View Single Post
  #14  
Old February 16th 20, 12:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet

On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/02/2020 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 15/02/2020 11:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/02/2020 18:27, JNugent wrote:
On 14/02/2020 14:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/02/2020 10:47, Simon Mason wrote:

He said: "The first victim was flat out in the road not moving
because he seemed to be entangled in his racing bicycle. He was
being attended to by a passing first aider.

"The second man, a builder, was laying on the pavement outside
Travis Perkins' front door with head injuries and blood coming
from his wounds."

Not surprising. Fleet is a very popular town for the elderly.
A system that relies on the applicant's honesty can't be a
good way of extending driving licences.

Can you think of many transactions between the state and the citizen
which don't rely to some extent on the good faith of the citizen?

Even a passport application, though vetted more than most
transactions, ultimately relies upon the word of a person "of
standing" who says they know the applicant.

Off hand, I can't think of anything equivalent to a driving
licence that requires a declaration of fitness to perform a task.


No need.

The applicant (who of necessity has already held a valid licence for
some period of time until their seventieth birthday) is the holder -
or subject - of a certificate of competence to drive.

The certificate's details are recorded in the databanks of the
relevent Department. It is (or was) awarded (effectively) by the
examiner who conducted the licence-holder's last test, assuming it was
passed successfully.


The application for a provisional licence is the part that is no
different from accessing other government services.


If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight
standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?"
with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted?

Straightaway, the system depends upon the honesty of the citizen.

It is upgraded to a full driving licence only when the applicant can
show competence to an examiner. Identity fraud aside, it does not rely
on the honesty of the applicant. Yet it takes honesty or a Duke of
Edinburgh moment to "hand a licence back".


Er... quite so.

Every interaction between the citizen and the state depends on trust to
some extent.

After that, the declaration at 70 is merely one as to whether has been
a change. If you think 70 is too old for that, reflect on the fact
that you might just as well argue that they should have been required
to take another medical at (say) 65, which is an age
neither of my grandfathers ever saw. Health and fitness are nowadays
off the scale compared to a mere few decades ago. but you'd prefer to
waste the time and resources of the individual and the taxpayer.


Anything to with the luxury of driving should require the driver to jump
through the necessary hoops. No need to involve taxpayers. The precedent
exists for drivers of goods and public service vehicles.


Anything other than an automatic "Yes" involves extra cost, necessarily
impacting public funds (anf thereby the taxpayer). Perhaps you think
that officer time and official resources don't cost anything.

Government services I use are linked to an address. Apart from
self assessment which requires honesty but nobody dies over an
error of a couple of hundred Pounds.


We still haven't identified a process where interaction between citizen
and the state doesn't rely upon honesty and trust. I did think of the
criminal process, where it is obvious that on many occasions, the
citixen involved in the transaction is not "trusted", but even that
fails the test, because trust has to be placed in witnesses and the
forces of the state.

I'm sorry to hear you never passed your driving test.

It explains a few things though.


As we have established, full driving licences are originally obtained
by passing a test, not by self-assessment. (I passed first time, btw.)


Nevertheless, the applicant is trusted to be telling the truth about his
identity and about not having a prior record under another name (and/or
in another country, which is assuming more importance these days). He is
also trusted about things like epilepsy and other conditions which can,
but most of the time don't, affect the ability to drive safely.

On the other hand, if you only omitted your driving licence
inadvertently then reflect upon the fact that your own fitness might
not be all it was when you passed your test. And that you too will
- if you are lucky - be 70 years old.


Err... reduced fitness is *the* reason why independent opinion should be
taken. Eye tests for over 60's are paid out of general taxation and a
doctor's note costs less than a tank of fuel. What's so difficult?
(Politicians worried about declaring "war on pensioners" perhaps...?)


Let them try.

However, I don't support those that want the elderly to re-take the
driving test. As it stands, I don't believe the test is useful for
experienced drivers.


Having to retake the driving test is the equivalent of an indeterminate
ban from driving. And in the circumstances you cite, it would be for the
"crime" of reaching a certain age without having had the decency to die.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home