Chris Slade wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6736587.stm>
>
> Drivers 'need psychometric tests'
>
> Would it do any good? It might be a bit easier than cleaning up the mess
> after them.
Another road safety idea rooted in the past, and guided by
preconceptions. What we need are sound science-based solutions, backed
up by thorough research. What we don't need are more measures based on
ill-conceived "common sense" and "intuition". That is what has resulted
in the mess we have today - race tracks for cars, compulsory seat belts,
segregated traffic in town and village centres, safety helmets, speed
limits.
It is a divisive idea, which has no place in today's world. We'll end
up with an underclass who are forbidden from driving legally. What will
be the result? Will they obediently stay away from the steering wheel?
How many of today's hit-and-run accident are attributed to illegal
drivers?
The problem with the idea is that it approaches the problem from the
wrong end. The premise is that some people cannot drive to an
acceptably safe standard. There are two solutions:
1. The divisive, anti-car, non-sustainable solution - make driving tests
tougher.
2. The inclusive, and sustainable solution - make the task of driving to
an acceptable standard accessible to all.
One is easy to implement yet bound to fail, the other is more difficult
to implement but will make the roads sustainably safer.
--
Matt B
