Should drivers face psychometric tests every 5 years?

[Full Noise]

Bloody hell, I think davway was using it as a tongue in cheek example.

Lets’ just change red heads to ( insert racial group you don’t like here) and all will be well.

[Hunter]

Full noise, the point is we should be using different techniques to weed out the poor drivers of different kinds. You've got hoons, old farts past their used by, inexperienced young drivers, aggressive rage-a-holics, blinkered camry/volvo drivers, etc. Different types of testing could be used to weed out most of the bad drivers.

Camry/volvo drivers would possibly fail HPT due to poor reactions and they probably would fail a comprehensive road knowledge test. Same as their hoon counterpart would probably fail a psychometric test or even an EQ test.

You can't rely on one technique to get rid of bad drivers but you can rely on a multitude of techniques and hopefully reach a near-ideal situation where the majority of those legally licensed drivers are halfway decent and not the way it is now where it takes very little effort to get and hold one.

After seeing how hard it was for my cousin to get his private pilot's license and just getting a glimpse of how difficult it is even for that I'm even more for making it harder to get a car license.

[XR06T]

but after all that testing and weeding out the bad drivers there would be no-one left to speed and fill the coffers..

wont happen,

but i will say it is good to see someone thinking of a (different) solution to the problem.

[nugget378]

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

No...

Originally Posted by Hunter

Anyway, what do you guys think?

I think it might be a good idea for new thread starters to have to have psych tests,and I should conduct them...

[SSBUB]

not practical, a NO from me too sorry

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by Elmo

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!

Thanks, i did think before i wrote my post.
im glad your offended, everyone else should be offended too.
seems i have made my point, to show its discrimination, just like this simplistic idea of psych testing everyone.
maybe the original poster should also think before typing his pathetic discrimination.
its one thing to voice an opinion, its another to try and force it on the rest of the population.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by nugget378

No...




I think it might be a good idea for new thread starters to have to have psych tests,and I should conduct them...

But you don't wear rubber gloves when doing a psych test....do you ?

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Elmo

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!

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by davway

Thanks, i did think before i wrote my post.
im glad your offended, everyone else should be offended too.
seems i have made my point, to show its discrimination, just like this simplistic idea of psych testing everyone.
maybe the original poster should also think before typing his pathetic discrimination.
its one thing to voice an opinion, its another to try and force it on the rest of the population.

LOL ok if you have such a problem with discrimination why don't you and the blind lobby plus the old age and dementia lobby oh and the heart research lobby go down to the RTA/Transport dept/whatever and tell them that you think its discriminatory that blind people and old senile people aren't medically fit to drive. Just don't go driving near me any time soon.

P.S. I'm not the boss and I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone so I fail to see why you feel so threatened (the only person I have control over is myself, which is more than I can say for some people in our society).

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

But you don't wear rubber gloves when doing a psych test....do you ?

No,they dont make gloves as such for what I use during psych tests..

[Kryton]

thats fine.
numerous people have told you why it wouldn't work, why it wouldn't be implemented.
if you don't want to listen and understand, thats your business. i could care less.
since youve obviously given this so much in depth thought, perhaps you could give us a full point by point run down on how the system would work, who would administer it, how it would be policed, how it would be implemented, what factors are taken into account in a judgement, what 'type' of person should and shouldnt be allowed a license, how a person would be detected to be a threat, what would happen if a person was deemed a non threat then went out and drove through a shopping mall, if the administration and or the analyst could be sued for malpractice.............
should i keep going?
you better make sure its fool proof too.

[MeLLy]

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.

Isnt it funny how the mentality in this thread goes down when ppl result to slader just because a person has a p plate on their rear window!Or because i pronouce it in my signitures.
It doesnt matter what statistics say, no1 mentioned p plates you and someone else did? how funny that you both are using this as a example?
i didnt personally say something about the group u drive in did i?...unless ur 60 & above...
Theres times and places to be rude, go back to school if you dont wanna act mature.

[Unco]

RE: Should drivers face psychometric tests every 5 years?

No. Apart from the differences already mentioned between pilots and car drivers, I don't think you have considered the socio-economic repercussions that such a test would have on our country. This will never happen.

How exactly do you plan for this to happen? One on one interviews? Or one of those online multiple answer tests that are so common these days? How personalized are these tests going to be? Just what percentage of drivers are you planning to disqualify? 0.01%? 1.0%? 5%? 10%? 50%?

If it's only 0.01%, do you see this as a justifiable method of spending tax money? if it's 50%, do you honestly see the government willing to part with that kind of realized and potential revenue? and can you imagine the impact that this would have on the auto industry with the amount of people it currently employs?

it's a no brainer, really.

[MeLLy]

Originally Posted by davway

Thanks, i did think before i wrote my post.
im glad your offended, everyone else should be offended too.
seems i have made my point, to show its discrimination, just like this simplistic idea of psych testing everyone.
maybe the original poster should also think before typing his pathetic discrimination.
its one thing to voice an opinion, its another to try and force it on the rest of the population.

So you discriminated against red heads to prove that a pyshc test would discriminate against ppl who should not have to feel futher embarrassment...
So what about your discrimination of p platers? and everyone elses?...
No1 was forcing it on the rest of the population.
I pointed out i agreed to an extent, that i believe its not a pyshc test ppl need but a drivers ed course every few years or so to keep them in touch with how the right way to use the roads would be. It was an idea, Same with the person who opened this thread, he had an idea and started a poll...
I didnt think slader just because u dissagree with what ppl are saying is appropriate.
Do us all a favour & get off your high horse...
And my prior comment to you is, some ppl are driving cars atm that are loonies that go over the top with road rage and that will jump out of their cars and beat yours for either a reason or no reason...& these are the ppl that you dont want out on the roads.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by MeLLy

go back to school if you dont wanna act mature.

Is this the quote of the year? What school did you attend, and was English compulsory?

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Is this the quote of the year? What school did you attend, and was English compulsory?

Dos'nt look like it,comprehension must have been non existant...

[MeLLy]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Is this the quote of the year? What school did you attend, and was English compulsory?

How old are you? So your going to act like you are and pick on me for not saying a sentence correctly? grow up

Originally Posted by nugget378

Dos'nt look like it,comprehension must have been non existant...

and you, for picking on my spelling & comprehension....how about you learn how to spell " doesn't" first
hey?

[Dark Horse]

Ah yes, another sucker for the 'psychological testing' fads.

Originally Posted by Hunter

...but the reality is that we haven't done enough to eliminate human error from the motoring equation.

I have some concerns as to how much understanding you have in human error, if any. Psychological testing is NOT the be all end all of solving accidents and incidents. There will never be full and complete elimination of human error. Regardless of the actual percentages (some argue 60%-80%) but the reality at some point in the causal nexus (chain of events) there will always be human error whether unintentional through slips and lapses or deliberate through violations and mistakes leading to an accident or incident. What you are proposing is totally against the natural evolutionary grain of mental cognition - an almost dictator-like selection process.

I'll point out the obvious if you like. The human brain was biologically only ever designed to do things about walking pace, on the ground. What we are capable of doing now is 110 km/h on the freeway or 600 mile an hour in a commercial airliner. Yes apart from the 'psychological testing' you mention of pilots, they still have to undergo check rides to ensure they are proficient and competent in managing all the aircraft's systems but also the crew and resources available to them. The only way we have managed to do those things is not by psychological testing but by practice and experience. Guaranteed the types of errors committed between an inexperienced driver and an experienced one at that vary at the skill, rule and knowledge based levels.

What I find scary is that you have not mentioned any of this in your arguments against the others in your pro psychological testing opinion. What this proposal is is yet another knee jerk reaction and one that will place a siginificant demand on resources to implement correctly. It is not something that any RTA person behind the counter is qualified to administer.

The most successful systems around are those that are error-tolerant in that it know you are going to commit an error, what type of error it is likely to be and therefore have preventive measures or defences in depth to mitigate accordingly. And that's not just applicable to driving, but also has ramifications in industry. To do that one needs to be proactive in their approach to road safety, instilling a psychological test as a means to 'weed out' is not proactive. It is reactive to the mental state of one individual, which would not therefore apply to the rest of society.

Ever heard of Threat and Error Management (TEM)?

I suggest you do a bit of reading of the following publications before even beginning to refute this post:

'Human Error' by James Reason, Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-31419-4

'Investigating Human Error: Incidents, Accidents, and Complex Systems' by Barry Strauch, Ashgate Publishing ISBN 0-7546-4122-8

A few more since you mentioned the aviation industry:

'The Naked Pilot' by David Beaty, Airlife Publishing ISBN 1-85310-482-5

And also the ICAO Safety Mangement Manual Chapter 4
ICAO Safety Mangement Manual

As well as for licensing:

Volume 2, Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988;

And on top of that:

Part 40 of the Civil Aviation Orders, which sets out the licensing requirements. At the PPL and CPL level, CASA Doc201. Relevant syllabus is listed under Section 3 – Aeronautical Knowledge Training; Human Performance and Limitations.

Which leads to the following publication:

Aircraft Human Performance & Limitations by Tony Wilson, which is the text CASA refers to for the above.

[merlin]

Introducing the RTA's new licensing system - now smile for the photo:

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by MeLLy

How old are you? So your going to act like you are and pick on me for not saying a sentence correctly? grow up



and you, for picking on my spelling & comprehension....how about you learn how to spell " doesn't" first
hey?

Melly how about staying with the topic and leaving the text talk for the phone messages please.
We don't need another P plate drivers vs the rest argument.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Ah yes, another sucker for the 'psychological testing' fads.



I have some concerns as to how much understanding you have in human error, if any. Psychological testing is NOT the be all end all of solving accidents and incidents. There will never be full and complete elimination of human error. Regardless of the actual percentages (some argue 60%-80%) but the reality at some point in the causal nexus (chain of events) there will always be human error whether unintentional through slips and lapses or deliberate through violations and mistakes leading to an accident or incident. What you are proposing is totally against the natural evolutionary grain of mental cognition - an almost dictator-like selection process.

I'll point out the obvious if you like. The human brain was biologically only ever designed to do things about walking pace, on the ground. What we are capable of doing now is 110 km/h on the freeway or 600 mile an hour in a commercial airliner. Yes apart from the 'psychological testing' you mention of pilots, they still have to undergo check rides to ensure they are proficient and competent in managing all the aircraft's systems but also the crew and resources available to them. The only way we have managed to do those things is not by psychological testing but by practice and experience. Guaranteed the types of errors committed between an inexperienced driver and an experienced one at that vary at the skill, rule and knowledge based levels.

What I find scary is that you have not mentioned any of this in your arguments against the others in your pro psychological testing opinion. What this proposal is is yet another knee jerk reaction and one that will place a siginificant demand on resources to implement correctly. It is not something that any RTA person behind the counter is qualified to administer.

The most successful systems around are those that are error-tolerant in that it know you are going to commit an error, what type of error it is likely to be and therefore have preventive measures or defences in depth to mitigate accordingly. And that's not just applicable to driving, but also has ramifications in industry. To do that one needs to be proactive in their approach to road safety, instilling a psychological test as a means to 'weed out' is not proactive. It is reactive to the mental state of one individual, which would not therefore apply to the rest of society.

Ever heard of Threat and Error Management (TEM)?

I suggest you do a bit of reading of the following publications before even beginning to refute this post:

'Human Error' by James Reason, Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-31419-4

'Investigating Human Error: Incidents, Accidents, and Complex Systems' by Barry Strauch, Ashgate Publishing ISBN 0-7546-4122-8

A few more since you mentioned the aviation industry:

'The Naked Pilot' by David Beaty, Airlife Publishing ISBN 1-85310-482-5

And also the ICAO Safety Mangement Manual Chapter 4
ICAO Safety Mangement Manual

As well as for licensing:

Volume 2, Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988;

And on top of that:

Part 40 of the Civil Aviation Orders, which sets out the licensing requirements. At the PPL and CPL level, CASA Doc201. Relevant syllabus is listed under Section 3 – Aeronautical Knowledge Training; Human Performance and Limitations.

Which leads to the following publication:

Aircraft Human Performance & Limitations by Tony Wilson, which is the text CASA refers to for the above.

There is a big difference between human error and blatant stupidity. You have only covered human error. And of course what you have posted is correct. But a phsyc test would single out those that are at risk of blatantly stupid acts. These are the people that need to be isolated and treated differently.

What is it that some people here have to hide?? Are they scared of being exposed as having a tenuous grip on reality?? :togo:

[Citizen]

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Ah yes, another sucker for the 'psychological testing' fads.

Nope not a fad, I thought about why the accident occurred and reached the conclusion that based on what we know at the time (apart from the driver(s) only the cops know exactly what happened) that it was not mechanical, ie a fault with the vehicle.

So that leaves really only the drivers of said vehicles to lay the blame on. It would seem, on the face of it, that the drivers were traveling too fast. Now even if they could handle a vehicle at high speed they should also be aware that other people may not expect other drivers to be traveling that much further above the speed limit. Couple this with the fact that the deceased were elderly and you've got a disaster brewing.

I have some concerns as to how much understanding you have in human error, if any.

I'm not so much as worried about human error (because as you say we can never totally eliminate it) but more human attitude. The street racers figured they could handle driving at high speed and perhaps figured there was nobody around so it was 'safe'. I mean yes, these are errors but ultimately the errors were not in their driving skills but rather their attitude.

Psychological testing is NOT the be all end all of solving accidents and incidents.

Never said it would be - I alluded to it being part of a larger package or attempt to resolve certain issues present on our roads, in particular the poor attitude of drivers towards driving.

There will never be full and complete elimination of human error. Regardless of the actual percentages (some argue 60%-80%) but the reality at some point in the causal nexus (chain of events) there will always be human error whether unintentional through slips and lapses or deliberate through violations and mistakes leading to an accident or incident.

You won't find me disagreeing with you here - I agree there will always be some stuff up that cannot be predicted and there's not much you can do apart from building a time machine, etc.

I'll point out the obvious if you like. The human brain was biologically only ever designed to do things about walking pace, on the ground. What we are capable of doing now is 110 km/h on the freeway or 600 mile an hour in a commercial airliner.

Yes that is true and we can also manage to have these aircraft flying around quite safely. Its still far and away safer to be in a airliner than it is to be driving your car.

Yes apart from the 'psychological testing' you mention of pilots, they still have to undergo check rides to ensure they are proficient and competent in managing all the aircraft's systems but also the crew and resources available to them.

I am aware of this and I have read about it before.

The only way we have managed to do those things is not by psychological testing but by practice and experience.

I realise that but we've had over a century of motoring and for most of that time we've had fatalities relating to motoring. Engineers have managed to solve all manner of technical and design problems and we now have cars that quite intelligent, can brake for you using RADAR, can automatically adjust braking force and suspension travel to stablise the vehicle, we've got airbags, we've got colapsable steering columns (that took a while to come, nasty), we've got high tech rubber compounds to keep the car on the road, we've got crumple zones - all this technology and humans still find ways to end their existence.

The average driver (in Australia at least) has a very very poor attitude towards driving and fail to treat it with respect. Come sit in peak hour with me on any one of Brisbane's roads and I'll easily show you dozens of people doing stupid things.

More safety? I say less safety and more driver attitude adjustment. Someone once said that cars should come fitted with a giant spike in the centre of the steering wheel to prevent people from driving like maniacs. Obviously this brings the danger and places it right into their face (literally) where they can see it. Maybe it'd work...

Guaranteed the types of errors committed between an inexperienced driver and an experienced one at that vary at the skill, rule and knowledge based levels.

Of course, hence why we have L plates and P plates...

What I find scary is that you have not mentioned any of this in your arguments against the others in your pro psychological testing opinion.

Well I'm not exactly the best debater and not always capable of precisely putting down my thoughts on paper (or screen as it may be)

What this proposal is is yet another knee jerk reaction and one that will place a siginificant demand on resources to implement correctly. It is not something that any RTA person behind the counter is qualified to administer.

No, not a knee jerk. A knee jerk would be fitting speed limiting devices to cars or putting speed cameras every 50m. Of course you wouldn't have an RTA drone running such tests, the same reason why the counter staff don't go and give you driving tests (well they don't here in QLD, they have proper examiners).

The most successful systems around are those that are error-tolerant in that it know you are going to commit an error, what type of error it is likely to be and therefore have preventive measures or defences in depth to mitigate accordingly. And that's not just applicable to driving, but also has ramifications in industry.

How exactly would we apply such systems to every day driving? I'm aware of modern safety features and all sorts of system used on aircraft to combat hardware failure but at the end of the day economics factor in and if your average car comes loaded with enough electronic and electric safety features to sink the titanic nobody will buy it.

To do that one needs to be proactive in their approach to road safety, instilling a psychological test as a means to 'weed out' is not proactive. It is reactive to the mental state of one individual, which would not therefore apply to the rest of society.

So what do you suggest?

Ever heard of Threat and Error Management (TEM)?

Yes.

I suggest you do a bit of reading of the following publications before even beginning to refute this post:

'Human Error' by James Reason, Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-31419-4

'Investigating Human Error: Incidents, Accidents, and Complex Systems' by Barry Strauch, Ashgate Publishing ISBN 0-7546-4122-8

A few more since you mentioned the aviation industry:

'The Naked Pilot' by David Beaty, Airlife Publishing ISBN 1-85310-482-5

And also the ICAO Safety Mangement Manual Chapter 4
ICAO Safety Mangement Manual

As well as for licensing:

Volume 2, Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988;

And on top of that:

Part 40 of the Civil Aviation Orders, which sets out the licensing requirements. At the PPL and CPL level, CASA Doc201. Relevant syllabus is listed under Section 3 – Aeronautical Knowledge Training; Human Performance and Limitations.

Which leads to the following publication:

Aircraft Human Performance & Limitations by Tony Wilson, which is the text CASA refers to for the above.

These are interesting links and precisely the kind of dialog I was hoping would turn up in the thread .

[Full Noise]

Just wondering, Hunter.
You seem to be pushing pretty hard on this issue. Are you setting up a company specialising in psychological tests?

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Just wondering, Hunter.
You seem to be pushing pretty hard on this issue. Are you setting up a company specialising in psychological tests?

Heh, no way mate I err sometimes get a little involved, possibly a bad habit

By day I maintain a large network :

[XR8Master]

one in three people have a mental illness at some stage in there life, thats potentially a huge percentage of the population. apart from it being totaly impractical it would cause economic collapse if it where to be administered as suggested by Hitler....errr I ment hunter

My girlfriend is a disability carer and she takes cares for many different types of people with a vast range of disorders, some can drive, others obviously cannot but to say that people with a particular "ISSUE" cannot drive is ludicrous.

Hunter, maybe a better idea would be to genetically comb the population and anyone who dosen't fit your ideal standard can be sent to a special hospital in redfern where they can be humanely put down, as its no fair to endanger the state and its populace with these blood crazed muntant zombies?

[janek]

I dont know how many of you have actually sat a psychometric exam. Theyre long, tedious, and no shrink in sight. They ask you hundreds and hundreds of questions, with two possible answers. you cant really fudge them, because it takes too long to get through it.

They address critical areas, which MAY later on bring the application for further consideration. EG: (from a recent one i sat for ASNSW):

1. Sometimes i get so angry i could break something - OR - i would like to tell my boss how to do his job.

2. I like to hunt small animals for sport -OR- i would like to be famous one day

if one would answer the first choice on both, that would raise a concern that the applicant may be liable to do damage to a person if they are angry. key word being may. The idea is to profile overrall any outstanding issues that may have been a concern, and reference it to future actions. It would be very rare to fail a psych exam- probably only if you checked all of the i hate women/love guns/very angy/blah blah.

[FGII-XR6]

sorry but it all sounds a bit too much like big brother to me. and who would pay for it? us poor over taxed motorists would. where would we find enough qualified people to conduct the tests? if we failed would we be labled making it difficult to fo example get a job because we failed a test on a bad day. this is not only a bad idea but unworkable and potentially expensive and remember it's user pays

[ebxr8240]

I'll never pass !!!

[gs1973]

Originally Posted by janek

I dont know how many of you have actually sat a psychometric exam. Theyre long, tedious, and no shrink in sight. They ask you hundreds and hundreds of questions, with two possible answers. you cant really fudge them, because it takes too long to get through it.

They address critical areas, which MAY later on bring the application for further consideration. EG: (from a recent one i sat for ASNSW):

1. Sometimes i get so angry i could break something - OR - i would like to tell my boss how to do his job.

2. I like to hunt small animals for sport -OR- i would like to be famous one day

if one would answer the first choice on both, that would raise a concern that the applicant may be liable to do damage to a person if they are angry. key word being may. The idea is to profile overrall any outstanding issues that may have been a concern, and reference it to future actions. It would be very rare to fail a psych exam- probably only if you checked all of the i hate women/love guns/very angy/blah blah.

Ha,Ha! Yeah I sat one for the fire service once.. 900 questions..Have never been so brain drained in my life! Absolute f@#$ing rubbish IMHO. They ask you the same question a hundred different ways...The Academic knob jockeys who designed them wouldn't be able to change a lightbulb.