How about making it part of the school curriculum to start with. if you can't pass the test then you can't leave school. This could also help the unemployment figures as more young people would remain in full time education and have to be subsidised by their parents rather than the state. By the time they get this lot tested the current wrinklies will have passed on so they wont be a problem either.

A lot of the worst driving on the road is by young people, mainly male, who have recently passed their driving tests - some at their first attempts, no doubt.

The driving test is good at sorting out those who have reached a level of competence. But it doesn't take the post-test attitude of drivers into account.

For example, some people have impulsive risk-taking personalities which affects their driving. Other drivers might be stressed, tired, or in a driving job they hate. A lot of bad driving is done by people who are capable of driving properly but choose not to.

I think re-tests should be compulsory after a disqualification, though. That would act as a deterrent since very few drivers would feel confident about their certainty of passing a test.

Edited by Sofa Spud on 07/08/2012 at 16:02

ChannelZ's post contains a greater level of unsubstatiated comment than the that to which it seeks to reply. There is at least a degree of stats support for idea that young males have a disprortionate number of accidents.

With them it's mostly 'pushing the envelope' stuff. Too fast round a bend, late fierce braking or just flying blindly round corners - no clue as to what's beyond.

To end up wrong way on a dual carriageway or M way you need (ignoring for a mo plod in pursuit) you need to be seriously disorientated. That means either drunk or suffering from cognitive problems - the latter is why these cases feature the old.

FACTS:

? The overall fatality rate is highest for ages 18 to 20 and for those 85 and over. The higher rates for older drivers will reflect their greater vulnerability to injury in an accident.

? The majority of fatalities aged under 10 and over 80 were pedestrians.

? Table RAS30035 in the tables section shows that road accidents cause over a quarter of all deaths in 15-19 year olds.

? Between the ages of 16 and 65, most fatalities are car or motorcycle users.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-01.pdf

But, having passed their test the majority of new drivers simply choose to imitate the average, lazy, unobservant, can't- be- bothered drivers on the road because it is seen as "uncool" to drive properly.

I don't see much flamboyant driving any more. But i agree that there is a heck of a lot of lazy, unobservant driving. I wonder if the general trend to driving slowly causes drivers to switch off and no longer bother to take pride in their driving. I know that my concentration levels plummet when I get stuck behind a mimser with no chance to overtake.

Edit: I would be wiling to take a retest-providing it was on a 'cost' basis with at least 90% of the fee going to the examiner and not some job creation scheme in a marginal constituency. There's probably a lot of the highway code that I've forgotten because I don't encounter every scenario on a daily basis.

Of course my driving would be artificial, but a bit of mugging up prior to the test, and the desire to get a good score would probably do a power of good.

Edited by unthrottled on 08/08/2012 at 00:11

The Swedes do skidpan work as part of the official driving test.

I take your point about rear drive, but most of them are so are cosseted with electronics that intervenes if they don't like what the driver is doing, that they are no more difficult to drive than a front drive car. The days of lift-off oversteer are long gone!

I agree with the idea that anyone banned (or even if they get 6 or more points in one go) should have an automatic re-test. I think the whole ethos behind driving should be changed - driving should be a priveledge, not a right. Make the test harder and don't allow "serial re-takers" (3 goes should be enough, maybe 5 if you're being generous).

I think also that drivers (not sure if motorbike riders have this already) should be limited to what cars they can drive for the first few years after they pass their test, i.e.

1. First 3 years: limited to cars with <70bhp <100mph top speed 0-60 more than 13 sec;
2. Years 4 - 6: limited to cars with <100bhp <110mph top speed 0-60 more than 10 sec;
3. Ban on anyone who has been banned previously for multiple/serious offenses from ever driving cars above group 2.

Any driving ban or serious points (say 9 or more) or several/serious insurance fault claims, then you go back one group (sell the car within X months but cannot drive it), or have a proper driving ban and have to sell the car as well.

What needs to happen is for the same public change in opinion about drink driving (general disdain for those who do) to stigmatise bad driving in general - from what I recall, poor driving, and not just excess speed, contributes to more accidents than any other factor. I for one have in the past refused to be a passenger in a car with a work colleague who was a very poor driver - this needs to happen across the board, and especially with friends and family whom many people don't feel able to take a stand against, including reporting them to the authorities (especially if they then drive illegally).

Also, change the road tax disc so it is a combined tax and insurance disc, that can be easily read by the police (barcode or similar) to hopefully stop illegal drivers. Those providing the disc would have to prove that the insurance was current via electronic means. Obviously FOI would need to be protected to avoid "tracking" of movements where no reason was necessary (big brother).

It's not just the deaths and injuries that should be considered - its all the rest - I remember reading quite a few years ago now that on average, a road death cost the economy £1M each alone (death of the person [personal cost to the family and loss of earnings], cost of the emergency services, lost productivity due to traffic delays, etc). I would say the economy loses tens of £Bn per year through this, all beacuse people are lazy, reckless or incompetant.

What IMHO you can't say unthrottled is that you're a good driver because you have a clean driving record - you seem to admit that you're an agressive driver, but surely you're saying you're lucky you haven't been involved in an accident or been caught breaking the law.

I that light, we may as well say the racing car drivers can drive at the same speed/way as they do on the track, beacuse they're skilled enough - the problem is that no everyone is as skilled a driver as the next person - not everyone knows that person A is going to "try something" (e.g. an overtake) that person B would not entertain. That uncertainty alone can be the cause of an accident.

The reason why I thought the groupings would be effective is that it puts a great incentive on inexperienced drivers and/or those who have been done for bad driving to improve or face the consequence in their wallet (even losing their job in serious cases). A slower car will likely cause less accidents in the hands of most drivers than a fast one - how many people would feel comfortable driving a car capable of 130mph+ within days of passing their test?

Don't forget I didn't stipluate an age group, and it would affect anyone who has a serious fault accident or gets a large accumilation of points. Perhaps it is a good guide also to stopping the "speed camera" culture and go back to having more dedicated traffic police who look at driving behaviour, not just speed.

I should note that "eye-watering premiums" apparently don't stop inexperienced drivers from having terrible accidents, given the stats over which age groups are the most liekly to have acccients (and serious ones). If the regime were right at the moment, we wouldn't have over a million unlicienced drivers on the road. The stigma of having to sell you car (then cannot buy or use one for X months/years) I think would weigh heavily on those affected - no car=no job for the vast majority of us today.

I reckon there are three worst groups of drivers on the road -

Parents in 4x4s: they feel invincible in their tank-like Range Rovers and seem happy to chat away on their mobiles with their tots in the back of the car, steering with one finger. Cringe!

The nervous: they can't make a decision and they attempt to drive so cautiously that it backfires and they're not concentrating properly on the other road users. A case in point - I was on my way round the S Lancaster slip road (a big sweeping curve; you can't burn it but you can get up enough speed to enter the M6 safely) and a guy about my age in a green Jazz was in front of me. He crept round the slip road and then, very stupidly, slammed on at the end of the slip road. The guy in the Audi behind me was very surprised! The Jazz driver rolled onto the hard shoulder after trying to get on the motorway twice! He must've panicked, but I couldn't fathom why as the vehicles on the M6 had already moved over for us to enter the left-hand lane. No 'P' plates either.

Young lads: They just drive so sloppily: no indicators, won't shift over on the motorway, always trying to burn the other cars at lights in a 1.0L Saxo they bought from their nan.....

I would be very annoyed if I couldn't have a car over 100bhp in my first 6 years of driving............!

So that's women, women and young lads !!

But seriously, I think the solution is more/better driver education - not more testing.

Half the drivers on the road simply aren't good enough - but it's simply not practical to ban/restrict them so we need better driver education both before the conventional driving test and afterwards.

No; I have seen men and women driving abominably, with a car full of children. Nervous people also encompasses old people. There's no way I can say that all old people are hellish drivers; my nan was a great driver, but my husband's grandpa had to have his licence taken off him by his relatives because he blatantly couldn't see properly.