New driver and speeding. Revocation?

[SS2.]

How would you suggest they let you know when your licence is about to be revoked ?

Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 29th July 09:10

[over_the_hill]

Durzel said:

The attitude to driving in this country seems to be that it is essentially an automatic right, that its a given that everyone who sets out to do it will pass and be deemed competent enough to do it. In other walks of life, with professional qualifications especially, if you don't meet the grade then that's just the way it is.

But everyone - well pretty well everyone - who sets out to do it does indeed do it. So what does this mean

a) The level of instruction from every driving instructor is exceptionally brilliant
b) The test is too easy
c) Everyone does have the ability to drive when they eventually learn (much like learning to walk or ride a bike)

[speedking31]

KevinCamaroSS said:

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.

Have you heard of 'normal distribution'? Most people will be around average with a few at the extreme ends of good or bad. Removing rank 1 e.g. 5% of drivers might only change the average from 3.5 to 3.6. And that's by not allowing 1/20 people not to drive, ever.

As you're assuming that there are the same number of people in each band then to achieve an increase in standards from 3.5 to 4.5, which with error might not be that noticeable on the road, you will be denying 1/3 of drivers the chance to ever drive. Seems very sledgehammer/nut to me.

[NGee]

over_the_hill said:

But everyone - well pretty well everyone - who sets out to do it does indeed do it. So what does this mean

It means that, because there is no further testing or assessment, most people choose to ignore everything they have learnt the second they've passed the test.

[NewUsername]

KevinCamaroSS said:

the number of tests needed does provide a good indicator of the innate ability.

Does it really? Where is the data? What is the correlation between no of attempts to pass a test and accidents or driving offences for example?

If I presented a statement similar to yours to the board at work with no supporting data i'd be laughed out of the room,

[KevinCamaroSS]

speedking31 said:

ave you heard of 'normal distribution'? Most people will be around average with a few at the extreme ends of good or bad. Removing rank 1 e.g. 5% of drivers might only change the average from 3.5 to 3.6. And that's by not allowing 1/20 people not to drive, ever.

As you're assuming that there are the same number of people in each band then to achieve an increase in standards from 3.5 to 4.5, which with error might not be that noticeable on the road, you will be denying 1/3 of drivers the chance to ever drive. Seems very sledgehammer/nut to me.

My point still stands, removal of the bottom group will improve the average, even if by only a small amount.

Normal distribution, in my example is irrelevant anyway, since I was simply dividing into six groups of the same number and then assigning the same number to each person in that group. Trying to keep it simple for obvious reasons. My point is also that some people should not be driving and would not be driving if the test was tougher, and/or, the rules for taking the test was changed.

Driving should not be a 'right', it should be granted if you meet a tough set of conditions. Agreed, the tougher the conditions the less people would be driving, not a bad thing?

[KevinCamaroSS]

NewUsername said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

the number of tests needed does provide a good indicator of the innate ability.

Does it really? Where is the data? What is the correlation between no of attempts to pass a test and accidents or driving offences for example?

If I presented a statement similar to yours to the board at work with no supporting data i'd be laughed out of the room,

I could not find that data anywhere, so presented a simple point. The standard required for the driving test is pretty low, if you fail repeatedly you are proving you are below the standard required, therefore your ability level in lower.

[crofty1984]

It may be worth him getting a lawyer. They might be able to argue in favour of a ban. That's what I had to do. Got a 3 week ban when 6 points would have seen my licence gone.
Though I see other posters suggesting that the guidance is to give the points.

[NewUsername]

KevinCamaroSS said:

NewUsername said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

the number of tests needed does provide a good indicator of the innate ability.

Does it really? Where is the data? What is the correlation between no of attempts to pass a test and accidents or driving offences for example?

If I presented a statement similar to yours to the board at work with no supporting data i'd be laughed out of the room,

I could not find that data anywhere, so presented a simple point. The standard required for the driving test is pretty low, if you fail repeatedly you are proving you are below the standard required, therefore your ability level in lower.

It demonstrates nothing of the sort. It merely shows that they are not 'good' at passing the driving test.

Anything else you've said is your opinion garnered from 'anecdata', anecdotal data you seem to think has significance......ie...my mate bob failed his test 4 times and is a danger on the roads therefore eveyrbody who fails 4 times is the same... etc etc

Unless you can demonstrate correlation between test fails and the subsequent standard of driving by a measurable means such as number/severity of driving offences/accidents etc then you are just voicing an opinion at best, and a pretty ill judged one at that.

[SS2.]

crofty1984 said:

Though I see other posters suggesting that the guidance is to give the points.

Indeed.

Sentencing Council said:

An offender liable for an endorsement which will cause the licence to be revoked under the new drivers’ provisions may ask the court to disqualify rather than impose points. This will avoid the requirement to take a further test. Generally, this would be inappropriate since it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament.

[BertBert]

KevinCamaroSS said:

My point still stands, removal of the bottom group will improve the average, even if by only a small amount.

Actually that wasn't your point which is why I was disagreeing

KevinCamaroSS said:

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

My point as others have suggested is that you have no data to say how much driving would be improved by this action.

[surveyor]

BertBert said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

My point still stands, removal of the bottom group will improve the average, even if by only a small amount.

Actually that wasn't your point which is why I was disagreeing

KevinCamaroSS said:

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

My point as others have suggested is that you have no data to say how much driving would be improved by this action.

My pout is your points are currently irrelevant and if no great value

Cheers me dears.

[KevinCamaroSS]

BertBert said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

My point still stands, removal of the bottom group will improve the average, even if by only a small amount.

Actually that wasn't your point which is why I was disagreeing

KevinCamaroSS said:

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

My point as others have suggested is that you have no data to say how much driving would be improved by this action.

You are correct, there is no data to say how much it would be improved. However, it is a fact that if you remove the worst performing in a group, the overall group performance improves. Simple maths or statistics proves that. Currently there are only two tools to do the removal, the driving test and penalty points.

[NewUsername]

KevinCamaroSS said:

BertBert said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

My point still stands, removal of the bottom group will improve the average, even if by only a small amount.

Actually that wasn't your point which is why I was disagreeing

KevinCamaroSS said:

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

My point as others have suggested is that you have no data to say how much driving would be improved by this action.

You are correct, there is no data to say how much it would be improved. However, it is a fact that if you remove the worst performing in a group, the overall group performance improves. Simple maths or statistics proves that. Currently there are only two tools to do the removal, the driving test and penalty points.

You would only be making a group with a better ability to pass the test though

You haven’t been able to demonstrate a link between that and subsequent driver skill/performance/safety

[Dogwatch]

surveyor said:

He works for a risk averse insurance company

Good luck to them!

[over_the_hill]

Dogwatch said:

surveyor said:

He works for a risk averse insurance company

Good luck to them!

He might want to consider a word with his boss.
If this goes to court you never know if a local journalist will be floating around.
They would just love this - Mr xxx who works for WeDriveSafe.com was banned from driving for ...

[KevinCamaroSS]

NewUsername said:

You would only be making a group with a better ability to pass the test though

You haven’t been able to demonstrate a link between that and subsequent driver skill/performance/safety

Of course not, the data is not available. Post test the only tool currently is penalty points. Introducing mandatory re-testing is likely to have a beneficial effect as a check on performance at regular intervals to catch the 'bad habits' people get into.

[NewUsername]

KevinCamaroSS said:

Of course not, the data is not available.l.

Exactly, end of discussion, you cannot provide anything to substantiate your idea.

[KevinCamaroSS]

NewUsername said:

Exactly, end of discussion, you cannot provide anything to substantiate your idea.

Similarly, you cannot provide anything to disprove it either.

[theguvernor15]

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

As for then deciding to drive over the ton with very little experience - that's idiotic in the extreme, especially with one "get out of jail" card already played

Should be revoked and it wouldn't surprise me if they then take another 8 goes to pass their retest

Difficult call as to whether he is a DI's dream (bank balance) or worst nightmare (lack of spacial awareness and mechanical sympathy)

I wouldn't really agree with that, then again it took me until my 6th attempt to pass. (Car) - bike test passed first time.
I have a friend who passed first time, wrote his car off 2 hours later driving into a brick wall at 40mph.

Similarly, i know people who've passed their test first time & genuinely make me feel really unsafe being in a car with them & they've been driving 15+ years.
I know a lad who's taken 7/8 attempts to pass & is a proper 10 and 2 driver, never exceeds the speed limit & is still driving his car exactly how they teach you to pass your test.