every 10 years while you are under 60, then one every 3-5 years after 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. :|
In my state, my kids were required to have basic knowledge of controlling the car before drivers Ed, not be allowed with the instructor until passing a written test, keep a log tracking sufficient experience, and satisfy the instructor (little bit of conflict of interest paying more hours). Road test with the state was not allowed until they were endorsed by a driving school.
(Then they ruin all that by saying 18 year olds are adults who are responsible for themselves and can just show up for the road test)
In Texas in 1993, they were transitioning between… I don’t remember what exactly anymore. But the end result was all drivers who got licenses that summer didn’t have to take a road test or anything with DPS - once driver’s ed said we were ready, we got our licenses. lol
I do remember taking some sort of written test - maybe even at DPS… I don’t remember where it was anymore. heh. That’s been a while now.
I think you’re making an assumption that isn’t true:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-driver/
I’d assume older people drive less (but I might be wrong), so I’d be curious to see accidents per 100000 kilometers driven broken down by age
I’d be interested in seeing a percentage based graph taking into account the number of drivers per age group. I would expect there to be fewer drivers in the last two groups, concurrent with an increased percentage of accident drivers.
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.
for a couple years during covid, they didn’t even do behind-the-wheel driving tests here, even for new drivers
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
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.
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.
I despise shitty drivers who buy huge dangerous vehicles because they feel safer. absolutely despise them. it’s a fucking disgusting selfish decision.
Should fail the road test if they can’t keep the vehicle in the lane, can’t fit the vehicle in a standard parking spot.
It used to be a point of pride that you could drive well enough for a larger vehicle, but now it’s the larger vehicles that can’t stay in the lane or reverse or park
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.
Licenses have to be redone ever 4 years in my state, and they do a vision test right in the SOS office.
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.
Those are good for showing you’re up to date on law changes, but doesn’t do anything about showing actual proficiency.
Maybe that’s what we need. Regular reminders of actual laws and good practices should increase the number of people who follow them.
Most of the times I’ve been endangered, the driver was competent (as far as I know). Usually they make a stupid choice (and we all do it) and it’s probably something that’s no big deal nine times out of ten …… except when it is a big deal
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.
Well Said.
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!
I just wish we had functional public transport.
The real answer is a LOT more good, efficient, and affordable public transit options.
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.
Do it when you get your colonoscopies. A little propofol, a little road test… have fun with it.
You can’t leave until you run out of gas.
Adding more friction to driving might yield better transit options. Let’s do it.
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.
Night driving should be included in any driving test.
My town of half a million people requires logged practice at night while on the learners permit
nobody would pass because nobody can see anything with LED headlights anymore
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)
