MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most 
accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So why all 
the focus on the car and zero on the driver?

"Mark"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
> accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So why
> all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?

Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.

Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there ought 
to be periodic retests for all drivers.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6jni71F45jupU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Mark"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
>> accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So why
>> all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
>
> Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.

A beg to differ. (Metaphorically speaking).

On 21 Sep 2008 18:30:58 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>"Mark"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>> MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
>> accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So why
>> all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
>
>Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.
>
>Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there ought 
>to be periodic retests for all drivers.

Could be a good idea considering some of the idiots I get to follow each
day. My 18-year-old daughter who only passed her test 10 months ago is
already a better driver than many of them.
-- 
asahartz woz ere

asahartz wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2008 18:30:58 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
>
>> "Mark"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>>
>>> MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
>>> accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So
>>> why all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
>>
>> Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.
>>
>> Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there
>> ought to be periodic retests for all drivers.
>
> Could be a good idea considering some of the idiots I get to follow
> each day. My 18-year-old daughter who only passed her test 10 months
> ago is already a better driver than many of them.



asahartz,

But statistically far more likely to have an accident caused by her 
inexperience (or stupidity) - that's why insurance companies charge 
extortionate premiums for the under 25s - and only charge me £225 all-in for 
full comp.

And as for idiots - you certainly can't beat an arrogant youngster who 
thinks that they are the best thing since sliced bread; yet can't drive in 
bad weather or the dark - and girls are the worst around here!

An example, twilight, me doing 50 mph with lights on and on a single 
carriageway road with a 50 mph speed limit (I prefer not feed the speed 
camera), hatch markings down the centre,  bends and with oncoming traffic.

A car screams up behind me well in excess of the speed limit, rides shotgun 
on my arse for about a 1/4 of a mile (thought the driver was trying to f*ck 
my car) another car then catches up to said idiot and both overtake me at a 
high rate of knots (for the pedantic MPH) forcing three oncoming cars up 
onto the kerb and me to brake heavily, to avoid a disaster.

Yes you got it in one - two empty headed females racing each other and both 
around 18-19 years old.

As a matter of interest, unless you are a passenger in a car driven by your 
daughter every time she drives it (or hide a surveillance camera in said 
vehicle [a better method]) - how *do* *you* *know*[she] " is already a 
better driver than many of them" - you don't really do you?

You can only guess by the fact that she returns with the vehicle in one 
piece and her uninjured - otherwise, she could be up to anything!

Never mind, you'll learn.


Unbeliever

An unblinkered father who's reared and taught two children to drive - and 
heard the hair raising tales about their driving from their mates and 
others!

"Mark"  wrote in message 
news:f7udnUa3E4_YrEvVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.metronet...
> MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most 
> accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So why 
> all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
>

Arthur C Clarke addressed a similar point in '2001:A Space Odyssey'.

On 21 Sep, 21:41, "Unbeliever" <cb@.....tts.com> wrote:
> asahartz wrote:
> > On 21 Sep 2008 18:30:58 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
>
> >> "Mark"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> >> they were saying:
>
> >>> MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
> >>> accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So
> >>> why all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
>
> >> Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.
>
> >> Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there
> >> ought to be periodic retests for all drivers.
>
> > Could be a good idea considering some of the idiots I get to follow
> > each day. My 18-year-old daughter who only passed her test 10 months
> > ago is already a better driver than many of them.
>
> asahartz,
>
> But statistically far more likely to have an accident caused by her
> inexperience (or stupidity) - that's why insurance companies charge
> extortionate premiums for the under 25s - and only charge me £225 all-in for
> full comp.
>
> And as for idiots - you certainly can't beat an arrogant youngster who
> thinks that they are the best thing since sliced bread; yet can't drive in
> bad weather or the dark - and girls are the worst around here!
>
> An example, twilight, me doing 50 mph with lights on and on a single
> carriageway road with a 50 mph speed limit (I prefer not feed the speed
> camera), hatch markings down the centre,  bends and with oncoming traffic.
>
> A car screams up behind me well in excess of the speed limit, rides shotgun
> on my arse for about a 1/4 of a mile (thought the driver was trying to f*ck
> my car) another car then catches up to said idiot and both overtake me at a
> high rate of knots (for the pedantic MPH) forcing three oncoming cars up
> onto the kerb and me to brake heavily, to avoid a disaster.
>
> Yes you got it in one - two empty headed females racing each other and both
> around 18-19 years old.
>
> As a matter of interest, unless you are a passenger in a car driven by your
> daughter every time she drives it (or hide a surveillance camera in said
> vehicle [a better method]) - how *do* *you* *know*[she] " is already a
> better driver than many of them" - you don't really do you?
>
> You can only guess by the fact that she returns with the vehicle in one
> piece and her uninjured - otherwise, she could be up to anything!
>
> Never mind, you'll learn.
>
> Unbeliever
>
> An unblinkered father who's reared and taught two children to drive - and
> heard the hair raising tales about their driving from their mates and
> others!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree.

Two weeks ago I was driving along a straight residential road and saw
a car driven by what I now know to be an 18 year old female who'd just
passed her test coming the other way.
She was driving down the middle of the road. No real problem when no
traffic around but as I approached I expected her to move over to her
side of the road as we passed.
She didn't!!!
Realising at the last second she wasn't moving over I took evasive
action and finished up with two wheels on the pavement. She still hit
me!
She had no idea she was driving down the middle of the road and seemed
quite clueless about her spatial awareness.
Obviously still had plenty to learn.

I still remember the scrapes I got into when I first passed my test. I
was fortunate that I didn't do anything serious but I reckon it took
me a year after my test, driving daily, to get competant and learn
from the mistakes I made.
I've now seen the same in my kids as they've learned to drive.

Back to the OP, the problem is you'll have more people driving around
with no licence because they can't manage to pass.
This is the problem with making the test harder.
I prefer the Australian approach where the test is fairly
straightforward, like do it in an auto if you can't manage gears, you
still get a full licence. But then you are a probationary driver with
P plates for I think a year, with strict rules re speed (80kph max.),
alcohol (zero) etc and the police keep a close eye on you.
Mess up and you lose your licence. Back to square one.

BobC

BobC wrote:

[...]

> I prefer the Australian approach where the test is fairly
> straightforward, like do it in an auto if you can't manage gears, you
> still get a full licence. But then you are a probationary driver with
> P plates for I think a year, with strict rules re speed (80kph max.),
> alcohol (zero) etc and the police keep a close eye on you.
> Mess up and you lose your licence. Back to square one.
> 
> BobC

That sounds very sensible. I also understand that there is a system in
Australia where at 70 years old you must re-take a driving test. If you
fail, you can continue to drive, but only have 12 months to demonstrate
competence. You can take driver training, and further tests, as long as you
pass within that year.

Chris

-- 
Remove prejudice to reply.

In article , Adrian says...
> "Mark"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
> > MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
> > accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So why
> > all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
> 
> Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.
> 
They do wear out without the driver noticing though.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

BobC  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Back to the OP, the problem is you'll have more people driving around
> with no licence because they can't manage to pass.

Fine. If they're that bad, they'll be blindingly obvious, get tugged, and 
banned. Continue to drive after a ban, and pack a toothbrush when you go 
to see the magistrate. You won't be able to get insurance, so the car 
will be untaxed, so clamped and confiscated regularly. It'll be flagged 
on ANPR, so tugged regularly.

> This is the problem with making the test harder.

Stopping the incompetent from driving is a problem?

> I prefer the Australian approach where the test is fairly 
> straightforward, like do it in an auto if you can't manage gears, you 
> still get a full licence.

Umm, I'd rather that people who can't manage gears aren't permitted to 
drive a car with gears.

> But then you are a probationary driver with P plates for I think a 
> year, with strict rules re speed (80kph max.), alcohol (zero) etc and 
> the police keep a close eye on you.

Yep, that'd be better.

> Mess up and you lose your licence. Back to square one.

As here. The first two years see you with half the number of points 
allowed, get to 'em and you have to re-sit the test.

Adrian wrote:
> Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there ought 
> to be periodic retests for all drivers.

I'd say compulsory written tests every 5-10 years also with an eyesight 
test. No need for a practical if own-fault accident free ...

-- 
Adrian C

Adrian C <email@here.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there
>> ought to be periodic retests for all drivers.

> I'd say compulsory written tests every 5-10 years also with an eyesight
> test. No need for a practical if own-fault accident free ...

I'd rather see a practical than a written. Eyesight? Oh, yes. Definitely.

Adrian wrote:
> Adrian C <email@here.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
> 
>>> Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there
>>> ought to be periodic retests for all drivers.
> 
>> I'd say compulsory written tests every 5-10 years also with an eyesight
>> test. No need for a practical if own-fault accident free ...
> 
> I'd rather see a practical than a written. Eyesight? Oh, yes. Definitely.

I don't think it would be practical (pun?) to do a practical for every 
driver, however tempting that would be (I could see congestion coming 
down and sensible multi-passenger use of cars going up with fewer people 
passing that!) - but traffic laws and signage change and 
missunderstandings of that are the cause of more than a few prangs, 
together with eyesight issues.

For people involved in serious accidents, I think the courts already can 
demand a practical retest. Maybe extend that. A collected own-faults 
points system (including accidents and speeding) should guarantee a 
compulsory practical test at the next 5/10 (whatever) year aniversary if 
enough collected. I've never done a written test - back when I took my 
test it was easy... just stare at nearby traffic lights while the 
examiner asks which colour(s) come after green.

We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it is 
taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory 
refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing - it could 
be done easily either online or at colleges / driving centres.

* according to the US Army...

-- 
Adrian C

"Willy Eckerslyke"  wrote in message 
news:6jpo59F45vuhU1@mid.individual.net...
> Adrian C wrote:
>
>> We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it is 
>> taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory 
>> refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing.
>
> Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers as 
> people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after 
> failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they 
> crash into you, you're shafted.
>
> And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things 
> occasionally. Do you really think that would change?

Seems a rather defeatist. If implemented sensibly, these things can work. 
Perhaps make it more carrot than stick. Just an idea off the top of my head. 
Instead of a compulsory test, you get plus points for passing the test, 
which no doubt insurance companies would favour. Or rather they would change 
more to people who don't take the test.

In general there is a geat deal of stick out there, but very little carrot. 
No amount of careful and considerate driving can give any advantage, but the 
moment you do the slightest thing wrong, you are a criminal in the same 
class as the thugs that race around with no regard for anyone.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:24:54 +0100, Willy Eckerslyke  
 wrote:

> Adrian C wrote:
>
>> We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it  
>> is taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory  
>> refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing.
>
> Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers  
> as people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after  
> failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they  
> crash into you, you're shafted.
>

There's catch all insurance for that though, & if the insurance company  
hasn't managed to work out they're uninsured they're going to have  
difficulty in avoiding paying.



> And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things  
> occasionally. Do you really think that would change?

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:24:54 +0100, Willy Eckerslyke
 wrote:

>Adrian C wrote:
>
>> We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it is 
>> taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory 
>> refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing.
>
>Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers 
>as people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after 
>failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they 
>crash into you, you're shafted.
>
>And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things 
>occasionally. Do you really think that would change?

I kind of like the idea of a report system for bad driving but not sure how you
get over the vindictive complaint aspect. It would be so easy to stitch someone
up, using a few acquaintances !

I saw the worst bit of driving I have ever seen on the Shoreham by-pass the
other day but admit I failed to see his number plate, though if this was a well
known facilty, perhaps we would be more prepared.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:41:12 +0100, "Unbeliever" <cb@.....tts.com>
wrote:

>asahartz wrote:
>> On 21 Sep 2008 18:30:58 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>> they were saying:
>>>
>>>> MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
>>>> accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So
>>>> why all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
>>>
>>> Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.
>>>
>>> Come over to uk.rec.driving - there's a few of us who reckon there
>>> ought to be periodic retests for all drivers.
>>
>> Could be a good idea considering some of the idiots I get to follow
>> each day. My 18-year-old daughter who only passed her test 10 months
>> ago is already a better driver than many of them.
>
>
>
>asahartz,
>
>But statistically far more likely to have an accident caused by her 
>inexperience (or stupidity) - that's why insurance companies charge 
>extortionate premiums for the under 25s - and only charge me £225 all-in for 
>full comp.
>
>And as for idiots - you certainly can't beat an arrogant youngster who 
>thinks that they are the best thing since sliced bread; yet can't drive in 
>bad weather or the dark - and girls are the worst around here!
>
>An example, twilight, me doing 50 mph with lights on and on a single 
>carriageway road with a 50 mph speed limit (I prefer not feed the speed 
>camera), hatch markings down the centre,  bends and with oncoming traffic.
>
>A car screams up behind me well in excess of the speed limit, rides shotgun 
>on my arse for about a 1/4 of a mile (thought the driver was trying to f*ck 
>my car) another car then catches up to said idiot and both overtake me at a 
>high rate of knots (for the pedantic MPH) forcing three oncoming cars up 
>onto the kerb and me to brake heavily, to avoid a disaster.
>
>Yes you got it in one - two empty headed females racing each other and both 
>around 18-19 years old.
>
>As a matter of interest, unless you are a passenger in a car driven by your 
>daughter every time she drives it (or hide a surveillance camera in said 
>vehicle [a better method]) - how *do* *you* *know*[she] " is already a 
>better driver than many of them" - you don't really do you?
>
>You can only guess by the fact that she returns with the vehicle in one 
>piece and her uninjured - otherwise, she could be up to anything!
>
>Never mind, you'll learn.
>
>
>Unbeliever
>
>An unblinkered father who's reared and taught two children to drive - and 
>heard the hair raising tales about their driving from their mates and 
>others! 
>
Erm, I'm not blinkered, as a teacher of teenagers I know exactly what
they're like. I've followed her, she's followed me. I've very rarely sat
in her car since she's passed her test. She can handle her car (and it's
not powerful enough to get out of hand - 998 Mini), but she is sensible
about it too. She's certainly no girl-racer, though she's content enough
at motorway speeds too, because she knows how much she needs her driving
licence, especially as she heads off to university next week.

My son will be 17 next summer; and even though he's sensible compared
with many lads his age, I'll worry far more about him on the road than
about her - yes, I used to worry when she first passed her test, but
she's put enough miles on now that I'm happy that she's a safe driver -
she drove in Birmingham city centre, which is something even my wife, a
good driver of 25 years, wouldn't even consider.

So please don't jump at me as if I haven't thought about what I've said
- I never post anything on usenet without thinking very carefully about
it.
-- 
asahartz woz ere

Mark wrote:
> "Willy Eckerslyke"  wrote in message 
> news:6jpo59F45vuhU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Adrian C wrote:
>>
>>> We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it is 
>>> taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory 
>>> refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing.
>> Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers as 
>> people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after 
>> failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they 
>> crash into you, you're shafted.
>>
>> And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things 
>> occasionally. Do you really think that would change?
> 
> Seems a rather defeatist. If implemented sensibly, these things can work. 

Admit it, you work for Nu-Labour, don't you? That's exactly how they 
like to introduce new laws. Think nothing through, ignore all criticism 
as "defeatest" and just blunder on blindly on the premise that it'll 
work if we all have faith.

> Perhaps make it more carrot than stick. Just an idea off the top of my head. 
> Instead of a compulsory test, you get plus points for passing the test, 
> which no doubt insurance companies would favour. Or rather they would change 
> more to people who don't take the test.

Or drivers could be encouraged to take advanced driver training, with 
the promise of a cut in insurance premiums...

"Willy Eckerslyke"  wrote in message
news:6jrl5iF4oj03U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mark wrote:
>> "Willy Eckerslyke"  wrote in message
>> news:6jpo59F45vuhU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Adrian C wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it
>>>> is taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory
>>>> refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing.
>>> Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers
>>> as people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after
>>> failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they
>>> crash into you, you're shafted.
>>>
>>> And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things
>>> occasionally. Do you really think that would change?
>>
>> Seems a rather defeatist. If implemented sensibly, these things can work.
>
> Admit it, you work for Nu-Labour, don't you? That's exactly how they like
> to introduce new laws. Think nothing through, ignore all criticism as
> "defeatest" and just blunder on blindly on the premise that it'll work if
> we all have faith.
>

Total bollocks. Its the antithesis of what those wankers do. They just tell
us NOT to do this or that. My idea thought up as I was writing and admit it
was only an idea off the top of my head as I wrote. At least it has the
carrot element and not just the hammer they deal out these days.

There are proper ways around all these things if pragmatic and practical 
people who live in the real world develop them. Not those tossers in 
government. Now we have thought it through a bit further I would add that 
draconican laws for no insurance or mot should be added to the idea. 
Something like £10,000 fine/3 years inside and vastly ramp up ANPR so no one 
can get away with it. Makes me F***ing furious people drive without 
insurance or mot. If I can run a perfectly legal car for the past 20 years 
without income from a job, then those little bits of scum are just sticking 
two fingers up and should be put inside.

>> Perhaps make it more carrot than stick. Just an idea off the top of my
>> head. Instead of a compulsory test, you get plus points for passing the
>> test, which no doubt insurance companies would favour. Or rather they
>> would change more to people who don't take the test.
>
> Or drivers could be encouraged to take advanced driver training, with the
> promise of a cut in insurance premiums...

Yeah good idea. Amounts to about the same doesn't it.

Ok, if not giving reduced insurance premiums as a carrot for taking regular
driver training/test, then use something else as a carrot. Tesco vouchers,
discount flights or anything that might appeal to the masses.

Also wouldn't do any harm is we insisted on a UK driver training and test
for anyone wanting to drive over here for more that a few weeks. Not just
outside Europe and allowed to drive for a year before a UK test needed, but
anyone who has not taken a test in this country and staying longer than for
a holiday.

Willy Eckerslyke  wrote:

> Mark wrote:
> > "Willy Eckerslyke"  wrote in message 
> > news:6jpo59F45vuhU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Adrian C wrote:
> >>
> >>> We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it is
> >>> taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory 
> >>> refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing.
> >> Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers as
> >> people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after
> >> failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they
> >> crash into you, you're shafted.
> >>
> >> And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things 
> >> occasionally. Do you really think that would change?
> > 
> > Seems a rather defeatist. If implemented sensibly, these things can work.
> 
> Admit it, you work for Nu-Labour, don't you? That's exactly how they 
> like to introduce new laws. Think nothing through, ignore all criticism
> as "defeatest" and just blunder on blindly on the premise that it'll 
> work if we all have faith.

Admit it, this post was generated by the Twat-o-tron, wasn't it?

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/ 

Cheers,
-- 
james dore
IT Officer,
New College, Oxford
http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/ it-support@new....

Mark wrote:
> "Willy Eckerslyke"  wrote in message
> news:6jrl5iF4oj03U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mark wrote:
>>> "Willy Eckerslyke"  wrote in message
>>> news:6jpo59F45vuhU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Adrian C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have the highest standards of driving in the world* and much of it
>>>>> is taught by learners having the learn the theory. A regular theory
>>>>> refresher course and test for everyone would be no bad thing.
>>>> Yes it would. It would lead to a massive increase in unlicensed drivers
>>>> as people forgot or refused to get retested, or carried on driving after
>>>> failing. That, in turn, would invalidate their insurance so when they
>>>> crash into you, you're shafted.
>>>>
>>>> And the justification? That we all see people doing stupid things
>>>> occasionally. Do you really think that would change?
>>> Seems a rather defeatist. If implemented sensibly, these things can work.
>> Admit it, you work for Nu-Labour, don't you? That's exactly how they like
>> to introduce new laws. Think nothing through, ignore all criticism as
>> "defeatest" and just blunder on blindly on the premise that it'll work if
>> we all have faith.
>>
> 
> Total bollocks. Its the antithesis of what those wankers do. They just tell
> us NOT to do this or that.

They introduce new and badly thought out regulations to solve problems 
that never existed in the first place. Your original MOT for driver 
suggestion was exactly that. You even admit that "We have the highest 
standards of driving in the world" (or am I getting you confused with 
another poster?), so where's the need to change anything?

>> Or drivers could be encouraged to take advanced driver training, with the
>> promise of a cut in insurance premiums...
> 
> Yeah good idea. Amounts to about the same doesn't it.

Then your work is over. It's been around for years.

Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
  You even admit that "We have the highest
> standards of driving in the world" (or am I getting you confused with 
> another poster?)

You are. Me.

The quote is from an US manual which may be (currently) found by 
googling "POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PPCIG VOL II, OVERSEAS" (if you 
don't mind clicking US military links...). I found it a very interesting 
document.

Actually it says (p.246)

"UK provisional license (learners permit) and UK operators
license (drivers license) may be obtained, but the process is costly and 
the exams are generally regarded as the most difficult in the world."

OK, not the "highest standards", but that is life....

-- 
Adrian C

Hi I would agree I think checking up on the way people drive would be a
very good idea, say everyone needs to take a driving test every 5 years
or so. Im sure this would point out some drivers who are not road fit
and therefore possibly saving lives in the process.

There is a good link about MOT if you are unsure you can find it here
you should be able to copy and paste it.

'Cheap car insurance for young drivers'
(http://www.hootcarinsurance.co.uk/html/Hoot%20guide%20to%20MOTs.htm)




-- 
cruisingcar08

>MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
>accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So >why all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?

cause the UK car industry depends on the MOT to take old( >3 yrs) cars
out of circulation by making them a hassle to keep.

all this talk about the environment and recycling...and then we send
perfectly usable cars to the crusher, only to be shipped out for
smelting at some coal powered furnace in China, just to make steel for
our factories to make new cars.

 no one cares about the real environmental cost as long as the
polluted environment is far away in another continent!

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT), got1tiel  wrote:

>>MOT for vehicle, so why not same for driver? I would guess that most
>>accidents are down to driver error, incompetence or bad habbits. So >why all the focus on the car and zero on the driver?
>
>cause the UK car industry depends on the MOT to take old( >3 yrs) cars
>out of circulation by making them a hassle to keep.
>
>all this talk about the environment and recycling...and then we send
>perfectly usable cars to the crusher, only to be shipped out for
>smelting at some coal powered furnace in China, just to make steel for
>our factories to make new cars.
>
> no one cares about the real environmental cost as long as the
>polluted environment is far away in another continent!

I've got to take my '98 Rover for an MOT this morning and was thinking about the
suggestion  that the test was changed to every two years. Despite the fact it's
a PITA, if Im honest, I prefer the idea of having a professional cast a
knowlegeable eye over my car once a year. Let's face it, it keeps every road
user safer.

Andy C

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:01:01 +0100, Andy Cap 
wrote:


>I saw the worst bit of driving I have ever seen on the Shoreham by-pass the
>other day but admit I failed to see his number plate, though if this was a well
>known facilty, perhaps we would be more prepared.

I saw some pretty crap driving at around 3pm yesterday. Woman in a big
Merc MPV sat on my rear bumper for ages (30-40 mph zones, loads of
cars in front of me etc). Drives past me on a very short length of
dual carriageway and as she cuts back in, undertakes a car at some
amber flashing crossing lights (and there were people still walking
across). I came up behind her at the next set of lights and did take
her reg  etc (and she was watching me do so in her side mirror). She
then did a bit of bus lane, 40 in a 30 before going through some red
lights and away.

Probably late for the school pickup ...

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian 
saying something like:

>Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.

#Leprosy...
#I'm not half the man I used to be...
-- 

Dave
SE6a

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian 
> saying something like:
> 
>>Because bits tend not to fall off drivers.
> 
> #Leprosy...
> #I'm not half the man I used to be...

:-)

Funniest one this week!

Chris

-- 
Remove prejudice to reply.