Geoff Wiki

Reward is more effective than punishment.

Currently ther is no incentive for drivers to improve ther driving skills or ability. You can get a drvers licence at the minimum age by driving very slowly around a few streets and never have your driving abilities tested again. Most likely because the overall automotive industry and the auto clubs want as many people as possible being able to drive. They have a vested interest.

I propose that levels of licences be made that require ongoing testing on a regular basis to be able to achieve and maintain certain privileges that the higher levels of licences would give.

Those privileges could include being able to drive at higher speeds

The hole system could be run by private regulated and registered training organisations, thus creating new business opportunities

The aviation industry, the safest form of transport, have been doing this for some time with a great amount of success in reducing incidents, accidents and fatalities.

It would appear the reasons that this is unlikely to happen is because of the vested interest of the Automotive industry

It's an interesting critique of the current driver licensing system and a compelling proposal for improvement. Here's a breakdown of its strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths of Your Critique and Proposal

• Identifies a Clear Problem: You accurately pinpoint the lack of ongoing assessment and incentives for driver improvement after the initial licensing. This is a widely recognized gap in road safety.

• Highlights the “Reward vs. Punishment” Aspect: Your premise that reward is more effective than punishment is supported by behavioral psychology. Framing higher license tiers as privileges rather than avoiding penalties is a strong motivational approach.

• Draws a Relevant Analogy: The comparison to the aviation industry is very strong. Aviation's multi-tiered licensing, ongoing training, and high safety record provide a compelling model for what could be achieved in automotive transport. This analogy immediately lends credibility to your proposal.

• Addresses Vested Interests: You astutely identify the vested interests of the automotive industry and auto clubs as a potential barrier to change. This shows a realistic understanding of the political and economic landscape surrounding such reforms.

• Proposes a Solution with Economic Benefits: Suggesting that private, regulated training organizations could run the system is a smart way to address potential government resource limitations and create new business opportunities.

• Focus on Privileges: The idea of higher speeds as a privilege for advanced drivers is a tangible and desirable incentive that could motivate many. Other privileges could also be considered (e.g., lower insurance premiums, access to certain vehicle types).

Potential Areas for Further Development or Consideration

• Defining “Higher Speeds”: While an attractive privilege, the concept of “higher speeds” needs careful consideration. Does this mean exceeding current speed limits on public roads, or higher speeds in controlled environments (e.g., racetracks for specific events)? If it's about exceeding current limits, this would be a significant regulatory hurdle and would need very robust safety guarantees. It might be more palatable initially to focus on other privileges.

• Logistical Complexity and Cost: Implementing a system of ongoing testing for millions of drivers would be a massive undertaking. The cost to drivers (for tests, training, and potential fees to private organizations) could be a significant public relations challenge. How would this be phased in, and what would be the financial burden on individuals, especially those in lower-income brackets or rural areas with limited access to training centers?

• Public Acceptance and “Nanny State” Perceptions: There might be resistance from the public who could view ongoing testing as an overreach or an unnecessary burden, particularly if they perceive themselves as safe drivers. The messaging would need to emphasize the benefits and rewards rather than the mandatory nature.

• Fairness and Accessibility: How would this system ensure fairness and accessibility across different demographics and geographical locations? Would rural drivers have the same access to testing facilities as urban drivers?

• Defining “Driving Skills and Ability”: While general driving ability is clear, what specific metrics would be used for ongoing testing beyond basic maneuvers? Would it include hazard perception, defensive driving techniques, or advanced vehicle control?

• Transitional Period: How would existing drivers transition into such a system? Would they be grandfathered in at a certain level, or would everyone need to start from scratch?

Overall Assessment

Your critique is insightful and well-reasoned, and your proposal offers a thought-provoking and potentially effective solution to improving road safety. The analogy to the aviation industry is particularly compelling. The biggest challenge would likely be the immense practicalities of implementation and gaining public and industry acceptance, especially regarding the definition and application of “higher speeds” and the associated costs.

It's a solid foundation for a policy discussion aimed at shifting the paradigm of driver licensing from a one-time event to a system of continuous improvement and reward.