Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics ad occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about driving licenses.
The tests for these are becoming infinitely more difficult and, while I understand the reasoning behind this, for me there are still 2 inherent flaws in this approach.
Firstly, driving lessons (in the UK) still do not include motorway driving as a mandatory aspect. What this means is that provisional or newly qualified drivers are effectively told that although they have no experience of driving on 3-4 lane roads at speeds of around 70mph and all the inherent hazards etc. this entails, it is perfectly legal for them to do so.
For me, this borders on madness. What part of driving round a roundabout, or travelling along a dual carriageway equates to the busier, faster, (some might say) more pressured environment of a motorway? How can someone who’s never been on a motorway be safe to do so? Answer: They’re not. New drivers are placed or permitted to travel in highly dangerous environments with no knowledge or experience of dealing with them. Does that seem safe to you?
(I stress in the UK as in European countries such as Germany this is part and parcel of learning to drive – which makes much more sense.)
Secondly, the emphasis is on placing additional requirements on ‘NEW’ drivers. But there are millions of ‘OLD’ drivers who have not passed these additional requirements and yet are still apparently equally safe on the roads. How can that be? How can someone with less training or experience be just as qualified (or safe) as someone who has?
Drivers who qualified before 2002 did so without undertaking Hazard Perception tests. Drivers who qualified before 1996 did not even have to take a theory test. (And drivers prior to 1935 or who learnt during the Second World War required no test at all!) Yet, apparently they are just as safe as those who do undergo these additional precautions.*
Add to this the fact that the older drivers are automatically allowed to drive vehicles much larger than anything of which they have any experience simply because they passed a plain (and, it could be argued, dated) driving test. And the danger rises.
Again the removal of this right is a restriction that has solely been placed on new drivers which, again, does not make sense. If newer, more recently trained and honed drivers are not safe in trucks, vans and lorries, then why are older, non-highly trained drivers?
And to those who say older, means more experience a) that should mean they have no issue taking the additional tests to ensure or prove their safety on the roads and b) experience counts for nought in high-pressured situations – everyone makes mistakes.
There should not be double standards when it comes to safety.
Either someone is safe to drive on the roads without those additional tests, or they are not.
And practice of driving on multi-lane roads at accelerated speeds should be a necessary requirement before someone is classified as being qualified to drive.
And for anyone who raises the ‘inconvenience’ of putting the older, less strictly tested drivers through the same tests to ensure they are of the same safe standard. I would consider the physical and emotional pain of the experience and consequence of a car crash to have significantly more importance.
Safety is more important than bureaucracy. Being accident-free is more important than admin. Lives should not be endangered for the sake of a bit of red tape that is supposed to protect them.
*To be clear I do not mean to besmirch these drivers. They may be perfectly good, perfectly skilled. My point is the hypocrisy of determining new drivers need this additional training which older, existing drivers do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment