually, or a 200% increase on the present number.

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

Not at all. The DVSA which runs driving tests is self-financing.

However, if we had tests every 10 years (say) that would mean an extra 3 million tests annually, or a 200% increase on the present number.

So there would be a period of recruiting and training examiners, and opening/extending test centres. Bring the retests in gradually, with the demand and supply meeting each other.

But it would still - in the long term - be self-financing.

benten69

Lets keep it simple, ban everyone from driving, apart from recognised professionals who have to obtain some sort of permit....lets call it a licence....only those who hold such a licence can drive on our roads. Being professionally certified, surely they will be safer than use mere mortals. :rotfl:

Herzlos

Ashingtonian wrote: »

It would be logistically impossible to retest everybody once they reach a certain age, the waiting list for normal driving tests now is between 2-3 months.

The re-test need not be anything like as long as the current test. Even 10 minutes driving with an instructor asking questions should do it.

IMO the minimum age should be raised a year to 18 (can start driving at 17 on L plates but no test till 18), followed by severe restrictions on car engine power until the age of 25.

I don't think engine size or power has any real effect in most accidents. It's usually lack of attention or overestimating something. A big one seems to be differences in braking effects for empty (driving test) Vs full cars (taking everyone home from pub).

AdrianC

Herzlos wrote: »

The re-test need not be anything like as long as the current test. Even 10 minutes driving with an instructor asking questions should do it.

You get into a law of diminishing returns, though, with the split between appointment length and actual testing time. And that's before you factor traffic into it.

Have a half-hour appointment, and you probably get 10-15min of actual driving, by the time the paperwork's done, driver and instructor are in the car, and on the road. If traffic's heavy, you might get to the traffic lights at the end of the road, across the junction, round the block, and back to the test centre. Not much of an assessment.

Have an hour appointment, and you get three times the driving time.

Herzlos

True, but presumably you're not looking to see if they know how to drive (because they already passed that test) but what their road control and awareness is like and you can tell that a lot quicker with hopefully less paperwork.

Apparently the standard test is about 40 minutes now, so presumably you can cut that in half easily enough. Maybe extend it for busy traffic areas to account for traffic.

My point was largely that doubling the number of tests taken per year doesn't necessarily need to double the time spent on tests, and therefore staffing.

[Deleted User]

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, and in terms of deaths and serious injuries relative to distance travelled, I believe pedal cycles are considerably higher.

"The pattern for pedal cycles is an interesting one: the overall casualty rate of around 5,800 casualties per billion miles cycled is close to the motorcycling casualty rate, whereas the fatality rate of around 31 per billion miles cycled is much closer to the pedestrian rate."
(Chart 2)

Robisere

FatAlbert:
In my 12 years of service, I was on several exercises. I also saw service in Aden, Borneo during the Confrontation, and N.I. My rank is irrelevant to my life now and has been for many years. I refuse to pull up a sandbag and swing the lamp with you.

I see you are a Hammers fan and that for me is your saving grace. In '66 I was AWOL and saw every England game, including the Final. I was among a large group of Hammers fans and one family took me to their home for the next few days, I had a great time among some smashing people, although it cost me 28 days out of my life, it was worth it.

Fat_Walt

Robisere wrote: »

FatAlbert:
In my 12 years of service, I was on several exercises. I also saw service in Aden, Borneo during the Confrontation, and N.I. My rank is irrelevant to my life now and has been for many years. I refuse to pull up a sandbag and swing the lamp with you.

I see you are a Hammers fan and that for me is your saving grace. In '66 I was AWOL and saw every England game, including the Final. I was among a large group of Hammers fans and one family took me to their home for the next few days, I had a great time among some smashing people, although it cost me 28 days out of my life, it was worth it.

You've stacked blankets all round the world or were you peeling spuds?

[Deleted User]

I wouldn`t be surprised if this old lad was taking a prescription pain killer such as "Lyrica " real name Pregabalin . Its a common pain killer initially developed for epilepsy control but now used as a pain killer alongside morphine.
Pregabalin side effects are confusion . My partner now takes it a lot and she is away with the fairies after taking 200mg ! Its worse than morphine !