New driving test

There's a piece in the Guardian today that states 120 hours !
You only need 40 odd hours to get your pilots license

[TSM]

I think the point of all that is to stop people driving and in keeping with the goverments plan to cut cars on the road, but kate's point on people driving ilegaly is very likley to happen which will not be good at all.

Originally Posted by TSM

I think the point of all that is to stop people driving and in keeping with the goverments plan to cut cars on the road, but kate's point on people driving ilegaly is very likley to happen which will not be good at all.

There's also the thread on the forum about GPS tracking for tax purposes. Now, would this JUST be for tax purposes? Hmmm....

Personally, if you're taking the 100 hours to be with an instructor, yes, it is fairly high (due mainly to cost - my kids will want to learn at some point). If you take it to be "with someone who has a license, and has held one for 5 years or more (or however long it is)" then it's more reasonable, but open to abuse.

Maybe a compromise, say 20 hours with instructor (not necessarily on the road) and 50 hours total time on the road (with anyone suitable). The instructor must deal with night/motorway for the first few hours at least.

Skid control should be mandatory (but will undoubtedly increase the cost of lessons and/or licence), but that's partly because I know just how useful it is to do! This will certainly be mandatory for my kids (even if it comes from my pocket) before they're let loose behind the wheel of anything with more power than a lawn mower!

Videos (or photo's at least) of accidents (real or crash test simulations) should also be mandatory. As should basic mechanics (oil/water/tyre change change, suspension alteration for bikes).

I think the length of the actual test should also be increased, to cater for different driving situations.

To do this, the law will have to be changed a little (L plates aren't allowed on motorways IIRC), but it's all something that would help make the roads a little safer.

Almost all of the above applies mainly to cars, I feel my DAS training was adequate, but wouldn't mind more time with an instructor, just my bank manager complains at the moment. However, I think the bike test should be extended (and I recently did mine!) because of the farce of the instructor following in a car.

In principle it's a very good idea, but like a few people have said 100 hrs may be bit bit OTT (but will that cause a drop in the cost per hour?)

What gets me is that driving is seen as a right when it is a privilege - Prince nass got it far too easy 14 weeks of a 15 month sentence?! Idiots do not have the right to drive....

... controversial or what?

Originally Posted by Caddy2000

What gets me is that driving is seen as a right when it is a privilege - Prince nass got it far too easy 14 weeks of a 15 month sentence?! Idiots do not have the right to drive....

... controversial or what?

Not at all, I completely agree.

If you drive/ride something with a lot of power, you should 1) know how to handle that power (ie, don't use it when it's not needed, and not be scared of using it when it is needed) and 2) have the greatest respect for the tonne & half of killing machine that you're in control of.

I've had a few days off the bike over the festive period, and just rolling it out of the garden last night & a short lap to warm her up & check everything was in working order, I had more respect for the bike than I have in a long time. That's after having just 8 days off the bike.

I don't like the taste of tarmac, car drivers have the luxury of not tasting it, but the principal should be the same. Pitty is isn't for many.

[mac608]

The article I've read says "120 hours of training". The Training has to be recorded, also have to undertake a minimum period of practice and demonstrate that they have a responsible attittude!!!

God help, them I'm 57 and my wife reckons I'm still irresponsible.
An easier route would be to limit the power for two years say -sound familiar?

[timwilky]

ridiculous, I had six lessons before I passed my driving test. My son had 10 and daughter 14. sounds more and more like big brother interfering when there are other areas of road transport that needs more work.

Personally I would like to see less legislation and more enforcement of the laws we currently have. Like actually doing something about drivers who use mobiles. surprisingly speed cameras don't seem able to sort that one out. I would also like to see more drivers actually stopped and faults in their driving explained etc. But I guess we would need more traffic coppers and that seems to be out of the question

And when is this ridiculous idea going to be put into effect?

Originally Posted by timwilky

ridiculous, I had six lessons before I passed my driving test. My son had 10 and daughter 14. sounds more and more like big brother interfering when there are other areas of road transport that needs more work.

Personally I would like to see less legislation and more enforcement of the laws we currently have. Like actually doing something about drivers who use mobiles. surprisingly speed cameras don't seem able to sort that one out. I would also like to see more drivers actually stopped and faults in their driving explained etc. But I guess we would need more traffic coppers and that seems to be out of the question

Totally agree. 100-120 hrs is OTT. But I would like to see some serious penalties for mobile phones, jumping red lights, dangerous driving etc. And all idiots who do not indicate when approaching roundabout and turning left should be shot on the spot.

I don't think the test is too bad itself, its the fact that that is all you have to do before you can get into a one tonne 120mph uncontrolled missile. certainly the test would be much better if it included other road uses amongst many other things (things most of us have to pick up as we meet them! i passed 1st time a million years ago and still do some tw*tty things, but at least I'm aware of it and learn from it). A requirement to have 'flying hours' before full license issue seems number one to me. It can be too easy to simply pass a test - we see this with muppets coming out of uni with their degrees but don't have a clue what day it is. We see the same with cars but I don't think its as bad with bikes. The bike test system seems pretty good just look at the difference between p*ll*cks on scooters compared to almost anyone on a decent sized machine (i.e. have gone through the test).

the test needs to include general awareness, bikers (on average) are infinitely better road users than car drivers. Who cares if you can do a 3-point turn. Can you reverse, do you know the size of your vehicle... are you aware the rest of the world still exists whilst your CD runs at full blast and you have a sticky wheel at each corner? Make the car test like the bike system, limit machine performance to test grade/flying hours or whatever.

Make the ability to obtain a full licence really, really difficult, so less dorothy's driving + less cars on road = cleaner greener sustainability + more room for me and me dirty mad bike!