Is the Driving Test an outdated concept in 2008?

[feargach]

I request that, before answering, you should be a passenger in a car driven by a person that passed their test with flying colours on first attempt.

Observe this person's driving. Does that person avoid all the things that fail a test applicant? Does he look over the shoulder to beat the "blind spot" at the required times? Does he keep three to six car lengths between the car in front at all times? Does he avoid coasting at all times? Does he keep both hands on the wheel at all times? Etc.

My guess is that none of you will be truthfully able to answer 'yes'. There is a probable 0.1% level of compliance with the required driving practices.

Why? Because once you have passed the test, the next 10,000 driving journeys one makes are entirely at the driver's free discretion.

So, if it is important for us to require that drivers adhere to these practices in general (is it? or do you believe that only learners should bother with these practices?).

In today's technology, it's possible to eliminate the driving test as currently constituted, and instead apply a driving continuous assessment.

All learner drivers would have three to five tamper-proof digital cameras in their car. They would not have any idea when those cameras are recording. GPS will of course be involved. Recording will be based on random samples. Thus, drivers will be forced to always use the correct driving techniques, for fear of being failed.

Indeed, there is no reason whatsoever why any driver should be exempt from having their driving randomly recorded and assessed.

Also, it would be massively cheaper in addition to being more effective in enforcing the currently-approved driving practices. There's no reason the assessment could not be outsourced. All the rules of the road are objective and absolute. Also, by definition, a 5-camera system would provide superior observation than what a single tester can possibly provide. They can't see in 3 directions at once. Nor can they get an instant replay.

So, are you okay with your own continued driving licence being made subject to such random assessment? If not, why not?

[infamous-el-guapo]

All learner drivers would have three to five tamper-proof digital cameras in their car. They would not have any idea when those cameras are recording

I don't like this.

You're telling people to give up their privacy.

Having cameras permanently on someone constitutes them giving evidence against themselves without reasonable justification.

[Aindriu]

The cost would be absolutely enormous! I for one will never agree to it on both a cost and privacy basis. Our taxes would go sky high to pay for this.

[feargach]

All learner drivers would have three to five tamper-proof digital cameras in their car. They would not have any idea when those cameras are recording

I don't like this.

You're telling people to give up their privacy.

When you're driving, through a populated area, a lethal weapon which annually slaughters 300 people, I'd argue you're engaging in an act which the community has a right to scrutinise very carefully, and have no right to privacy.

Privacy only applies to actions which do not endanger the public.

Otherwise all laws, including those against murder and rape, are illegitimate, as they invade the perpetrator's privacy.

Lorry drivers in the UK are required to work with an always-on camera in their cabs. Since introduction, safety has skyrocketed. There are hundreds of people breathing today who would otherwise have joined the choir invisible, because of that simple tactic.

But cars kill far more people than lorries, despite being much smaller.

[red365]

Feargach, you're Mary White aren't you! She's the only person who could come up with TWO loony-tunes ideas on 'road safety' in the space of one week.

[constitutionus]

i'd be far more conscerned with an actual drivers education program being instituted in school ala the americans than continuous assesment of dirvers. if everyone in the country had at least 5yrs experience behind the wheel before they even BUY a car it'd go along way to sorting the situation in the country.

makes a hell of alot more sense than spying on drivers ala 1984

[Fr. Dougal McGuire]

This proposal is unacceptable from a civil liberties point of view, we are not in the Soviet Union or North Korea.

[MichaelR]

That's called surveillance and means the State has a right to know where a person is at any given time.

No, no, no, no, no.

Also, some Irish dogmas on driving techniques, i.e. the Big Battle Against Coasting, are not shared by driving experts in other parts of the world, although this is the thing that can't rbe reliably checked by a camera anyway (it won't be good enough to monitor the clutch pedal)

[Tmesis]

When you're driving, through a populated area, a lethal weapon which annually slaughters 300 people,

My car slaughters 300 people annually?

By your logic, you're also in control of a weapon which annually rapes hundreds of women. Do you have any right to privacy at all in that instance?

[infamous-el-guapo]

I'd argue you're engaging in an act which the community has a right to scrutinise very carefully, and have no right to privacy.

Well you're wrong because you always have the right to privacy however it can quantified when, on the balance of proportionality, other rights take primacy.

The community does have a right to scrutinise drivers and exercises this right in the form of speed cameras and police patrols.

Otherwise all laws, including those against murder and rape, are illegitimate, as they invade the perpetrator's privacy.

Would you argue for putting cameras in all bedrooms to stop rape?