Quote:
Originally posted by Martin
Surely though restesting drivers would cost a small fortune and put a huge strain on the Testing Centres? For that matter the majority of those tested may well pass, making it not worth while. If I took my driving test now I'm sure I would pass, how many other peeps would be the same? Taking another test would be just a formality and not cut down the loads of cars needed to make a difference. Fair enough it would weed out the dangerous drivers but I think they could be weeded out by other means.
I read an article ages ago that said most accidents where caused by people who had just past there test and under 25.
|
I don't think it would be a formality. I think essentially what you'd be doing is still costing people money to drive, but costing those who are worst and would take longest to pass their test again more. So you are charging people based on their ability to drive safely on roads. You'd find so many people just found it such an expensive option that they would use public transport of their own accord.
I also think if people knew you'd be constantly re-tested as a driver over the years they may think twice about taking it up in the first place. I would also like to see the test increased in difficulty. It shouldn't be 1 single test. The difficulty of the test should be determind by how long you've been driving. So although its very strict for a first time driver, when that person hits 5 years and sits the re-test the new test should take account of the experience hes had in 5 years and reflect that. Of course it would become complicated as you could have a licence and not drive very much.
I don't really have all the answers considering its a radical approach. But surely restricting the number of cars on the roads on the basis of ability to drive safely is a better way to do it than on the ability to simply pay.