Strix Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 I've always been in support of re-tests every five or ten years. All drivers can become rather sloppy after a while. Why not introduce testing like: after your official driving exam - another test 12 months later; then every ten years to the age of 60. Test again at 60 then every five years. The cost of these re-tests should be offset against 'Road Tax'. If you 'fail' any of these tests, you should have two other opportunities to get it right. Fail three 're-tests' and I believe the proof of the pudding is in the eating: You're not good enough to drive. Try knitting instead. Can we have a poll? I'm voting for this option Saxon: those age groups are skewed 17-19 = 3 years = 11.3% = 3.76666% per age year 20-24 = 5 years = 16.5% = 3.3% per age year 25-29 = 5 years = 11.5% = 2.3% per age year 30-39 = 10 years = 19.6% = 1.96% per age year There are lies, damned lies, and statistics Here's another good one: 17-80 = 64 driving years 30-59 = 30 driving years therefore age group 30-59 = 46% of the age spread of all drivers (no indication of the actual %of drivers that fall into this category btw ) Is it any wonder they make up 45.1% of accidents, given this group is actually likely to represent the greater % of car drives for their age group, and probably does the most mileage at the most hazzardous part of the day (commuting) - which all stacks up to make them safer drivers, as this figure could reasonably be expected to be higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatross Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 How about 30 for men and 21 for women. That would be my ideal. Get all those mad dangerous young lads off the roads. You got that one the wrong way round. I have had four accidents in 38 years of driving. In all four case it was a woman that ran into me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudybay Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 You got that one the wrong way round. I have had four accidents in 38 years of driving. In all four case it was a woman that ran into me. Hang your head in shame..............PMT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatross Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Here's the stats for accidents: 17-19 years : 11.3% 20-24 years : 16.5% 25-29 years : 11.5% 30-39 years : 19.6% 40-59 years : 25.5% 60-69 years : 6.3% 70-79 years : 4.9% 80+ years : 3.0% Now to me, the biggest problem is the 40-59 year age gap. Add that to the 30-39 year olds and we have a whopping 45.1%! Who's made up this ridiculous claim about the 17- 24 year olds? Oh, I know - the 30-59 year olds!! 30 to 59 gives 45.1% 17 to 24 gives 27.8% but just hang on a moment thats a period of 29 years and a period of 7 years so lets do an equalisation here divide 29 by 7 = 4.14 then divide 45.1 by 4.14 = 10.9% this actually gives for an equal period of 7 years a result of 27.8% for 17 to 24 year olds. 10.9% for 30 to 59 year olds showing that the 17 to 24 year olds are two and a half times more likely to have an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudybay Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 In the last 20 years Ive had two accidents...........the first one must have been my fault as I was parked up in a Multi in Manchester. The driver of the offending vehicle had just legged it from 'Strangeways' whilst i was shopping. Obviously, the black chiffon blouse I'd purchased had aroused his manhood, regardless of the fact that two pies, a portion of chips and a small carton of mushy peas were sniffing in his wake. On the second occasion, I was heading straight forwards at a roundabout. Suddenly, a car hit me from the left-hand side. The driver got out and said ' Sorry. I really should have been more careful before I pulled out' Typical male statement. The moral of that story is slow down unless you want to come to a sticky end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 30 to 59 gives 45.1% 17 to 24 gives 27.8% but just hang on a moment thats a period of 29 years and a period of 7 years so lets do an equalisation here divide 29 by 7 = 4.14 then divide 45.1 by 4.14 = 10.9% this actually gives for an equal period of 7 years a result of 27.8% for 17 to 24 year olds. 10.9% for 30 to 59 year olds showing that the 17 to 24 year olds are two and a half times more likely to have an accident. Well done Albatross, thats better. Problem being, if these young un's cant drive to work, how do they get there?. DONT DARE mention public transport. I did not have our car yesterday, and what would normally take me 1 hour (Travelling and hospital appointment) took 4 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 You got that one the wrong way round. I have had four accidents in 38 years of driving. In all four case it was a woman that ran into me. Some of us will do anything to get a man's attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Some of us will do anything to get a man's attention I'd rather see you pole dancing than driving though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Kiddick Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 I really should have been more careful before I pulled out' Typical male statement. The moral of that story is slow down unless you want to come to a sticky end. The moral of many stories my dear. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 I'd rather see you pole dancing than driving though. viking, it's easy to see you've never met me!! Believe me, you'd rather see me driving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.