PDA

View Full Version : If the CAA ran the DVLA


Grayfly
28th May 2008, 15:49
Just an idle thought, totally impossible, but there are some interesting options:

Every driver would be checked every 2 years.
Medicals would remove the unfit to drive lot
You start on a basic car and gain ratings, bad weather, motorway, night driving etc.
If you want to move up to more powerful car, 4X4 etc, you would require differences training.
Navigation test, no GPS.
If you want to drive on busy major roads, formation training.

There are probably more, however I am sure the roads would be safer and quieter.

Now back to reality...:}

frostbite
28th May 2008, 18:08
Every driver would be in radio contact with their area Road Traffic Control and be required to file a Road Route Plan......

Llademos
28th May 2008, 18:36
The M25 would be owned by the BAA who would be given carte blanche by the CAA to charge any motorist a fee to drive on it and increase that fee by 10% a year. There would be traffic lights every two miles, with shops at each one. Cars would be searched for bottles of water before entering the motorway; any found would be confiscated. 'Convenient' bottled water shops would be situated just after, at 2 a bottle.

:8

VAFFPAX
28th May 2008, 20:08
You know Grayfly, in some instances I would welcome that. Some of the drivers we have on the roads make me wish that the DVLA forced everyone to re-test at least once every five years to keep their license.

On the other hand, some of the old folk still drive perfectly well and when they do have an accident (like the guy writing off a couple of Porsches after he made a boo-boo with his car), it tends to be the call for them to hand their license in voluntarily.

S.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
28th May 2008, 20:13
Some of the drivers we have on the roads make me wish that the DVLA forced everyone to re-test at least once every five years to keep their license.
but what would be the point? The driving test is piss easy anyway and only complete imbeciles fail it. Maybe if they made it something that made you sweat and you actually had to prepare for it'd be a good idea.

747-436
28th May 2008, 20:43
You would also have to do a route check once in a while and on remote country roads be no more than 20 mins from a petrol station!

If I suddenly hit congestion on the Motorway can I 'Go Around' on the hard shoulder?!??!

chuks
28th May 2008, 21:34
Congestion on the motorway? "Vauxhall Vectra XXX: Hold between Mile 22 and Mile 32 to expect further clearance at time 1623."

TwinAisle
28th May 2008, 21:42
Changing your car would mean back to studying - "BMW 3 Series sir? Ah, but you only have a 1 series rating...."

Your indicator would include the warning "Decide...." as you approached a junction....

Being allowed to buy a car - you'd need an ROC (Road Operating Certificate), and you'd need to have a long term maintenance agreement with the dealer (for the base maintenance) and KwikFit (for line maintenance).

Getting an Operating Licence would mean you had to show you could pay for the car for the next two years.... and you'd never be allowed to change the registration.....

Grayfly
28th May 2008, 21:45
The test could include 'unusual attitudes, like road rage, searching for dropped mobile phone and trying to find money in glove compartment for parking, all while maintaining a 50mph straight ahead.

Clearance to enter motorways sounds a good idea.

VAFFPAX
28th May 2008, 23:04
Aaaaaaaaaaargh,

you'll be surprised how much you forget and how much you modify from expected behaviour to make your own driving life easier.

Once every five years should weed those little shysters out who think "i'll pass me test and then continue to drive like a wa**er". Inevitably they will slip up. And that's when they LOSE their license, have to do the whole "resit test, redo driving lessons and test" thing, and then they'll realise that driving more like normal people will cost them less (and they'll pass more) in the future.

I know, I know... utopia.

And chuks... the interstate system already uses a similar system in high-density areas during rush-hour (and certain state highways like the notorious CA-91 do too). Not quite the "Hold between Mile 22 and 23" but rather "wait for the green light to enter the system".

:-)

S.

mini
28th May 2008, 23:41
I reckon that a CVR & FDR, accessible in similar terms to the current tacho would weed out a lot of the froth... :E

Dushan
29th May 2008, 01:15
For every fender bender there would be an investigation consisting of NTSB, FAA, the car manufacturer, the tire manufacturer, the gasoline supplier.... Every little bit of the cars involved would be collected and assembled in a garage somewhere near the highway... A few months later a 400 page report would be produced.

Need I go on?

kenhughes
29th May 2008, 01:49
And just think of the threads that would be started on here ... :eek:

exeng
29th May 2008, 03:37
The driving test is piss easy anyway and only complete imbeciles fail it.

I failed two of 'em at the age of 17, both by the same examiner and both on the same single (noted) point. By the time the 3rd test came around I was somewhat nervous and made a complete hash of everything including the previous noted point. I passed on the 3rd go so I suspect that the driving tests examiner standards section are not working at peak efficiency.

I managed the initial IR at first go and touch wood have decieved every TRE ever since - praps its the brown envelope that helps!


Regards
Exeng

Sallyann1234
29th May 2008, 10:57
It is crazy that passing a driving test at 17 gives one a lifetime's licence to drive. The only excuse I can see for this is that it's always been done this way. It's a bit like smoking - if it was invented now, it would never be permitted.
It's time that retesting was introduced. If you fail the retest you have to take it again and pass within a month otherwise you revert to learner status. The actual period for retesting could be a long one to start with to reduce the impact on resources, say 10 years, and then reduced over time.
And yes I know this will never happen - too many votes to be lost.

Effluent Man
29th May 2008, 14:31
Surprised to see this.Do we really want a whole new and extra tranche of Government that you are all then going to slag off as "stealth tax"?

At any given time there are probably half a million people going through the system. Start testing everyone again every 10 years and that will multiply.Tens of thousands of extra examiners,people to train examiners,as many again pushing pens,offices for them to work from,training courses, health and safety courses,management,pensions.And what if those who fail their test can't then do their jobs, unemployment benefit,skill shortages....

Grayfly
29th May 2008, 17:57
Sound just like the Green Party policy.:}

Although I started this thread with comic intent, there could be some minor changes to existing routes to getting your driving licence. I agree the test should be harder, as someone earlier said, you have to be a complete imbacile to fail it. That suggests the roads are filled with incomplete imbaciles, which is very very accurate re driving abilities.

Also driving could be taught only by approved instructors. Being taught by a relative or friend just means you have now got their bad habits.

Sorry to stray off the comic intent.

Overdrive
29th May 2008, 18:18
It's not the test that's the problem. I passed both my car and bike tests three days apart within a week of my seventeenth birthday (late 'seventies). Now they were easy. The tests now are much more comprehensive and invloved. I don't know that that makes them harder per se, but the process certainly requires more effort and learning (plus cost, natch...).

What does amaze me is the incredible ability that more recent drivers, in the last 10 - 15 years say, have shown to dispense with everything they've been taught in no time flat. No indicators, all over the place, pulling out on traffic, wrong lanes, stopping in stupid places (not "illegal" so much as stupid), no general idea of dealing with "unusual" situations, no lights on, fogs lights on, etc. etc.....

But it's often all carried out at a stultifyingly slow speed, so I guess that's ok then... safe.

Give me "dangerous" older drivers anyday.

clicker
29th May 2008, 21:16
Also there's a need for minimum weather clearances.

"Sorry, you have only just passed your test and you are also under the age of 19 so you can only drive in sunny, dry road condidtions"

Sallyann1234
29th May 2008, 21:47
And what if those who fail their test can't then do their jobs, unemployment benefit,skill shortages....
My suggestion was that if the driver fails the test they will be given a second chance after a suitable period which they can use to have training. If he/she still fails after this then they are clearly a danger to other users and should not be on the road. If you allow drivers who cannot pass the driving test, why have a test at all?

Regarding the cost of re-testing. A typical fatal road accident costs approximately 2 million pounds, with less serious accidents in proportion. Getting inadequate drivers off the road would substantially reduce the annual accident bill.

VAFFPAX
29th May 2008, 21:47
Overdrive, but that's not a recent phenomenon. It has existed for at least the last 30 years.

God... now I'm showing my age.

S.

Blues&twos
29th May 2008, 23:30
Stall and spin training would be incredibly tedious and rather exciting respectively.

sooty615
29th May 2008, 23:53
Actually, if you were on the Isle of Man register you would have no hassle at all- the UK CAA are a dying breed for private/non public transport aviation!

Effluent Man
30th May 2008, 09:47
The sort of drivers you would take off the road would be the annoying and vaguely incompetent ones.I agree that it would be nice not to have old codgers doddering around at 20mph but the real hazards are the young men.There is not much you can do aboout that.I was one once,you just pass your test,police school shuffle et al,then rip up your L plates and drive like a loony.Most of my mates put their cars on the roof in pretty short order.I was in one of them.

Trouble is my first road car was an 1132cc 25hp beetle that would eventually struggle to 60.Now they jump in stuff that will get there in 10 seconds flat.The potential for mayhem is increased somewhat.

Grayfly
30th May 2008, 10:21
It's a vote loser, but why not introduce a rating for high performance cars, 4X4's etc to prove you can actually drive one. Insurance costs might come down, remove the boy racers and improve the school run traffic.