Harder driving tests considered

[Glaucus]

A harder test maybe

120hrs driving no way, I can't see that ever coming in, people need to drive to work, 120hrs would price so many people out the market. Public transport is at near maximum capacity, without more funding.

Can't see the 120hrs idea coming in, that's just going to be far too expensive. I think Pass Plus should be dropped and what it encompasses be brought into the test itself. Regular retesting is another good idea.

One big problem though, is that much of the dangerous driving we see would result in a fail in the test anyway, so making the test harder might not work.

trouble is re tests wont achieve allot, most people who drive can drive safely under a test, but once they're out on the road, they start ignoring everything and everyone, re testing wouldn't find that. Plus 95% of people would fail a re-test for the simple reason we all pick up bad habits, wouldn't be a major but I could see lots and lots of minor faults being picked up..

 

[toy_soldier]

So the new ideas might stop **** new drivers but what about the ones currently on the road?

Exactly! People who have already passed will accept it with open arms because its not them who has to work twice as hard to get their licence!

 

[Vertigo]

Whilst more thorough driver instruction and testing is no doubt going to help, I still think that a vast majority of accidents amongst young men are due to hormones and attitude more than they are to inexperience or inability.

For some people, it doesn't matter how long you had to spend as a learner or how hard the test was, once you've passed and get your mates in your car, you're going to act like a moron because you think it's "cool".

Short of raising the age for driving to 21, I'm not sure what can be done about this. Such a hike in the required age would never happen but I'd certainly save a shedload of lives.

On the subject of testing though, I certainly think they need to sort out the driving test. The current test certainly has much more "to do" than the old one I took in the 80s but I maintain that it's much easier to pass. This needs to be rectified. I also maintain that everyone should have to take a re-test every 10 years or they lose their license. This could be a far more cut-down test than the full, original one, but would still have numous benefits. I've yet to see a good argument against this yet the government never seem to even consider it.

 

[toy_soldier]

I also maintain that everyone should have to take a re-test every 10 years or they lose their license. This could be a far more cut-down test than the full, original one, but would still have numous benefits. I've yet to see a good argument against this yet the government never seem to even consider it.

That would be stupid! Another way to make money for the government though I suppose.

 

[Stellios]

Its a good idea, but in which case they need to slacken off a bit and allow people to drive how they are comfortable, not how the instructor/government wants you to.

IMO itll always be a case of learn to pass then learn to drive, as when your alone you drive as you want, and where you want without interference. The idea is a good one, but personally i think it would mean the instructors being a bit more slack and less intrusive so you actually feel liek your driving, and not learning to just pass.

 

[Vertigo]

That would be stupid!

Nice argument

Care to actually give some reasons why it would "be stupid" ?

As far as I can see it's a win-win situation for everyone. We end up with safer roads and the government makes more money out of the retests. I'd have no problems forking out for a retest every 10 years if it got some of the idiots off our roads who passed a test 40 years ago and have subsequently forgotten how to drive.

 

[Dolph]

Nice argument

Care to actually give some reasons why it would "be stupid" ?

As far as I can see it's a win-win situation for everyone. We end up with safer roads and the government makes more money out of the retests. I'd have no problems forking out for a retest every 10 years if it got some of the idiots off our roads who passed a test 40 years ago and have subsequently forgotten how to drive.

I can add some for you.

Driving is pretty much essential for day to day people in this country, so the risk you could lose your licence by failing a retest would make the scheme hated, unpopular and in most cases it wouldn't actually succeed in improving anything.

More police cars and more emphasis on observation and anticipation via campaigns/training would do far more and be far less invasive.

 

[toy_soldier]

Nice argument

Care to actually give some reasons why it would "be stupid" ?

As far as I can see it's a win-win situation for everyone. We end up with safer roads and the government makes more money out of the retests. I'd have no problems forking out for a retest every 10 years if it got some of the idiots off our roads who passed a test 40 years ago and have subsequently forgotten how to drive.

Well for a start all the bad habits people pick up would have to be ironed out before the retest surely? Even little things like taking your hands off the steering wheel in traffic or apporaching round abouts in the wrong gear etc (compared to how my instructor tells me to do it anyway) I just think it would be a big pain and I havent even passed my test yet.

 

[MrMatteh]

Can't they just do a few hours of drumming in to people the basics of lane discipline, correct light usage and that driving 40mph everywhere is not clever

say a 3 hour session like in A Clockwork Orange?

 

[al123]

The thing is how many people honestly drive like they were taught? As soon as you get out on your own people do stupid things. How many people do you know that crashed through their own fault within weeks (one of my mates managed it in hours) of passing their test?

Making people learn for longer is not really going to stop this, neither would re-tests to an extent because everyone can drive ‘sensibly’ when they want to, just most of the time people choose not to.

 

[Vertigo]

Driving is pretty much essential for day to day people in this country, so the risk you could lose your licence by failing a retest would make the scheme hated, unpopular and in most cases it wouldn't actually succeed in improving anything.

If you can't pass the retest then you don't deserve to be on the road. Even if you depend on your car, why should you be allowed to endanger others' lives?

Well for a start all the bad habits people pick up would have to be ironed out before the retest surely? Even little things like taking your hands off the steering wheel in traffic or apporaching round abouts in the wrong gear etc

The test could be a bit less "anal" than the original one. I see it more for identifying major flaws in peoples' driving rather than penalising relatively minor things like those you describe. Bad habits range from minor things like crossing your hands on the wheel to major issues which make you a danger to other road users. I see far too many people who simply have no idea how to drive, cutting people up, failing to indicate, hogging middle lanes of motorways and so forth. Most of these are simply bad habits which have got out of control but it's most often the older drivers who display these issues and retests would force such people to sort their driving out or get off the roads.

 

[Jimmi]

A retest every 10 years or so would definately be a good thing, both theory and practical (and i guess now this hazard perception thingy although i didnt have to do this originally). Only then will you get people having to actually read the highway code again and pay attention to the laws and also the hazards, which they switch off to once they have passed the test. The fear of failing either of these tests would hopefully increase peoples awareness.

But you also need proper policing of the roads as well (marked and unmarked cars), instead of this happy slapping of speed cameras everywhere.

 

[real]

Safe driving being introduced into the school curriculum is an excellent idea.

However I am of the opinion that the current practical driving test is ok, and is actually quite hard.

If any changes are to be made then I think that they should focus on the theory test. Make the questions go into more detail or even simply extend the test.

There will always be accidents as people will always make mistakes.

 

[Dolph]

If you can't pass the retest then you don't deserve to be on the road. Even if you depend on your car, why should you be allowed to endanger others' lives?

What will the test consist of though? Will it have anything to do with improving safety, it will it be another misguided, evidentially flawed problem like the speed kills campaign?

The test could be a bit less "anal" than the original one. I see it more for identifying major flaws in peoples' driving rather than penalising relatively minor things like those you describe. Bad habits range from minor things like crossing your hands on the wheel to major issues which make you a danger to other road users. I see far too many people who simply have no idea how to drive, cutting people up, failing to indicate, hogging middle lanes of motorways and so forth. Most of these are simply bad habits which have got out of control but it's most often the older drivers who display these issues and retests would force such people to sort their driving out or get off the roads.

I disagree with testing being the answer to this. Police out on the road pulling people over, chatting with them, even fining them (I don't agree with the idea of points in most cases) would provide a much better result than 10 yearly retesting IMO.

I fully agree that most of the drivers on the road probably shouldn't be there with their current habits, but I just believe that testing isn't the best way to deal with that.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Come on guys, when some of you took your test yea it may have been easy, but lets be realistic. Who passes first time these day's, not a lot of people at all test pass rates are pretty appauling in some places. Prehaps they could design a set program, which includes a lot of theory and a lot of practical. It took me three goes to pass, i did not think the current test was easy, and after each time i failed i had another load of tuition which i did actually think helped a lot and im a better driver for it, i picked up things during those lessons that i hadn't before. I think it would be pretty unfair to make it significatly harder, including the fact new drivers are already on a probation period of 2 years within these two years you can only get six points with the amount of cameras about you really have to be careful as possible which i am and i feel a better driver for this aswell.

 

[cheets64]

Simple just go to every Retail park in the UK and ban anyone on there after 8 pm they are the people who should not be on the road, like some tit in his CTR blasting about and trying to cut in at every junction, he nearly wiped out my sister and a taxi.

 

[cleanbluesky]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6223887.stm

What do people here think about this? I think it is a good idea to make the test harder, and to better reflect real life driving.

Possibly, but driving is increasingly becoming an economic challenge. It is sad to see things that can often be useful or neccesary placed out of reach of many people.

 

[Jimmi]

Simple just go to every Retail park in the UK and ban anyone on there after 8 pm they are the people who should not be on the road, like some tit in his CTR blasting about and trying to cut in at every junction, he nearly wiped out my sister and a taxi.

While your at it anyone over the age of 65, anyone who is slightly hesitant and anyone who doesnt indicate.

 

[Dashik]

Well guys I'm an ADI so heres my take on some of your comments so far

The best way to learn to drive is to drive, IE the more time behind the wheel with supervsion then the better a driver you are likely to be.

My experience is nearly all of my pupils pass first time with an average of 4 minor errors because I teach them to be a safe driver first then worry about the test because if your safe you pass anyway.

I am honest with all my pupils from the start and using the current DSA guide of 2 hours of lessons for each year of age they generally need between 40 and 60 hours of tuition and a similar amount of private practice with mum/dad/etc. Some more some less obviously.

The attitude of pass the test then learn to drive properly has to stop. Too many young people die believing there abilities are greater than their capability and dig themselves a hole they cant get out of!

Too many people are too concerened with getting through there test as quickly and cheaply as possible. This is in contrast to say an engineering firm asking somebody to operate potentially dangerous machinery, does the employee ask for the cheapest and shortest training then?

I beleive that increasing the training time and making it mandatory will allow for greater experiance and the building of GOOD SUSTAINABLE habits as opposed to bad habits picked up from mates who think they can teach and drive etc.

Also increasing the new driver probationary period will also make people think more carefully about maintaining the habits that will keep them alive by helping them to reduce speed and plan ahead where neccesary.

If you increase the skill level and cost associated with getting a license than are you not more likely to want to protect the license and yourself?

I wonder how many here would drive in the same manner if it cost them say £5000 in lessons and tests to get the license in the first place and if they lost it for some reason they had to spend the same again?

It will not unfortunately increase my earnings as more time with each pupil means less pupils overall, although to be fair as an industry I do feel we are undervalued and an increase in hourly rates is on the cards.

Despite the headline of £15 to £25 per hour depending on where you live you are lucky to see half those figures after expenses etc. So yes I think If these proposed changes go through and we are required to sign off on your training we will probably raise our charges accordingly.

After all we are teaching a life or death skill are we not?

So in short when you look for lessons the cheapest is not always the best and you should ask the Instructors grade and cost and what/how he will teach you to drive and listen to if hes saying he will teach you to be safe or if he's just selling lessons on price etc.

Just my thoughts.....

 

[The Edge]

I've thought for a while that the current test is too short, and that in fact a number of people are failed because the test is too short to properly assess a candidate's competance.

Think about how many people you know who have failed because of someone else's actions.

I wouldn't say that it needs to be harder, or that minumum hours tuition is the answer, but if you did two 45 minuite tests instead of one, or a longer 1.5 hour test, the examiner must be in a better position to decide how safe you are to be on the road.