U.S. drivers license
- Thread starter Barnabas
- Start date
I think a lot of things in the U.S. driving need, things like continued testing and better education are important. But we can't sit on our collective asses while people are dieing thinking that people are going to die anyway.
You're not listening. Or comprehending.
I'm arguing that your idea will not prevent deaths by car accidents.. that it will only serve to annoy people and waste their money and time.
It's not fair. I'm a safe driver. I want to be discriminated against in this case. Because I'm not a bad driver and I'm not endangering anyone.
I'm not trying to be offensive but this is one of the most out-there ideas I've heard in awhile.
It would make sense to propose a requirement for senior citizens to have to take the test IF their doctor recommends it... but there's just no reasoning for an across the board: everyone take the test! mandate..
At least talk about manufacturing even safer cars... or like Kav is saying harsher punishments for those causing fatal accidents be it by drinking and driving or just not paying attention or driving offensively..
Last edited:
I disagree, Why do you think there are so few airplane related crashes compared to car related one. Because there is so much more involved in becoming a licensed pilot then there is for becoming a licensed driver.
My question is why doesn't the process of getting a drivers license mirror that of a pilots? I simply want it to mirror that process.
it's not even just piloting, boating and bike licenses are also harder to come by and harder to get then a car license. And the related incidences of these are lower to.
The system needs reform.
Completely agree with you.
I cannot see how testing will eliminate bad driving habits as people are generally more conscious about these things during a test anyways. People pass drug tests and still do drugs, I'm sure shitty drivers will do the same with driving tests albeit likely a bit easier.
Funny thing is I have an easier time getting a concealed carry license than doing anything at the DMV. They didn't even require me to take a test, I filled out a form and passed a background check. This allowed me to legally carry a .357 magnum revolver with a four inch barrel concealed just about anywhere I wanted to in the state, I think state and federal facilities and anyplace selling alcohol is restricted. I could be the most piss poor shot in the world but still can legally carry a lethal weapon and have it on hand for whatever stupid shit popped into my head. I personally appreciate my right as an Alabamian to legally carry a lethal weapon concealed for my own personal protection. I take this very seriously and back when I did carry day to day I made damn sure that I was able to handle the firearm as accurately and safely as possible through constant practice.
When it comes to operating my F150 V8 machine of death, I am just as serious as I am when I handle any firearm. Where did I learn to treat anything that could potentially kill or maim a human being with my utmost respect? My father. I don't talk on the phone or text while I drive, neither do I drive while intoxicated.
Maybe parents should teach their children a little more respect for the world around them and the rate of stupid shit related deaths would decline.
Last edited:
There is only so much one can learn and then the onus is on the one with the license to hone their skills.
In NH I had 10 hrs of driving time with an instructor and 20 hrs with a parent before i could get my license. After that I there was a written followed by and road test. It comes down to amount of time one spends and the only way to accumulate that is practice.
I fail to see how the lack of yearly driving tests would alleviate this... There are so many things going on here at once. The ratio of passengers in planes vs. automobiles has pretty much everything to do with the fact that there are less fatalites from air travel..also the fact that not every car crash is fatal, but you can pretty much bet there won't be survivors in a plane crash.
It doesn't mirror the process, I'm going to guess, because it's not necessary.
I know getting a trucking license is more difficult and if I'm correct, there is regular testing involved to maintain the license.. but driving a truck is more difficult than driving a car and there are a lot more risks to automobiles if a trucker doesn't know how to properly turn or whathaveyou. Plus, pilots and truckers are in it for the career.. insurance purposes from the company that hires them may be why there is more to it.
As an individual driver, you are paying your own insurance and you're responsible for the accident. And so yes, the onus is on the driver.. because the operation of the vehicle is their responsibility not the states.
Last edited:
they're are almost a hundred fold more vehicles on the roads than planes that could be in the sky.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
I would also go and say airspace is less dense compared to the limiting factors of roadway. True around hubs it can get congested but at the same time the pilot is being directed to specific vectors in the air. As for drivers they make all the decisions as they happen, contrary to ATCs who keep everything in order. The Pilot analogy is a terrible one at best
Last edited:
Well, I think what it comes down to is this: Are you a safe driver? Safe drivers shouldn't be penalized - but unsafe drivers should be.
There was a proposal on the books a few years' back stating that people over a certain age would have to take yearly drivers exams. I think it was shot down, though, because of lobby groups (AARP, etc) and age discrimination. I'm on the fence with that, though, because it's easier to see that reaction times slow down the older you get...that's a physical fact. And your eyesight/hearing diminishes as you age. So I don't think it's age discrimination to have someone of retirement age to take drivers tests more often. Especially since they may be on the road more often after retirement.
As for the rest of us, well, I tell you what: It's not cost effective to penalize everyone. Nearly everyone does some kind of moving violation, whether its speeding or beating a yellow light or not wearing a seatbelt, or talking on the cellphone, etc. And some do things that should be illegal (putting on makeup/eating while driving, adjusting the car radio too often, swerving in and out of traffic, honking horns inappropriately). And some drive with expired licenses.
I wouldn't even begin to say a program forcing folks to renew their licenses yearly would work. Even if we could get everyone into the DMV and pay the workers and increase taxes to do so, you'd still be using a fishing net to catch pelicans: The wrong net, for the wrong folks.
There was a proposal on the books a few years' back stating that people over a certain age would have to take yearly drivers exams. I think it was shot down, though, because of lobby groups (AARP, etc) and age discrimination. I'm on the fence with that, though, because it's easier to see that reaction times slow down the older you get...that's a physical fact. And your eyesight/hearing diminishes as you age. So I don't think it's age discrimination to have someone of retirement age to take drivers tests more often. Especially since they may be on the road more often after retirement.
As for the rest of us, well, I tell you what: It's not cost effective to penalize everyone. Nearly everyone does some kind of moving violation, whether its speeding or beating a yellow light or not wearing a seatbelt, or talking on the cellphone, etc. And some do things that should be illegal (putting on makeup/eating while driving, adjusting the car radio too often, swerving in and out of traffic, honking horns inappropriately). And some drive with expired licenses.
I wouldn't even begin to say a program forcing folks to renew their licenses yearly would work. Even if we could get everyone into the DMV and pay the workers and increase taxes to do so, you'd still be using a fishing net to catch pelicans: The wrong net, for the wrong folks.
I think Kavalan has a valid point here. Perhaps licenses should be issued without a driving test and the test should be required only if you incur a driving violation.
Once every five or ten years, maybe (not that I'm necessarily in agreement with that either)... but once a year, no way. There are better ways to spend money, time, and energy. Most of us don't need yet another thing to have to stress about, schedule, or spend money on. The cost of this (financial, personal, other strains) would far outweigh the benefits.
Last edited:
More testing wouldn't make anyone a safer driver. You can easily pass the test, because you take all of your attention and focus it on driving. What if an exceptionally good driver has one bad day and does a rolling stop? The thing is, as soon as the person walks out of there with their new license, they could easily hop back on their phone and drive shitty.
Also, what about the cost? A lot of people need to drive to make their money. Sure, 20 bucks doesn't sound like a lot, but to people who pinch every penny they get, 20 bucks a year is 20 dollars they could have spent on food for their child. Over a ten year period with two parents, that's 400 dollars that could have paid for a couple of community college courses.
On top of that, there is more money loss to the consumer. If every driver in the state was required to go to the DMV, they would be completely swamped. This would take hours out of an individual's day, hours that they could be getting paid a wage. To those of us who are well to do (we make enough money to eat and sleep comfortably) it wouldn't be anything more than a hassle, but for the poor, it would be money out of their pocket for the test, and money lost in labor hours. Depending on the person, missing an entire day (for those without vacation/paid time off, which is a vast majority of hourly wage earners) could mean a job.
I can't see how this could be anything but negative.
Also, what about the cost? A lot of people need to drive to make their money. Sure, 20 bucks doesn't sound like a lot, but to people who pinch every penny they get, 20 bucks a year is 20 dollars they could have spent on food for their child. Over a ten year period with two parents, that's 400 dollars that could have paid for a couple of community college courses.
On top of that, there is more money loss to the consumer. If every driver in the state was required to go to the DMV, they would be completely swamped. This would take hours out of an individual's day, hours that they could be getting paid a wage. To those of us who are well to do (we make enough money to eat and sleep comfortably) it wouldn't be anything more than a hassle, but for the poor, it would be money out of their pocket for the test, and money lost in labor hours. Depending on the person, missing an entire day (for those without vacation/paid time off, which is a vast majority of hourly wage earners) could mean a job.
I can't see how this could be anything but negative.
Unfortunately, the MVD already takes forever. Enough said.
Plus, at least in my state, the written driving test is by far the stupidest test that I have ever taken. Making people retake it wouldn't help anything. Also, there is no driving test for your license here that is publicly run; you have to see a private company to take the test, and they only offer the test in a very limited capacity. I had to wait months to take the driving test.
Are you sure that the deaths due to accidents in Florida aren't alcohol related? My guess would be that the majority are. Either that or people deliberately disobeying traffic law (i.e. drag racing).
Plus, at least in my state, the written driving test is by far the stupidest test that I have ever taken. Making people retake it wouldn't help anything. Also, there is no driving test for your license here that is publicly run; you have to see a private company to take the test, and they only offer the test in a very limited capacity. I had to wait months to take the driving test.
Are you sure that the deaths due to accidents in Florida aren't alcohol related? My guess would be that the majority are. Either that or people deliberately disobeying traffic law (i.e. drag racing).
The Highway Patrol usually picks up people who are not "on top of the rules" or whose abilities/age affect their driving.
That's what they do here in Washington, but every five years now. It still costs 20-something dollars, and takes ALL DAY to get through the line.
I do not believe in Drivers Licensing , and I've known for years that in the early days of mass automobile manufacturing , that one did not need a Drivers License and Government regulation had nothing to do with building/maintaining roads back then, because roads were built by private interests.There's already too much regulation, taxation, permits for this or that, titles, registrations, ect. It's just about tracking the mass public's travel and control.
Some history about the Drivers License and a "possible" future concerning it>
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
Some history about the Drivers License and a "possible" future concerning it>
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
I was actually just about to mention this. Make those that have traffic violations on record re-take the test every year (ouch, by the way, because I only need to get my license renewed every four years after I turn 21), not those that have a clean record. Of course, this is asking that reliable and competent traffic cops be on duty and cite those breaking the law. That, however, is much easier said than done.
It's also worthy to mention that some states have traffic courts that require violators to take a 3 to 6 week driving course, so the system is kind of implemented to respect of law violators... in some states.
I personally don't think vehicles should be owned and operated by individuals. It's very wasteful.
That aside, I don't think retesting everyone each year would solve the issue of the test not filtering out the poor performers in the first place. Instead, I think they should monitor people's driving closely for about a year after they get their first license, and take it away at the first sign of recklessness (even if they didn't break any laws). Then, they'd have to wait two months to get it back.
Also, anyone who was caught breaking a traffic law (aside from parking violations), would have their license taken away for two months, and would have to be retested in order to get it back.
That aside, I don't think retesting everyone each year would solve the issue of the test not filtering out the poor performers in the first place. Instead, I think they should monitor people's driving closely for about a year after they get their first license, and take it away at the first sign of recklessness (even if they didn't break any laws). Then, they'd have to wait two months to get it back.
Also, anyone who was caught breaking a traffic law (aside from parking violations), would have their license taken away for two months, and would have to be retested in order to get it back.