You call them muzzles don’t you?
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
You call them muzzles don’t you?
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
As you consider this so important, I take it you’ve been doing it already on a voluntary basis. Your zebra ignorance must therefore be due to your lack of driving practice, so I hope you now resolve to get behind the wheel every day and go for a spin around the city centre to refresh your knowledge of the basics.
We did this before. A driving examiner going flat out can manage about 7 tests a day, which is about 1600 in a working year, allowing for all holidays. There are 32 million drivers in the UK, so you would need about 20,000 driving examiners. By comparison, there are currently only 1,600. The additional 18,400 would be be very challenging to obtain, not least because of the hard criteria to become an examiner.
(I note also that you would be adding about 30 million hours of driving to Britain’s roads as a result of all those tests taking place.)
If it saves one live!
Yearly is obviously too much but something like 5-7 years sounds sensible.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
I've had two near misses this week, both cyclist twats, just cycling straight off the pavement to cross the road, right in front of me, causing me to break heavily.
Wankers.
Wankers.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Also, you don’t need to be a particularly competent driver to pass the standard driving test, so all of the additional driving you mention would achieve little gain anyway. Increased frequency of testing for the over 65s probably makes sense to pick up deterioration in eyesight/reflexes/health etc, otherwise retesting/training probably only makes sense after accidents or convictions.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Two a week would be pretty much standard in London. Most commonly it’s cyclists turning right without indicating, or being invisible after dark.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Mind you, I've also encountered a twat of a driver this week.
I had stopped to allow space for a bus to turn into the road, and the twat behind me decided to over take, only to come face to face with the bus.
It's been a strange week.
pseudonarcissus
fluttering and dancing
It’s the motor car drivers I would require to obtain an annual bicycle endorsement for their licences.
..and I call them nose warmers for winter weather cycling.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I was thinking more of a classroom session then written test. You could probably even do it online.
You could do an online test of the Highway Code, certainly. Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea, though, The practical reality of a portion of people each year failing it and suddenly not being allowed to drive is likely to be more chaotic than would be palatable.
We should have people that can't pass a driving test driving?!
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I think my general reaction to someone suddenly not being able to drive because they couldn’t pass a basic theory test/refresher course would be “tough shit you absolute dumbass”.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Even without a test would be better than nothing. The point is that if there are changes to the highway code, there's no formalised way of making sure that drivers hear about them. And obviously it would also be an opportunity for targeted education on specific points where it's known that there's a problem.
But the fact that there would be chaos if a portion of people failed a test is just an indication of why the overall system is unsafe. It's a result of the car dependency that I keep going on about. Remove car dependency in principle and then there is no longer a problem. And no, it's not possible to do this overnight, before any of the usual suspects has a tantrum.
That depends on how applicable the ability to pass a multiple choice online test about the Highway Code is to the ability to drive safely. Tests are very tricky concepts to pin down. They are constructions that draw in a lot of cultural assumptions about things like what information is relevant and how the procedure works. They are also abstract, and their construct validity against the things you are actually interested in has to be carefully considered. Their use privileges those for whom a western style of academic learning is a taken-for-granted norm, in short. As such, using them as a blunt tool that can stop somebody’s ability to continue their livelihood or their caring duties, amongst other things, should never be treated lightly. You would need to provide very strong evidence that their application demonstrably and materially improves safety.
Right on cue, we have this response:
And that demonstrates what I’m saying. Being a “dumbass” according to a definition based on testing procedures taken for granted within particular cultures is not in itself a reason to radically affect somebody’s life. You might find it satisfying to classify people that way and punish them for not living up to your standards, but your visceral satisfaction is not good enough for public policy.
And that demonstrates what I’m saying. Being a “dumbass” according to a definition based on testing procedures taken for granted within particular cultures is not in itself a reason to radically affect somebody’s life. You might find it satisfying to classify people that way and punish them for not living up to your standards, but your visceral satisfaction is not good enough for public policy.
Are you arguing against all driving tests then?
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
They update you on changes to the highway code at speed awareness courses, so it's all good.
Not at all. Testing somebody’s driving ability by having them drive you around has very high construct validity.
I don't think it would be unreasonable to have to do this every 10 years or so tbh.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
So you're not willing to voluntarily familiarize yourself with changes on a regular basis, but you're happy to force the same on other people?
No, I don’t think it is unreasonable either, in itself. I don’t think it will do anything though — even a very unsafe, boorish driver can hold it together to redo their test. Passing a test would be very easy for an experienced driver
It might remind people of the need to indicate for a start!
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I would force it on everyone with a driving licence including myself.
Please note, before getting over-excited, that any negligence on my part, as a driver, reinforces the general argument I make with this thread.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
So you'd force it on yourself, but you haven't because it's not mandatory for everyone else
Are you suggesting people should drive negligently so as to advance the case for abolishing cars?
It follows that attempts by you to advance driver education through regulation make it less likely cars will be abolished
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So you'd force it on yourself, but you haven't because it's not mandatory for everyone else
You're not paying attention. I don't do it in an organised fashion, thanks to my own negligence. However, if it were mandatory, I would be doing it, and this would make me a safer driver. But it seems that you want to prevent me from becoming a safer driver.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
At work I have to undertake periodic refresher courses and/or testing for various safety critical systems, because there is a high chance of me killing people if I fuck them up. If I failed any of these it’s entirely my fault and I’ve have to face the consequences.
So, explain to me why driving - an activity killing approx 5 people every day in this country - shouldn’t have some sort of similar refresh/training cycle?
If your answer is along the lines of individuals lives being impacted in an unduly negative manner due to not being able to drive… well, you’re kinda making the point for those of us arguing for a structural change away from cars to more sustainable and open to all transportation.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Ah, so you are a willfully negligent driver. You're lucky such drivers don't tend to get lengthy sentences when things get a bit too much for them and it all goes wrong.
On the contrary, I’ve said you should go for a drive every day around your city to brush up your skills.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I don't think that anyone disagrees with this though. It's a question of doing it effectively. Testing people annually wouldn't necessarily do that, for the reasons mentioned, but would add millions of driving hours to the road network, (and the attendant pollution etc). Everyone agrees that standards should be raised and maintained. You just have to come up with a way of doing it that's effective and feasible.
