Is it time to stop issuing new driving licences?

[Harleyman]

I'd get a horse if I was denied a licence and let it crap all over the highways as often as possible

[Resident]

Rather than banning new applicants for driving licences, why not install a process that would rid the roads of those UNFIT to drive.

 

MOTs for DRIVERS. Not every year as that would be chaos but regularly. Each Driver MOT consisting of a certificate from an optician and a medical certificate stating you are fit enough to drive, both physically and mentally.

 

I've known of people who either haven't been able to see past the steering wheel or know what day of the week it is and then get behind the wheel.

 

I've lost a dear friend in an accident because some old dear who couldn't see past the end of the bonnet (literally confirmed by a road-side eyetest) pulled out on him (40 into 60)and he swerved and broadsided a lamppost.

[Rupert_Baehr]

What are you talking about? why would drivers not be paid? British Rail train drivers were paid weren't they?

 

Why would there only be a bus "every week or two running empty"?

 

There have been a number of threads on this forum bemoaning the 'good old days'when you could get a bus anywhere in the People's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire for a few pence.

 

I remember being able (in 1971/72) to get a bus from Doncaster to Bawtry every 15 minutes for 10p.

 

Back then, bus drivers were paid about £850 a year (AFAIR) buses were cheap and diesel was a few bob a gallon. If you want to go back to cheap fares like those, how are you going to get the costs as low? You can't get cheap buses, diesel is just a bit more expensive nowadays than it was then, so where are you going to get the money to pay the drivers? They'll have to work for nowt.

 

You seemed to be suggesting nationwide nationalised public transport. Sounds like a good idea, but if everybody is paying for it, shouldn't everybody get the same service?

 

If you live on Shirecliffe Road there are buses passing your house heading into and out of Sheffield every 5 minutes or so (or even more often.)

 

That's not a bad service.

 

If you lived in, for example, Abney, how often can you get a bus into the centre of Sheffield? Is there a bus every 5 minutes? Is there a bus every day?

 

If everybody is going to have to pay to provide subsidised public transport, then shouldn't everybody be entitled to the same level of service?

 

You have two choices: Either you're going to have millions of buses running around on every road in the UK, (to bring everybody up to the level of service seen in Sheffield) or you reduce the level of service in the cities down to match that seen in small rural villages.

 

Many of those small villages don't have enough inhabitants to fill a bus even if there was one a day. How many passengers would there be if there was a bus every 5 minutes? Where would you get the money to pay for the buses, pay for the fuel and pay the drivers wages?

 

Most off the people who seem to be such strong supporters of public transport live in cities. They don't seem able to appreciate that in rural areas there aren't enough people to make buses commercially viable. - That doesn't prevent them from arguing passionately for buses, however.

 

But when anybody asks how, if they force people out of their cars and onto buses, they intend to provide the buses to carry those people, there's a deathly hush.

 

The most efficient form of transport in rural areas is a small owner-operated vehicle. Every time you see one of those vehicles travelling down a country road there is at least one person in it who wants to go wherever that vehicle is going. You can't say that about buses.

[manofstrad]

I vote everyone with a Porsche be banned - they are usually plonkers after all.

 

As an assistant mod, name calling isn't really setting a very good example for the rest of the forumers is it. If I thought banning Porsche drivers would help I would gladly change my car. However, I don't think it would help as we are such a small, elite group of drivers so I am not sure what your point is.

[Grandad.Malky]

As an assistant mod, name calling isn't really setting a very good example for the rest of the forumers is it.

 

Aren’t AM’s allowed to make flippant remarks?

 

 

Am’s are volunteers, who wants to volunteer if they aren’t allowed to partake in the threads.

[perplexed]

I think if there was a way of introducing a minimum distance tarif, that would be a great boon, and thin out the traffic.

 

I suspect a huge number of trips in urban areas are sub 3 miles. They are people going into town to work, taking kids to school, whatever. If interviewed, I would imagine that there would be a significant number who would absolutely insist that it was essential that they drive, but other people are in their way.

 

The reality is that many could use an alternative, but they don't want to/can't be bothered. One of the chiefs of the AA or RAC (can't remember) once said something along the lines of "People moan about congestion on the roads, but are unwilling to make the personal sacrifice of driving less themselves..."

 

I personally know lots of people who drive totally unnecessarily. A neighbour who goes out several times a day in her car, but I don't think her cars gone further than 1 mile from the house. No end of work colleagues who live 50% or less of the distance from work to me, but still drive. (Including one who lives 400 metres from work and still drives, another who lives sub 1 mile and drives.)

 

How the tarif would work or be imposed, I've absolutley no idea, but I think it would massively cut congestion.

[clairelaw123]

I agree with the idea of re-testing. I think its far from the truth that the problems lie with young people driving. Sheffield is the worst city in the country I have driven in and the problems are often caused by slightly older drivers a lot of the time. I think re-testing would reduce the amount of drivers (extra cost to take a re-test) it would also create jobs.

It would be impossible to enforce but I think in theory it would be a good idea.

[scoobydotcom]

Why don't we re-test people who have already got driving licenses ... I'm sure plenty would fail, especially older people

[R.B Flooring]

So if you have to be re-tested every 3 years or so. Would you have to pay for it? What about insurance? Would it go up if you failed and then had to re-take it again?

Sounds to me like it would just be another cost we all would have to pay.

How about this?

If you don't like sitting in traffic. Set off earlier.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I re-test every 3 years on a bike and every 5 in a car. Because I choose to do so.

 

My insurance went down. I get an additional 15% discount, which more than covers the cost.

 

Younger people do indeed have faster reaction times than old people. In many cases, they need them, too. They don't look, think or plan ahead and everything which happens while they're on the road seems to come as a surprise to them.

 

My reaction time is slowing down - so I don't rely on it very much.

 

The time will come when I should stop riding a bike (or when I should get a GoldWing [has room for a zimmer frame ] and I would prefer to have somebody tell me: "It's time to quit" than to find out by running into somebody.

 

I spend nearly half of the year in places where drivers can't see the road and most of the other half in places where they can't be bothered to look.

 

I'm not sure which group is worst, or which is more prevalent. As for young people and driving, simple statistics show that young and newly-qualified drivers are more likely to have accidents than any other group.

 

Research by leading car insurance expert Admiral highlights just how poor the driving record of young drivers is compared with older motorists. It shows 17 and 18 year old motorists are twice as likely to have a road accident as someone in their 30s, three times as likely as someone in their 40s and six times as likely as someone aged over 50.

 

So that's why their insurance premiums are so much higher.

 

In the UK, 'SMIDSY' - Sorry Mate, I didn't see you - seems to be an acceptable excuse. IMO, if a driver can't see another road user, then that driver's eyesight is so bad that (s)he shouldn't be on the road. - Irrespective of whether (s)he can read a number plate.

 

In some places (notably Belgium - where driving is often a 'challenging' experience [as evidenced by insurance premiums] ) - If there is an accident between a 4-wheeled vehicle and a 2-wheeled vehicle, the initial assumption is the fault lies with the driver of the 4-wheeled vehicle. The car/motorcycle accident rate fell dramatically after that was introduced. Bikers in Belgium (as elsewhere) are often involved in single-vehicle accidents, but in accidents involving 2 or more vehicles it's rare to find that the bike pulled out in front of a car.