- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 12, 2011 at 5:46 am #598279
metrognomeParticipantthere have been any number of threads about ‘bad’ drivers whose behaviour threatens other drivers, pedestrians and pets. So, how much do you want to invest in taxes and lost time at DOL to help resolve the problem, thereby reducing injuries and deaths for persons and animals, reducing congestion caused by accidents and reducing your blood pressure?
Based on the more stringent licensing requirements in effect in WA when I got my license 40 years ago, I suggest the following:
– licenses must be renewed every 2 years, in person. All drivers must take the written exam; drivers with a moving violation must also take a driving test. A driver who fails the written exam will be offered a second chance and must take a driving test and or refresher course to renew their license.
– Stringent eye exams will be administered every two years and appropriate eye-hand coordination and reaction tests will be administered every 4 years.
– all drivers must take a two-hour refresher course and pass a driving test every 4 years.
– upon receipt of a second moving violation between renewals, the driver’s license will be confiscated and the driver must receive a 90 or better on a driving test to renew it. A third violation would require an 8-hour refresher course and a perfect score on the ‘moving’ parts of the driving test (i.e. its ok to flub parallel parking.)
– infractions for driving while texting or talking on a non-hands-free cell phone will be treated like drunk driving infractions.
– drivers who are involved in accidents who were using a hands-free cell phone will lose their license as will drivers who were eating fast food, putting on make-up, drinking coffee, etc., whether they were determined to be at fault or not.
Why? The only thing you should be doing while driving is … DRIVING. Will this be expensive? You betcha. Will this be inconvenient, esp. for ‘good’ drivers? Yup. Will this adversely affect some groups, such as low-income folks? No doubt. Do you have a specific alternative to offer?? We’ll see. Will something like this ever happen? Not a chance; after all, we’re Americans and our individual freedoms, esp. freedom from government intrusion, are more important than our individual responsibilities.
Okay, your turn …
March 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm #720136
JoBParticipanthow about we just nod and smile when we see one of the city’s finest pulling over a driver breaking the traffic laws…
or grimace and pay the fine when we get caught doing the same instead of ranting about unfair traffic laws…
the city could use the revenue
this is one “tax” that is paid directly by those who are creating the need.
March 12, 2011 at 6:04 pm #720137
DPMembermetrognome: Your post seems a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I’ll play along at the risk of getting “punked.” ;-)
(Everyone who is anyone is getting punked these days, right?)
All drivers must take the written exam; drivers with a moving violation must also take a driving test.
—This part of your plan assumes that drivers who speed do so because they don’t know any better. It also assumes that these drivers can be educated by reading about the law and then taking a test to proved they’ve learned something. I tend to disagree with that assumption. I think speeders know the rules. They just choose to ignore them.
I believe that hefty speeding tickets (with no possibility of negotiating down the fine) would be a better “education” for speeders. Why must everyone suffer for the sins of a few?
– infractions for driving while texting or talking on a non-hands-free cell phone will be treated like drunk driving infractions.
—This is kind of harsh, isn’t it? Whatever penalty we impose on drunk drivers, it should definitely be more severe than what we impose on texters.
Having said that, I agree with the gist of your plan, which is that people who are involved in an accident or moving violation that was due to impaired driving should pay a stiffer penalty. But isn’t that already the case?
(Don’t know. Asking)
–David
March 12, 2011 at 7:48 pm #720138
CaitParticipantI have always thought it odd that you get a drivers license and then never have to have your skills tested again…
March 12, 2011 at 7:49 pm #720139
CaitParticipantDouble posted.
March 12, 2011 at 9:25 pm #720140
christopherboffoliParticipantLicensing and continuing re-certification is much more stringent in Europe. Fuel is also double (or more) per gallon and some countries (like Denmark) dissuade private vehicle ownership by adding taxes that triple the cost of a new car. But many European cities and towns were built densely in a way that makes walking and public transport more practical and effective. They’re also more beautiful as a result.
In the US our zoning laws are written in a way that keeps people dependent on cars, with disparate clusters of residences and commercial space (usually surrounded by parking lots) with a need for a vast, expensive road system between them. We used to know how to engineer beautiful, integrated mixed-use built environments to human scale. Just look at places like Charleston, SC, Boston, Nantucket or Alexandria, VA. Or even central San Francisco with its wonderful cable cars.
You can thank companies like Bethlehem Steel, General Motors, Firestone and Big Oil for effectively lobbying to get rid of trains and streetcars and encouraging a transformation from farmlands to the ugly sprawl of suburbia, which keeps us slavishly behind the wheel. And we have do choice but to continuously spend billions to build and rebuild roads, freeways and tunnels that don’t ever seem to get us anywhere faster or more safely.
So you see, our government now has its hands tied in pushing too much to make us better drivers as we NEED cars to get us between work and home. If you curtail anyone’s ability to drive they can whinge that you’re taking away their ability to work. Politics is the sole reason why senior citizens, for example, are not more stringently tested as their vision and reflexes degrade (including the ones who have accidentally hit the accelerator and driven into crowds of people). You take away someone’s right to drive and you’re taking away their freedom. And a large percentage of seniors turn out for every election.
So the bottom line in saying all of that is that I philosophically agree with you metrognome. But the solutions are complicated as we’re talking about problems and issues broader than just driver certification.
March 12, 2011 at 10:29 pm #720141
AlkiKmacParticipantPolitics AND Capitalism. Capitalism now rules our politics.
March 12, 2011 at 10:45 pm #720142
Genesee HillParticipantI generally agree with DP. I also believe the penalty for drunk driving should be far more severe than it is now; at least one year revocation of driving privileges and far higher fines. For the first offense. Period.
christopherboffoli:
Seattle, and most U.S. cities founded prior to the widespread use of the automobile could be added to your list of cities above. Seattle had streetcars, cable cars, and interurban lines to both Everett and Tacoma. And corner grocery stores within walking distance up until the late 50s, early 60s.
March 13, 2011 at 9:27 pm #720143
CaduceusMemberI am an avid cyclist and only recently bothered to get my license at all.
TO be honest I was disgusted with how easy it was.
It took me less than a minute to finish the “written”. And the actual driving test lasted around 2-3 minutes.
I haven’t taken a drivers-Ed class and I really only skimmed the booklet. It takes me more time to brush my teeth in the morning than it did to get my license (Excluding the wait).
Heap this on top of the fact that America is designed around automobiles (literally) and young people aren’t obligated to feel like adults until they “have the freedom of their own car” and you get the sense of entitlement and over comfort driving an enormously heavy, fast, death machine; two feet away from other death machines driving just as fast in the opposite direction.
And for kicks add all that on top of today’s technology and the general capitalist attitude of people today.
I’m surprised there aren’t more wrecks.
Politics won’t solve this. At best it’ll make it more difficult for people to get a license, who will just drive “illegally”. Keep more people from getting to work, who need their jobs etc.
This issue is a mentality issue. A responsibility issue and a knowledge issue. Politics is in the background on this one, in my opinion.
March 13, 2011 at 11:00 pm #720144
DPMemberGood analysis, christopher b.
You know, in spite of all the obnoxious public breastfeeding that goes on around here, I love living in West Seattle, because I’m never more than a stroll or bus or bike-ride away from Destiny.
By contrast, whenever I visit the family back in Iowa, I’m reminded of how bleak a suburban landscape can be.
In the first place, there isn’t any there there. But even if there were a there there, you certainly could not get to it on foot.
In my parents’ Leave-It-To-Beaver suburb of Windsor Heights, people who walk (or otherwise disrespect automobiles) are seen as dangerous non-conformists who need to be isolated and removed, for the common good. The cops will stop anyone they catch on foot — regardless of race — and ask them what their “business” is. I kid you not.
Pedestrian profiling, I call it.
March 14, 2011 at 12:10 am #720145
CMPParticipantI’d gladly retest the written and driving exam every five years if required. People who balk at it are probably the ones that shouldn’t be driving anyway. I agree with Christopher that this will never happen due to the elderly turning out to vote…so we’ll continue to have lousy drivers on the road (and I’m not singling out the older folks with that comment). It’s way too easy to get a license and car in this country.
March 14, 2011 at 12:41 am #720146
cjboffoliParticipantIn the fairness of equal time, senior citizens aren’t the only drivers in need of increased scrutiny. If you look at accident rates by age, it is almost always a nearly perfect parabola, with high accident rates for teenagers, declining as they gain experience and shed fearlessness, then a steady drop into middle age (statistically the safest drivers) with a steep climb into older ages as things like reflexes, vision and hearing inevitably become less acute.
March 14, 2011 at 12:43 am #720147
Genesee HillParticipantCMP,
In my opinion, I do not think the elderly drivers are the BIG problem. Drunks, excessive text/phone/crazies. Yes. Elderly. No!
Come on CMP, please open your eyes!
March 14, 2011 at 1:50 am #720148
Genesee HillParticipantPlus, generally, the elderly ARE NOT going 92 MPH across the West Seattle Bridge. Or 60 plus up or down Admiral. Or 50 MPH up and down Interstate 35.
Or, 50 MPH the length of the California Freeway.
No, I am sorry. Other than going too slow, the elderly drivers don’t bother me much.
March 14, 2011 at 3:24 am #720149
metrognomeParticipantDP — I was completely serious; IMHO, getting a ‘license for life’ is not a good thing. I believe we all become bad drivers over time if we aren’t required to go through periodic refresher courses. For example, there have been threads where a simple driving question was asked and very few people were able to answer and only after researching, which one shouldn’t do while driving.
Also, for the last several years I worked, I got off the bus at the Junction and rolled home to Morgan Junction. Almost without exception, drivers rolled through stop signs at intersections rather than stopping at the actual or implied stop line, as required by law. If turning right, as the vast majority do, they only looked left and completely failed to look right for pedestrians. This often also happens at signalized intersections, esp. CA & Faunt, altho the new design on WB Faunt where the right lane has to turn right has helped. A little.
GH — I agree that seniors are less likely to speed; however, there is some amazing footage from a TV news show like 60 minutes (that I haven’t found yet) of the danger some seniors pose because of slowed reaction times and inability to judge speed. Even when shown the footage of their mistakes, the seniors in question refused to acknowledge their limitations. Making everyone go through bi-annual written, visual and coordination tests (using simulators) is a good way to id age- and health/medication-related issues without specifically targeting seniors.
March 14, 2011 at 3:27 am #720150
christopherboffoliParticipantI think the spirit of the original post was bad drivers of all ages. But you cannot ignore the realities of senior citizens driving beyond the age at which they should. It isn’t an attack on our elder drivers. Just an acknowledgment that this is another segment of the population with political capital that prevents government from responding to a growing problem. We obviously don’t live in Florida or Arizona. But demographic projections show more baby boomers retiring to the Pacific Northwest in coming years.
Statistics indicate that older drivers are at a disproportionate risk for becoming involved in fatal crashes. The U.S. Census Bureau projects there will be 9.6 million people 85 and older by 2030, up 73% from today. Road safety analysts predict that by 2030, when all baby boomers are at least 65, they will be responsible for 25% of all fatal crashes. In 2005, 11% of fatal crashes involved drivers that old. Fatality rates for drivers 85 and older are nine times as high as the rate for drivers 25-69.
An 86 year-old driver plows into a Santa Monica, CA farmers market and kills 10 people:
Elderly Driver mistakes gas for brake in Idaho:
Elderly driver goes the wrong way on the San Diego freeway:
Elderly driver hits LAPD officer in Van Nuys, CA:
This article includes a long list of senior citizens involved in serious accidents in Massachusetts, putting pressure on lawmakers to act:
March 14, 2011 at 3:58 am #720151
metrognomeParticipantChristopher — thanks for the added information; as the baby boom generation ages, the number of older drivers on the road will double to 70 million by 2030 (up from 30 mil this year.) In addition to a higher accident rate, seniors often suffer greater injuries when involved in accidents as their bodies aren’t as resilient.
AAA has a great website for senior drivers
(http://www.seniordrivers.org/home/), including an on-line coordination test; I’m sure AARP has something similar. In addition, the feds have been researching making highway designs, esp. signage, more easily readable. Even NTSB is involved.
One problem, as JoB will no doubt point out, is that most cities/neighborhoods don’t have a public transportation system that will provide seniors with the same kind of mobility that their car provides. And most families/friends can’t fill in for more than urgent needs. For some, it may require relocation, which can be traumatic, or changing doctors, etc. so that needed services are closer to where they live.
Not an easy issue to address.
March 14, 2011 at 4:46 am #720152
JanSParticipantHaving just turned 64, I think I can sort of talk about the older generation and driving. Of course, my driving is limited, since I don’t have a car at the moment. But…when I reach the ripe old age of 85 (hopefully) I am pretty sure I won’t even be using a Zipcar. There does come a time when the keys need to be taken away. But I can honestly say giving up the independence is difficult. I can’t just go to the hardware store when I want, or the mall (ick!) or wherever, any more. Metro? I have one hell of a time just getting up those huge steps on the bus. And I still work, and don’t have all the time in the world to get to various places. I walk with a cane, so only have one hand free to carry packages. Giving up a car when you’re so used to it is very difficult to do. I speak from experience. But then…I also live near WSHS…have you seen some of those drivers? Geez!
March 14, 2011 at 5:06 am #720153
metrognomeParticipantJanS: the good news is that before too much longer, Metro should retire the last of the high-floor artic diesel buses (altho you can ask for the lift if you are having trouble with the steps.) All the new low-floor buses genuflect to lower the floor closer to the sidewalk/road. The 40′ high-floor diesels should also be retired soon, leaving the trolleys as the only high-floor buses.
March 14, 2011 at 7:46 am #720154
I WonderMemberEnforce the “Slower traffic, keep right, except to pass” and half the problems would go away.
March 14, 2011 at 12:50 pm #720155
Genesee HillParticipantmetrognome and cj:
Yeah, I agree that the very elderly have some problems with driving. The statistics you cited are hard to refute. Metrognome, your observations about people rolling through stop signs are spot on. Also, about not looking right for pedestrians. I have caught myself not looking for pedestrians to my right a second time before turning right. It is something I am VERY careful about now.
March 14, 2011 at 3:09 pm #720156
CMPParticipantUm, I’m not targeting elderly people and their driving skills…I’m just saying that they turn out to vote and if we ever had to pass a law requiring testing every few years, it would never pass b/c they voice their opinion. I’ve seen plenty of awful drivers of all ages. Just this morning I saw a younger woman driving in the Bus Only lane in her dark gray SUV with no lights on (before the sun was up) tailgating an articulated bus. With all the complaining about bad drivers, you’d think there would be some improvement but it only seems to be getting worse.
March 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm #720157
JoBParticipantCMP…
i see some basic problems with your assumptions…
first.. you assume that the “elderly” ..
and i am not sure where your assessment of that age group would begin…
would not vote for driver’s license testing…
i think you are wrong.
Most older drivers would be tickled to get some of the younger drivers whose arrogance exceeds their common sense off the roads…
What they won’t vote for is age bracketed testing.
I think the more resistant group would be younger working drivers. You are asking people who now renew their license online to vote to take a half day off every 5 years to renew their driver’s license…
the same group who routinely expresses on the forum that an extra 5-10 seconds getting down the Admiral Hill to the West Seattle Freeway is a personal imposition…
I’m thinking they won’t just say no..
they will say H..L NO.
the “elderly” have plenty of time to take driving refresher courses and to participate in testing.. and a surprising number of them do so voluntarily..
just not through the DMV.
metrognome…
the transportation infrastructure problem is a huge one .. especially for the disabled and elderly.
if we want to get older drivers off the road…
we need to provide viable alternatives.
the other day i responded to a friend who had dropped a cast iron lid on her toe. It was bleeding profusely.
Without transportation (or a friend to call) her only option would have been to call 911 for what was basically a first aid issue…
You don’t think about when an automobile is necessary until you begin to confront functioning without one…
and the less able you are…
the more you need an automobile to function.
It’s a catch 22 that i struggle with every day.
March 14, 2011 at 11:30 pm #720158
waynsterParticipantLets just say the drivers in this state can’t drive. Most wouldn’t pass the written test and then theres the bicyle riders who need the same type of courses that motorcycle riders take and should be licensed its a not so pleasant world on the roads and the sad part is people die on them everyday.
March 15, 2011 at 12:33 am #720159
DPMember -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.