Driver Training and License Standards

[Catman]

I've often wondered why we treat everyone the same when it comes down to driving violations.  On most highways the speed limit is 55-65.  This is artificially low and most police officers agree.  If you were to look at the citations written on MA highways I would doubt you'd see many written for less than 80 mph.  

I have not thought this 100% through but what is wrong with offering a much more extensive driving exam, one that would require a level of training above and beyond what we see now?  The driver would bear the extra costs involved and would be able to legally drive at a faster speed than the posted limit on highways without fear of huge fines.  It is my opinion that driver training affects safety much more than does low limits which are often ignored anyway.

The problem would be in identifying these drivers so they wouldn't be arbitrarily stopped by police.  You could issue a special plate but that wouldn't help when someone else was driving so I don't know.  Any ideas?

[giant_mtb]

I've often wondered why we treat everyone the same when it comes down to driving violations.  On most highways the speed limit is 55-65.  This is artificially low and most police officers agree.  If you were to look at the citations written on MA highways I would doubt you'd see many written for less than 80 mph. 

I have not thought this 100% through but what is wrong with offering a much more extensive driving exam, one that would require a level of training above and beyond what we see now?  The driver would bear the extra costs involved and would be able to legally drive at a faster speed than the posted limit on highways without fear of huge fines.  It is my opinion that driver training affects safety much more than does low limits which are often ignored anyway.

The problem would be in identifying these drivers so they wouldn't be arbitrarily stopped by police.  You could issue a special plate but that wouldn't help when someone else was driving so I don't know.  Any ideas?

Well if some people got the special training, they'd have to have like a separate lane(s)/part(s) of the highway for these faster drivers.  Also unless there was some sort of recognition symbol or something on the vehicle or license plate, how would the cops know if you have your "high speed" license?  I figure a letter/symbol/barcode would work...but I bet that would be easy for people to counterfeit?  But hey, if they did do something like this...I'd sure as heck get it!

[MX793]

I like the idea, but I'm not sure there's a practical way to implement it, unfortunately.

I thought this was going to be about stricter standards just for obtaining a regular driver's license, which is something I'm in support of.

[Catman]

I like the idea, but I'm not sure there's a practical way to implement it, unfortunately.

I thought this was going to be about stricter standards just for obtaining a regular driver's license, which is something I'm in support of.

Me too.

[VTEC_Inside]

I've actually sent a couple emails to our Minister of Transportation here to try and get stricter driving examintations put into place period.

I've got at least two canned responses. My third email went something to the extent of, "either give me a thought out and worthwhile reply, or save your breath". I never got a reply to that one.

[MX793]

I've actually sent a couple emails to our Minister of Transportation here to try and get stricter driving examintations put into place period.

I've got at least two canned responses. My third email went something to the extent of, "either give me a thought out and worthwhile reply, or save your breath". I never got a reply to that one.

Well, I guess that would mean they're reading your messages at least.

[James Young]

I support better training and more stringent testing.  I have long urged real training on skid pads, tracks, and simulators by capable trainers, not your usual football-coach-as-driving-instructor, such facilities to be provided by insurance companies.  

The use of special licenses for special skills would be too complex to implement.  Instead, I support setting the speed limits as determined scientifically, i.e., 85th percentile in urban settings and 95th percentile in rural and interstate settings.

[NomisR]

I support better training and more stringent testing.  I have long urged real training on skid pads, tracks, and simulators by capable trainers, not your usual football-coach-as-driving-instructor, such facilities to be provided by insurance companies.  

The use of special licenses for special skills would be too complex to implement.  Instead, I support setting the speed limits as determined scientifically, i.e., 85th percentile in urban settings and 95th percentile in rural and interstate settings.

Currently, as our driving instruction and testing stands, it's basically teaching you the rules and test you if you know the rules and toss you on the road.  Is there anything else in life that they actually do that?  No sports actually do that, no school actually do that, no job actually do that if they expect you to do well, most everything in life you're not only taught the rules but actually how to play too.  Why should driving be any exception?  Especially when a car's considered a dangerous weapon, a more rigerous training should be enforced, if people want that with guns, why not a car, it's just as deadly if not more, you can kill a lot of people at once with a car too.

Instead of special licensing, it should be for every driver on the road, like James said, it's too difficult to implement and enforce with a special license, it's easier to simply make licensing more difficult, at least it'll weed out most if not all the bad drivers.  

Here's my proposed driving test.  A simple autocross course where you have to pass it under a certain time and every driver only gets X chances their lifetime, once they failed so many times, they're banned from driving for life because if you can't pass it after so many tries, you're not cut out for driving, try a different method.  Unfortunately, this will not fly because too many people considers driving a right instead of a priviledge even though we're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars every year sitting in traffic jams due to some idiot who can't drive/follow proper lane etiquette and clogging up the road.       :angry:  

[93JC]

I've often wondered why we treat everyone the same when it comes down to driving violations.  On most highways the speed limit is 55-65.  This is artificially low and most police officers agree.  If you were to look at the citations written on MA highways I would doubt you'd see many written for less than 80 mph. 

I have not thought this 100% through but what is wrong with offering a much more extensive driving exam, one that would require a level of training above and beyond what we see now?  The driver would bear the extra costs involved and would be able to legally drive at a faster speed than the posted limit on highways without fear of huge fines.  It is my opinion that driver training affects safety much more than does low limits which are often ignored anyway.

The problem would be in identifying these drivers so they wouldn't be arbitrarily stopped by police.  You could issue a special plate but that wouldn't help when someone else was driving so I don't know.  Any ideas?

I don't see it working.

I don't see tougher license requirements working either. As much as driving is a privelege legally it is as basic a need as a home in North America. You'd be up shit creek without a paddle if you didn't have a vehicle.

In the case of another "special" certification above an beyond the regular license it would end in two ways:

- it would be too easy to obtain, and most people would have it, leading us back to square one
- it would be too hard to obtain, and most people would be royally pissed off at the select few driving faster than everyone else

[L. ed foote]

I have not thought this 100% through but what is wrong with offering a much more extensive driving exam, one that would require a level of training above and beyond what we see now?  The driver would bear the extra costs involved and would be able to legally drive at a faster speed than the posted limit on highways without fear of huge fines.  It is my opinion that driver training affects safety much more than does low limits which are often ignored anyway.

I guess the question to be asked is "would the insurance companies want to change?" (I'd say no; if it ain't broke, don't fix it)

Too many see driving as a right, instead of a privilege for this to get off the ground.  And as was mentioned before, some places around here you need a car to get around.

Mass transit is a crapshoot, and you should've seen things around here the last month and a half when the local bus system went on strike.

As for me, I don't get cited enough at speed for it to make much of a difference.  I'd rather people get cited for impeding, or following too close; those are bigger threats than speeding.

[NomisR]

As for me, I don't get cited enough at speed for it to make much of a difference.  I'd rather people get cited for impeding, or following too close; those are bigger threats than speeding.

Me neither, but a lot of people simply don't speed because of the mass media brainwashing saying that "Speed Kills".  I rather they add and strictly enforce a law that if multiple cars passes you from the right side, it means you're going too slow and will be ticketed regardless of how fast you're going.  And of course this type of violations will have penalties significantly higher than that of speeding to actually have politians to want to enforce it over speeding

[socalcookie]

I fully endorse ANY system better than the one we have currently.  
When I got my license, the ride along driver and I were on the road for a total of of about 7 minutes.  No freeway, no major streets.  Just side streets.  How do they know that I am a good driver?  

A semi-off topic rant, but here goes
As to mass transit: Look at Europe.  The Parisian subway system in pure genius.  Get across the central city area in 10 minutes.  Get exercise while you run up and down the stairs, and not have to worry about parking, traffic, etc.  
I've never been on the NY subway system, but I can assume it's similar.  Shame Californians are too pig headed to realize how nice a subway system actually is.
Want to take the train?  Go from Paris to Cannes in 6 hours total.  The TGV is about 10 years old too.  Beats driving.  Sit back, play cards, sleep, meet people, etc.
Imagine: LA to San Fransisco in 2-3 hours.  Traffic free, relaxed, etc.

I love cars, but when it comes to urban areas and cross country trips, there are some alternatives available that Americans are just too pig headed to realize.
Rant over.  

[NomisR]

I fully endorse ANY system better than the one we have currently.  
When I got my license, the ride along driver and I were on the road for a total of of about 7 minutes.  No freeway, no major streets.  Just side streets.  How do they know that I am a good driver?  

A semi-off topic rant, but here goes
As to mass transit: Look at Europe.  The Parisian subway system in pure genius.  Get across the central city area in 10 minutes.  Get exercise while you run up and down the stairs, and not have to worry about parking, traffic, etc.  
I've never been on the NY subway system, but I can assume it's similar.  Shame Californians are too pig headed to realize how nice a subway system actually is.
Want to take the train?  Go from Paris to Cannes in 6 hours total.  The TGV is about 10 years old too.  Beats driving.  Sit back, play cards, sleep, meet people, etc.
Imagine: LA to San Fransisco in 2-3 hours.  Traffic free, relaxed, etc.

I love cars, but when it comes to urban areas and cross country trips, there are some alternatives available that Americans are just too pig headed to realize.
Rant over.

Transit problem is only a problem in Southern California, mainly Los Angeles.  The problem isn't as great in San Francisco as you can easily get around without a car.  The biggest problem with Los Angeles is population density.  Unlike majority of the metropolitan cities in the world, Los Angeles' population is pretty spread out which makes it extremely inefficient and costly to create a mass transit system.  Until we all live in high rises in downtown LA, mass transit won't work too well, it simply costs too much.  Just play SimCity and you'll see what I mean.  Until the cities reaches a certain density, mass transit is just a waste of money and it's more efficient to build more roads.  LA is still not dense enough to do so although it helps.

[L. ed foote]

As to mass transit: Look at Europe.  The Parisian subway system in pure genius.  Get across the central city area in 10 minutes.  Get exercise while you run up and down the stairs, and not have to worry about parking, traffic, etc.  
I've never been on the NY subway system, but I can assume it's similar.  Shame Californians are too pig headed to realize how nice a subway system actually is.
Want to take the train?  Go from Paris to Cannes in 6 hours total.  The TGV is about 10 years old too.  Beats driving.  Sit back, play cards, sleep, meet people, etc.
Imagine: LA to San Fransisco in 2-3 hours.  Traffic free, relaxed, etc.

I love cars, but when it comes to urban areas and cross country trips, there are some alternatives available that Americans are just too pig headed to realize.
Rant over.

When there isn't track work and service delays, the NYC subway system is ok :D

Seriously, for a system that's over 100 years old, it isn't that bad.

It would be nice to have a decent intercity rail, but people want to drive.  We've case our lot with the internal combustion engine, and we've let a lot of trackwork deteriorate as a result.  

The writing on the wall was when they tore Penn Station down


And the failure of PennCentral should've been the nail in the coffin

[Why?]

The DC metro system is phenomenal, of course, it is also only about 25 years old, so that helps. Boston's is pretty good as well. the NY one is a bit scarier, it can feel like a rollercoaster at times, but it works.

Eventually we will have a subway system that extends through most of the country, I would have to believe.

[James Young]

Eventually we will have a subway system that extends through most of the country, I would have to believe.

Right, I can see all those subways going through under Monument Valley, the Rockies, West Texas and Nevada, where the population density is measured in fractions of people per square mile and the stops are 300 miles apart.  

[NomisR]

Eventually we will have a subway system that extends through most of the country, I would have to believe.

Right, I can see all those subways going through under Monument Valley, the Rockies, West Texas and Nevada, where the population density is measured in fractions of people per square mile and the stops are 300 miles apart.

Subways?? Please, you can just beam people to the other side of the country!

[Why?]

Eventually we will have a subway system that extends through most of the country, I would have to believe.

Right, I can see all those subways going through under Monument Valley, the Rockies, West Texas and Nevada, where the population density is measured in fractions of people per square mile and the stops are 300 miles apart.

That is now. Notice how I said eventually? Go look in a dictionary and see what that means.

[L. ed foote]

Eventually we will have a subway system that extends through most of the country, I would have to believe.

Intracity?  Definately

Intercity?  Ain't gonna happen

They'd be better off trying to reclaim & reuse abandoned ROW wherever possible.

[James Young]

Why? Writes:

That is now. Notice how I said eventually? Go look in a dictionary and see what that means.

The odds of subways appearing underneath the western deserts before the end of the universe are currently available at Caesar?s Palace at about 4 billion to one.  You?ve never been to the Four Corners region, have you?

[Why?]

At the rate the population is increasing, if it indeed keeps increasing, eventually the entire planet will be a city.

But either way, subways are much better than trains. And bullet-like trains would be better off underground anyways.

And yes, I've seen the middle of nowhere places. I still can't deal with the scale though. Flying into Vegas, the mountains are incredible, but I have no idea how far out they really are, except to say it is a long way.

Now we might now need a subway stop every 100 feet, but wouldn't it be cool to be able to travel the country by subway, and not fear crashing, like with trains?

[James Young]

Why? Writes:

At the rate the population is increasing, if it indeed keeps increasing, eventually the entire planet will be a city.

But either way, subways are much better than trains. And bullet-like trains would be better off underground anyways.

And yes, I've seen the middle of nowhere places. I still can't deal with the scale though. Flying into Vegas, the mountains are incredible, but I have no idea how far out they really are, except to say it is a long way.

Now we might now need a subway stop every 100 feet, but wouldn't it be cool to be able to travel the country by subway, and not fear crashing, like with trains?

Okay.  I?ve had my fun at your expense so no more sarcasm (which offer ends upon posting this; I reserve the future right to ridicule).

The limiting factor to population growth is the availability of natural resources with which such population is supported, such things as water, arable land, green plants to photosynthesize CO2 into O2, and sources of energy.  Technology can only solve some of these problems and only partially at that.  We will run out of these resources long before the space is used up, particularly the desolate areas of the west.  These areas are desolate for a reason:  there is no water.  I was recently at Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell is virtually gone.  The water level was down over a hundred feet and the lake is expected to run dry in 2007.  No water = no people.

Scale of the west

One can see the Rockies nearly a hundred miles away.  I can see the Wasatch Range (near Sundance) which is about thirty miles away from my balcony.  Lots of space but few resources.

As for traveling by train, put them in the abandoned ROW of extant RR on the surface and let the people enjoy the view.  I'd much rather see the Tetons than the supporting piers of a subway.

[dazzleman]

I've often wondered why we treat everyone the same when it comes down to driving violations.  On most highways the speed limit is 55-65.  This is artificially low and most police officers agree.  If you were to look at the citations written on MA highways I would doubt you'd see many written for less than 80 mph.  

I have not thought this 100% through but what is wrong with offering a much more extensive driving exam, one that would require a level of training above and beyond what we see now?  The driver would bear the extra costs involved and would be able to legally drive at a faster speed than the posted limit on highways without fear of huge fines.  It is my opinion that driver training affects safety much more than does low limits which are often ignored anyway.

The problem would be in identifying these drivers so they wouldn't be arbitrarily stopped by police.  You could issue a special plate but that wouldn't help when someone else was driving so I don't know.  Any ideas?

Some interesting ideas, Catman.  I never really thought of higher speed limits for certain drivers.

I think there are several variable that go into defining a safe speed for any given circumstance.  One is the skill of the driver.  Another is the quality of car the driver has, and how well it handles the road, its stopping distance, etc.  Another is the overall situation on the roads -- traffic, weather, etc.

There are wide variations in these variables, so there will also be wide variations in what the safe speed is among different drivers/cars.

Having said that, I don't think the proposal of different speed limits for different drivers is workable.  I think it askes too much of LEOs to differentiate in this manner, and it would probably be legally challenged, successfully.

On the subject of licensing standards, I think this is one potential area for improvement.  I think our licensing standards in the US are shockingly low.  I remember my own road test very well.  It was a joke -- basically driving around the block on quiet streets, doing a parallel park (which I still suck at) and a u-turn.  You could be brain-dead and pass that test, and it tells nothing about how a driver will react to challenges out on the real roads.

I favor tougher licensing exams and expanded driver training.  I also don't think it would hurt to require some type of limited retraining periodically for drivers, since many acquire bad driving habits after getting their licenses.

Skill is one side of the equation, but attitude is the other.  Some drivers have a bad attitude, and all the training in the world won't help that.  Only punishment may help that, and that often doesn't work either (as I well know myself :P ).

Right now, I think speed limits are generally set to the lowest common denominator -- the driver with low skills and a sh**ty car.  I think we should, in many cases, increase speed limits across the board to allow more flexibility for better drivers within the law.  Drivers with lower skills will often limit themselves, which is fine as long as they keep right.  And it would still be possible to ticket a driver for unsafe maneuvers even if below the speed limit.

I think too-low speed limits breed disrespect for the law.  I see it in my own behavior.  I'm a guy who respects police and the law, and wouldn't throw a gum wrapper on the ground, and yet I speed all the time.  Most people I know are the same.  When a majority of people break certain laws regularly, they have little meaning.  One of the most effective pressures to obey laws is not the fear of punishment from breaking them, but social stigma.  Social stigma varies within different cultural groups, but only among old ladies do speeding tickets carry social stigma.  If I ever got a DUI, or got arrested for something else, I'd be humiliated, and wouldn't want anybody to know.  But I joke with all my friends if I get a speeding ticket.  I think that if we had a clearer line between safe and dangerous driving, and reduced the category of driving that falls under "safe but illegal" some of the stigma of illegal and dangerous driving would return.  And if a smaller percentage of drivers were chronic lawbreakers, it would be a lot easier politically to impose harsher penalties on truly dangerous drivers.