"If you're a competent driver it shouldn't cause any issues": Cyclists react to Highway Code change outrage

I think you'll still find the Sunday Times is a broadsheet if you measure it. I believe the Guardian were the only UK national paper,still going in print, to adopt the Berliner format, but only for about a decade till they adopted the tabloid, or compact as they prefer to call it, format instead. Simply because the UK doesnt have many Berliner size printing presses, it has more tabloid & broadsheet presses and it was proving very costly for them to stick with that midi format.

I've actually noticed a gradual increase in good passes. There are still a number who ruin it for you as well. I've also noticed when walking there's a growing number of motorists who actually stop when you get kerbside and glance round to check if clear. 

biker phil wrote:

People learn to drive, pass their test then forget everything they have learnt.

Exactly this ... just one of the many reasons that a driving licence should need to be renewed every 5 or 10 years with, as bare minimum, a theory test to make sure they are still up to date with the HC. 

What disturbed me more than anything else in this whole debate was the 4% of drivers who responded to a poll about the new rules (AA?) to say that not only did they not know about them, they had no intention of reading them now that they did. 

Those people should have their licences revoked because they clearly cannot be trusted to drive responsibly. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Exactly this ... just one of the many reasons that a driving licence should need to be renewed every 5 or 10 years with, as bare minimum, a theory test to make sure they are still up to date with the HC. 

So we are going to triple the number of driving examiners we employ? to retest everyone every 10 years?

wycombewheeler wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Exactly this ... just one of the many reasons that a driving licence should need to be renewed every 5 or 10 years with, as bare minimum, a theory test to make sure they are still up to date with the HC. 

So we are going to triple the number of driving examiners we employ? to retest everyone every 10 years?

For my work I have to do annual online refreshers to make sure I'm up to speed with the latest rules and issues in my industry.  Continuing development is compulsory for me to remain chartered.  That wouldn't be hard at all to organise for drivers.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Exactly this ... just one of the many reasons that a driving licence should need to be renewed every 5 or 10 years with, as bare minimum, a theory test to make sure they are still up to date with the HC. 

So we are going to triple the number of driving examiners we employ? to retest everyone every 10 years?

Why not? And the downsides are...?

The main question is - "is the current system doing what we want it to" e.g. delivering competent, safe drivers who stay safe and competent? I think the second part needs addressing.

Yes, this would be a huge change. But a) we're in the UK - not even Brexit happened overnight and this would inevitably a "takes years to get going" change. b) We have had similar kinds of changes before e.g. when we required cars to have a MOT. Now with that you could get garages to do the extra work. (Which of course could open up "poacher and gamekeeper" situations...) However by the same logic you could imagine assigning retests - or a certain proportion of all tests - to e.g. additionally qualified driving instructors rather than dedicated examiners. (I'm ignorant here - I don't know if some instructors also do testing and I've not read through [and won't bother] what actual driving testers need to cover).

I have a sinister lycrist agenda though! I hope that both the number of motor vehicle journeys and the "need" to become a driver will fall. (Via better provision for other modes, chiefly cycling / wheeling and walking.) So in my utopia there would be less than the current demand for examiners (and instructors) for the initial test. So we would not need triple (or other "large multiple") of the current number anyway.

wycombewheeler wrote:

So we are going to triple the number of driving examiners we employ? to retest everyone every 10 years?

Is that such a bad idea?  It could be introduced gradually at the top and bottom ends of the age limit and meet in the middle at 40-50.  If introduced gradually over 10 years or so there would be lots of stastistics to see if its influening incident rates.

Imo it's an idea that doesnt deliver what its proponents believe, like an MOT it only validates you pass on that day, the rest of the time you are free to revert to non passing standard. Plus there are also an increasing number of people who dont even think needing to pass in the first place is a requirement anymore you can see that just by how many non licensed drivers the police encounter in traffic stops.

And the issue isnt people passing a test, or not having the knowledge to pass a test, you should be held to a passing standard by the proper enforcement of traffic laws every time you drive and that's a police numbers budget priority conversation not a how many tests do we force people to take debate.

Awavey wrote:

Imo it's an idea that doesnt deliver what its proponents believe, like an MOT it only validates you pass on that day, the rest of the time you are free to revert to non passing standard. Plus there are also an increasing number of people who dont even think needing to pass in the first place is a requirement anymore you can see that just by how many non licensed drivers the police encounter in traffic stops. And the issue isnt people passing a test, or not having the knowledge to pass a test, you should be held to a passing standard by the proper enforcement of traffic laws every time you drive and that's a police numbers budget priority conversation not a how many tests do we force people to take debate.

I agree - we need to increase traffic law enforcement first and the stupid/careless/aggressive drivers will thus be provided an incentive to learn how to drive better. Most drivers do want to drive safely and carefully, so there's little to be gained by putting them through stressful exams especially if the focus is on getting word perfect descriptions of highway signs.

Agree in that "continous feedback" is required. There are probably a (very?) small minority who need serious measures to get off the road. But they'll pop up in any sphere of life (cf "crime").  For most "what others are doing", "what's culturally acceptable" and "what will obviously cause me trouble" are major heuristics.  So I do think training and reminders have some role - although enforcement's needed.

It's not either / or though.  Indeed I think this only works (fairly) if multiple strands come together: better and more effective enforcement (negative feedback), regular "refreshers" / retests (education), better road design which guides behaviour rather than "sign it better" (feedback), road law / rules which also guide people *, infrastructure which is more convenient and safer for non-motorists (so less driving), other "public transport" which is actually a useful alternative to driving.

* Where to start with that?  Licence is not a "right", driving off after an accident / not declaring who's the driver is a more serious matter, driving uninsured / while disqualified merits measures that will actually stop you doing so (at least for a period), pavement parking is more effectively addressed, reverse the presumption you can park anywhere unless it says you can't etc.

Awavey wrote:

Imo it's an idea that doesnt deliver what its proponents believe, like an MOT it only validates you pass on that day, the rest of the time you are free to revert to non passing standard.

That's true ... but equally true of other contexts where ongoing proof of competence is required. 

An online theory test taken and passed every 5/10 years would as a bare minimum place a responsibility on drivers to keep up to date with what the highway code says. And not require a massive increase in examiners. 

I passed my driving test in 1987 (before there even was a theory test) and at no point have I been required to demonstrate that I have even read the highway code barring 5 minutes of questions at the end of the test. 

For an activity that has the potential to end the lives of others, I find that unacceptable. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

I passed my driving test in 1987 (before there even was a theory test) and at no point have I been required to demonstrate that I have even read the highway code barring 5 minutes of questions at the end of the test. 

For an activity that has the potential to end the lives of others, I find that unacceptable. 

So true.

Of course when you started drving there were still people on the roads with a licence who had never taken a test. (acquired licence before 1934) I suspect there are close to zero now.

Close to zero...if you add some extra noughts and put a 1 in front, sure, but they dont like to publicise the problem, so the numbers are always sketchy and mix disqualified with never had a license.

But its estimated there are between 500,000 to 1million unlicensed drivers on UK roads, & there may even be evidence the written part of the test, for socio-economic reasons, has contrbuted to increasing that figure.

Awavey wrote:

Close to zero...if you add some extra noughts and put a 1 in front, sure.

I think the 'close to zero' comment relates to those who started driving, paying their local authority for an annual licence, prior to 1934. The youngest of those will be 105 years old on 31st March this year.

Interestingly, it wasn't until 1976 that motorists had a licence that didn't need renewing on a regular basis. It was annual till 1957, then 3-yearly till 1976.

Wouldn't it be good to have a 5-yearly requirement to renew your licence, including an in-person trip to the Post Office where the transaction includes a check that your licence photo bears a resemblence to you (the clerk being able to view the larger-format file copy on screen), and asking some randomised theory questions to check understanding of the HC (or overseeing a tablet-based quiz to the same effect).  There would be overheads, but these could be borne by the driver paying a fee to cover the reasonable administrative costs of ensuring that licensed drivers have a clue about their duties.

I don't hold with the idea that AVs take away the driver's responsibility and place it on the manufacturer, because there are too many variables that should be the responsibility of the person who is there, not of a programmer who doesn't even work for the company any more. Loophole Nick, the dunce of road safety and doyen of irresponsible drivists, would have a field day with suggesting that his client never knew the car had handed responsibility back to the driver, and you can't prove the 'auto-pilot off' chime was audible in the chill lounge driver's seat at the time.

Therefore, since drivers should remain responsible, it's time to tie in that responsibility with a licence that;s fitter for purpose, and a log-in using your licence as a key to the car, so who was driving and how was recorded.  Like pilots.

Photo driving licences are renewed every 10 years or every time you move, the photo is cross checked against the one held for your passport, if you dont have a passport you have no option but to present yourself at a post office to renew a driving licence.

You have post offices where you live ?!

That can renew driving licences,no, barely any of those across the whole county, and there arent many of the ones left that just sell stamps either

Awavey wrote:

Close to zero...if you add some extra noughts and put a 1 in front, sure, but they dont like to publicise the problem, so the numbers are always sketchy and mix disqualified with never had a license. But its estimated there are between 500,000 to 1million unlicensed drivers on UK roads, & there may even be evidence the written part of the test, for socio-economic reasons, has contrbuted to increasing that figure.

i was refering to drivers with a license from the time before tests were a thing, not unlicensed drivers.

Seems to me there is a technological response to that now, with chip and pin licenses and all new cars needing a license inserted before driving.

Apolgies my mistake then

wycombewheeler wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

I passed my driving test in 1987 (before there even was a theory test) and at no point have I been required to demonstrate that I have even read the highway code barring 5 minutes of questions at the end of the test. 

For an activity that has the potential to end the lives of others, I find that unacceptable. 

So true.

Of course when you started drving there were still people on the roads with a licence who had never taken a test. (acquired licence before 1934) I suspect there are close to zero now.

I think there would also have been some who avoided the test because they got their licence during the war.  But that doesn't change your point.

I used to work with a guy,who'd only be in his mid 80s now, who was given a license in the RAF during his National service, just so he could drive their trucks off base. At least that's what he used to tell us, I've no reason to disbelieve him.

My dad gained his license in 1956 during the Suez Crisis when tests were suspended that year.  Never knew this until mum told me. 

Secret_squirrel wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

So we are going to triple the number of driving examiners we employ? to retest everyone every 10 years?

Is that such a bad idea?  It could be introduced gradually at the top and bottom ends of the age limit and meet in the middle at 40-50.  If introduced gradually over 10 years or so there would be lots of stastistics to see if its influening incident rates.

If everyone is aware of the impact of saying just retest everyone regulalry, then fine.

Although I would suggest the vast majority of the dangerous drivers out there know how they should drive, they just prioritise their perception of time saving and convenience over following the rules. So what would re testing them prove? On the other hand redoing the theory test when renewing a licence would be no bad thing.

I think there are very few who would be caught out. These would mostly be the ones whose abilities have deteriorated due to some condition, or those that were frankly lucky to pass the test the first time. Those rare few who take the test 15+ times until eventually conditions were perfect for them.

It's not necessarily about catching out the out-and-out dangerous drivers directly, though. The aim would be that by improving the general understanding of how you should be driving and other people's experience of the roads you improve the overall public conversation about road safety, and reduce tolerance towards those who drive badly, reduce the instances of juries letting people off because 'well it's not really that much worse than normal', etc.

One thought would be a requirement to sit a number of refresher lessons with an approved instructor who would then validate the licence or recommend a retest. If you commit a driving offence within 12 months of a validation then it's an automatic retest

wycombewheeler wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Exactly this ... just one of the many reasons that a driving licence should need to be renewed every 5 or 10 years with, as bare minimum, a theory test to make sure they are still up to date with the HC. 

So we are going to triple the number of driving examiners we employ? to retest everyone every 10 years?

Why not? 

Yes - when?? Can't come soon enough. 

David9694 wrote:

Yes - when?? Can't come soon enough. 

I'd rather all those surplus driving examiners were used in dangerous/careless driving cases, rather than leaving it up to bad drivers to decide what consittutes good driving.

As I'd expect most drivers would be able to pass a practical test, even though their normal driving doesn't meet that standard.

I'm not so sure. There would be lots of minor faults, so a question of how many you can get away with.