Aren't old duffers (like hate) compelled to retake a test once they reach a certain age?
Good driver, or just lucky ?
- Thread starter Ihavenojob
- Start date
Sponsored Links
At the age of 70, you need to reapply/renew for a licence, every 3 years.
Yep, my dad was driving with L plates unaccompanied then.
Sponsored Links
Correct and it's free, problem is - DVLA cannot cope with the renewals, so lots on the road with expired licences.
from what I've heard, Forces licences were given out with very rudimentary "testing" and were only valid when driving Forces vehiclers or on orders.
Now the army driving test is run by Army assessors, lasts an hour rather than 45 minutes but is otherwise the same. The same theory test as civilian tests.
If you want to drive tanks you have to get your Tracks license on your civilian driving license as well.
The tests people used to have to pass were so much easier.
Slightly OT but when I was going through my motorbike lessons (gave up before the test) one of the older instructors said along the lines of 'when I sat my motorbike test all you had to do was pretty much ride around the block and do an emergency stop.' How accurate/true that is I don't know.
More or less accurate. The test centre would be chosen for having an easy access through to the back, so they could have you circling the block, whilst they popped back and forth through the building to watch your progress, see how steady you were on the bike, watch your handling and appropriate signals. Then they would hope to jump out in front of the right bike, to catch you with an emergency stop. Sometimes, they would mistake the bike/rider for the wrong one
When I did my bike test back in 1970 in Alnwick that was more or less the deal.....I could see the instructor dodging down lanes to clock me and I knew exactly where he was
Regarding the elderly uninsured gent though, thank gawd he didn’t hit or maim anyone.....the victim could have been completely without compensation. It’s totally out of order what he did and not funny at all.
John
The insurance companies subscribe to a general fund, which pays out where a driver is uninsured. I don't know to what extent they would pay out. Lad was hit side on, whilst on his motorbike, by an uninsured driver, whilst waiting in a traffic queue, he got some money for his injury.
This after engaging a no win, no fee solicitor who rang him to offer help, suggesting it would not cost him at all, it would all be paid on top of the claim. He won, but the solicitor tried to claim most of his winnings has their fee. That is until I stepped in and pointed out what the lad had been told by them before engaging them. The solicitor backed down and the lad got his full compensation.
That's good to hear Harry, but not always the case according to Radio 2's friendly ex Flying Squad detective - last Friday.
He was interviewed on the Jeremy Vine show, and he is always interesting to listen to.
John
He was interviewed on the Jeremy Vine show, and he is always interesting to listen to.
John
That's good to hear Harry, but not always the case according to Radio 2's friendly ex Flying Squad detective - last Friday.
He was interviewed on the Jeremy Vine show, and he is always interesting to listen to.
John
I'm confused, what did you hear that was at odds?
The detective said that there were many incidences where seriously maimed people - paraplegics in particular- had received only minimal compensation and were left almost destitute by uninsured drivers.
I can’t comment further but once more it seems to be a bit of a get out clause by those selfish people who choose to flaunt the law.
John
I can’t comment further but once more it seems to be a bit of a get out clause by those selfish people who choose to flaunt the law.
John
I do agree, that they should have the book thrown at them. In fact I reported some uninsured use just this afternoon.
Sponsored Links
