Originally Posted by HiYoSilver
Agree with last statement totally. The idea of retesting after any accident is a great idea. But higher skills on written test???
Yes, higher skills on a written test. How often do we hear, here on BF.net, that a cyclist met a person who doesn't know that bikes are allowed on the roads? How often have you met someone mis-informed about traffic law? How much ignorance will you allow before you consider someone too ignorant to use the roads?
Is it OK with you if they are ignorant of 1 out of every ten rules? 2 out of every ten? 3 out of every 10? That what a 70% score would mean - that a person is ignorant of 30% - nearly 1/3 - off all rules of the road that have been tested on! Completely unacceptable.
Personally, I would require
- a good knowledge of the entire Highway Traffic Act (say, 70% score)
- a near perfect knowledge of the parts relevant to the type of vehicle you will be licensed for (say 90%)
- a perfect score on some key basic questions (a "Max 60km/hr sign means.....)
Originally Posted by HiYoSilver
It not head knowledge only. It's also practice and practice handling this particular vehicle. For example, anyone in snow country who doesn't practice each and every season regaining control after going into a slide, will not be ready when the panic situation occurs.
I did not say it was "head knowledge" only. The rules of the road are the first step (in most places) in acquiring the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. Here in Ontario, for example, you must pass your written test first, before you can get a learner's permit. If someone does not understand the basic rules of the road, why would be ever consider letting them proceed?