Compulsory Licence Re-testing

[The Bogan]

In defence every time you get a new code you have to do a licence test, so far I have done 6 retests, initial test 1million years ago (1980) then Apr 03, Aug 04, Jun 07, Nov 07, Feb 08, Nov 08 and Ive got 100 % every time.

All it takes is 1 or 2 hrs of looking over the road laws, if thats to hard then there is alot of really stupid people out there.

[frozenpod]

Licence retesting along with a defensive driving course that you must pass to get/keep your licience is what we need.

In terms of when people need retesting I would start with every licience renewal ie end of P's then 10 years until the age of 60 at which point I would change the renewal and combined retest to 5 years.

I dad has recently retired, my mum is still working for probably a couple more years and I have noticed in both my parents in recent tims (last 5 years) that there driving abilities have considerably degraded. At this age key skills such as eye sight, judgement of speed and distance, reaction times all start to degrade considerably which effects there driving. Whilst I sit here thinking about the lack of driving ability in my parents I cant help but remember that two of my grandparents are still driving...

For myself I know that my driving isn't quite as good as it once was. As most people sadly cant view there own driving well enough to make an accurate assessment this is probably a difficult call to make but I know my reaction times are not quite as fast as they used to be, I can still drive perfectly well, safely, I am in 100% complete control of my vehicle and I have never had an accidently but close calls caused by other bad drivers are slowly get closer. This type of accident which I think eventually I will probably have wont be my fault or a serious accident due to the low speed but again my ability to react ultra quickly and avoid the accident with room to spare is gradely degrading.

[Harey]

  xALmoN said:

too much work, i've seen how lazy some australians are, no offence to you guys, but unless something big happens, nobody has any reason to change what isn't broken, and as of now, all the accidents can be blamed on speed, and hooning, so there's no reason for them to implement this new system.

+1 Great Post

[Harey]

  mlr said:

Ive been cut off, asked to race, been overtaken by cars doing 80 in a 50 zone and by not old drivers but young guys and girls, look at the road accidents that are happening, its the 25 and under group.

But then most young guys are so good at driving they can do dangerous things safely, notice the irony

You sure have a chip on your shoulder about young males...

Check out the actual statistics:

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/statistics...D=1&navID=1

Seems like a pretty even spread between ages to me.

Dont believe everything this "police force" tells you.

Boy this speed crackdown is really having a huge effect on the road toll, Up until sep 15 we are up 14 deaths since the same portion of the year in 2009. When will they get the idea that there solution is not working. You cannot simplify a complex task such as driving with just speed.

[Birds]

As far as I can see, and I may not have looked thoroughly enough, that website only shows fatal crashes^

mlr is (I'm guessing) referring to crashes in general, of which there are more young people crashing than any other age group. It's simple inexperience and attitude which is normal. I belong to this demographic but I don't take offence to the generlisations, because even if I'm not one of the people responsible for it being generalised, it is true. The insurance companies know this better than anyone else...there's a reason being a young male carries the highest premiums and excesses.

It's interesting to see the age spread for fatalities though, I did honestly think that young people would be higher. Very surprised at the 70+ age group, but there are plenty of underlying variables at work with that. I'm willing to bet young people have a better chance of surviving a fatally dangerous crash.

[frozenpod]

  Birds said:

As far as I can see, and I may not have looked thoroughly enough, that website only shows fatal crashes^

mlr is (I'm guessing) referring to crashes in general, of which there are more young people crashing than any other age group. It's simple inexperience and attitude which is normal. I belong to this demographic but I don't take offence to the generlisations, because even if I'm not one of the people responsible for it being generalised, it is true. The insurance companies know this better than anyone else...there's a reason being a young male carries the highest premiums and excesses.

It's interesting to see the age spread for fatalities though, I did honestly think that young people would be higher. Very surprised at the 70+ age group, but there are plenty of underlying variables at work with that. I'm willing to bet young people have a better chance of surviving a fatally dangerous crash.

A note on the younger drivers, they often spend a lot more time on the road. In my first 2 years of driving I travelled 100,000km each year (5 times the average) then maintained 50,000km for the next 4-5 years after that but I now do about 5,000km. Driving cheaper and often poorer condition cars which have worn shocks bushes ect combined with many more hrs on the road also adds to the probability of having an accident. IMO the younger age group not as bad as people think.

Also interesting to see the causes of accidents and notice that speed has been dropped from the list just a blurb about speed in relation to accidents but no statistics. As per posts I made in other threads the police determine speed to be a cause of an accident when it is not the cause by international statistical standards. (These figures are part of the justification of hoons act and other police crack downs) I guess TAC believe the police figures of accident investigations to be also BS when it comes to speed and don't provide them......

[The Bogan]

  Harey said:

You sure have a chip on your shoulder about young males...

Yes I do have a chip on my shoulder, Im 45 yrs old, had my licence for 28 yrs, and see idiots driving every day, yes some are old/er drivers but most are young guys, I was the same when I was younger, full of test and thinking Im Alan Bond, we use to go out the back of the container terminals at Botany and drag race or do runs through Nasho, but after a couple of friends get killed you realise that you are not invincable or as good as you think you are.

For the last 5 yrs Ive been a assistant driving instructor with my job, teaching everyting from C1 to HC, on road and off road.

Im not saying that Im a better or worse driver than the general populace, but think about this, how many young guys you know have had accidents/been killed, then think about the older people people you know ?

I LOL at some of the kids these day, but then they know more about everything and cannot be told.

And the cops are just doing their job, if you dont like it catch a bus.

[ydawak]

Great topic to spark some interesting points of view.

I personally think that there should be compulsary testing. Probably as said every 3-4 years or so... (give people a chance to forget things). Or maybe have it something like this.

Get Learners

then P's

Then retest 1 year after getting full licence,

Then say every 5 years (to coincide with the renewal fee of a licence)

And then at a ceratin age (just to pick one out of the hat - say 60) Make it every 3 years

70 every 2 years

80 ever year and so on... if your still able to drive well at 90 well you need a medal!

And at 100 something that says road rules dont apply to you.

Re testing would definately clean up the streets. but ontop of this i think it should be harder to get your licence (dont hit me) and i think there should be more driver - instructor lessons. Not so many - "Mum/Dad can we go for a drive" lessons.

Just my 2 cents

[xALmoN]

I agree on actually making it harder to get your license here.

Well, they could probably start by actually testing learner drivers on how to really park their cars.

[ydawak]

Just to have a little b!tch.... I dont like the whole 80km/h limit either. I think if you are going to let someone into a car where they will eventually be driving the speed limit and then doing things like, hmmmmmm, lets say, OVERTAKE... shouldnt we learn how to do that safely and properly? Maybe make the test a bit harder, and give the P "Player" the ability to go 110 from the get to. That way they are not so much of a (NOW DONT ABUSE ME FOR WORD CHOICE) hinderance on the road. I mean, If your driving along and there is someone doing 80 infront of you in a 110 zone, its annoying. I have no problem with Learners doing it, because lets face it, they are "learning" but still, i think that part of the learning should be driving the same as everyone else.

sorry for the rant.

[The Bogan]

Good points mate

[xALmoN]

  mlr said:

Y

Im not saying that Im a better or worse driver than the general populace, but think about this, how many young guys you know have had accidents/been killed, then think about the older people people you know ?

Lol, because all the young dangerous guys who would have become old dangerous guys have all been killed when they were young, so it makes sense that there are less dangerous old people.

[ydawak]

  xALmoN said:

Lol, because all the young dangerous guys who would have become old dangerous guys have all been killed when they were young, so it makes sense that there are less dangerous old people.

Nice!

[gdogzgtr]

EVERY fatal accident and EVERY pursuit I have been involved with have been young males as the offending driver!!

That being said I don't think that you can teach them more or make the license testing harder for them. You can't teach maturity and sensibility behind the wheel. It's something that you either have at young age or learn through life lessons. It's an issue and always will be an issue but nothing we can really do. We have all done stupid things behind wheel of car at some stage and learn from it and grow up.

The MUST IMO is license testing for international students on visa's and the elderly. The MAJORITY of minor accidents in my area involve them.

[xALmoN]

  gdogzgtr said:

The MUST IMO is license testing for international students on visa's and the elderly. The MAJORITY of minor accidents in my area involve them.

+1

even though i am an international student, i see a lot, from malaysia, indonesia, india, with dodgy licences, in malaysia, you can just pay rm600 (aud 170+-) and get your licence, in indonesia, its the same, i'm not sure how it works in india, but there's a classmate who paid money and just got his licence, so just test everyone, those who can drive won't be affected. And those who can't, well, too bad, at least they won't kill someone on the roads. Also, ensure they can all read/speak simple english.

[Methor]

Whilst yes I do agree that Young drivers do speed, etc, etc. I do not agree that they are as dangerous as elderly drivers.

Young drivers are fully aware that they speed, it is a conscious choice for them and unlike the eldery (I believe) they have the reaction times to avoid the majority of their 'fatal' accidents. However there are times when I agree that some Young drivers are too dangerous for the road, however that can be said for ANY age group.

But I have seen more times when older drivers have caused accidents or near-misses than younger drivers.

As an example on my way home from work on Monday I was in the left hand lane coming up to the intersection of Burwood Hwy & Scoresby Rd (Outbound on Burwood Hwy), there were a few cars in front of me that turned into the dedicated left hand lane, leaving me free and clear to 'take pole' at the intersection as the lights had turned red. As I was approaching the intersection I began passing a VW or Renaut, then without warning the car suddenly starts coming left. I hit the horn and just blast it whilst moving left myself After about 5-10 seconds the elderly driver realised that he was doing something wrong and moved back into his lane. Once I was passed he just snapped right back in behind me, no indicator or anything. I didn't even get an apology wave or anything from him, drivers like that are the ones that make me want to get out of my car and verbally abuse them.

Now, as for the OT.

Reasons for re-tests:

Should a young person be convicted of any driving offense whilst on their L's or before they even have a license. They should have to resit the driving exam every year for the first 5 years.

Should a driver have their license suspended or be on a 'good behavior bond' with their license. Re-test every year for the next 5 years.

Should a driver have their license suspended or be on a GHB a 2nd or 3rd time. Re-test twice a year for the next 5-10 years.

ANY Driver that is charged with a 2nd offense of 'hooning' to sit a re-test before they can start driving again.

The above reasons would be paid for by the driver, without question. Failure to attend a re-sit would be an automatic license disqualification for 1 year, unless there was a seriously good reason why you couldn't make the test.

The below reasons would be paid for by the Gov't.

Compulsory re-testing for ALL drivers every 5 years.

Any major surgery performed would require a re-test every 1-3 years (Depending on the type of surgery)

Compulsory re-testing of ALL drivers should there be significant changes to the road laws.

I do not agree with just picking an age-group say 50+ to say, okay from here on out, you guys have to sit more retests.

But those are just my ideas.

[R31Nismoid]

Interestingly a friend of a friend works for Tim Pallas

I've been working that angle lately and I unleashed quite a volley a few weeks ago whilst giving her a lift home.

I will continue to persue this avenue although I doubt that I'll get very far ... but you never know.

A "forum" for Enthusiasts to speak and ask questions is what im gunning for

[frozenpod]

  gdogzgtr said:

EVERY fatal accident and EVERY pursuit I have been involved with have been young males as the offending driver!!

I would believe that half or even most (given you seemed to be in an area with mostly young people ie international students) but what you are suggesting (EVERY person was a young male) is such a statistical anomaly that I don't believe that.

As to the elderly I was recently overseas and I was interested to be informed that in that country you are no longer allowed to get a licence to drive after the age of 60 as they believe (I am assuming there is statistical evidence to back this up) that your eye sight and reaction times are no longer good enough and that you are a danger on the road. The maximum speed zone I saw was 120km/hr which I believe is standard across the country for major FWY.

[ClutchBurndout-:(]

+ 1 for speed causes deaths

and +1 for retests for law breakers

[VSPECT]

  xALmoN said:

+1

even though i am an international student, i see a lot, from malaysia, indonesia, india, with dodgy licences, in malaysia, you can just pay rm600 (aud 170+-) and get your licence, in indonesia, its the same, i'm not sure how it works in india, but there's a classmate who paid money and just got his licence, so just test everyone, those who can drive won't be affected. And those who can't, well, too bad, at least they won't kill someone on the roads. Also, ensure they can all read/speak simple english.

HAHAHA ..funny but so true....i got licence made from India...never driven there and only reason i wanted one was just coz and if i go back there to visit my family i rather drive than get driven....I got that made for 100 bucks...money works well there man...LOVE IT!!!!