New driver and speeding. Revocation?

[blueg33]

Pieman68 said:

Personal opinion if somebody has to have 8 goes to pass their test they shouldn't be allowed to drive - should have a max of 5 goes

I disagree, my son had 3 goes my daughter one go. My son is a miles batter driver than my daughter.

I'm not sure number of times reflects the quality of the driver.

[Solocle]

blueg33 said:

I disagree, my son had 3 goes my daughter one go. My son is a miles batter driver than my daughter.

I'm not sure number of times reflects the quality of the driver.

Well, I passed first time, with 0 faults. I'm an absolute driving god

OP's son should go to court with a big tub of sudocream for the arse-wooping he's going to get.

And a few months getting around on a bike might just make him a better driver.

[Pieman68]

blueg33 said:

I disagree, my son had 3 goes my daughter one go. My son is a miles batter driver than my daughter.

I'm not sure number of times reflects the quality of the driver.

But that's 3 times. I personally passed 2nd time. Anybody can make a mistake on the day - but this is 8 times!!

Suggests somebody that doesn't have the pre-requisites for driving a car to me

[Phunk]

Fluid said:

Phunk said:

When I was a young and foolish 18 year old I got stopped doing 111mph on the M74 in Dumfries.

Went to court, 0 points, £200 fine and 3 months ban.

Was that pre or post June 1997?

Edited for wrong month.

Edited by Fluid on Sunday 12th July 08:42

It was around 2006/2007

[QBee]

Pieman68 said:

Personal opinion if somebody has to have 8 goes to pass their test they shouldn't be allowed to drive - should have a max of 5 goes

My daughter failed her first test at 17 because in the last ten yards of the test someone came the other way round a blind bend at 60 in a 30, just as my daughter was passing an illegally parked car. The near miss shocked the examiner rigid, but she did nothing wrong as far as i could see. I saw it happen and protested to the regional chief examiner....who turned out to be the same guy who had failed her. Judge and jury.

Seven tests later she finally passed, after a few admittedly blonde moments in towns she didn't know on the tests in between, and due to being stressed during the test. Looking back i actually believe she gained a lot of useful experience during that 12 months and six further tests, and I should know, because I was in the passenger seat for every mile of it bar her lessons.

She is 34 next month, has never had a speeding ticket or an accident, and is a very safe driver.


Back before the Boer War I passed my test first time, and proceeded to have at least one accident a year for the first five years of driving. Boys and cars.

Edited by QBee on Monday 13th July 15:02

[Pothole]

drmike37 said:

Maybe his poor judgement is inherited?

Doesn't sound like maybe at all...

[KevinCamaroSS]

Pieman68 said:

But that's 3 times. I personally passed 2nd time. Anybody can make a mistake on the day - but this is 8 times!!

Suggests somebody that doesn't have the pre-requisites for driving a car to me

Agreed, personally I believe that once you have taken the test, and failed, 3 times there should be a mandatory 12 months and minimum 20 lessons before you can take it again. After a further 3 attempts that should be game over. This would improve the standard of driving in the country, as would 5 yearly mandatory re-tests. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[Gilhooligan]

Friend of mine approx 10 years ago now got stopped doing over 100 on the M8 and hadn’t been driving for two years.
He got a lawyer involved and argued how much he needed his car etc. Ended up keeping his license but got 5 points and fine.

[TimmyMallett]

Pieman68 said:

But that's 3 times. I personally passed 2nd time. Anybody can make a mistake on the day - but this is 8 times!!

Suggests somebody that doesn't have the pre-requisites for driving a car to me

I don't get the logic. Fundamentally that person passed the standard to drive, they might have had 5 lessons and 8 tests, would that be better? They might have just had 8 fails due to minors. Someone might just be really nervous.


Mind you, this lad doesn't sound like it. But I don't think failing lots ultimately makes you a bad driver. If it did, actuaries would be factoring pass rates on policies.

[Solocle]

TimmyMallett said:

I don't get the logic. Fundamentally that person passed the standard to drive, they might have had 5 lessons and 8 tests, would that be better? They might have just had 8 fails due to minors. Someone might just be really nervous.


Mind you, this lad doesn't sound like it. But I don't think failing lots ultimately makes you a bad driver. If it did, actuaries would be factoring pass rates on policies.

But they don't test you on everything, only what comes up on the test drive. I passed without ever encountering a cyclist in a tested environment - so, for all the DVSA knows, I perform stupid MGIF maneuvers.

Frankly, standards for the driving test should be significantly higher.

Having multiple attempts - sure, you might get unlucky and make a mistake. But, if you keep having a go, it's quite possible that you get lucky and don't make a serious mistake.

[surveyor]

Personally I don’t like being driven by him. It’s not feeling safe!

[Riley Blue]

Coincidentally:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[BertBert]

KevinCamaroSS said:

Agreed, personally I believe that once you have taken the test, and failed, 3 times there should be a mandatory 12 months and minimum 20 lessons before you can take it again. After a further 3 attempts that should be game over. This would improve the standard of driving in the country...

Not materially.

[KevinCamaroSS]

BertBert said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

Agreed, personally I believe that once you have taken the test, and failed, 3 times there should be a mandatory 12 months and minimum 20 lessons before you can take it again. After a further 3 attempts that should be game over. This would improve the standard of driving in the country...

Not materially.

It would weed out those that really should not be driving, this would bring the average up a fair bit.

[BertBert]

KevinCamaroSS said:

BertBert said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

Agreed, personally I believe that once you have taken the test, and failed, 3 times there should be a mandatory 12 months and minimum 20 lessons before you can take it again. After a further 3 attempts that should be game over. This would improve the standard of driving in the country...

Not materially.

It would weed out those that really should not be driving, this would bring the average up a fair bit.

How do you know? You are just guessing. I guess that it wouldn't.

[KevinCamaroSS]

BertBert said:

How do you know? You are just guessing. I guess that it wouldn't.

Really? Anybody who cannot pass a test in 6 attempts should not be on the road. As for guessing, no, simple science. Eliminate the bottom ranked from a group and the average automatically goes up. How many attempts did you need? I passed my car test first time, HGV first time and also qualified as an HGV instructor with the army (first time there too).

[BertBert]

KevinCamaroSS said:

BertBert said:

How do you know? You are just guessing. I guess that it wouldn't.

Really? Anybody who cannot pass a test in 6 attempts should not be on the road. As for guessing, no, simple science. Eliminate the bottom ranked from a group and the average automatically goes up. How many attempts did you need? I passed my car test first time, HGV first time and also qualified as an HGV instructor with the army (first time there too).

I see it differently. It's not science, it's an assertion. You need some data or other other proof to turn it into science. Such as...
How big is the bottom rank (using your definition of # test failures)?
What is the correlation that the bottom rank (of your definition) correlates to accident risk rate (or other measure to prove the assertion).

Bert

[caiss4]

KevinCamaroSS said:

Agreed, personally I believe that once you have taken the test, and failed, 3 times there should be a mandatory 12 months and minimum 20 lessons before you can take it again. After a further 3 attempts that should be game over. This would improve the standard of driving in the country, as would 5 yearly mandatory re-tests. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

While I might be mildly inclined to agree that at may be 6 tests or more you should really reconsider if you're cut out for driving the benefit to the standard of driving in the UK would be staggeringly small.

My personal statistics as a now retired ADI are that 95% of my students passed first or second time. Only 5% (over 4/5 years) took 3 or more tests to pass and, in fact, of those 7 students total only one took 5 attempts. He was just someone who went in to meltdown on test. He had 54 hours of lessons - his driving was very good and safe but put an examiner in the seat and it was another story. After his 4th failed attempt he wanted more lessons. I advised not to bother but just spend time driving as much as possible with his parents for 6 months and then retake. He passed.

It would not be in his psyche to drive in excess of 100mph on a motorway. So although a small personal sample the issue regarding driving standards remains squarely with the 95%!

As for re-testing there may be case for 'refresher' or assessment at some point (maybe at 70) but a re-test with the threat of loss of licence (unless ordered by a court) would be unmanageable and draconian. I believe it is inherent on us more 'able' drivers (if only by our own assessment) that we compensate for those that don't share our skills.

[KevinCamaroSS]

BertBert said:

I see it differently. It's not science, it's an assertion. You need some data or other other proof to turn it into science. Such as...
How big is the bottom rank (using your definition of # test failures)?
What is the correlation that the bottom rank (of your definition) correlates to accident risk rate (or other measure to prove the assertion).

Bert

It really is not that complicated. Let's use some simple numbers to run through it. 6 driving ability levels, rank them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The average is 3.5. Now, remove the bottom 2 ranks (let's say through tougher testing) you now end up with 3,4,5 & 6. Average is now 4.5. Obviously the relative number of drivers in each rank will make a difference, but, you could divide all drivers into 6 equal ranks on ability, the result would be exactly that. The average ability would have increased from 3.5 to 4.5.

[vonhosen]

KevinCamaroSS said:

BertBert said:

I see it differently. It's not science, it's an assertion. You need some data or other other proof to turn it into science. Such as...
How big is the bottom rank (using your definition of # test failures)?
What is the correlation that the bottom rank (of your definition) correlates to accident risk rate (or other measure to prove the assertion).

Bert

It really is not that complicated. Let's use some simple numbers to run through it. 6 driving ability levels, rank them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The average is 3.5. Now, remove the bottom 2 ranks (let's say through tougher testing) you now end up with 3,4,5 & 6. Average is now 4.5. Obviously the relative number of drivers in each rank will make a difference, but, you could divide all drivers into 6 equal ranks on ability, the result would be exactly that. The average ability would have increased from 3.5 to 4.5.

The number of tests isn't a good indicator of their driving post test.
When they are learning they have to be supervised. Better metrics would be offending or accidents post test when they are no longer required to be supervised.
We already have a method for dealing with offending post test that removes the worst drivers for varying lengths of time & simple finances can remove a lot of people who have too many accidents post test through increased premiums.