Thread: Driver Testing

As a concept, mandatory testing to keep your driver's licence is good. The implementation could be costly, but as was said earlier - what price are we paying now each time someone is injured or killed on the road?

Another possibility is to put the bulk of the cost back onto the driver; If you want to drive, you pay the associated costs for administering the test once every five years. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this already a requirement for all holders of a public vehicle licence?) It shouldn't be any more than $100-150, even if there is an hour of driving in there. Also, it creates jobs for the testing staff, the accreditation group, plus numerous other positions of admin etc.

If this could give even a 10% reduction in serious injuries on the roads, which I expect it would probably exceed, then that would be a massive cost saving for the various lvels of goverment to offset against the overheads of administering such a scheme.

From my experience, this is not a topic of discussion that should be aimed at the older generations, nor specifically at the youngest drivers either. There are plenty of examples of both good and bad drivers across all ages, what we need to do is to get those bad ones off the road until they can be trained and assessed as being capable of safely and competently operating a motor vehicle on a public road or street.

At the moment I would guess that this would eliminate 20-30% of drivers immediately until they had undergone some further study/training. I hate to admit it, but I probably wouldn't even pass such a test if I was to sit it right this minute, as I know that there have been many changes to the road rules since I first got my licence. (Of course that brings me to another bug-bear, why isn't it mandatory for governments to advertise any change to the road rules for a minimum of six weeks before and twelve weeks after the change? But that's a discussion for a different thread...)

Anyway,...my $0.02.

Cheers,...Jon.




P.S. Wouldn't this be nice?

Originally Posted by pop058

...maybe the ******* that drive around with "driving/fog" lights on will realise that it is infact illegal...

Originally Posted by Jonno_G

As a concept, mandatory testing to keep your driver's licence is good. The implementation could be costly, but as was said earlier - what price are we paying now each time someone is injured or killed on the road?

The statistics of accident rates for drivers who have just passed a test compared to drivers that have had the licence for many years does not support the concept. Do you have any hard data that does?

Another possibility is to put the bulk of the cost back onto the driver; If you want to drive, you pay the associated costs for administering the test once every five years. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this already a requirement for all holders of a public vehicle licence?)

The difference is that public vehicle licences are a means of making an income. For most people their driving licence is not, or at most only indirectly. A public vehicle test woould be either paid by the employer or at least tax deductible. (and I'm not sure whether it is a requirement).

It shouldn't be any more than $100-150, even if there is an hour of driving in there. Also, it creates jobs for the testing staff, the accreditation group, plus numerous other positions of admin etc.

While $100-150 sounds like cheap to some people, there are a large number of Australians for whom it represents several day's income. Without a clear benefit to themselves, it is difficult to see this group supporting it. Certainly not unless you can show that having recently passed a driving test improves safety.

If this could give even a 10% reduction in serious injuries on the roads, which I expect it would probably exceed, then that would be a massive cost saving for the various lvels of goverment to offset against the overheads of administering such a scheme.

I seriously doubt it would make a significant difference. The reason I believe this is that in almost all cases where an experienced driver drives badly, it is not because they did not know how to -- it was because they did not want to. They will pass the test and continue driving exactly as they have been doing. (I know there will be exceptions who actually learn something and put it into practice, but they will be just that, exceptions.)

From my experience, this is not a topic of discussion that should be aimed at the older generations, nor specifically at the youngest drivers either. There are plenty of examples of both good and bad drivers across all ages, what we need to do is to get those bad ones off the road until they can be trained and assessed as being capable of safely and competently operating a motor vehicle on a public road or street.

At the moment I would guess that this would eliminate 20-30% of drivers immediately until they had undergone some further study/training. I hate to admit it, but I probably wouldn't even pass such a test if I was to sit it right this minute, as I know that there have been many changes to the road rules since I first got my licence. (Of course that brings me to another bug-bear, why isn't it mandatory for governments to advertise any change to the road rules for a minimum of six weeks before and twelve weeks after the change? But that's a discussion for a different thread...)

Anyway,...my $0.02.

Cheers,...Jon.




P.S. Wouldn't this be nice?

The assumption made in this post is that the level of road deaths is bad and getting worse. In fact, the level of road deaths is (by any sensible measure - per head of population, per car or per kilometre) the lowest it has been since records started, give or take random noise in the data, and is already lower than many other causes of preventable death which have vastly less attention and money spent on them than is already spent on road safety. And this is not by any means the most effective method that could be used to reduce road deaths. With around 30% of drivers involved in road deaths above 0.05% BAC compared to less than 1% of drivers taken at random, there is a far more obvious target for improvement in road safety - and a total ban on all alcohol sales would also result in major reductions in several other classes of deaths and injuries as well. But I do not expect either to happen! It would upset too many voters.

I compare this proposal to the practice of several states of requiring annual roadworthy checks - "It is obviously a good idea". But those states that have it do not have a significantly different road toll to those that do. It is simply another piece of red tape that provides employment and costs everyone money, for no perceptible benefit. And this would be another bit of red tape that would do the same.

Another requirement that is comparable, is about twenty years or more ago, a regular test was introduced for private pilots. Again, it made no perceptible difference to the accident statistics!

John