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.

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".

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.

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.

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.)

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...?)

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.