on channel 5 now. (8:30-9:00) fridays.
Scary stuff...
|
Makes you wonder;
if they have passed the driving test
and
if so, how on earth did they get a pass?
|
They passed because they did what they had to do to satisfy the examiner on the day. What type of driver a person becomes after they are left to develop on their own is all down to their own personality and attitude.
Some types of person are psychologocaly unfit to be in charge of a vehicle, and no amount of training or testing will alter that, unfortunately.
|
You've hit the nail on the head here - it's only in a minority of cases that the ability to control a vehicle is so bad that a driver is unsafe, in many more cases it's down to their nature. Many drivers become bullies behind the wheel - forcing their way through traffic on the basis that sensible people will back out of situations to avoid accidents. Others just can't bear to stick to the rules if they cause them inconvenience and many more think they should be able to do what they want regardless of other road users.
If a psychological test was part of the driving test, I suspect far fewer would pass! Trouble is, I suspect I might be one of those to fail as I get really wound up by people taking the mickey and often go out of the way to try and stop them. (Without taking *too* much of a risk - things like maintaining my lane and not being intimidated)
|
If a psychological test was part of the driving test, I suspect far fewer would pass! Trouble is, I suspect I might be one of those to fail as I get really wound up by people taking the mickey and often go out of the way to try and stop them. (Without taking *too* much of a risk - things like maintaining my lane and not being intimidated)
You have hit a nail on a head too here, Steve - but I would guess most people would be able to keep their calm knowing it was their psychological test, that wouldn't necessarily affect their behaviour on the roads after passing the test. You're prepared to admit what winds you up, and what makes you go out of your way to 'remind' certain road users that their behaviour is inacceptable - and doubtless most of us would do the same if we could (I certainly would if I didn't have 2 small kids in the back of the car) - BUT, if you were sitting a road-psychological test, you would probably be able to curb all that until you had passed your test, don't you think? Not disagreeing with you one iota, but just wonder if it could ever become practicable?
|
But some sort of test akin to that in the parallax view would sort psycho's out.
|
But some sort of test akin to that in the parallax view would sort psycho's out.
I'm sorry Jonathan, don't know what that means but if it would be helpful then I'd like to know more about it. Sorry to be ignorant.
|
Totally off topic but...
Its a political conspiracy thriller par excellence starring Warren Beatty.
Beatty is an investigative reporter prone to upsetting both the authorities and his colleagues. Following the assasination of a prominent US senator, it comes to Beatty's attention that the journalists who witnessed the event themselves begin to mysteriously meet their ends. Drawn into a nightmarish world of shady corporations and menacing shadows, Beatty links the murders to the sinister Parallax Corporation, an enigmatic therapy institute. Driven by inquisitiveness, Beatty enrolls at the institute in an attempt to discover the truth.
The institute selects people of a certain disposition, i.e. those without morals or emotions using complex psychometric tests. These people are then used by oganisations to remove others (hitmen, or should that be hitpeople)
Not a girly movie, but well worth a look.
|
Thank you Jonathan, sorry Mark this IS off topic - but it would be rude of me not to reply!
It sounds interesting Jonathan - I will take a look when I can! Am far more interested in psychological movies rather than girlie ones, BTW!
I guess if this sort of thing were part of our law, it could make quite a difference! And the idea of it sussing out those who are without morals etc is quite fascinating - because we ALL know that many of the drivers we come up against certainly appear to be without morals.
Who's gonna start the campaign though?
HF
|
|
|
If a psychological profiling were part of the driving test, it would need a new body to conduct the tests. We would probably end up with a department full of left wing socio psychologists, who would weed out all those it considered unsuitable to drive. Smokers, Tory voters, people it considered to be racist, sexist, homophobic, not in touch with their feminine side etc.etc.
Leave well alone.
|
I'd question whether things are well in the first place to leave them alone. Surely a high proportion of deaths and damage is caused by drivers that are psychologically unsuited to being let loose with a few tons of metal.
I do agree that it would be very hard to police though. Maybe a better solution would be to have a 'graded' licence where passing the initial test allowed you to drive cars up to a certain size (Say 1l or 1.2). To upgrade you'd have to take a tougher test or prove yourself over a number of years accident free.
|
>>To upgradeyou'd have to take a tougher test or prove yourself over a number of years accident free.
>>
Having to prove yourself accident-free sounds good, and could be a good deterrent too.
|
I think the problem would come where (for example) a child only has access to their parent's car. For example, I wouldn't have been able to drive my mother's car under such a scheme and would have had to buy my own car, which I couldn't have afforded.
Plus, you'd have to decide just how serious an accident warranted being 'downgraded'. You could hardly ban someone from driving their car for a minor car park bump!
Maybe a major, fault accident would result in immediate downgrading, a lesser fault accident would require a re-test to keep that level of licence, and a minor bump would go on record for say a year, collect more than one at a time and you need to have a re-test. The shared car problem could be solved by making people take the harder test from the outset.
|
Plus, you'd have to decide just how serious an accident warranted being 'downgraded'. You could hardly ban someone from driving their car for a minor car park bump!
Of course! If it were possible, then the amount of aggression/carelessness etc involved in said accident would have to be taken into account.
Maybe a major, fault accident would result in immediate downgrading, a lesser fault accident would require a re-test to keep that level of licence, and a minor bump would go on record for say a year, collect more than one at a time and you need to have a re-test. The shared car problem could be solved by making people take the harder test from the outset.
Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
"not in touch with their feminine side"
well does that mean we would have to deliberately fail the parallel parking test then ;-)
|
well does that mean we would have to deliberately fail the parallel parking test then ;-)
Yes, as well as being able to work out exactly how long you've got to apply your makeup and paint your nails before the lights turn green.
|
|
|
|
|
|
unfortunately passing a driving test only means you learnt how to pass a test not how to drive, learning to drive comes after the test.Drivers should retake a test every 5 or so years. That would certainly eliminate road congestion as most would fail.
chris
|
Chris,
If you search back you will find my posts on why re-testing on a regular basis would be impossible.
|
|
I thought in some cases there was an element of playing to the camera.
And the bloke who was on the dual carriageway at 26mph couldn't go any faster without changing lanes as there was a camera vehicle in front...
What a farce, giving the most improved a brand new car...
Lots of people can't parallel park, but those reckless ones should IMHO be tracked down and warned by police, and have their insurance checked...if they really ARE that bad then they should not be on the road, or at least take a re-test.
|
|
|