Stricter Driver's Licensing

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’ve seen quite a few threads discussing or arguing the merits of various road rules and standards of behaviour. What I always come back to in my posts is the seeming lack of skills and lack of understanding as to what creates an unsafe driving condition.

I put it to you that the problem is drivers who don’t know how to drive and a system that doesn’t monitor drivers’ skill level. I believe a much stricter standard should be set for testing motorists, one that would likely fail the bottom third of all drivers and require them to learn how to drive properly.

I propose tightening the testing process with more in-class testing and a longer, more thorough in-car test, both with much higher standards needed to acheive a pass. A fail would require the tester to take and pass an accredited driving course before being allowed to retake the licensing test. Further, I would require all drivers to retest every 7 years, so as to ensure driving skills and knowledge have not deteriorated.

I admit this is an unlikely scenario. People think of driving as a right, not a privelege. Also, the government testing services would have to be expanded dramatically. However, I believe the upside – safer roads, fewer deaths, lower insurance rates – far outweighs the downside.

Comments?

2

I absolutely agree with you, except I would up your skill testing every 7 years to every 5 and people over 60 every 2-3. I would also like to see automati licence suspensions for 6 months if they have more than 3 traffic infractions in a year and far more enforcement of the “little” laws that get overlooked, like signaling and complete stops.

It’ll never happen though. The idea has merit but the cost would be extraordinary and the civil liberty people would absolutely go apeshit.

3

You would have to get much more spending on mass transit and get adequate transit systems running first. Otherwise, you will severly limit the mobility of a huge chunk of people, which won’t be good for them, their families, their employers, or the economy.

These measures would also likely disproportionately affect the less educated, recent immigrant, and non-english speaking population who can least afford extra classes and whatnot, so, yes, rightly or wrongly, many people would go apeshit.

4

Is England safer? They have a much stricter licensing system.

5

Agree on paragraph one, disagree on paragraph 2. I have only the highest regard for people who chose to start a new life in a new country, and appreciate that it is difficult. BUT: In order to drive safely you need certain basic skills, and if you don’t have them you shouldn’t drive. If that includes speaking English well, so be it.

But in most of suburban NJ, just try to get public transportation anywhere. It’s a joke. IF you can get a taxi or a ride to the bus station or railroad station, you can get a ride to NYC or Philadelphia. But for most normal needs, a private car is absolutely essential. It’s ridiculous.

Also agree with previous poster about re-testing older drivers. I think 60 is a bit young to require that, but certainly 80 is not too high. The specific age limit should be based on actual research as to what the age is when a significant portion of the population declines sufficiently in judgement and reaction time. Definitely should require at least a re-test of eyesight for people of any age. You could see just fine at 17 (or whatever the age is in the state) and be seriously impaired 20 or 30 years later. Many people of age logically accept that they are no longer safe at night, or for long drives, or high speeds. Perhaps a limited license could be instituted that lets you drive only in clear daylight or only during certain hours. My 88-year-old mother-in-law, for example, drives only during mid-day on a local road, (slowly) to get to the supermarket, church, or the doctor, all of which are within 5 miles of her home. My recently-deceased father, OTOH, of a similar age, INSISTED on driving when he was seriously impaired, in the opinion of my sister and I. We tried and could not get his license lifted. He kept having fender-benders, once ran into the back of a pickup truck because he didn’t notice it (!) but would not admit that he was not competent. I guess it was fortunate that his health impaired to the point where he was hospitalized before he killed someone.

6

Interesting question. According to these figures, the average American is 2.5 times as likely to be killed in a road accident than the average Brit. As a matter of fact, the UK is the safest nation in that list.

7

… predicatably, with the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands following shortly thereafter. Interesting: Norway has the same death rate as the Netherlands. The population density is VASTLY different, though. But then, Norway gets a lot more ice and snow, which is certainly a factor.

8

I had to take driving lessons with an acredited schoool on the old system in Quebec. Now there’s a choice between Learner’s permit for 8 months and lessons or Learners for 12 an no lessons.

Anyways, in those lessons, I drove really well. Signalled all the time, never sped, never rolled through stop signs, etc. I was perfect. OUTSIDE of those lessons, even with my parents, a lot of these rules just went out the window. Speeding 5km over wasn’t a problem, and signalling when you’re far enough away from other cars that you won’t interfere with their driving is unnecessary (at least, thats how I drive - flame me if you want). Rolling through stop signs…who DOESN’T do that if the way is clear?

I still know all those rules, though, and I still could VERY easily drive the same way that I did during my driving lessons and test. I could, essentially, “fake” my good driving skills at a retest and get by, no problem.

Have my driving skills deteriorated? No. I just changed them to make my drive easier and more convenient, and they don’t always follow the rules. But a retest wouldn’t show that, and so would be a waste of time and money, both on my part and on the tester.

That said, I do think that the requirement of an accredited driving school giving lessons is a good one, because they ARE trained to point out the things that most older drivers (parents) forget about or just barely notice anymore. And they aren’t panicking at every move the teenager is making! Requireing the lessons guarantees (at the time I took my license) 12 hours of being TAUGHT to drive by someone who knows how to teach it. That, IMHO, is more valuable driving time than driving mom to the grocery store to buy some eggs.

I know someone who learned to drive on the new system, and didn’t take lessons. Her parents barely ever let her drive, and it was always quiet roads, and in-town (a small town). She went to do her drivers test and almost panicked when she had to drive on a busy main road in the city, and it was so much worse when she had to take the highway, even for only about 1.5km. She didn’t know how to part any other way than nose-first, and although she HAD been tested on things in her theoretical test to get her learners permit, she wasn’t aware of how to handle the car when a light turned yellow (drive schools enforce the solid-line-means-stop rule), and she always signalled too late. Needless to say, she failed her first test. She managed the second time around, though, but she would have passed if she had had a decent teacher.

9

I agree that the testing should reflect the skill needed to drive safely, but my point was that (1) increased difficulty in testing would disproportionately affect less educated and non-english speaking groups; and (2) this disproportionate affect would cause many people to go apeshit.

I never said one way or another how I actually felt about raising the standards or what the standards should be. I was just throwing out some food for thought on the potential impact of raising the standards.

10

Thank you for supporting the idea in principle, folks. I am very aware of the stumbling blocks that would prevent such a thing from going through, as I hinted at in the OP, but I think the notion has merit in principle. Perhaps that’s enough to push government types in the right direction?

bernse: Speaking of civil liberties people, the voting public over 60 is growing like wildfire and would scream bloody murder if something as “ageist” as more frequent testing for them ever be imposed. I theorize that by installing regular testing for everyone A) we’ll catch people with deteriorating skills and get them off the roads regardless of their age and B) it’ll force people who are up for testing to be more honest with themselves about their own skills and maybe cause some of them to give up their licences voluntarily.

Bearflag70: I agree with both your points. As to the mass transit concern, I would think a transitional period of 10 or more years would be necessary to give city transit time to prepare for the big shift. Also, this would give motorists a fair shot at upgrading their skills so as to avoid losing their licences. As to the whole english-speaking/poor people can-of-worms, again I see your point and would expect it to be a serious problem. But again, I would hope that the implementation period would give people enough time to study and learn the necessary skills, as well as providing government the time to create programs targetted to addressing these very issues.

mnemosyne: Although I agree that many would try to fake their way through testing and some would pass, I think most people would get their eyes opened in a retest as to just how much they have forgotten and how many bad habits they’ve developed. Also, if the retests check for knowledge of new and/or obscure legislation, going in without having at least done a little studying would be foolish at best. As I mentioned above, I think the very real possibility of losing your licence would cause many to maintain their good driving habits and do some studying/practicing before testing which can’t help but improve the situation.

11

If you started today, your estimate of 10 or more years transition would probably be a lot more that 10 years depending on how tough you want to make the licensing standard.

Ultimately, I would love to see more mass transit projects, particularly in urban areas. In conjunction with that, a strict standard could be part of a plan to get commuters off the road and into mass transit systems.

Many states are financially strapped right now, particularly California. There’s a serious short term cash problem that would need to be resolved when you consider the cost of planning, marketing, lobbying against the auto industry, fighting resistant local governments, environmental studies, acquiring rights of way, and, eventually development.

10 years from today? I wouldn’t count on it.

Also, it seems you’ve got the cart before the horse. Better land use plans and transportation alternatives may lead to getting drivers off the roads and improved driver courtesy and safety. I think it’s better to view raisied licensing standards as a worthwhile byproduct of better planning, not so much the other way around.

12

Oh man, a thread right up my alley. I’ve been advocating continuing education for drivers for years.

In the US, anyway, we typically “train” someone how to drive when they’re what, 15? 16? Then what do we do? We turn them loose to practice on the public roadways. We then try to limit the bad behaviors by using punishment (tickets, suspensions, etc) and we just about NEVER re-train or reward the good behavior (unless you count lower insurance premiums - slightly lower anway - as a ‘reward’)

Do we do this for any other task that requires skill and can kill people if it’s done wrong? Pilots have to continue to go to school. Doctors have to continue to go to school. Truckdrivers, train engineers, ship captains, bus drivers, etc all have to re-certify and re-test on a regular basis.

Why is it then that we continue to attempt to train a driver once as a teenager (when, arguably, the retention rate is low and the peer pressure to get a license is very high) and then never go back and re-train? I mean, I certainly encounter hundreds of drivers on the road every single day that could use a refresher, that’s for sure.

It continues to amaze me that we spend billions on road, traffic and vehicle engineering to compensate for unskilled and stupid drivers. It’s as if the traffic engineers consider the vehicle’s driver, the only actually intelligent part of the system, to be some sort of random “problem” introduced into the system that has to be “engineered out.”

My thought has been for some time that EVERY driver should have to re-test every time they renew their license and would be required to attend a full-on driving school (not California style “traffic school” - but a real one, with training in real cars on real roads) at least every ten years.

13

I feel like that sort of program would get the people off the road where perception is a problem (old age) but it wouldn’t affect 90% of the assholes out there. Because that’s the problem- I don’t think that people are bad drivers because they literally “don’t know how to drive”, I think they’re being lazy and disrespectful.

The only way to force people to drive well would be a car system, where the car itself reported you if you didn’t signal, or didn’t stop, etc., and think of how unpopular that would be.

14

Would the retraining every ten years be free? If it was i would support that kind of thing. Some say driving is a privalige not a right. I say it is a necessity. If you live in the city you can get by with out it. However in the country not driving makes life very hard. You try walking nine milee in to town and lugging groceries and a gallon of milk back.

15

Would the retraining every ten years be free? If it was i would support that kind of thing. Some say driving is a privalige not a right. I say it is a necessity. If you live in the city you can get by with out it. However in the country not driving makes life very hard. You try walking nine milee in to town and lugging groceries and a gallon of milk back.

16

Coldfire, one important point to note in your link is that we drive more in the US than they do in the UK. The death rate per 100,000 is more than double for the US, but the rate per Billion Km driven is only 25% higher. The US compares fairly well to the other European countries in that regard.

I agree with mnemosyne in that most people can drive perfectly safely if they’d just pay attention to what they’re doing. There are frightfully few rules that the average driver doesn’t understand, they choose to ignore them. Put them in a test, and they’ll do fine, then go back to their lousy habits once the test is over.

The only thing that very strict licensing rules will do is get rid of the really bad young driver, and perhaps the really bad old driver. These are reasonable things to do, but may not affect the overall safety of our roads.

17

Good point, Cheesesteak. And one I actually pondered upon last night, but then I dropped it as it was getting late, and I was tired. :slight_smile:

The US and the European countries seem to have similar death statistics per km. driven, with the exception of some Southern European countries. Not surprising, I mean, try driving through Rome. It’s madness!

So, the US doesn’t seem to have an alarmingly high death rate. Of course, the US has a lot more wide open spaces than most European countries as well: does this influence things? Does the “better” European driver’s license influence things at all, or is it insignificant?

Interesting stuff.

18

It has been my experience that accidents are caused more by impatience, carelessness, and inattention rather than a lack of skill or training.
The idiot in a hurry to get home that thinks nothing of cutting people off and making dangerous manuevers in an effort to selfishly get a little farther ahead then the next guy is one of the major causes of accidents. What is the worst is that often these self-centered morons cause accidents that don’t even involve themselves and often have no idea what they have caused.
Stricter enforcement of existing laws would be more effective than training I believe. I get rather upset at how so many policemen are more likely to ignore a fast moving or dangerously manuevering newer vehicle over stopping an older car that has improper tags. Rather than upholding the laws that protect us they instead concentrate on the laws that make the city money.
If they concentrated more on dangerous drivers and less on setting up speed traps and other money making schemes we would all have safer roads.

19

I think it contributes to the lackadaisical way that people drive here. Open roads, not quite as much to keep your attention, interspersed with bumper to bumper traffic that’s just as dull. Also the long drives seem like such a waste, lots of time, not much to do, we fill in with eating, cell phones, fiddling with the radio.

It probably lowers our death rate per km, but makes our driving habits poor.

20

I think more frequent and tougher testing would be a good step to solving some of our current transportation problems. I would also suggest that we adopt traffic calming methods in order to make driving less “convenient.”

Here in Houston, we have an small area where the speed limit is 30 mph (West University), when most other surrounding areas are 35 and up. This area is a well known speed trap. I and several people I know have been cited for speeding through there. That was when I first arrived in Houston. Now I applaud West U. for there tough stance on speeders. I find that is one of the few areas that I can enjoy driving or riding my bike through. People generally pay close attention in that area, which they should be all the time.

We could make streets and lanes narrower and make turns tighter so people have to slow down. In residential areas make the speed limit 30 or 35 and install speed bumps or other methods to insure drivers do not speed, such as “speed traps.” Other larger, main roads and highways can be left as they are with higher speed limits and designated for cars only. I really do not understand why so many are resistant to this and other such ideas.

Another group I blame are the auto makers. They are constantly making more powerful and faster cars, and highlight this in their commercials, yet I am unaware of any places in the US that don’t have a speed limit. I am really surprised that there has not been a class action lawsuit similar to the “McDonalds made me fat” or “smoking gave me cancer even though everyone knows it is dangerous and I started after the warnings appeard on the boxes.” I find it quite wasteful to buy all this power that I am not going to use. To me it would be like buying a chicken and eating only the legs and throwing the rest away.

The times I have to drive to work, I have taken several various routes. I have gone on the highway, down a larger “main” road with higher speed limits and through residential areas. I personally found that I could generally leave around the same time and was not slowed down to any significant degree.

I would also suggest more bike lanes and wider sidewalks along with better public transit to help make not driving not such a handicap.