Is it time to make people resit driving test after a period of time?

gozunda

ANXIOUS wrote: »

https://seniordriving.aaa.com/resources-family-friends/conversations-about-driving/facts-research/

But that's data from the USA! I think you might be better of gathering relevant data from the RSA!

The US has very different tests / medical and driving conditions compared to here - so no not applicable to your Shane Ross story whatsoever.

To undertake a study - best practice is first to set out your thesis. Do a review of the relevant literature. Select a study area. Gather your data. Test your data. Check your findings. Write up your results and present the conclusions.

It is not good practice to make wild claims and then gather random data.

Dev84

Cason Powerful Skateboard wrote: »

You don't drive do you?

They still don't detail it by cause, do they? No.

Again, will you maintain under 16 year olds in the stats were driving and responsible for the accident?

America has no bearing whatsoever. It is the least acceptable country to compare with for motoring issues.


I'll ask again, as you have ignored others asking the same question.
How long have you held a full driving licence.

He dont have a licence. He is bitter.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Dev84 wrote: »

He dont have a licence. He is bitter.

I've just seen a thread where a young driver a few years back had a puncture, with a flat spare, out of petrol and a flat battery. He shouldn't have been on the road with such a death trap and such poor preparation before taking to the roads.

Guess who it was?

Dev84

Cason Powerful Skateboard wrote: »

I've just seen a thread where a young driver a few years back had a puncture, with a flat spare, out of petrol and a flat battery. He shouldn't have been on the road with such a death trap and such poor preparation before taking to the roads.

Guess who it was?

Enlighten me.....

gozunda

Cason Powerful Skateboard wrote: »

I've just seen a thread where a young driver a few years back had a puncture, with a flat spare, out of petrol and a flat battery. He shouldn't have been on the road with such a death trap and such poor preparation before taking to the roads.

Guess who it was?

Shane Ross?

scamalert

yes lets give goverment another tax initiative to rip people off as is on the roads.

Now i get OPs point, in most cases if accident happens and you have 50-70aged person involved pay outs go trough the roof, claims drag on for years, since because of age they will have dozen conditions as is, which to say the least medical assessments are decades away to rule out and will gladly make it stick.

thou rule of thumb from seeing people on the road its mostly young 20- upwards that are usually the ones to cause the accident, young and stupid is true, as elderly will be more slow and they to take caution - well at least those that arent some alcos or just rooted back to times when road rules didn't exist.

re-sitting test would make it a ton harder as it is now, so only exception i see unless ones medical condition has changed, or they have accidents that result in injuries etc that could be the spin off to implement such rule, otherwise it would cause more anger then any good as insurance companies are mobed up comfy as is, road tax, nct make a killing as well its joe that gets screwed here.

Dev84

scamalert wrote: »

yes lets give goverment another tax initiative to rip people off as is on the roads.

Now i get OPs point, in most cases if accident happens and you have 50-70aged person involved pay outs go trough the roof, claims drag on for years, since because of age they will have dozen conditions as is, which to say the least medical assessments are decades away to rule out and will gladly make it stick.

thou rule of thumb from seeing people on the road its mostly young 20- upwards that are usually the ones to cause the accident, young and stupid is true, as elderly will be more slow and they to take caution - well at least those that arent some alcos or just rooted back to times when road rules didn't exist.

re-setting test would make it a ton harder as it is now, so only exception i see unless ones medical condition has changed, or they have accidents that result in injuries etc that could be the spin off to implement such rule, otherwise it would cause more anger then any good as insurance companies are mobed up comfy as is, road tax, nct make a killing as well its joe that gets screwed here.

Thread is dead since the op's true motives were uncovered.

ANXIOUS

Dev84 wrote: »

Thread is dead since the op's true motives were uncovered.

What are you talking about? This isn't about me and if you'd care to take a leaf out of sareems book you'd see for yourself.

Dev84

ANXIOUS wrote: »

What are you talking about? This isn't about me and if you'd care to take a leaf out of sareems book you'd see for yourself.

Earn your own licence and come back to us.

ANXIOUS

Cason Powerful Skateboard wrote: »

I've just seen a thread where a young driver a few years back had a puncture, with a flat spare, out of petrol and a flat battery. He shouldn't have been on the road with such a death trap and such poor preparation before taking to the roads.

Guess who it was?

I wasn't on the road it was in an underground car park, but good story.

I can't belive how people are so against thinking elderly people are more of a risk on the road.

Junkyard Tom

No. Getting a full licence isn't a certificate of excellence - it's a certificate of meeting the minimum standards for driving unaccompanied. Driving is a life-skill that we should, ideally, be constantly improving.

ANXIOUS

Dev84 wrote: »

Earn your own licence and come back to us.

OK, I've done that a few years ago im back now.

Dev84

ANXIOUS wrote: »

OK, I've done that a few years ago im back now.

Dead thread. Im out.

ANXIOUS

Dev84 wrote: »

Dead thread. Im out.

Incredible contribution, ask me multiple times if I've a license and then I answer and you're out :pac:

gozunda

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I wasn't on the road it was in an underground car park, but good story.

I can't belive how people are so against thinking elderly people are more of a risk on the road.

I can't believe how you came up with an assumption that goes against the findings of the Irish Road Safety Authority and you've done your best to put forward your own bias as plausible!

Get away out of it...!

Edit: Provisionally I dont agree with your assumption that "elderly people are more of a risk on the road" for the following reasons:

* Defining 'elderly' as anything between 65-80 represents too large of a difference in a single grouping. Many 65 plus individuals are fit healthy and active due to improved diet fitness medical care etc etc

* Older drivers are generally more experienced with regards to hazards and road conditions and many have a wealth of driving experience

* Older drivers are less likley to drive at high speeds and engage in risky manoeuvres or road racing etc etc

* Older drivers have more medical and optical tests to ensure fitness to drive

* There are always exceptions and outliers such as the sad story of the individual with dementia who took his sons jeep.

Disclaimer: The above does not mean that I believe older drivers are the best* drivers either however going by the findings of the RSA they are less at risk on the road compared to some other groups...

Buford T. Justice XIX

gozunda wrote: »

But that's data from the USA! I think you might be better of gathering relevant data from the RSA!

The US has very different tests / medical and driving conditions compared to here - so no not applicable to your Shane Ross story whatsoever.

To undertake a study - best practice is first to set out your thesis. Do a review of the relevant literature. Select a study area. Gather your data. Test your data. Check your findings. Write up your results and present the conclusions.

It is not good practice to make wild claims and then gather random data.[

Are you trying to close After Hours?:P

gozunda

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Are you trying to close After Hours?:P

Erhhh ya sorry boss - mea culpa*


*takes myself off to have a good talking too ....

BattleCorp

I reckon that a huge amount of people (myself included) would probably fail the driving test if they had to sit it again.

You'd have thousands of people who have been driving for years put off the road.

There would be huge social consequences if that was the case. Something like that would crash the economy.

Lux23

Most would fail because the driving test is ridiculous.

suicide_circus

BattleCorp wrote: »

I reckon that a huge amount of people (myself included) would probably fail the driving test if they had to sit it again.

You'd have thousands of people who have been driving for years put off the road.

There would be huge social consequences if that was the case. Something like that would crash the economy.

Why do you think you'd fail?

cajonlardo

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I can't belive how people are so against thinking elderly people are more of a risk on the road.

Hi,
What driving experience are you basing your belief on?

I am driving in professional capacities since the late 70's. Including emergency services and other performance related driving occupations.

Honestly, I am hard put to isolate any single group of road users as being specifically dangerous. I've seen allegations that certain marques of cars are dangerously driven, the young are dangerous or the elderly are too befuddled to be allowed drive.
Sorry, I just don't see this carry into real life.

P.S just thinking on all the road traffic accidents I've attended and with honesty I cannot say there was a noticable bigger amount of any age group involved.

FishOnABike

Dev84 wrote: »

At least the elderly got their full license.

As the driving test was only introduced in 1954, a substantial number of drivers 70+ would never have had to sit a driving test. You just went in to the motor tax office, paid your fee and walked out with your licence. I think my father got his licence before he ever sat in a car.

BattleCorp

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why do you think you'd fail?

To be honest, I wouldn't class myself as a world beater when it comes to driving. I'd class myself as ok. It took me four attempts before I passed my driving test years ago.

I freely acknowledge that I would have picked up some bad habits in the years since. Not necessarily bad habits that make me an unsafe driver, just things that are frowned upon in a test.

I see the logic in people upskilling or doing some sort of refresher class every 10 years, but I think it isn't practical to have everybody resit their driving test at regular intervals.

Wanderer78

BattleCorp wrote:

To be honest, I wouldn't class myself as a world beater when it comes to driving. I'd class myself as ok. It took me four attempts before I passed my driving test years ago.

I'd fail myself as well, but I got it first time around. We regularly should be 'checked' but in a less stressful way as the original test. I do think you d be right about the negative effects of a major change to the testing system on the economy

jmayo

ANXIOUS wrote: »

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while and just haven't had the time to pull off the numbers and analyze them.

Basically I think everyone should have to resit the driving test after say 10years of initially passing it and then ever 5 years from 65-80 and after that on a yearly basis.

The data I need is age profile for crashes, cliams and deaths, as I believe I think there is a direct link with elderly drivers.

With Shane Ross's militant view on drink drivers I think this is the next natural step. The below cases got me thinking of it today.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-84-did-uturn-at-toll-plaza-and-drove-3km-the-wrong-way-on-motorway-before-being-killed-36551795.html

You want to turn it into a pilots license. :rolleyes:
And you use one case to suit your argument.

What about the politician that drove for miles down the wrong side of Naas dual carriageway a number of years back?
Should we bring in a rule for politicians ?
Granted he was drunk as well.

ANXIOUS wrote: »

First Stat, in 2016&2017 (combined) people over the age of 65 account for the largest portion of road deaths 77 out of 344

How many of them are at fault for these accidents.
What about 66 year old Donegal man Hugh Friel who whilst on his way home from bingo was ploughed into by a car driven by 26 year old
Shaun Kelly.

BTW the other 7 guys in Shaun Kelly's car were also killed.

Is Hugh Friel part of your stats ?

Fann Linn wrote: »

Does not necessarilly mean that age group were at fault just because they died.

Exactly.
Sometimes they are passengers in cars.
Last Nov an elderly woman from Wicklow died after being in a car crash in Northern Ireland.
She was passenger in the car and mother-in-law of driver.

Widdershins

If they did make people re-sit it, it should not cost anything. Too many things that look suspiciously like money rackets and safety related things shouldn't be like that. Especially with the scandalous cost of insurance etc.
Incidentally I paid my premium yesterday and it is now 3 x what it was three years ago. Never had a claim or conviction.

BattleCorp

Widdershins wrote: »

If they did make people re-sit it, it should not cost anything. Too many things that look suspiciously like money rackets and safety related things shouldn't be like that. Especially with the scandalous cost of insurance etc.
Incidentally I paid my premium yesterday and it is now 3 x what it was three years ago. Never had a claim or conviction.

It's not just the cost of the re-sit. It's what happens to people who re-sit and fail? Do we put them off the road until they re-sit again and pass?

Who drives the ambulance in the meantime when the driver is off the road? Who drives the trucks? Who brings granny to the hospital? How do I get to work? Etc. Etc. Etc.

It would be an absolute economic disaster.

Hector Savage

F*ck that ! It's allready a total racket as it is !!
Why should someone have to resit the test if they are continuously driving over all these years ?

BattleCorp

Hector Savage wrote: »

F*ck that ! It's allready a total racket as it is !!
Why should someone have to resit the test if they are continuously driving over all these years ?

I'm totally against the re-sit idea, but there is a little bit of logic in it (even though it would be totally impractical to implement).

If you are in a workplace and drive a forklift, you have to do refresher training every three years. If you are a truck driver you need to do CPC training, which includes one classroom module every year.

lalababa

ANXIOUS wrote: »

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while and just haven't had the time to pull off the numbers and analyze them.

Basically I think everyone should have to resit the driving test after say 10years of initially passing it and then ever 5 years from 65-80 and after that on a yearly basis.

The data I need is age profile for crashes, cliams and deaths, as I believe I think there is a direct link with elderly drivers.

With Shane Ross's militant view on drink drivers I think this is the next natural step. The below cases got me thinking of it today.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-84-did-uturn-at-toll-plaza-and-drove-3km-the-wrong-way-on-motorway-before-being-killed-36551795.html

Education and exams are certainly a decent way of upskilling, like the cpc for truckers. It would keep people a little bit more on the ball if they had a few mandatory lessons and a test every 10 years as you say especially for older folks. There are alot of elderly drivers that shouldn't be out on the roads. The car had to be sold out from under my father, and many friends of mine have similar experiences. Most of the old folks just don't know when to quit. That said we need enforcement of the current laws which is not happening. Take the non enforcement of fog lights as an example.