Poll: Would you re-sit your driving test

Steve

There are countless posts on motors about idiots on Irish roads who apparently don't know how to drive.

To name a few:
lane hoggers
amber gamblers
indicatorphobes
wrong lane at roundabouts
80kph is 'my' speed and I'm stickin to it
fog light fanatics
bus lane busters
tailgate Tom
free license brigade
the speed limit is 100kph, so what if it's snowing / freezing / can't see 20ft 'cos of the fog, I'm going 100kph

The question is:
Would you be prepared to re-sit the driving test every time your license expired in order to either educate these people or weed them off our roads?

This would only involve giving up one day of your life every 10 years - a small price to pay for better safety.

(Personally I would prefer licenses to expire sooner than this)

Please don't post about the logistics of doing this - I know it could not be done under the current system. I'm interested in what you think about the principle of it.

Atomic Pineapple

yeh definately! would be prepared to sit my driving test every ten years as long as i didn't have to wait endless months to get a test booking or pay an extortionate amount.

I think every ten years would be an appropiate time for re tests maybe coming down to every 5 years in older age groups

Mena

Good idea but what's the point? The current license test is a sham, I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it... :mad:

javaboy

Mena wrote: »

Good idea but what's the point? The current license test is a sham, I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it... :mad:

Exactly, it's an absolute bare minimum so there should in theory be no problem with somebody repassing it. If they can't repass it, they don't meet the shambolic bare minimum and shouldn't be on the road.

zilog_jones

They'd need to get rid of the backlog before trying to implement anything like having to re-sit for every renewal. And regardless, the test teaches nothing about proper foglight use, (depending on where it's taken) weird roundabouts and driving on dual carriageways, driving on motorways, etc.

Also, from my experience of just passing the test last week it's very easy to find out what route the testers take - there's a cul de sac in Milford Grange in Castletroy (one of the routes they use from the test centre in the NCT place) where it seems there's always at least one person at the end of the road doing a 3-point turn and someone else nearby reversing around a corner. I'm sure there's some people who will just learn how to drive properly on the test routes without actually heeding any of this information and applying it to their normal driving.

I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it...

I'd say this is true for the tests run by SGS (the NCT people), but the real government-operated testers can be real hard-asses - the ones in Limerick are anyway. I failed the first time mainly due to being nervous and not being prepared properly (went on a bad start forgetting what the clearway sign was!). My second test was in the SGS-run place and it was piss-easy in comparison.

Steve

Mena wrote: »

Good idea but what's the point? The current license test is a sham, I can't for the life of me see how people actually fail it... :mad:

Yes, it's a sham - far too easy.

The point is it might force people to re-educate themselves on the rules of the road and safe driving methods. The current theory test is way more comprehensive than the one I did 16yrs ago.

The standard of the practical test sould be increased to reflect the minimum 10yrs experience you should have.

cantdecide

Another example of motoring problems where adequacy is a distant aspiration. We should set the standard like we did with the smoking ban. A bare minimum isn't enough, isn't it obvious?

heyjude

As has been said by others already, I would have no problem with re-sitting the driving test every ten years when my licence comes up for renewal, subject to the proviso that you wouldn't have to wait months for this test. But given that there are hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied drivers on the roads at present, that have never passed a test, such a proposal wouldn't make any sense.

It also would never happen as older drivers 50yrs+ that either were never required to pass a test or who passed their test over 30 years ago, would probably find the test difficult to pass and so they would force the government to abandon any such idea immediately, remembering that a much higher proportion of older age groups actually vote at elections.

Biro

They should start by introducing a mandatory theory test (like the provisional one) for all full license renewals. That way, in the interm, they wouldn't be adding to an already swamped back log of tests, and have people up in arms about it.
Rules of the Road can change in 10 years, and people can forget. So that at a very minimum should help cases like roundabouts and two people on a main road turning right, one waiting for the other to pass them first (as the ROTR says) and the other waving them on in front of them.

javaboy

Biro wrote: »

They should start by introducing a mandatory theory test (like the provisional one) for all full license renewals. That way, in the interm, they wouldn't be adding to an already swamped back log of tests, and have people up in arms about it.
Rules of the Road can change in 10 years, and people can forget. So that at a very minimum should help cases like roundabouts and two people on a main road turning right, one waiting for the other to pass them first (as the ROTR says) and the other waving them on in front of them.

Very good idea. Simple and cheap and the DTT doesn't have anywhere near the backlog the driving test does.

Wertz

Until we get a test that includes mway and low light/night driving, such a resit is pointless....why not prove once that people can drive safely and know how to use mways and drive in nighttime conditions, instead of having them drive a 50kmph urban route for 30 minutes and then giving them free reign on every road at every time?

I would have no problem resitting every 10 years or whatever, once I wasn't paying through the nose...but until the above is implemented it's pointless...

Steve

heyjude wrote: »

It also would never happen as older drivers 50yrs+ that either were never required to pass a test or who passed their test over 30 years ago, would probably find the test difficult to pass and so they would force the government to abandon any such idea immediately, remembering that a much higher proportion of older age groups actually vote at elections.

If they "would probably find the test difficult to pass" then they shouldn't be on the road.

I don't see what arguement they could put forward against it.
"I can't drive properly so I don't want to re-sit a test"?

_Kaiser_

stevec wrote: »

If they "would probably find the test difficult to pass" then they shouldn't be on the road.

I don't see what arguement they could put forward against it.
"I can't drive properly so I don't want to re-sit a test"?

If certain members of our current government get their way these people will be allowed drive anyway regardless of whether they've failed the test! (such as it is) :rolleyes:

javaboy

stevec wrote: »

If they "would probably find the test difficult to pass" then they shouldn't be on the road.

I don't see what arguement they could put forward against it.
"I can't drive properly so I don't want to re-sit a test"?

Unfortunately as heyjude pointed out, they vote in greater numbers than younger people. They don't need an argument to put forward against it. Their vote is all they need.

Wertz

To all those making the point about 50+ drivers/voters and them forcing the government to abandon such an idea....surely road safety (what this measure is about) is an issue that nearly all the main parties agree on...so it shouldn't make a difference whther it be FF,FG, Lab or whoever getting voted in....they shoul all have a coherent policy on an issue like this.
Any one party that adjusted those policies to suit their voters isn't really serious about road safety at all and thus anyone that votes for them isn't either so should STFU calling for "something to be done", "disgrace" etc when it comes to road deaths...

javaboy

Wertz wrote: »

To all those making the point about 50+ drivers/voters and them forcing the government to abandon such an idea....surely road safety (what this measure is about) is an issue that nearly all the main parties agree on...so it shouldn't make a difference whther it be FF,FG, Lab or whoever getting voted in....they shoul all have a coherent policy on an issue like this.
Any one party that adjusted those policies to suit their voters isn't really serious about road safety at all and thus anyone that votes for them isn't either so should STFU calling for "something to be done", "disgrace" etc when it comes to road deaths...

All politics is local. A lot of voters make their decisions based on what affects them personally the most. If one candidate says "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you sit your test again. Sure didn't you buy your license fair n' square?" and another candidate says "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in compulsory retests.", I can guarantee that a lot of those voters would pick the first one. Politicians know this and some don't want to be remembered as the one who made the decision that put a lot of regular voters off the road.

Some politicians have the liathróidi to make a hard decision e.g. the smoking ban and some don't. If enough politicians from one party hear opposition to a measure from enough doorsteps, you can bet you won't find it on their manifesto.

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

All politics is local. A lot of voters make their decisions based on what affects them personally the most. If one candidate says "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you sit your test again. Sure didn't you buy your license fair n' square?" and another candidate says "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in compulsory retests.", I can guarantee that a lot of those voters would pick the first one. Politicians know this and some don't want to be remembered as the one who made the decision that put a lot of regular voters off the road.

Some politicians have the liathróidi to make a hard decision e.g. the smoking ban and some don't. If enough politicians from one party hear opposition to a measure from enough doorsteps, you can bet you won't find it on their manifesto.

I'm sure they weren't told "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you do random breath tests, I know you enjoy yer pint".
More like "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in random breath testing."

Who got the vote that time?

Wertz

That's a fair point and being from the arsehole of nowhere myself, I know that's how it works...but you can't have every biddy in the country calling Joe Duffy about boy racers and throwing their hands up to heaven over all the deaths on the road, when they're unwilling to step up and make the hard choice themselves.
That's the overall trouble with Irish motoring in general; we all just want to blame someone else for the state of affairs instead of taking personal responsibility...the "I'm a great driver, it's everyone else who is sh*t" attitude; if you're that good then a test to prove as such shouldn't be such a huge obstacle...having to reprove yourself after a decade would be a logical step.

A decision to legislate for something like this would need to be done after a party gets into office...get the thing in the statute books and then no gombeen can come along and repeal it later.

But like I said back up the thread, the test as it is is lacking...so passing it multiple times doesn't actually prove that you are safe to be let loose on the motorway network...

javaboy

stevec wrote: »

I'm sure they weren't told "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll make sure them up in the castle won't make you do random breath tests, I know you enjoy yer pint".
More like "As part of our road safety strategy we are bringing in random breath testing."

Who got the vote that time?

Fair enough good point. Any politician who was quoted opposing drink driving legislation would be slaughtered in the meeja.

But on the retesting issue, they could put it very far down their list of priorities e.g. when we sort out learner drivers and speeding and housing and the ozone layer, then we will look at retesting. That's good enough for Jimmy Nod and a wink job as always in local politics.

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

But on the retesting issue, they could put it very far down their list of priorities e.g. when we sort out learner drivers and speeding and housing and the ozone layer, then we will look at retesting. That's good enough for Jimmy Nod and a wink job as always in local politics.

True but the point of this thread was to get peoples opinion on the idea itself - not the logistics of implementing it (leave that to uncle Gaybo).

As Wertz correctly pointed out, we spend all day complaining that nothing is being done to cut road deaths (bar scameras). Nobody offers any solutions though.

As Biro pointed out - even a theory test would make a huge difference.

pburns

This thread does nothing but add to the hysteria about road deaths that is already rampant in certain sections of the media. I don't believe driving standards in this country are so bad. Can anyone point to definitive statistics that show that our per capita road accident fatalities are significently worse than other EU countries?

I don't have stats to hand but I'm willing to bet there are a dispropotionate number of (a.) young males and (b.) foreign drivers (*ducks from inevitable PC backlash) involved in many of the serious accidents on our roads. Target the demographic(s) involved and move the feck on from all this hand-wringing...

BTW, even the language used in the poll is risable and skewed -
'Great idea it would get rid of the idiots!'
...
'No way Jose, I'm holding on to my free licence'
...
:rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Two-tiered restricted driver licence system FTW!

javaboy

pburns wrote: »

This thread does nothing but add to the hysteria about road deaths that is already rampant in certain sections of the media. I don't believe driving standards in this country are so bad. Can anyone point to definitive statistics that show that our per capita road accident fatalities are significently worse than other EU countries?

I don't have stats to hand but I'm willing to bet there are a dispropotionate number of (a.) young males and (b.) foreign drivers (*ducks from inevitable PC backlash) involved in many of the serious accidents on our roads. Target the demographic(s) involved and move the feck on from all this hand-wringing...

BTW, even the language used in the poll is risable and skewed -
'Great idea it would get rid of the idiots!'
...
'No way Jose, I'm holding on to my free licence'
...
:rolleyes:

Yes the language in the poll is a bit dodgy but this is boards not an MRBI poll At least there's no Atari Jaguar option!

There is an issue with drivers who have passed their test years ago not obeying the rules of the ROTR. Most of the evidence is anecdotal I know but I find the worst people for indicating incorrrectly/not at all are 40+. Any near miss I have had was caused by a middle-aged man except one which was a learner in a school car mid-lesson.

It's not top of the agenda as far as road safety goes but that doesn't mean it's hand wringing.

Wishbone Ash

stevec wrote: »

The question is:
Would you be prepared to re-sit the driving test every time your license expired in order to either educate these people or weed them off our roads?

This would only involve giving up one day of your life every 10 years - a small price to pay for better safety.

What about those of us who hold many categories. I have a full Driving Licence in 14 categories. Re-testing for me would be very expensive and time consuming. :eek:

It's handy enough for all you one category wonders!

heyjude wrote: »

older drivers 50yrs+ that either were never required to pass a test

61 or older - the driving test was introduced in 1964.

javaboy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What about those of us who hold many categories. I have a full Driving Licence in 14 categories. Re-testing for me would be very expensive and time consuming. :eek:

It's handy enough for all you one category wonders!

That's two categories for anyone who got the freebie <50cc category

Did it actually take 14 tests to get your 14 categories or are a lot of them under the umbrella of one test?

At the very least you've a B and a W which only needs one test.


Either way you're even more of a reason to bring this in. Think of the money to be made off you

D_murph

javaboy wrote: »

Either way you're even more of a reason to bring this in. Think of the money to be made off you

. shhhh, dont give them any ideas

to answer the poll though, i know its a moot point because its an impossibility given the current waiting times etc, for L drivers alone but i fail to see why the majority or all drivers should be inconvenienced by something like this because of a small minority of incapable people.

i could see the safety benefits of having the idiots off the roads all right but to hassle the rest of us like that when proper policing of the roads sounds absurd to me in fairness.

i was a passenger in a van with a buddy last saturday behind one of these "free license" candidates who obviously never had to pass any test (both by his age and "skill" behind the wheel) on a single lane main road with 100kmh limit and he was doing 70kmh out in the middle of the road and would not pull over to let traffic out :rolleyes: clearly oblivious to the tailback that was growing ever longer behind him and the fact that his right indicator was still on for over 3 miles FFS. no sense of awareness whatsoever!!!

these types cause accidents when frustrated people pass them at the wrong time IMO.

i know they dont "force" the other driver to overtake them but you cant deny the fact that if they were not there in the first place the accident would most likely not happen either.

when i did my driving test a few years back i was astonished at how easy it was. i do believe its too easy to pass it TBH and the results of this are out there every day doing stupid things and killing themselves and others because even if they fail the test, they can still drive home afterwards :rolleyes:

WHITE_P

Yes, I would love the oppertunity to retest, preferably every 5 years. I've been driving 22 years now and I know that my driving has changed considerably over the years, not always for the better either.

When you consider that the driving environment is always changing, as anyone with alot of experience will tell you, it is only right that we should all requalify, at least every 10 years but sooner than that in an ideal world.

Look at the safe pass accreditation, (anyone who is working in the building industry will know what I'm talking about), without it you can not legally enter a building site. You are required to resit the course every four years, and you must pass it (not hard really as most of it is common sense).

Within industry, driving is considered one of the most dangerous aspects of working, next to working at height. In order to be legally able to work at height, (rigging telecom's towers etc.) you need to recertify every year I think, if you are climbing on a daily basis.

Therefore, having to requalify to drive every 5 or even 10 years shouldn't represent a real issue, to anyone who cares or takes pride in their ability to drive properly.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

I think mandatiry re-tests are a good idea in principal, but I don't think it would do much for the current state of driving. A fair percentage of the 'idiots' I see on the roads every day would be certified Liscence holders, but they are still doing stupid things and putting themselves and everyone else at risk.

This leads me to conclude that these people are either driving badly because they have already passed their test and no longer care for the rules of the road, or they managed to pass there test as a fluke or something. So the test dosen't weed out people who are willing to drive dangerously, and passes some people who really shouldn't be allowed drive. What we need is to address the attatiude towards driving in this country, not force people to repeat a test which already passed people who are a danger on the road.

WHITE_P

FuzzyWuzzyWazza wrote: »

I think mandatiry re-tests are a good idea in principal, but I don't think it would do much for the current state of driving. A fair percentage of the 'idiots' I see on the roads every day would be certified Liscence holders, but they are still doing stupid things and putting themselves and everyone else at risk.

This leads me to conclude that these people are either driving badly because they have already passed their test and no longer care for the rules of the road, or they managed to pass there test as a fluke or something. So the test dosen't weed out people who are willing to drive dangerously, and passes some people who really shouldn't be allowed drive. What we need is to address the attatiude towards driving in this country, not force people to repeat a test which already passed people who are a danger on the road.

Thing is if those idiots who are qualified drivers, knew that they would have to retest every few years, they might try and not develope too many bad habits in the meantime. Afterall can you imagine someone with years of experience not passing their retest, particularly if it was going to have an affect on the cost of their insurance, and if driving a company car, was to see them, maybe losing the keys to the company Beemer or like to be given a smaller less prestige car to drive till they did pass the test again.

Steve

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What about those of us who hold many categories. I have a full Driving Licence in 14 categories. Re-testing for me would be very expensive and time consuming. :eek:

You make a very good point.
Don't take offence, I'm playing devils advocate in what I'm saying:

If you actually use all 14 categoires, meaning you drive heavy vehicles, coaches etc on an ongoing commercial basis then yes - all the more reason to be up-to-date on your licenses. Airline pilots have to re-certify several times a year because they are carrying passengers / cargo, why shouldn't you?

If you don't use them and you have them because you ticked all the boxes on the giveaway then yes - lets see if you can actually drive what you are licensed for.

If you worked hard for them and passed every test (fair play) but don't use any of them, don't you think it might be time for a refresher after 10 years?

Steve

D_murph wrote: »

but i fail to see why the majority or all drivers should be inconvenienced by something like this because of a small minority of incapable people.

Everyones accepted that you have to do a NCT every 2 yrs, or a DOE every year.

How is once every 10 yrs such an inconvience.
If it got rid of the guy (and many like him) you described in your post, would it not be worth it?

Steve

pburns wrote: »

This thread does nothing but add to the hysteria about road deaths that is already rampant in certain sections of the media. I don't believe driving standards in this country are so bad. Can anyone point to definitive statistics that show that our per capita road accident fatalities are significently worse than other EU countries?

Just because we are not at the bottom of the pile doesn't mean we should not strive to improve. If you have any ideas on how to improve things, feel free to post them.

Unlike the government, I don't claim this to be the solution to our road deaths, I merely had a "what if" thought and posted it here to see what peoples opinions were.

I'm not on a crusade!:rolleyes:

pburns wrote: »

I don't have stats to hand but I'm willing to bet there are a dispropotionate number of (a.) young males and (b.) foreign drivers (*ducks from inevitable PC backlash) involved in many of the serious accidents on our roads. Target the demographic(s) involved and move the feck on from all this hand-wringing...

I be willing to bet that you're right - again, come up with a solution instead of complaining about it.

pburns wrote: »

BTW, even the language used in the poll is risable and skewed -
'Great idea it would get rid of the idiots!'
...
'No way Jose, I'm holding on to my free licence'
...
:rolleyes:

Never did well in English class:D

Steve

WHITE_P wrote: »

Thing is if those idiots who are qualified drivers, knew that they would have to retest every few years, they might try and not develope too many bad habits in the meantime. Afterall can you imagine someone with years of experience not passing their retest, particularly if it was going to have an affect on the cost of their insurance, and if driving a company car, was to see them, maybe losing the keys to the company Beemer or like to be given a smaller less prestige car to drive till they did pass the test again.

+1, thank you

Comes down to the "I'm a perfect driver, everyone else are muppets" attitude.
PROVE IT! passs the test again. What have you got to hide if you're so perfect:rolleyes:

AckwelFoley

Would i sit the test again? No

Would i pass it? No

What would i do? Id get 4 or 5 lessons like the last time.. go in on my best behaviour like the last time.. pass it.. be on my way..


Status Quo.

Im a decent driver, ive never been in an accident in 12 years of driving, but i think people see my point.

How many 70 year old drivers would pass the test, despite they are rarely in accidents?



Point is, the drivind test changes nothing..

2 things cause accidents in this country.. drinkin driving and speeding.. neither will be changed by re sit of the test.

WHITE_P

Personally I think we should be trying to raise the bar when it comes to driver skills. If we were to ever achieve this, we would then need to maintain an improved level of driver skills, through retesting every few years.

What amazes me is that, from some of threads I've read on this site, there are alot of people out there who don't seem to care if their driving skills are any good or not, and this is not meant as competative thing either.

By improving driver skills I don't mean that we all need to be up to racing / rally driver standards, either. If you could just raise people's awareness of their surroundings while driving, eg. road / weather conditions etc., other motorists behavour within their proximity, how their driving impacts other drivers etc., we might actually see a reduction in road accidents / deaths.

pred racer

snyper wrote: »

Would i sit the test again? No

Would i pass it? No

What would i do? Id get 4 or 5 lessons like the last time.. go in on my best behaviour like the last time.. pass it.. be on my way..


Status Quo.

Im a decent driver, ive never been in an accident in 12 years of driving, but i think people see my point.

How many 70 year old drivers would pass the test, despite they are rarely in accidents?



Point is, the drivind test changes nothing..

very true, everybody knows the rules of the road, or at least a fair approximation of them, people know they are supposed to [deep breath/] use indicators, overtake correctly, dip lights for oncoming traffic, not speed, not do stupid stuff, give way to your right, stop at junctions, not run into people etc etc etc....[phew/] but they dont bother, so how is making them re-sit their driving test going to help?

Steve

pred racer wrote: »

very true, everybody knows the rules of the road, or at least a fair approximation of them, people know they are supposed to [deep breath/] use indicators, overtake correctly, dip lights for oncoming traffic, not speed, not do stupid stuff, give way to your right, stop at junctions, not run into people etc etc etc....[phew/] but they dont bother, so how is making them re-sit their driving test going to help?

Fair point:

a, what you say is true and every muppet on the road is doing it because they are 'experts' and can do no wrong

or

B, people don't actually know what the correct thing to do is and need to be re-educated.

If the correct answer is "a" then because they're all experts, nobody does anything wrong and nobody dies in the process.........or do they?

javaboy

pred racer wrote: »

very true, everybody knows the rules of the road, or at least a fair approximation of them, people know they are supposed to [deep breath/] use indicators, overtake correctly, dip lights for oncoming traffic, not speed, not do stupid stuff, give way to your right, stop at junctions, not run into people etc etc etc....[phew/] but they dont bother, so how is making them re-sit their driving test going to help?

It gives some incentive not to develop bad habits. As it is, once you get your driving license, you're nearly untouchable. As long as you don't do anything really dangerous and get caught for it, you will probably have your license forever. Do you even have to resit your test if you get disqualified from driving for say a year?

pred racer

stevec wrote: »

Fair point:

a, what you say is true and every muppet on the road is doing it because they are 'experts' and can do no wrong

or

B, people don't actually know what the correct thing to do is and need to be re-educated.

If the correct answer is "a" then because they're all experts, nobody does anything wrong and nobody dies in the process.........or do they?

Nah... the way i look at it is C: most people have a fair idea of what they are supposed to do..................they just dont give a fcuk

So I guess I dont agree with time based re-testing, but I would definately agree with retraining/stringent retesting if convicted of certain motering offences, ie dangerous/reckless driving and if you are dumb enoughto be disqualified for 12 points the same should apply. also these people should have something like the english R plate for a set period of time.

pred racer

javaboy wrote: »

It gives some incentive not to develop bad habits.

Good point. although in my case I think you would have to test me once a week:D I consider myself a good driver, but I dont drive in a manner which would pass a driving test. You know, all that hand positions on the wheel bollocks.

javaboy

pred racer wrote: »

Nah... the way i look at it is C: most people have a fair idea of what they are supposed to do..................they just dont give a fcuk

pred racer wrote: »

You know, all that hand positions on the wheel bollocks.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What about those of us who hold many categories. I have a full Driving Licence in 14 categories. Re-testing for me would be very expensive and time consuming. :eek:

It's handy enough for all you one category wonders!



61 or older - the driving test was introduced in 1964.

javaboy wrote: »

Did it actually take 14 tests to get your 14 categories or are a lot of them under the umbrella of one test?

I've sat in that waiting room 8 times. AFAIK, I've failed 3 categories first time, but all categories can be attained in a minimum of 5 tests if done in the correct order.

1. B which gives B, M, W.

2. C (rigid truck) which gives B, C,C1, M, W.

3. CE (artic truck) which gives B, C, C1, BE, CE, C1E, M, W.

4. D (large bus) which gives B, C, C1, BE, CE, C1E, D, D1, M, W (and it also gives DE and D1E as a bus and trailer licence is given automatically to anyone who already has a full bus and artic licence).

5. A which gives A, A1, B, BE, C, C1, CE, C1E, D, D1, DE, D1E, M, W.

stevec wrote: »

If you actually use all 14 categoires, meaning you drive heavy vehicles, coaches etc on an ongoing commercial basis then yes - all the more reason to be up-to-date on your licenses. Airline pilots have to re-certify several times a year because they are carrying passengers / cargo, why shouldn't you?

If you don't use them and you have them because you ticked all the boxes on the giveaway then yes - lets see if you can actually drive what you are licensed for.

If you worked hard for them and passed every test (fair play) but don't use any of them, don't you think it might be time for a refresher after 10 years?

I worked very hard for them stevec - I'm not old enough to have bought the licence in the Post Office and I was only 11 years of age during the amnesty.

The only ones I don't use are the motorcycle ones. I hate bikes and have absolutely no intention of ever getting up on one again. The last time I sat on one was the day of my test. It was by far the most difficult test. :eek;

I don't think I would have any problem doing any test again (bikes excepted). Contrary to normal views, I think I drive much better now than I did 20 years ago and I'm still learning each day.

B00MSTICK

Would only work if you had to take a proper test. As someone said, test driving is different to normal driving.

Its 30 mins that people have spent hours, essentially "cramming" for.
They go and drive showing that they can observe/indicate/navigate roundabouts/whatever then as soon as its over they forget it.
(Kinda like how I spent 3 years doing science in uni and forget almost all of it, got my degree, end of.)

Would these people be able to cope if they were told on the spot out of the blue to drive to say Dublin/Donegal if they were doing their test in Galway?
Not a chance. Yet as soon as they pass the test they supposedly can...

I've always said older drivers should be required to be retested/evaluated somehow. I know "Mary" down the road is 70 odd and just drives down the road to bingo and back but even a basic test (more basic than the current one?) should be done just to make sure she can get to bingo safely. An old woman I know was reasontly killed on a road in Kerry because her husband made a huge mistake whilst overtaking... Should he have been driving at all?

People are saying the main killers are speed and drink driving. It does come down to that alot but also bad driver judgement regarding overtaking and junctions especially. How are people meant to know how to overtake safely if they were never taught in real life situations?

Wishbone Ash

B00MSTICK wrote: »

I've always said older drivers should be required to be retested/evaluated somehow. I know "Mary" down the road is 70 odd and just drives down the road to bingo and back but even a basic test (more basic than the current one?) should be done just to make sure she can get to bingo safely. An old woman I know was reasontly killed on a road in Kerry because her husband made a huge mistake whilst overtaking... Should he have been driving at all?

The sector most likely to pass a driving test first time are young males.

The sector most likely to be killed on our roads are young males.

Food for thought.

Steve

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I worked very hard for them stevec - I'm not old enough to have bought the licence in the Post Office and I was only 11 years of age during the amnesty.

The only ones I don't use are the motorcycle ones. I hate bikes and have absolutely no intention of ever getting up on one again. The last time I sat on one was the day of my test. It was by far the most difficult test. :eek;

I don't think I would have any problem doing any test again (bikes excepted). Contrary to normal views, I think I drive much better now than I did 20 years ago and I'm still learning each day.

Respect to you sir, you worked hard and you earned it.

My aunt, who is in her sixties, has the same qualifications as you purely because of the amnesty, she can barely control a shopping trolley.

If you were to be tested in the morning in an artic, I'm sure you would pass and rightly take pride in your ability. The thought of my elderly aunt in control of the same vehicle scares the s**t out of me.

This is why I think re-testing would benefit us all.

B00MSTICK

Wishbone Ash wrote:

The sector most likely to pass a driving test first time are young males.

The sector most likely to be killed on our roads are young males.

Proves the cramming/passing/forgetting theory so I guess. First part is very surprising though.

With regard to the elderly I'm aware they cause few accidents, I was just suggesting a retest/evaluation as in our golden years sometimes we tend to deteriorate. My freinds grandfather for instance never had an accident but was a terrible driver!

Wishbone Ash

stevec wrote: »

My aunt, who is in her sixties, has the same qualifications as you purely because of the amnesty

Don't confuse the 'amnesty' with the pre-test brigade.

The driving test was introduced in 1964. Prior to that one went to the post office and bought a licence and ticked the required boxes. Don't be too hard on those people - they did nothing illegal.

The 'amnesty' is the subject of much undeserved urban myth and rumour.

In 1979 the waiting times for tests were horrendous in comparison to the number of vehicles on the road (up to 2 years). To help alleviate the problem, in October of that year (1 month after the Pope's visit) the Minister of the day, Sylvester Barret, gave a full driving licence to all those who were on their 2nd provisional licence in Category C (now category and who were already on the waiting list on the previous March. It was not given 'willy nilly' to everyone as some would believe but only to those who had shown some interest by applying for a test in the first place. It was not announced in advance obviously to prevent a rush of applications but only granted to those who were seen to have made an effort and who could legally drive unaccompanied.

B00MSTICK wrote: »

Proves the cramming/passing/forgetting theory so I guess. First part is very surprising though.

With regard to the elderly I'm aware they cause few accidents, I was just suggesting a retest/evaluation as in our golden years sometimes we tend to deteriorate. My freinds grandfather for instance never had an accident but was a terrible driver!

I take your point. If they were assessed on a pro-rata basis to the milage travelled , it may show a different picture.

Steve

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Don't confuse the 'amnesty' with the pre-test brigade.

Thanks for that, I didn't know the full story. (till now):D

Automan

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The sector most likely to pass a driving test first time are young males.

The sector most likely to be killed on our roads are young males.

Food for thought.

Yes but how many of those killed had a full licence?