Safe Speed Forums

I forgot to add that driving stanards re one thing but also eyesight/medical tests are another important consideration.

Personally, I'd like to see [at least] annual eye tests.

Yeah, but that was JT's suggestion.

When you mentioned points for other offences like lane hogging etc it made me realise that we'd need more traffic police in order to catch these drivers. Bummer eh? They'd have to stop spending the money on cameras and hire real coppers instead.

I'm all in favour of things being kept simple, but as I said elsewhere I feel that zero tolerance for everything bar speeding might be over simplifying things. Do you really think that points are always deserved for one poxy blown number plate bulb? This sort of thing needs the discretion of a trained trafplod. If the car has a bald tire, bumper hanging off, filthy windscreens, no tax, and the driver looks like a Lord Of The Rings extra who's left his make up on, then fine, give him points for the blown light as well. But what if you got tugged for it, a responsible driver who's done extra training, presumably in a well maintained car with VED, insurance, etc and maybe even a spare bulb handy - do you still feel you deserve a fine and some points for a 70p bulb that might have only conked out a mile back? I'd rather have a BiB make the call, not a suit in Westminster. Some things like drink driving, yes, you're either over or under. And yes, BiBs should come down hard on serious vehicle defects. But zero tolerance on everything except speeding is almost as bad as Gatsos by taking the experience of trained coppers out of the loop. Besides, the "speed kills" brigade would say that you just want to drive faster, and I know that's not your point at all.
It was just an idea. I was thinking about the logistics of retesting. If it was everyone every five years then we'd have an average of 4.5ish million drivers being reassessed every year. Allowing for weekends and bank holidays that'd be something in the region of 18,000 a day - and that's on top of the L-tests. It just seemed reasonable to cut the numbers down by exempting those who consistently show a high standard, whether achieved by voluntary training or just by being a damn good motorist.

Edited to add: I'm with you on eye tests though.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

By 'zero tolerance' I basically mean an intervention by a TrafPol who can use his/her discretion about whether to give advice/defect certificate/FPN/report for summons.

I do not mean simply ticketing everyone for blown bulbs. Ticketing everyone for driving uninsured might be a way forward, though.

I want to see more TrafPol on our roads and more driving unmarked cars so they can deal with the most serious offences that the numpties are commiting on our roads.

Sounds like what I was thinking. Sorry mate. I think I've been interpreting 'zero tolerance' more literally than you'd meant.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Retesting, definitaly. It seems that most people need it

_________________
http://www.nitrucking.tk

I like the broad idea very much, but there would be some (potential) anomalies.

What happens if I drive a performance car and my points threshold drops below the level required to drive it? Am I banned until I change the car? What if the points problem is only short term (1 day, 1 week, 1 month)? Am I forced to hire a car to tide me over?

Do points awarded for offences expire? What happens if I get points the day before I take an advanced test? Is a notional negative number of points subtracted from my test results? Where does this negative number of points show up?

On balance, I think the driver quality points and the offence points must be kept separate. If they are merged into a driver score, too many weird problems could crop up.

I strongly favour a 0 to 100 scale of driver quality with substantial priviledges for anyone with a high score.

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

No worries. However, there may be times when blanket prosecution *is* appropriate e.g. driving uninsured. Good thread this!

Well if necessary, yes. My points thresholds were only off the top of my head, but in round numbers the idea was that a top scoring driver would have the same "buffer" for his 911 as the newly passed learner with his Micra. If you mess up and lose some points then that's the price you pay (assuming of course that enforcement is conducted in a fair and reasonable fashion).


Yes, points would expire as they do at the moment - I think I mentioned this in the original post. So your score might dip dangerously close to a ban if you get a couple of infringements, BUT you can opt to do something about it by retaking your test and scoring more highly, whish is far more pro-active than the present system.


I rather like keeping it all in one score, though the details want fine tuning...

So if I drive drunk and get "banned" from driving my 911, I can still go and drive a Mondeo? I can't picture this at all. Help me out.

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

A DVLA database would hold details of your current point level. When your point level changes, a feed would be sent to your insurance company. They would automatically readjust your premium. You could earn more points by taking a higher test. You could have 30/60/90 days grace either way of a [downward] license point modification before your insurance is invalidated and you are flagged on the ANPR database.

There is no need to keep the the points values apart.

Not that the wife and I are biased in any way!

But we have been arguing for this for past 14 years! Course Wildy's experience has nothing to do with it! Common sense - human machines break down just as much as mechanical ones!

Of course - we do all the retests to keep skills fresh - as Cousin-in-law "In Gear" remarked somewhere "Use 'em or lose 'em!"

Think the wife said it on one of her early rants on the PH site as well! But those who post there know exactly what she is like!

These ideas are good - but will take a long time and lot of persuasion to come to fruition. We need to start somewhere though - and with more immediate effect.

Cheapo quicky elastoplast fix:

1. On-line Highway Code theory tests - via existing centre or make use of public libraries or even personal PCs with strict password protected site access. Timed in such a way as to prevent cheating! After all - experienced motorists should not have to think too hard about the answers - they should know them through practice and experience! A fail would mean, informing insurance company which in turn would incur slightly higher premium, remedial training with ADI and immediate re-test. Cos they have to have some incentive to re-read the booklet!

2. Start good attitudes at young age. Can be done via school's pastoral system - but then you would need dedicated super teachers like our "Sicko" cousin who took on the Evil Inked Up Jolly One on the Nonny forum - she is correct about the HC - by the way It does say exactly what she typed anyway! ) But still - can be done - though proof will lie in driving skills of her "little darlings" at age 17.

3. Restrict newly qualified drivers to less powerful cars as per current practice in France and the German speaking countries.

4. Pass Plus must be compulsory and completed within proabationary perdiod. Carrot being - their licence allows them to drive a more powerful car.

5. Driving test must be completely overhauled anyway and must include drive on fast road of motorway standard. (Germans use nearest fast road if miles from A/bahn). Lessons must include night drive.

6. Theory is about to introduce basic car mechanics as part of the multiple choice. Perhaps a practical whereby the learner points out the salient parts of the car's engines and controls during the practical driving test.


OK - so it is dressing the wound prior to intensive surgery here - but could be introduced fairly quickly and relatively cheaply - in bid to create more immediate improvement whilst we look more deeply into costs, advantages, administration etc of the staged versions or assessments which carry grades as improvement carrots.

And In Gear no doubt will tell you - we need to rebuild our depleted trafpols in any case. So we need to introduce a quick "fix" whilst we are saving and building up towards our gold star training for all!

The penalty for Drink Driving would be -100 points.

Taking this a step further....

We could introduce CBT for car drivers. Allow drivers to earn so many points per month while under instruction (up to a given limit).

So, if we say that 40 points is the threshold that they need to pass the standard L test at, they could earn 20 points under tuition and then the pass is another 25 points. Once they hit 45, they have their basic driving pass.

Juggling with figures will be needed. It may be that the points ranges from 0 to 500 rather than 100.

Mad Moggie

With the greatest respect to you. You don't know me from Adam and vice versa.

I do think one of the real problems we face as a nation is that we do not allow ourselves to thnk "outside of the box" enough.

My approach to problems is basically this. Get a blank sheet of A4 and lets design a world class system from scratch. Lets forget about the current system and devise one that we know will give us the right outcomes. Once we know what we want, then we have to find a way of getting us from where we currently are to that place.

There are too many people who basically tell us that "That will never work!" (I've had this said to me dozens of times in the course of my career) and my response is always "If it doesn;t work, it sure as hell doesn't work well!"

We have to get the fundamental principles right first and then we can work in all of the little things that take it from a good solution to a great one!

I hope I've not offended and that you can see where I am coming from.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the very people who we would have to discuss these changes with in the first palce are the very same people who have managed the system into the chaos that it now is.

I think it is better to come up with properly thought out solutions.

Ok Mr Devil's advocate, how about drink driving carries a 100 point penalty, which diminishes at 20 points per year? So your 911 driver with a perfect score gets back to a provisional licence after 1 year, full after 2 years, but only for a "cooking" car (which is all he'd be able to insure anyway!), and his full previous status after 5 years. Harsh, but then drink driving is a pretty severe crime, isn't it?

OK, this has taken me 3 minutes to come up (sorry for dodgy formatting)

Point Value

CBT 10
L-Test 10
Pass Plus 10
IAM 10
RoSPA Bronze 10
RoSPA Silver 10
RoSPA Gold 10
HPC Pass 20
HPC Silver 30
HPC Gold 40

BHP/tonne

50 20 (this is the points bit)
100 40
150 60
200 80
250 100

Offences

Speeding -10
Careless Driving -20
Drink Driving -200
No insurance -10
No VED -10
Bald Tyre -25

It obviously needs refinment so that more serious offences can result in more points deducted.

cra,

Your points scheme for existing driving qualifications is probably quite reasonable, but I prefer the idea of simplifying all of this myriad of tests into a single test encompassing the "best practice" of all of the currently available stuff. That way it encourages drivers to work on all aspects of their driving, and at all levels. The only exception would be my "numpty test" which would be have a reduced top score of say 50, so as to offer a comparable path to that presently available for people with no desire to run performance cars. Ok it would be nice to get everyone up to the top level I think we have to recognise that there's a real world out there!

Your car classifications seem reasonable too, or another method might simply be to adopt the current insurance points classifications, as they load cars for other things than simple straight line performance.

The penalty points for offences also need a mechanism by which they expire. I originally thought this could simply be +10 pts per year, but I think it would have to be a bit more complicated to be workable. As ever, the Devil is in the detail!

(Oh, and why does no VED attract penalty points? It's not a safety related issue)

I used the CBT/L test etc.. just as an indication of the various levels that we might be able to use. I agree that a single test would make it simpler.
Quite how many examiners would be able to properly determine the higher echelons of driving skill might be a problem.

Re: insurance group classifications. I believe these work on performance, security, repair costs, etc.. Do we think that BHP/tonne is more appropriate?

I do [kind of] agree about VED. However if I buy it why can't others? I think there is a good chance that people who flout VED might flout other more important and safety related regulations.

I'm not so sure that negative points must expire. We could replace NCD with these points. Give people 2 points per year for each year of claim free driving.

If a driver causes a collision where the police are not involved, then they get 10 points deducted. If the police are involved and the offence warrants a charge of careless or dangerous driving then the negative points value goes up.

This is something I feel quite strongly about. If they have flouted other regulations do them for that. If they haven't don't use the threat of driving restrictions as a way of enforcing tax collections, as it devalues the system for it's true intended purpose.

For a practical illustration, if Joe Bloggs gets in a situation where he can afford to either fit new brakes OR tax his car, I want the penalty scheme to encourage him to fit the brakes, as he will know he won't get points for the tax.