maybe something will be done about elderly drivers

Unfortunately, the only way to keep unqualified drivers off the road is to have a national standard, and a comprehensive test every time you come up for renewal. Not just the elderly, but everybody should go through it.

1. Charge $200 per person, and confiscate any vehicle that belongs to a person who doesn't pass.
2. Make it a felony to sell a motor vehicle to anybody without a license or insurance.

Face it, folks. The roads are not safe.
 
Face it, folks. The roads are not safe.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that so many people regard driving as a right. On the one hand, I think they can't be as bad as I think they are, not nearly enough accidents. On the other hand, I only drive seven miles to work, and I see someone do something completely idiotic 3 or 4 times a day. I live in a small city. Charging more wouldn't help, I don't think. The comprehensive test would be a good thing though. You should have to take a written test at least as hard as the one to get a pilots license, then a driving test first on a closed course to demonstrate car control, then in traffic to prove understanding of the rules and conventions of the road. Do you know there are several states that don't even take testees out on the road at all?
 
I'd be all for repeated testing, but we'd have to quadruple the HP workforce just to accomodate all the extra testing. Perhaps a manatory restest for renewal after a certain age limit would be more practical, but there are some sticky issues to resolve with that one.

I have a problem with your number (2) condition Gato. Why make it illegal to sell a car to someone without a license and insurance? It isn't currently illegal to own a car without a license, AFAIK, just illegal to drive it. Same for insurance. Maybe you want it for a collectible, or an investment, and don't want to insure it - you just leave it in the garage for years on end. Perhaps someone wants to buy a car so that as soon as their suspended license is cleared they will have a vehicle to drive. I dunno... could be a bunch of legitimate reasons for wanting to buy a car without insuring it, and at least a few for doing the same without a license.
 
outside looking in said:
I'd be all for repeated testing, but we'd have to quadruple the HP workforce just to accomodate all the extra testing. Perhaps a manatory restest for renewal after a certain age limit would be more practical, but there are some sticky issues to resolve with that one.

I have a problem with your number (2) condition Gato. Why make it illegal to sell a car to someone without a license and insurance? It isn't currently illegal to own a car without a license, AFAIK, just illegal to drive it. Same for insurance. Maybe you want it for a collectible, or an investment, and don't want to insure it - you just leave it in the garage for years on end. Perhaps someone wants to buy a car so that as soon as their suspended license is cleared they will have a vehicle to drive. I dunno... could be a bunch of legitimate reasons for wanting to buy a car without insuring it, and at least a few for doing the same without a license.
Click to expand...

Number 2 is supposed to cause a problem, but not for your reasons. I'll explain...

If it's illegal to own a car without a license, you wouldn't have an unlicensed driver on the road. Period. There are no 2 ways about this. If you want to collect cars, you'd best go through the same programs as everyone else...even if you never drive it, because you just might. Same goes as a person with a suspended license. He/she had to do something to get that license suspended, didn't he/she? No license, no motor vehicle. Plain and simple. It's not a right, it's a priveledge.
 
Now don't go screwing with a free market economy Gato. Owning does not give the priveledge to drive. Having a license does not make you a car owner. Ask many New Yorkers :D
 
If it's illegal to own a car without a license, you wouldn't have an unlicensed driver on the road. Period.
Click to expand...
Surely you don't really believe that, Gato. Some people will always break the law, and some lawyers will always defend them. :shrug:
 
I'm all for making it harder to get a license and retesting after a certain age or number of infractions. There's so many people out of work right now, how many jobs would be created by doing this in every state? I don't know about your area but I know there are certain DMV offices here that do testing and others that don't. They could setup a seperate location for testing/road tests.

chcr, I've always said that too-that driving is a priviledge, not a right. It's become so commonplace. Too commonplace. I try to be a good driver, and I'm teaching my bf Rusty to be a good driver too.

When you think of all the idiots you've met in your life, it's scary to think of those same morons getting behind the wheel of a car.
 
Gato, are you going to require people to get a fishing license before they can buy a fishing rod? Does every gun owner first have to get a hunting license (better watch that one... Constitutional problems there)?

More importantly though, you also lumped in insurance. Now someone has to insure a car that will never be driven?

Gonz is right - that's a restriction in the operation of a free market that isn't warranted. There are other ways to tackle the problem, like what we're doing now - tie the legality to the act of driving, not the ownership of the vehicle.

Your argument is similar to the gun control advocates - arrest someone not for committing a murder, but for owning a gun.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Unfortunately, the only way to keep unqualified drivers off the road is to have a national standard, and a comprehensive test every time you come up for renewal. Not just the elderly, but everybody should go through it.

1. Charge $200 per person, and confiscate any vehicle that belongs to a person who doesn't pass.
2. Make it a felony to sell a motor vehicle to anybody without a license or insurance.

Face it, folks. The roads are not safe.
Click to expand...
You mean its not? Over here I was under the impression that you need to produce a valid license and inurance documents to get a car.

And I'm with Gato for the retake of the lisence testes
 
I think it's time to make some changes with this too, only don't just limit it to people over a certain age. My proposal would be this. From the time you get your license until you are 60, you must take a drving test every 5 years. When you turn 60, that jumps to every 2 years. Don't take the test, lose your license. Fail the test once, lose your license for life.
 
Fail the test once, lose your license for life.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that one. Some people can learn from their mistakes. The rest isn't bad. The tests (written and driving) need to be a lot harder though.
 
Ok, maybe not in the younger ages, but after 60, you should. Now, I don't mean just a standard written or driving test either, I'm talking more of reaction times, whether it be done in a real car or on a simulation, there should be a certain reaction time that you can acheive. If you can't, chances are you won't be able to learn how.
 
PuterTutor said:
I think it's time to make some changes with this too, only don't just limit it to people over a certain age. My proposal would be this. From the time you get your license until you are 60, you must take a drving test every 5 years. When you turn 60, that jumps to every 2 years. Don't take the test, lose your license. Fail the test once, lose your license for life.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. I think retesting should be mandatory, definately. I don't agree with the losing the license for life, but there should be a penalty of some kind. Fail the test, can't retest for three months. Fail the test three times, can't retake the test for a year.
 
PT, I'd love to see mandatory retesting at regular intervals as well. The big problem is who is going to pay for it? Doing this will require a huge increase in the state employed workforce, and they won't be producing anything that has value in the way of goods or services to benefit the economy in return.

Would you rather there just be a mandatory $250 charge every five years when you renew your license, or would you rather they just raise your state taxes accordingly? We always complain that the government takes too much of our money, but then we still want them to provide more services. Something has to give.
 
I don't think the costs would be that great if it's done right. Computer simulations can give a much more accurate read as far as reaction times, and are less expensive and time consuming that actual driving tests. The computers are already there, the software shouldn't be that hard to implement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top