Should drivers face psychometric tests every 5 years?

[Hunter]

Was reading the thread about the elderly couple dying as a result of a 'drag-race' and I raised the issue of psych tests for drivers - I firmly believe that every driver should face psychometric tests every 5 years - perhaps it would weed out the drivers who are flippant towards driving. I mean if you want to become a policeman you need to pass a psych test, if you want to be in the army you need to pass a test - it seems that they take their lethal weapons seriously so why not the transport dept? Pilots aren't allowed near their aircraft without a full medical and I believe in some cases a psych test (there's been rare cases of pilots going crazy and crashing planes deliberately).

I know I can be a slightly aggressive driver (mostly yelling out the window when some moron just about wipes me out or does something dumb) but I've seen drivers speeding without any regard for conditions or whether or not its appropriate to speed. The number of drivers who speed through Brisbane CBD astound me, even at the speed limit it is not safe due to the Dumb Pedestrian Factor.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[Simmo]

im in agreeance. perhaps they could finally work out which P platers are just in it for the skids and boot them off the road. there are some nutcases thought. my friend merged in front of a VR ute, heaps of room, plenty of indicating, nothing rude or mean about it. then we get this jerkoff tailing us and screaming at us for about 5-7kms that 'you should have never cut me off you c**ts! i'll kill youse c**ts!" with a seriously crazy or cracked out look in his eyes.

[Kryton]

waste of time.
not having a little plastic card doesn't physically stop you from driving a car does it.
there would also be more unlicensed drivers on the road without insurance.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by davway

waste of time.
not having a little plastic card doesn't physically stop you from driving a car does it.
there would also be more unlicensed drivers on the road without insurance.

So ok then increase the penalties for unlicensed and uninsured driving - even if there is no accident anyone found committing such an offense should not be given a slap on the wrist like they are now.

Something like

1st offence - $50,000 fine and community service (e.g to road accident victims)

2nd offence - $100,000 fine and probationary period of 5 years, if caught driving in this period they go to jail for 3 months

3rd offence - $150,000 fine and mandatory jail sentence of 6 months.

4th offence - 1 year jail

After all that I'm sure nobody would be dumb enough to keep trying to drive.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by Hunter

So ok then increase the penalties for unlicensed and uninsured driving - even if there is no accident anyone found committing such an offense should not be given a slap on the wrist like they are now.

increase the penalties.......that makes a big difference to the person they have just killed doesn't it.
id rather see people lose their license because they have done wrong, not because of their personality.
what your suggesting is blatant discrimination.
yes, employers such as the police and airline have an EXEMPTION to discriminate against certain types of people.
you don't give a loony a gun or a jumbo jet.
maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by davway

increase the penalties.......that makes a big difference to the person they have just killed doesn't it.

I said those penalties should be applied if they are caught driving unlicensed, not if they have already killed someone - there are already penalties in place for such offenses and yes they do include jail time/convictions.

id rather see people lose their license because they have done wrong, not because of their personality.
what your suggesting is blatant discrimination.
yes, employers such as the police and airline have an EXEMPTION to discriminate against certain types of people.
you don't give a loony a gun or a jumbo jet.
maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

You do realise that there are already 'discriminatory' policies in place that stop people driving? If your vision is poor you aren't allowed to drive, if you have a medical condition such as certain types of epilepsy you cannot drive. If you have a known, preexisting medical condition that could affect your ability to drive/control a vehicle, they will not give you a license.

I'd rather not have a blind person trying to drive the same as I would rather not have someone with an undiagnosed or untreated mental health issue trying to drive either.

The test I propose is not about personality as such; rather it is about attitude. If a person turns out to be a sociopath or has some other disorder they should NOT be allowed to drive. No ifs or buts. If they then decide that the law does not apply to them and drive without a license, they will be brought to justice and hopefully learn that the law is to be respected.

If they drive unlicensed and kill someone, then they will also be brought to justice.

Originally Posted by flappist

1) A pilot's medical has absolutely no psycological components although some "company medicals" do. I have held a class 1 (commercial) medial for many many years.

Ok that may be for the license but don't the airlines themselves hold such tests? There's been more than one documented case of a pilot committing suicide by crashing a plane.

2) The only people who could do a psychological assessment are specialist doctors and there are no where near enough of them to do 1% of the population.

Plenty of high paying jobs require full medicals and psych tests... very common in the corporate world.

3) How would you feel if on the day of your assessment you had a cold, your girlfriend left you, your dog died and some dropkick in a doof doof ran into your car in the carpark causing $zillions of damage and ran away then the nice little "hitler" psychologist sat you down and started to ask you questions designed to see if you burr up? Well you would feel sore legs as you walked home unlicenced.......

Someone in that frame of mind should not be driving anyway. If you are in a bad mood and cause a fatal accident that is no excuse - you chose to drive and therefore you are responsible for the consequences.

The test would not be fixed on a particular day - like your rego they would give you time to organise a day for the test and if you failed the first test you are offered a retest a few weeks later (and yes it would be a different, randomised test).

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I said those penalties should be applied if they are caught driving unlicensed, not if they have already killed someone - there are already penalties in place for such offenses and yes they do include jail time/convictions.


You do realise that there are already 'discriminatory' policies in place that stop people driving? If your vision is poor you aren't allowed to drive, if you have a medical condition such as certain types of epilepsy you cannot drive. If you have a known, preexisting medical condition that could affect your ability to drive/control a vehicle, they will not give you a license.

I'd rather not have a blind person trying to drive the same as I would rather not have someone with an undiagnosed or untreated mental health issue trying to drive either.

The test I propose is not about personality as such; rather it is about attitude. If a person turns out to be a sociopath or has some other disorder they should NOT be allowed to drive. No ifs or buts. If they then decide that the law does not apply to them and drive without a license, they will be brought to justice and hopefully learn that the law is to be respected.

If they drive unlicensed and kill someone, then they will also be brought to justice.

Ok that may be for the license but don't the airlines themselves hold such tests? There's been more than one documented case of a pilot committing suicide by crashing a plane.

Plenty of high paying jobs require full medicals and psych tests... very common in the corporate world.

Someone in that frame of mind should not be driving anyway. If you are in a bad mood and cause a fatal accident that is no excuse - you chose to drive and therefore you are responsible for the consequences.

The test would not be fixed on a particular day - like your rego they would give you time to organise a day for the test and if you failed the first test you are offered a retest a few weeks later (and yes it would be a different, randomised test).

So what would be a pschological condition that would make you an unsafe driver?
You like E series, probably. You think the AU is not ugly, definitely. You want a car that is capable of accellerating and potentially exceeding the speed limit, slam dunk you are walking.

You cannot solve the problems of the world this way. This is the path of the social engineers with such noted luminaries as Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler, Stalin etc.

[MeLLy]

Originally Posted by davway

increase the penalties.......that makes a big difference to the person they have just killed doesn't it.
id rather see people lose their license because they have done wrong, not because of their personality.
what your suggesting is blatant discrimination.
yes, employers such as the police and airline have an EXEMPTION to discriminate against certain types of people.
you don't give a loony a gun or a jumbo jet.
maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

So you would rather give a loony a car instead? A potentially deadly weapon to plow into someone or drive like a retard and cause accidents?

I'm in agreeance to, maybe they also need to make compulsary drivers ed courses every few years or so, and that will evaulate who can drive and who has addapted their own driving style which involves driving like an idiot and causing accidents in their wake.There is potential in what has been suggested, maybe not a pysh test exactly but some sort of test which finds out who is taking advantage of our roads and who is not.It would worm out all the old ppl who are driving 10 below the limit and who cant see a car 10 ft in front of them and they pull out in front of someone.Also i've noticed lately that when you let someone in, they dont give u a thank you wave anymore? Wheres the driver ediket gone?....Its plain rude, everyone out there is a bunch of A**H**** & a test that tells them so is better than having someone behind them for 5 kms yelling & screaming it at them isnt it?
Idiots think about the impact.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by MeLLy

So you would rather give a loony a car instead? A potentially deadly weapon to plow into someone or drive like a retard and cause accidents?

oh, you mean P platers. (statistics speak very loudly)
easy fixed. no one can drive till they turn 22 and learn responsibility.
should go alone nicely with the wayward thinking of this thread.

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by davway

maybe we shouldn't let red heads drive either then......they're known to get hot headed.

I actually take offense to that being a red head myself and I dont get hot headed when i'm driving I've got friends that have black hair etc that you'd think are on the verge of a Road Rage incident over pathetic little incidents!
Maybe you should think before you type, your discrimination is pathetic!

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by Elmo

I actually take offense to that being a red head myself and I dont get hot headed when i'm driving I've got friends that have black hair etc that you'd think are on the verge of a Road Rage incident over pathetic little incidents!
Maybe you should think before you type, your discrimination is pathetic!

Thanks, i did think before i wrote my post.
im glad your offended, everyone else should be offended too.
seems i have made my point, to show its discrimination, just like this simplistic idea of psych testing everyone.
maybe the original poster should also think before typing his pathetic discrimination.
its one thing to voice an opinion, its another to try and force it on the rest of the population.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Elmo

I actually take offense to that being a red head myself and I dont get hot headed when i'm driving I've got friends that have black hair etc that you'd think are on the verge of a Road Rage incident over pathetic little incidents!
Maybe you should think before you type, your discrimination is pathetic!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Was reading the thread about the elderly couple dying as a result of a 'drag-race' and I raised the issue of psych tests for drivers - I firmly believe that every driver should face psychometric tests every 5 years - perhaps it would weed out the drivers who are flippant towards driving. I mean if you want to become a policeman you need to pass a psych test, if you want to be in the army you need to pass a test - it seems that they take their lethal weapons seriously so why not the transport dept? Pilots aren't allowed near their aircraft without a full medical and I believe in some cases a psych test (there's been rare cases of pilots going crazy and crashing planes deliberately).

I know I can be a slightly aggressive driver (mostly yelling out the window when some moron just about wipes me out or does something dumb) but I've seen drivers speeding without any regard for conditions or whether or not its appropriate to speed. The number of drivers who speed through Brisbane CBD astound me, even at the speed limit it is not safe due to the Dumb Pedestrian Factor.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

1) A pilot's medical has absolutely no psycological components although some "company medicals" do. I have held a class 1 (commercial) medial for many many years.
2) The only people who could do a psychological assessment are specialist doctors and there are no where near enough of them to do 1% of the population.
3) How would you feel if on the day of your assessment you had a cold, your girlfriend left you, your dog died and some dropkick in a doof doof ran into your car in the carpark causing $zillions of damage and ran away then the nice little "hitler" psychologist sat you down and started to ask you questions designed to see if you burr up? Well you would feel sore legs as you walked home unlicenced.......

Danger Will Robinson, Danger.............

[merlin]

What is the test designed to do? See who speeds? Something like 90 odd percent of drivers have admitted to speeding at one time or another in several studies - you would be effectively banning the majority of the population. If it is agression you are testing well it gets very complicated - its hardly an exact science.

It would start with driving, then move to dog ownership, house ownership ect ect. Too big brother for my liking.

The current enforcement of rules/laws in society by a police force works (in a broad sense).

[Rodp]

Sorry, don't see how a psychometric test is going to determine whether someone will be capable of driving sensibly.

[merlin]

"Your not getting a gun until you tell me your name!"

[sexr6tasy]

I suffer from schizophrenia i take no medication for it because i only have it mild i dont hear voices except the ones saying to me your an idiot lmao, ive never tried to kill anybody guess i should hand my license in now since im such a big danger to everybody seriously hunter get a clue.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by sexr6tasy

I suffer from schizophrenia i take no medication for it because i only have it mild i dont hear voices except the ones saying to me your an idiot lmao, ive never tried to kill anybody guess i should hand my license in now since im such a big danger to everybody seriously hunter get a clue.

Mate no offence but you're only one person. Its good that you're doing ok. But an example, some diabetics have no problems living a perfectly normal life at all... others have serious problems maintaining their blood sugar levels. Does that mean that the guy with mild diabetes which is under control shouldn't drive? No, of course not. Does it mean the guy with difficult and uncontrolled diabetes should drive without anyone giving him a second thought? No way! You might be ok, that's great for you but what of the people who have much much worse levels of problems?

I'm not suggesting they look at your mental health history and go "oh gee sorry you can't drive, you had x once upon a time". I'm suggesting they test people's attitudes towards driving and also looking closely the driver itself. Clearly most motor vehicle accidents are the result of human error. Mechanically speaking we're able to predict and at least ensure unroadworthy hunks aren't allowed on the road but what have we done to prevent people with poor driving abilities/attitudes from driving?

It is incredibly easy to get a license, far easier than it should be.

[colossus]

Far out - I think some of you would be happier living in Nazi Germany! Lets take a step back here...we are talking about a C class drivers licence not a FA/18 Hornet fighter jet or some sort of Mechwarrior armoured combat machine that has the capability to shoot nuclear missiles out of its nose whilst simultaneously electronicly jamming the east coast of America.

People can take responsibility for their own lives and I am sure most of us can drive a car. Put it in D and away you go. Stop wrapping the world in cotton wool and let people be people.

I don't know anyone with a mental illness but I am offended at the notion you want to ban them simply because of a "label".

[Full Noise]

The thing that I find amusing in this whole theory is that many of the worst drivers out there would most likely pass a psychological exam.

Most accidents out there are either caused by ignorance / blatant stupidity or by arrogance leading others into frustration.

You only have to watch shows like Last Chance Learners to realise that the licensing system doesn’t work, so why would a psychological test work?

[Full Noise]

Bloody hell, I think davway was using it as a tongue in cheek example.

Lets’ just change red heads to ( insert racial group you don’t like here) and all will be well.

[Hunter]

Full noise, the point is we should be using different techniques to weed out the poor drivers of different kinds. You've got hoons, old farts past their used by, inexperienced young drivers, aggressive rage-a-holics, blinkered camry/volvo drivers, etc. Different types of testing could be used to weed out most of the bad drivers.

Camry/volvo drivers would possibly fail HPT due to poor reactions and they probably would fail a comprehensive road knowledge test. Same as their hoon counterpart would probably fail a psychometric test or even an EQ test.

You can't rely on one technique to get rid of bad drivers but you can rely on a multitude of techniques and hopefully reach a near-ideal situation where the majority of those legally licensed drivers are halfway decent and not the way it is now where it takes very little effort to get and hold one.

After seeing how hard it was for my cousin to get his private pilot's license and just getting a glimpse of how difficult it is even for that I'm even more for making it harder to get a car license.

[XR06T]

but after all that testing and weeding out the bad drivers there would be no-one left to speed and fill the coffers..

wont happen,

but i will say it is good to see someone thinking of a (different) solution to the problem.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Was reading the thread about the elderly couple dying as a result of a 'drag-race' and I raised the issue of psych tests for drivers - I firmly believe that every driver should face psychometric tests every 5 years

No...

Originally Posted by Hunter

Anyway, what do you guys think?

I think it might be a good idea for new thread starters to have to have psych tests,and I should conduct them...

[SSBUB]

not practical, a NO from me too sorry

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by nugget378

No...




I think it might be a good idea for new thread starters to have to have psych tests,and I should conduct them...

But you don't wear rubber gloves when doing a psych test....do you ?

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

But you don't wear rubber gloves when doing a psych test....do you ?

No,they dont make gloves as such for what I use during psych tests..

[Kryton]

thats fine.
numerous people have told you why it wouldn't work, why it wouldn't be implemented.
if you don't want to listen and understand, thats your business. i could care less.
since youve obviously given this so much in depth thought, perhaps you could give us a full point by point run down on how the system would work, who would administer it, how it would be policed, how it would be implemented, what factors are taken into account in a judgement, what 'type' of person should and shouldnt be allowed a license, how a person would be detected to be a threat, what would happen if a person was deemed a non threat then went out and drove through a shopping mall, if the administration and or the analyst could be sued for malpractice.............
should i keep going?
you better make sure its fool proof too.

[Unco]

RE: Should drivers face psychometric tests every 5 years?

No. Apart from the differences already mentioned between pilots and car drivers, I don't think you have considered the socio-economic repercussions that such a test would have on our country. This will never happen.

How exactly do you plan for this to happen? One on one interviews? Or one of those online multiple answer tests that are so common these days? How personalized are these tests going to be? Just what percentage of drivers are you planning to disqualify? 0.01%? 1.0%? 5%? 10%? 50%?

If it's only 0.01%, do you see this as a justifiable method of spending tax money? if it's 50%, do you honestly see the government willing to part with that kind of realized and potential revenue? and can you imagine the impact that this would have on the auto industry with the amount of people it currently employs?

it's a no brainer, really.

[Dark Horse]

Ah yes, another sucker for the 'psychological testing' fads.

Originally Posted by Hunter

...but the reality is that we haven't done enough to eliminate human error from the motoring equation.

I have some concerns as to how much understanding you have in human error, if any. Psychological testing is NOT the be all end all of solving accidents and incidents. There will never be full and complete elimination of human error. Regardless of the actual percentages (some argue 60%-80%) but the reality at some point in the causal nexus (chain of events) there will always be human error whether unintentional through slips and lapses or deliberate through violations and mistakes leading to an accident or incident. What you are proposing is totally against the natural evolutionary grain of mental cognition - an almost dictator-like selection process.

I'll point out the obvious if you like. The human brain was biologically only ever designed to do things about walking pace, on the ground. What we are capable of doing now is 110 km/h on the freeway or 600 mile an hour in a commercial airliner. Yes apart from the 'psychological testing' you mention of pilots, they still have to undergo check rides to ensure they are proficient and competent in managing all the aircraft's systems but also the crew and resources available to them. The only way we have managed to do those things is not by psychological testing but by practice and experience. Guaranteed the types of errors committed between an inexperienced driver and an experienced one at that vary at the skill, rule and knowledge based levels.

What I find scary is that you have not mentioned any of this in your arguments against the others in your pro psychological testing opinion. What this proposal is is yet another knee jerk reaction and one that will place a siginificant demand on resources to implement correctly. It is not something that any RTA person behind the counter is qualified to administer.

The most successful systems around are those that are error-tolerant in that it know you are going to commit an error, what type of error it is likely to be and therefore have preventive measures or defences in depth to mitigate accordingly. And that's not just applicable to driving, but also has ramifications in industry. To do that one needs to be proactive in their approach to road safety, instilling a psychological test as a means to 'weed out' is not proactive. It is reactive to the mental state of one individual, which would not therefore apply to the rest of society.

Ever heard of Threat and Error Management (TEM)?

I suggest you do a bit of reading of the following publications before even beginning to refute this post:

'Human Error' by James Reason, Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-31419-4

'Investigating Human Error: Incidents, Accidents, and Complex Systems' by Barry Strauch, Ashgate Publishing ISBN 0-7546-4122-8

A few more since you mentioned the aviation industry:

'The Naked Pilot' by David Beaty, Airlife Publishing ISBN 1-85310-482-5

And also the ICAO Safety Mangement Manual Chapter 4
ICAO Safety Mangement Manual

As well as for licensing:

Volume 2, Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988;

And on top of that:

Part 40 of the Civil Aviation Orders, which sets out the licensing requirements. At the PPL and CPL level, CASA Doc201. Relevant syllabus is listed under Section 3 – Aeronautical Knowledge Training; Human Performance and Limitations.

Which leads to the following publication:

Aircraft Human Performance & Limitations by Tony Wilson, which is the text CASA refers to for the above.