Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 30, 2020 05:57

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Scrap driving tests!
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 01:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Yes, let's scrap driving tests.

But leave every other aspect of traffic law unchanged. So you couldn't legally jump into a Ferrari on your 17th birthday without insurance.

That would effectively privatise driving tests to the insurance companies - would it make matters better or worse?

Just a thought, this is brainstorming after all :o

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Fascinating - and hugely complex to understand. Perhaps we need lists of 'pros and cons' to start to get a grip. (Well I do anyway.)

Pros:

- strong link between test content and crash history via insurance data
- would almost certainly lead to tiers of higher level testing
- insurance companies could invite folk to submit to psychological testing, while such testing by government is highly intrusive at best if compulsory.
- 'The Driving Test' stops being the driver education target
- Research in Texas indicated that early driver training didn't make better drivers anyway, rather the opposite with the 'most highly trained' (by their standards; probably the wrong standards) having most crashes.

Cons:

- you would be able to drive untested at a price
- shopping around for insurance could become rather complex
- It may be in the interests of insurance companies to develop very individual tests, leading to lack of standardisation (or even wild variation)

That's a start... Anyone?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
I would like to point out that the amount of training required to take the driving test is inversely proportional to the natural competence of the student.

This is natural and only to be expected - somebody who has a natural ability to control a car will only need a little training to reach a set level of competency, somebody who has no natural ability will need a lot of training to reach the same level.

This is the major flaw with all of the "learners must undergo X hours/months/years of training" plan - it assumes that everybody has exactly the same level of ability, while in reality some will need all of X and more to begin to be competent, while others will have had huge expense and inconvenience forced upon them for no purpose at all other than because some officials haven't got a clue about human nature.

I had 9 1-hour lessons, no private practice (dad wouldn't insure me for his car) and passed the test first time, while some of my peer group in the 6th form had 60+ lessons to pass (one girl even claimed that it was the fishnet stockings that got her through her 4th test).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:31 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Insurance companies might require different levels of training/competance for people in the highlands compared to someone within the M25.

You could even specalise training. on london doing more parking, junctions etc

In remote scotland a skid pan test, speed and judgement

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Last edited by anton on Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:39, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
anton wrote:
Insurance companies might require different levels of training/competance for people in the highlands compared to someone within the M25.


True - but perhaps the roads do too, and I believe it is statistically fair to assume that bigger risks are nearer home.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 18:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
How would this idea - and I'm going to think about it over the weekend - bode with the earlier concept of tagging 3rd party insurance onto fuel?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 20:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Roger wrote:
How would this idea - and I'm going to think about it over the weekend - bode with the earlier concept of tagging 3rd party insurance onto fuel?


Different planet I think.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 20:30 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Roger wrote:
How would this idea - and I'm going to think about it over the weekend - bode with the earlier concept of tagging 3rd party insurance onto fuel?

The two are obviously incompatible, I think.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 00:26 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
Incompatibility was my initial thought too, but I'm really not so sure.

We're only talking third party, and most chavs do only themselves in don't they?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 00:28 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Roger wrote:
Incompatibility was my initial thought too, but I'm really not so sure.

We're only talking third party, and most chavs do only themselves in don't they?

But that would allow you to drive legally without taking any tuition whatsoever, which abolishing official tests but retaining the insurance requirement would not do.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
PeterE wrote:
Roger wrote:
Incompatibility was my initial thought too, but I'm really not so sure.

We're only talking third party, and most chavs do only themselves in don't they?

But that would allow you to drive legally without taking any tuition whatsoever, which abolishing official tests but retaining the insurance requirement would not do.


The way I see it the very rich and the very poor would likly escape the testing system. However, (contrarary to media myth) rich people are not generally stupid and Dad would surly ensure that sonny was suitably trained before giving him a new (and expensive) Mazerati. (as he would before giving him a polo pony)

At the other hand you would get the chav element buying old nails for 50 quid and driving them without any formal training at all. But they do that anyway so I suspect the impact would be less dramatic than you might expect. (and at least the rest of us would benefit from the automatic third party element)

In the middle, it wouldnt just be the insurance companies that would require "Certificates of competance" I immagine that the finance companies would have something to say about it too!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.065s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]