I won't dissect your post as I feel that takes us far too far off topic and tbh is a little disrespectful (I feel when people do that, they do it purely to create arguments), isn't a fair thing to do, but I disagree with basically the entire thing, especially -
Quote:
|
Seriously, the driving test at that time was the same, in principle, as for many years thereafter.
|
This just isn't true, I'm sorry. I work with driving instructors and examiners who have said it's barely recognizable what drivers go through now compared to what they did before. Mentioning what is the same ignores what is not. The theory test did not even existed until the mid 90s and has massively evolved into an entirely different animal, and then the introduction of the Hazard Perception is a completely new concept, nevermind being principally the same as something 5 decades ago. The Independent Driving section was only introduced in the last few years as well. Despite these additional elements being introduced, the theory test being introduced, the highway code evolving massively, and roads becoming more congested and complex in layout, the pass mark has remained the same - 45-50% (varying more on location than anything else). So todays drivers are coping with more advanced test with more stressful environments, with the same pass rate. This does not coincide with a lack of driving skills.
Giving examples like "most of todays drivers who commit X offense" is meaningless, since they'd have failed their test 50 years ago too according to the description you've given, and yet here we are with bad drivers of all ages. How can this possibly be? And since new drivers are only allowed to total 6 penalty points in their first 2 years, they already have less of a buffer to work with than the more experienced drivers.
I have provided many a statistic to show that driving has not gotten worse. You have dismissed these as baseless and without value, but replaced it with anecdotal evidence. I don't see how this has any more value than the facts from government studies, which show accidents declining despite the massive increase of cars. Sorry if you disagree, but then we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
-----------------------
On the topic of driverless cars - currently there's a problem where the driver is still legally in charge of the vehicle, even with the computer driving. This sounds fine before you consider what would happen in an accident really, as you'd have to take control of the vehicle extremely quickly.
How does this link to the self parking cars? Who is responsible should you bump something using those?
I can see this working if everything was self driving. But with a bunch of humans in the equation, you'll never be able to tell what the person is actually going to do. And what happens when they come across a police chase? I know it sounds mental, but that's the sort of thing a human reacts to. You could make it react accordingly to blue flashing lights, but a car trying to escape the police...? Hmmmm.
There is a place for these cars in this world, without a doubt. But I do enjoy my daily commute, and it'll be sad if that goes.