The problem is who the opinion is unpopular with. About 22% of registered voters are in the AARP, and they'd be most at risk of losing their driving privileges. Any legislator proposing this or voting for it may as well kiss their office goodbye.
At least in some places well before COVID they didn't bother with road tests. My first GF got her first license in a tiny little town in GA way back in 1998-99. No driving test was administered
I agree. It's not that your driving skills might be lost over time, it's to refresh everyone on laws and regulations. It would also catch people who have had cognitive decline and should not be driving.
Sure, why not. Make it a 20min exam at something like 30 bucks and it'll improve road safety for everyone at a manageable cost for the individual. I mean I'm paying way more for the repairs, insurance, gasoline... Also spend way more time in some traffic jams. Guess I could do it every few years or so...
Edit: And go ahead and ask them some questions as well. Like: You're in a traffic jam. What do you do? a) change lines 200 times -- b) do something useful.
And take away their permit do go downtown or drive while rush hour if they're bad drivers.
I am nearing 70 and I have 2 cataracts. I am voluntarily taking myself off the road as I don’t feel right. Selling our vehicle at end of month. I will not be one of those old farts that crashes into people for my own convenience. It sucks but it’s the right thing to do.
Bro, as your friendly neighborhood eye doctor, please go get your cataracts fixed. It's honestly one of the best quality of life improvements you can make. Most surgeries are less than 15 minutes.
I have been to an eye doctor. Unfortunately they are still ripening and not yet ready to be fixed. About 3 months ago he said come back in 6 months.
I heard it is not good to work on them until the right time?
I watched my grandpa's driving deteriorate to where I didn't feel safe being driven around by him, for myself or for others.
thank you for making that choice. 70 feels early, to me, comparing to when I noticed it in my grandfather and what I am seeing in my father now, so I respect your decision even more
hopefully you live somewhere that you can still get around decently, as my grandfather did. he could still walk or bike all around town, and did
I feel like this is one of those things that I can agree to on paper but I can’t support because I feel like it would disproportionately impact those that are already struggling to get by.
Also how do you judge a test? Like hey I've driven over 140 mph just fine, drifted in the rain, drop shifted to save myself out of an accident. How is checking to see if someone can tap the gas or brake pedal make me feel less like I'm trying to avoid collisions? It's like wow you can use turn signals... good, you know where the brake pedal is... good, oh you forgot where the gas pedal was since you were watching tictock dance videos. Now add in all the new features like a corolla being able to drive you around with no input.
Yet driving is a privilege not a right so there are already fees on every exam you take, at least where I come from.
Personally I'm of the opinion that there's no need to retest healthy working-age adults unless they have traffic violations... But traffic violations should trigger retesting more easily. Right now you gotta fuck up real bad to have your license taken away (after which you can get it back after a while if you pass tests again).
And once you're in your 60s or 70s, we should start retesting and it should be mandatory. We do have mandatory health exams that go from 10 years to 5 years when you age, but they mostly test the sharpness of your vision and such. They don't test how you actually react to things in traffic, or how good your peripheral vision is. There's other stuff they test too, but I've forgotten it, been a few years since my last one.
The reason why we don't do this is because driving tests are short. I'm sure most drunk driving incidents involve zero people ending up hurt. Drunk driving is illegal because the rate of people getting hurt is much higher than usual.
The only problem with that is that for the last 90 years we have been making our cities car dependant
Sure in places where there are alternatives to driving make it hard to get or keep a driving licence so it's only the competent drivers on the road, but in places with no cheaper alternative the deal the majority has accepted is everyone needs to drive no matter how bad at it they are
I would go a step further: either make the tests progressively harder (they have more experience driving, right?) or gate vehicle class/weight behind better scores.
I really dislike the trend of the worst drivers getting the largest vehicles, endangering literally everyone.
IDK how it is in other states, but California already makes me re-test every few years. And it's less than 10. Tho it doesn't require a behind-the-wheel test; just the multiple choice test.
I had to get a license in a foreign state as mine expired because I'm stupid, and they made me take a big long test, no study materials or warning or anything. I aced it naturally.
When traffic isn't enforced, driving tests won't make a difference. I'm actually getting to the point where I wish they'd install red light cams again due to the number of people I see regularly run them. And as long as you're under 100 mph, you're good!
Heavy disagree on that. Much bigger issue is trucks whose headlights are too high (in north america anyway, we don't have many of those in Europe except for lorries that don't drive at night that much). LEDs and HIDs, by law, are installed inside projectors that cut off the beam and low beams are pointed down... from the factory, anyway. There's quite literally no reason they should blind you except for being installed too high (trucks) or pointed too high (idiots or people whose headlight leveling systems are not calibrated, but stuff like that actually gets checked at annual inspection where I come from).
Old headlights with no projectors are worse than correctly aimed factory HIDs or LEDs because the light is all scattered (and they're so shit that the driver's more tempted to just keep the high beams on as long as possible)
It'll never become a mandatory thing. Driving is too important in the US.
Buuuut what could happen overnight is that insurance companies could start giving discounts for regular driving classes, like how taking a defensive driving class gets you a discount, or taking advanced rider courses often gets you a discount on motorcycle insurance.
And then just start actually enforcing basic traffic laws. Where I am, cops are beyond useless about that.
Eh. I'd rather have real driver training required before a license is issued. Some countries do.
In the US, my driver's education consisted of driving in a car with an instructor and two other students in the back (or being in the back while someone else drove). We were required to drive five mph under the speed limit at all times.
So really, I learned how to drive when I got my license.
I'm 51. I was hit two times in my early 20s, but I've not been involved in an accident since (and so never has been my fault). But it's not because of the driver's ed.
Also, I'd love for science to look at what ages (or medical conditions) affect poeples' ability to drive and start testing based on those things. If that means taking tests now? Sure, fine, let's do it - I know I'm still fine.
But it's also hardly an age thing....... lots of people just don't care to learn how to actually drive defensively. :|
The intent is a good one. Assuming it's the US we're talking about, the DMV is already one of the worst places to wait for something, so maybe this could be something tied to making sure people are healthy and prepared for driving, while also giving access to regular checkups and vision tests. Like an urgent care setup. Whatever is done will require lots of investment of money and infrastructure change, plus driving privileges are state by state, so some simply aren't going to have the same funds as others. It could be a federally funded and mandated thing, like the Real ID mess is, but we'd need a socially-minded government for that instead of one obsessed with monitoring its citizens more than helping them.
In the US, driving a car is mandatory. Your safety is being sacrificed for the economy and auto/fuel industries, not because low skilled drivers exist.
It takes a real asshole to make driving harder for the individual in a system where the only alternative to driving is fuck yourself. If you can't drive, you don't deserve to eat!
It's a proud American tradition to re-distribute the shit rather than doing something about the assholes above you.
Yeah. I agree with OP, you shouldn't be allowed to operate dangerous machinery if you can't do so at some acceptable level of competence, but what you said is the realpolitik reason it's not done that way in the US, I think. I imagine that's true in other car-dependent communities as well.
In order to make driver licensing more stringent, non-driving has to be a viable way to live. Both of which need to happen, IMO, but one has to come first.
58 Comments
mushroommunk@lemmy.today · 38 pts · 14h
I don't think this opinion is as unpopular as you expect. Especially post COVID where everyone clearly forgot the little driving skill they did have.
tmyakal@infosec.pub · 10 pts · 13h
The problem is who the opinion is unpopular with. About 22% of registered voters are in the AARP, and they'd be most at risk of losing their driving privileges. Any legislator proposing this or voting for it may as well kiss their office goodbye.
adarza@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 14h
for a couple years during covid, they didn't even do behind-the-wheel driving tests here, even for new drivers
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 12h
At least in some places well before COVID they didn't bother with road tests. My first GF got her first license in a tiny little town in GA way back in 1998-99. No driving test was administered
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 12h
That would all depend on state.
stoly@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 12h
I agree. It's not that your driving skills might be lost over time, it's to refresh everyone on laws and regulations. It would also catch people who have had cognitive decline and should not be driving.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de · 13 pts · 14h
Sure, why not. Make it a 20min exam at something like 30 bucks and it'll improve road safety for everyone at a manageable cost for the individual. I mean I'm paying way more for the repairs, insurance, gasoline... Also spend way more time in some traffic jams. Guess I could do it every few years or so...
Edit: And go ahead and ask them some questions as well. Like: You're in a traffic jam. What do you do? a) change lines 200 times -- b) do something useful.
And take away their permit do go downtown or drive while rush hour if they're bad drivers.
thesohoriots@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 14h
Do it when you get your colonoscopies. A little propofol, a little road test… have fun with it.
LordMayor@piefed.social · 2 pts · 12h
You can’t leave until you run out of gas.
Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 9h
I am nearing 70 and I have 2 cataracts. I am voluntarily taking myself off the road as I don’t feel right. Selling our vehicle at end of month. I will not be one of those old farts that crashes into people for my own convenience. It sucks but it’s the right thing to do.
PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 6h
Bro, as your friendly neighborhood eye doctor, please go get your cataracts fixed. It's honestly one of the best quality of life improvements you can make. Most surgeries are less than 15 minutes.
Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 5h
I have been to an eye doctor. Unfortunately they are still ripening and not yet ready to be fixed. About 3 months ago he said come back in 6 months. I heard it is not good to work on them until the right time?
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 3h
I watched my grandpa's driving deteriorate to where I didn't feel safe being driven around by him, for myself or for others.
thank you for making that choice. 70 feels early, to me, comparing to when I noticed it in my grandfather and what I am seeing in my father now, so I respect your decision even more
hopefully you live somewhere that you can still get around decently, as my grandfather did. he could still walk or bike all around town, and did
Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 5h
I feel like this is one of those things that I can agree to on paper but I can’t support because I feel like it would disproportionately impact those that are already struggling to get by.
myyass@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2h
Also how do you judge a test? Like hey I've driven over 140 mph just fine, drifted in the rain, drop shifted to save myself out of an accident. How is checking to see if someone can tap the gas or brake pedal make me feel less like I'm trying to avoid collisions? It's like wow you can use turn signals... good, you know where the brake pedal is... good, oh you forgot where the gas pedal was since you were watching tictock dance videos. Now add in all the new features like a corolla being able to drive you around with no input.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5h
It's for public safety, so there definitely shouldn't be fees. It should be covered with taxes.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 2 pts · 2h
that sounds an awful lot like communism /s
daychilde@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2h
wut, no, unless ur tests are litarally held in a commune, dumass!
;-)
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 2h
Yet driving is a privilege not a right so there are already fees on every exam you take, at least where I come from.
Personally I'm of the opinion that there's no need to retest healthy working-age adults unless they have traffic violations... But traffic violations should trigger retesting more easily. Right now you gotta fuck up real bad to have your license taken away (after which you can get it back after a while if you pass tests again).
And once you're in your 60s or 70s, we should start retesting and it should be mandatory. We do have mandatory health exams that go from 10 years to 5 years when you age, but they mostly test the sharpness of your vision and such. They don't test how you actually react to things in traffic, or how good your peripheral vision is. There's other stuff they test too, but I've forgotten it, been a few years since my last one.
andrewta@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2h
That would mean a drivers license should be covered by taxes because that is also for public safety. Yeah no I don’t agree
daychilde@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2h
I disagree that one means the other. Initial license is s privilege. Testing is for safety and we want to limit incentives to skip it
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 10h
Doesn't seem like an unpopular opinion. At least not on Lemmy.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5h
WRONG. DOWNVOTED. BLOCKED.
Just kidding.
But "unpopular opinions" are hard, though, because the TRULY unpopular ones usually don't get upvotes. lol
jtrek@startrek.website · 8 pts · 12h
Adding more friction to driving might yield better transit options. Let's do it.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5h
Mixed medium density cities would do it. We gotta do that in the US to have any hope for improvement.
antianarchist@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 6h
I’m also for a yearly update on what traffic rules changed.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 6h
I just want to not have to drive
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.social · 6 pts · 11h
The BAC content that you take your test at should determine your legal limit.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 11h
I'm sure I could pass a driving test when nearly blackout drunk, so.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 9h
Im sure i can do a backflip when blackout drunk.
Doesnt mean i can, just that i believe i can.
psud@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 8h
Loads of people drive tired, and moderately drunk people are better than tired people at driving
Zorque@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1h
Just how drunk do you get where "blackout drunk" is moderate drinking to you?
psud@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1m
I'm not talking about me and I'm not telling about the person I'm replying to. I'm talking about moderately drunk people compared to tired people
For the record I don't think people too drunk to make memories are going to be competent drivers
LodeMike@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 8h
No I very likely can. It's not hard.
The reason why we don't do this is because driving tests are short. I'm sure most drunk driving incidents involve zero people ending up hurt. Drunk driving is illegal because the rate of people getting hurt is much higher than usual.
psud@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 8h
The only problem with that is that for the last 90 years we have been making our cities car dependant
Sure in places where there are alternatives to driving make it hard to get or keep a driving licence so it's only the competent drivers on the road, but in places with no cheaper alternative the deal the majority has accepted is everyone needs to drive no matter how bad at it they are
Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 14h
I would go a step further: either make the tests progressively harder (they have more experience driving, right?) or gate vehicle class/weight behind better scores.
I really dislike the trend of the worst drivers getting the largest vehicles, endangering literally everyone.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 3h
I despise shitty drivers who buy huge dangerous vehicles because they feel safer. absolutely despise them. it's a fucking disgusting selfish decision.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2h
I think you're making an assumption that isn't true:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-driver/
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 3 pts · 14h
IDK how it is in other states, but California already makes me re-test every few years. And it's less than 10. Tho it doesn't require a behind-the-wheel test; just the multiple choice test.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 13h
Those are good for showing you're up to date on law changes, but doesn't do anything about showing actual proficiency.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 12h
I had to get a license in a foreign state as mine expired because I'm stupid, and they made me take a big long test, no study materials or warning or anything. I aced it naturally.
areakode@riskeratspizza.com · 3 pts · 14h
When traffic isn't enforced, driving tests won't make a difference. I'm actually getting to the point where I wish they'd install red light cams again due to the number of people I see regularly run them. And as long as you're under 100 mph, you're good!
skribe@piefed.social · 2 pts · 13h
Night driving should be included in any driving test.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 3h
nobody would pass because nobody can see anything with LED headlights anymore
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 2h
Heavy disagree on that. Much bigger issue is trucks whose headlights are too high (in north america anyway, we don't have many of those in Europe except for lorries that don't drive at night that much). LEDs and HIDs, by law, are installed inside projectors that cut off the beam and low beams are pointed down... from the factory, anyway. There's quite literally no reason they should blind you except for being installed too high (trucks) or pointed too high (idiots or people whose headlight leveling systems are not calibrated, but stuff like that actually gets checked at annual inspection where I come from).
Old headlights with no projectors are worse than correctly aimed factory HIDs or LEDs because the light is all scattered (and they're so shit that the driver's more tempted to just keep the high beams on as long as possible)
psud@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 8h
My town of half a million people requires logged practice at night while on the learners permit
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 14h
Yep. With a short introduction which laws and regulations are new, and maybe a reminder about older rules that are not followed as they better should.
And: you should have to bring a current first aid course certificate and a doctors note on how good your eye sight is.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 12h
Licenses have to be redone ever 4 years in my state, and they do a vision test right in the SOS office.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 13h
It'll never become a mandatory thing. Driving is too important in the US.
Buuuut what could happen overnight is that insurance companies could start giving discounts for regular driving classes, like how taking a defensive driving class gets you a discount, or taking advanced rider courses often gets you a discount on motorcycle insurance.
And then just start actually enforcing basic traffic laws. Where I am, cops are beyond useless about that.
weps@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 8h
and they should have skill levels
like more maximum speed allowed for better drivers and cars on certain roads
Vandals_handle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4h
How would you efficiently manage that?
weps@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3h
minimum track time to beat would be nice
edit: if you mean speeding tickets and stuff, the digital systems are smart enough to know my license to drive
daychilde@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5h
Eh. I'd rather have real driver training required before a license is issued. Some countries do.
In the US, my driver's education consisted of driving in a car with an instructor and two other students in the back (or being in the back while someone else drove). We were required to drive five mph under the speed limit at all times.
So really, I learned how to drive when I got my license.
I'm 51. I was hit two times in my early 20s, but I've not been involved in an accident since (and so never has been my fault). But it's not because of the driver's ed.
Also, I'd love for science to look at what ages (or medical conditions) affect poeples' ability to drive and start testing based on those things. If that means taking tests now? Sure, fine, let's do it - I know I'm still fine.
But it's also hardly an age thing....... lots of people just don't care to learn how to actually drive defensively. :|
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 1 pts · 14h
The intent is a good one. Assuming it's the US we're talking about, the DMV is already one of the worst places to wait for something, so maybe this could be something tied to making sure people are healthy and prepared for driving, while also giving access to regular checkups and vision tests. Like an urgent care setup. Whatever is done will require lots of investment of money and infrastructure change, plus driving privileges are state by state, so some simply aren't going to have the same funds as others. It could be a federally funded and mandated thing, like the Real ID mess is, but we'd need a socially-minded government for that instead of one obsessed with monitoring its citizens more than helping them.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 1 pts · 13h
what about before 60?
yesman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14h
In the US, driving a car is mandatory. Your safety is being sacrificed for the economy and auto/fuel industries, not because low skilled drivers exist.
It takes a real asshole to make driving harder for the individual in a system where the only alternative to driving is fuck yourself. If you can't drive, you don't deserve to eat!
It's a proud American tradition to re-distribute the shit rather than doing something about the assholes above you.
queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 5h
Yeah. I agree with OP, you shouldn't be allowed to operate dangerous machinery if you can't do so at some acceptable level of competence, but what you said is the realpolitik reason it's not done that way in the US, I think. I imagine that's true in other car-dependent communities as well.
In order to make driver licensing more stringent, non-driving has to be a viable way to live. Both of which need to happen, IMO, but one has to come first.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 12h
Well Said.