Advanced license / MOT

[gregwatson]

I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest it, but why can't we have a system whereby drivers can take an advanced / high speed driving test (teach and evaluate things like proper anticipation, car safety, impact on weather and road surfaces etc) AND have an advance MOT for a car (which would require higher levels of performance, braking, general condition etc).

Then a driver with an advanced license, driving a car with an advance MOT would be permitted legally to drive at higher speeds. The car could be inspected to ensure it still meets the standards required. Dangerous driving would still be punished severely.

And the best bit - I'm sure we would gladly pay for this license - maybe renew it annually - which would be an alternative method of getting money out of the motorist, but with their approval!

So a super-MOT and a super-driving license then? How about it? Everyone wins. We get to drive faster (safely), after having undergone further / advanced training to make us safer, and the gov get to make some money as well...

[redvanman1964]

With everything on central computer wouldn't a simple pnc check prevent a stop?

[rayats]

I thought the message from the government was 'speed kills'. If there were seperate limits for 'advanced drivers' who would set them? I can imagine what would happen the first time an 'advanced' driver was in a serious acccident whilst exceeding the posted limit.
It appears that traffic Police officers are being limited to the speeds they can do, and under what circumstances, so I can see no chance of the suggestion being adopted.

[pugwash7]

Despite all their self-righteous superiority, no-one from the IAM (or RoSPA) has ever been able to provide me with evidence that their drivers are less likely to have accidents than the rest of the population. The fact that insurance companies don't give discounts says it all IMO.

[hanse cronje]

pugwash7 said:

Despite all their self-righteous superiority, no-one from the IAM (or RoSPA) has ever been able to provide me with evidence that their drivers are less likely to have accidents than the rest of the population. The fact that insurance companies don't give discounts says it all IMO.

how very true, my advanced test (IAM, ROPSA and local plod safedriver comp winner) when i was 21 didn't teach me to drive at very high speeds. Years of practice and 1000's of miles in a host of cars, lorries and motorbikes, trackdays and the like along with the near misses, accidents etc did.

[Parrot of doom]

pugwash7 said:

Despite all their self-righteous superiority, no-one from the IAM (or RoSPA) has ever been able to provide me with evidence that their drivers are less likely to have accidents than the rest of the population. The fact that insurance companies don't give discounts says it all IMO.

Common sense would dictate otherwise.

Or are you suggesting that drivers who have had no basic tuition at all, are as safe as drivers who have passed their driving test?

[hanse cronje]

i don’t think he is saying that, what he is pointing out is that passing the advanced driving test is not a qualification for driving at high speed, there are many from both camps, those that have passed the test those that haven't who are either very good drivers or very poor.

I'll grant you that someone with training is more likely to be safer and have better observational skills but that doesn't necessarily provide them with skills to drive at high speeds, just because they can observe doesn't mean they can interpret what they can see or make the correct decision

[pugwash7]

Parrot of doom said:

Or are you suggesting that drivers who have had no basic tuition at all, are as safe as drivers who have passed their driving test?

I'm not suggesting that, but those drivers who have most recently passed their driving test [i.e. 17-22 year olds] are the ones who are most likely to crash. Why? They've shown they can pass the test. It's down to attitude, and that's not really something you can teach, or identify on a 1 hour test.

What I am suggesting is that drivers who have passed advanced tests are no safer than drivers who have not passed them, simply because no IAM/RoSPA member has ever provided me with evidence to the contrary. Insurance companies must have enough evidence by now - why do they generally not give discounts for IAM members?

[TripleS]

hanse cronje said:

i don’t think he is saying that, what he is pointing out is that passing the advanced driving test is not a qualification for driving at high speed, there are many from both camps, those that have passed the test those that haven't who are either very good drivers or very poor. I'll grant you that someone with training is more likely to be safer and have better observational skills but that doesn't necessarily provide them with skills to drive at high speeds, just because they can observe doesn't mean they can interpret what they can see or make the correct decision

As far as I am aware there is no provision for training normal individuals to drive safely at high speed, our wretched NSL has seen to that. Nevertheless I expect a fair number of people on this site do drive at high speed fairly regularly, and for the most part keep out of trouble, which is OK by me.

Some of you may be aware that I have recently joined the IAM as an Associate, but even if I'm eventually successful in the IAM test, that will not make me an advanced driver by my reckoning.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[hazzaboy69]

It seems that all you need to do to drive fast is become a traffic cop then you can go as fast as you want even off duty and still get away with it.