Compulsory re-testing for over 65's

[Dum-Dum]

Yeah but consider the amount spent by the Government on Police & the NHS in dealing with RTCs, and how much it could be cut with additional tuition, and ultimately rooting out the people who just can't drive... I'd almost go as far as to suggest they'd have change from it after subsidising the additional tuition... Might even be able to put that towards seeing to the hideous state of the roads these days...

Yeah exactly, the last car crash I went to was 2 women on a roundabout, sub 15mph impact speed. however as usual one vehicle was smoking (read steaming from a popped radiator) and so the fire brigade were called, an ambulance for the party with the sore neck, possible whiplash and the police to close the road and report the accident.

So 2 fire engines (12 firefighters), a proper ambulance and a first responder (3 ambulance staff) and 2 police cars (4 coppers) were all on scene for about an hour. 20 hours of tax payers money at about £20 an hour for the wages = £400 then the injured party went to hospital for about 4 hours to be x rayed and that, well you can add another grand to the bill, plus then the time to finish the collision report book (about another 2 hours of police time) that then goes up to the collision investigators to decide weather or not to summons anyone to court for their part in the accident maybe another couple of hours of police time there then all the fuel for all the emergency vehicles and the share of brake tyre and misc wear on them and things that are used like a bag of sand by trumpton and all the bits that the ambulance use.

You can see how very quickly the cost to the tax payer for that incredibly minor accident runs to a couple of grand

Id reckon that a serious/fatal accident could cost the tax payer literally tens of thousands of pounds.

Just to throw my 2p in, I think people that drive for a living should have much more frequent driving assessments. Taxi drivers especially. f*cking nut jobs in the majority. And everyone everywhere should have a minimum of 5 hours indicator training and 10 hours roundabout/junction lane usage training. The number of times I've had to lock up the abs on a 3.5t transit because some retard doesn't know what lane to be in I don't know.

Yeah, every other car crash i see either involves a minicab or a delivery driver.

[kyleo92]

Personally I agree with the 10 year thing... only being 20 I am not the most experienced driver but I'm also not a boy-racer. However I drive for a living and know there are some people out there that just can't drive.. And I don't mean feeding the wheel properly, should be a test for reaction and observation.

I also believe that within driving if you choose to do something, do it! hesitant drivers are one of the most dangerous IMO

[strictly_perv]

IMO old people are dangerous, I've hit an old man in my old 306 once because is pulled out infront of me and "didn't see you" even with my lights on.
The amount of times I get stuck behind old farts creeping along at 20mph on a 60 road, breaking at every leaf they can just about see with the half blind eyes. Not safe. And we young drivers are the ones who pay high insurance!
I think insurers should do a study and mark down the average amount of dents and scratches on old and young drivers cars who do similar milage and then take a re think on there quotes
Put that in your old man Rover pipe and smoke it.

[Kezzieboy]

^^^ f*ck the cost, poor people should stick to buses, driving should be privileged and skilled.

With less people able to afford to drive and less people who are essentially too stupid to control a ton and a half of 120mph battering ram there would be less crashes and make it safer for the rest of us.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

DumDum you f*cking genius, because obviously having money makes you a better driver....good one.


Base it on driving ability, not privilege...I hope you're trolling.

[lewisdmz]

^^^ f*ck the cost, poor people should stick to buses, driving should be privileged and skilled.

With less people able to afford to drive and less people who are essentially too stupid to control a ton and a half of 120mph battering ram there would be less crashes and make it safer for the rest of us.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

You are trollling right?

[Kezzieboy]

eah but consider the amount spent by the Government on Police & the NHS in dealing with RTCs, and how much it could be cut with additional tuition, and ultimately rooting out the people who just can't drive... I'd almost go as far as to suggest they'd have change from it after subsidising the additional tuition... Might even be able to put that towards seeing to the hideous state of the roads these days...

Wont be a straight swap though will it, will require a very large initial investment, everyone will moan, it wont happen.

We have an odd national mentality. We hate change.

[Jonny81191]

IMO, It's the initial test that's the issue. I overtook a car in one of my lessons and the instructor went absolutely f*cking mental at me. Why? it was easily the safest and easiest overtake I have ever completed in damn near 4 years of driving..

But the nanny state we live in means people are TAUGHT to drive everywhere slowly and spending too much time looking at the speedometer/what's behind them. Anyone with eyes can see if there's anything behind them, why make special effort to look every ten seconds?? And speed limits? Don't get me started. I drive to college through a 30 limit that has cameras. If a kid wandered out on the road in front of the camera, the chance of me hitting them is 100000x more than if there was no camera. Why? cos I'm looking at the speedometer.

I agree that we should have compulsory skid pan, advanced driving, night and motorway lessons, but the main problem IMO is that the instructors are too focussed on getting you through your test. I remember my instructor saying to me that "you do a lot of driving outside of lessons don't you? Cos you're picking up some habits. Just concentrate on the proper way until you've passed your test, then you can learn to drive properly." WHAT THE f*ck? I'M HAVING f*cking LESSONS SO I CAN LEARN HOW TO f*cking DRIVE, IF I CAN DRIVE I'LL PASS THE TEST!! IF NOT, WHY THE f*ck AM I ALLOWED TO DRIVE A CAR?!

Anyway.... yeah, retests every 10 years would be a great way of sorting the frankly appalling driving in this country, but first of all we need to sort out what we're teaching new drivers.

[lewisdmz]

IMO, It's the initial test that's the issue. I overtook a car in one of my lessons and the instructor went absolutely f*cking mental at me. Why? it was easily the safest and easiest overtake I have ever completed in damn near 4 years of driving..

But the nanny state we live in means people are TAUGHT to drive everywhere slowly and spending too much time looking at the speedometer/what's behind them. Anyone with eyes can see if there's anything behind them, why make special effort to look every ten seconds?? And speed limits? Don't get me started. I drive to college through a 30 limit that has cameras. If a kid wandered out on the road in front of the camera, the chance of me hitting them is 100000x more than if there was no camera. Why? cos I'm looking at the speedometer.

I agree that we should have compulsory skid pan, advanced driving, night and motorway lessons, but the main problem IMO is that the instructors are too focussed on getting you through your test. I remember my instructor saying to me that "you do a lot of driving outside of lessons don't you? Cos you're picking up some habits. Just concentrate on the proper way until you've passed your test, then you can learn to drive properly." WHAT THE f*ck? I'M HAVING f*cking LESSONS SO I CAN LEARN HOW TO f*cking DRIVE, IF I CAN DRIVE I'LL PASS THE TEST!! IF NOT, WHY THE f*ck AM I ALLOWED TO DRIVE A CAR?!

Anyway.... yeah, retests every 10 years would be a great way of sorting the frankly appalling driving in this country, but first of all we need to sort out what we're teaching new drivers.

Complains about nanny state...

Suggests we have to take a test every 10 years or lose your licence...

[Jonny81191]

Complains about nanny state...

Suggests we have to take a test every 10 years or lose your licence...

The "nanny state" issue is that people (read instructors) always assume the best way is slowly and cautiously, cos anything else is dangerous and irresponsible, right? If we were to teach more about how to actually operate, control and "drive" a car then we'd be better off.

[Mattcheese31]

if you're gonna re-test old folks then re-test the bloody split arses too . . . . . get them all off the funking road . . .

[Dum-Dum]

^^^ f*ck the cost, poor people should stick to buses, driving should be privileged and skilled.

With less people able to afford to drive and less people who are essentially too stupid to control a ton and a half of 120mph battering ram there would be less crashes and make it safer for the rest of us.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

DumDum you f*cking genius, because obviously having money makes you a better driver....good one.


Base it on driving ability, not privilege...I hope you're trolling.

You have both misinterpreted my comment. I suggested that you should have both money and a brain to learn to drive, if your missing a brain or suitable funds then you shouldnt drive.

Those moaning about the cost of lessons, your average young driver insurance is £300 a month so how many lessons can you buy for £300 a month cos even if your getting ripped off its £50 a lesson so your looking at more than 1 a week. If your paying a sensible price then youll get 3 lessons a week for what your insurance is gonna cost you.

If you dont have the money to learn then you dont have the money to drive. END OF



I really think that the theory test should have elements of basic common sense motoring (not just knowing the highway code inside out) and also there should be reactions tests and also basic mechanical knowledge like changing a bulb or a spare wheel and what to do if your car starts making funny noises or feels like the wheels are gonna fall off (although really that should come under common sense)




I also think that you shouldnt be able to pass your test before your 18 so that 17 year olds get at least a year of practice and there should be a power to weight ratio cap on cars before your 21 and 25.

[Oil-burner]

They have to do a reaction test now, its called hazard perception!

---

Also you now have to have very basic under bonnet knowledge afaik

[cully]

lets also check the bank accounts of the parents that bring children into the world if the cant afford them the new borns should be exacuted

[Oil-burner]

Haha don your pitch forks boys its time for a stake burning! Lol

[Dum-Dum]

lets also check the bank accounts of the parents that bring children into the world if the cant afford them the new borns should be exacuted

You dont know how much of a good idea I think this is, Im sick of my taxes paying for lazy f*cking lady gardens who cant be bothered to get a job and just breed like rabbits to get more money for beer.

People who cant afford kids shouldnt be allowed kids.

People who have kids that the tax payer pays for should have them put into care/orphanages. This would stop them having more if they werent gonna get any more benefits.


I work hard for my money and I agree with alot of what my taxes are spent on but not people breeding kids for a living.

[Matty]

^^^ f*ck the cost, poor people should stick to buses, driving should be privileged and skilled.

With less people able to afford to drive and less people who are essentially too stupid to control a ton and a half of 120mph battering ram there would be less crashes and make it safer for the rest of us.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

DumDum you f*cking genius, because obviously having money makes you a better driver....good one.


Base it on driving ability, not privilege...I hope you're trolling.

You have both misinterpreted my comment. I suggested that you should have both money and a brain to learn to drive, if your missing a brain or suitable funds then you shouldnt drive.

...


If you dont have the money to learn then you dont have the money to drive. END OF

So why even mention the wealth of people...

f*ck the cost, poor people should stick to buses

[Dum-Dum]

Im saying that people shouldnt automatically assume they have the right to drive. It should be for those who are skilled enough only.

The wealth factor comes for those moaning that it is / would be too expensive to learn. my answer, dont learn then. I wasnt particularly talking about wealth at in lords and ladies wealth, im talking can afford to live a normal life money

[Niall]

actually for once, i agree with dum dum. Driving is a privilege and the biggest problem with this country at the moment is this mindset of thinking everyone deserves everything (Uni paid for by the government springs to mind here!)
If you are fortunate enough to be able to afford driving and be intelligent enough (be able to pass the tests), fine...you can drive but just because youve turned 17, doesnt automatically mean you have to be allowed to drive!
I do also think you should be limited on the car you can drive before your 21 (like on a bike). I know you are kinda limited by insurance but i know several people who had rich daddies who were driving things like cooper s works and 335coupes etc when they were 17. Sensible? not in the slightest!
as it is theres too many people on the roads in this country and we need to get rid of this mentality of everyone should be able to drive everywhere. Parents should not be allowed to drive their kids to school in their land rovers 'just because its raining'......its just turning into a nanny state!

[Oil-burner]

Someone voted conservative! Lol

[Matty]

Whether you afford it yourself as an individual, or have someone else helping you financially e.g. your dad, is completely irrelevant. It is completely down to the skill/awareness and how good they are at actually driving.

If you cannot afford it at all, individually or with help, then it's a given you won't drive. That's just obvious. I still don't see a reason to mention wealth. I'm assuming that's why you mention wealth...as if you cannot afford it, don't learn then, as you said above.

How 'they' come about affording to drive because they feel deserve to drive is irrelevant.

I think at the moment, the only thing that matters for me personally, is...................

are they a good driver? Obviously, people have different meanings of defining good. But obviously would be done by better means that at the moment, like the plenty of ideas above my post...

Just my opinions.

[kyleo92]

If you go on the basis of only people that can afford to drive will be privileged enough.. What about someone that drives for a living. if they need to drive to earn the money to be able To afford to drive (wow that sentence hurt my head)

[cully]

my mum never had cotton wool and i used to drink out of puddles

ive worked damn hard for what ive got
but if its available i will claim for what im entitled
but at present thats feck all

dont get me going on sponging barstools it winds me up GGGgrrrrrrrrr

[Oil-burner]

You go on about wealth but the highest percentage of bad drivers are daddy's boys who get powerful cars given to them and don't appreciate what they have because "it's ok daddy will fix it" you'll find the people who's first car was a 20yr old 1.1 fiesta will look after it because they struggle to keep it on the road so won't want to smash it up! We are a good example of this, lets face it we all drive old cars now, when you park in a carpark your careful not to bang your door into the next car because you wouldn't want it happening to you. Who's the people who usually just open the door without giving a shit? Executive car drivers and 4x4's! The same group of people who are steaming up and down the outside lane of the motorway at 100mph or tailgating and trying to intimidate other drivers.
also the biggest part of drink drivers are the higher earners who think nothing of having a bottle of wine with their cheese board and driving home combing their ancestral quiff!

We can all stereotype people because of their social status!

[Mattcheese31]

You go on about wealth but the highest percentage of bad drivers are daddy's boys who get powerful cars given to them and don't appreciate what they have because "it's ok daddy will fix it" you'll find the people who's first car was a 20yr old 1.1 fiesta will look after it because they struggle to keep it on the road so won't want to smash it up! We are a good example of this, lets face it we all drive old cars now, when you park in a carpark your careful not to bang your door into the next car because you wouldn't want it happening to you. Who's the people who usually just open the door without giving a shit? Executive car drivers and 4x4's! The same group of people who are steaming up and down the outside lane of the motorway at 100mph or tailgating and trying to intimidate other drivers.
also the biggest part of drink drivers are the higher earners who think nothing of having a bottle of wine with their cheese board and driving home combing their ancestral quiff!

We can all stereotype people because of their social status!

this man speaks sense . . . .and i'm not just sticking up for him coz he's local . . .

[Niall]

If you go on the basis of only people that can afford to drive will be privileged enough.. What about someone that drives for a living. if they need to drive to earn the money to be able To afford to drive (wow that sentence hurt my head)

if they drive for a living, their wage will cover the cost of the driving. And if they dont have a licence before they do their driving job, they wont get the job so thats ok!

[Matty]

I can see a lot of the arguments here, and agree with some of them to be fair...

but I also feel we've all some what left slightly the subject that is written above my post haha.

[kyleo92]

I know that, but I mean that only privileged people can do these jobs it's just penalized poorer people, more class discrimination.

I agree that most bad drivers are people that haven't 'earnt' there car, and have it all laid on a plate for them, I passed my test when I was 17 but couldnt afford to have a car until I was 19, scraped my £600 for my 1st car and £3000 insurance... 4 months later some stupid cow pulls out on me at a mini roundabout.. Probably too busy checking her hair in the mirror..

Back on topic, I agree with the 10 year retest or maybe when someone covers certain miles they have to retest but there will be no way to police that

[lewisdmz]

No matter how much right wing Daily Mail garbage you guys want to throw in, a 10 year compulsory retest will only put more of a squeeze on low income families which would inevitably result in thousands of families losing their licence because they can't afford the retest. For many of these this could mean also losing jobs.

I agree there are too many cars on the road but until the govt improve public transport (e.g. nationalise the lot) a car is required to get to many places of work. Do you think low income families should be pushed out of potential jobs because they can't afford yet another expense to run a car?

[Mattcheese31]

No matter how much right wing Daily Mail garbage you guys want to throw in, a 10 year compulsory retest will only put more of a squeeze on low income families which would inevitably result in thousands of families losing their licence because they can't afford the retest. For many of these this could mean also losing jobs.

I agree there are too many cars on the road but until the govt improve public transport (e.g. nationalise the lot) a car is required to get to many places of work. Do you think low income families should be pushed out of potential jobs because they can't afford yet another expense to run a car?

also very true . . . . . . hey guess what? when i was a boy public transport used to be owned by the public . . . . . .crazy eh? we'll be subcontracting MP's before long . .

[Dum-Dum]

If you go on the basis of only people that can afford to drive will be privileged enough.. What about someone that drives for a living. if they need to drive to earn the money to be able To afford to drive (wow that sentence hurt my head)

Your all getting me wrong. Im saying that driving is a privilage not a right regardless of class! People shouldnt automatically assume that they have a right to drive even if they are shit at it.

Also there is alot of jobs that you require special licences / tickets to do and alot of employers will pay for people to get these licences when they find the right people. Stuff like operating diggers on construction sites and SIA licences

You go on about wealth but the highest percentage of bad drivers are daddy's boys who get powerful cars given to them and don't appreciate what they have because "it's ok daddy will fix it" you'll find the people who's first car was a 20yr old 1.1 fiesta will look after it because they struggle to keep it on the road so won't want to smash it up! We are a good example of this, lets face it we all drive old cars now, when you park in a carpark your careful not to bang your door into the next car because you wouldn't want it happening to you. Who's the people who usually just open the door without giving a shit? Executive car drivers and 4x4's! The same group of people who are steaming up and down the outside lane of the motorway at 100mph or tailgating and trying to intimidate other drivers.
also the biggest part of drink drivers are the higher earners who think nothing of having a bottle of wine with their cheese board and driving home combing their ancestral quiff!

We can all stereotype people because of their social status!

Bad driving comes from every faction of society, TRUST ME, it just tends to be more obvious with cocks with fast cars because theyer going faster with their bad driving.

Also in my experience drink drivers arent poshos, they're entirely lower middle class, the sort of person with a job and a criminal record.

No matter how much right wing Daily Mail garbage you guys want to throw in, a 10 year compulsory retest will only put more of a squeeze on low income families which would inevitably result in thousands of families losing their licence because they can't afford the retest. For many of these this could mean also losing jobs.

I agree there are too many cars on the road but until the govt improve public transport (e.g. nationalise the lot) a car is required to get to many places of work. Do you think low income families should be pushed out of potential jobs because they can't afford yet another expense to run a car?

A 10 year retest wont put more of a squeeze on low earners, we come back to the if you cant afford it, dont drive. Whats a test at the moment, about £50? So £50 over 10 years is £5 a year or 42p a month. Im sorry but if you cant spare 42p a month then you dont have the money to run a car and shouldn't be driving.


I do agree about public transport being re nationalised, how is it right that big companies are making millions of pounds off it but yet the service gets worse? At least if it was the government making the money they could use it to improve the service or more likely start a bombing campaign on some country ive never heard of.