grandfather Driving rights

mark1959

Richard53 wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't believe this. I took my car test ten years before that (1971) and it was 45 minutes of intensive town driving, with an examiner with a detailed checklist. I can assure you there was plenty of traffic.


The motorbike test I took the following year was a joke, however. Literally twice round the block, once in each direction, and don't hit the examiner when he steps out for your emergency stop. That gave you a licence for any bike of any capacity.

Don't apologise mate, it was meant as a joke. There was indeed a few more elements to the test [driving]. There certainly was far less traffic about though. And the emergency stop on the motorbike he stepped out "in front of me" about 200 yards ahead. :cool:

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Comms69 wrote: »

There literally isn't enough time in the day to do that. 10mil people a year doing a test would cost an absolute fortune to administer.


Driver training course being given out for minor offences would be a good idea though.

It is crazy that people are demonstrably poor drivers yet there is no will to try and improve driving ability from the State.

Aside from the current system where you have to do something appalling to lose your licence (you can kill people and basically get a slap on the wrist with the "momentary lapse of concentration" excuse in court), so people do tend to think of them as rights (how many people do you hear on the Internet whining about being on 12 points and worrying about losing their licence as if it is somehow unfair and unreasonable).

I can think of how to square the circle:

- certain offences require a retest within 3 months of conviction. After 3 months without a pass, you lose you licence, and you can't retake within 3 months.

- anyone who gets 7 points or more is required to re-pass a test within 3 months. If they don't pass in that time, they lose their licence and they cannot retake within 3 months.

- serious offences are immediate withdrawal of licences, instead of the 12 point rule, basically, change the sentencing guidelines to encourage removal of licences, but don't necessarily impose a long term ban, and always have a re-test.

So, drive poorly over time and rack up points, you end up risking your licence much sooner, but can recover the situation.

Drive very badly, lose your licence but you can earn it back with a re-test.

Drive drunkenly or dangerously, then a ban for a serious amount of time, and always require a re-test after a ban.

So make losing the licence far easier, but don't make it a cliff edge except for the idiots who deliberately put people at risk.

Add in lower thresholds for being under 25, and then people will start driving like their licence is at risk, rather than driving like it is a right and going to Pepipoo to see how they can carry on driving like an idiot.

Richard53

mark1959 wrote: »

Don't apologise mate, it was meant as a joke.

I wasn't sure ...

mark1959 wrote: »

There was indeed a few more elements to the test [driving]. There certainly was far less traffic about though. And the emergency stop on the motorbike he stepped out "in front of me" about 200 yards ahead. :cool:

I took my test in Leeds (Horsforth centre) and my memory is that there was a lot of traffic. Possibly not as dense and frantic as today, but certainly very busy. My bike test was the same as you describe - you can genuinely call that a joke