View Full Version : Driving Test proposals
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2526936,00.html?CMP=KNC-LBN&HBX_PK=driving+test&HBX_OU=50
Just found this, might make learning to drive a bit expensive for some of our younger site users. :(
i think its for the best....
no ammount of cockyness and being able to pass a test makes you a good driver, time behind the wheel does.
plus the lack of explicit night teaching/motorway lessons (post test obv) makes for a dangerous prospect imho.
my instructor made sure we had lessons in the dark, terential rain (that was luck more lol) and after my test he gave me half price motorway lessons. I felt better equipt for driving after that.
yes it will cost more in terms of lessons, but if you dont have your first crash immediately after the test then your "saving" money on excesses and insurance hikes.
nov4801
02-01-07, 05:29 PM
it dnt help that u learn in a car that is only a few years old with abs power steering etc then u jump in lets say a nova lol with no abs or powersteering and over 10 years old
I agree although the Swedish system of 120hours pre-test seems abit excessive.
Also, international driving permits should be banned if our DSA tests are made harder, otherwise there is no point.
Chris
Novadave06
02-01-07, 07:10 PM
all i can say is i am glad i have my lience now !
More training is only a good thing in my book.
We have developed this attitude that you first learn to pass the test and then you learn to drive.
Exactly that; I've always said they don't teach you to drive, they teach you to pass a test. I learnt far more in my first month, even my first week, of fully licensed driving than I ever did in the months as a learner.
He rejected the idea of temporary restrictions on young drivers after they had passed their test, such as a late-night curfew or a ban on carrying more than one passenger, as these would be very difficult to enforce.
More like the police can't be bothered with enforcing it, and would rather be sat behind speed cameras. IMO the government should enforce vehicle restrictions on young drivers like they do with motorbikes - i.e. you can only have up to say 1.0 in your first year, up to 1.5 for <19, etc etc. Yes, insurance cost restricts most young drivers but you always get those who front or get mummy and daddy to pay the thousands it costs to insure that Nova GTE at 17. The government could easily introduce laws to ban people of certain ages from driving certain cars if it wanted to.
Has to be said though, additional lessons and tutoring probably won't help some people - look at how Sex Education is now a central area of teaching, yet teenage pregnancy is on the rise...
IMO the government should enforce vehicle restrictions on young drivers like they do with motorbikes - i.e. you can only have up to say 1.0 in your first year, up to 1.5 for <19, etc etc. Yes, insurance cost restricts most young drivers but you always get those who front or get mummy and daddy to pay the thousands it costs to insure that Nova GTE at 17. The government could easily introduce laws to ban people of certain ages from driving certain cars if it wanted to.
I agree with that totally. I think people between the ages of 17 - 21 should have an engine size restriction.
I know one guy, 17, drives like a total and utter twit, and he's on about getting a 2.0 Skyline (not sure of the make), when he's 18 and "It'll only cost ?1500 to insure"
And he will kill himself, and the other 4/5 passengers he regularly carries.
I think a lot of people should start with a smaller car and work their way up, so you get used to the power increase. Instead of jumping straight into a powerful car and killing yourself quickly because you have no idea about it!
Oh well, one or two less idiots in the gene pool. lol
I know one guy, 17, drives like a total and utter twit, and he's on about getting a 2.0 Skyline (not sure of the make), when he's 18 and "It'll only cost ?1500 to insure"
And he will kill himself, and the other 4/5 passengers he regularly carries.
Don't worry, he won't be able to insure ANY Skyline for that price at 17 or 18, not even an R32GTS (mmm, 125bhp lmfao) in mummy and daddy's name; let alone the GTR34 he's probably dreaming of getting lol
Problem is though if he did crash, he'd probably take some innocent passer by out with him too :roll:
General Baxter
02-01-07, 10:20 PM
lol i must be the greatest driver in the world then!
learning to drive in a 2L nova lol
and never had a crash
woo im the best!
I agree with that totally. I think people between the ages of 17 - 21 should have an engine size restriction.
i disagree, lol *note sig aged 20years*
altho its restricted to 75mph, i has having a play with the OBC and got lost lol
altho since passing my test iv must of put a billion hours behind a wheel, 350+ a day!
when he's 18
But yeah he will take someone out with him. Oh well.:roll:
lol i must be the greatest driver in the world then!
learning to drive in a 2L nova lol
and never had a crash
woo im the best!
I agree with that totally. I think people between the ages of 17 - 21 should have an engine size restriction.
i disagree, lol *note sig aged 20years*
altho its restricted to 75mph, i has having a play with the OBC and got lost lol
Yes but a lot of people between that age drive like noobs.
And just cuz you haven't crashed yet doesn't mean you won't yet. ;)
General Baxter
02-01-07, 10:24 PM
Young women are far less likely to have serious crashes, with only 276 deaths and injuries last year among women drivers aged 17 to 19, compared with 869 among males
thats totaly bollox, i see young 'women' over taking my on the motorway and A roads going well over a ton! 90% of them are on the phone anyway! iv seen one change her top before, i NEARLY crashed at that tho lol
Young women are far less likely to have serious crashes, with only 276 deaths and injuries last year among women drivers aged 17 to 19, compared with 869 among males
We have them. But we just reverse into fences etc.
You guys fly 50 foot in the air, burst into flames etc!
Note they say "serious" crashes... women apparently have more claims/accidents then men, but they tend to be car park dings, reversing into lampposts, parked cars, slipped on ice etc etc... where as blokes tend to cartwheel 17 times and cause as much damage as possible lol
General Baxter
02-01-07, 10:33 PM
men have to go one better full stop! lol
nov4801
02-01-07, 10:42 PM
if your going to crash you got to do it properly havent you lol jokes aside think it is a good idea thou
General Baxter
02-01-07, 10:48 PM
1195cc untill your 21 ;) lol yeah but you can still make that fly :p
Lozzie C
02-01-07, 11:23 PM
Glad I passed my test today then!
Tests are hard enough at the moment as it is, but it doesn't explain how some people get through the system and end up crashing or driving like idiots the next week.
Trouble is if it's made too difficult or expensive people won't bother getting a licence at all, there's a lot without already.
Glad I passed my test today then!
Congrats :thumb:
They watch you like an eagle on your test it's scary.
But like Jack said, they only teach you to pass your test, not to drive. lol
And you do pick up little bad habits, I already have one that's Jacks fault!
And every time I do it I get told off by my instructor!
1195cc untill your 21 ;) lol yeah but you can still make that fly :p
Good point... maybe limit by bhp as well or something.
I suppose the problem with limiting engine size on younger drivers is they'll be stuck with poverty spec models, so they'll have crap brakes and suspension as well. My 1.2 took days to stop at anything over 40mph lol
Lozzie C
03-01-07, 12:49 PM
Congrats :thumb:
They watch you like an eagle on your test it's scary.
But like Jack said, they only teach you to pass your test, not to drive. lol
And you do pick up little bad habits, I already have one that's Jacks fault!
And every time I do it I get told off by my instructor!
Cheers! :D
Well chuffed.
Matt2107
03-01-07, 12:54 PM
And you do pick up little bad habits, I already have one that's Jacks fault!
And every time I do it I get told off by my instructor!
He's probably married. :D
Trouble is if it's made too difficult or expensive people won't bother getting a licence at all, there's a lot without already.
That's the truly worrying thing. I know that there is a large number round here without.
That's the truly worrying thing. I know that there is a large number round here without.
Yup, but thats the police's fault, maybe if there were more people driving without liscences, they might drag a few of the fat feckers off laser duty to try to catch them. Its not hard, everythings on computer nowadays!
As for it being more expensive, sorry but i have to laugh at that. Whats the average your paying at the moment? 25 quid a week? Sorry, but thats feck all compared to running a car day to day, so if you cant afford to learn, how do you expect to pay to run a car?
I think night time / motorway driving should be compulsory, and PART of the driving test, not an 'aftertest'.
I also think only qualified ADI's should be able to teach people, none of this 'Auntie May is teaching me, despite being blind, and a regular slayer of pedestrians'. They are trained to teach you properly, and also have duel controls to help when things go pete tong etc..
I do about 350+ miles a day, and I lose count every day of the morons there are out there and I think its pretty amazing that the government are starting to realise that speed isnt the big killer on the road, but a complete lack of driving skill and brainlessness!
In fact I think everyone should have a re-test!! especially on motorways!
Matt2107
03-01-07, 03:33 PM
I'd agree to a retest at 60.
Bollocks to this age discrimination crap.
wisewood
03-01-07, 04:23 PM
I think... and brace yourself boys and girls, this will be a long one lmao
The driving test already comes in what are essentially three component parts; theory test, hazard perception and practical examination. The current theory aspect is sufficient in my opinion, becuase as long as you know what the signs mean etc and can spot a potential hazard when you see one you'll be fine.
The practical test should come in two parts, daytime driving and night driving. If that means you have to pass your driving test in spring and autumn as there is no dark during sensible hours in the summer, so-be-it. I also think there should be time-card system introduced whereby you have to have logged a number of hours driving experience with a qualified instructor before you can sit either of the practical tests, and of those hours, a specified amount of time should have been spent driving on the motorway.
Restrictions should be put in place on the engine capacity of car which can be driven, not for the age of the driver - but for the time since the driver passed their test. A young driver is more likely to behave irresponsibly after passing their test than someone who is 45 and just passed their test, but they're equally inexperienced on the road.
If you're aged 17-20 a 1.2 should be the maximum engine you can have.
If you're under 25 you can have nothing more than a 1.6, and once you get to 25, if you've had your licence for at least 3 years, you can have whatever engine capacity you want.
Older drivers, ie drivers aged 21 and over should have restrictions in place too. Nothing more powerful than a 1.4 in the first 12 months, and nothing over a 1.6 until they're 25 or over. If they are already over 25, then they get to driver a 1.4 for 12 months, then whatever they like.
Also;
Your photocard driving licence needs to be renewed every 10 years; so i say every 10 years you should have to sit an interim examination. This interim examination will be a simplified driving test. You will have to pass the same theory test as a new driver would be expected to, to ensure you are still aware of the theory and are still aware of potential hazards. Then, you sit a practical driving test, in which you will be asked to drive around and be assessed - no more watching out for hands crossing over the top of the wheel etc, just a simple assessment to ensure you can maintain speed, don't go onto the wrong side of the road or generally make a tit of yourself.
This will immediately get people off the road who are dangerous, such as the old people who drive at 15mph on dual carriageways etc.
I have some other ideas too - but you get the direction i'm taking here. Don't discriminate against age so much as against inexperience. If you're an experienced driver and you prove yourself every ten years you get to keep your driving licence. Simple. If you fail the interim test, you get to try again... but if you fail it 3 times you have to start again with instruction, from the very begining as any new driver would.
I agree with everything you said there. Id be happy to re take a test every 10 years, even if it was 'full strength'.
Its the people who would complain about this we have to be worried about lol
awwwhhhh b****cks
not good for me lol
would be good in schools tho. as i do love cars, bet id get sent out for saying i own a car at my age, probably a detention if i say its a nova lol
not good for me lol
Its not looking good for you anyway, modded car + 17 = whoops lol
I'd agree to a retest at 60.
Bollocks to this age discrimination crap. Hey steady on, I'm over that and have probably done more miles in reverse than some of you young feckers have done in forward gearslol lol lol
wisewood
04-01-07, 09:32 AM
I agree with everything you said there. Id be happy to re take a test every 10 years, even if it was 'full strength'.
Its the people who would complain about this we have to be worried about lol
Absolutely! The people who complain are generally the ones who would have something to lose. Same situation when Help The Aged fitted trackers to all their vans while i worked for them, all the drivers who finished work early and ripped off the charity complained about it, but the ones who just got on with their jobs and worked hard never muttered a word as it proved their worth.
The problem with sitting a full-fat test every ten years is that everyone knows the style of driving required to pass your test is unrealistic on todays roads, so you'd need to have a few lessons every ten years to teach you the driving-test way to drive again. Better off just having a semi-skimmed test to see if you're an utter bafoon :thumb:
Wisewood for Prime Minister, that's what I say!
Better off just having a semi-skimmed test to see if you're an utter bafoon :thumb:
There goes 95% of the population then! lol
wisewood
04-01-07, 10:06 AM
Get the idiots off the road, and you immediately free up more space on the roads so the "not quite an idiot enough to fail" brigade can crash into less people.
Hey steady on, I'm over that and have probably done more miles in reverse than some of you young feckers have done in forward gearslol lol lol
With all due respect sir, Ive nearly been rammed into, pulled out on etc.. by 'older people' who were probably driving cars when my dad was a sperm, swimming around in somebodys testicles. You may have driven 1000 000 miles, but you may have driven them very badly,therefore thats not a strong enough arguement on wether your a good driver or not lol
If your a competent driver, why wouldnt you agree to taking a re test every ten years? Im sure youve seen more morons than any of us could shake a stick at! lol
i agree with all the talk of re-tests/regular tests etc BUT the government will turn it into another money making scheme unfortunatly
and i dont think age is an issue as in "young drivers are bad, old drivers are good" its more the other way round - ok i (and prob many others) drove like idiots at 17/18 but now consider myself a pretty good driver, i used to do 200-250 miles a day and it teachs you loads, i can know see when people are going to make a stupid manouvere before thay do, as im suremany people who drive mega-miles will agree on
Its not looking good for you anyway, modded car + 17 = whoops lol
its not modded!!! lol
Astra wheels weren't factory fit on a Nova :p
wisewood
05-01-07, 09:12 AM
i agree with all the talk of re-tests/regular tests etc BUT the government will turn it into another money making scheme unfortunatly ...
... can know see when people are going to make a stupid manouvere before thay do, as im suremany people who drive mega-miles will agree on
Agreed on the first point, they would use it as a revenue stream, but so what? There's something like 61 million people in the UK, if only half of them have a driving licence, and each have to pay only ?20 for a re-test every ten years (to be then given a free replacement photocard licence), thats ok isn't it, and it would generate ?60million pounds every ten years. The actual number with a driving licence i don't know - no time to look for it lol
The second point, i'm with you all the way there. When i used to drive a van for a living for about 6 months I did 200-300 miles per day 5 days per week and by the end of it I was ultra-aware of everything going on around me... problem is now i only drive once a week if that, so now i am timid and useless behind the wheel.
Matt2107
05-01-07, 09:41 AM
Slightly off topic but during several idiotic (not on my part) displays of driving leading to me venting my frustrations via the horn, hand signals, blowing kisses and expletive language... ultimately resulting in some severe road rage.. I've noticed that most bad drivers actually appear to be middle aged men.
wisewood
05-01-07, 09:47 AM
More disposable income, and an attitude problem = careless driver.
yep, my dads got worse !! he know gets road-rage very easily and cuts people up !!
wisewood
05-01-07, 09:54 AM
my wife and your dad may be the same person lol
my wife and your dad may be the same person lol
:wtf: and ive never seen them in the same room together, the plot thickens lol
saying people aged between 17-21 were actually given a law that there was an engine size for them, just using the example 1195cc, if what some people do is change there engine size to like a 1600cc and not tell any1, how are the government ever gunna find out that they changed there engine size!
its the same when people do it to there insurance companies, and if they crash then theyve got no insurance money because they lied about there car..... so this means that the young people have still got a bigger engine that they should have! which could result in any different type of accidents! and this would of pissed over the governments fire!
would the government give out checks on peoples cars? or even at the M.O.T. time they could check this then? so could we still be stuck with the problem, of rescricting the engine size on behave of peoples age
Matt2107
05-01-07, 12:53 PM
saying people aged between 17-21 were actually given a law that there was an engine size for them, just using the example 1195cc, if what some people do is change there engine size to like a 1600cc and not tell any1, how are the government ever gunna find out that they changed there engine size!
its the same when people do it to there insurance companies, and if they crash then theyve got no insurance money because they lied about there car..... so this means that the young people have still got a bigger engine that they should have! which could result in any different type of accidents! and this would of pissed over the governments fire!
would the government give out checks on peoples cars? or even at the M.O.T. time they could check this then? so could we still be stuck with the problem, of rescricting the engine size on behave of peoples age
All good points.
Seeing as not declaring engine changes is illegal then the best way to combat this would be to simply increase the penalty if caught.
Granted people will still do it but if the punishment is more severe then it will put them off. Failing to declare engine changes = loss of license for a year... then if your driving without a license and get caught = prison sentance.
wisewood
05-01-07, 12:56 PM
I was thinking exactly that. If you defraud your insurance company, thats fraud... and its down to them whether they should choose to prosecute you or not.
However, driving a car with a 1600cc engine when your licence only covers you to drive a car with a 1200cc engine is essentially driving without a licence, and as such, a ban and/or a very hefty fine. Repeat offenders get to spend some time at her majesty's five star hotels.
Yes, the MOT test would identify if the engine in the bay was indeed the engine that should be in there. If not, you're in the poo lol That would only work on vehicles over 3 years of age though, and wouldnt help people who are driving a new car with a replacement engine.
The problems of people cheating the system would still be there, you will never get away from people thinking they're above the law, or that the law is unfair, and thus they will ignore it. Fact is though, there are lots of people who wouldn't cheat around the system, and as such you'd have a lot less kids with fast cars driving like idiots.
You could make it illegal for car dealers to sell cars to people who dont have a licence, or dont have the appropriate licence for the vehicle they're selling - make them keep records of the driving licence number etc and details of the person they sold it to to help prevent unscrupulous salesmen cheating the system.
Lets face it, given enough time and people willing to read it, i would be able to produce a good 20,000 words on this subject giving proposals for new regulations that could be put into place and what happens to those who try and get around them etc... but i dont have time, and nobody would be bothered about reading the whole thing anyway. Hence why i left it at a few paragraphs in the first place.
PS. I would also propose to make the MOT a more strict test, removing ill-cared-for vehicles from the roads sooner, making the roads a safer place to be in that way too.
Computerised MOT lists the engine that should be in the car doesn't it? Granted your average grease monkey might miss the differences between a 1.2 and 1.4 engine, but hopefully most testers would be able to spot something up with the engine.
wisewood
05-01-07, 01:08 PM
Alternatively you could have the BHP figures as the restriction, rather than the engine capacity, which could easily be tested with a rolling road at the test centre.
Although, doesn't the dvla record include data such as the chassis number, engine number etc of that vehicle? That could all be checked during an MOT or some other sort of standard annual testing, if anything doesn't correspond, further investigation ensues.
but dont you think that this whole plan to rescrict the engine size of the age that the person may be, could take a very long time to set up, however it is a very good plan! its a bit annoying that this is the only place where it will get mentioned tho.... its not like we can foward it anywhere.....:roll:
wisewood
05-01-07, 01:18 PM
Give me access to the database structure they use already, and i'll come up with some modifications to it to allow for the new data lol
It wouldn't be that hard to expand the current system to incorporate this sort of thing, to be honest. There are already categories in place dictating what your driving licence allows you to drive, they're detailed on the back of the licence card! You just have to change those categories a little bit so that if you're 17,18,19 or 20 you only get a licence to cover a 1.2, if its a 1201cc car (according to the dvla) and you get stopped driving it, you get points ... repeat and your licence gets revoked. If you're found to be driving a car with an engine more powerful than that which the dvla thinks it has, you get your licence taken away, a fine and/or prison time.
Come on people - give me the power lol and a few hundred million pounds.
Matt2107
05-01-07, 01:18 PM
but dont you think that this whole plan to rescrict the engine size of the age that the person may be, could take a very long time to set up, however it is a very good plan! its a bit annoying that this is the only place where it will get mentioned tho.... its not like we can foward it anywhere.....:roll:
Best thing to do if you want to voice your opinions is search for a drivers organisation... I know there's one out there but i can't remember the name.
Simplest thing to do would be to add an engine number to the V5C that must be filled out rather than optional and also add it as part of the MOT testers job. That way records would be up to date... this would for example catch people who are pulled over and fined for speeding etc... when the nice police officer checks your docs within 7 days of the offence or whatever it is they can cross reference the docs.
Ultimately it would be the drivers job to ensure the engine number is correct on the v5 and the MOT testers job to ensure its correct on the MOT.
Or wisewoods cc way
wisewood
05-01-07, 01:21 PM
The system could also be set up to recognise, based on your date of birth, when you are approaching a milestone birthday that would allow you to drive bigger engined cars, and an automated letter could be produced for you letting you know what you will and will not be entitled to drive, and when you will be entitled to drive it - they could then also request you return your original photocard licence along with a form and they'll issue you a replacement detailing the new classifications you can drive.
I'm going to write to my MP.
lol
rofl!! you sound as though you are an MP with all the information your giving out! LOL!
Matt2107
05-01-07, 01:27 PM
Wisewood for PM
Restricting BHP would be good, but IMO too difficult to enforce. Whats to say a MOT station's rolling road isn't overreading? I'm sure I remember the garages all bitching about the cost of emissions equipment when that became part of the MOT, and RRs aren't cheap - it wouldn't be practical to have one in every MOT station. However, IMHO its not so much the cars being unsafe thats the problem, its the drivers.
Maybe people should be made to provide valid insurance details of a car when being MOT-ed, so the tester can see full details of the car - including any legit mods. Could amalgamate road tax into it as well, so MOT-ing your car gets you 12 months MOT and road tax; as soon as the car is SORN-ed its considered off road so MOT and tax expire.
Simplest thing to do would be to add an engine number to the V5C that must be filled out rather than optional and also add it as part of the MOT testers job.
That could be cheated though, a person just puts down that their 1.2 engine has blown and they're replacing it with another 1.2 of engine number xxx, where as in reality that engine is a 1.4. DVLA don't have a database of what engine number relates to what engine, and even if they did it would be a nightmare to maintain.
Some people may not know what engine is in a car when buying it either, an unscrupulous seller could sell a badged 1.1 saxo to a pensioner just before its MOT is due, which in reality has a VTR engine in it. With no mechanical knowledge, how would they know it has the bigger engine in util they take it for their MOT and get shafted?
The system could also be set up to recognise, based on your date of birth, when you are approaching a milestone birthday that would allow you to drive bigger engined cars, and an automated letter could be produced for you letting you know what you will and will not be entitled to drive, and when you will be entitled to drive it - they could then also request you return your original photocard licence along with a form and they'll issue you a replacement detailing the new classifications you can drive.
Progressing that one stage further, you could have different classes of licence - so for example <1.0, 1.0 - 1.6, 1.6>, each with a minimum age or experience requirement. When you're old enough to get the next licence up, if you want to progress and gain that license you have to put in so many hours with an instructor in a car of that class. If you're happy driving your lower capacity car then you don't have to put in for the extra tuition and can stick with what you have.
wisewood
05-01-07, 01:47 PM
Check the engine number on the registration against the engine number in the car prior to purchase, if they match, when it shows on the MOT that its not the right engine, mr unscrupulous salesman gets to go to prison.
wisewood
05-01-07, 01:49 PM
Progressing that one stage further, you could have different classes of licence - so for example <1.0, 1.0 - 1.6, 1.6>, each with a minimum age or experience requirement. When you're old enough to get the next licence up, if you want to progress and gain that license you have to put in so many hours with an instructor in a car of that class. If you're happy driving your lower capacity car then you don't have to put in for the extra tuition and can stick with what you have.
I'm going to start my own driving school now, before all this comes in... then i'm ahead of the game, and have a good reputation and will make LOADS of money WHEN the government listens to our proposals. You just KNOW Gordon Brown spends all his spare time reading Novaload.
"Anyone caught abusing the system pays extra taxes"... that should get him listening lol
wisewood
05-01-07, 02:11 PM
I reckon that Cameron geezer heading up the blues (not Chelsea, or everton, or man city lol) would be interested in this idea ... he rides a bike so is constantly in fear for his life on his way to "work".
With all due respect sir, Ive nearly been rammed into, pulled out on etc.. by 'older people' who were probably driving cars when my dad was a sperm, swimming around in somebodys testicles. You may have driven 1000 000 miles, but you may have driven them very badly,therefore thats not a strong enough arguement on wether your a good driver or not lol
If your a competent driver, why wouldnt you agree to taking a re test every ten years? Im sure youve seen more morons than any of us could shake a stick at! lol I would be wiiling to take a retest, alot of older people seem to drive as if the roads and conditions are the same as when they passed their test, I like to think I've kept pace with modern road and traffic conditions,I've probably got bad habits and would need a few lessons to bring me to up to passing todays test but I am sure I could pass.:cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.