Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community. Come to think of it, if I make it up the stairs to my AME's office without having a heart attack, why bother with the medical examination? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community.
Bookie
Tongue in cheek I am sure but I guess there is a serious point. As societies / communities develop they tend to accumulate ever more legislation and regulatory requirements; the danger is that either while they were justified at the time, they no longer are, or, on any proper examination of the evidence they were not justified in the first place.
The FAA monitor instrument proficiency in a different way to us we all know, but is there any evidence our system reduces the number of accidents / incidents? Conversely the BFR in FAA land is a test whereas in theory our nearest equivalent isn't and is works quite differently if you can demonstrate currency. Is one system better than another? Some aircraft in the UK require the pilot has a full CAA medical but other aircraft just as fast and perhaps more difficult to fly do not require the pilot to have a medical to the same standard. Moreover arguably they attract pilots who wouldn't get a CAA medical for one reason or another. Is there any evidence to suggest they have more incidents / accidents as a result of medical issues which would have been screened during a CAA medical? I don't know the answers but they are all valid questions me thinks.