Review Driving Permits
Apr 16, 2003
THE POLICE have embarked on a number of reforms aimed at making our roads safer.
THE POLICE have embarked on a number of reforms aimed at making our roads safer. They are welcome.
Traffic police has begun on-the-spot fines for minor offenders. Learners will have to display big ‘L’ signs on their cars; noisy touts will be fined, as will careless motorcycle riders. Those deemed to have obstructed traffic signs will also be fined, as would those without valid driving
permits. Seat belt rules will be enforced, and driving while talking on phone will be punished.
Instant fines will have a two-way benefit. For motorists, having to suddenly dig in your pocket and forfeit monies that were going to pay for the shopping or be deposited in the bank for the children’s school fees should be shocking enough to prevent repeat offence.
Secondly, dealing with the matter there and then will cut out the excruciating bureaucracy, and attendant bribery and extortion that drawn-out dealings between some traffic and judicial officers and a number of motorists have often engendered.
The reform of driving permit regulations, though, needs to be taken much farther. Many competent motorists have often been surprised to suddenly find that their permits have expired. The validity of three years is too short. It does not serve any useful purpose, save as a generator of revenue. But the inconvenience outweighs by far the few shillings collected from renewals. It would make sense to maintain a renewal regime if drivers were tested periodically. But that is not the case; and motorists’ skills do not recede with time. They improve. We should, therefore, consider issuing long term permits, and placing a premium fee on the certificate to make up for the lost revenue. In the UK, once passed as competent, a motorist will be given a licence permitting them to drive up to the age of 70, after which they would have to be tested again. Now that makes sense. Ends
Traffic police has begun on-the-spot fines for minor offenders. Learners will have to display big ‘L’ signs on their cars; noisy touts will be fined, as will careless motorcycle riders. Those deemed to have obstructed traffic signs will also be fined, as would those without valid driving
permits. Seat belt rules will be enforced, and driving while talking on phone will be punished.
Instant fines will have a two-way benefit. For motorists, having to suddenly dig in your pocket and forfeit monies that were going to pay for the shopping or be deposited in the bank for the children’s school fees should be shocking enough to prevent repeat offence.
Secondly, dealing with the matter there and then will cut out the excruciating bureaucracy, and attendant bribery and extortion that drawn-out dealings between some traffic and judicial officers and a number of motorists have often engendered.
The reform of driving permit regulations, though, needs to be taken much farther. Many competent motorists have often been surprised to suddenly find that their permits have expired. The validity of three years is too short. It does not serve any useful purpose, save as a generator of revenue. But the inconvenience outweighs by far the few shillings collected from renewals. It would make sense to maintain a renewal regime if drivers were tested periodically. But that is not the case; and motorists’ skills do not recede with time. They improve. We should, therefore, consider issuing long term permits, and placing a premium fee on the certificate to make up for the lost revenue. In the UK, once passed as competent, a motorist will be given a licence permitting them to drive up to the age of 70, after which they would have to be tested again. Now that makes sense. Ends