Was seen yesterday driving on his own again with no belt on. The people in the other car say nobody has been in touch, despite reports that representatives of the royals had contacted them...
Every driver should be retested periodically. Maybe every 5 years and then annually after 75. But this is only an uninformed opinion perhaps everyone should face annual retest. What do other countries do?
Currently there are about 1.8m tests a year in the U.K. Retesting every 5 years would require about 9m extra tests to the 45m license holders. So we need to add a huge number of qualified testers (that don’t exist) and test centers. Even a 10 year retest would be a significant investment.
There isn’t an easy answer to this. Any new laws only make sense if they can be enforced if you want it to be preventative.
Personally I don’t think you can stop people driving with no license and/or insurance.
In the US you need to renew your license every 10 years (in Mass. anyway). You have to do a vision test at the time, that include peripheral vision. Maybe they should include a knowledge test as well.
I’d support retesting for anyone found at fault in an accident.
Increase the penalty for driving without a license, but the bigger penalty should be driving without insurance.
Driving without insurance never killed any body, plus inconvenience is no reason to not re test people !
(This is *not* intended as a thread about republicanism, about the royal family in general or whether we "should" or "shouldn't" have a royal family. So, if you have strong thoughts about that topic, please either post them elsewhere or, probably better still, don't post them at all!)
I can understand that you don't want your thread taken off topic (as if that would ever happen on here) but what's it got to do with you whether I post my thoughts about whether we should or shouldn't have a royal family elsewhere?
Insofar as the accident involved someone who some think oughtn't to be driving, one could argue that, if he hadn't been driving, there wouldn't have been an accident and therefore it was his fault.
However, it will be interesting to see whether plod get involved, or whether, without a prosecution, there will be a way of discovering who was determined to have been at fault.
The Duke of Edinburgh hasn't taken a driving test. I don't know whether he has a licence (I would assume so) and it would be interesting to see whether he's actually insured to drive on public roads.
The Prime Minister has sent her best wishes to him; but not to the passengers of the other vehicle. So, perhaps she's already decided who was at fault!
Actually, May sent him a note thanking him for taking the headlines away from the Brexit debacle for a few days.
(This is *not* intended as a thread about republicanism, about the royal family in general or whether we "should" or "shouldn't" have a royal family. So, if you have strong thoughts about that topic, please either post them elsewhere or, probably better still, don't post them at all!)
I can understand that you don't want your thread taken off topic (as if that would ever happen on here) but what's it got to do with you whether I post my thoughts about whether we should or shouldn't have a royal family elsewhere?
I made that request out of respect to the people who run this site. Anti-royal sentiment isn't warmly welcomed and I don't want to encourage it.
Every driver should be retested periodically. Maybe every 5 years and then annually after 75. But this is only an uninformed opinion perhaps everyone should face annual retest. What do other countries do?
Currently there are about 1.8m tests a year in the U.K. Retesting every 5 years would require about 9m extra tests to the 45m license holders. So we need to add a huge number of qualified testers (that don’t exist) and test centers. Even a 10 year retest would be a significant investment.
There isn’t an easy answer to this. Any new laws only make sense if they can be enforced if you want it to be preventative.
Personally I don’t think you can stop people driving with no license and/or insurance.
In the US you need to renew your license every 10 years (in Mass. anyway). You have to do a vision test at the time, that include peripheral vision. Maybe they should include a knowledge test as well.
I’d support retesting for anyone found at fault in an accident.
Increase the penalty for driving without a license, but the bigger penalty should be driving without insurance.
I think you raise a lot of good points. I'm pretty sure though that the majority of that 1.8m would be people who failed their original test and were having a second, third, fourth... go at passing. I know it's not something that anyone is likely to sing from the rooftops, but there's not a single person that I know who has been forced to take a retest after they'd initially passed.
We'd need more testers if we were to fully re-test everyone using conventional methodologies, but why not invest in a more technological solution. Surely a government that can afford to waste £440m per week on its little Brexit hobby, could afford to rig up some computer terminals so that they could virtually test peoples' spacial awareness, reaction times and knowledge of the Highway Code. This later point is something that's amazed me. As a driver of 30+ years, why do I never get any meaningful communications from the DVLA explaining changes to best practice. I know from when my boys took their tests that there are many differences between what's taught now and what was taught way back when, yet they seem happy for me to drive around ignorant of these changes.
I had been putting this conversation off with my father because selfishly it would have an impact on my life. Ended up I had no choice after he smashed his wing mirror and he couldn’t remember how he had done it when I asked.
So I’ve refused to get it fixed so no more driving for him.
Now off to do his shopping and cooking for the week.... sigh!!
Scary thing for me is that both my mum and the MiL had valid driving licenses up until pretty recently, despite neither of them having got behind the wheel for 20+ years (more for the MiL). Either of them could have bought and insured a car and driven it on the roads legally but would, in my view, be a far greater danger than many other road users.
Scary thing for me is that both my mum and the MiL had valid driving licenses up until pretty recently, despite neither of them having got behind the wheel for 20+ years (more for the MiL). Either of them could have bought and insured a car and driven it on the roads legally but would, in my view, be a far greater danger than many other road users.
(This is *not* intended as a thread about republicanism, about the royal family in general or whether we "should" or "shouldn't" have a royal family. So, if you have strong thoughts about that topic, please either post them elsewhere or, probably better still, don't post them at all!)
I can understand that you don't want your thread taken off topic (as if that would ever happen on here) but what's it got to do with you whether I post my thoughts about whether we should or shouldn't have a royal family elsewhere?
I made that request out of respect to the people who run this site. Anti-royal sentiment isn't warmly welcomed and I don't want to encourage it.
Scary thing for me is that both my mum and the MiL had valid driving licenses up until pretty recently, despite neither of them having got behind the wheel for 20+ years (more for the MiL). Either of them could have bought and insured a car and driven it on the roads legally but would, in my view, be a far greater danger than many other road users.
A driving license only lasts 10 years
Not if you still have your old paper version
@Henry Irving are you still allowed to just have the paper version? I'm not saying you're not, I'm asking out of curiosity.
A report from 2015 states that 15.36% of reported accidents were involving drivers aged under 24 compared to only 5.95% involving drivers aged over 70. So, are we going to stop anyone under 24 from driving?
This is misleading. A lot more people under the age of 24 drive than people aged over 70.
Scary thing for me is that both my mum and the MiL had valid driving licenses up until pretty recently, despite neither of them having got behind the wheel for 20+ years (more for the MiL). Either of them could have bought and insured a car and driven it on the roads legally but would, in my view, be a far greater danger than many other road users.
A driving license only lasts 10 years
Not if you still have your old paper version
@Henry Irving are you still allowed to just have the paper version? I'm not saying you're not, I'm asking out of curiosity.
You can keep your paper version until you are 70, when you renew at 70 you have to provide a photo etc for the new version.
Scary thing for me is that both my mum and the MiL had valid driving licenses up until pretty recently, despite neither of them having got behind the wheel for 20+ years (more for the MiL). Either of them could have bought and insured a car and driven it on the roads legally but would, in my view, be a far greater danger than many other road users.
A driving license only lasts 10 years
Not if you still have your old paper version
@Henry Irving are you still allowed to just have the paper version? I'm not saying you're not, I'm asking out of curiosity.
You can keep your paper version until you are 70, when you renew at 70 you have to provide a photo etc for the new version.
Scary thing for me is that both my mum and the MiL had valid driving licenses up until pretty recently, despite neither of them having got behind the wheel for 20+ years (more for the MiL). Either of them could have bought and insured a car and driven it on the roads legally but would, in my view, be a far greater danger than many other road users.
A driving license only lasts 10 years
Not if you still have your old paper version
@Henry Irving are you still allowed to just have the paper version? I'm not saying you're not, I'm asking out of curiosity.
You can keep your paper version until you are 70, when you renew at 70 you have to provide a photo etc for the new version.
Is it not the case that you don’t have the option of keeping the paper version if you have to update your licence on change of address? If you still have a valid paper version then you have not changed your address for at least the last 20 years.
My Dad was forced to relinquish his licence due to his failing eyesight when he was 92 and that certainly reduced his quality of life. My Mum gave up driving aged 86 because she recognised that she was finding driving more and more stressful.
I was then given their car and having not owned a car for the best part of 10 years I've noticed that drivers are far more aggressive now (and that indicating seems to be optional now!)
My Dad was forced to relinquish his licence due to his failing eyesight when he was 92 and that certainly reduced his quality of life. My Mum gave up driving aged 86 because she recognised that she was finding driving more and more stressful.
I was then given their car and having not owned a car for the best part of 10 years I've noticed that drivers are far more aggressive now (and that indicating seems to be optional now!)
Indicating is for wimps, as is slowing down for amber lights, letting anyone else have priority and leaving any more than a three inch gap from the car in front!
Insofar as the accident involved someone who some think oughtn't to be driving, one could argue that, if he hadn't been driving, there wouldn't have been an accident and therefore it was his fault.
However, it will be interesting to see whether plod get involved, or whether, without a prosecution, there will be a way of discovering who was determined to have been at fault.
The Duke of Edinburgh hasn't taken a driving test. I don't know whether he has a licence (I would assume so) and it would be interesting to see whether he's actually insured to drive on public roads.
The Prime Minister has sent her best wishes to him; but not to the passengers of the other vehicle. So, perhaps she's already decided who was at fault!
Someone took offence at this post, so I will make clear what my view is, to avoid any misunderstanding. We don't know whether it was the Duke's fault, yet. But PM offering her best wishes to only one party involved seems to indicate what she thinks.
The problem is, people can get a bit cranky at his age and I doubt anybody can stop him driving if he wants to. I think this is a problem that might be just as apt for a commoner as a royal. I'm sure if they could, his family would want to stop him for his own safety as well as that of others.
As the Duke of Hazard must abide by the same laws on his wife's highway, has it been reported how many points he has accured so far ? If any. Unless they have proof that the lady driver was going over 60 MPH, surely Phil the Greek must be the guilty party as he was entering a Main road.
Loophole Lawyer Nick Freeman is on standby, as recommended by Beckham and Ferguson, Alex not Sarah.
The problem is, people can get a bit cranky at his age and I doubt anybody can stop him driving if he wants to. I think this is a problem that might be just as apt for a commoner as a royal. I'm sure if they could, his family would want to stop him for his own safety as well as that of others.
Comments
We'd need more testers if we were to fully re-test everyone using conventional methodologies, but why not invest in a more technological solution. Surely a government that can afford to waste £440m per week on its little Brexit hobby, could afford to rig up some computer terminals so that they could virtually test peoples' spacial awareness, reaction times and knowledge of the Highway Code. This later point is something that's amazed me. As a driver of 30+ years, why do I never get any meaningful communications from the DVLA explaining changes to best practice. I know from when my boys took their tests that there are many differences between what's taught now and what was taught way back when, yet they seem happy for me to drive around ignorant of these changes.
So I’ve refused to get it fixed so no more driving for him.
Now off to do his shopping and cooking for the week.... sigh!!
Paper driving licences issued before 31 March 2000 are still valid. Do not destroy your licence.
When you update your name or address, or renew your licence, you’ll only get a photocard licence.
You have to renew you license when you reach the age of 70, you will only get a photocard version.
I was then given their car and having not owned a car for the best part of 10 years I've noticed that drivers are far more aggressive now (and that indicating seems to be optional now!)
Unless they have proof that the lady driver was going over 60 MPH, surely Phil the Greek must be the guilty party as he was entering a Main road.
Loophole Lawyer Nick Freeman is on standby, as recommended by Beckham and Ferguson, Alex not Sarah.