92 in a 70

AdrianC

sevenhills wrote: »

I too would welcome more training, but someone that is barely competent when they have driven for 5,000 per year and still not learnt what they should be doing, will a couple of hours training help?

Regular retesting would.

One year after first pass, two years after that, five years after that, then every decade until ages 70, 75, 78, 80, then annual.
It'd pay for itself through fees.

Car_54

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Correct:D As probably 99.9% of the population that haven't had any points on their licence.

The .1% would include my wife:D

Dubious statistic alert! It's nearer 80%.

Johno100

AdrianC wrote: »

Regular retesting would.

One year after first pass, two years after that, five years after that, then every decade until ages 70, 75, 78, 80, then annual.
It'd pay for itself through fees.

Are you talking a full re-test or a paper/computer based reassessment? The later is potentially feasible but can you imagine the number of extra examiners, administrators and other backroom staff that would be needed to implement a full re-test programme with c45m licensing holders out there? You'd probably have to wait 10 years for your one year re-test.

AdrianC

Far lower than 80% of drivers, I'd say.

Just over 6% of driving licence holders had live points at the time of a 2015 FoI request.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/496734/FOIR4947_-_Total_number_of_driving_licences_with_and_without_penalty_points.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/496735/FOIR4947_-_Attachemnt.xls

And that's just current points, not historical ones. I doubt there are even accurate centralised figures on that, given that points fall off the record over five years, and given that they only got recorded centrally with the introduction of photocard licences. So a simple question - how many people have had points in the past, but not now? More than 2x as many as have them now? I would guess that it's easily way more than that. Both SWMBO and I for a start, plus my 80yo mother - so 100% of my immediate family. So that's more than the 20% figure, even without considering the number of licence holders who actually drive.

So remove the number of licence holders who don't drive from the total 46m licences - credibility check on that, in a country of 66m people, of whom 20% are under 16? 46m of a total of roughly 52m people hold licences, nearly 90%...? And that's before we exclude those in cities who never bothered to learn, those with medical reasons that prevent them driving, etc etc.

Johno - yes, a practical assessment. Not all 45m are active drivers, so wouldn't need re-testing. And it only needs to be half-hour slots at most - but longer after a fail.

Mercdriver

Probably an idea is for a refresher retest at 9 points that if you pass takes you back to 6 points.

Nick_C

AdrianC wrote: »

Regular retesting would.

One year after first pass, two years after that, five years after that, then every decade until ages 70, 75, 78, 80, then annual.
It'd pay for itself through fees.

Johno100 wrote: »

Are you talking a full re-test or a paper/computer based reassessment? The later is potentially feasible but can you imagine the number of extra examiners, administrators and other backroom staff that would be needed to implement a full re-test programme with c45m licensing holders out there? You'd probably have to wait 10 years for your one year re-test.

I would rather see us spending money on more driving instructors and examiners than on car repairs and hospital treatment.

Insurance premiums would fall.

Congestion and emissions would also fall if people changed their bad habits and started driving in a more considered manner.

AdrianC

Nick_C wrote: »

Congestion and emissions would also fall if people changed their bad habits and started driving in a more considered manner.

Especially if some of the incompetents gave up driving completely, unable to pass the re-test...

There's an elderly woman in our village, who learnt to drive in middle age or later. She is atrocious - and knows it. But it's apparently OK, because she only drives very slowly... Which doesn't help when she comes round a blind narrow bend on the wrong side of the road. Or when she meets something in a single-width stretch, and needs to reverse. Last time I came across the aftermath of that, the oncoming driver was just taking over from her, because she'd got it sideways in the lane...

daveyjp

I'm amazed with the number of warning signs of speed cameras all over the motorway network people still drive at illegal speeds.

I was on M74 yesterday, sign after sign of camera warnings, sure enough on a bridge a speed camera van, cue lots of heavy braking, too late by then.

Same on A65, lots of signs, van near Settle. He wouldn't earn much though as all the 'Sundays' were out doing 35-40 in their Jazz and Micras and holding up traffic.

AdrianC

Simple - camera warning signs have been crying "Wolf!" for decades.

And quite probably a lot of those braking weren't even exceeding the limit, they just panicked because their brains were in neutral.

Nick_C

All that braking for speed cameras makes an accident more likely. And is environmentally unfriendly.

And yes, people slowing to 55 to pass a speed camera in a 60 limit is annoying.

Actually, taking you eyes of the road to check your speed when approaching a speed camera (which are often there to enforce the speed limit in dangerous areas) isn't great either.