titian wrote: - it appears to have worked for them!
However, that was 80 years ago, now the situation and results might not be the same.
titian wrote: The basic "L" test is just that, basic, my wife often remarks that following her passing the "L" test I said "now I'll teach you how to drive". I would suggest something along the lines of having passed the "L" test the individual is given a period of time, maybe upto 12 months during which time they will gain experience and further driving skills sufficient to be equiped to take a further test (maybe at a level short of the IAM basic test) passing which they are awarded a substantive driving licence. Failure to pass would mean they were only allowed to drive when accompanied by a "substantive" licence holder.
The lines are showing how age and on-road experience reduce accidents, not further training - it might do, but that's not what happens for the the majority of new drivers who don't take it.
Kinnear et al. (2007)• Novice drivers with more than 1000 miles of driving showed similar physiological anticipatory response to hazards as experienced drivers (video HP test)
So it's back to the same question: what safety-related
content can 'advanced' training provide that the current L system, with subsequent on-road experience, can't? The AA admits that many insurers are refusing to give discounts for Pass Plus. A spokesman says: 'Pass Plus has got a bad name. Quite simply, the claims figures show that there is no difference between drivers who have Pass Plus and those who don't.' http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars ... z55sbauRme
titian wrote: Re-tests would be mandatorty in the event of 6 points on the licence or involment in a "significant" your fault accident.
Worth noting that a new driver will lose their licence anyway for 6 points.
Might keep the examiners busy
May 2015 stats:
5-8 points 507,265 drivers
12 and over 6,867
My own views. For better or worse :)