I wrote on 13 July about mandatory driver retraining which provoked an interesting and very valid comment from reader David Waterhouse. Have a look back to his posting if you want to see it all, but in short David branded my idea stupid because it wouldn’t make a difference to bad drivers.
I have to say I think he’s probably right; initially I don’t think it would. But let me explain further. Let’s take, as an example, a 40- year-old man who has been driving for half his life, and has had no additional training since he passed his test. He’s going to be stuck in his ways, and a refresher session – while not a total waste of time – wouldn’t necessarily cure his bad driving.
But imagine a 23-year-old who has been driving for five years having his first mandatory session with an instructor. Not someone who can take his licence away, but who can offer some pointers on how to improve his roadcraft.
At 23, and with five years driving behind him, he’s going to be on the cusp of getting cheaper insurance. There’s a strong incentive to want to be safer. And then he has another session when he’s 28 and 32, and every five years after that.
In the meantime, every other newly qualified driver is having sessions every five years. Eventually, over a few decades, every motorist would be getting regular ‘here’s what you’re doing well, here’s where you could improve’ help.
I’m not suggesting retraining as a short-term fix, and it certainly wouldn’t be a vote-winner for the political party brave enough to propose it. But if we’re serious about road safety, it has to happen at some point. We all know driving lessons don’t teach you to drive, they teach you to pass the test. To go from 17 to 70 with no further tuition, in something that’s a loaded gun in reckless hands, is a scandal. How could it not save lives? Surely it’s got to be worth it?
Let me know what you think.
Breakdown Cover from 
