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

dxhound2005 · 03-02-2018 3:10pm

That would be a serious amount of money. Dublin and Cork would need to get a number of them to cater for their populations.

https://www.ansiblemotion.com/automotive-driver-in-the-loop-simulation-articles/costs-and-roi-benefits-of-driving-simulators

The short answer is “a significant amount.” A traditional dynamic driving simulator built around a hexapod motion system can cost millions of pounds – serious systems will cost between one and three million pounds, and it goes (staggeringly) upwards from there, into tens or even hundreds of millions. You can attribute much of that to the intricate motion systems and the powerful computing systems needed to create those actions convincingly, in a professional, engineering-class manner that emulates a lifelike driving experience.

Hans Bricks · 03-02-2018 3:32pm

The driving test is one of competency. You don't gradually get worse or forget how to drive with experience.
We have no need to prove ourselves as drivers to some fickle middle aged RSA gowl every few years.

Like have you seen the pass rate at the Dublin test centres recently ? 45 % is the best I think.

How many here can say they would be more than confident they would pass on each re sit ?
I mean surely they'll have no problem with the prospect of living on the commuter belt and beyond , having to somehow make it to Dublin for work everyday with no car ?

That dickhead in a big German saloon isn't going to stop dangerously weaving in and out traffic or overtaking on blindspots and solid white lines because he has to drive like Mary Sue with the hands at 10 to 2 on the steering wheel for twenty minutes every few years.

paleoperson · 03-02-2018 4:49pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you sure about the 'economic disaster'? Imagine the reduced healthcare costs and reduced disability costs from the reduced collisions caused by these crap drivers? Imagine the reduced insurance premiums for the rest of us decent drivers when these reduced claim costs flow through the system. Imagine the reduced healthcare costs arising from when some of these crap drivers turn to cycling or walking instead and improve their fitness and general health? Imagine the reduced commute times for the remaining decent drivers.

There is a lot of upside here.

I remember all this 'political disaster' talk about the smoking ban too.

This is legit one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen on boards.ie in my entire life.

And like I was saying before the driver's test is not reliable at ALL. The way to think of it is that it's a little bit better than Tarot card readings, a little better than it, you can't put that much faith in the test. You could also have low skill but be a completely safe driver. I guarantee you 100% you would fail your test if you got one cranky tester some bad day, they would pull things out of nowhere. All the wrong people would be put off the roads, there would be zero improvement or less accidents.

Charles Babbage · 03-02-2018 6:12pm

Hans Bricks wrote: »

That dickhead in a big German saloon isn't going to stop dangerously weaving in and out traffic or overtaking on blindspots and solid white lines because he has to drive like Mary Sue with the hands at 10 to 2 on the steering wheel for twenty minutes every few years.

I think that before self driving cars are fully introduced there will be a period with more telematics in the car. This can score your driving whatever age you are, whether you are a boy racer, German saloon dickhead, or a sloppy driving granny. Insurance companies will increasingly require such things.

Pete67 · 03-02-2018 7:07pm

Coming a bit late to this, but for what it's worth any objective analysis of road traffic accident data would show that younger drivers, particularly younger male drivers are responsible for a disproportionate amount of serious injuries and fatalities on our roads. Perhaps we should insist they resit the driving test every six months until they reach the age of reason, say around 30 years of age.

AndrewJRenko · 03-02-2018 8:22pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If there was full enforcement of the rules all the "good" drivers on this thread and hundreds of thousands more would be off the road in a week with 12 points for speeding. Then when everyone kept to the speed limits there would be traffic chaos. Maybe it would save some lives, but are people ready for this politically?

I could see a protest movement happening in which hundreds of thousands with 12 points would just continue driving. What would happen then?

Or else maybe people would change their driving style after getting the six penalty points and stop speeding?

paleoperson wrote: »

This is legit one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen on boards.ie in my entire life.

Because you don't think that healthcare costs would drop if we got dangerous drivers off the road?

paleoperson · 03-02-2018 11:36pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because you don't think that healthcare costs would drop if we got dangerous drivers off the road?

Driving tests would tell you almost nothing about who the dangerous drivers are, particularly in people under 65.

ANXIOUS · 04-02-2018 1:58am

Pete67 wrote: »

Coming a bit late to this, but for what it's worth any objective analysis of road traffic accident data would show that younger drivers, particularly younger male drivers are responsible for a disproportionate amount of serious injuries and fatalities on our roads. Perhaps we should insist they resit the driving test every six months until they reach the age of reason, say around 30 years of age.

Can you please provide me with some more information on the facts.

Pete67 · 04-02-2018 3:31pm

UK data from 2011 - I don't have ready access to comparable Irish data:

There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70.
There were 11,946 accidents involving 17-to-19-year-old drivers.
There were 24,007 accidents involving 20-to-24-year-old drivers.

Elderly drivers are far from the biggest problem to be addressed.

ANXIOUS · 04-02-2018 7:20pm

Pete67 wrote: »

UK data from 2011 - I don't have ready access to comparable Irish data:

There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70.
There were 11,946 accidents involving 17-to-19-year-old drivers.
There were 24,007 accidents involving 20-to-24-year-old drivers.

Elderly drivers are far from the biggest problem to be addressed.

You need context for these figures. Ie how many people are driving in each group. Also then you are just providing accidents not who was at fault.

ahnowbrowncow · 04-02-2018 8:07pm

gozunda wrote: »

One accident does not make for a thesis. I think you may well find your assumptions are incorrect.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/judge-s-remarks-on-elderly-drivers-wrong-and-ageist-1.3136659

Remember older drivers must already undergo regular medical to ensure fitness to drive. I know of three older drivers in this locality who did not have their fitness to drive signed off due to ongoing medical issues.

One anecdote does not make for a thesis. I think you may well find your assumptions are incorrect.

Now for some facts.

The RSA's provisional review of fatal collisons 2017 states "The highest risk age groups in 2017 are those aged 66 and older (21% of all road users killed), 16-25 (21%) and those aged 26-35 (18%)"

This isn't new either, elderly drivers have always been one of the most dangerous/at risk groups.
Here's a table from a 2005 report by Goodbody Economic Consultants that looks at road fatalities over a 10 year period.

The fact is that the elderly do make up a large proportion of road fatalities, they make up the second highest number of fatalities per head of population in this report. I'd guess they would rank even higher on the number of fatalities per mileage. These fatalities are despite them being the "safest" drivers on the road.

Table 4.6 Annual Average No. Fatalities per 1,000 Persons, 1993-2002

Age Group - 1993-1997 - 1998-2002
0-17 years - 0.053 - 0.047
18-24 years - 0.263 - 0.238
25-34 years - 0.150 - 0.142
35-44 years - 0.096 - 0.079
45-54 years - 0.096 - 0.076
55-64 years - 0.121 - 0.079
65+ years - 0.174 - 0.143

07Lapierre · 04-02-2018 8:17pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

One anecdote does not make for a thesis. I think you may well find your assumptions are incorrect.

Now for some facts.

The RSA's provisional review of fatal collisons 2017 states "The highest risk age groups in 2017 are those aged 66 and older (21% of all road users killed), 16-25 (21%) and those aged 26-35 (18%)"

This isn't new either, elderly drivers have always been one of the most dangerous/at risk groups.
Here's a table from a 2005 report by Goodbody Economic Consultants that looks at road fatalities over a 10 year period.

The fact is that the elderly do make up a large proportion of road fatalities, they make up the second highest number of fatalities per head of population in this report. I'd guess they would rank even higher on the number of fatalities per mileage. These fatalities are despite them being the "safest" drivers on the road.

Table 4.6 Annual Average No. Fatalities per 1,000 Persons, 1993-2002

Age Group - 1993-1997 - 1998-2002
0-17 years - 0.053 - 0.047
18-24 years - 0.263 - 0.238
25-34 years - 0.150 - 0.142
35-44 years - 0.096 - 0.079
45-54 years - 0.096 - 0.076
55-64 years - 0.121 - 0.079
65+ years - 0.174 - 0.143

Those figures simply show that over 65's are more likely to die in a road traffic accident than younger people. They don't show what age group caused the fatal accident.

decky1 · 04-02-2018 8:18pm

Ah stop putting ideas into their heads are we not bad enough with the NCT--We don't need another money making racket for the government' cos I doubt it would be free.

ahnowbrowncow · 04-02-2018 8:31pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Those figures simply show that over 65's are more likely to die in a road traffic accident than younger people. They don't show what age group caused the fatal accident.

I highly doubt it's just a coincidence that every year their age group has one of the highest fatalities.

Dakota Dan · 04-02-2018 9:47pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Always though you should have to do a re-sit every decade, if your car needs a regular test you the driver certainly do! The evidence is to be seen every day.

Do you honestly think sitting the test every 10 years is going to improve their driving? I've seen and also read on here where drivers say you can drive as you please when you pass your test. I saw an L driver doing her test the same day as my son, she arrives unaccompanied, passed her test ripped off the L's drove out of the test centre without indicating and in front of incoming traffic. More fixed cameras and heavy fines for dangerous driving would make more sense and after a few convictions they would learn fast.

the_pen_turner · 04-02-2018 9:58pm

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Do you honestly think sitting the test every 10 years is going to improve their driving? I've seen and also read on here where drivers say you can drive as you please when you pass your test. I saw an L driver doing her test the same day as my son, she arrives unaccompanied, passed her test ripped off the L's drove out of the test centre without indicating and in front of incoming traffic. More fixed cameras and heavy fines for dangerous driving would make more sense and after a few convictions they would learn fast.

that's very true.
it also applies when they fail the test too which is very alarming

dxhound2005 · 04-02-2018 9:58pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I highly doubt it's just a coincidence that every year their age group has one of the highest fatalities.

Their age group covers everyone from 66 up. Call that up to 85. So they should be twice as high as the 16 to 25 age group.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

The highest number of fatalities on our roads were among those aged 16-25 (33) and 66+ (33). 119 of those killed were male (75%).

07Lapierre · 04-02-2018 10:38pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I highly doubt it's just a coincidence that every year their age group has one of the highest fatalities.

Why? Every year all drivers get older?

ThinkProgress · 04-02-2018 11:01pm

decky1 wrote: »

Ah stop putting ideas into their heads are we not bad enough with the NCT--We don't need another money making racket for the government' cos I doubt it would be free.

If it wasn't for the NCT, some people would go years without checking the roadworthiness of their cars... I wouldn't exactly call it a racket.

Pete67 · 05-02-2018 8:59am

It's very hard to get the full story from any of the outside listed data, as it does not indicate who is to blame in any accident. Many of the elderly fatalities could be pedestrians or cyclists for example. Elderly drivers are also more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a collision with another car even if they are blameless. The best data would come from insurance companies who have a vested in assigning blame, and they use this data continuously to make sure appropriate premia are assigned to each risk group. There is a reason for younger drivers paying more for motor insurance, it all comes down to claims history.

AndrewJRenko · 05-02-2018 9:38am

Pete67 wrote: »

It's very hard to get the full story from any of the outside listed data, as it does not indicate who is to blame in any accident. Many of the elderly fatalities could be pedestrians or cyclists for example. Elderly drivers are also more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a collision with another car even if they are blameless. The best data would come from insurance companies who have a vested in assigning blame, and they use this data continuously to make sure appropriate premia are assigned to each risk group. There is a reason for younger drivers paying more for motor insurance, it all comes down to claims history.

The RSA does detailed studies of causes of road deaths, using Garda reports. The culprits are clear - speeding, drink driving and phone abuse.

beauf · 05-02-2018 9:53am

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.....

The flaw in you thinking is that people forget how to drive. Whereas issue is more likely they deliberately break both the rules and law.

So it's not testing that's needed but enforcement. Garda have dramatically less resources (50% less) for enforcement on the roads. There's been numerous scandals also.

Look at the bigger picture.

07Lapierre · 05-02-2018 1:06pm

beauf wrote: »

The flaw in you thinking is that people forget how to drive. Whereas issue is more likely they deliberately break both the rules and law.

So it's not testing that's needed but enforcement. That has dramatically less resources and results something like 50% less. But more scandals than ever before.

Look at the bigger picture.

+1. Once you pass your driving test, you have achieved the Minimum required standard to drive a car. The idea that people would have to redo this "Minimum Standard" test to improve their driving is nonsense.

A better option would be different level of driver competence type tests.

e.g.

Level 1: Pass the driving test as it is at the moment.
Level 2: Pass a test on Motorway driving
Level 3: Advance driving technique(s) (e.g. Skid control, emergency braking etc.)

Ideally the more tests a person does, the cheaper their insurance becomes.

jmayo · 05-02-2018 1:36pm

The fact that there was a little piece on the radio, this morning I think, to tell people how to drive in hail says a lot about our driving capabilities.

Wasn't it the last couple of weeks or so the M17 was shutdown because there were multiple pileups where people ran into snow/sleet.
And by all accounts some rubberneckers on the other then crashed.

The Eastern/Central Europeans living here look at us with exasperation when they see us drive in snow and ice.

I have had to pass drivers in snow who actually slow down and change down going up a hill and then speed up slamming on brakes on the way down.
They are a skid waiting to happen.

Then you have the idiots who bomb along in SUVs, Jeeps, 4x4s because doesn't everyone know they have extra grip due to being 4x4.

Except the laugh is some of them aren't really 4x4, they have normal road tyres and in any case it doesn't matter what you have you will not stop properly on bad ice.

knipex · 05-02-2018 2:21pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

One anecdote does not make for a thesis. I think you may well find your assumptions are incorrect.

Now for some facts.

The RSA's provisional review of fatal collisons 2017 states "The highest risk age groups in 2017 are those aged 66 and older (21% of all road users killed), 16-25 (21%) and those aged 26-35 (18%)"

This isn't new either, elderly drivers have always been one of the most dangerous/at risk groups.
Here's a table from a 2005 report by Goodbody Economic Consultants that looks at road fatalities over a 10 year period.

The fact is that the elderly do make up a large proportion of road fatalities, they make up the second highest number of fatalities per head of population in this report. I'd guess they would rank even higher on the number of fatalities per mileage. These fatalities are despite them being the "safest" drivers on the road.

Table 4.6 Annual Average No. Fatalities per 1,000 Persons, 1993-2002

Age Group - 1993-1997 - 1998-2002
0-17 years - 0.053 - 0.047
18-24 years - 0.263 - 0.238
25-34 years - 0.150 - 0.142
35-44 years - 0.096 - 0.079
45-54 years - 0.096 - 0.076
55-64 years - 0.121 - 0.079
65+ years - 0.174 - 0.143

So now if you die because of a road traffic accident. You must be driving.. ??

Does the report breakdown how many of the deaths were pedestrians or passengers ??

They didn't necessarily die because they were the drivers..

knipex · 05-02-2018 2:22pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I highly doubt it's just a coincidence that every year their age group has one of the highest fatalities.

Look at the age profile for pedestrians killed on the roads..

knipex · 05-02-2018 2:26pm

beauf wrote: »

The flaw in you thinking is that people forget how to drive. Whereas issue is more likely they deliberately break both the rules and law.

So it's not testing that's needed but enforcement. That has dramatically less resources and results something like 50% less. But more scandals than ever before.

Look at the bigger picture.

According to the RSA statistics 265% of all accidents are caused by drink, tiredness, speeding or bad tyres..

If you are a male under 25 who has ever broken the speed limit and had a drink last Tuesday then according the the RSA you died twice, this week. If you drive at night as well.. then you will probably die before this post goes up..

07Lapierre · 05-02-2018 4:36pm

knipex wrote: »

So now if you die because of a road traffic accident. You must be driving.. ??

Does the report breakdown how many of the deaths were pedestrians or passengers ??

They didn't necessarily die because they were the drivers..

+1... the other point to consider is that anyone in the 65+ are the only ones who have been in all the other groups! (and survived!) :P

ANXIOUS · 05-03-2018 7:04pm

Very sad case before the courts at the moment. Would putting a legal obligation on doctors to report cases like this help?

https://www.rte.ie/amp/945193/?__twitter_impression=true

paleoperson · 06-03-2018 6:00pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

One anecdote does not make for a thesis. I think you may well find your assumptions are incorrect.

Now for some facts.

When I saw this I thought you were going to talk about younger drivers, who are notoriously more dangerous on the road. How your post could start out so seemingly reasonable and then take such a dive is mystifying to me.

The arguments against elderly people are often highly emotional and disregarding the real statistics of young people. They also take on the fallacy that there is an easy and perfect solution to everything and that it's just not carried out because it would inconvenience some people. I doubt it would save anyone ever.

If anything such a test might turn out to be a kind of challenge for elderly people to strive to. Instead of using their own judgement they'd say they'd give it a go. Instead of being responsible for it themselves, they could say well I passed the test. Also driving tests are ridiculous measures of safe driving ability, they honestly have almost nothing to do with it.

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

The RSA's provisional review of fatal collisons 2017 states "The highest risk age groups in 2017 are those aged 66 and older (21% of all road users killed), 16-25 (21%) and those aged 26-35 (18%)"

Did it ever occur to you that elderly people are more at risk of death because... they're elderly?

If elderly people were found to be at a little bit more risk of death from skiing would you conclude that elderly people were more dangerous skiiers to others? No, you'd conclude that elderly people must be exceptionally safe skiiers because they barely die more easily than younger people who have MUCH better outcome in the face of an accident.

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

This isn't new either, elderly drivers have always been one of the most dangerous/at risk groups.
Here's a table from a 2005 report by Goodbody Economic Consultants that looks at road fatalities over a 10 year period.

Thought you'd sneak the word "dangerous" in there alongside "at risk". Two very different concepts. If you're an elderly person then you'll have much higher risk of fatality than a young person from going on the train... despite not driving it.

You already showed that more fatalities on the road are elderly, because they have vastly worse outcome in the case of any accident. And you may find that elderly drivers are indeed at some more risk of dangerous driving to others. But you certainly aren't showing it here. And it would have to be compelling, not something marginal to make it a reasonable argument for this.

Again, this is the risk to themselves. Maybe there's some argument that it's too dangerous for them to drive, however it's also very dangerous for them to get in a car with others isn't it? When you're that age everything starts to get risky, you can't hide in a closet.

ANXIOUS · 09-03-2018 12:13am

More inconvenient stats about drivers involved in crashes.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-less-than-6pc-of-fatal-collisions-in-past-four-years-involved-a-learner-driver-36685511.html

the_pen_turner · 09-03-2018 12:20am

ANXIOUS wrote: »

More inconvenient stats about drivers involved in crashes.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-less-than-6pc-of-fatal-collisions-in-past-four-years-involved-a-learner-driver-36685511.html

that only states that of those killed , 6% were learners

no mention of who caused the crash or who else was injured
a full licenced driver could have caused all of those 6% and learner could have caused the other 94%. , those figures ar eas meaning less as mine.

those figures probably include drink, drug and suicides on the roads as well

Graces7 · 09-03-2018 12:30am

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Should do. Older people are awful drivers I find, as a rule. Shouldn't be driving on the road like they do.

Hmmm.... As an older
driver with over 50 years NCB, clean record? Maybe it is rather that roads and driving have changed massively; speed for one thing. I have never been put in danger by an older driver nor put any in danger but often by impatient younger drivers.

And the sheer volume of traffic now as compared to a decade or two ago?

You cannot surely generalise?

_Kaiser_ · 09-03-2018 1:52am

Graces7 wrote: »

Hmmm.... As an older
driver with over 50 years NCB, clean record? Maybe it is rather that roads and driving have changed massively; speed for one thing. I have never been put in danger by an older driver nor put any in danger but often by impatient younger drivers.

And the sheer volume of traffic now as compared to a decade or two ago?

You cannot surely generalise?

I know that the advertising will have you believe that "speed kills" but that's inaccurate - INAPPROPRIATE speed kills.

We have no way of knowing if you're a good driver or not. Your record only shows that you haven't been in any accidents which is great. But that's all it tells us.

Take an example I encountered tonight on my way home.. 100 km/h zone and decent road surface and visibility yet the car in front was doing a steady 64 (indicated so in reality about 60) - 40 km/h below the limit with no reason for it.

That's not speeding, but it is extremely bad driving and inappropriate speed for the conditions. They also lost the plot when I (legally) overtook them after sitting back to see if they'd either accelerate or move left a bit, flashing their lights and leaning on the horn. More bad driving.

See, it's not always the faster moving car that's in the wrong

Charles Babbage · 09-03-2018 2:03am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That's not speeding, but it is extremely bad driving and inappropriate speed for the conditions. They also lost the plot when I (legally) overtook them after sitting back to see if they'd either accelerate or move left a bit, flashing their lights and leaning on the horn. More bad driving.

See, it's not always the faster moving car that's in the wrong

Bad, ignorant driving. But not dangerous driving.
It might well be desireable to have retesting to reduce bad ignorant driving.

jaxxx · 09-03-2018 2:04am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I know that the advertising will have you believe that "speed kills" but that's inaccurate - INAPPROPRIATE speed kills.

We have no way of knowing if you're a good driver or not. Your record only shows that you haven't been in any accidents which is great. But that's all it tells us.

Take an example I encountered tonight on my way home.. 100 km/h zone and decent road surface and visibility yet the car in front was doing a steady 64 (indicated so in reality about 60) - 40 km/h below the limit with no reason for it.

That's not speeding, but it is extremely bad driving and inappropriate speed for the conditions. They also lost the plot when I (legally) overtook them after sitting back to see if they'd either accelerate or move left a bit, flashing their lights and leaning on the horn. More bad driving.

See, it's not always the faster moving car that's in the wrong

Speed doesn't kill, stupidty does. Speed is merely a bi-product of it, as is slow driving as you mentioned. There are very few constants in the universe. Space and time. But there is another that exists exclusively on Earth. And that is the capacity for human stupidity.

It honestly amazes me that once you've passed your driving test, you're set for life. Others have mentioned a re-sit, others saying many people will have forgotten a lot of things. My suggestion is that every 5 years or so, it would be compulsory to attend a group session of everything driving related with no stone left unturned. It would last a couple of hours, taught by a professional driving instructor and would be a legal requirement.

_Kaiser_ · 09-03-2018 2:15am

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Bad, ignorant driving. But not dangerous driving.
It might well be desireable to have retesting to reduce bad ignorant driving.

I'd consider it dangerous driving. Such ignorant driving will lead to frustration in drivers stuck behind them (like it or not, it's human nature) and may result in those other drivers taking risks they shouldn't, but otherwise wouldn't have to had that first car been driving appropriately.

I see it all the time. People doing 20/30 km/h below the limit on the motorway for no reason, not getting up to speed when merging - in both cases causing other drivers to have to take what would be otherwise unnecessary action to get around them, and causing further issues as a result.

If you cannot or will not do the posted limits when it's safe and appropriate to do so, you shouldn't be on the road - no more than the person doing excessive speeds on back roads, or driving along the motorway in the dark with no lights on (another regular occurrence, particularly on many DRL-equipped cars where the owner hasn't bothered to realise that they have no rear lights on as a result)

Yer Da sells Avon · 09-03-2018 2:28am

Being 'in the right' in the event of an accident is scant consolation when you're lying on a hospital bed, having chunks of Toyota plucked out of your skull. Or worse. Whether you're technically 'speeding' or not, the more quickly you're driving, the less time you have to react to someone else's mistake, and the harder you'll hit them. And it's not just about reacting to other people's mistakes - if you're driving quickly, you have less of an opportunity to predict them in advance of them being made.

This is one of the reasons why I've slowed down a lot in recent years. I find that if I'm not rushing around (which includes hard acceleration and braking), I'm so much more aware of what's going on around me. If someone pulls out in front of me on a roundabout, the fact that I'm not accelerating madly towards them means that I can avoid hitting them without any need for drama or horn-blasting.

ANXIOUS · 09-03-2018 10:14am

Graces7 wrote: »

Hmmm.... As an older
driver with over 50 years NCB, clean record? Maybe it is rather that roads and driving have changed massively; speed for one thing. I have never been put in danger by an older driver nor put any in danger but often by impatient younger drivers.

And the sheer volume of traffic now as compared to a decade or two ago?

You cannot surely generalise?

Would you feel confident in passing the driving test tomorrow? Do you think it's correct that you haven't had any formalized test to keep your license in over 50years?

To make one further observation of you got that license in Ireland, you've never sat a test.

Graces7 · 09-03-2018 10:28am

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Would you feel confident in passing the driving test tomorrow? Do you think it's correct that you haven't had any formalized test to keep your license in over 50years?

To make one further observation of you got that license in Ireland, you've never sat a test.

Yes I would. Driving on today's roads without a mishap is its own testimony
and I did indeed sit a test

OK? OK! Please have no concerns re me.

These days I am only out but rarely and on usually empty rural roads. I enjoy driving .

beauf · 09-03-2018 10:33am

....Because the big cause of accidents is people not knowing something that's on the current written test....

ANXIOUS · 09-03-2018 10:41am

Graces7 wrote: »

These days I am only out but rarely and on usually empty rural roads. I enjoy driving .

That could be more of a testimony about why you've had no accident.

ANXIOUS · 09-03-2018 10:41am

beauf wrote: »

....Because the big cause of accidents is people not knowing something that's on the current written test....

I'm talking about the full test.

beauf · 09-03-2018 11:11am

ANXIOUS wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

....Because the big cause of accidents is people not knowing something that's on the current written test....

I'm talking about the full test.

The driving part is more or less the same and if someone had 20yrs+ of clean driving I don't think they are going to have a problem.

Age bias is due to miss interpreting the incomplete data on accidents. If a 30yr had an accident and is reported in the media no one suggests testing that group again.

knipex · 09-03-2018 4:42pm

ANXIOUS wrote: »

More inconvenient stats about drivers involved in crashes.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-less-than-6pc-of-fatal-collisions-in-past-four-years-involved-a-learner-driver-36685511.html

And how exactly does that support your theory in any way ?? or support your argument that older drivers should resit their test ??

its almost 30 years since I sat my test.

I can guarantee you I am better now at reversing around a corner, 3 point turn, handbrake starts, and any other thing they monitor on the test, because I have 30 years more experience..

ANXIOUS · 09-03-2018 4:46pm

knipex wrote: »

And how exactly does that support your theory in any way ?? or support your argument that older drivers should resit their test ??

its almost 30 years since I sat my test.

I can guarantee you I am better now at reversing around a corner, 3 point turn, handbrake starts, and any other thing they monitor on the test, because I have 30 years more experience..

So if you think that you'd pass the test no problem, then I'm sure you wouldn't have an issue re sitting it would you?

Those stats don't show anything except that statically Provisional drivers are less likely to be involved in fatal crashes.

Graces7 · 09-03-2018 7:26pm

ANXIOUS wrote: »

That could be more of a testimony about why you've had no accident.

I said, "These days". since I moved to a deep rural area. ie last 6 months. Before that a different scene altogether and in my life I have driven here and overseas. in London and other cities.

knipex · 12-03-2018 11:10am

ANXIOUS wrote: »

So if you think that you'd pass the test no problem, then I'm sure you wouldn't have an issue re sitting it would you?

Those stats don't show anything except that statically Provisional drivers are less likely to be involved in fatal crashes.

No issue what so ever with resitting the test but I am curious as to how you continue to maintain a position and and push for something based on nothing but a personal bias.

You have posted data that doesn't support your claim and despite multiple attempts presented no evidence to support your theory but you just will not for a second reconsider your position.

Graces7 · 12-03-2018 11:39am

knipex wrote: »

No issue what so ever with resitting the test but I am curious as to how you continue to maintain a position and and push for something based on nothing but a personal bias.

You have posted data that doesn't support your claim and despite multiple attempts presented no evidence to support your theory but you just will not for a second reconsider your position.

Agree totally with you.
Thankyou.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 12-03-2018 12:15pm

I think it’s a good idea to resit your test after a length of time. Especially older people when they would have sat the test on less busy roads with better eyesight etc

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

Comments