New driving test

Originally Posted by Ed

Australia is looking ever more attractive

I said this t'other day to a friend... this country is getting to be such a f*cking shambles I would think little of moving to Australia or New Zealand

Pete

Originally Posted by netsurfer

I said this t'other day to a friend... this country is getting to be such a f*cking shambles I would think little of moving to Australia or New Zealand

Pete

Id like to try it first to see if i liked it. Anyone got a place in Oz/NZ they want to rent for a week?

IMHO this is a waste of time and our money, It does not matter how many hours of training you have, after a time we all slip into bad habits when driving a cage. I cant believe how bad my driving was before I passed my DAS and this was mainly down to poor observation. I personally think that to keep your license you should have a medical and CBT type test every couple of years to continue to drive a car. It should lasts about 3 hours (1/2hr medical 1hr exam 1hr driving 1/2 debrief) and say cost a government set figure of £75. Like an MOT for drivers. After all to move a half tonne metal box around at 60-70mph is a privilege not a right.

Riders would be exempt of course as we are brilliant anyway

Originally Posted by Rog

I personally think that to keep your license you should have a medical and CBT type test every couple of years to continue to drive a car. It should lasts about 3 hours (1/2hr medical 1hr exam 1hr driving 1/2 debrief) and say cost a government set figure of £75. Like an MOT for drivers. After all to move a half tonne metal box around at 60-70mph is a privilege not a right.

Riders would be exempt of course as we are brilliant anyway

I agree but every 5 or 10 years will be better. I don't see how anybody would need a half hour medical though. as long as you can see, hear and react to hazards then a 5 min test should suffice. Over 70s should be tested more regular.

I think all new drivers should have to use a P plate for a year and be banned from vehicles over a certain power unless they take a pass plus sort of test. A bit like the bike test in having a 33bhp restriction. Also insurers should be forced to give at least a 20 percent discount to current IAM passed drivers/riders. After all they are up to 75% less likly to cause an accident so a 25% discount is still in their favour.

If the government are doing this as a means to reduce the number of cars getting onto the road as has been previously said, or as they say to reduce the number of accidents among "young drivers" why don't they simply increase the age at which you can start to drive a car to say 21, this would reduce the rate at which "young drivers" cars are currently coming onto the roads & increase the number of people using mopeds/scooters or using public transport...............The answer is because they don't want to limit the number of cars on the road they just want to make as much money from them as they possibly can, Less cars means less revenue goes into the governments purse, more lessons means more money goes in.......Or do i just not trust any politicians.

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by Rob S (Yella)

I think all new drivers should have to use a P plate for a year and be banned from vehicles over a certain power unless they take a pass plus sort of test. A bit like the bike test in having a 33bhp restriction.

Power, especially for a new driver is insignificant. They are just as likely to make a mistake in a 1.0 Micra as my daughter was in the 2.0 Mondao she first drove after passing her test. They still need to learn to control the power they have at their disposal. I know a girl who got an R1 as her first bike, she has never dropped it so in her case how could somebody ague that it is too powerful. In some ways you can think that if they learn to control a more powerful vehicle, then they are far less likely to make a power related mistake in any vehicle and do not feel the need to test the new power when they move up full of bravado as a so called experienced driver.

Personally I find a big hole in your argument. As I understand it, the 33BHP requirement is for those riders who pass their test on under powered bikes with no requirement for instruction. In order to learn to drive. The learner has to be accompanied and therefore instructed to a standard to pass the test. Just like the DAS candiadte who can get on any bike.

Originally Posted by timwilky

Power, especially for a new driver is insignificant. They are just as likely to make a mistake in a 1.0 Micra as my daughter was in the 2.0 Mondao she first drove after passing her test. They still need to learn to control the power they have at their disposal. I know a girl who got an R1 as her first bike, she has never dropped it so in her case how could somebody ague that it is too powerful. In some ways you can think that if they learn to control a more powerful vehicle, then they are far less likely to make a power related mistake in any vehicle and do not feel the need to test the new power when they move up full of bravado as a so called experienced driver.

Personally I find a big hole in your argument. As I understand it, the 33BHP requirement is for those riders who pass their test on under powered bikes with no requirement for instruction. In order to learn to drive. The learner has to be accompanied and therefore instructed to a standard to pass the test. Just like the DAS candiadte who can get on any bike.

I do accept that a driver upgrading from 70bhp to 200bhp after one years driving could be more dangerous than a new driver/rider with the same power as they may indeed think they are experienced and great at driving instead of exploring and developing the appropriate use of power/speed over time. I know if I was 20 and had lots of power I would floor it to see what she will do.

But I would rather the chav in a 50bhp corsa with a dustbin size exhaust pipe who wanted to overtake me on a sliproad and get on the A2 before me did not have enough grunt to finish the move as I would have been caught up in the almost definate pile that would have occured if he had the power to pass me. If he had been driving a year or so he would have realised this was such a stupid stunt trying to overtake on a single track slip road and merge at 80 plus into 3 lanes of heavy traffic doing about 40...

I think dont he realised I was doing him a favour by blocking his move forcing him to merge at my speed. He then used each exit sliproad as an overtaking lane. My argument is after a year or so he may be tempted to put his foot down but should know the difference between this and an almost inevitable crash.

Well I don't care I passed my test now.

Making it a LOT easier for first time drivers to loose their license again would IMHO be a big step in helping deal with the chavs in their wheelie bins and the more dangerous drivers on the road.

Here in Northern Ireland, after passing your driving test it is mandatory to display a "R" plate, which restricts the driver of the vehicle to 45 mph - well, it dosent physically restrict them, however I think it is a deterrent when in built up areas to act the fool.

It all boils down to not enough traffic police in unmarked cars.


Pete

[Viney]

Originally Posted by Grinch

Well I don't care I passed my test now.

Funny. It doesnt show