Independent Renault Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,710 Posts
Yet another way of getting more money out of the public. As no doubt it won't be free to renew the licence.

Why don't they just NOT pay me any money for doing my job, instead of paying me and then taking it all back again, just cut out the middle man!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Whilst I don't agree with having to pay to retake your test... I think it's a brilliant idea. 60% of the people I encounter on the roads are bad drivers.. 40% are truly terrible. 30% are downright dangerous.

The sooner they can fail a test and not be a menace to other roads uses the better.

Personally I would do it this way.

If you have 3 accidents in a 2yr period - Banned until you have passed a test
Anyone who gets banned for any driving offence has to retake their test before their license is returned.
Everyone retakes a basic test every 10 years upto the age of 50, after 50 it's every 5 years, after 65 it's every 2yrs.

Let's not make decent drivers pay for the stupid ones.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Whilst I don't agree with having to pay to retake your test... I think it's a brilliant idea. 60% of the people I encounter on the roads are bad drivers.. 40% are truly terrible. 30% are downright dangerous.

You should retake your maths test..lol
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Let's not make decent drivers pay for the stupid ones.
At what point would you allow the young drivers
TO TAKE TO THE ROAD AS 30% OR SO ARE INVOLVED IN
ACCIDENTS????
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The majority of people would fail a driving test if they were made to retake one, as you only drive like a learner, "whilst" you are one.

If you had to retake your test every few years, it should simply be a safety/competence test, not a full test like a new driver, otherwise you would need a course of lessons prior to the test to remind you how to drive like a learner again.

How many of you drive with your hands fixed at 10 to 2 (has a sexist thought), and only put your hand on the gearstick to change gear? And I find "feeding" the steering wheel down right dangerous as it takes forever to do, (has another sexist thought).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
At what point would you allow the young drivers
TO TAKE TO THE ROAD AS 30% OR SO ARE INVOLVED IN
ACCIDENTS????
Young drivers or new drivers?.. as each are equally likely to be involved in an accident. Not quite sure why you started shouting mid sentence either.

We don't need to tax all drivers more to pay for the mistakes of the rotten drivers. We need to either make those bad drivers better, or get them of the roads altogether.

If you read my comments again, I suggest that EVERYONE retakes their test at certain intervals. With those intervals getting shorter as people grow older... Because peoples ability to drive decreases with age in the majority of people. You seem to have misinterpreted that as not allowing young drivers on the roads... Yet I can't fathom how you jumped to that completely wrong conclusion.

Punish the bad drivers... is that wrong? Would you perhaps like them to be rewarded like deliquent kids in the care of social services... "Cause an accident and kill a family of four... Get a free week in the the Bahamas." I can see the adverts now. :)

I know plenty of "young" drivers as you put it, or 'New' drivers as I correctly put it. Who have not had any accidents in their first few years of driving, I know a few who were in accidents they did not cause... and I know a hell of a lot who had accidents within a few months of passing their tests because they drove like idiots.

How about this. New drivers (not just young ones) have to display a 'P' plate for the first 2yrs after they pass their test. Just like learners have to display an 'L' plate. Restrict the type of cars they can drive to under 1.2lt during that time.

Restrict the number and type of modifications they can do to their cars. Because kids out there are messing with engine and suspension settings on cars when the have no clue to the knock on effects on other aspects. Lower the supension on stock shocks, which can actually make the ride and handling worse, increase stopping distance and cause accidents. Uprating engines with no regard to increasing the braking ability of the cars.


On 2nd thoughts.. fark it... let's just ban anyone under 25 from driving. :d :d :d
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
How about this. New drivers (not just young ones) have to display a 'P' plate for the first 2yrs after they pass their test. Just like learners have to display an 'L' plate. Restrict the type of cars they can drive to under 1.2lt during that time.

Restrict the number and type of modifications they can do to their cars. Because kids out there are messing with engine and suspension settings on cars when the have no clue to the knock on effects on other aspects. Lower the supension on stock shocks, which can actually make the ride and handling worse, increase stopping distance and cause accidents. Uprating engines with no regard to increasing the braking ability of the cars.

I AGREE WITH MOST OF YOUR COMMENTS Especially this
and further to it, restrict the number of passengers carried.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
60%, 40% of which are bad and 30% of which are terrible... which means 30% of that 60% are good... in my 20yrs experience. :)

Nothing wrong with my math, just your interpretation of it. :d :d
I knew what you meant, my interpretation was deliberate, you just didn't word it very well. :rolleyes:
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
It should be the "power" of the engine, not the size of it that should be restricted, as that just wouldn't be feasable, and I never had an accident until I'd been driving for 10 yrs, and I'd also been driving that length of time before I got my first speeding ticket.

I'm sure when you first passed your test, you would not have agreed with any of the statements made.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,109 Posts
Personally speaking,it sounds as if not enough money is being generated from speed cameras (so instead of going after the 'dangerous drivers', they are going for the majority which are not causing any major difficulties). I believe that the standard driving test does not cover enough of the essentials (driving at night; on rural roads; or on motorways), this is where many of those who pass their test have their first baptism of fire - some make it, many do not. I don't think it is constructive to 'bash' (pun intended) various groups in society, as we can all make mistakes - no-one is exempt.Cast your mind back to when you first passed your test - remember paying more for your insurance than the car was worth? (for 3rd party cover only, as well!), well, that was/should be enough of an incentive to take care on the roads.I believe it is a skills shortage (as I mentioned earlier) rather than any inherent maturity issue.I am a diabetic (I have been for 6 years - not on insulin, thankfully), yet I have 10 years protected no-claims bonus gained over the last 17 years of my own policy. I have driven well over half a million miles, am I supposed to be one of those dangerous drivers that they seem determined to test their competence??Talk about looking at the problem from the wrong end...:steam:
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top