Perhaps the idea is not new, but what do readers of the Backroom think of the idea of re-testing all drivers after a ban?
My logic is simply that a ban means a breach of the Highway Code, so it seems logical to compel a re-test so as to be sure that the offender has re-learned what what they should have been practicing all along.
All bans, not just drink-driving, or speeding and make it an extended test, not just the simple 'beginners' version.
The scheme would be self financing from the test fees and so would not cost Her Majesty's Government a bean.
What do you think, any support, or would it be just another niggling motoring restriction?
|
|
Ye Gods! not more motoring legislation PLEEEASE! let's just enjoy what motoring freedom we have left
|
|
|
What do you think, any support, or would it be just another niggling motoring restriction?
Hardly niggling, i thought this happened anyway. Of course if you're dumb enough to get disqualified you should have to demonstrate that you're capable to get your licence back.
|
Not sure that this is such a bad idea as suggested by the responses.
Someone who has had a ban from driving has surely shown a particularly bad (or particularly prolonged if it's from points totting up) disregard for the traffic laws, so why shouldn't they have to re-prove their ability?
(I know you could argue that 4x doing 75mph on the motorway is hardly a heinous crime, but were I on 9 points, I'd like to think I'd be capable of not speeding in any shape or form from then on, to avoid the issue)
The only issue would be the fact that the testing facilities in this country are already sorely stretched.
|
I swear half of you lot are from another planet where logic is denied at Customs.
Being retested after being banned - ban worthy crimes including being under the influence and 30mph over the limit (Let's not get into it's safe to do 100mph down the motorway at night argument. That is my personal opinion as well, but the law is the law.)
How could you possibly consider NOT retesting these people?
Nutters, the lot of you.
|
|
|
|
I agree.
Life, if you get banned, should become very damned awkward. And if you're forced to take a retest, maybe you'll try and pay attention this time.
And the very least it will kepp you off the road for a little longer.
I can't understand the objection - ok, logistically there would be rather a lot to be done, but philisophically ? - test them all.
|
Yep.. test 'em all. They already have to pay to get the licence back, make take and pay for another test as well.
Of course this would increase the number of unlicensed/ ex-banned drivers driving without, er... licence, but of course all the coppers on the beat would soon pick them up.
JaB
|
I have to agree if banned for offences of driving without due care, or dangerous driving.
If a driver has done something dangerous/ stupid enough to get banned, then they should have to prove that they can come back on the roads and hopefully not pose a danger to other motorists.
And IMO they should have to take one of the Advanced Driving tests not just the basic learner test.
If a person thinks theyre a "good" driver, then having to take another test should not be too distressing. If a person is not capable of learning the required skills to pass a re-test, then they dont deserve a licence.
|
|
|
|
Bah. Talk about kicking someone when they're down. What's the point? So someone gets 4x80mph. It doesn't mean they can't drive. It just means they have a habit of speeding. A 12 month ban and associated hike in insurance costs should be enough punishment to put them off speeding for a while.
I'd support this a little more if the driving test in any way whatsoever resembled normal motoring. But from what I recall my test involved reversing around a corner (can't remember if I've ever had to do this since passing my test) and learning a bunch of fictional stopping distances. I didn't actually get good at driving until six months after passing my test. Just because you can pass a test it doesn't mean you can drive.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
If this meant keeping dangerous (untaxed cars) uninsured drivers off the road I would support it.
Since the current police force fail to keep up with the muppets who currently break the law, adding more laws is like pouring petrol on a fire.
madf
|
|
Totally agree,if someone is stupid and antisocial enough to drink and drive they deserve every thing they get,but a re test is not going to stop them being stupid.Better would be compulsory training that would concentrate on the area where they are lacking.
|
|
|
|
So someone gets 4x80mph. It doesn't mean they can't drive. It just means they have a habit of speeding
Which is a bad driving habit. The purpose of a retest would be to see whether their bad habits are at an acceptable level.
Just because you can pass a test it doesn't mean you can drive.
True, the driving test is very limited, and there are far too mnay things it doesn't examine. But the corollary holds rather better: if you can't pass a test, you probably can't drive.
I take your point about the driving test being pretty limited, but a lot of it is about observation and ability/willingness to obey traffic rules. Your example of someone with 4X80mph sounds like just the sort of person who would benefit from having to rethink their attitude to the traffic laws, even if the particular one they were caught breaking is not the one being tested.
Some sort of enhanced test for those who lose their licence makes sense. The law trusts drivers to conscientiously refine their skills beyond the bare minimum required to pass the test, and most drvers will do so. But for those who demonstrate that they haven't managed that, I can see a case for a more thorough test.
|
From the original note in this thread....
"and make it an extended test, not just the simple 'beginners' version.
|
|
|
I still reckon it's pointless. These people passed their test the first time, and managed to speed four times or drink-drive or whatever (enough times to get caught) since then. What's to say they're not going to do it again? Anyone can pass a driving test by driving sensibly for 20 minutes or however long the "extended test" would be, but it doesn't mean that they're not going to speed.
If you watched a convicted thief stand in a shop for 20 minutes and not nick anything it wouldn't necessarily mean they were rehabilitated. They're simply not nicking stuff becuase you're watching them. The retest would be the same.
If you think they need "re-educating" then put them on some sort of course which illustrates the consequences of their actions. You have to destroy the mindset that stops them seeing how dangerous a car can be.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
|
|
|
Bah. Talk about kicking someone when they're down. What's the point? So someone gets 4x80mph. It doesn't mean they can't drive. It just means they have a habit of speeding.
This is quite interesting. If someone has been caught doing 80mph 3 times, then they've already had fines, which have not dissuaded them. To then, knowing that being caught one more time will result in a ban, go and do it again, shows the kind of terminal stupidity that I don't particularly want to see on the roads. I'm not sure this person is a good argument against re-testing.
I'm not saying that this person doing 80 is dangerous, I do it all the time. I'm saying that the obvious lack of any sensible thought processes at all points to someone who likely does other dangerous things.
As I say, I do 80 or slightly more reasonably often. I certainly wouldn't if I was on 9 points. I'm not even sure that I would if I was on 3, knowing that totting up 6 makes for a big insurance hike.
|
|
|
|
|
The scheme would be self financing from the test fees and so would not cost Her Majesty's Government a bean.
Yeah right just like the child support agency!
|
|
Passing a test conducted totally in a built up area only proves that a person can drive in a very particular way ie they can pass the test. Taking it and passing it sheds no light on whether they are likely to break the law or not in the furutre
|
|
You only have to watch Traffic Cops to realise you won't keep people off the road with a retest, they'll just drive without a licence. This appears to be especially true with drink drivers driving whilst banned.
|
|
|
The deterrant effect of having to re-take after a ban, plus the probable cost of lessons, the test etc could be argued to be beneficial, and result in fewer drivers appearing before the courts.
On the other hand, the punishment has been meted out, in the ban, so adding a second de-facto punishment in the form of the cost/aggro of the re-take could be said to be unfair. Drivers who have been banned already have much increased insurance costs.
Courts already have the power to impose a re-test as part of the sentance, so widening that would perhaps take away some of the courts power/effect.
|
You only have to watch Traffic Cops to realise you won't keep people off the road with a retest, they'll just drive without a licence. This appears to be especially true with drink drivers driving whilst banned.
True you wont keep some people off the road with a ban. I havent seen any statistics but I would think the majority of people banned will abide by the law, and would not want to risk further offences. (Or am I being naieve?).
I know of 2 people who have been banned, one for drink driving, who now uses a lot of buses/ trains. And another who was banned for 4x speeding offences; who was in a position where he could pack in his job and go hitch-hiking round Australia for a year.
|
|
Years ago there was a lad at work who had several bans, he bought a licence off someone who didn't drive anymore and just showed it at the side of the road if he got pulled. The problem is the usual one of penalising the people who work within the system while the ones that work the system get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
If a person has been banned for whatever and had passed the test once, I suggest they won't need any lessons to pass it again! Passing the test and driving out in the real world are not very closely related IMHO!
|
If a person has been banned for whatever and had passed the test once, I suggest they won't need any lessons to pass it again!
Probably not in terms of technical ability, where the test is pretty basic. But the other things the test mesaures include knowledge of the highway, courtesy to other drivrs, and hazard perception. Even if the banned driver hasn't forgoten those things, it can't do any harm to have someone forced to practise them again.
|
knowledge of the highway
I mean knowledge of the Highway Code
|
|
|
|
If a person has been banned for whatever and had passed the test once, I suggest they won't need any lessons to pass it again! Passing the test and driving out in the real world are not very closely related IMHO!
Exactly my point!
Typically, when someone gets banned it's not because they are incapable of driving, it's because they either have no regard for the laws of the road or are careless enough not to follow them. They are unwilling or unable to comprehend the danger they can put other road users in. If any re-education is needed it's not another driving test. They need to see and understand why they're dangerous and what the consequences might be.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
Part of the re-education process should include spending an afternoon going through my ol' mate's powerpoint slide show. He spent some years as the county Accident Rescue Service doctor - and took loads of photos. Quite thought provoking.
Anyone caught driving whilst banned should be subject to the Saudi corporal fine.
|
Anyone caught driving whilst banned should be subject to the Saudi corporal fine.
then we'll have a big dose of uninsured, unlicensed one-handed drivers :(
|
The courts already have the power to order a re-test as part of the sentence.
What you're actually advocating is an increase in penalties for driving offences.
If you get your way a driving penalty will be the same as for murder as they seem to get shorter all the time.
|
You're all wrong. Offenders should not be punished. They need help. So I suggest a residential course away from the stresses and strains of life in a nice rural location. There should be councelling available by all sorts of social workers.
Naturally all this will be paid for by the taxpayer.
|
What should we set out to achieve with retesting?
IMO to try to make them better drivers, because if they want to get back on the road, they will, either legally or illegally.
How should the retesting work?
Personally I am not in favour of a draconian test for the sake of it. I would see that as a waste of resources. Far better to have training and retesting focused towards the offences for which the drivers were banned in the first place.
For example, speeding - simulator work involving accident avoidance followed by education of consequences of speeding.
Drink Driving/DUI - Counselling programme during period of ban coupled with DD awareness.
Dangerous driving/causing death etc.... - As well as training and re testing focusing on the route cause of the accident (sudden lane change etc) A programme similar to that operated by Japan - time to reflect and counselling. The Japanese authorities reported some 4% reoffending rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
