Simply Indicating is not enough.

Originally Posted by simesb

Yip. And that is easily catered for with a "grace" period - have to repass between 9.5 and 10.5 years. I know it's not a fashionable view, but I think it rediculous that you can pass your test and drive for 50 odd years before you are required to state that you think you're still okay to drive.

Would you be happy flying if you thought that the pilot hadn't been skills-checked for 40 years?

So if Mr DSA sent you a letter tomorrow saying your required to re-take your test before you can drive again after a certain date...Be it car or bike or both...You have no transport to do anything...you fail the checks because you don't use your indicators enough or your observations are a danger to other (as in you don't do very many).

Would you be happy? I know I bloody wouldn't.

DISCLAIMER: I am not commenting on your riding at all just using it as an example to see your view on it

EDIT: I think I may have misinterpreted (sp) your post SimeSB, apologies if I have

Originally Posted by SuZuKiBaBe

Same thing happened to me yesterday... was raging! turning right at roundabout... see woman in BMW on left... she didnt even look to see if anything was coming - drove thru missing my bike by a few inches - even after i took my finger off the hooter almost a mile (ok,slight exaggeration) down the road she still hadnt noticed me..... untill i pulled up next to her and told her her fortune in sign language

And she got home and told her other half that some biker swore at her for no reason.

Originally Posted by Grinch

And she got home and told her other half that some biker swore at her for no reason.

her face when she saw me was priceless...

i think she got home and asked her other half for some loo paper and wet wipes



silly old bag

Originally Posted by simesb

Yip. And that is easily catered for with a "grace" period - have to repass between 9.5 and 10.5 years. I know it's not a fashionable view, but I think it rediculous that you can pass your test and drive for 50 odd years before you are required to state that you think you're still okay to drive.

Would you be happy flying if you thought that the pilot hadn't been skills-checked for 40 years?

You're missing the point. People usually aren't bad drivers because they can't drive well, it's because they can't be arsed to. Hence re-testing solves nothing.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

You're missing the point. People usually aren't bad drivers because they can't drive well, it's because they can't be arsed to. Hence re-testing solves nothing.

Why test to begin with then?

Originally Posted by simesb

Why test to begin with then?

To make sure people can drive to a reasonable standard.

But as I keep saying, even if someone can drive well it doesn't mean they will. Surely that's obvious?

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

To make sure people can drive to a reasonable standard.

But as I keep saying, even if someone can drive well it doesn't mean they will. Surely that's obvious?

So you are saying that 20-30 years after passing their test everybody can still drive to test standard but few bother. I wish I had your faith in the human nature.

How then do you ensure that people do drive/ride to a reasonable standard? There is no retesting here except after disqualification and I know that mandatory retesting will not be introduced (and you don't believe it will work.) What then do you suggest?

Originally Posted by simesb

So you are saying that 20-30 years after passing their test everybody can still drive to test standard but few bother. I wish I had your faith in the human nature.

How then do you ensure that people do drive/ride to a reasonable standard? There is no retesting here except after disqualification and I know that mandatory retesting will not be introduced (and you don't believe it will work.) What then do you suggest?

I'll answer that with a question - what do you think causes most accidents?

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

I'll answer that with a question - what do you think causes most accidents?

So you don't think retesting would work, but don't have any ideas yourself.....

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Agreed. Unlicenced drivers are probably not that significant. Uninsured drivers on the other hand...

never been to halifax have you? 70% of taxis are dodgy