What do ye think?.. shoulld people have to...

thebullkf

......resit their driving tests similar to an NCT scheme??....

say every 3 years? the reason i ask is simple.its only when you're introduced to a new perspective on a situation that you realise that point of view.. literally.

Let me explain- I have a full licence-have done additional safety driving courses,initially for insurance purposes but hey-it all counts right?

For a while there i was cycling quite a bit...christ what a shock!.
you're non existant on the road:eek: even with PPE/Hi-Vis etc.
(though i must admit-i rarely see a cyclist stopping @ traffic lights.only major junctions.)

I now drive a motorbike. and, ...well its a different ball game altogether
i have gotten lessons,passed my test and i consider myself to be a safe driver.

in fact i'm a much better car driver since i got a motorbike:o

people look straight @ you yet you're invisibler to them-its incredible.
i must say the standard of driving in this country is abysmal.

so .... should the test be rewritten..or should people need to pass it more than once.?

personally i think having to re-sit it does many things.

it encourages people to get lessons.it creates employment.
and most importantly.

it will save lives.


well

foggy_lad

ideas like this are very good but here in ireland it turns into something that has nothing to do with safety and is all about revenue and heavily penalising drivers for being a day or two late resitting their test even though there is months/years of a backlog!

Cookie_Monster

discussed at length in motor frequently, should be every ten years IMO having said that most of the test is rubbish and outdated anyway

corktina

pointless..... we havent hardly any money and you want us to pay for something like this?

thebullkf

corktina wrote: »

pointless..... we havent hardly any money and you want us to pay for something like this?

if you can afford a car,tax and petrol.
i doubt an additional 100e is gonna breakthe bank.

especially if you're a good driver.

lets say its free, do you still think its pointless?

Cookie_Monster

thebullkf wrote: »

if you can afford a car,tax and petrol.
i doubt an additional 100e is gonna breakthe bank.

especially if you're a good driver.

lets say its free, do you still think its pointless?

I think he means the state rather than the individual

thebullkf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I think he means the state rather than the individual

probably-:)

but won't any costs will be recouped

Cool Mo D

People know perfectly well how they should be driving. You can clearly see that when roads are free flowing, the majority (although there is a clueless minority) are perfectly good drivers, and obey the rules. When traffic is bad, people break lights, park anywhere, speed, use bus lanes, cut you up, and generally behave badly to get any sort of jump on the traffic, safe in the knowledge that there will be no repercussions, as traffic enforcement is super lax here compared to most other EU countries.

Seriously enforcing traffic rules besides speeding, drink driving and parking would do much more to improve driving on our roads then pointless expensive retesting.

thebullkf

i just wonder what percentage of accidents,near misses could be eradicated by this though.. i mean i'm sure everyone knows at least one person who could do with re-sitting there test..

(or is it just me )

foggy_lad

thebullkf wrote: »

i just wonder what percentage of accidents,near misses could be eradicated by this though.. i mean i'm sure everyone knows at least one person who could do with re-sitting there test..

(or is it just me )

is resitting their test going to stop hundreds of stupid women from putting on their make up in moving traffic every morning? will it stop stupid men texting the wife or girlfriend on the phone hidden down between their legs on their way home? they can have a test every six months but those stupid people are not going to learn so best just to catch them and put them off the road for the benefit of society.

daenerysstormborn3

In my opinion, people should have to resit the test every 5 years, if they pass they get the cost back through some sort of insurance/tax discount. It makes no sense to me to impose tests/new rules etc on only new motorists. People new to the roads being penalised for the mistakes of so called experienced drivers. Any changes to the rules/law should be across the board.

As regards being invisible on the roads, I drive a motorbike and a push bike and I may aswell be wearing a cloak of invisibility. I obey the rules of the road regardless of what mode of transport I use and this is still irrelevant. When using hand signals on my bike for instance if I have my arm out to indicate I want to turn right at the next set of lights or junction nobody will let me across the lane, the options are to throw myself out into the line of traffic or stop in the bike lane and wait until traffic has come to a atop and weave through it to the top. When i'm on my motorbike it's this simple, I drive like every other road user is going to pay absolutely no attention to me.

In scandinavia, truck drivers (not sure if it applies to all road users) sit a sort of simulation test, they get into a fake cab of a truck and a few different driving experiences are simulated. How do you think this sort of thing would effect irish motorists? One of the simulations is hitting a child with your vehicle, do you think that would change anyone's attitude?

corktina

thebullkf wrote: »

probably-:)

but won't any costs will be recouped

from where? its money out of the economy for no gain whatsover, as already pointed out, an experianced driver will easily pass any test but it wont stop them putting on makeup in the queue (or talking on a mobile etc etc etc.)

it will mean more red tape, more civil servants, higher costs....

corktina

thebullkf wrote: »

if you can afford a car,tax and petrol.
i doubt an additional 100e is gonna breakthe bank.

especially if you're a good driver.

lets say its free, do you still think its pointless?

NOTHING in life is free.... you may not have to pay up front, but you'll still have to pay...pointless

thebullkf

corktina wrote: »

from where? its money out of the economy for no gain whatsover, as already pointed out, an experianced driver will easily pass any test but it wont stop them putting on makeup in the queue (or talking on a mobile etc etc etc.)

it will mean more red tape, more civil servants, higher costs....

how is it out of the economy?.. and it is for gain-a more experienced driving force.
people tend to forget a load of people got licences for free in this country!!!

i personally know 4 people who got their licence without sitting a driving test.


though i agree enforcement of existing rukes would be nice.

thebullkf

corktina wrote: »

NOTHING in life is free.... you may not have to pay up front, but you'll still have to pay...pointless

and i thought i was a cynic ;)

Cookie_Monster

The thing about the test is, I will simply change my behaviour for a day to suit the backwards things they want, both hands on the wheel, using the handbrake not using cruise control, and 100 other things.

Car also turns off when in neutral (stop start tech) which I don't think they'd appreciate in a test.

Most people will simply do that and revert again to the more comfortable, efficient and safer methods of driving than test methods.

thebullkf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The thing about the test is, I will simply change my behaviour for a day to suit the backwards things they want, both hands on the wheel, using the handbrake not using cruise control, and 100 other things.

Car also turns off when in neutral (stop start tech) which I don't think they'd appreciate in a test.

Most people will simply do that and revert again to the more comfortable, efficient and safer methods of driving than test methods.

...such as one hand on the wheel...not using the handbrake,



obviously the test needs to be overhauled/modernised its needed that for a while.
but there are people out there driving on licences that they shouldn't have.

Wishbone Ash

It would be a bit time consuming and expensive for those of us who hold multiple categories.

thebullkf

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It would be a bit time consuming and expensive for those of us who hold multiple categories.

myself included, but i think its its worth it if it stops fookers trying to kill me on a daily basis . no?

swear to god- bikers have it tough!

Nevyn

While the idea has merit I can't see it happening due to the logistics,
as it stands there are long waiting lists for getting a test for those sitting it to get a full licence and adding everyone with a licence back into that system would create a complete clusterfúck.

Cookie_Monster

thebullkf wrote: »

...such as one hand on the wheel...not using the handbrake,

handbrake is not needed unless on a hill really and one hand on wheel is fine 99% of the time othe hand on the gear stick, better for reacting, especially in traffic. Feeding the wheel is another ridiculous thing you're supposed to do, gives way less speed and control in manoeuvring, I think its actually dangerous.

In-fact the 10-2 position advertised is actually dangerous in modern cars as if the air bag goes off it forces you hands and arms into your face.

thebullkf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

handbrake is not needed unless on a hill really and one hand on wheel is fine 99% of the time othe hand on the gear stick, better for reacting, especially in traffic. Feeding the wheel is another ridiculous thing you're supposed to do, gives way less speed and control in manoeuvring, I think its actually dangerous.

In-fact the 10-2 position advertised is actually dangerous in modern cars as if the air bag goes off it forces you hands and arms into your face.

please cookie...i'm splitting me sides here:D

Cookie_Monster

thebullkf wrote: »

please cookie...i'm splitting me sides here:D

what's funny about any of that?

I see from the cycle forum that you're clearly just trolling there and I suspect the same with this thread so I see no real reason to take you seriously anymore.

you prove in that thread you have zero comprehension of the rules of the road anyway, good day.

thebullkf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what's funny about any of that?

I see from the cycle forum that you're clearly just trolling there and I suspect the same with this thread so I see no real reason to take you seriously anymore.

you prove in that thread you have zero comprehension of the rules of the road anyway, good day.

whats funny is the fact that you think handbrakes are only needed on hills.

handbrake is not needed unless on a hill really and one hand on wheel is fine 99% of the time othe hand on the gear stick, better for reacting, especially in traffic. Feeding the wheel is another ridiculous thing you're supposed to do, gives way less speed and control in manoeuvring, I think its actually dangerous.

In-fact the 10-2 position advertised is actually dangerous in modern cars as if the air bag goes off it forces you hands and arms into your face

also the whole airbag thing.

Please refrainfrom calling me a troll- it makes you look foolish and

arguementively weak.

If you wish to debate the 'ROTR' start a thread,i'd be happy to contribute.

Cookie_Monster

thebullkf wrote: »

whats funny is the fact that you think handbrakes are only needed on hills.

:rolleyes: thats not what I said.

also the whole airbag thing.

why is that silly? thats why most instructors will now tell you to use the 9-3 placement as then you will not be in danger, but the test still favour 10-2

If you wish to debate the 'ROTR' start a thread,i'd be happy to contribute.

with you, no not really

thebullkf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes: thats not what I said.

allow me to retort..

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

handbrake is not needed unless on a hill really and one hand on wheel is fine 99% of the time othe hand on the gear stick, better for reacting, especially in traffic. Feeding the wheel is another ridiculous thing you're supposed to do, gives way less speed and control in manoeuvring, I think its actually dangerous.

In-fact the 10-2 position advertised is actually dangerous in modern cars as if the air bag goes off it forces you hands and arms into your face.

]why is that silly? thats why most instructors will now tell you to use the 9-3 placement as then you will not be in danger, but the test still favour 10-2

most instructers?. do you have a link to back that statement up?

why would instructers tell you to do something that might impact on you successfully passing the test?

to be frank with you,a close friend is a driving instructer- i've asked him about the 9-3 thing- he reckons its bollocks.

with you, no not really

thought not.:cool:

-Chris-

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what's funny about any of that?

I see from the cycle forum that you're clearly just trolling there and I suspect the same with this thread so I see no real reason to take you seriously anymore.

you prove in that thread you have zero comprehension of the rules of the road anyway, good day.

If you think someone's trolling, please report the post. Attack the post, not the poster.