If a person can't get it after 2 attempts, then they shouldn't be allowed to try again for at least 12 months (probably better 18-24 months). If they still can't get it after having that time to (hopefully) mature after another 2 attempts then that should be the end of it. Driving just isn't for them.

Personally I'm inclined to agree with you, but you would never get that adopted would you, the BHL brigade would complain it contravened their 'ooman rites. There are also some that have passed their test where driving is clearly not for them either it has to be said. As someone commented the other day, my view has been that 50% of the people shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

I passed my driving test first time after 8 lessons, in 1963 aged 18, in a Morris Minor 1000. No paper test in those days. I found it ridiculously easy, and still can't understand why simple eye-hand-feet co-ordination is so difficult for some people. But of course in those days cars weren't so sophisticated as they are now, and you drove the damn things with four on the floor by the seat of your pants. But it didn't half teach you to read the road and be aware of what was going on around you.

These days people can pass the test in a modern air conditioned cushy automatic saloon car, completely cocooned from road conditions and their surroundings. They are not real drivers at all, and that is recognised as their licence only acts as a Provisional for a manual car, and they will need L plates and a qualified passenger to drive them, and tale another test. Of course disabled drivers are a completely different category and automatics and specially adapted cars are a lifesaver for them.

Yeah if one studies hard, gets proper instruction, and practice, one can get a drivers license, 1 attempt was all I needed, I got My license in 1979, at age 19.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

More to the point,

the Sikorsky S-92's internal warning system did not include Blackrock, an Atlantic outcrop with a working lighthouse, in its database.

More to the point, a pilot shall consult ALL available sources of information. So where the hell was the paper map? You know the ones that have an expiration date every 56 days that every pilot has to carry. Yes, even the jet jocks have to have the visual charts. I know where it was. This wasn't a civil flight.

---

Another Darwin Award winner down under.

A MAN returned a positive drug test for methamphetamine after police caught him towing a large rainwater tank on a trailer that was secured to his car with just a single strap.

Police spotted the driver just before 5.30pm this afternoon at Penfield Gardens towing the rainwater tank along Robert Road.

Worried the tiny trailer was dangerously overloaded and not properly restrained, police pulled over the 28-year-old Elizabeth Park man and found he had a disqualified licence and his car was unregistered.

No cheers for him.

Another Darwin Award winner down under.

Only eligible for the Darwin Awards if he takes himself out of the gene pool before reproducing.
I thought the strap around the tow hitch was a nice touch.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-39614221

The woman was driving with her head between the legs of a baby's high chair

---

Air Canada plane loses wheel mid-flight. :-O

Cheers.

Telegraph

There are renewed calls for a compulsory extra driving test at age 70. That is something I have been advocating for many years now. But to do that would mean doubling the number of examiners, doubling the number of test centres, and Government money simply isn't there to pay for it all and the infrastructure to go with it. But there is nothing stopping any sensible person going to a local driving school and booking a single lesson to judge their ability. In fact the Government could probably afford to subsidise the over 70 lesson by say 50% and encourage older drivers to take advantage of it.

A certificate of competence could even help to reduce car insurance premiums. But the drawback is what happens if the driving school finds that someone really shouldn't be on the road? Should they be mandated to report it to DVLC? I'm sure the BHL brigade would cry foul and Big Brother.

Some years ago there was a woman around our way, in her 80's that used to drive an old car at about 20mph in the middle of the road. She was a danger to herself and other road users. I and some neighbours reported her to the local police, and she was strongly advised by a Sergeant not to drive any more, which she didn't. Her daughter knocked on my door and said thank you, I didn't realise that mum was that bad, if only I had known.

The stats don't agree. Those under 25 are the cause of more accidents than those over 70.
Rather than driving tests it would make more sense to periodically have a medical, and also for doctors and opticians to be able to inform the DVLA when they say a person is unfit to drive. But that should also apply to all ages. Think about the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
My ex was very upset when a German optician said her eyesight was below the standards for driving in Germany, even though she held a UK license and nothing was said when she had her next opticians test back in the UK.

---

The stats don't agree. Those under 25 are the cause of more accidents than those over 70.

In absolute numbers, or as a percentage of the group?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

The stats don't agree. Those under 25 are the cause of more accidents than those over 70.

In absolute numbers, or as a percentage of the group?

Research by the RAC Foundation suggests drivers aged 75 and over make up 6% of all licence holders but account for just 4.3% of all deaths and serious injuries. By contrast, drivers aged 16-20 make up just 2.5% of all drivers but 13% of those killed and seriously injured.

---

What is more serious in my opinion is people still driving after a stroke. Yes the hospital can give you a clean bill of health saying that you have fully recovered from your first one. But the truth is that having had the first one, you are many more times more likely to have another one within 2-3 years, than somebody who has never had one at all. If I had a stroke, however minor, whether pronounced fully recovered or not, I would never ever sit behind the wheel, or on the seat of, a powered vehicle ever again. I would not want to take the chance that at some point, through circumstances that I couldn't control, I might end up killing somebody if I flaked out.

As you say, it is your opinion. However, you have mentioned this already - "But the truth is that having had the first one, you are many more times more likely to have another one within 2-3 years." Is that: -
A: Hearsay?
B: Your opinion?
C; Fact?

If C, please provide them (or a link to them). Over the past 16 months of regular research, can find no confirmation of that. What I do have is personal experience (albeit of only a handful) that makes your opinion/fact debatable. My old man suffered a bad stroke in Oct 85 & never suffered another. Several colleagues in the transport industry suffered strokes, the youngest being 49. All returned to work & continued working right through to retirement without suffering a second stroke.

" Yes the hospital can give you a clean bill of health saying that you have fully recovered from your first one."

That may be true for standard drivers but not for Public Carriage/PCV/LGV/HGV drivers. For them, the rules & regulations are much stricter. For starters, they are not allowed to drive for 12 months (that explains why my assessment did not happen last June but January this year - It used to be 6 months - you learn something new every day).

It doesn't end there. A medical questionnaire is required & on completion, DVLA makes a decision. Should they be concerned about any of your answers, they contact your GP for your medical records. Again, a decision is made. However, if they still have concerns, a driving assessment is needed - That is not so easy or cavalier as you may think. Neither is the full medical assessment. Both the medical & driving assessments have to agree with each other. Any issue with either will normally mean loss of license.

If you think that is quite enough to go through, then you'd be wrong :-) There's more!
One's insurance has to be notified & all that entails. It's more than enough to put many off returning to professional driving.

As for strokes themselves: -
There are many factors that cause them.
There are also many factors in play that determines just how fast/slow one recovers.

Thanks. To be frank, I totally agree with you up to a point :-) However, with your penchant for researching, I genuinely thought you'd highlight the "missing" elephant in the room.

We've both stated that it is just opinion, but have you stopped to think that regardless of opinion/fact, you have raised a very serious & valid point?

Standard drivers only have to stop driving after a stroke for one month

Aside from the glaringly obvious, just what other difference is there between standard & professional drivers?

There has been numerous occasions where a car driver has caused a multiple pileup on a motorway with no trucks involved with numerous fatalities.

, just what other difference is there between standard & professional drivers?

" Professional " drivers get paid for driving / do it for a living

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)

San Pedro CA is definitely not the sticks...

Drivers test, in a big car, on small narrow streets in the older part of town(for Los Angeles CA at least). Not a big deal.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Vic, you seem to have completely missed the point. Whether San Pedro is or is not in the sticks (in your opinion) is irrelevant. As you just said yourself and I quote

Drivers test, in a big car, on small narrow streets in the older part of town(for Los Angeles CA at least). Not a big deal.

Agreed. Then is it a good idea once someone has passed their test in such circumstances, to let them drive at an average of 70mph on American freeways ? That is the question you should be answering.

In My experience out here, most people on the fwy don't drive at 70mph(the speed limit), they drive a bit faster(like maybe 75mph), and some are worse, they drive faster still. My skills are ok, and tight streets is a good test for maneuvering. Especially if one is a beginner.

Also if one takes a moped to a motorcycle driving test, one would be restricted to a moped(this is for the motorcycle addendum only), yes I have said addendum on My Class C license, I drove a real motorcycle, one capable of fwy speeds in 1979, today the motorcycle would need to be a bit bigger than a 250cc model.

Me I had professional training, and I usually don't speed, though I can see why some do speed across the desert, it's a boring desert out here, I tried driving 55mph from My place to Victorville CA, that was horrible.

I'd rather the high desert had light rail transit, in addition to some bus routes that would act as feeders, but unlike LA County, We don't, yet.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Stay off the fizzy diet drinks.

---

Vic, you seem to have completely missed the point. Whether San Pedro is or is not in the sticks (in your opinion) is irrelevant. As you just said yourself and I quote

Drivers test, in a big car, on small narrow streets in the older part of town(for Los Angeles CA at least). Not a big deal.

Agreed. Then is it a good idea once someone has passed their test in such circumstances, to let them drive at an average of 70mph on American freeways ? That is the question you should be answering.

In My experience out here, most people on the fwy don't drive at 70mph(the speed limit), they drive a bit faster(like maybe 75mph), and some are worse, they drive faster still. My skills are ok, and tight streets is a good test for maneuvering. Especially if one is a beginner.

Also if one takes a moped to a motorcycle driving test, one would be restricted to a moped(this is for the motorcycle addendum only), yes I have said addendum on My Class C license, I drove a real motorcycle, one capable of fwy speeds in 1979, today the motorcycle would need to be a bit bigger than a 250cc model.

Me I had professional training, and I usually don't speed, though I can see why some do speed across the desert, it's a boring desert out here, I tried driving 55mph from My place to Victorville CA, that was horrible.

I'd rather the high desert had light rail transit, in addition to some bus routes that would act as feeders, but unlike LA County, We don't, yet.

Quite frankly most of you people would likely scare the crap out of me (no matter how slow/fast you go), but there are a few young ones that I'm very comfortable being a passenger with (whether it be on the open fast lane or in a congested city).

Age does not mean that you have the proper awareness, coordination skills or common sense to do the job properly.

Yes the standard driving/riding tests have a lot to be desired and people will pickup all the bad habits of the world from their parents, family or friends.

Unless you've done advanced driver, rider, and heavy vehicle courses, and passed all, I'll drive. ;-)

Stay off the fizzy diet drinks.

I can't remember the last I had a sugary fizzy drink let alone anything with "diet" on it, but if I do want something sugary I have 40% of the recommended cordial mixture in water (with rum at times). :-)

Cheers.

Speed limits?
I always thought that speed limit signs was a way to say that you have speed up above.

Speed limits?
I always thought that speed limit signs was a way to say that you have speed up above.

One of these:

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

No one of these

or this

---

Even your parked car is not safe these days

The driver remains in custody. Probably receive a "light" sentence :-(