Bad traffic enforcement

[JamesT]

I'm quite surprised that noone has suggested technology as a solution to this. We're probably at the point now where every car could be fitted with a permanent AI 'examiner', that monitors your driving standard. I'd hope that it wouldn't be used to fine you for doing 31 in a 30 zone, but perhaps to give your driving a star rating. 4 or 5 stars - great, no problem, keep up the good work. 3 stars, perhaps you have a month (or 1000 miles) to get your score up, or face something like a speed awareness course. 2 stars - you need to take that course. 1 star - retest required.

It would include a camera to id the driver, so sharing a car doesn't impact the registered keepers score.

Sounds very much like big brother to me, but I suspect it would achieve far more than a retest every 10 years.

You can voluntarily have such a black box in your car, usually supplied by your insurer who will give you a discount if you drive smoothly.
However, I’ve seen some complaints recently about Motability introducing this. Drivers with hand controls find it almost impossible to avoid some jerkiness, even if they’re driving well.

 

[BayPaul]

You can voluntarily have such a black box in your car, usually supplied by your insurer who will give you a discount if you drive smoothly.
However, I’ve seen some complaints recently about Motability introducing this. Drivers with hand controls find it almost impossible to avoid some jerkiness, even if they’re driving well.

I'm talking about effectively the next generation of this, not just looking at jerky driving, but with a camera checking distance to the car in front, position on the road, compliance with signs, reaction to hazards, potentially also checking your attention on the road ahead etc.

To be clear, it sounds utterly foul to me, but tech is probably just about at the point it could produce something meaningful with the data, and I think it would work to raise driving standards.

Edit... I'd also expect a decent system to be able to take full account of drivers who need to use hand controls.

 

[Hadders]

@Shrop believes that mandatory retesting for drivers will improve safety and on face value there is some merit in that thought. However there are several aspects of this approach that have not been clarified or addressed. For example:

• Where is the capacity coming from to conduct, administer and pay for the retesting? If drivers have to pay then what would be the expected cost and would this be politically acceptable? There are large lacklogs for driving tests at present, even though the fee is £62
• Let's say drivers have to be retested every 10 years then practically how would that work? Would you be able to book a restest 6 months before the expiry? Or a year? What if you couldn't get a restest date before expiry? Would a period of grace be allowed? If so how long?
• What would the expected pass rate be? If it's 100% then you might as well not bother.
• If someone fails what happens next? Are they prohibited from driving immediately? Can they carry on driving as long as they book a retest? What if a retest cannot be booked before the 10 years is up?
• What is the impact on the economy and society if people fail a retest and are banned from driving. Thinking of things like loss of jobs and income, the impact on family, impact on employers if a worker has to leave with no notice, the increased cost of benefits while the person seeks alternative employment (and don't say they wouldn't be entitled to anything because that just wouldn't happen in reality)
• Against this you would need to balance the expected upside from such a retesting policy. Would there be a lower death and casulaty rate? I don't know but you'd need to measure the benefits against the cost and I honestly dount it would stack up.

It's also worth noting that it's not as though we haven't done anything in this area. In my driving lifetime we've seen:

• Introduction of the theory test
• Hazard analysis added to the theory test
• Changes to the practical test resulting in a longer test
• New driver license revocation of 6 points are accumulated within 2 years of passing
• Widespread introduction of speed cameras
• Inceased penalties for causing death by dangerous driving
• Implementation of the National Driver Improvement Scheme for Offenders
• There are proposals for stricter rules on new drivers and mandatory eye tests for older drivers

Road deaths have fallen dramatically in the last 50 years from over 7,000 annually in the mid 1970s to around 1,600 now despite a huge increase in vehicles and traffic during that time. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do more to to reduce this further, but I doubt compulsory retesting of drivers, with all the cost and inconvenience associated with it, will have the impact that @Shrop believes it will.

 

[Krokodil]

At the very least people should be re-taking the theory test periodically. The rules of the road have changed since most people last took it (if they ever did).

 

[Shrop]

@Shrop believes that mandatory retesting for drivers will improve safety and on face value there is some merit in that thought. However there are several aspects of this approach that have not been clarified or addressed. For example:

• Where is the capacity coming from to conduct, administer and pay for the retesting? If drivers have to pay then what would be the expected cost and would this be politically acceptable? There are large lacklogs for driving tests at present, even though the fee is £62

Job creation - quite a lot of it, and paid for by the re-test fee. As I've said upthread, a couple of £hundred for a re-test is pretty small beer compared to most other costs of running cars. Especially when many people pay £thousands for features well above what they actually need, just because they can afford to. Don't worry about pointing out exceptions to this, I know already, which is why the proposal needs developing and refining.

• Let's say drivers have to be retested every 10 years then practically how would that work? Would you be able to book a restest 6 months before the expiry? Or a year? What if you couldn't get a restest date before expiry? Would a period of grace be allowed? If so how long?

You could take a re-test as soon as you want, even just after 2 or 3 years, but why would you want to? Booking a test in close to the 10 year expiry date would be fine, but it would be advisable to ensure that enough time is available for the re-test.

• What would the expected pass rate be? If it's 100% then you might as well not bother.

It's pretty unlikely to be 100%, but even it it was, then at least drivers will have had their minds re-focussed on many practical aspects of driving.

• If someone fails what happens next? Are they prohibited from driving immediately? Can they carry on driving as long as they book a retest? What if a retest cannot be booked before the 10 years is up?

Failures would allow continuation of driving until the 10 years is expired. People who rely on their cars for work would be prudent to take their re-tests early in their tenth year rather than leaving it until the last minute. Failures after 10 years would revert to learner status.

• What is the impact on the economy and society if people fail a retest and are banned from driving. Thinking of things like loss of jobs and income, the impact on family, impact on employers if a worker has to leave with no notice, the increased cost of benefits while the person seeks alternative employment (and don't say they wouldn't be entitled to anything because that just wouldn't happen in reality)
• Against this you would need to balance the expected upside from such a retesting policy. Would there be a lower death and casulaty rate? I don't know but you'd need to measure the benefits against the cost and I honestly dount it would stack up.

It's also worth noting that it's not as though we haven't done anything in this area. In my driving lifetime we've seen:

• Introduction of the theory test
• Hazard analysis added to the theory test
• Changes to the practical test resulting in a longer test
• New driver license revocation of 6 points are accumulated within 2 years of passing
• Widespread introduction of speed cameras
• Inceased penalties for causing death by dangerous driving
• Implementation of the National Driver Improvement Scheme for Offenders
• There are proposals for stricter rules on new drivers and mandatory eye tests for older drivers

Road deaths have fallen dramatically in the last 50 years from over 7,000 annually in the mid 1970s to around 1,600 now despite a huge increase in vehicles and traffic during that time. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do more to to reduce this further, but I doubt compulsory retesting of drivers, with all the cost and inconvenience associated with it, will have the impact that @Shrop believes it will.

I can't say how much of an impact it would have. I just think that 1600 deaths every year plus 28000 serious injuries is too much to simply say we're doing enough already. Especially when most of us regularly see driving which appears to warrant either re-focussing or punishment.

I've also never said that re-testing is the whole solution to safer driving, we need a lot more enforcement too. And at the same time, a review of speed limits, some of which are inappropriate and too low.

Also for example, stop this excessivly harsh punishment of £100 for just 5mph over the speed limit, and focus more harshly on those who exceed it by 20mph or more. Doing just 5mph over should attract only a warning for the first offence, then a fine faster 2 offences.

 

[Hadders]

Job creation - quite a lot of it, and paid for by the re-test fee. As I've said upthread, a couple of £hundred for a re-test is pretty small beer compared to most other costs of running cars. Especially when many people pay £thousands for features well above what they actually need, just because they can afford to. Don't worry about pointing out exceptions to this, I know already, which is why the proposal needs developing and refining.

It sounds like you can afford £200 and so could I but for many people, earning close to the minimum wage and who rely on their cars for every day aspects of day to day life that would cause significant hardship. Consequently it wouldn't be politically acceptable.

You could take a re-test as soon as you want, even just after 2 or 3 years, but why would you want to? Booking a test in close to the 10 year expiry date would be fine, but it would be advisable to ensure that enough time is available for the re-test.

Failures would allow continuation of driving until the 10 years is expired. People who rely on their cars for work would be prudent to take their re-tests early in their tenth year rather than leaving it until the last minute. Failures after 10 years would revert to learner status.

So you can't see the sort of issues that mighrt arise then? Let's say I schedule a test a month before the 10 year deadline, it gets cancelled due to bad weather so I reschedule but there's a three month wait. Or what happens if I'm ill? Or the test centre cancels. Or what if I fail and there's a six week wait for another test.

You might think I'm nit picking and looking for issues but these sort of things are just the tip of the iceberg. In reality it would end up being a complete farce if people who couldn't get a retest before the 10 year deadline reverted to learner status.

Also for example, stop this excessivly harsh punishment of £100 for just 5mph over the speed limit, and focus more harshly on those who exceed it by 20mph or more. Doing just 5mph over should attract only a warning for the first offence, then a fine faster 2 offences.

We already have a graduated system of driver discipline when it comes to speeding:

Up to 9mph+2% above the speed limit and you'll normally be offered a speed awareness course (unless you've already completed one in the last three years)
Speeds upto 20mph the limit are normally dealt with by a fixed penalty notice costing £100 and 3 points
High speeding offences, usually 20moh above the limit, are normally dealt with by issuing a court summons where the outcome is usually more points plus a larger fine
Very high speed offences normally result in a ban
Getting 12 or points in a three year period usually results in a six month ban.

 

[Shrop]

It sounds like you can afford £200 and so could I but for many people, earning close to the minimum wage and who rely on their cars for every day aspects of day to day life that would cause significant hardship. Consequently it wouldn't be politically acceptable.

It isn't £200 every year, it's once every 10 years, ie £20 per year. That's less than a meal for two isn't it? Or a round of drinks? Just for an interruption in people's lives once every ten years in the name of road safety.

So you can't see the sort of issues that mighrt arise then? Let's say I schedule a test a month before the 10 year deadline, it gets cancelled due to bad weather so I reschedule but there's a three month wait. Or what happens if I'm ill? Or the test centre cancels. Or what if I fail and there's a six week wait for another test.

Why not schedule it early in the tenth year to avoid these risks? And genuinely difficult circumstances such as illnesses or cancellation by the examiner due to bad weather, could qualify for an extension. As I said, it needs developing, I don't have all the answers straight away.

You might think I'm nit picking and looking for issues but these sort of things are just the tip of the iceberg. In reality it would end up being a complete farce if people who couldn't get a retest before the 10 year deadline reverted to learner status.

We already have a graduated system of driver discipline when it comes to speeding:

Up to 9mph+2% above the speed limit and you'll normally be offered a speed awareness course (unless you've already completed one in the last three years)
Speeds upto 20mph the limit are normally dealt with by a fixed penalty notice costing £100 and 3 points
High speeding offences, usually 20moh above the limit, are normally dealt with by issuing a court summons where the outcome is usually more points plus a larger fine
Very high speed offences normally result in a ban
Getting 12 or points in a three year period usually results in a six month ban.

Have you never received a penalty from a camera, with a fine or mandatory course (costing about the same as the fine)? Have things changed since Covid? Can I expect that next time I exceed a speed limit by a small amount then I won't get any more than a warning?

 

[Bald Rick]

Up to 9mph+2% above the speed limit and you'll normally be offered a speed awareness course (unless you've already completed one in the last three years)

typically (but not always):

up to 10% + 2mph over, no action

above that, but up to 10% + 9mph over, Speed awareness course (subject to 3 year repeat rule)

above that, fixed penalty (£100) + 3 points.

Then if you in a 40 limit or higher, going 26mph over the limit is where summoning for a court appearance comes into play (20 limit, 35mph+; 30 limit 50mph+)

So for a 70mph limit, up to 78mph no action, 79-86mph speed awarenes, 87-95mph fixed penalty, 96mph+ a trip to see the person with a funny wig. Anecdotally, over 100mph is very likely to lead to a 12month minimum ban.

In a 30 limit, its 34 / 42 / 50 respectively.

These are the National Police Chiefs‘ Council guidelines. But they are guidelines.

This was the most interesting thing I learned on my one and only speed awareness course about a decade ago.

 

[BayPaul]

It isn't £200 every year, it's once every 10 years, ie £20 per year. That's less than a meal for two isn't it? Or a round of drinks? Just for an interruption in people's lives once every ten years in the name of road safety.

Why not schedule it early in the tenth year to avoid these risks? And genuinely difficult circumstances such as illnesses or cancellation by the examiner due to bad weather, could qualify for an extension. As I said, it needs developing, I don't have all the answers straight away.

People aren't perfect. They tend to leave things to the last minute. They also don't see it as £20 a year, but £200. For many people that's a significant sum of money. Yes, many spend way more than that on optional extras for their car, but many more buy a simple second hand runaround, and their needs are equally important.

And like others, I'm far from convinced it'll make much difference to road safety. People will behave for their test, scrape by with half a dozen minor faults, then go back to driving normally.

 

[Shrop]

People aren't perfect. They tend to leave things to the last minute. They also don't see it as £20 a year, but £200. For many people that's a significant sum of money. Yes, many spend way more than that on optional extras for their car, but many more buy a simple second hand runaround, and their needs are equally important.

£200 seems to be about the amount that most people have purely as an increase on their Council Tax. Every single year.

And like others, I'm far from convinced it'll make much difference to road safety. People will behave for their test, scrape by with half a dozen minor faults, then go back to driving normally.

Are you forgetting that enforcement against bad driving is a major part of this too?

 

[Hadders]

It isn't £200 every year, it's once every 10 years, ie £20 per year. That's less than a meal for two isn't it? Or a round of drinks? Just for an interruption in people's lives once every ten years in the name of road safety.

Don't under estimate the impact that asking people to pay £200, even every ten years will have. Presumably if you fail the retest and have to take it again you'll need to pay again.

1 in 6 of the UK population have no savings. A quarter have savings of less than £200.

Have you never received a penalty from a camera, with a fine or mandatory course (costing about the same as the fine)? Have things changed since Covid? Can I expect that next time I exceed a speed limit by a small amount then I won't get any more than a warning?

I'll probably jinx it by saying this, but in 38 years of driving I've not been given any penalty points or attended a speed awareness course. In that time I've driven all over the country for business and leisure. I estimate I've driven around a million miles since passing my test.

£200 seems to be about the amount that most people have purely as an increase on their Council Tax. Every single year.

It's not. Average Band D council tax in England is £2,280 for the forthcoming year with the average increase being 5%, ie £108. It does of course vary by council area and depends on which band you're in.

The underlying point though is that compulsory retesting would add further cost to people, many of whom live on a hand to mouth basis. If something like this were to happen then there would have to be some very significant benefits, and I suspect there will be better ways to achieve this.

 

[JohnofWessex]

Before we start looking at retesting what about enforcement and removing licences from those who are clearly unable to drive safely?

 

[sprunt]

So you can't see the sort of issues that mighrt arise then? Let's say I schedule a test a month before the 10 year deadline, it gets cancelled due to bad weather so I reschedule but there's a three month wait. Or what happens if I'm ill? Or the test centre cancels. Or what if I fail and there's a six week wait for another test.

It's not difficult to write rules around this.

If you request an appointment at least [some period to be determined] before it's ten years since your last test, you're guaranteed to get an appointment in time. If we can't give you such an appointment, you are entitled to continue driving until we can give you the appointment.
If the appointment is cancelled due to weather reasons, or illness, or the test centre cancels (or whatever other reasonable circumstance may be covered by the rules) same applies - you can carry on driving until your rescheduled test date. If you just choose to rearrange, then the date may be after your licence expires, and that's tough luck, you should have been better organised.

If you fail, your licence is withdrawn immediately. I don't see why we'd be making arrangements for the convenience of the people the system is supposed to prevent driving.

 

[edwin_m]

If you fail, your licence is withdrawn immediately. I don't see why we'd be making arrangements for the convenience of the people the system is supposed to prevent driving.

That means you and your vehicle are stuck at the test centre unless and until someone else can drive you home - unlike a normal test where the learner would have arrived with someone else in the vehicle. At least give them permission to drive home?

 

[sprunt]

That means you and your vehicle are stuck at the test centre unless and until someone else can drive you home - unlike a normal test where the learner would have arrived with someone else in the vehicle. At least give them permission to drive home?

Yes. It would be a possibility the driver is aware could be an outcome and they should prepare for that.

(FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the proposal but if it were implemented that's how I'd do it)

 

[35B]

Yes. It would be a possibility the driver is aware could be an outcome and they should prepare for that.

(FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the proposal but if it were implemented that's how I'd do it)

There’s a catch-22 there, though. It’s a reasonable precaution but will be one of the highest risk situations for a driver as they compute the implications. It’s noticeable that learners are not allowed to drive home after passing by their instructors because of the emotions of the moment.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It’s noticeable that learners are not allowed to drive home after passing by their instructors because of the emotions of the moment.

After my own test over 20 years ago I wasn't - but my instructor said it was something to do with the insurance cover being for himself and named drivers plus learners only; a passed driver who was not named on his policy would not be covered.

My daughter passed in January this year and was allowed to drive herself back - so it could be something to do with specific insurance policies rather than a blanket ban?

 

[35B]

After my own test over 20 years ago I wasn't - but my instructor said it was something to do with the insurance cover being for himself and named drivers plus learners only; a passed driver who was not named on his policy would not be covered.

My daughter passed in January this year and was allowed to drive herself back - so it could be something to do with specific insurance policies rather than a blanket ban?

Interesting - my daughter’s instructor didn’t mention insurance to her, and her friends are all getting the same treatment.

 

[edwin_m]

Insurance for learner drivers is much cheaper than for drivers who have just passed their test. I believe this is because learners tend to be cautious and will be accompanied by an experienced driver, but some change their attitude after they pass.

 

[35B]

Insurance for learner drivers is much cheaper than for drivers who have just passed their test. I believe this is because learners tend to be cautious and will be accompanied by an experienced driver, but some change their attitude after they pass.

Learners are under supervision, so benefit from the credit given to their supervisors. Qualified drivers only have their own, and their peer group's, reputations to support them.

The significance, though, is in the road hazard that is being introduced in the supposed interests of road safety, by creating circumstances in which drivers will lose their licenses. I've no idea of the net effect on safety, but the debit has to be acknowledged - not wished away.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Everyone who is currently lawfully driving has passed their driving test. This means that they can drive to the required minimum standard because they did drive to the required minimum standard.

So how many people do we think would actually fail a mandatory re-test? It may catch the odd person who has a degenerative brain condition and it may catch the odd person who is too stupid to reign in any bad habits that they have. But I'd fully expect the pass rate of mandatory re-tests to be in the very high 90s. And if nearly everyone passes a test, what is the point of the test?

 

[35B]

Everyone who is currently lawfully driving has passed their driving test. This means that they can drive to the required minimum standard because they did drive to the required minimum standard.

So how many people do we think would actually fail a mandatory re-test? It may catch the odd person who has a degenerative brain condition and it may catch the odd person who is too stupid to reign in any bad habits that they have. But I'd fully expect the pass rate of mandatory re-tests to be in the very high 90s. And if nearly everyone passes a test, what is the point of the test?

I'm not convinced about this logic. Assuming no change in the content of the test, the assumption that you or I passed a test 30 years ago means that we will pass an equivalent today is bold. We may may have learned bad habits, we may have lost touch with the requirements of the test, or we may just have a bad day.

That means both that such a test may screen out more than you assume, and that concerns about the consequences are worth considering.

In either case, it is far from convincing that building the superstructure of a retest system will deliver proportionate results.

 

[Krokodil]

This means that they can drive to the required minimum standard because they did drive to the required minimum standard.

Mr Magoo did drive to the required minimum standard when he got his licence but that doesn't mean that he can drive to the required minimum standard, given what's happened to his eyesight in the meantime.

Perhaps we should start retesting at 70, or at the very least making renewal conditional on passing an eye test. Opticians and GPs may be reluctant to say that someone is unsafe to drive but flipping the question around and asking them to certify that someone is safe to drive should focus their minds.

 

[stuu]

I would suggest that regularly retesting the theory is the important thing, how many people have any idea of changes to the highway code since they passed?

 

[Llanigraham]

Everyone who is currently lawfully driving has passed their driving test. This means that they can drive to the required minimum standard because they did drive to the required minimum standard.

So how many people do we think would actually fail a mandatory re-test? It may catch the odd person who has a degenerative brain condition and it may catch the odd person who is too stupid to reign in any bad habits that they have. But I'd fully expect the pass rate of mandatory re-tests to be in the very high 90s. And if nearly everyone passes a test, what is the point of the test?

Having been a driving assessor for a charity it is surprising how many people have developed habits that would mean they would fail a driving test now, and that ISN'T neccessarily the older generation either. Some couldn't even pass the Theory Test, having not read the Highway Code since their test. It is why we ended up encouraging all our volunteers to take a recoginesed Defensive Driving Course.
I'm now a Volunteer Car Service driver with Welsh Ambulance Service, and all new volunteers have to take a driving test with one of the WAS examiners.

 

[The exile]

I would suggest that regularly retesting the theory is the important thing,

Doesn’t prove you can (or would) put it into practice. You might know that the braking distance is x metres at y mph but if you have no idea what x metres looks like, what help is it? An experienced driver will have a notion of what is safe (which may or may not be correct, but needs checking in the field).

 

[SWT_USER]

Before we start looking at retesting what about enforcement and removing licences from those who are clearly unable to drive safely?

This would be top of my list, unfortunately it won't be politically acceptable. Far easier for the boomers who hate young people to add restrictions on new drivers instead.

 

[sprunt]

The significance, though, is in the road hazard that is being introduced in the supposed interests of road safety, by creating circumstances in which drivers will lose their licenses.

How would bad drivers losing their licences introduce road hazard?

 

[Krokodil]

Doesn’t prove you can (or would) put it into practice. You might know that the braking distance is x metres at y mph but if you have no idea what x metres looks like, what help is it? An experienced driver will have a notion of what is safe (which may or may not be correct, but needs checking in the field).

How about a right-of-way question?

The candidate is shown a diagram of a T junction with cars and pedestrians marked. They are asked which road users have priority over whom.

How many do you think will omit to give the pedestrians crossing the entrance of the side street priority over those cars turning in or out of it?

 

[The exile]

How about a right-of-way question?

The candidate is shown a diagram of a T junction with cars and pedestrians marked. They are asked which road users have priority over whom.

How many do you think will omit to give the pedestrians crossing the entrance of the side street priority over those cars turning in or out of it?

Virtually all - but then that is as much a failure of the authorities to ensure that the change to the regulations is adequately communicated. Where are the public information films or modern equivalent?
Incidentally, as someone who learnt to drive in a jurisdiction where that was already the case, it is good practice, but a silly and dangerous rule.