Driving/eyesight

[johnckirk]

Over on Twitter, the CTC commented on a recent court case:

Can't drive without glasses? Apparently even if you kill someone, that's not considered 'dangerous' #roadjustice pic.twitter.com/svJGW6FdKD
- CTC (@CTC_Cyclists) January 9, 2014
My initial reaction was outrage: surely that would count as a deliberate act, if you know you need glasses but

Comments

[rjw1]

the aritcle is from the metro.

[susannahf]

I see your point, but your argument seems to assume that all these additional tests would be free, which they aren't. When did your optician last give you a free eye test? They usually cost about £20. The sight test for driving is easier to administer, so you might get away with that, but the other two - no chance.
Current prices for driving tests (for a car licence), according to https://www.gov.uk/driving-test-cost are £31 for the theory test and £62 for the practical test. That's nearly £100! Personally, I get annoyed that I have to pay £20 every 10 years to just get a new photo on my driving licence.
I think that adding in a lot of additional tests (especially when they cost money) will likely lead to one thing: more unlicensed drivers on the roads. And unlicensed drivers are, by definition, uninsured. This is a very bad thing, and, imho, considerably worse than the current situation.

[sammoore]

As ever all the points I was going to make are put better by Susannahf. It's even worse when you get your D1 properly and have to have medicals, etc. It's almost impossible for less than £1000 and that assumes you have a vehicle to train in, let alone having to rent one for lessons.

Our roads are pretty safe. Sure, there are accidents but the biggest issue is unlicensed, uninsured drivers, I think that is where the priority should be.

[johnckirk]

I agree that these tests would cost money, but I don't see that as a problem. For instance, a "First Aid at Work" qualification lasts for 3 years, and then people have to pay a training provider to do another assessment. (I don't know how much that costs, because SJA and the Red Cross don't have any prices on their websites.) Similarly, there's a trend towards having IT qualifications which expire after 3 years, e.g. CompTIA and Cisco; see my previous blog post for more details, but they typically cost about £100.

Back in 2007, I wondered whether the same logic should apply to academic exams, e.g. GCSEs: either repeat the exam every n years or take a higher exam (e.g. an A level) to keep the qualification valid. I no longer need to mention my GCSE French when I apply for jobs, but if it was important to a job then I can't claim to be anywhere near as fluent as I was back then

[susannahf]

SJA do have prices, if you look - £234 inc VAT for a requal.
Not that those are really comparable, since they're usually paid for by employers, not by individuals.

I think most people are capable of assessing whether a GCSE French taken 20 years ago is still relevant, based on the CV date, and work experience since then, so again, not really relevant to this argument.

It's all very well thinking about the "ideal", but PEOPLE WILL NOT DO THE EXAMS AND WILL STILL DRIVE. You will end up with uninsured, unlicenced drivers. Redesigning the system on the basis of one incident is not a good system. Proper risk assessment is what is needed. Not knee-jerk reactions, which is all I'm seeing here.

[elvum]

The correct solution is "self-driving cars", IMO. Might take a bit longer, mind.

[johnckirk]

I think that will certainly help. I assume that even when those cars are available/legal, they will still have to co-exist with human controlled vehicles (e.g. bikes), so traditional cars won't disappear for a while (if ever). However, people may be more willing to accept extra driving tests if there's an alternative, i.e. "if you don't want to do these tests then switch to a self-driving car".