driving tests should be done on a regular basis if you want to keep your drivers license
every 10 years while you are under 60, then one every 3-5 years after that
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on piefed.jmsquared.netView original on piefed.jmsquared.net
105 replies
Why 10 years? If your job involves working with dangerous chemicals, heavy machinery, high places etc, your employer usually requires you to take a course and a test every 3 years. In some cases, every year. A 10 year cycle would be silly. Looking at the numbers, cars are really dangerous.
I fully agree but I think we actually do need to take the independence of seniors seriously too. No they shouldn’t be driving but for many there are no good or affordable alternatives. I don’t like the idea of nana and pawpaw rotting away at home waiting for visitors when they had a normal social life. If this is implemented free or low cost public transportation or shuttles should be provided for anyone over say 65.
I don't like when nana and pawpaw get on the freeway hesitantly at 35 mph AND FUCKING TRY TO KILL US ALL!
Do you live in the States? I went to Michigan for the first time a few years ago and it seemed like so many homes were just separated from stores by so many roads ... I wonder if ebikes and scooters and safer travel for those is a solution. I kinda want it more for Canada right now because living in the suburbs I see so many kids.
The real answer is a LOT more good, efficient, and affordable public transit options.
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.
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.
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
That would all depend on state.
I upvoted because this IS an unpopular opinion (outside of this bubble)
I agree with the premise but can guarantee I would hate the outcome
With how many psychopaths have licenses - why do we think an even more bloated system is really gonna “catch em all”
…
But not to argue - please carry on
Are you really saying that since so many bad drivers currently have licenses, we shouldn’t even try?
More like I’m not really sure the system in place is well set up to catch the psychotic, selfish, idiots who make the road dangerous. And that by bloating that system further means we will probably get worse results overall and a painful but at the end of day completely ineffective system.
I mean doing what is suggested would require increasing the number of DMV workers and administration by like 5-6x
But yeah a little bit of fatalism is there too
I've been saying the same for years. The thing here is that when you put people through re-education, knowledge tends to stick. And other good things can be warned as well. More attention towards cyclists, pedestrians, etc.
At first people say they don't care, then it gets into their subconscious.
At work I need to take monthly training on computer security and ethics. It’s all basic stuff I’ve heard many times. There’s nothing unique about it. But there are studies verifying that the regular reminders make a huge difference.
Even if all we do is periodic reminders of good habits, even if people already “know”, it does help
This is not unpopular. But guess what demographic consistently votes? That's right, older people. They're not going to give themselves less freedom and independence...
There is that, but I'd also argue quite a lot of people would be against this proposal because they don't want a drivers licence really; they just don't live in a walkable area but want to get to work and be able to shop and the licence and owning a car is just a means to an end. If you're a competent driver, having to retake the test would be a pain in the ass and your reward effectively is "You may continue to exist in society."
Getting the letter that you're due for a test would be more frustrating than a jury duty summons; jury duty pays.
The elderly resent the prospect of losing their licence for exactly that reason; it puts them at the mercy of family and expensive taxis to be able to feed themselves.
In a sane world, yes we'd all recognise driving can be dangerous and tests are sensible, but in that world you wouldn't need a car to do basic shit either.
Then don’t just put it on the elderly. Put it on all drivers. Maybe test beginner and elderly drivers more often, but it’s not like adults are exempt from poor driving habits
I just wish we had functional public transport.
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.
I’m surprised to hear that. If someone can pay insurance, parking, fuel, road tax, maintenance, EU checks for a car surely they can pay for a (potentially subsidized) re-certification once in 10 years?
I’m referring to the US because it’s where I’m familiar: Parking isn’t typically a cost outside of cities. Road tax is included in fuel. I’ve never had to get a car safety inspected, I’m sure it’s a thing in some places
Anyway, it’s not just the associated costs but also another generally pointless reason for everyone to have to visit an already over busy DMV and waste hours at best to show they can do something they are likely doing every day? It’s a lot easier for someone like me to go to the DMV and deal with the BS than it is someone who is working multiple jobs, has to actually clock in, and is otherwise hovered over. It’s easy for me to say how easy it is when I’m not struggling through the shit trying to make ends meet. Then what’s the solution, if the DMV decides, nah you can’t drive, does the state start paying their bills or assign them a chauffeur service so they can get where they need to in order to survive?
It's for public safety, so there definitely shouldn't be fees. It should be covered with taxes.
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.
That would mean a drivers license should be covered by taxes because that is also for public safety. Yeah no I don’t agree
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
that sounds an awful lot like communism /s
wut, no, unless ur tests are litarally held in a commune, dumass!
;-)
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.
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.
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?
My grandpa is 85 this year. He's only had one eye for the last 55 years, and his good eye is...bad. He has no peripheral vision.
He legally gets his lisence renewed at the local AAA insurance office, because they don't make you take an eye exam like they do at the DMV. And they just do it, they just look right at this blind man and hand his wife a renewal form to sign for him. Then she gets in the passenger seat and let's him drive home.
Anyway, thanks for your sacrifice. It's the right thing to do ♡
Thank you for your kind words. Appreciated.
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
The important point is it’s not age specifically, but health conditions that may become common with age …. And can also happen at younger ages
The mistake is applying it only to older people. We’re so used to expecting facilities to decline and not pay attention to seniors limiting themselves but most importantly ignoring the injuries and deaths caused by poor drivers of all ages.
Post-Covid traffic was a real eye opener as so many people seem to have forgotten how to drive. It appears to be back to normal finally but as a frequent pedestrian, I am endangered almost every turn, despite staying on sidewalks and crosswalks and using crossing signals, and living in a place where drivers are better than most and there are few stroads. There’s always someone blowing through a light or ignoring the crossing signal or “stretching” the red, or blasting through a right in red (despite the law saying “after a complete stop”) or driving through the crosswalk, and pedestrians are in danger every time.
Drivers suck. Test them all. Fail those whose bad habits endanger other road users, and make them take remedial driver training.
I think you're making an assumption that isn't true:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-driver/
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'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
Anecdotally they do. Every one of my elderly relatives self-limited how frequently they drive, long before they had to give up their licenses
For example they may stop driving at night or long distance or into cities
Sometimes when I'm driving home I pretend I'm doing a driving exam and see how far I can get before I fail, and I always seem to fail. My muscle memory for all the discouraged minutae is so strong.
How do you know you failed?
In my country, there are a few things that are instant fail, eg exceeding the speed limit by more than 1km/h, that one usually gets me. Picking up your Mobile phone is an instant fail. Other faults are worth 1 point each, and 6 points is a fail. Things that earn a point are:
I add up the points when I notice, and usually end up failing.
I haven't gotten a speeding ticket or traffic fine in more than 9 years though, so my self-monitoring does work well.
Wow. Do you even get a mile before failing that? I wouldn’t. And I certainly consider myself a safer than average driver (and I’m at the safest tier for insurance)
Interesting, the letting it slide through your hands thing is how i was taught to drive
After I passed my test, my Mum told me word for word "It's great once you've got your licence, you can slip back into your bad habits."
I just want to not have to drive
This should be a prerequisite
Yeah this is a good idea. I think I can trust my kids to tell me when I get dangerous driving, they did tell both their grandmas.
Not sure why we don't, maybe cost? I took my driver's test 40 years ago, any other license you hold that long requires continuing education.
The problem is that by the time I'm old enough to be a problem by the wheel, I'm more than likely going to be driving alone 100% of the time. I have my kids in the car sometimes now, but they'll be out of the house and it'll be just me being a menace to society.
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.
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.
At least teach people the new rules.
In france bicycles are allowed to go the wrong way in 30-Zones. For example.
Adding more friction to driving might yield better transit options. Let's do it.
Mixed medium density cities would do it. We gotta do that in the US to have any hope for improvement.
I’m also for a yearly update on what traffic rules changed.
Or make it more scientific. What bad habits or violations contributes to the most harm last year? Stress those
The Germans: LOL! FAKE WISSENSCHAFT! GET OUT OF HERE, I NEED TO DRIVE 300KM/H ON MY AUTOBAHN!
If that’s a Nazi joke, touché
Otherwise there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The autobahn gives you a safer environment, separated from pedestrians, cyclists, turning traffic. There are fewer things to endanger with speed. And the internet keeps telling me driving standards are higher in Germany: nothing wrong with proficient drivers going faster in places they don’t endanger anyone but themselves
I did Nazi that car coming
Fully agree with you. I believe science has an effect on car safety standards. That’s just not enough. In Europe, every country has individual road signs and ground markings. I want to know which pedestrian crossing design is the safest and then apply that to the streets everywhere.
High speed autobahn has its pros and cons. You can cause way worse accidents at 250km/h compared to 120km/h. In rush hour, statistics show that slower max speed increases throughput, which is why currently it is so fancy to install dynamic speed limits.
I don't think the rules change very much though
Doesn't seem like an unpopular opinion. At least not on Lemmy.
WRONG. DOWNVOTED. BLOCKED.
Just kidding.
But "unpopular opinions" are hard, though, because the TRULY unpopular ones usually don't get upvotes. lol
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
The BAC content that you take your test at should determine your legal limit.
I'm sure I could pass a driving test when nearly blackout drunk, so.
Im sure i can do a backflip when blackout drunk.
Doesnt mean i can, just that i believe i can.
Loads of people drive tired, and moderately drunk people are better than tired people at driving
Just how drunk do you get where "blackout drunk" is moderate drinking to you?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Not controversial at all. In fact this is already introduced in the EU
Where?
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 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
and they should have skill levels
like more maximum speed allowed for better drivers and cars on certain roads
How would you efficiently manage that?
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
Night driving should be included in any driving test.
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)
While I hate requiring complex and expensive solutions, I really think the only choice is mandating adaptive headlights. They make a huge difference and don’t require anything from the driver. Headlight glare is well beyond the point of spending a little on the only solution
My town of half a million people requires logged practice at night while on the learners permit
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.
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.
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.
Recommendable.
what about before 60?
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.
Yay for repression, outpricing the lower middle class and medical discrimination.
Great idea. The modern system in the EU is expensive and discriminative (especially towards elders and disabled people).