Should drivers license renewal need tests?

[Glassfan]

I'd like to relate a personal anecdote. I foolishly allowed my DL to expire a few years ago and procrastinated on the renewal. By time I did try to renew, it was too late and I had to retest. It was an eye-opener. I had indeed forgotten many things since I was 16 (decades ago), and others I never learned. I'm a better driver today for having had to retest. I now see how poorly others drive and I'm much more defensive and less aggressive that I used to be.

 

[nc-1701]

Now on that I would like to call a veto. We got cell phones acting as a criminal act in Germany and it would be simply ridiculous to treat it the same as DUI.

I have done both and while DUI indeed is a significant influence on your driving ability (though I never manged to back into a parking space that well, but that is another matter), talking to somebody on a phone is ridiculous weak and cheap compared to that.

To be honest - I see how using a cell phone does distract you and hence lessens your ability to react on the road, but IMO it simply concurs to all the numerous and possible distractions you can face one the road and you simply have do deal with.

If it lessens your insurance liability - fine, it in deed does increase the risk. But don't make it criminal, that is just unjust in face of all the other distractions possible and in-prober considering the numerous occasions a call is needed.

Perhaps talking isn't as bad, but at the very least texting while driving should be up there. I have many times had to swerve, slam on my brakes, or otherwise take evasive action to avoid hitting someone meandering across traffic lines with their face buried in a cell phone and no clue as to what was going on around them.
Besides, studies have found much higher impairment rates from texting and even talking than being drunk.

No way we should let people text without vilifying and prosecuting them the same way we do drunks.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm surprised if there aren't already systems in place to require retesting to get a license reinstated after a suspension. That one's a no-brainer.

Americans have an insane sense of entitlement to drive cars. Everybody driving cars skews transit planning such that everyone has to drive cars. It's stupid and we need to fix it. Let's start by taking bad drivers off the road unless they learn to behave. You can text on a train.

 

[Oruc]

No im trying to pass the theory now, I don't want to do the damn thing again in a few years time.

 

[dirtyparrot]

I'm surprised if there aren't already systems in place to require retesting to get a license reinstated after a suspension. That one's a no-brainer.

Bad drivers generally know how to drive correctly they just choose not to. So, I think for the most part, they would behave well when someone was looking over their shoulder, but then go back to their bad habits afterwards.

 

[LucyDuke]

Bad drivers generally know how to drive correctly they just choose not to. So, I think for the most part, they would behave well when someone was looking over their shoulder, but then go back to their bad habits afterwards.

That's true, but it's why I said all that other stuff about making it generally harder for people to get drivers licenses. If I haven't said it already, traffic regulations should be made more reasonable and then enforced more stringently.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@nc-1701
Texting in deed is insane. I believe I did that once or twice myself and gee - bad idea.
I messed up in my last post, as talking in general also is not criminal in Germany, but to hold your cell phone while doing so. Which lead to the quick rise of hands-free devices and which is actually a sensible solution.
This also takes care of texting.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm surprised if there aren't already systems in place to require retesting to get a license reinstated after a suspension. That one's a no-brainer.

Americans have an insane sense of entitlement to drive cars. Everybody driving cars skews transit planning such that everyone has to drive cars. It's stupid and we need to fix it. Let's start by taking bad drivers off the road unless they learn to behave. You can text on a train.

Varies state to state. My aunt in Maine, her doctor was required to inform the state that my aunt, medically, could not drive safely any longer. So that took her license away. That didn't happen in Connecticut with my uncle, who became legally blind.

 

[sophie]

From a logical standpoint, I'd say of course. Although, usually the tests are so easy that, after a few years of driving, you begin to wonder how you ever failed it (if you've ever failed it).

The tests a joke anyways, if you fail you can take it again the next day. At least in illinois.

In California, you have to wait 3 weeks in between failing. Also, because appts. are so backed up, it usually ends up becoming more like 4-6 weeks.

 

[GinandTonic]

Varies state to state. My aunt in Maine, her doctor was required to inform the state that my aunt, medically, could not drive safely any longer. So that took her license away. That didn't happen in Connecticut with my uncle, who became legally blind.

But when he came to renew his insurance who would cover a blind driver?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Yes, there should be renewal tests for driving.

From age 65, and every 5 years thereafter, you should have to undergo an eye test and a simplified road test. There are far too many elderly drivers that shouldn't be allowed to come anywhere near a driver's seat, as they are a threat to both their well being and everyone on the road. They may suffer from physical impairments like poor eyesight, slow reaction time, and even seizures.

I myself have been involved in an accident with a 94 year old man who should never have gotten behind the wheel.

 

[Cutlass]

But when he came to renew his insurance who would cover a blind driver?

How would they know? If the doctor has no legal obligation to inform the state or the insurer, then the doctor's obligation to the confidentiality of the patient becomes the controlling influence. Now, for 3 years my uncle drove while my aunt, in the passenger seat, was his eyes. Yes, that's a recipe for eventual disaster. But they lived in a tiny rural town with no public transport, and they thought they had no choice but to take the chance. They got away with it, and when my aunt died, my uncle hasn't tried to get behind the wheel since.

But he bought and registered and insured a new truck. He's never driven it, but nothing stopped him from buying, registering, and insuring it.

 

[GinandTonic]

How would they know? If the doctor has no legal obligation to inform the state or the insurer, then the doctor's obligation to the confidentiality of the patient becomes the controlling influence. Now, for 3 years my uncle drove while my aunt, in the passenger seat, was his eyes. Yes, that's a recipe for eventual disaster. But they lived in a tiny rural town with no public transport, and they thought they had no choice but to take the chance. They got away with it, and when my aunt died, my uncle hasn't tried to get behind the wheel since.

But he bought and registered and insured a new truck. He's never driven it, but nothing stopped him from buying, registering, and insuring it.

Does the insurance not have a "do you have any disabilities" question? Does your local laws not have a legal requirement in relation to eyesight for driving? In the UK he would have been breaking the law while driving blind, and he would have had to lie to get insurance and therefore have been also breaking the law while driving uninsured. That is to say he can lie and pay the insurance company, but he would still be uninsured.

 

[Cutlass]

Does the insurance not have a "do you have any disabilities" question? Does your local laws not have a legal requirement in relation to eyesight for driving? In the UK he would have been breaking the law while driving blind, and he would have had to lie to get insurance and therefore have been also breaking the law while driving uninsured. That is to say he can lie and pay the insurance company, but he would still be uninsured.

You Eurocommies never get the concept of small government.


More seriously, people are expected to self report. When they don't, they get caught by the expedient of killing some innocent bystanders.

My father, at the age of 80, gave up his job as a truck driver because he thought he couldn't drive safely any longer do to bad eyesight. At 82, he simply did not renew his license. However, he had a commercial license so the testing requirement was stricter.

 

[GinandTonic]

My grampa had a licence before there was a driving test. Granny simply refused to be in a car he was driving, but most of the family took his rubbish riving as a joke. In his early eighties he had pulled out into trafic and had a crash that would have killed him if he hadnt been driving a French left hand drive car - the passenger-should-have-been-drivers seat was just crushed to nothing, gone. The court ordered him to "re"sit his test aged eighty something. As he read the highway code he would say things that after a lifetime of driving were rather terrfying "you know those white circles with a line mean you can go 70?" or "you know those upside down triangles mean you have to let the other car go first?". The odd thing was that he obviously thought no-one else would be aware of this. Some how he got his licence back, but he never beat his habit of stopping on roundabouts to read the road signs.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually, we're talking about 2 different things. A test of competence with the laws and regulations, a test of skills, is different from loosing or giving up a license for reasons of medical incapability.

Here's a news report from tonight.

Sep 06, 2010
One in five motorists now would fail DMV written test


If you spend any amount of time behind the wheel, the results of a recent national drivers test should scare you, reports Kevin Ransom in a piece for AOL Autos. He writes:

In late May, GMAC Insurance reported that nearly 1 in 5 drivers -- or about 38 million Americans -- could not pass a written drivers test if they took it today.

That's according to the insurer's annual National Drivers Test survey, which was conducted by polling 5,202 licensed drivers from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey posed 20 questions that were culled from various state Department of Motor Vehicles exams.

The general upshot of the results is that a shocking number of licensed American drivers continue to demonstrate a woeful lack of knowledge when it comes to the basic rules of the road:

The national average score for the latest survey dropped slightly from 2009 -- from 76.6% to 76.2%. In '07, the average score was 78.1%, says Wade Bontrager, senior vice president of GMAC Insurance.
If respondents got less than 70% correct, that was considered a "failing" score. Pedestrians also have every reason to be afraid -- very afraid -- after hearing that fully 85% of those surveyed could not accurately identify the proper action to take when coming up on a yellow traffic light. Especially since one of the "answer options" for the question was: "Go through the intersection before it turns red."

Also, 73% did not know the safe following distance, says Bontrager -- not surprising, given how often we see high-speed tailgating on any freeway in any major metropolitan area during rush hour. The correct answer is actually not measured in distance, but in time. "You need three seconds to come to a safe, complete stop," said Bontrager. "So, the actual distance you travel during those three seconds depends on how fast you're driving.

"It's very discouraging that overall test scores are lower than last year's," Bontrager said. "Driving safety must be a top priority, and drivers just have to be aware of the rules of the road at all times.

GMAC began conducting the survey six years ago as a way of raising awareness of the importance of driving safety, and to "spark interest" in drivers improving their knowledge, he says.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-motorists-now-would-fail-dmv-driving-test-/1

 

[dirtyparrot]

How would they know? If the doctor has no legal obligation to inform the state or the insurer, then the doctor's obligation to the confidentiality of the patient becomes the controlling influence.

I don't believe that a patient-doctor confidentiality extends to endangering the public. That doesn't mean that some doctors won't sometimes fail to report things when they ought to.

 

[Xanikk999]

They definitely should require restesting. (Dont they already at a certain age?)

Well if they dont, they need to for the elderly who still insist on driving. The elderly have much slower reaction times on average then younger drives and can be a liability on the road.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't believe that a patient-doctor confidentiality extends to endangering the public. That doesn't mean that some doctors won't sometimes fail to report things when they ought to.

Only in those states that choose to require it.

 

[Zelig]

Yes, there should be renewal tests for driving.

From age 65, and every 5 years thereafter, you should have to undergo an eye test and a simplified road test. There are far too many elderly drivers that shouldn't be allowed to come anywhere near a driver's seat, as they are a threat to both their well being and everyone on the road. They may suffer from physical impairments like poor eyesight, slow reaction time, and even seizures.

I myself have been involved in an accident with a 94 year old man who should never have gotten behind the wheel.

While I really do get were you're coming from, last time I looked into it elderly drivers, they don't have a significantly higher insurance risk per mile driven than other age groups.

For the interest of being fair, I'd just retest everyone every 5 years.