We all want the roads to be safer, but there is a cost to every new regulation / restriction, so they have to be proportionate.
What are you thoughts ? Mine are :

Compulsory eye tests (and retests, eye retests that is) for a driving licence - I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

Clamping down on non readable registration plates - I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

Measures to increase the detection and prosecution of drug drivers - I don't see how anyone could disagree with that, provided the tests are accurate of course.

Criminal penalties for those with no insurance - I agree, though there is all the difference in the world between someone who deliberately and persistently drives without insurance and someone who has just forgotten to insure their car, or are just driving carefully for a mile or two to the garage in an uninsured car.

Increased penalties for not wearing a seat belt - No, definitely not. The case for prosecuting someone for not taking a measure to protect themselves is dubious, plus more and more cars have air bags anyway.

Reduce the blood alcohol level - No, the present limit is fine, it is proportionate, it just needs enforcing better (and most people agree with this). 
In Scotland they reduced the legal blood alcohol level for driving with impressive claims about how much safer it would make the roads, and it had no significant effect at all..... 
Reduction in the legal blood alcohol limit has had no impact on number of road traffic accidents
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2018/december/headline_626050_en.html

20 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

Compulsory eye tests, and retests, for a driving licence - I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

Well, I do! This comes up every so often, always by people it won't immediately effect.

I would much prefer a 70+ year old driver with eyesight slightly below par with 50 odd years experience, compared to some 17 year old boy with great eyesight, and  body full of testosterone and no experience.

Even the president of the AA, Edmund King, has been on the media rounds this week suggesting that statistically the 'elderly' are not a substantial cause of road accidents compared to the young & inexperienced.

The closer to 70 you get, the more you'll side with the statistics...

(As for full re-tests, the system already can't cope with the normal volume of tests required from it!. Retesting a whole generation would grind the system to a halt)

I don't agree with the Drink Drive limit one, it's people who are a lot over the limit that are the problem not ones who get Breathalised on roadside checks the next morning. 

11 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

Well, I do! This comes up every so often, always by people it won't immediately effect.

I would much prefer a 70+ year old driver with eyesight slightly below par with 50 odd years experience, compared to some 17 year old boy with great eyesight, and  body full of testosterone and no experience.

Even the president of the AA, Edmund King, has been on the media rounds this week suggesting that statistically the 'elderly' are not a substantial cause of road accidents compared to the young & inexperienced.

The closer to 70 you get, the more you'll side with the statistics...

(As for full re-tests, the system already can't cope with the normal volume of tests required from it!. Retesting a whole generation would grind the system to a halt)

I didn't think they were proposing driving retests (not yet anyway...), just eyesight tests ?

I certainly would not be in favour of driving test retests unless they were a lot cheaper and available much quicker.

70 year olds are relatively safe; once you get over 80 is bomb alley.

I think more of a problem - and if you live near a big city you WILL have noticed this, let alone be affected by it - is the number of immigrants driving with no licence, no insurance, no nothing.

I've been hit twice in the past five years in London; both times by uninsured foreigners driving: in the first instance a financed car they had not been paid for over two years; in the second instance a car rented by a vulnerable person who was too scared to testify in court. In both instances they were luxury cars that hit me.

Both times I lost my insurance excess; and because the insurers cannot claim on the illegal drivers it goes as a fault on my insurance.

The police need to be more active in stopping young, mostly foreign, men driving luxury cars that are clearly unaffordable.

 

Yep, 70 year olds might be a problem; but not a big a problem as the hundreds of thousands (possible millions) of illegals driving without a licence or  insurance.

42 minutes ago, Tizer said:

I don't agree with the Drink Drive limit one, it's people who are a lot over the limit that are the problem not ones who get Breathalised on roadside checks the next morning. 

I like a pint and a half of lager* (never more than that, even with a meal) with my Indian and reducing the limit would make that problematic, and for no significant benefit to anyone, as all the studies on the Scottish alcohol limit have proven.

* I find one and half pints of lager just lasts for some poppadoms and a main !

12 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

I didn't think they were proposing driving retests (not yet anyway...), just eyesight tests ?

Read your own 1st post 🤣

I personally think that every time someone renews a driving licence (whatever their age) they should have to have an eye test and provide the results by some official and secure method  as part of the application process. It needs something better than the current system, there are far too many people of all ages driving around with sub-standard vision.

5 minutes ago, Tizer said:

I don't agree with the Drink Drive limit one, it's people who are a lot over the limit that are the problem not ones who get Breathalised on roadside checks the next morning. 

agreed

I do not drink a DROP if I am going to drive; but

I would like to see how many accidents are caused by people that have, between say 15 and 35 ug of breath alcohol. I would suspect it is very few and reducing the limit below 35 will have very little effect.

From what I can gather, the limit in Scotland is lower than England (22 ug vs 35 ug) whilst the rate of casualties where drink was considered a factor is higher (5.5% vs 4.9%).

This might suggest that the lower limit beyond a certain low value is not really a factor; and that those that continue to drink drive NOW will not stop if the limit is lowered further.

 

1 minute ago, pcaouolte said:

I personally think that every time someone renews a driving licence (whatever their age) they should have to have an eye test....

well, since passing my test the first time I will be required to renew my licence is when I am 70.

It's the same for everybody unless they have a notifiable disease that might affect their driving; or they have been ordered to by a court.

An easier way to do it is to demand an annual test that has to be supplied to an insurer. No test, no insurance.

The problem with this is the millions of people that don't have insurance.

Any new rules are only going to affect the already law-abiding; and possible push currently law abiding into driving illegally.

If the government want to take the problems on our road seriously, then the police need to be more active in stopping, seizing and crushing uninsured vehicles. No arguments. Insured? No? Car crushed that day.

 

(HGV drivers obviously have more stringent rules too)

1 minute ago, weesam said:

well, since passing my test the first time I will be required to renew my licence is when I am 70.

Photo card licences need to be renewed every 10 years, licences also need to be renewed when moving house. I am suggesting that proof of adequate vision for driving would have to be provided at these renewals.

28 minutes ago, weesam said:

The police need to be more active in stopping young, mostly foreign, men driving luxury cars that are clearly unaffordable.

Well they did try near Newcastle but it didn't end well 🤣

 

......and the next day the uninsured driver who was already banned from driving (didn't have a licence) was again attempted to be stopped by the police in yet another car.

 

27 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

Read your own 1st post 🤣

Ah, I see. As far as I know they mean compulsory eye retests. I have clarified it in the opener.

17 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

Photo card licences need to be renewed every 10 years, licences also need to be renewed when moving house. I am suggesting that proof of adequate vision for driving would have to be provided at these renewals.

Sounds about right.

3 minutes ago, unofix said:

......and the next day the uninsured driver who was already banned from driving (didn't have a licence) was again attempted to be stopped by the police in yet another car.

 

Methinks jail is the only answer for him.....

18 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

Photo card licences need to be renewed every 10 years,

That is up to the age of 70. ie if you renew at age 65, you get a 5 year license to take you up to age 70...

3 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

That is up to the age of 70. ie if you renew at age 65, you get a 5 year license to take you up to age 70...

I've got to renew my photo licence in October when I will be 59 & 10 months old, so that means in 10 years time I will have to renew and pay for a new licence, which will last 2 months.😠

 

5 minutes ago, MarkRS9 said:

so that means in 10 years time I will have to renew and pay for a new licence

So you're an optimist 😉 🤣

18 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

That is up to the age of 70. ie if you renew at age 65, you get a 5 year license to take you up to age 70...

Yes, mine is due for renewal 8 months before my 70th birthday so I expect that I will get an 8 month licence.

16 minutes ago, MarkRS9 said:

a new licence, which will last 2 months.😠

I think you will be ok. You can apply for your licence up to 90 days before your 70th birthday. I think they will send you a licence that lasts until your 73rd birthday.

55 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

Photo card licences need to be renewed every 10 years, licences also need to be renewed when moving house. I am suggesting that proof of adequate vision for driving would have to be provided at these renewals.

I don't have a photo card, nor will I ever have one; they are not required (I've yet to hear a good argument for them. Just seems to be another layer of government ID that people carry WILFULLY, and present WILFULLY, which to me is insane)

So the renewal of something you don't need before the age of 70 anyway cannot be a mechanism for eye-sight tests.

 

6 minutes ago, weesam said:

I don't have a photo card, nor will I ever have one;

Crikey, I thought I was government cynical LOL I've had a photo license since 1994, used it as ID all over the world, even as a 'passport' substitute when I use to commute from Belfast to London. Also use it as my 'electoral ID which is compulsory here.  Find it really handy fitting in a standard credit card slot in wallet. Wouldn't leave home without it...

7 minutes ago, weesam said:

renewal of something you don't need cannot be a mechanism for eye-sight tests

As the only driving licence available to you when you turn 70 will be a photo card licence it will be a choice between having one and giving up the right to drive. 

As a 75 year old (birthday in early November), I had the renewal forms come on Monday this week. I applied online the same day.

As regards eye tests for the over 70's, I had an eye test a month ago, and specifically asked the optician if my eye sight was ok to drive, using glasses (I have used glasses for driving for about ten years now, declared to DVLA, with code 01 against the classes I can drive). So, I fully agree with eye tests for older drivers.

As regards lowering the drink drive limit, I don't think it would make much difference to accident statistics. The majority of people in accidents who are breathalysed & found to be over are way over the limit, so, if they are ignoring the current limit they will certainly ignore a lower one!

I do enjoy a pint (when not driving), but recently I have been trying non alcoholic lagers and ciders, and find modern ones quite acceptable.

Going off subject (sorry), some of you will know that here in Wales our Sennyd (Welsh devolved government) introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol, hoping to reduce alcohol related problems. Since this came in, the problems have increased, so that worked well! I believe the same happened in Scotland as well. This minimum price means that a 2 litre bottle of cider at my local Lidl just in Wales is £4.50, but an identical bottle four miles away at a Lidl in England is £1.99. I have to do a booze cruise every few months!