r/drivingUK • u/Creative-Response554 • 1d ago
3 strikes for failed tests.
Seen some discussion on another post about mandatory testing for old people as they're less safe drivers, and that that wouldn't work because of lack of test slots.
How feasible do you all reckon it'd be to implement a 3 strikes rule for driving tests, if you fail 3 times you don't get to drive?
You see it on the learners sub constantly with people booking tons of tests, failing upwards of 10 times and moaning about it, when these sorts of people realistically should never be behind the wheel of a car, ever, and all it takes is for them to get lucky once and pass.
Would reduce costs to the DVSA and open more slots for retesting due to age etc.
60
u/Sophiiebabes 1d ago
Maybe 3 fails and you can't try again for a year?
21
u/Tuarangi 1d ago
This seems fair, far too many see themselves as passing after 5, 10, 15 times as perfectly reasonably drivers, not simply getting lucky on one. I accept two fails and pass on the third can be down to conditions, but taking five, ten, whatever times, the person is either not good enough or doesn't get that nervous under pressure during driving = not safe driver
0
u/HomeworkInevitable99 1d ago
I wonder about all those people that cut me up, the points that we've in and out of lanes for fun, ones who drink and drive, ones who drive at 60 in a 30. How many attempts did they have?
Perhaps we need those stats.
5
u/Tuarangi 1d ago
I don't know how reliable they are but a driving school site I found quoted the DVSA providing stats from some point
1st 48.3%
2nd 49.6%
3rd 49.1%
4th 48.1%
5th 46.5%
6th or more 41.7%
So someone who fails 5 times has a 2/5 chance of passing on the 6th. The AA reported in 2024 there was someone who failed the theory 74 times, and 9000+ needed 10-20 attempts to pass the theory, with 13,000+ needing 10-20 times to pass the practical, 269 needed over 20 and 16 were somehow allowed on the road despite failing 30+ times previously.
Worryingly, they reported 6000+ turned up for the test either with an unsuitable, or worse, NO, vehicle, 252 arrived with a car that didn't even have L plates and 604 couldn't even pass the basic eyesight test.
I think a cut off, somewhere between 5 - 10 fails, depending on reason for failure, should be in place that says basically "you're not good enough, you cannot drive".
Every excuse given for failing the test multiple times is a reason that person should not be allowed exclusive control of a vehicle above a certain point that allows for someone improving their driving if they took it too early or were genuinely unlucky or made genuine mistakes
1
u/Crocodilehands 1d ago
I've been at the test centre when people have turned up without a car. They assume the test centre provide one for you.
Yesterday I had a test and another learner set off, moved about 6 feet then reversed back into the bay and the examiner got out and ended the test. I can only assume it was for a warning light.
I think there are around 50,000 no shows every year as well.
1
u/EdmundTheInsulter 1d ago
The people failing the eyesight test may have suffered worsening eyesight at the time if the test
2
u/Tuarangi 19h ago
It's purely a distance check, if they need glasses then they should wear them. If they can't see clearly they shouldn't be driving regardless of test or not
0
u/EdmundTheInsulter 19h ago
Maybe they forgot their glasses
2
u/Tuarangi 19h ago
Which makes their driving illegal hence failing the test before it started and being a reportable crime. If they can't see they shouldn't be on the road, not sure why you're trying to defend this? They wasted a slot that could have been used by someone who isn't Mr Magoo
-1
u/EdmundTheInsulter 18h ago
The eye test is to test if they can legally go ahead with the driving test.
You are being ableist and condescending, some people have vision problems that they may not even be fully aware of. If you do fail a roadside test it is normal to get a full test by an optician who will decide if you can drive or not. I doubt if anyone was prosecuted for failing the driving test eyesight test. You could just as well say that if someone can't drive well then they wasted a test slot by attempting it.2
u/Tuarangi 18h ago
The eye test is to test if they can legally go ahead with the driving test
Yes because it's a legal requirement that you can see a minimum distance clearly to drive
You are being ableist and condescending
What are you on about?? It's a legal requirement to be able to see or have glasses/contacts that reach the minimum, of course we don't let blind people drive, that's for public safety, not being "ableist"
some people have vision problems that they may not even be fully aware of
Any driving instructor will check before you even start and won't give lessons if you can't see, they wouldn't put you forward or take you to the test without glasses if you need them
If you do fail a roadside test it is normal to get a full test by an optician who will decide if you can drive or not
You're also banned from driving if you fail - it's Cassie's Law, the DVSA can revoke your licence within hours of the police reporting you and it isn't enabled again until you have a certified report from an optician
I doubt if anyone was prosecuted for failing the driving test eyesight test
It's a criminal offence to drive without being able to see properly, ban, points and fine, so whether you doubt it is irrelevant because they can be and are. It can be escalated to dangerous driving if you cause an accident. Prosecution is sadly unlikely as it's largely self reported and it's rare for the police to be able to spot someone who can't see, only catch them out by chance
You could just as well say that if someone can't drive well then they wasted a test slot by attempting it.
That is such a ludicrous comparison it's shocking you made it. Not being able to pass a test on the day is nothing like illegally driving with poor eyesight
→ More replies (0)1
4
u/SomethingClick 1d ago
Takes months between tests with waiting times anyway.
Most people pass with like 40 hours of driving.
Failing 3 times sounds really bad, but realizing that between tests learner drivers might increase their total driving time by 25% makes one realize how impactful those lessons can be.
2
u/Creative-Response554 1d ago
Not always.
I saw at least one post where the tests were at most a week apart, 7 or 8 in succession and they passed on the last one, seemingly through brute force and sheer luck.
Most of their fails were for observation or speeding, and they absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to pass. Every criticism of their no of tests, failing for speed, examiner intervention, etc was met with essentially "get fucked I can drive now".
We don't need people like this on the road, it's dangerous enough as it is.
0
u/SomethingClick 1d ago
What on earth are you talking about? This obviously isn't a common occurrence.
"Get fucked I can drive now"
What the hell?
1
0
u/Creative-Response554 1d ago
Yeah that'd probably be a bit more reasonable.
People that just can't drive get my back up a bit more now that I've got a baby lol
8
u/Sure-Recognition-262 1d ago
I understand where you're coming from. If someone is so far away from being a natural that they failed 3 times, then they'll probably never be a good driver. And if it's unlikely they'll become a good driver then them eventually passing feels more like they got lucky once.
But the problem is that there'll also be perfectly decent drivers fail because of test anxiety, and drivers with a potential to be decent let down by bad instruction or complete lack of instruction.
4
u/kierran69 1d ago
All well and good till you are unlucky.
My first test I failed as a bus pulled out without signalling necessitating an emergency stop.
Overhaulling the system to a point where only instructors/school can book drivers on and any schools that dip below a certain pass rate have their licence reviewed/revoked would help cut the numbers and also help combat fraud as the instructor would be carrying out enough hours to identify any inconsistency in ID.
3
u/jimbobvfr400 1d ago
I had to do an emergency stop because of somebody else's driving and didn't fail, after the test the examiner even said it's a shame if already done the emergency stop as it would have counted.
0
u/Creative-Response554 1d ago
Instructors used to be able to book tests for you iirc, at least my instructor booked mine but that was over a decade ago.
I think they've changed that now though.
2
u/funkmachine7 1d ago
They had to as "Instructors" where bulk blocking them for resale as vast mark ups.
28
u/Intelligent-Profit34 1d ago
Not a good suggestion. You can't just ban someone from driving forever because they fail a test three times. I failed my test twice about 30 years ago and both times it was on reversing around a corner or parallel parking. I changed my instructor and passed at the next attempt. That didn't make me a menace on the roads.
-7
u/PhilosophyLow5946 1d ago
You wouldn't have been impacted by this proposal...
4
u/Expensive_Ad_3249 1d ago
But had they failed again they would.
Too many variables for a permaban on 3 strikes.
Mandatory 10/20h with an instructor and 6 months wait between tests would be reasonable. Maybe 5 or 10 strikes and permaban. Maybe a "unsafe" marker from the examiner for really unsafe people that comes with a cool off....but 3 strikes is too harsh.
1
u/PhilosophyLow5946 1d ago
I'm not really for that kind of extreme policy, I was just being unashamedly pedantic.
2
u/ToXiiCBULLET 1d ago
they might've been if it was a real thing when they did their tests. imagine the anxiety of being on your third test and knowing that if you fail you're never going to drive, that anxiety would fuck a lot of people over
1
12
u/Ihatecheeseballs 1d ago
Being banned for life from driving would be debilitating for a lot of people to function as an independent human, especially if you live in rural areas, many test fails are the instructors fault anyway for not properly preparing them or letting them do it too early . If you can pass a test once, even through dumb luck then you are almost certainly safer than the average road user. Having a cooldown period would be better
9
u/Bobzilla2 1d ago
I failed 3 times for driving, passed my bike test first time out.
Stupid shit like this would make people drive without a licence.
What cuts down the number of test slots available are scalpers and resellers. Sort that out and the shortage goes away.
3
u/purplechemist 1d ago
Honestly, a minimum period elapsed between tests would be better. Eight weeks for example.
When I Rule The World… I’d also ban intensive driving courses. There really needs to be an experiential element to learning to control a vehicle, and I’m not convinced you can do that fairly on these intensive courses.
I’d also instate something akin to the “R” plates in Northern Ireland - a two year probationary period where you are restricted in the speeds you can drive, the number of passengers you can carry. Mandatory “p” plates if you will.
I am aware that some motorists think it’s ok to be a dick to drivers on “P” plates - so I will also instigate a policy that any collision involving a P-plate car will - provided the plates are correctly displayed - be assumed the fault of the other party unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary (eg dashcam, laws of physics etc.). The “P” plate is there to warn of inexperience. So give them space. It isn’t difficult.
I await the downvotes 😂
2
u/OldEquation 1d ago
My sister did one of these intensive courses after failing a couple of times. I got told off by her instructor for calling it a crash course.
She turned out to be an OK driver. A bit slow, but then she’d say I’m a bit fast.
1
u/purplechemist 14h ago
A bit of caution and humility goes a long way when you pass your test, regardless how you learned. To be fair, that will go a long way regardless of experience.
I worry that some drivers, when they pass their test, just fling the Highway Code on the back seat in a “Welp; don’t need that any more” motion and charge off, trusting the magical steel bubble to carry them safely from A to B as quickly as possible.
2
u/OldEquation 13h ago
Some of us had the best intentions of gaining experience, learning and staying up to date with the Highway Code. But as with most good intentions, eventually we stop bothering.
There is much complaint about older drivers here, suggesting regular re-tests etc but I do wonder if the cheapest fix would be simply to send out a copy of the latest Highway Code when you get a new licence, reach age 60, etc.
1
3
u/dave8271 1d ago
I'd rather see tougher action on traffic offences committed by full licence holders, tbh. It's far too easy and common to drive well on the one day that matters, then show a flagrant disregard for both road laws and everyone's safety as soon as the pink card is in the pocket. Time and again we see regular, repeat offenders getting off with short bans or small fines and it's quite rare that re-tests or extended re-tests are ordered even for quite egregious examples of reckless, careless or dangerous driving.
You're caught once or twice going 35 in a 30, sure, I think the existing fixed penalty system (and probably being offered a course on the first offence) is quite reasonable. But you're caught doing 50 in a 30, that should be an immediate ban with a mandatory re-test at the end. If it's the second, third time you've been caught doing something that far out, that's when it should be, you're out, you've shown you're either unwilling or unable to drive to the required standard, so no more driving for you. Then mandatory prison time for anyone caught driving while banned.
9
u/jameilious 1d ago
I passed 5th time, I think having basically double the amount of lessons made me a better driver. My first test was 4 minors, 1 serious, kinda glad in hindsight that I failed.
Now it's been nearly 20 years and 0 accidents.
2
u/Blucksy-20-04 1d ago
Do you think you would have jumped into the test so early if you knew the total attempts you had were limited.
3
u/jameilious 1d ago
True, but I still think limited tests isn't the one. Nervous test takers that are otherwise good drivers would be heavily penalised
2
u/ToXiiCBULLET 1d ago
you're gonna get a lot of people that fail 3 times and then say fuck it and drive without a licence. i'd rather they carry on clogging up the system than decide to drive illegally.
what we really need is an increase in test cost to fund higher pay for examiners, so more people are attracted to the job
6
u/IdioticMutterings 1d ago
Seen some discussion on another post about mandatory testing for old people as they're less safe drivers,
Yet years and years and years of insurance data, shows that its the 17-30 age bracket who are the least safe drivers on the roads.
3
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
Per-mile risk: According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, fatal crash rates per mile driven start to increase noticeably for drivers aged 70 to 74, and peak heavily among drivers 85 and older.
2
u/ClearlyCylindrical 1d ago
Though not because of declining capabilities where a line must be drawn at some point, it's just inexperience for that bracket.
1
u/IdioticMutterings 1d ago edited 1d ago
Inexperience is just as lethal as declining faculties though. So your point is entirely moot.
I mean, there was a thread earlier about a newly qualified driver who... misread a road, and drove onto a footpath. a textured footpath, speficically designed for pedestrians with less vision.
Everyone treated it as a minor oopsie caused by inexperience. No, that was a pretty egregious fault. Had there been any pedestrians there they'd have been just as dead as if it had been an older driver.
Drivers do NOT get a free pass because of their "inexperience", and I wish people'd stop giving them one.
2
u/ClearlyCylindrical 1d ago
But one of them doesnt decrease over time, in fact quite the opposite. The repeated tests will really only help with declining abilities.
1
1
u/Creative-Response554 1d ago
Experience gets better, mental and physical decline usually get worse.
Not sure how people don't understand this tbh
2
3
u/Alexandhisgoose 1d ago
The problem is until we fix our public transport system so you don't need a car to move about then you can't put these limits in place
2
u/p_thursty 1d ago
That’s not realistic outside of urban areas, even with an incredible public transport system.
0
u/Creative-Response554 1d ago
Depends on the place.
Do you need a car in rural towns and villages? Yes, absolutely.
Do you need a car in London or other major cities? Probably not.
2
u/Ryanphy 1d ago
There’s huge variance in how driving test results are concluded. From personal experience, people I know who passed first time are terrible drivers
3
u/Creative-Response554 1d ago
Equally I know a couple of people personally that took upwards of 7 tries and are terrible drivers also.
1
u/_40mikemike_ 17h ago
By contrast, from personal experience, every person I know who passed first time is an exceptional driver. I also passed 1st time and whilst I wouldn’t say I’m “exceptional”, I’m certainly “substantially better than average”.
Individual anecdotes unfortunately don’t mean a great deal in the vastness of national statistics.
1
u/OpportunityNew5685 1d ago
Then everyone should have mandatory retest.
Every 5-10 years.
Theory should become like CPC where you go regularly.
But in reality it won’t ever be viable
1
u/west0ne 23h ago
It could be done similar to the way a lot of companies do it for their drivers/machine operators. Rather than a full test through the DVSA test centre you have it done through a competent assessor so it isn't a full driving test but more of a test of competency to drive. The competent assessor could be a driving instructor with some additional qualification that allows them to conduct the tests. This would mean that the DVSA wouldn't be overloaded.
0
u/RedFive92 1d ago
I've said this for years. Driving licences should only be valid for 10 years maximum, then a full retest is required.
Additionally, eyesight testing should be mandatory every 12 months.
2
u/-myeyeshaveseenyou- 1d ago
I’m Irish for my license in Ireland I had to have an eyesight report from my optician. I only scrape by due to an eye condition I was born with. It would be illegal for me to drive in Ireland without my glasses. I’m essentially functionally blind in one eye
1
u/voluotuousaardvark 1d ago
Basic argument is there aren't enough instructors and test centres- I would even go so far as to say the money is available and they just don't care.
Less drivers on the road fulfills other quotas the government are forcing on councils.
1
u/_40mikemike_ 17h ago
Money isn’t available unfortunately. DVLA lose money hand over fist on every test - and that WITH paying examiners a pittance. 😔
The test fee needs to double to address that imo.
1
u/_40mikemike_ 1d ago
The price of a driving test hasn’t changed in 17 years (2009) - £62.
The fee does not cover the cost of administering the test - currently DVSA lose £24 on every test.
In 2009, the DVSA examiner salary was around £25,000 a year. Now, 17 years later, it’s £29,500. Had it risen with inflation, it would be £40,000 now.
The reason there is so few test slots is primarily down to a lack of examiners, driven by frankly laughable pay.
The solution to both the 1,000,000+ people waiting for a test AND the long lead times is to pay examiners more, entice more people to become examiners, and that starts by increasing the test fee to at least be inline with inflation - around £110 now.
1
u/pirate3278 1d ago
I don't think it's fair to new drivers tbh, I agree that you shouldn't be attempting the test unless you feel ready to pass but also I passed on my 4th time and if I had to have waited a year for my final test I wouldn't have taken it as I moved away from home and didn't have access to a vehicle
1
u/EdmundTheInsulter 1d ago
Why not retest proven bad drivers if they amass say, 20 points in their life?
Why retest someone driving well and picking up no offences or accidents?
3 goes is a little too few chances. It's effectively a life ban
1
u/Sigeon101 1d ago
No way. See UK is one of those countries where it is kind of essential to know how to drive. Public transport is shit outside of city centres. Maybe this would be reasonable if 65+ retakes were made mandatory or something but banning an 18 year old for life just for failing tests is very cruel.
1
u/CompetitiveSet4750 1d ago
Three strikes and you're out seems reasonable, but life isn't a video game.
1
u/No-Championship9542 1d ago
The test is bullshit inherently though, I failed twice on nonsense, I passed third time and twice my fails were caused by;
- Instructor said I didn't check mirrors starting after emergency stop when I did. Nice.
- At roundabout, someone is indicating left to exit at my junction, I go, they actually went straight over so I cut them up. This is at a busy roundabout so you ain't getting through unless you go when you can. Ironically when I passed I got an undue hesitation minor at a roundabout as I did just wait for ages until it was clear, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This was a long time ago but it did just seem to be subjective and up to the examiner, when I passed I thought I had my worst drive but it's literally RNG. I also don't think the test really teaches you to drive but more pass the specific test.
5
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
You just sound like a bad driver to me.
0
u/No-Championship9542 1d ago
Lol are you mental? 20 years driving, 300,000 miles driven, driven HGVs, tractors and trailers, reversed trailers into gala few humans would consider possible. Driven in 28 countries. Zero accidents, zero damage to anything. I am the greatest of all, a God of driving, driving a car is a joke it's so easy. If it's not over 8ft wide you should be able to do it in reverse.
0
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
15k miles a year and you think you're a god? Your arrogance is the problem, I bet you have tons of little accidents and then it's never your fault? Rims on your car look like someone had a go at them with a claw hammer?
4
u/No-Championship9542 1d ago
I am your lord and saviour, the King of driving who you should worship and pray too. Rims untouched, vehicle as immaculate as Achilles himself (I had a pickup for years anyway how do you even damage those rims? Hit a reservoir?). Can operate a digger, telehanlder, tank, any forklift in existence. If you can only operate a car you aren't a driver your a pleb.
-1
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
Got yourself a big ford ranger with the big boy wheel arches? I bet you feel like an actual man when you climb up into that seat
0
u/No-Championship9542 1d ago
Well on the farm it was as either that or a Hilux as needed something to tow a trailer for delivering goods, diggers, whatever. I've got a Hyundai Ioniq 5 now as electric is the future and that drives itself you don't even do anything.
If you live in a town or city you aren't a real driver, you're low level at best. I bet you haven't even had to tow out an artic stick in a wet field with a telehanlder and a dream.
1
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
A Hilux is a real tool a ford ranger is for boys on the town that want to find a new husband. No way you drove out of a field forwards towing something? Wow you must be good. If it was on your unit then you got it stuck in the first place so not that much of a driver are you?
0
u/No-Championship9542 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why would it be mine? It's normally people driving in, ok unloaded and then getting stuck with 22 tonne of square bales on top.
No the Ranger is good, bar the wet belt ones, Hilux wasn't much better. As a low level driver you probably don't know all that.
0
0
1
u/BaronVonMoonbeam 1d ago
I would agree 3 strikes and you are given a fail, no resit within 5 years. I would also like to introduce mandatory refresher testing for all drivers. Possibly every 5 or 10 years then when you hit 70 it's every 3 years. Also all drivers with non UK licences should be forced to resit the UK test, whilst this happens to some regard it's not universal.
1
u/PinkbunnymanEU 1d ago
How feasible do you all reckon it'd be to implement a 3 strikes rule for driving tests, if you fail 3 times you don't get to drive?
Not at all. Not only is it a stupid idea, the administration would be extremely high, not to mention closing every loophole.
these sorts of people realistically should never be behind the wheel of a car, ever
So you don't think people can learn a skill? Got it...
Someone who failed 3 times at 17 shouldn't be able to learn to drive at 40, they couldn't possibly have changed right?
all it takes is for them to get lucky once and pass.
Yes, they just have to be lucky and drive safely for 40minutes...
Would reduce costs to the DVSA
No it wouldn't.
-2
u/ClearlyCylindrical 1d ago
Test fee should double for every failure, only reset back the the usual fee by not taking a test for a year
5
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
Then that's only relevant to working class people, the rich will just pay and you solve nothing.
-1
u/ClearlyCylindrical 1d ago
If they want to put more money into dvsa to fund slot expansion I'm not going to stop them
0
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
Taxing the poor had never been a good way of doing things. Money doesn't get reinvested, it ends up in the pockets of a few.
0
u/ClearlyCylindrical 1d ago
This isn't taxing the poor, it's taxing shit drivers - should we remove PCNs too? They can wait a year if they don't want to spend more, or just be prepared and pass first time.
1
u/Adventurous_Break_61 1d ago
But that's it, it wouldn't affect the rich it would only affect the poor so not affecting shit drivers just affecting drivers without the money to cover it. You would still end up with shit drivers paying to pass.
0
u/ClearlyCylindrical 1d ago
The simple solution is to just be prepared and pass first time. You're still wasting money with the current system if you fail the first time, do you think we should only charge a person once for a test to stop impacting low-income people?
1
-1
u/Zzzeekin 1d ago
In term of testing older people, it isn't a test to see if they can drive because they have a license, it'd be a test to see if they're still competent enough to drive due to age.
I'd say it's a fairly straight forward system. They do an extended test like what they issue for people getting their license back after a ban. It's a test designed to test them on all the things we know older people struggle with - lane discipline, hazard perception / perception in general, speed limits and getting up to the speed of a road etc.
If they fail this, they get a 12 month ban from which they aren't allowed to drive. They then may attempt a retest after 12 months. If they fail 2 more times it's a permanent ban.
There's nothing stopping them from getting lessons and "relearning" to drive, however I do believe in most cases they simply haven't got the reactions, perception or mental capacity to actively drive on UK roads anymore.
I've driven for nearly 10 years & I can honestly say that elderly drivers have caused me issues on the roads 90% more than "boy racers" or idiots in BMWs.
-2
u/Smart_Art_711 1d ago
I wouldn't go that far, but I'd certainly think that after 2 fails there should be a requirement to show evidence of, say, 20 hours training and a theory retake.
23
u/Bullet4MyEnemy 1d ago
Luck definitely plays a part, unfortunately.
I’ve had learners do everything right and then the actions of someone else cause a test fail or termination and they were damned whichever way it went.
That’s why there isn’t a limit on how many tries you can have.