In many countries, driving is an essential part of daily life, providing people with freedom and access to work, school, and social activities. However, road accidents remain a major global problem, often caused by human error. Because of this, some people ...
Faglig kvalitetssikret av lærere og toppstudenter · Følger læreplanen (LK20) · Sist oppdatert 2026-09-07
This in-depth analysis of the arguments surrounding **retaking the driving test every five years** provides a model essay structure, detailed expansions of key points, and concrete examiner insights to help you master argumentative writing for the English exam.
In the Norwegian English subject curriculum (LK20), developing argumentation skills is a core competence. Exam tasks, particularly for VG2 and VG3, frequently ask you to write a discursive or argumentative essay on a contemporary social issue. A typical exam prompt might look like this: "Some people argue that to improve road safety, all drivers should be required to pass a driving test every five years. Discuss the arguments for and against this proposal." This topic is a perfect example, testing your ability to structure a balanced argument, use formal and precise language, support your claims with logical reasoning, and reach a nuanced conclusion. Mastering this type of essay is crucial for achieving a high grade.
Below is a well-structured essay on the topic. We will first present the original text and then add deeper analysis and expanded arguments to show how you can elevate a good essay into an excellent one. The original text is preserved exactly as it was written.
In many countries, driving is an essential part of daily life, providing people with freedom and access to work, school, and social activities. However, road accidents remain a major global problem, often caused by human error. Because of this, some people argue that drivers should be required to retake their driving test every five years. Supporters believe this would improve road safety, while critics think it would be unnecessary, expensive, and difficult to implement. This essay will examine both the advantages and disadvantages of compulsory retesting and argue that although the idea has clear benefits, it also brings significant challenges.
The strongest argument in favour of retaking the driving test is the potential improvement in road safety. Over time, many drivers develop bad habits without realising it: ignoring speed limits, using mobile phones while driving, or failing to signal properly. Regular testing would ensure that drivers remain aware of traffic rules and maintain safe driving behaviours. Another important benefit is that retesting could help identify drivers who are no longer fit to drive. For example, older drivers may experience slower reaction times, declining eyesight, or medical conditions that affect their ability to operate a vehicle safely. A five-year test could detect these issues early, reducing the risk of accidents caused by physical decline. By catching problems sooner, compulsory retests could prevent injuries and save lives.
To strengthen this point, we can add more specific details. The phenomenon of experienced drivers developing unsafe habits is known as "complacency" or "skill fade". For instance, a driver who has successfully navigated a specific intersection thousands of times may begin to perform "rolling stops" instead of coming to a complete halt, assuming the road is clear. A mandatory retest would force a return to the foundational principles of defensive driving. Furthermore, regarding older drivers, data from road safety agencies often shows that while they are involved in fewer accidents overall, the accidents they are involved in are more likely to be fatal, particularly at complex junctions requiring quick decision-making. A retest could specifically assess these high-risk scenarios, making it a targeted safety intervention rather than a general inconvenience. The debate over how to handle this demographic's mobility is complex, much like the discussion on whether the elderly should be encouraged to continue working.
Traffic laws change over time, and many drivers are unaware of new rules or road systems. A mandatory retest every five years would ensure that all drivers stay updated on current regulations. For instance, new environmental zones, electric vehicle rules, or changes related to cyclists and pedestrians may be introduced. Without regular education, many people continue driving based on outdated knowledge. Additionally, the roads themselves evolve. Cities add roundabouts, new types of signs, and more complex intersections. Technology also changes rapidly, such as advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS). Retesting would help drivers learn to use these features correctly, reducing mistakes and confusion. In a world where road systems continually develop, regular assessment keeps drivers skilled and prepared.
This argument becomes more powerful with concrete examples. Consider the introduction of "low-emission zones" in major European cities; a driver who qualified 20 years ago would have no formal training on their signage or rules, risking heavy fines. Another example is the increasing prevalence of electric scooters and their specific regulations, which are often misunderstood by motorists. On the technology front, many new cars feature adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assist. While designed for safety, misuse of these systems can lead to accidents. A modernised driving test could include a module on using ADAS correctly, ensuring that technology enhances safety rather than creating a false sense of security. This continuous learning is vital, as outdated knowledge can be just as dangerous as a physical impairment.
Despite its potential benefits, compulsory retesting has several disadvantages. The first major issue is cost. Both governments and individuals would face significant financial burdens. Testing centres would need more staff, more examiners, and more facilities to handle millions of retests every year. Drivers would have to pay exam fees repeatedly, which could be unfair to low-income individuals who rely on their cars for work. Another practical challenge is time and logistics. Millions of drivers cannot easily take time off work just to pass another test. Long waiting lists could appear, causing delays and frustration. For busy families, disabled drivers, or people living in rural areas, the retesting requirement could become a serious inconvenience. In extreme cases, people might lose their ability to drive temporarily simply because they cannot access an available test slot.
Let's examine the scale of this challenge. In a country like the UK, with over 40 million licensed drivers, a five-year retesting cycle would mean administering 8 million tests annually, on top of the tests for new drivers. This translates to over 30,000 tests every working day. The infrastructure required—more test centres, thousands of new examiners, and a vast administrative system—would demand a colossal public investment. This raises questions of fiscal priority. Would this money be better spent on road maintenance, public transport, or education? The financial burden on individuals, especially those in the "gig economy" or on zero-hour contracts, could be crippling. For them, a £100 test fee and a day of lost wages is not a minor inconvenience but a significant financial hardship, raising issues of social equity similar to those debated in proposals for a sugar tax to reduce health problems.
Many experienced drivers have been driving safely for decades. Forcing them to retake the test every five years may seem unnecessary and disrespectful. Passing the test once is often enough to demonstrate competence, and accident statistics show that many safe drivers go their entire lives without causing harm on the road. Mandatory retesting might therefore punish responsible drivers who pose no real danger. Furthermore, driving tests are often stressful, and some people perform poorly under pressure even if they are excellent drivers in normal situations. As a result, compulsory testing could lead to unfair failures, causing stress and limiting mobility for individuals who do not actually drive unsafely. This raises questions about whether constant testing is truly the best method for promoting road safety.
This point touches on a fundamental question: does a 45-minute driving test accurately reflect real-world driving ability? Critics argue it does not. A test environment is artificial. It cannot measure a driver's response to a sudden, unexpected crisis, nor can it assess their attitude or judgement over thousands of driving hours. A driver might perform every manoeuvre perfectly for the examiner but engage in risky behaviour, like texting, the moment the test is over. This suggests that the test itself may be a flawed instrument for measuring ongoing safety. The issue of test-induced anxiety is also significant. A perfectly competent driver could fail due to nerves, potentially losing their license and, consequently, their job or independence. This raises a parallel to academic settings, where many question whether exams are the best way to assess students' progress or if they merely measure performance under pressure. …