Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
In the UK there is no such definition of separate zones, or at least not in general.
Unless it is designated as a motorway or a special road, a pedestrian (or a cyclist or an equestrian) is as entitled to walk in the middle of the carriageway as a car driver is to drive in the middle of the carriageway. Motor vehicles are barred from the footway, but the same restriction doesn't apply in reverse.
It is something a lot of car drivers forget. Car drivers also routinely forget that pedestrians have right of way when the car driver is turning into a side road.
In principle, yes. In practice, in built up areas, the zones are distinct and, as @JGurney notes, there is a de facto segregation which creates space for both to go about their business unaffected by the other. As a driver, I have to make some assumptions about my environment to make effective observation possible - one of those being that pedestrians won't walk right in front of me.
All of this is about the assessment of why an incident* has occurred. My objection was and is to the idea that such an assessment be guided by a presumption of fault. By being wholly neutral, the assessment can then look at the circumstances and assess them in terms of the law and the responsibilities of those involved.
* - I am deliberately using a neutral term, conveying no implications of innocence or guilt in the way that, say, "accident", does not.
20mph is perfectly adequate for preventing most serious injuries in places where people are likely to be crossing roads without signal protection. You should be adjusting your speed to reflect the conditions. If you've got a clear view then there's no reason not to drive at the speed limit. If your vision is obstructed by parked cars then you should be slowing down to a crawl.
Is that actually possible when the victim is dead or otherwise cannot speak in account of their own actions? In that situation the driver just claims "I didn't see him, he came out of nowhere..." and who's going to contradict them?
I agree, that is a problem. But I reject the implication of that position, which is that the outcome predetermines guilt without supporting evidence. More generally, I also struggle with the idea that if something bad happens, it must be someone's fault, and that the only way of addressing that is for someone to be punished.
The only people who don't have to pass a UK driving test are people who passed their test in an equivalent jurisidiction and people who have been in the UK less than 12 months.
The former group is over a million drivers and the latter group probably the same. That is a lot of people and many of them will be in London. As you say, London has a lot of traffic but the culture of the roads there is markedly different; it is more aggressive with more frequent horn use and jumping the lights is common. I drove daily in London for years and the fact that many drivers were born overseas and learned to drive overseas is a significant factor. Birmingham has similar issues.
In the UK there is no such definition of separate zones, or at least not in general.
Unless it is designated as a motorway or a special road, a pedestrian (or a cyclist or an equestrian) is as entitled to walk in the middle of the carriageway as a car driver is to drive in the middle of the carriageway. Motor vehicles are barred from the footway, but the same restriction doesn't apply in reverse.
It is something a lot of car drivers forget. Car drivers also routinely forget that pedestrians have right of way when the car driver is turning into a side road.
There are some very odd attitudes at play in all of this. The proliferation of cycle lanes (especially in London) had led to the whole thing of “why aren’t you using the cycle lane?”, when in many cases
* they aren’t fit for purpose
* they aren’t suitable for cyclists who have serious bikes or who ride at higher speeds
* in a lot of cases nowadays in London it’s highly likely a cyclist will be travelling as fast as or sometimes faster then cars
Then we have another speciality, which is that its the poor oppressed motorist, until a cat gets run over, in which case the same poor oppressed motorised is suddenly the most evil person on the planet, even if the person driving the car was driving fully properly, the cat emerged at the absolute last moment and the driver had no opportunity to take any avoiding action. There was a particularly spiteful and hysterical set of postings on my local Facebook recently after “my beautiful cat was murdered by a complete scumbag”. Notwithstanding the fact that I’m not sure what relevance it has whether the cat was beautiful or not, there was no evidence at all that the driver in question had done anything improper.
People are strange, hence why I am not a “people person”, and like to have as little interaction with people as I can manage! I could more than happily live on an isolated island somewhere!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The former group is over a million drivers and the latter group probably the same. That is a lot of people and many of them will be in London. As you say, London has a lot of traffic but the culture of the roads there is markedly different; it is more aggressive with more frequent horn use and jumping the lights is common. I drove daily in London for years and the fact that many drivers were born overseas and learned to drive overseas is a significant factor. Birmingham has similar issues.
London has always been a bad place to drive, however one observation that can reasonably be made is it seems to have got worse over the last 10-20 years, despite traffic not really having got that much heavier in that time.
I disagree with the view that this is largely because the roads are busier. To some extent yes people do need to be more assertive, but equally there’s plenty of driving which is just plain dumb. And this is most certainly on the increase.
I can spend time in other parts of the country, especially the north-east, north-west or Wales, and it takes a few days for the penny to drop - that most of the time you just get in the car and have a straightforward journey from A to B, the abominations that are common in the London area for the most part just don’t happen, awful driving is very much the exception.
In principle, yes. In practice, in built up areas, the zones are distinct and, as @JGurney notes, there is a de facto segregation which creates space for both
I wrote "Not literally, although it can appear that way de facto". I e. there is scope for forming the misleading impression that roads are divided between two groups of users, pedestrians and vehicles. I went on to show why that view is a misinterpretation.
The law recognises six groups of human users: pedestrians, equestrians, carters and herders who have been on the roads since antiquity, cyclists, whose machines were originally treated as horse substitutes and later came to be covered by separate legislation, and motorists. (I suppose it might be argued that laws governing steam-powered road vehicles are sufficiently distinct to make those a seventh group). It also recognises that unaccompanied livestock may be present in public highways in "places where fencing is not customary".
The existence of footways simply creates areas of highways which are reserved for pedestrians, and nothing more.
And who do you suggests does these courses and at whose cost?
As above, who do you suggest does these tests?
There is already a huge problem getting the first driving test due to the lack of examiners, and you propose to massively increase that workload. Do you not see a problem with your proposal?
Ah, so you're suggesting that huge numbers of deaths and injuries are acceptable because tackling it is tricky.
I would suggest that huge numbers of additional people are trained to become instructors and examiners, at the cost of drivers.
People pay many £thousands for cars with capabilities that they never use (eg 4WD cars in London). People pay huge sums for far more horsepower than is necessary, and for comforts that are well beyond what they actually need, they just like them.
So a few £hundred for additional tests is hardly a big thing in comparison, its just something to complain about.
What you and many others seem happy with, is the belief that accidents, injuries and deaths are all just part of modern life. A price worth paying for our mobility.
I'm afraid I don't rest easily with this, I think that if there are ways to improve safety then we should be pursuing them, not just finding excuses not to.
I wrote "Not literally, although it can appear that way de facto". I e. there is scope for forming the misleading impression that roads are divided between two groups of users, pedestrians and vehicles. I went on to show why that view is a misinterpretation.
The law recognises six groups of human users: pedestrians, equestrians, carters and herders who have been on the roads since antiquity, cyclists, whose machines were originally treated as horse substitutes and later came to be covered by separate legislation, and motorists. (I suppose it might be argued that laws governing steam-powered road vehicles are sufficiently distinct to make those a seventh group). It also recognises that unaccompanied livestock may be present in public highways in "places where fencing is not customary".
The existence of footways simply creates areas of highways which are reserved for pedestrians, and nothing more.
Except that, while the law is as it is and you describe, the perceived reality for the vast majority of road users is the de facto situation that I described. Any assessment of cause needs to start with that position, not a legal position that is effectively irrelevant to the vast majority of everyday road users - and which bears no relationship to how roads (and especially crossings) are designed.
Ah, so you're suggesting that huge numbers of deaths and injuries are acceptable because tackling it is tricky.
I would suggest that huge numbers of additional people are trained to become instructors and examiners, at the cost of drivers.
People pay many £thousands for cars with capabilities that they never use (eg 4WD cars in London). People pay huge sums for far more horsepower than is necessary, and for comforts that are well beyond what they actually need, they just like them.
So a few £hundred for additional tests is hardly a big thing in comparison, its just something to complain about.
What you and many others seem happy with, is the belief that accidents, injuries and deaths are all just part of modern life. A price worth paying for our mobility.
I'm afraid I don't rest easily with this, I think that if there are ways to improve safety then we should be pursuing them, not just finding excuses not to.
I would be interested to see this costed, and the benefits calculated. Given the number of drivers who have had to sit multiple road awareness courses, I suspect the assumed results far outweigh the likely real world gains.
A personal view. As a student, my wife was sent flying over a car when it pulled out in front of her. She was lucky to get away with bruising, though the criminal injuries compensation for PTSD shows how the impact isn't just the obvious. The point, though, is not what happened. It is that the driver (who went to jail as a result) was already disqualified, had not passed a test, and was uninsured.
Feedback at the time, and since, is that additional hurdles and costs to driving encourage such illegal driving. Equally to the point, they demonstrate that not all drivers are willing to be educated or to learn.
Safety measures need to be a trade-off, not assume safety can be compelled.
Except that, while the law is as it is and you describe, the perceived reality for the vast majority of road users is the de facto situation that I described. Any assessment of cause needs to start with that position, not a legal position that is effectively irrelevant to the vast majority of everyday road users - and which bears no relationship to how roads (and especially crossings) are designed.
I would be interested to see this costed, and the benefits calculated. Given the number of drivers who have had to sit multiple road awareness courses, I suspect the assumed results far outweigh the likely real world gains.
A personal view. As a student, my wife was sent flying over a car when it pulled out in front of her. She was lucky to get away with bruising, though the criminal injuries compensation for PTSD shows how the impact isn't just the obvious. The point, though, is not what happened. It is that the driver (who went to jail as a result) was already disqualified, had not passed a test, and was uninsured.
Feedback at the time, and since, is that additional hurdles and costs to driving encourage such illegal driving. Equally to the point, they demonstrate that not all drivers are willing to be educated or to learn.
Safety measures need to be a trade-off, not assume safety can be compelled.
One thing that needs to change, though probably never will, is the introduction of significantly stiffer penalties for people who drive when unlicensed. There’s no unfairness to this as I see it (except in edge cases where it’s due to a technicality).
It seems like a total win-win to me. Get these liabilities off the road, significant safety improvement plus probably a slight reduction in traffic levels as a bonus.
All those people will be employed by the Civil Service, so even if you increase the charges to the drivers it will be the government that is liable to collect any payments.
And since there is already a problem employing examiners where do you think these extra ones are going to come from?
People pay many £thousands for cars with capabilities that they never use (eg 4WD cars in London). People pay huge sums for far more horsepower than is necessary, and for comforts that are well beyond what they actually need, they just like them.
What you and many others seem happy with, is the belief that accidents, injuries and deaths are all just part of modern life. A price worth paying for our mobility.
Again, where have I or any member posting here implied anything of the kind?
What I do realise is that for much of the population a car is essential, because public transport is unavailable, especially if living in a rural area. This is something that the anti-car element seem to ignore.
I'm afraid I don't rest easily with this, I think that if there are ways to improve safety then we should be pursuing them, not just finding excuses not to.
* the old chesnut of people doing 38-39mph regardless of speed limit - I have previosuly posted my frustration re the A1081 from St Albans to Harpenden where this is rife.
I can certainly agree with this one! Going from the M1 to St Albans getting off at Luton (a bit earlier than usual due to delays on the M1 from roadworks) today the car I was following into Harpenden was doing 50 then slowed down a bit but not to 30 while going through Harpenden, then I had a different car in front between Harpenden and St Albans that did 40 in the 60 and then didn't slow down until the traffic lights (I would guess about mile after the 30 starts for those not familiar with the area).
Lots of atrocious lane discipline down the M1 as well and a lorry behind flashing me in lane 2 in a 40 limit when I was doing 40 GPS speed overtaking cars doing ~35mph GPS. I guess they think limits don't apply if there isn't a camera on the gantry. Most lorry drivers are fine though.
All those people will be employed by the Civil Service, so even if you increase the charges to the drivers it will be the government that is liable to collect any payments.
And since there is already a problem employing examiners where do you think these extra ones are going to come from?
Really? So how do you define what horsepower I require, or what comfort I want?
And is a Fiat Panda 4x4 unsuitable as a car in London?
I don't think you understand how many additional examiners might be required or the economics of employing them.
Again, where have I or any member posting here implied anything of the kind?
What I do realise is that for much of the population a car is essential, because public transport is unavailable, especially if living in a rural area. This is something that the anti-car element seem to ignore.
Again, I have seen no-one making an excuse not to do anything.
I'm not all that inclined to continue to reiterate my points as I have a busy few days ahead. I disagree with much of your counter arguments, but I also recognise that I'm in the minority - for the time being anyway.
I can certainly agree with this one! Going from the M1 to St Albans getting off at Luton (a bit earlier than usual due to delays on the M1 from roadworks) today the car I was following into Harpenden was doing 50 then slowed down a bit but not to 30 while going through Harpenden, then I had a different car in front between Harpenden and St Albans that did 40 in the 60 and then didn't slow down until the traffic lights (I would guess about mile after the 30 starts for those not familiar with the area).
Lots of atrocious lane discipline down the M1 as well and a lorry behind flashing me in lane 2 in a 40 limit when I was doing 40 GPS speed overtaking cars doing ~35mph GPS. I guess they think limits don't apply if there isn't a camera on the gantry. Most lorry drivers are fine though.
I’m really grumpy today so forgive this in advance if it touches a nerve. Why do people drive well below the permitted speed limit, even in good conditions, with clear visibility, and no hazards? I’m talking sub 40mph on a 60mph road, or 20mph on a 30mph road. I have mentioned before the...
Ah, so you're suggesting that huge numbers of deaths and injuries are acceptable because tackling it is tricky.
I would suggest that huge numbers of additional people are trained to become instructors and examiners, at the cost of drivers.
So a few £hundred for additional tests is hardly a big thing in comparison, its just something to complain about.
What you and many others seem happy with, is the belief that accidents, injuries and deaths are all just part of modern life. A price worth paying for our mobility.
I'm afraid I don't rest easily with this, I think that if there are ways to improve safety then we should be pursuing them
If we remove from the statistics all those deaths and injuries caused by the unlicensed, I suspect that the number of serious incidents that would be prevented by retesting would be surprisingly low. What I think would do more in the long run is to require all test candidates to have taken a minimum number of lessons with a qualified instructor and only be able to book a test once that instructor has signed them off. Retests will pick up those who genuinely don’t realise they’ve got into bad habits or whose reaction times have slowed alarmingly (so in that sense they are good) but are unlikely to have any effect on the diehards who know exactly what they’re doing. And no amount of testing is proof against the momentary lapse in concentration.
If we remove from the statistics all those deaths and injuries caused by the unlicensed, I suspect that the number of serious incidents that would be prevented by retesting would be surprisingly low. What I think would do more in the long run is to require all test candidates to have taken a minimum number of lessons with a qualified instructor and only be able to book a test once that instructor has signed them off. Retests will pick up those who genuinely don’t realise they’ve got into bad habits or whose reaction times have slowed alarmingly (so in that sense they are good) but are unlikely to have any effect on the diehards who know exactly what they’re doing. And no amount of testing is proof against the momentary lapse in concentration.
If we remove from the statistics all those deaths and injuries caused by the unlicensed, I suspect that the number of serious incidents that would be prevented by retesting would be surprisingly low.
Are the unlicensed really so prevalent on our roads that removing them would make a huge difference to the numbers of deaths and injuries? If so, then that would suggest that there is something seriously wrong with our policing and legal system altogether, if we can't get this more under control.
Momentary lapse in concentration? Why is such a thing so forgivable when driving, when it's a sackable offence with likely additional consequences if you're driving a train, a plane or a bus? When did you hear of drivers of vehicles other than cars being told "Ah that's okay then" after they've had a crash even without any injuries resulting? And yet car drivers who do cause injuries even after considerable negligence, are often allowed to continue to drive without any re-test because of the prevalent and incredibly lenient attitude that has been demonstrated many times on this thread.
I'm not sure why driving cars comes with an almost carte blanche to make mistakes which have serious consequences? Driving carries a heavy responsibility and needs to be culturally seen as such. Just imagine wielding over ton of metal around at speed in any other walk of life, without having to take it too seriously because "momentary lapses in concentration" are so easily forgiven.
Yes, I know many people on this thread are champing at this bit to prove me wrong and forgive drivers for many things which wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else in society. However my objective here isn't to prove anyone wrong, or to be anti-driver in any way, it's just to suggest that this is worthy of greater consideration than is often given to it.
If so, then that would suggest that there is something seriously wrong with our policing and legal system altogether, if we can't get this more under control.
How do you propose to do that? Reckon that most improperly licensed or unlicensed drivers are detected only when routine checks are being made after a vehicle has been stopped for a particular reason, such as no insurance or MOT, a moving traffic offence or their vehicle just looking to be just plain unroadworthy. DVSA checkpoints likely do help, but require a lot of resource.
How do you propose to do that? Reckon that most improperly licensed or unlicensed drivers are detected only when routine checks are being made after a vehicle has been stopped for a particular reason, such as no insurance or MOT, a moving traffic offence or their vehicle just looking to be just plain unroadworthy. DVSA checkpoints likely do help, but require a lot of resource.
Checkpoints financed by the fines taken. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Or we just keep killing people on the roads. Okay, no guarantee that it works, but why not try it? Or do a good many of us actually quite like living a less law abiding country?
No one wants a big brother state, but with the amount of speed cameras around where the roads really aren't that dangerous, we're not far off it in some places already. As I keep saying, we just need to give it more thought, instead of being so negative about it.
I'm not sure why driving cars comes with an almost carte blanche to make mistakes which have serious consequences? Driving carries a heavy responsibility and needs to be culturally seen as such. Just imagine wielding over ton of metal around at speed in any other walk of life, without having to take it too seriously because "momentary lapses in concentration" are so easily forgiven.
Checkpoints financed by the fines taken. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Or we just keep killing people on the roads. Okay, no guarantee that it works, but why not try it? Or do a good many of us actually quite like living a less law abiding country?
It's worth remembering the UK has pretty low road fatalities all told and the rate is on a downward trend. There may be a lot of bad driving about but fatalities remain lower than one would expect given the nature of roads.
1. Clear all outstanding motoring fines
2. Do - and pass the appropriate 'naughty driver' courses
3. Undergo some sort of 'fit and proper' assessment ie CRB check, interview with a Phycologist etc. Police invited to object if they have concerne.
4. Go in front of a Judge for the approval to
5. Then do an extended retest
If caught driving when disqualified the existing ban is set back to the start and it is treated as breaching an injunction with power of arrest ie off to jail until there is a judge free to make a decision on what to do next. Obviously picking up the disqual drivers could be a great 'Friday Afternoon' job for The Police especially before a Bank Holiday.
New Drivers
1. Classroom Sessions covering the sort of things the Naughty Driver courses do. general Road Safety, Legal Requirements - Tax, MoT Insurance etc. How to behave in a car is not like a ****. Possibly coursed that could be offered by schools?
2. A Fit and Proper test eg Criminal Record check, Interview with a Probation Officer/Phycologist etc to weed out obvious idiots
Enforcement
On the spot bans for drink/drug driving speeding if caught by a Police Car
Proper accident investigations
More investigation of 'single vehicle accidents'
Restrictions at the point when you get 9 points eg no light commercials, motorbikes & vehicles over a defined weight
Mandatory cancellation of licence at 12 points
A mechanism to remove licences other than via the criminal courts where drivers are clearly incompetent/unsuitable/not fit and proper
Momentary lapse in concentration? Why is such a thing so forgivable when driving, when it's a sackable offence with likely additional consequences if you're driving a train, a plane or a bus? When did you hear of drivers of vehicles other than cars being told "Ah that's okay then" after they've had a crash even without any injuries resulting? And yet car drivers who do cause injuries even after considerable negligence, are often allowed to continue to drive without any re-test because of the prevalent and incredibly lenient attitude that has been demonstrated many times on this thread.
Nowhere did I say anything about the appropriate consequences of a momentary lapse of concentration - merely that no amount of testing will ever eliminate it. As has been shown in the railway context, even physical monitoring by a second person doesn’t prevent it entirely - indeed on occasions has led to it happening. I would, incidentally, fully support a compulsory set of lessons and re-test after convictions and removal of licence after a certain hurdle of points should be automatic and instant without exception.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Given the fact that a major change to the system would be taking place, it is reasonable to include an assumption that the trsting system woukk on d be reformed as well. The system would be much more transparent - as the pipeline would be much better known and the only people failing tests would likely be those who fall to pieces under exam nerves (something which probably means they aren’t ready to be on their own behind a wheel but wouldn’t necessarily show up in lessons).
Nowhere did I say anything about the appropriate consequences of a momentary lapse of concentration - merely that no amount of testing will ever eliminate it. As has been shown in the railway context, even physical monitoring by a second person doesn’t prevent it entirely - indeed on occasions has led to it happening. I would, incidentally, fully support a compulsory set of lessons and re-test after convictions and removal of licence after a certain hurdle of points should be automatic and instant without exception.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Given the fact that a major change to the system would be taking place, it is reasonable to include an assumption that the trsting system woukk on d be reformed as well. The system would be much more transparent - as the pipeline would be much better known and the only people failing tests would likely be those who fall to pieces under exam nerves (something which probably means they aren’t ready to be on their own behind a wheel but wouldn’t necessarily show up in lessons).
I'm glad I got you to focus on this, my apologies for putting you into defensive mode, and yes I do see your point about re-tests not being guaranteed to eliminate these "momentary lapses of concentration".
Of course these moments will never be entirely eliminated, but they could and should be drastically reduced, which re-testing would achieve by the focus that they would put on to the whole driving experience.
As an example, many, if not most, drivers will look at their passenger while talking to them, for maybe a glance every few seconds, while some will do so for several seconds at a time. This is NOT acceptable!
Your passenger can almost always hear you perfectly well without you needing to look at them and thereby take your eyes off the road.
I've rarely heard this discussed, but it's just one example of the focus that re-testing could achieve. Indeed the original driving test should focus on this too.
There are more examples, like having it drummed into drivers on motorways that they DO NOT take their eyes off the road in front in order to stare at an accident on the opposite carriageway.
Some people will argue this point, and that's a good thing if they do, because it needs focus, rather than blindly allowing drivers to do this without a thought simply because they say "it's natural". Otherwise we will just continue to get completely avoidable accidents on the opposite carriageway.
It all needs more focus, which re-testing can achieve.
I'm glad I got you to focus on this, my apologies for putting you into defensive mode, and yes I do see your point about re-tests not being guaranteed to eliminate these "momentary lapses of concentration".
Of course these moments will never be entirely eliminated, but they could and should be drastically reduced, which re-testing would achieve by the focus that they would put on to the whole driving experience.
As an example, many, if not most, drivers will look at their passenger while talking to them, for maybe a glance every few seconds, while some will do so for several seconds at a time. This is NOT acceptable!
Your passenger can almost always hear you perfectly well without you needing to look at them and thereby take your eyes off the road.
I've rarely heard this discussed, but it's just one example of the focus that re-testing could achieve. Indeed the original driving test should focus on this too.
There are more examples, like having it drummed into drivers on motorways that they DO NOT take their eyes off the road in front in order to stare at an accident on the opposite carriageway.
Some people will argue this point, and that's a good thing if they do, because it needs focus, rather than blindly allowing drivers to do this without a thought simply because they say "it's natural". Otherwise we will just continue to get completely avoidable accidents on the opposite carriageway.
It all needs more focus, which re-testing can achieve.
I wouldn’t describe either of those as momentary lapses of concentration, though. They are deliberate acts of inattentiveness - though are probably also unlikely to get picked up in a test situation.
I'm glad I got you to focus on this, my apologies for putting you into defensive mode, and yes I do see your point about re-tests not being guaranteed to eliminate these "momentary lapses of concentration".
Of course these moments will never be entirely eliminated, but they could and should be drastically reduced, which re-testing would achieve by the focus that they would put on to the whole driving experience.
As an example, many, if not most, drivers will look at their passenger while talking to them, for maybe a glance every few seconds, while some will do so for several seconds at a time. This is NOT acceptable!
Your passenger can almost always hear you perfectly well without you needing to look at them and thereby take your eyes off the road.
I've rarely heard this discussed, but it's just one example of the focus that re-testing could achieve. Indeed the original driving test should focus on this too.
There are more examples, like having it drummed into drivers on motorways that they DO NOT take their eyes off the road in front in order to stare at an accident on the opposite carriageway.
Some people will argue this point, and that's a good thing if they do, because it needs focus, rather than blindly allowing drivers to do this without a thought simply because they say "it's natural". Otherwise we will just continue to get completely avoidable accidents on the opposite carriageway.
It all needs more focus, which re-testing can achieve.
Your faith in the driving test to deliver good long term behaviours is admirable but entirely without evidence. If that were the case, people who had just passed their test would be the best drivers on the road and not susceptible to bad behaviour. The driving test does not remove complacency, for example. Long term cultural change will help with that, including making those behaviours antisocial in the same way drink driving was stigmatised.
People's capability to drive increases with age and experience and, until one's faculties decline, the only factor militating against that is the development of complacent behaviours owing to driving becoming easier and requiring less of one's conscious brain load. It's the bad habits and complacency you need to remove by way of cultural change. If I passed my test again tomorrow I'd just drive "my way" as soon as I'd passed. It would be an arbitrary obstacle to another ten years or whatever of driving how I feel comfortable when unsupervised.
You speak of your personal attitude, which is the same as many others and I don't dispute it. I'm no different in that being fined for doing 34mph in a 30 limit does absolutely nothing to make me stick rigidly to 30mph in future, it just makes me more aware of the possible presence of speed cameras.
There's a counter argument to this too, in that I should be looking out for other hazards rather than becoming fixated on looking out for cameras.
But what re-testing would do, would be to move towards more of a cultural recognition of taking driving more seriously.
You, and many others on this forum probably do take it seriously already, but I'm guessing that all of us see driving behaviour from time to time that we think ought to be re-examined, and/or deserves greater enforcement against it.
Re-testing wouldn't offer guarantees, but it may well offer improvement, and opportunity to reduce bad habits. It wouldn't need to be the same format as driving tests are now, it could include discussion groups.
Driver awareness courses do this already, but these could be developed further, and made mandatory as part of re-testing.
I don't have all the answers, which is why discussion is good, but I do believe there is much room for improvement which many people shy away from and argue against, far too readily.
There’s huge room for improvement, but the issue is about culture rather than training.
An example.
A former pupil at my daughter’s school was jailed for 14 months recently for causing death by dangerous driving. It happened at the end of A-Levels last year, and two lads in the car were killed.
Stories coming out about the incident suggest that at least one of them wanted to leave the car because her driving was so aggressive.
Word on the block suggests that, irrespective of the driver’s behaviour, a sense of entitlement and impunity was in the air. Certainly, the attitude of the driver and some members of her family reported during the criminal proceedings suggests as much.
Sympathies for her in the current year 13 are scant.
I offer this up as a suggestion of just how deep the challenge is, and how seemingly obvious measures may not work nearly as well as suggested. Even the sort of psychological testing suggested above can be gamed - and those involved in this incident are absolutely in the category who could do so.
The issue of reckless behaviour by young drivers is a separate one which can be reduced substantially by restricting their ability to carry passengers.
Yes it's certainly about culture, but it's also about training because that all helps it to become embedded into the culture.
Examples include that drink-driving is now widely seen as anti-social. Of course the increased cultural acceptance of this in the last couple of decades doesn't stop everyone doing it, but it helps. Same with using mobile phones whilst driving, although this still has quite a way to go.
The issue of reckless behaviour by young drivers is a separate one which can be reduced substantially by restricting their ability to carry passengers.
This certainly needs tackling too. Far better enforcement is needed when blatantly dangerous driving happens. Street racing takes place in many towns and cities, but our culture is all too often that we're afraid to tackle it. Even when it is tackled, the police are often let down by the courts who see only a young driver feigning an apology, instead of the entitled carefree driver risking the lives of many.
Then there are the many TV programmes which show just how dangerous some drivers are, and yet when caught (which all too often they aren't), the courts issue punishments which are barely more than to those who drive at just 5mph about the speed limit when that low limit is often not even appropriate. (That's another discussion - the speed limit system is woefully inconsistent around the country, and even within areas close to each other).
Yes it's certainly about culture, but it's also about training because that all helps it to become embedded into the culture.
Examples include that drink-driving is now widely seen as anti-social. Of course the increased cultural acceptance of this in the last couple of decades doesn't stop everyone doing it, but it helps. Same with using mobile phones whilst driving, although this still has quite a way to go.
But the rise in those things becoming antisocial is because the police and other agencies have led successful campaigns of prosecution and education against people who have been doing it. Not because it was "part of one's training".
The issue of reckless behaviour by young drivers is a separate one which can be reduced substantially by restricting their ability to carry passengers.
It can - though that is itself a matter that needs careful thought. But it neglects the wider issue of culture - which is where the stories coming out from acquaintances are telling.
She is no different from the guy I was at school with who could see no wrong in his father driving from Sutton to Cardiff in 90 minutes - and genuinely considered that the resulting driving ban was unfair.
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.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
