Should drivers face psychometric tests every 5 years?

[Hunter]

Was reading the thread about the elderly couple dying as a result of a 'drag-race' and I raised the issue of psych tests for drivers - I firmly believe that every driver should face psychometric tests every 5 years - perhaps it would weed out the drivers who are flippant towards driving. I mean if you want to become a policeman you need to pass a psych test, if you want to be in the army you need to pass a test - it seems that they take their lethal weapons seriously so why not the transport dept? Pilots aren't allowed near their aircraft without a full medical and I believe in some cases a psych test (there's been rare cases of pilots going crazy and crashing planes deliberately).

I know I can be a slightly aggressive driver (mostly yelling out the window when some moron just about wipes me out or does something dumb) but I've seen drivers speeding without any regard for conditions or whether or not its appropriate to speed. The number of drivers who speed through Brisbane CBD astound me, even at the speed limit it is not safe due to the Dumb Pedestrian Factor.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[Simmo]

im in agreeance. perhaps they could finally work out which P platers are just in it for the skids and boot them off the road. there are some nutcases thought. my friend merged in front of a VR ute, heaps of room, plenty of indicating, nothing rude or mean about it. then we get this jerkoff tailing us and screaming at us for about 5-7kms that 'you should have never cut me off you c**ts! i'll kill youse c**ts!" with a seriously crazy or cracked out look in his eyes.

[Kryton]

waste of time.
not having a little plastic card doesn't physically stop you from driving a car does it.
there would also be more unlicensed drivers on the road without insurance.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by davway

waste of time.
not having a little plastic card doesn't physically stop you from driving a car does it.
there would also be more unlicensed drivers on the road without insurance.

So ok then increase the penalties for unlicensed and uninsured driving - even if there is no accident anyone found committing such an offense should not be given a slap on the wrist like they are now.

Something like

1st offence - $50,000 fine and community service (e.g to road accident victims)

2nd offence - $100,000 fine and probationary period of 5 years, if caught driving in this period they go to jail for 3 months

3rd offence - $150,000 fine and mandatory jail sentence of 6 months.

4th offence - 1 year jail

After all that I'm sure nobody would be dumb enough to keep trying to drive.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by Hunter

So ok then increase the penalties for unlicensed and uninsured driving - even if there is no accident anyone found committing such an offense should not be given a slap on the wrist like they are now.

increase the penalties.......that makes a big difference to the person they have just killed doesn't it.
id rather see people lose their license because they have done wrong, not because of their personality.
what your suggesting is blatant discrimination.
yes, employers such as the police and airline have an EXEMPTION to discriminate against certain types of people.
you don't give a loony a gun or a jumbo jet.
maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Was reading the thread about the elderly couple dying as a result of a 'drag-race' and I raised the issue of psych tests for drivers - I firmly believe that every driver should face psychometric tests every 5 years - perhaps it would weed out the drivers who are flippant towards driving. I mean if you want to become a policeman you need to pass a psych test, if you want to be in the army you need to pass a test - it seems that they take their lethal weapons seriously so why not the transport dept? Pilots aren't allowed near their aircraft without a full medical and I believe in some cases a psych test (there's been rare cases of pilots going crazy and crashing planes deliberately).

I know I can be a slightly aggressive driver (mostly yelling out the window when some moron just about wipes me out or does something dumb) but I've seen drivers speeding without any regard for conditions or whether or not its appropriate to speed. The number of drivers who speed through Brisbane CBD astound me, even at the speed limit it is not safe due to the Dumb Pedestrian Factor.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

1) A pilot's medical has absolutely no psycological components although some "company medicals" do. I have held a class 1 (commercial) medial for many many years.
2) The only people who could do a psychological assessment are specialist doctors and there are no where near enough of them to do 1% of the population.
3) How would you feel if on the day of your assessment you had a cold, your girlfriend left you, your dog died and some dropkick in a doof doof ran into your car in the carpark causing $zillions of damage and ran away then the nice little "hitler" psychologist sat you down and started to ask you questions designed to see if you burr up? Well you would feel sore legs as you walked home unlicenced.......

Danger Will Robinson, Danger.............

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by davway

increase the penalties.......that makes a big difference to the person they have just killed doesn't it.

I said those penalties should be applied if they are caught driving unlicensed, not if they have already killed someone - there are already penalties in place for such offenses and yes they do include jail time/convictions.

id rather see people lose their license because they have done wrong, not because of their personality.
what your suggesting is blatant discrimination.
yes, employers such as the police and airline have an EXEMPTION to discriminate against certain types of people.
you don't give a loony a gun or a jumbo jet.
maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

You do realise that there are already 'discriminatory' policies in place that stop people driving? If your vision is poor you aren't allowed to drive, if you have a medical condition such as certain types of epilepsy you cannot drive. If you have a known, preexisting medical condition that could affect your ability to drive/control a vehicle, they will not give you a license.

I'd rather not have a blind person trying to drive the same as I would rather not have someone with an undiagnosed or untreated mental health issue trying to drive either.

The test I propose is not about personality as such; rather it is about attitude. If a person turns out to be a sociopath or has some other disorder they should NOT be allowed to drive. No ifs or buts. If they then decide that the law does not apply to them and drive without a license, they will be brought to justice and hopefully learn that the law is to be respected.

If they drive unlicensed and kill someone, then they will also be brought to justice.

Originally Posted by flappist

1) A pilot's medical has absolutely no psycological components although some "company medicals" do. I have held a class 1 (commercial) medial for many many years.

Ok that may be for the license but don't the airlines themselves hold such tests? There's been more than one documented case of a pilot committing suicide by crashing a plane.

2) The only people who could do a psychological assessment are specialist doctors and there are no where near enough of them to do 1% of the population.

Plenty of high paying jobs require full medicals and psych tests... very common in the corporate world.

3) How would you feel if on the day of your assessment you had a cold, your girlfriend left you, your dog died and some dropkick in a doof doof ran into your car in the carpark causing $zillions of damage and ran away then the nice little "hitler" psychologist sat you down and started to ask you questions designed to see if you burr up? Well you would feel sore legs as you walked home unlicenced.......

Someone in that frame of mind should not be driving anyway. If you are in a bad mood and cause a fatal accident that is no excuse - you chose to drive and therefore you are responsible for the consequences.

The test would not be fixed on a particular day - like your rego they would give you time to organise a day for the test and if you failed the first test you are offered a retest a few weeks later (and yes it would be a different, randomised test).

[merlin]

What is the test designed to do? See who speeds? Something like 90 odd percent of drivers have admitted to speeding at one time or another in several studies - you would be effectively banning the majority of the population. If it is agression you are testing well it gets very complicated - its hardly an exact science.

It would start with driving, then move to dog ownership, house ownership ect ect. Too big brother for my liking.

The current enforcement of rules/laws in society by a police force works (in a broad sense).

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I said those penalties should be applied if they are caught driving unlicensed, not if they have already killed someone - there are already penalties in place for such offenses and yes they do include jail time/convictions.


You do realise that there are already 'discriminatory' policies in place that stop people driving? If your vision is poor you aren't allowed to drive, if you have a medical condition such as certain types of epilepsy you cannot drive. If you have a known, preexisting medical condition that could affect your ability to drive/control a vehicle, they will not give you a license.

I'd rather not have a blind person trying to drive the same as I would rather not have someone with an undiagnosed or untreated mental health issue trying to drive either.

The test I propose is not about personality as such; rather it is about attitude. If a person turns out to be a sociopath or has some other disorder they should NOT be allowed to drive. No ifs or buts. If they then decide that the law does not apply to them and drive without a license, they will be brought to justice and hopefully learn that the law is to be respected.

If they drive unlicensed and kill someone, then they will also be brought to justice.

Ok that may be for the license but don't the airlines themselves hold such tests? There's been more than one documented case of a pilot committing suicide by crashing a plane.

Plenty of high paying jobs require full medicals and psych tests... very common in the corporate world.

Someone in that frame of mind should not be driving anyway. If you are in a bad mood and cause a fatal accident that is no excuse - you chose to drive and therefore you are responsible for the consequences.

The test would not be fixed on a particular day - like your rego they would give you time to organise a day for the test and if you failed the first test you are offered a retest a few weeks later (and yes it would be a different, randomised test).

So what would be a pschological condition that would make you an unsafe driver?
You like E series, probably. You think the AU is not ugly, definitely. You want a car that is capable of accellerating and potentially exceeding the speed limit, slam dunk you are walking.

You cannot solve the problems of the world this way. This is the path of the social engineers with such noted luminaries as Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler, Stalin etc.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by flappist

So what would be a pschological condition that would make you an unsafe driver?

Untreated mental conditions such as schizophrenia? How many individuals without proper treatment have gone on to kill people, even their own families due to hearing 'voices' which told them to do it?

What about persons with bi-polar disorder? When they are in the mania phase of the illness they can and do behave in expected and irresponsible ways:

Mania is generally characterized by a distinct period of an elevated, expansive or irritable mood state. People commonly experience an increase in energy and a decreased need for sleep. A person's speech may be pressured, with thoughts experienced as racing. Attention span is low and a person in a manic state may be easily distracted. People may feel they have been 'chosen', or are 'on a special mission', which are considered grandiose or delusional ideas. At more extreme phases, a person in a manic state can begin to experience psychosis, or a break with reality, where thinking is affected along with mood. In order to be diagnosed with mania according to DSM-IV, a person must experience this state of elevated or irritable mood as well as other symptoms for two or more weeks.

I'm no psychiatrist but there are plenty of mental conditions which, if not treated, could prevent a person from being able to drive properly/responsibly. Its not uncommon for someone to suffer from a mental health issue and either not be diagnosed or not treated properly. An ex-girlfriend of mine was bi-polar and a relative of my partner suffers from it currently and there's been times when she should not have driven and has done all sorts of crazy, dangerous and reckless things.

You cannot solve the problems of the world this way. This is the path of the social engineers with such noted luminaries as Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler, Stalin etc.

I don't think the actions of dictators who were responsible for the deaths of millions are a valid comparison. We already apply such principles in many places why not do so when handing out permits to move about in 1-2 tonne lethal weapons capable of killing several people in one foul swoop? Driving is not a right its a privilege and if people don't want to or can't drive in a sensible manner there is a moral obligation to other road and footpath users to prevent such persons from driving.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Untreated mental conditions such as schizophrenia? How many individuals without proper treatment have gone on to kill people, even their own families due to hearing 'voices' which told them to do it?

What about persons with bi-polar disorder? When they are in the mania phase of the illness they can and do behave in expected and irresponsible ways:


I'm no psychiatrist but there are plenty of mental conditions which, if not treated, could prevent a person from being able to drive properly/responsibly. Its not uncommon for someone to suffer from a mental health issue and either not be diagnosed or not treated properly. An ex-girlfriend of mine was bi-polar and a relative of my partner suffers from it currently and there's been times when she should not have driven and has done all sorts of crazy, dangerous and reckless things.

I don't think the actions of dictators who were responsible for the deaths of millions are a valid comparison. We already apply such principles in many places why not do so when handing out permits to move about in 1-2 tonne lethal weapons capable of killing several people in one foul swoop? Driving is not a right its a privilege and if people don't want to or can't drive in a sensible manner there is a moral obligation to other road and footpath users to prevent such persons from driving.

How about paranoia that there are too many crazy people driving and they should be hunted down and removed?

How do you feel about other drivers on the road?
Do you seem to see most of the bad things and few of the good things?
Do you think that some of the other drivers are crazy and a threat to you?
Do you feel you have to save the world by solving this problem?
How does it make you feel when forum members think you are just a bit paranoid?
Do you get angry and attack them personally?

Hand your licence in at the first convenient time please....

Do you see the danger in this now?

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by flappist

How about paranoia that there are too many crazy people driving and they should be hunted down and removed?

Who's paranoid? Its obvious that the two guys in the Commodores that wiped out that elderly couple should not be driving - they either aren't mature enough or have the wrong attitude towards driving. They may or may not be crazy seeing as they felt it was ok to treat a public road as their raceway its obvious had an attitude problem and were in dire need of a correction.

How do you feel about other drivers on the road?

I treat every driver the same - deaf, dumb and blind. I don't expect them to know what they're doing and ensure I drive carefully enough to deal with the unexpected nature of the road. My partner and I were nearly involved a serious and probably fatal accident the other night when some stupid old bat failed her legal obligation to permit me to merge and even sped up at the last second so I couldn't. I had two options the other night: Drive into a concrete barrier or bring my vehicle to a sudden halt. I chose to stop as safely as possible given the situation. I still, in my mind, remember seeing the woman just staring straight ahead the entire time we were trying to enter traffic - she had no idea and when I gave her a big blast of my horn she looked up and looked like she had just woken up from an afternoon nap. :

Do you seem to see most of the bad things and few of the good things?

What kind of loaded question is this?

Do you think that some of the other drivers are crazy and a threat to you?

A threat? More like a road hazard. I shouldn't have to drive around having to anticipate being killed in an illegal drag race but apparently its a possibility...

Do you feel you have to save the world by solving this problem?

I think you fail to understand just what such a measure would be intended to achieve, which is to get irresponsible and immature idiots off the road. Its impossible to prevent every collision but we can remove most if not all hoons/idiots from the roads.

How does it make you feel when forum members think you are just a bit paranoid?

Do you get angry and attack them personally?

What has this got to do with my attitude (or others for that matter) toward driving?

Do you see the danger in this now?

I can see a power hungry politician abusing any system really...

[King Nothing]

The problem with an idea like this is enforcement/practicalities. How do you test everybody? As said above, there is no way there is enough qualified people to do the job, so it would have to fall onto unqualified RTA staff with their own personal biases/discriminations who are given a pack of standard questions, what a standard answer might be and what that answer means. This introduces a hell of a lot of grey area. And grey area is not something you want to give an to an RTA employee with a bad attitude.

Heres an example: My girlfriend is originally from Scotland. She had a couple of issues with ID for obtaining a licence.

She was on her deceased mothers expired passport, not her own. She had a copy of her birth certificate, and couldnt get an original. She had bank statements, and brough both the original and a copy of her certificate of citizenship. Even her 18+ card issued by the RTA.

We rang before she went for the L's to check if this was ok, and was told it would be. Got to the RTA and was served by this absolute cow of a woman who refused to accept what we had. We tried another RTA, no problems. There was no consistancy. You see my point?

I think that whilst the idea in principle might be ok, the practicalities of actual testing, and where the line is drawn as to who is fit and who is not, is too great an issue. Frankly I think the money would be far better spent putting more police patrols on the road (and not by the side of the road targeting people doing 5-10 km/hr over)

[Rodp]

Sorry, don't see how a psychometric test is going to determine whether someone will be capable of driving sensibly.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Who's paranoid? Its obvious that the two guys in the Commodores that wiped out that elderly couple should not be driving - they either aren't mature enough or have the wrong attitude towards driving. They may or may not be crazy seeing as they felt it was ok to treat a public road as their raceway its obvious had an attitude problem and were in dire need of a correction.

I treat every driver the same - deaf, dumb and blind. I don't expect them to know what they're doing and ensure I drive carefully enough to deal with the unexpected nature of the road. My partner and I were nearly involved a serious and probably fatal accident the other night when some stupid old bat failed her legal obligation to permit me to merge and even sped up at the last second so I couldn't. I had two options the other night: Drive into a concrete barrier or bring my vehicle to a sudden halt. I chose to stop as safely as possible given the situation. I still, in my mind, remember seeing the woman just staring straight ahead the entire time we were trying to enter traffic - she had no idea and when I gave her a big blast of my horn she looked up and looked like she had just woken up from an afternoon nap. :

What kind of loaded question is this?

A threat? More like a road hazard. I shouldn't have to drive around having to anticipate being killed in an illegal drag race but apparently its a possibility...
I think you fail to understand just what such a measure would be intended to achieve, which is to get irresponsible and immature idiots off the road. Its impossible to prevent every collision but we can remove most if not all hoons/idiots from the roads.

What has this got to do with my attitude (or others for that matter) toward driving?

I can see a power hungry politician abusing any system really...

What sort of questions are these?

THEY ARE THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS ASKED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS/PSYCHIATRISTS.

The mere fact that you did not recognise this implies you have no idea about these processes at all.
You took it personally and reacted accordingly. What does your attitude have to driving ability? Well that is the scariest thing you have said so far.

Think about it.......

DANGER Will Robinson, DANGER.

Now if you still don't get this then it is pointless going on. I am trying to show you how your idea can and probably WILL be perverted by agenda.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by flappist

What sort of questions are these?

THEY ARE THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS ASKED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS/PSYCHIATRISTS.

The mere fact that you did not recognise this implies you have no idea about these processes at all.
You took it personally and reacted accordingly. What does your attitude have to driving ability? Well that is the scariest thing you have said so far.

Think about it.......

DANGER Will Robinson, DANGER.

Now if you still don't get this then it is pointless going on. I am trying to show you how your idea can and probably WILL be perverted by agenda.

Well in all the tests I've taken they've never asked questions such as that. Its generally fairly obvious to see what they're trying to ask.

People behave differently on the internet and a big internet keyboard warrior in actuality may be some Camry driving cardie-wearing fuddy. And actually no I didn't take it personally, I was just responding to your post. But I'm not the one typing in caps and being condescending.

[merlin]

"Your not getting a gun until you tell me your name!"

[sexr6tasy]

I suffer from schizophrenia i take no medication for it because i only have it mild i dont hear voices except the ones saying to me your an idiot lmao, ive never tried to kill anybody guess i should hand my license in now since im such a big danger to everybody seriously hunter get a clue.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by sexr6tasy

I suffer from schizophrenia i take no medication for it because i only have it mild i dont hear voices except the ones saying to me your an idiot lmao, ive never tried to kill anybody guess i should hand my license in now since im such a big danger to everybody seriously hunter get a clue.

Mate no offence but you're only one person. Its good that you're doing ok. But an example, some diabetics have no problems living a perfectly normal life at all... others have serious problems maintaining their blood sugar levels. Does that mean that the guy with mild diabetes which is under control shouldn't drive? No, of course not. Does it mean the guy with difficult and uncontrolled diabetes should drive without anyone giving him a second thought? No way! You might be ok, that's great for you but what of the people who have much much worse levels of problems?

I'm not suggesting they look at your mental health history and go "oh gee sorry you can't drive, you had x once upon a time". I'm suggesting they test people's attitudes towards driving and also looking closely the driver itself. Clearly most motor vehicle accidents are the result of human error. Mechanically speaking we're able to predict and at least ensure unroadworthy hunks aren't allowed on the road but what have we done to prevent people with poor driving abilities/attitudes from driving?

It is incredibly easy to get a license, far easier than it should be.

[MeLLy]

Originally Posted by davway

increase the penalties.......that makes a big difference to the person they have just killed doesn't it.
id rather see people lose their license because they have done wrong, not because of their personality.
what your suggesting is blatant discrimination.
yes, employers such as the police and airline have an EXEMPTION to discriminate against certain types of people.
you don't give a loony a gun or a jumbo jet.
maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

So you would rather give a loony a car instead? A potentially deadly weapon to plow into someone or drive like a retard and cause accidents?

I'm in agreeance to, maybe they also need to make compulsary drivers ed courses every few years or so, and that will evaulate who can drive and who has addapted their own driving style which involves driving like an idiot and causing accidents in their wake.There is potential in what has been suggested, maybe not a pysh test exactly but some sort of test which finds out who is taking advantage of our roads and who is not.It would worm out all the old ppl who are driving 10 below the limit and who cant see a car 10 ft in front of them and they pull out in front of someone.Also i've noticed lately that when you let someone in, they dont give u a thank you wave anymore? Wheres the driver ediket gone?....Its plain rude, everyone out there is a bunch of A**H**** & a test that tells them so is better than having someone behind them for 5 kms yelling & screaming it at them isnt it?
Idiots think about the impact.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Well in all the tests I've taken they've never asked questions such as that. Its generally fairly obvious to see what they're trying to ask.

People behave differently on the internet and a big internet keyboard warrior in actuality may be some Camry driving cardie-wearing fuddy. And actually no I didn't take it personally, I was just responding to your post. But I'm not the one typing in caps and being condescending.

Or maybe even an EF Falcon driving, backward cap wearing city-boy mutant but then that might be concidered condescending too wouldn't it?

Fortunately your idea will never be implemented because basicly everyone who drives, votes and as this test would effect everyone, not just "others" such as the old/young/hoons/not hoons/4wd/whatever minoroty no government will risk it.

Why do you think drivers licences are never re-tested?

[Hunter]

Fortunately your idea will never be implemented because basicly everyone who drives, votes and as this test would effect everyone, not just "others" such as the old/young/hoons/not hoons/4wd/whatever minoroty no government will risk it.

Fortunately? So what is it that you suggest they do about the fact that there is a not-insignificant number of drivers who believe they don't have to obey any road rules at all and can drive however they feel whenever they feel?

We already have plenty of legislation which regulates the design of vehicles in Australia to prevent mechanical failure/unsafe vehicles but what of the drivers? Nowadays in QLD young people need 1 years on their L plates, two levels of P plates and after a HPT and a smack on the they're given a full license and never tested again in their life.

When I took my practical test the examiner was fixated on reverse parks, yet strangely we never took the vehicle on a highway or did anything else which most of us would consider an essential part of a driving test. For all he knew I might never have even seen a highway in my life let alone driven on one! I've been driving for nearly 10 years and under current legislation I will never be tested again.

Why do you think drivers licences are never re-tested?

Because most of them are so bad and don't know the rules. The failure rates would be enormous. Do you think even half the drivers in this state know even half the rules? How many of them even know what the law is regarding merging? You know why traffic slows up around merges in Brisbane? Because nobody observes the proper merging rules nor do they bother to match their speed with the traffic around them.

What about the old people who drive their car through a shop front after mistaking the brake and accelerator? Why are they still allowed to drive? Why are they not tested more often? Why are they not given attitude/aptitude tests? So many old farts keep driving because they don't want to give up their freedom but bugger anyone else that might die because they had a heart attack at the wheel...

Anyway, flappist, I can see your point about how governments and other bodies can abuse such types of testing but the reality is that we haven't done enough to eliminate human error from the motoring equation. Be it falling asleep at the wheel due to fatigue, be it drink driving (it seems older QLDers have a very poor attitude towards drink driving given the numbers of people they pick up every time an RBT blitz is on), speeding or not wearing a seatbelt.

Why is it that the airforce employs extremely stringent testing when recruiting future pilots? There's a reason they don't just let any old recruit behind the controls of an expensive fighter or bomber and funnily enough they use psychometric tests to help determine who gets to play with the big expensive toys that have big expensive bombs/missiles on them.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Fortunately? So what is it that you suggest they do about the fact that there is a not-insignificant number of drivers who believe they don't have to obey any road rules at all and can drive however they feel whenever they feel?

We already have plenty of legislation which regulates the design of vehicles in Australia to prevent mechanical failure/unsafe vehicles but what of the drivers? Nowadays in QLD young people need 1 years on their L plates, two levels of P plates and after a HPT and a smack on the they're given a full license and never tested again in their life.

When I took my practical test the examiner was fixated on reverse parks, yet strangely we never took the vehicle on a highway or did anything else which most of us would consider an essential part of a driving test. For all he knew I might never have even seen a highway in my life let alone driven on one! I've been driving for nearly 10 years and under current legislation I will never be tested again.

Because most of them are so bad and don't know the rules. The failure rates would be enormous. Do you think even half the drivers in this state know even half the rules? How many of them even know what the law is regarding merging? You know why traffic slows up around merges in Brisbane? Because nobody observes the proper merging rules nor do they bother to match their speed with the traffic around them.

What about the old people who drive their car through a shop front after mistaking the brake and accelerator? Why are they still allowed to drive? Why are they not tested more often? Why are they not given attitude/aptitude tests? So many old farts keep driving because they don't want to give up their freedom but bugger anyone else that might die because they had a heart attack at the wheel...

Anyway, flappist, I can see your point about how governments and other bodies can abuse such types of testing but the reality is that we haven't done enough to eliminate human error from the motoring equation. Be it falling asleep at the wheel due to fatigue, be it drink driving (it seems older QLDers have a very poor attitude towards drink driving given the numbers of people they pick up every time an RBT blitz is on), speeding or not wearing a seatbelt.

Why is it that the airforce employs extremely stringent testing when recruiting future pilots? There's a reason they don't just let any old recruit behind the controls of an expensive fighter or bomber and funnily enough they use psychometric tests to help determine who gets to play with the big expensive toys that have big expensive bombs/missiles on them.

The part about the new L/P got through because it only effects a small group, whom the majority (old people) think are dangerous anyway. Divide and conquor is the historicly favoured method for the bastards to push agenda.

Remember that military pilots fly high performence equipment into situations where others are trying to kill them while trying their best to kill or maim people they are told are "bad guys".
This take a specific mindset which is why they are chosen they way.

You don't want the pilot of a bomber to concider who might get hurt when he attacks a target, you just want it destroyed.
This is not necessarily a bad thing because without them we could be in a lot of trouble.

On the other hand, "finish the mission regardless of any problems, keep going, don't stop, ignore fatigue, ignore mechanical problems, ignore or kill anyone trying to stop you" is probably not a good mindset in a car during peak hour in the city

[King Nothing]

As good or bad as an idea it might be, it will NEVER be implemented. It would affect too many people. It doesnt matter if it gets lunatics off the road, there would be a lot of unhappy drivers who either

a) have to pay for a test every 5 years (and they would have to pay!)
or
b) lose their licence

Irregardless of how right or wrong their feelings are, they all vote! The political party who introduces a law like this would never survive the next election and the fallout would spill into federal elections.

Does any other country in the world have laws like that? Thats a serious question, I honestly dont know. I imagine that there isnt though.

[Outbackjack]

I am 100% in favour of mandatory phsyc tests for all road users. I have said this many times on this forum. Until you have sat down and done a professionally administered phsyc test, you cannot have anything other than a mis-informed opinion about them. They would not weed out all the idiots, but they would go close. I have to do a 4 to 5 hour phsyc test every 5 years..... I do know what I am talking about.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by MeLLy

So you would rather give a loony a car instead? A potentially deadly weapon to plow into someone or drive like a retard and cause accidents?

oh, you mean P platers. (statistics speak very loudly)
easy fixed. no one can drive till they turn 22 and learn responsibility.
should go alone nicely with the wayward thinking of this thread.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by davway

oh, you mean P platers. (statistics speak very loudly)
easy fixed. no one can drive till they turn 22 and learn responsibility.
should go alone nicely with the wayward thinking of this thread.

Some people never learn mate - we went up Mt Nebo the other day and some psychotic middle aged forestry worker in his Mazda ute rode my a*se the entire way down the mountain, sitting literally inches from my rear. I eventually pulled into a gravel siding and let the nutcase pass me because I was concerned he might tap me accidentally and send us flying down the mountain :

People like him should not be driving when they clearly don't have any regard for the safety of others.

[colossus]

Far out - I think some of you would be happier living in Nazi Germany! Lets take a step back here...we are talking about a C class drivers licence not a FA/18 Hornet fighter jet or some sort of Mechwarrior armoured combat machine that has the capability to shoot nuclear missiles out of its nose whilst simultaneously electronicly jamming the east coast of America.

People can take responsibility for their own lives and I am sure most of us can drive a car. Put it in D and away you go. Stop wrapping the world in cotton wool and let people be people.

I don't know anyone with a mental illness but I am offended at the notion you want to ban them simply because of a "label".

[Full Noise]

The thing that I find amusing in this whole theory is that many of the worst drivers out there would most likely pass a psychological exam.

Most accidents out there are either caused by ignorance / blatant stupidity or by arrogance leading others into frustration.

You only have to watch shows like Last Chance Learners to realise that the licensing system doesn’t work, so why would a psychological test work?

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by davway

maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

I actually take offense to that being a red head myself and I dont get hot headed when i'm driving I've got friends that have black hair etc that you'd think are on the verge of a Road Rage incident over pathetic little incidents!
Maybe you should think before you type, your discrimination is pathetic!