Routine licence re-testing - would you support it?

No - to a pass/fail test at set intervals.
However I do think it'd be good if police could submit you for an assesment on a 3strikes and your out rule. Ie plod pulls you over for something which normally they'd just look at you funnily for or give a little wag of the finger. (eg changing lanes with out indicating). Its something that would fail you on a driving test but yet as soon as the test is over everyone seems happy to just fotget what purpose they serve.
Well if they started pulling people for these kinds of offences and they take your details, if your recorded for doing any variation of 3 offences then you are forced to take a police instructed course. This course again has a 3 strike rule where by if you fail the course 3times you loose your licence and must take a FULL re-test. If you drive within the guidelines on the course on any of the 3 assesments then excellent you dont need to take the remaining ones and your licence is kept.

There would need to be an increased number of unmarked vehicles and specifically unmarked bikes as I see TONS more bad driving when I'm on the bike than I do in the car. Id actually support allowing the police to govern this whole thing, they make the busts they get the money for people doing the course (as its them who instruct it). You will no doubt argue that this will just mean everyone gets pulled all teh time BUT it will doubtlessly make the roads safer as no one will know if the car/bike behind is plod or not.

Originally Posted by Noble Ox

and pass it again, with the same level of skill they passed thier previous test.

The problem with this view is that the people who passed their tests back in the day didn't have to demonstrate the level of skill that new learners do today, as the test (leading aside the problems with the implementation of the two-part bike test) has been adjusted to fit modern driving practices.

But I don't drive and ride like I did in my test anyway. Experience is the key. The ones who passed 'back in the day' would just adopt their previous driving styles as soon as they passed again - which may/may not be better skills!

Hopefully you mean you ride better than you did on your test when you say you don't ride like you did on your test.
I doubt if anybody rides like they did on their test as their confidence and skill levels have improved over time

Not really sure about re-tests.

I hold Class 1 HGV and have done for quite a few years. As far as I am aware the only test requirement to keep your licence is a medical. Don't believe you have to re-sit your test.

I think assessments rather than tests should be introduced the older you get. Something along the lines of at retirement age, then every 5 years after. But I also think the cost of this assessement should be the government not the OAP.

Originally Posted by Dave20046

Well it'd keep the plumbers busy
More unlicensed, uninsured drivers on the road and less money in my pocket would be my guess at the result...

No the plumbers are busy enough as it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFyfW8G1N8

Besides I don't see how it work, there have been enough problems changing the bike test, it would be total chaos I don't think the system could handle it.

Its all very well saying yup the plumbers can deal with it, but err you either have more of them hence pay up or decided whats important the system is creaking under the load.

Stig---be aware of the Drivers CPC if you are still using your class one and you have to have a medical at renewal time,plus pay for the new license---all costs to keep it.
valid.

[andrewsmith]

Originally Posted by Stig_Of_The_Dump

Not really sure about re-tests.

I hold Class 1 HGV and have done for quite a few years. As far as I am aware the only test requirement to keep your licence is a medical. Don't believe you have to re-sit your test.

I think assessments rather than tests should be introduced the older you get. Something along the lines of at retirement age, then every 5 years after. But I also think the cost of this assessement should be the government not the OAP.

Hgv is a medical every 5 years. They are not cheap to have done but it reduces the risks of some1 with ill health keeling over incharge of 40 tons

some sort of medical would actually reduce the amount of unfit drivers on the road, as long as it is stringently enforced

[andrewsmith]

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Agreed. I took my car test in April 1979, it was all done and dusted and I drove away with a pass after 20 minutes. Many years later I went for a job as a contracted test driver at Millbrook Proving Ground - my test to drive in their facility took the best part of a day and I had to do a stringent medical before I was allowed to even sit in the driver's seat. I passed, but it was the toughest test I had ever taken and involved driving at very high speed (140mph plus), handling circuits, off-road driving and a number of high and low speed manouvering tests.

Something like that would be more worthwhile

+1 as it would prove that your fully competent

Originally Posted by andrewsmith

+1 as it would prove that your fully competent

-1 as there appears to be a common belief that being able to drive/ride quickly and not kill yourself is what we need on the roads. The test described may be great for car control, but what about hazard perception/knowledge of highway code.

I want people to understand that putting on your indicator does not mean you can just pull into my lane without looking. I want people to understand that you can't stop on the zigzags outside schools hiding the kids trying to cross. I want drivers to understand that stopping across the front of a side road does not help traffic flow. I want people to understand they are supposed to pull across to the inside lane once they have finished overtaking.

That's what I mean by driving standards, not that you can scratch around north wales without falling off, or that you can wheelie under control.