Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Should there be a driving licence refresher test?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    tayto lover wrote: »
    The problem as I see it is that many drivers on Irish roads have not done a test at all never mind a refresher.

    That doesn't make much sense. So, because some people didn't do the test, everyone that did, has to redo it?

    People don't drive horribly because they didn't do a test. They drive horribly because there is no real punitive action taken for poor standards and they are only concerned with getting themselves where ever they are going.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that doesn't mention who was responsible for those accidents.

    If they want us to take road safety seriously, this is something that seriously needs to be addressed. They can easily be anonymised by referencing Vehicle A / Vehicle B and class of vehicles involved. Although I suspect it'll find quite a few accidents can be attributed to poor road design. Especially the exit of the port tunnel, when trucks are looking to change onto the M50 merge, while cars are looking to get onto the M1.


  • Options
    #93
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    liamog wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter how you drive on our single carriageway roads, you are either going too slow and will be tailgated, or you are going too fast and will be held up by people who "can't drive". Personally I only get wound up by the 70km/h crew. The ones who will maintain the same speed and end up speeding through villages then crawling down the open road.

    Just because someone is tailgating doesn't mean you're driving too slow. I've often been tailgated at or beyond the speed limit!


  • Options
    #94
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Dravokivich wrote: »


    If they want us to take road safety seriously, this is something that seriously needs to be addressed. They can easily be anonymised by referencing Vehicle A / Vehicle B and class of vehicles involved. Although I suspect it'll find quite a few accidents can be attributed to poor road design. Especially the exit of the port tunnel, when trucks are looking to change onto the M50 merge, while cars are looking to get onto the M1.

    they only place they can get that data from is insurance claims.


  • Options
    #95
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    they only place they can get that data from is insurance claims.

    Not really. Insurance is about liability as in who is accountable for the money involved. It doesn't seek to actually declare responsibility. They don't have the authority to do that, nor would they want to.


  • Options
    #96
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    Not really. Insurance is about liability as in who is accountable for the money involved. It doesn't seek to actually declare responsibility. They don't have the authority to do that, nor would they want to.

    liability generally follows responsibility.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    liability generally follows responsibility.

    They don't have to be related. One could be liable without being responsible at all.


  • Options
    #98
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    They don't have to be related. One could be liable without being responsible at all.

    hence "generally"


  • Options
    #99
    weedened
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭weedened


    Genesis Bald Storekeeper wrote: »
    Something like every 10 years. Nothing mad, just to see if you understand the rules of the road properly. The standard of driving out there is absolutely horrendous. No indicators, wrong lanes, no ideas at roundabouts, no mirrors, tailgating, full beams on in Broad daylight, no lights on in pitch darkness, driving around in fog or heavy rain with just drls on. Just some of the the stuff I've witnessed. If you're driving around in a 2 tonne metal box you should know how to drive it properly.

    The problem I see with this kind of post,is you are saying that you are better than John or Jane doe on the road..How about booking a driving instuctor for an hour,and see what your driving is like,and let us know how you get on..I am not having a go at you here at all..We learn to pass the test in this country,driving comes second..


  • Options
    #100
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    Antares35 wrote: »
    Just because someone is tailgating doesn't mean you're driving too slow. I've often been tailgated at or beyond the speed limit!

    Exactly, you are going too slow, the speed limit has no correlation to whether the person tailgating you thinks you are going fast enough.


  • Options
    #101
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I remember a few years ago, they (either the AA or the RSA) ran tests in a number of car parks - not for driving, but eyesight. I think over 45% of those tested failed on the required standard.

    Eyesight should be tested at every licence renewal. It could be as simple as attending the NDLS centre, and while being interviewed, being asked "Will you read those letters on the screen behind me please?" Simple to conduct, and cheap (free). [I do not wear glasses, and my eyesight is 6-6 or 20-20 - as tested by my opthalmic surgeon - i had a non eyesight problem] .

    The next approach would be to fit every Gardai patrol vehicle with ANPR cameras to check vehicles in front and behind for Motor tax, NCT, Insurance, and improve enforcement.

    A friend of mine in the UK was banned and he said local police actually check up on banned drivers in their area. Now that would help.

    Re-testing drivers is a total waste but knocking those with serious driving offences back to novice learners sounds a good idea.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    pinktoe wrote: »
    The majority of driver fatalities in 2019 was males aged 58.

    Out of 81 driver fatalities 43 were above 46.

    So it's not just young drivers to blame.

    .....

    That's statistic is nothing to do with the cause of accidents. Just that younger you are the better your are able to survive and recover from injury or accident.


  • Options
    #103
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Stevieluvsye wrote: »
    I agree. This thread pops up every few months. Standard is atrocious. Especially use of indicators at roundabouts, driving too slow, bad parking etc etc.

    Without trying to generalise, old people shouldn't be let near the wheel of a car. You have your bus pass. Use it

    Since a lot of problems are with new drivers. Who are the most familiar with the tests and will have recently had instruction on the test and driving. It suggests it's not a lack of familiarity with the rules or good driving theory that's a problem. But the lack of fear of being caught. Thus the problem is a lack enforcement not age.


  • Options
    #104
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Cilldara_2000 wrote: »
    ....
    In reality it's bonkers that you can drive for 53 years with no supervision or training and you self certify that you're fit to drive, and you're tickety boo unless you get for drink driving or you kill someone. ....

    I'm curious. If 50+ years of clean driving marks you out as high risk. I'm curious what you think 1 to 10 years experience and no clean licence makes you?


  • Options
    #105
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    I remember a few years ago, they (either the AA or the RSA) ran tests in a number of car parks - not for driving, but eyesight. I think over 45% of those tested failed on the required standard.

    Eyesight should be tested at every licence renewal. It could be as simple as attending the NDLS centre, and while being interviewed, being asked "Will you read those letters on the screen behind me please?" Simple to conduct, and cheap (free). [I do not wear glasses, and my eyesight is 6-6 or 20-20 - as tested by my opthalmic surgeon - i had a non eyesight problem] .

    The next approach would be to fit every Gardai patrol vehicle with ANPR cameras to check vehicles in front and behind for Motor tax, NCT, Insurance, and improve enforcement.

    A friend of mine in the UK was banned and he said local police actually check up on banned drivers in their area. Now that would help.

    Re-testing drivers is a total waste but knocking those with serious driving offences back to novice learners sounds a good idea.

    Just make the submission of a current eyesight report from an optician mandatory with the renewal.


  • Options
    #106
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    I remember a few years ago, they (either the AA or the RSA) ran tests in a number of car parks - not for driving, but eyesight. I think over 45% of those tested failed on the required standard.

    Eyesight should be tested at every licence renewal. It .....

    Is poor eyesight a significant factor in ignoring basic rules and laws? Is it a significant factor in accidents? If it isn't your creating a massive industry around eye tests that will have almost no effect on people's driving and safety.

    Poor observation is not the same as poor eyesight either. If people have become careless and not looking properly an eyesight test won't fix that.


  • Options
    #107
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Just make the submission of a current eyesight report from an optician mandatory with the renewal.
    beauf wrote: »
    Is poor eyesight a significant factor in ignoring basic rules and laws? Is it a significant factor in accidents? If it isn't your creating a massive industry around eye tests that will have almost no effect on people's driving and safety.

    Poor observation is not the same as poor eyesight either. If people have become careless and not looking properly an eyesight test won't fix that.

    You are both missing the point I was making.

    1. You only need a medical eyesight test when you apply for your first licence (at perhaps 17 years old) and not again until you apply for your renewal at 70 years of age, and subsequent renewals. People's eyesight normally deteriorates significantly in their middle years (say around 40 years, but some as early as their twenties, but most require corrective lenses before they reach seventy when the next required eyesight test is part of the renewal scheme).

    2. If eyesight is not important, why is it tested?

    3. I am suggesting that when you present yourself for renewal in person (as I believe is the current requirement), the interviewer ask you to read the letters displayed on the screen behind them - a free simple eye test. No cost to either side.

    If 45% of the general driving population fail a simple eyesight test, like being able to read a car number plate at 25 metres, is it not time to do something about it?

    I am suggesting a test that is so simple and so cheap that it should be done, even if it achieves little. For most people, eyesight deteriorates slowly, not suddenly. People only realised how bad it had got when they could no longer read the telephone directory, but of course those are a thing of the past.


  • Options
    #108
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    People only realised how bad it had got when they could no longer read the telephone directory, but of course those are a thing of the past.

    Thats long sighted not short sighted the former having little effect on driving.

    Sam Russell wrote: »
    You are both missing the point I was making.

    1. You only need a medical eyesight test when you apply for your first licence (at perhaps 17 years old) and not again until you apply for your renewal at 70 years of age, and subsequent renewals. People's eyesight normally deteriorates significantly in their middle years (say around 40 years, but some as early as their twenties, but most require corrective lenses before they reach seventy when the next required eyesight test is part of the renewal scheme).

    2. If eyesight is not important, why is it tested?

    3. I am suggesting that when you present yourself for renewal in person (as I believe is the current requirement), the interviewer ask you to read the letters displayed on the screen behind them - a free simple eye test. No cost to either side.

    If 45% of the general driving population fail a simple eyesight test, like being able to read a car number plate at 25 metres, is it not time to do something about it?

    I am suggesting a test that is so simple and so cheap that it should be done, even if it achieves little. For most people, eyesight deteriorates slowly, not suddenly.

    Just because you say something is simple doesn't make it simple.

    No You are missing the point. There is a cost to benefit ratio here, and you have no data to make your case...
    There are no official estimates of the number of drivers and motorcyclists on theroad with eyesight that fails to meet the minimum legal standards. However,
    some studies suggest 2% to 3% of drivers have vision below the minimum legal standards.

    Poor vision is only recorded as a contributory factor in less than 1% of reported
    road deaths and injuries, although this may be an under-estimate due to the
    difficulties in assessing whether poor eyesight played a role in accidents.

    https://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/


  • Options
    #109
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    beauf wrote: »
    Thats long sighted not short sighted the former having little effect on driving.

    Just because you say something is simple doesn't make it simple.

    No You are missing the point. There is a cost to benefit ratio here, and you have no data to make your case...



    https://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/


    You are quoting UK figures there which I doubt are valid here.

    Many accidents have the driver of one of the vehicles saying - 'He came out of nowhere!' which is a sure sign that the driver of the vehicle had no sight of the other vehicle prior to the accident. To me that is a sure sign of eyesight problems.

    Long sight and short sight are both needed unless the driver never consults the instruments - which might explain a few things. Also, bifocals and varifocals are a sign of poor eyesight even with the corrective lenses, and are very common in older drivers - but that is another issue.

    Testing at the point of issuing a renewal licence cannot be but simple, and cheap. I am not suggesting any more than asking the application of a simple 'Please read the letters on the screen' type test. How can that cost anything? Or be complicated in any way?

    You mention the cost/benefit for something that costs nothing. That is just bizarre.


  • Options
    #110
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    You are quoting UK figures there which I doubt are valid here.

    Why does eyesight and driving work differently here... the stats will be broadly similar.
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Many accidents have the driver of one of the vehicles saying - 'He came out of nowhere!' which is a sure sign that the driver of the vehicle had no sight of the other vehicle prior to the accident. To me that is a sure sign of eyesight problems.

    Well IMO you're wrong. That not, I saw something blurry, or I can't see anything further than 100m away. That's not how shortsighted works. People don't see things, because they've become complacent and they don't check their mirrors or their blind spots. They don't even turn their head to look. That's not eyesight, thats just bad habits.
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Long sight and short sight are both needed unless the driver never consults the instruments - which might explain a few things.

    I don't think many people drive eyes glued to the instruments. That's the whole reason for head up displays. Even if they did, you don't need to look at them to know you're driving like moron.
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Also, bifocals and varifocals are a sign of poor eyesight even with the corrective lenses, and are very common in older drivers - but that is another issue..

    The point of glasses is they make your eyesight 100%. if your wear glasses you'll pas the eyesight test 100%. So your vision is the same as normal.
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Testing at the point of issuing a renewal license cannot be but simple, and cheap. I am not suggesting any more than asking the application of a simple 'Please read the letters on the screen' type test. How can that cost anything? Or be complicated in any way?

    Because eye sight tests aren't that simple. There's loads of other issues beyond long or short sightedness, like night vision problems, colour issues. Even if the person was qualified to do the basic test which they won't be. Anytime I've got my license renewed they've mad at least one mistake which has required multiple visits to correct. If they can't get that right, I have no faith in them doing half assed medical eye tests.
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    You mention the cost/benefit for something that costs nothing. That is just bizarre.

    It doesn't cost nothing. You'd have to print up the charts for one, that going to cost something. That's before you get into the rest of it. So no it doesn't cost nothing. So basically you want to create massive expensive and complication to solve a problem that you don't even know is a significant problem. Stat wouldn't strong suggest it isn't.

    Even after all that. If someone is discovered they need glasses. Its likely not news to them. Nothing to stop them continuing not to get them, and even if they get them, not to wear them. Who will check.

    ... and you're right back to enforcement and the lack of it.


  • Options
    #111
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If you don't do any research into a problem and just pick a solution out of the air you can't be surprised if it has no effect on the problem.

    They did the same with fixed cycling charges. Nothing wrong with the charges. But they didn't enforce them. So hence the stats of catching something like 3 a day nationally. Some deterrent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Stepping Stone
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭Stepping Stone


    My mother in law got an amnesty license years ago and her knowledge of cars/ rules is almost funny. She was having problems with her car a few years ago, warning light on the dash. She drove the car to my house because this warning light had been on for days and I would know what it was. For the record, I know no more about cars than the average middle aged woman (oil, screen wash, change tyres). Anyway, I had a look...it was the fog light that was on and had been for weeks. She’s got a fiesta with a heated front windscreen now but won’t use the front or the rear heaters in case the battery dies. She also can’t reverse well, so parking is a huge issue. Doesn’t know how to use a roundabout despite living in a city about 500m from one.


  • Options
    #113
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    Stepping Stone wrote: »
    My mother in law got an amnesty license years ago and her knowledge of cars/ rules is almost funny. She was having problems with her car a few years ago, warning light on the dash. She drove the car to my house because this warning light had been on for days and I would know what it was. For the record, I know no more about cars than the average middle aged woman (oil, screen wash, change tyres). Anyway, I had a look...it was the fog light that was on and had been for weeks. She’s got a fiesta with a heated front windscreen now but won’t use the front or the rear heaters in case the battery dies. She also can’t reverse well, so parking is a huge issue. Doesn’t know how to use a roundabout despite living in a city about 500m from one.

    there's thousands like that who didn't get an amnesty license.


  • Options
    #114
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Stepping Stone wrote: »
    My mother in law got an amnesty license years ago and her knowledge of cars/ rules is almost funny. ....

    ... I'm not sure having a detailed knowledge of cars and motor bikes is guarantee of good driving if that's what you're implying...


Advertisement