Cyclist dies after collision
Discussion
ManBetterKnow said:
Anybody with common sense knows that old people generally have much poorer reaction times and observation skills than young people.
What's that got to do with it? The drivers with the best reaction times and eyesight have to pay enormous sums of money to get insurance - cos stats prove they're a liability.heebeegeetee said:
What's that got to do with it? The drivers with the best reaction times and eyesight have to pay enormous sums of money to get insurance - cos stats prove they're a liability.
One isn't exclusive against the other.Young people are a liability because they have a built in over-confidence that clouds their decision making. People reaching old age suffer from less sensory and physical ability that can inhibit their being able to spot and react to fast evolving situations. Both represent risk.
10 Pence Short said:
One isn't exclusive against the other.
Young people are a liability because they have a built in over-confidence that clouds their decision making. People reaching old age suffer from less sensory and physical ability that can inhibit their being able to spot and react to fast evolving situations. Both represent risk.
I asked a question in response to Manbetterknows comment.Young people are a liability because they have a built in over-confidence that clouds their decision making. People reaching old age suffer from less sensory and physical ability that can inhibit their being able to spot and react to fast evolving situations. Both represent risk.
I believe the one end of the age range poses a far lower risk than the other. We shouldn't get carried away with fast reaction times etc, because there's precious little evidence to suggest they're needed.
heebeegeetee said:
I asked a question in response to Manbetterknows comment.
I believe the one end of the age range poses a far lower risk than the other. We shouldn't get carried away with fast reaction times etc, because there's precious little evidence to suggest they're needed.
My opinion would be that both are liabilities.I believe the one end of the age range poses a far lower risk than the other. We shouldn't get carried away with fast reaction times etc, because there's precious little evidence to suggest they're needed.
Young people create large claims by creating personal injuries, 3rd party claims and total losses- often due to risk taking at speed. In one sense their physical condition and reactions prevent their mental attitude to driving from creating an even worse situation.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have people who through no fault of their own, have vastly reduced capabilities due to the onset of old age. Poor eyesight and physical frailty being to two biggest culprits. Whilst they're very unlikely to be causing accidents due to taking risks, they're far more likely to be rubbing the corner of their front bumper down your entire car length in the car park, driving at 25mph down that busy A road at night and braking for oncoming headlights (causing people to become impatient), or pulling out into the path of anything and everything on a regular basis- how many times do you see that pensioner revving at 5000rpm as they flounder for the clutch bite point?
In other words, both youngsters and infirm people can be a risk, albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I used to work for a long time with Opticians, and the number of times you'd see a pensioner pull up (badly) outside, come in, have a sight test and not even be able to see the bare necessity for the DVLA requirement, was shocking.
Soovy said:
Pet peeve of mine, this.
You may be a young thruster now, mate, but wait until YOU are older and someone decides you should have yuor licence taken off you.
Sir Striling is pretty handy at 82. I know plenty of thick feral underclass 30 year olds who should have their licences revoked.
Having a licence should be inked to ability not age.
Your last point is true. However, we make a blanket assumption that under 17's have not yet developed the ability to drive, it's not always true but will be the case for most.You may be a young thruster now, mate, but wait until YOU are older and someone decides you should have yuor licence taken off you.
Sir Striling is pretty handy at 82. I know plenty of thick feral underclass 30 year olds who should have their licences revoked.
Having a licence should be inked to ability not age.
By that same token, I think it's important to recognise that this ability does deteriorate with age. Again not everybody over x years old lacks the ability to drive, but some may. So something like mandatory retest from 75-80years old and then every few years thereafter is a good idea imo.
I'm not saying they should have their licenses revoked purely down to age, just that age should trigger a re-evaluation as to whether they should still have a license.
heebeegeetee said:
...We shouldn't get carried away with fast reaction times etc, because there's precious little evidence to suggest they're needed.
I once witnessed an older driver clout a schoolgirl who walked out behind a stopped bus. Quick reactions might not have been able to prevent it (although some anticipation would have), but the fact that he took 200 metres to stop the car afterwards suggests he couldn't cope well with the unexpected. S. Gonzales Esq. said:
I once witnessed an older driver clout a schoolgirl who walked out behind a stopped bus. Quick reactions might not have been able to prevent it (although some anticipation would have), but the fact that he took 200 metres to stop the car afterwards suggests he couldn't cope well with the unexpected.
But what would the outcome have been if the driver had been me when I was young, with little experience or ability to anticipate whilst driving well over the speed that I should have been?There's lots of people of all ages who shouldn't be on the road and there's lots who should.
I'd like to see a simple retest every 5 years.
That'll sort out everyone.
(as complicated or simple as needed)
If you like, for anyone under 20 or over 60 make it every 2 years and make it free for them.
I'd like to see a simple retest every 5 years.
That'll sort out everyone.
(as complicated or simple as needed)
If you like, for anyone under 20 or over 60 make it every 2 years and make it free for them.
Snowboy said:
There's lots of people of all ages who shouldn't be on the road and there's lots who should.
I'd like to see a simple retest every 5 years.
That'll sort out everyone.
(as complicated or simple as needed)
If you like, for anyone under 20 or over 60 make it every 2 years and make it free for them.
What is the waiting list currently for a driving test, and what happens if you fail the 2 yearly test, do you loose your licence, or do they tell you to go away, and come back later, (another appointment), but carry on driving meanwhile.I'd like to see a simple retest every 5 years.
That'll sort out everyone.
(as complicated or simple as needed)
If you like, for anyone under 20 or over 60 make it every 2 years and make it free for them.
Then you have an accident, your fault, and it comes out in court that you failed your 2 yearly test.
Although we have discussed retesting over the years, I think it's a big bag of worms.
As a suggestion, following specific accidents, where proven to be your bad driving, suspend your licence, and don't re-issue until you take and pass another test.
Vipers said:
What is the waiting list currently for a driving test, and what happens if you fail the 2 yearly test, do you loose your licence, or do they tell you to go away, and come back later, (another appointment), but carry on driving meanwhile.
Then you have an accident, your fault, and it comes out in court that you failed your 2 yearly test.
Although we have discussed retesting over the years, I think it's a big bag of worms.
As a suggestion, following specific accidents, where proven to be your bad driving, suspend your licence, and don't re-issue until you take and pass another test.
I'd say your last point may be somewhat like testing the status of the stable door after the horse has departed.Then you have an accident, your fault, and it comes out in court that you failed your 2 yearly test.
Although we have discussed retesting over the years, I think it's a big bag of worms.
As a suggestion, following specific accidents, where proven to be your bad driving, suspend your licence, and don't re-issue until you take and pass another test.
You're right, the retest question does open a can'o'worms.
But no more than an MOT with overlapping dates and safety concerns.
It also doesn't need to be a full test (IMO) merely a quick eye test, then 20 minutes of an instructor in the passenger seat offering directions.
In fact, assuming you're local – they could just ask you to drive to the [large well known local building] and back and then just see how you do.
hora said:
I had a very close miss with a OAP yesterday afternoon. Van driving otherway and OAP decided to overtake me whilst still in the same lane.
Daft thing was he was rushing essentially to a dead end.
Had one yesterday in the works carpark, driving one of those big Lexus 4x4's (with the reversing camera system). The car was clearly too big for him, he nearly reversed into a women in an X-type that was waiting for him to park, she was fortunately quick enough to go into reverse herself and move out of his way.Daft thing was he was rushing essentially to a dead end.
I then stood there for 10 minutes watching him try to park this beast nose first into a space (in case he hit mine or anyone else's car), only to give up, leave the carpark and park it on the road outside, he then wandered off to the local driver training centre (where they do the speed awareness courses).
This guy shouldn't have been driving and certainly shouldn't be driving a vehicle so far beyond his capacity!
And heading back to the topic, my own father had one of these monstrous Lexus 4x4's and nearly wiped out a family of cyclists whilst trying to squeeze over a narrow bridge with cars coming the other way. He pulled out to give them space but then squashed them when he saw a car coming!! On insistence from us, he now drives a smaller car with better visibility!
Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 29th September 11:45
Re-testing is not a can of worms. New drivers who get 6 points in their first two years get their full licence REVOKED which effectively means reverting to learner status - that means they have to drive with L plates and under supervision of a full licence holder and retake their test.
From a financial and moral point of view, the cost of regular retesting for every driver would not justify the reward.
The middle ground for deciding when a retest would be required could be put on the door of driving offences. For example, any example of Sec.3 RTA (Careless/Inconsiderate) or any totting up could be set to require a mandatory retest. An extended retest is already mandatory for anyone convicted of Dangerous Driving.
Even this would put huge pressure on the testing system, though it would allow drivers the decency of being trusted until it's proven they should not be.
The middle ground for deciding when a retest would be required could be put on the door of driving offences. For example, any example of Sec.3 RTA (Careless/Inconsiderate) or any totting up could be set to require a mandatory retest. An extended retest is already mandatory for anyone convicted of Dangerous Driving.
Even this would put huge pressure on the testing system, though it would allow drivers the decency of being trusted until it's proven they should not be.
10 Pence Short said:
From a financial and moral point of view, the cost of regular retesting for every driver would not justify the reward.
The middle ground for deciding when a retest would be required could be put on the door of driving offences. For example, any example of Sec.3 RTA (Careless/Inconsiderate) or any totting up could be set to require a mandatory retest. An extended retest is already mandatory for anyone convicted of Dangerous Driving.
Even this would put huge pressure on the testing system, though it would allow drivers the decency of being trusted until it's proven they should not be.
Interesting - I agree with the totting up or for specific driving offences leading to re-testing I dont agree that a mandatory re-test for all would be unjust or finacially not appropriate. The middle ground for deciding when a retest would be required could be put on the door of driving offences. For example, any example of Sec.3 RTA (Careless/Inconsiderate) or any totting up could be set to require a mandatory retest. An extended retest is already mandatory for anyone convicted of Dangerous Driving.
Even this would put huge pressure on the testing system, though it would allow drivers the decency of being trusted until it's proven they should not be.
I would be in favour of the totting up as 10p said but also mandatory tests for all drivers every 10 years or even 5 years. It will create new jobs and be self funding and be a positive effort for driver education. part of the retest will encompas eye test.
superlightr said:
I would be in favour of the totting up as 10p said but also mandatory tests for all drivers every 10 years or even 5 years. It will create new jobs and be self funding and be a positive effort for driver education. part of the retest will encompas eye test.
Having done an extended retest in the not too distant past, I'd argue the test for beginners is not fit for purpose in order to determine someone's fitness to drive at a later date. It's too easy to pass the test.Then you have to create a new test for experienced drivers. Then you create a two tier licence between those who've passed just their entry test and those who've passed the refresher. And who's going to pay for this? Which politician is going to stand happily on the doorstep and say "vote for us, we'll take you off the road"?
The public will only support and pay for such a measure if you attach it to people who are shown to have done something wrong to deserve it, such as a motoring offence. Otherwise, the attitude will be "I'm a good driver, why should I have to pass a test?".
The problem with offence-linked re-testing is the bad ones generally don't get caught. The hooligan driver who slows down for every speed camera or who isn't seen escapes scot free. the partially-sighted OAP who dithers along at 25mph letting others avoid him/her never gets pulled so the only fair way is a compulsory re-test that doesn't leave it to chance.
Dangerous driving attracts an extended retest designed to help educate though what it entails I don't know.
The way around the logistics of it is to licence sub-organisations to run courses and testing - they already do this with speed awareness courses lectured by IAM drivers so it wouldn't take much to extend that concept with the DVLA being only the architect of the first official driving test so to speak.
It would probably encourage more people to give up driving and use public transport to be honest.
Dangerous driving attracts an extended retest designed to help educate though what it entails I don't know.
The way around the logistics of it is to licence sub-organisations to run courses and testing - they already do this with speed awareness courses lectured by IAM drivers so it wouldn't take much to extend that concept with the DVLA being only the architect of the first official driving test so to speak.
It would probably encourage more people to give up driving and use public transport to be honest.
LuS1fer said:
The problem with offence-linked re-testing is the bad ones generally don't get caught. The hooligan driver who slows down for every speed camera or who isn't seen escapes scot free. the partially-sighted OAP who dithers along at 25mph letting others avoid him/her never gets pulled so the only fair way is a compulsory re-test that doesn't leave it to chance.
If they never gut pulled, it's because they're not causing accidents or committing offences. So what's the problem?LuS1fer said:
Dangerous driving attracts an extended retest designed to help educate though what it entails I don't know.
The extended retest is literally just the standard 40 minute DSA licence test, running straight into an additional 40 minutes driving around (with no specific manoeuvres) making sure you don't get any crosses on your sheet. It's not remotely educational or difficult for anyone who has driving experience. As far as I can see, barring political will, the only barrier to limited lifespan licences is setting up the infrastructure to make it happen. I see the working scenario something a bit like this.
All licences are now valid for say 10 years. The further you are from the 10 years the sooner you are retested. You receive a letter from DVLA with your appointment date and time. It'll cost say £30.
Retests take place in enlarged test centres with an eye test and a driving test that replicates the current first time test. That way there's no 2 tier system.
If you pass, fine. If you fail, like the MOT, you must not continue to drive alone until you receive further instruction and take a retest. You can practice with someone else in the car who carries a valid licence but you must display an 'F' plate.
Once retested the same applies. There is a £15 charge for each retest up to a maximum of 3. If you fail what amounts to the 4th test you lose your licence and you have to start again.
I reckon there are about 25 million motorists in the country, and at £30 a pop financially it's possible. It can also be sold as a way of increasing self employment as the number of driving instructors will also have to increase.
Oh dear, this is all starting to sound a bit plausible to politicians in an economic drought.
All licences are now valid for say 10 years. The further you are from the 10 years the sooner you are retested. You receive a letter from DVLA with your appointment date and time. It'll cost say £30.
Retests take place in enlarged test centres with an eye test and a driving test that replicates the current first time test. That way there's no 2 tier system.
If you pass, fine. If you fail, like the MOT, you must not continue to drive alone until you receive further instruction and take a retest. You can practice with someone else in the car who carries a valid licence but you must display an 'F' plate.
Once retested the same applies. There is a £15 charge for each retest up to a maximum of 3. If you fail what amounts to the 4th test you lose your licence and you have to start again.
I reckon there are about 25 million motorists in the country, and at £30 a pop financially it's possible. It can also be sold as a way of increasing self employment as the number of driving instructors will also have to increase.
Oh dear, this is all starting to sound a bit plausible to politicians in an economic drought.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff