Changing the definition of dangerous driving

[farmerbarleymow]

33 million drivers in the UK (1) means about 7 million tests per year if drivers have to redo it every five years. Examiners perform 7 tests per day (2). With about 220 working days a year, we would need about 4300 examiners. There are currently only about 1600 (3). So we need shout 2.5-3x s as many as we currently have. Becoming an examiner is quite an onerous test in its own right, which would require people to train and test these examiners, which is also a resource we currently don’t have. And examiners are disqualified if they have three points on their licence, which provides an ironic negative feedback on the system.

It would certainly be possible to get to point where we can re-examine drivers every five years, but it wouldn’t be trivial to manage it.


(1) https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility
(2) Driving Test Examiners—Everything You Need To Know | PassMeFast
(3) Driving examiner (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia

As they have a database of all drivers, a lottery system could be introduced so that people are randomly selected to train to be examiners and have to perform that role for a year or two. Would need upfront investment in training, but it would solve the need to try and recruit people - just compel them into doing it as part of the price of having a driving licence - refuse and they lose their licence. A bit like jury service.

Some exemptions would be required - for old people who shouldn't be driving, and essential occupations like doctors, etc.

 

[Teaboy]

33 million drivers in the UK (1) means about 7 million tests per year if drivers have to redo it every five years. Examiners perform 7 tests per day (2). With about 220 working days a year, we would need about 4300 examiners. There are currently only about 1600 (3). So we need shout 2.5-3x s as many as we currently have. Becoming an examiner is quite an onerous test in its own right, which would require people to train and test these examiners, which is also a resource we currently don’t have. And examiners are disqualified if they have three points on their licence, which provides an ironic negative feedback on the system.

It would certainly be possible to get to point where we can re-examine drivers every five years, but it wouldn’t be trivial to manage it.


(1) https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility
(2) Driving Test Examiners—Everything You Need To Know | PassMeFast
(3) Driving examiner (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia

There would probably be a fair few re-tests as well because it is very unlikely that failing a test would mean instant loss of licence, there would likely be a grace period to get re-tested again and pass.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

As for speed limiters, absolutely. GPS linked.

And even if speed limiters could be hacked, the system could automatically identify if anyone was speeding and issue fines, points or time in the village stocks to anyone breaking the speed limit.

 

[maomao]

As they have a database of all drivers, a lottery system could be introduced so that people are randomly selected to train to be examiners and have to perform that role for a year or two. Would need upfront investment in training, but it would solve the need to try and recruit people - just compel them into doing it as part of the price of having a driving licence - refuse and they lose their licence. A bit like jury service.

Some exemptions would be required - for old people who shouldn't be driving, and essential occupations like doctors, etc.

Apparently driving examiners start on less than 25k which shocked me. Make it 35 and they'll be queueing round the block.

 

[Elpenor]

How about a re-test if you get any points at all? How many drivers would that affect a year? (Yes, I'll google it)

I’d support this I’ve got friends who regard getting points as a badge of honour, I’ve managed to drive 250k miles in 15 years without getting any.

 

[youbeauty]

Actually, having looked at it briefly, it turns out you can get points for a number of things which aren't driving offences so I'll suggest anyone who gets points for a driving offence should be re-tested. There were 2.6 million people with points on their license in 2019 and points last for either 4 or 11 years. If we assume they last for 4 years (the majority will), that's roughly 650,000 offences a year of which quite a few will be non-driving (insurance, failing to stop at an accident etc) so I don't think it would be unmanageable to re-test these people.

 

[Saul Goodman]

A three strikes rule would be good. If you fail your driving test three times, that's it, you don't get another chance.

 

[Chilli.s]

Anything that tightens up driving laws, and increases penalties for piss takers, is a good one afaiac

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I’d personally give a lifetime ban the moment you got to 12 points. You’ve (usually) had 3 warnings by the time you get to that point, anyone still driving like a cock after that really doesn’t deserve to be on the road.

And no “hardship” defence, ever.

 

[Teaboy]

Everyone should be tested all of the time. We train up every adult to be a driving instructor then split the population into pairs. When one is driving the other is testing. I don't know if it will work but we definitely need a lot more tests or something.

 

[maomao]

A three strikes rule would be good. If you fail your driving test three times, that's it, you don't get another chance.

Is there any evidence at all that people who take more attempts to pass the test make worse drivers?

 

[maomao]

First time passers are more likely to have accidents. The safest number of times to take the test is three:

Pass your driving test first time? You're a bad driver

That is because they be more ‘rash’ in their behaviour and take more risks compared to more cautious drivers who may fail at their first attempt, it says.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[souljacker]

Rather than doing a full test every 5 years (or after X amount of points) we could just make people redo their theory test. That just needs a pc to be available in the test centre doesn't it? No need for training up extra testers.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Is there any evidence at all that people who take more attempts to pass the test make worse drivers?

Yes. Everyone I know who didn't pass their test first time is a shit driver.

 

[DownwardDog]

Making everyone sit the driving test annually would help improve standards, and make speed limiters mandatory in all vehicles (except emergency services obvs).

That wouldn't help at all. I drive like a fucking lunatic but I could pass a driving test every day. It's not that people can't drive, it's that they don't give a fuck.

 

[maomao]

Yes. Everyone I know who didn't pass their test first time is a shit driver.

Are they the ones that drive motorbikes at 200mph and give you videos of it to out on your YouTube channel?

 

[Saul Goodman]

First time passers are more likely to have accidents. The safest number of times to take the test is three:

Pass your driving test first time? You're a bad driver

That is because they be more ‘rash’ in their behaviour and take more risks compared to more cautious drivers who may fail at their first attempt, it says.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Excellent Daily Mail article.

 

[youbeauty]

That wouldn't help at all. I drive like a fucking lunatic but I could pass a driving test every day. It's not that people can't drive, it's that they don't give a fuck.

I think you'll probably find quite a few people who can't drive and also don't give a fuck.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Are they the ones that drive motorbikes at 200mph and give you videos of it to out on your YouTube channel?

Possibly, I didn't ask him how many times he'd taken his test but he's also an avid cyclist, which would explain his contempt of the law.

 

[maomao]

Excellent Daily Mail article.

Apologies, I forgot how easily offended you are.

 

[Spymaster]

That wouldn't help at all. I drive like a fucking lunatic but I could pass a driving test every day. It's not that people can't drive, it's that they don't give a fuck.

Totally. Whenever I break the law in a car or on a bike I do it completely intentionally and could pass any number of driving tests. There's an argument for more frequent testing for pensioners (including physicals) but it won't change much for the majority.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Totally. Whenever I break the law in a car or on a bike I do it completely intentionally and could pass any number of driving tests. There's an argument for more frequent testing for pensioners (including physicals) but it won't change much for the majority.

It's a fucking stupid suggestion. You'd have to be a bit special to fail your test after driving for 5 years.

 

[Chilli.s]

Is there any evidence at all that people who take more attempts to pass the test make worse drivers?

I think the opposite is true

 

[youbeauty]

Totally. Whenever I break the law in a car or on a bike I do it completely intentionally and could pass any number of driving tests. There's an argument for more frequent testing for pensioners (including physicals) but it won't change much for the majority.

So what kind of sanction would prevent you (and other excellent drivers who don't give a fuck) from breaking the law?

 

[maomao]

Totally. Whenever I break the law in a car or on a bike I do it completely intentionally and could pass any number of driving tests. There's an argument for more frequent testing for pensioners (including physicals) but it won't change much for the majority.

This is exactly why points and bans need to stop being used as deterrents and start being used properly as a way of getting selfish maniacs off the road.

 

[kabbes]

There would probably be a fair few re-tests as well because it is very unlikely that failing a test would mean instant loss of licence, there would likely be a grace period to get re-tested again and pass.

Reading this has made me realised I underestimated the number of examiners in another way — the existing 1600 examiners are already occupied performing the existing tests. We would need 4300 extra examiners (plus the additional ones you point out). In total, it’s something like four times the number that already exist.

Retesting under more limited circumstances (such as getting points) would be more feasible. I don’t know that these people would fail a test in any case, however.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

That wouldn't help at all. I drive like a fucking lunatic but I could pass a driving test every day. It's not that people can't drive, it's that they don't give a fuck.

Easily solved by mandatory cameras and other sensors like GPS in every vehicle, livestreaming all the data back to a central data centre. If you behave like a lunatic they can take over your car, drive it to a safe location, lock the doors and call the police to come and sort you out.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Retesting under more limited circumstances (such as getting points) would be more feasible. I don’t know that these people would fail a test in any case, however.

If they were automatically banned as soon as they received points, and could only legally drive again after passing the test this might make some people think twice about behaving like dickheads behind the wheel. Obviously some would ignore the ban as they do now, but they could be sent to jail.

 

[DownwardDog]

Easily solved by mandatory cameras and other sensors like GPS in every vehicle, livestreaming all the data back to a central data centre. If you behave like a lunatic they can take over your car, drive it to a safe location, lock the doors and call the police to come and sort you out.

That doesn't sound like something that could be done "easily".

 

[Spymaster]

So what kind of sanction would prevent you (and other excellent drivers who don't give a fuck) from breaking the law?

Rather than sanctions, make the rules reasonable. If people accept them, most won't break them. If they think they're pointless or or draconian, they will.