3 ms·

As a frequent pedestrian/cyclist, I completely agree. We don't let just anyone drive a truck or fly a plane, but somehow piloting a personal automobile is treat

As a frequent pedestrian/cyclist, I completely agree. We don't let just anyone drive a truck or fly a plane, but somehow piloting a personal automobile is treated with nothing even approaching the seriousness of those other activities. Unfortunately, we also have decades of built environment that strongly assumes most adults can and will drive. We have significant segments of the population for whom their choice of car is tied into their identity and ego. We have an assumption that many jobs can only be driven to, or even require driving on the job. We don't have even the political willpower to take away licenses from obviously unfit seniors, much less able-bodied working adults. People get away with a slap on the wrist for vehicular manslaughter because what's the alternative? Ruining a second life by causing the perpetrator to lose their job? When they already feel terrible about what happened and isn't that punishment enough? I don't really see a way out of this other than what is already happening in a lot of places, which is trying to break overall car dependence so that taking away a license (or making the tests hard enough that way fewer people can get one in the first place) is no longer a death sentence.

giantg2 5y ago
We can fly ultralights without a license. Granted those "vehicles" technically aren't airplanes and generally only result in loss of life to one's self. "We don't have even the political willpower to take away licenses from obviously unfit seniors" I believe many states do require a retest after a certain age. "or making the tests hard enough that way fewer people can get one in the first place" Fewer, sure. Way fewer, maybe not. I think most people are capable of safely operating a car. I think there would be a large percentage that would just need to put more effort into learning. The way it is now is that people remain ignorant on the subject because they aren't required to study and learn, because licenses are practically given away. Plus, why waste time learning the law if nobody else follows it either? Tougher licensing isn't (or shouldn't be) primarily about depriving people of licenses, but rather providing forced incentives to learn through testing standards. The standards shouldn't be so high as to prevent most people from driving. If they are then we could change some of the rules or designs to simplify the process, although likely at the expense of rate of flow.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  > providing forced incentives to learn through testing standards Fair, yes. I think I meant that with an implicit "... unless the license-seeker is willing to expend considerably more effort." Of course we could also be talking about some technological components, such as an insurance-style OBD box you plug in for the duration of your learning period, that submits you to a more extensive evaluation if you're detected to be driving aggressively or whatever.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I don't really like the OBD boxes. They have to use GPS to be effective. Even then, it's mostly about speed and misses other things. There could be scenarios where rapid speed changes are prudent. I don't want to be penalized for slamming on the brakes if a deer jumps our in front of me just because the sensor registers a rapid deceleration.
    - mikepurvis 5y ago
      Fair, yeah— it's not really a super thought-through suggestion. More just saying that we have 25 years of technological change in the space since graduated licensing was introduced in the 90s, and that alone is probably reason to revisit the whole thing.
- frenchy 5y ago
  > We can fly ultralights without a license. Not over a city, also, how many pedestrians to ultralights kill anually? Generally people are not greatly bothered by someone engaging in solo risky behavior in the middle of nowhere. > I think most people are capable of safely operating a car. Great, now if we could just figure out who those people are and get the rest of them off the road, that would be amazing, but as it currently stands, car drivers are regularly killing people.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Great, now if we could just figure out who those people are and get the rest of them off the road, that would be amazing, but as it currently stands, car drivers are regularly killing people." What's your point; or is this just a rant ignoring my comments on increasing testing?
dionidium 5y ago
> We have significant segments of the population for whom their choice of car is tied into their identity and ego. And that identity is in many cases pathological. It’s amazing how irresponsible our culture is about this. Practically every car commercial depicts a driver doing something in an urban area that is not only plainly illegal, but extremely negligent and dangerous. This is how they market and sell the cars. And then the young men who buy them are told never to exceed the speed limit. Give me a break. We are selling machines designed to break the law using marketing that emphasizes their law-breaking properties to people who with total certainty will use them to break the law. It’s honestly wild.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  Oh for sure. It's nuts that this kind of advertising is allowed— Streetsblog does a semi-regular feature where they recognize America's most toxic car ads, and Dodge in particular is called out as being consistently awful: > “Automotive ads are generally really bad, but Dodge is, above and beyond, worse than any other car company,” said Harris. “There’s not even a hint that a speed limit even exists, much less that a driver might abide by one. They’re inciting road violence in every single one of their commercials.” https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/10/26/americas-most-toxic-car-ads-semi-finals-dodge-vs-chevy/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/10/26/americas-most-toxic-c...
dazc 5y ago
My solution would be to use dangerous/anti-social driving as an extreme revenue generator for Govts. Why print so much money when there are so many ignorant fools we can tax to death whilst also improving the lives of law abiding people as a happy side-effect. Get caught speeding and get an automatic 1K fine. Do it again and it's 5K. Tailgating would be 10K and an instant 12 months ban. Same for using a phone/texting. What reasonable excuse do people have for committing these crimes in the first place? They deserve no sympathy or leniency.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  I completely agree, and you can tell where the Ontario government start to take speeding seriously— going 149km/h where it's signed for 100? $400 fine. Going 151km/h on the same road? Now it's $10000 and roadside vehicle seizure. Pretty clear message about which one actually matters to them. But ultimately it's the same issue here with everything else; except in extreme cases, it's not realistic to take away people's licenses when driving is a critical part of getting themselves to work.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Perhaps they can fund public transit with all the fines and property seizure, like rural bus/van routes.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "whilst also improving the lives of law abiding people" I think only people who think they know the law and believe the system is fair/without error, would take such a hard line. "Get caught speeding and get an automatic 1K fine. Do it again and it's 5K. Tailgating would be 10K" These values seem wildly out of touch with, not only severity of criminal fines, but also with the ability of people to pay them. Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved. Now we could make it a means based fine, like 1% of AGI. It would still be a stiff penalty for people making $50k or $200k. As it stands now, $150 ticket is nothing for some high earners, but may be sufficient punishment for a first time offense for some low earners (eg <$25k). https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-090000503.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-09000...

giantg2 5y ago

We can fly ultralights without a license. Granted those "vehicles" technically aren't airplanes and generally only result in loss of life to one's self. "We don't have even the political willpower to take away licenses from obviously unfit seniors" I believe many states do require a retest after a certain age. "or making the tests hard enough that way fewer people can get one in the first place" Fewer, sure. Way fewer, maybe not. I think most people are capable of safely operating a car. I think there would be a large percentage that would just need to put more effort into learning. The way it is now is that people remain ignorant on the subject because they aren't required to study and learn, because licenses are practically given away. Plus, why waste time learning the law if nobody else follows it either? Tougher licensing isn't (or shouldn't be) primarily about depriving people of licenses, but rather providing forced incentives to learn through testing standards. The standards shouldn't be so high as to prevent most people from driving. If they are then we could change some of the rules or designs to simplify the process, although likely at the expense of rate of flow.

mikepurvis 5y ago
> providing forced incentives to learn through testing standards Fair, yes. I think I meant that with an implicit "... unless the license-seeker is willing to expend considerably more effort." Of course we could also be talking about some technological components, such as an insurance-style OBD box you plug in for the duration of your learning period, that submits you to a more extensive evaluation if you're detected to be driving aggressively or whatever.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I don't really like the OBD boxes. They have to use GPS to be effective. Even then, it's mostly about speed and misses other things. There could be scenarios where rapid speed changes are prudent. I don't want to be penalized for slamming on the brakes if a deer jumps our in front of me just because the sensor registers a rapid deceleration.
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    Fair, yeah— it's not really a super thought-through suggestion. More just saying that we have 25 years of technological change in the space since graduated licensing was introduced in the 90s, and that alone is probably reason to revisit the whole thing.
frenchy 5y ago
> We can fly ultralights without a license. Not over a city, also, how many pedestrians to ultralights kill anually? Generally people are not greatly bothered by someone engaging in solo risky behavior in the middle of nowhere. > I think most people are capable of safely operating a car. Great, now if we could just figure out who those people are and get the rest of them off the road, that would be amazing, but as it currently stands, car drivers are regularly killing people.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Great, now if we could just figure out who those people are and get the rest of them off the road, that would be amazing, but as it currently stands, car drivers are regularly killing people." What's your point; or is this just a rant ignoring my comments on increasing testing?

dionidium 5y ago

> We have significant segments of the population for whom their choice of car is tied into their identity and ego. And that identity is in many cases pathological. It’s amazing how irresponsible our culture is about this. Practically every car commercial depicts a driver doing something in an urban area that is not only plainly illegal, but extremely negligent and dangerous. This is how they market and sell the cars. And then the young men who buy them are told never to exceed the speed limit. Give me a break. We are selling machines designed to break the law using marketing that emphasizes their law-breaking properties to people who with total certainty will use them to break the law. It’s honestly wild.

mikepurvis 5y ago
Oh for sure. It's nuts that this kind of advertising is allowed— Streetsblog does a semi-regular feature where they recognize America's most toxic car ads, and Dodge in particular is called out as being consistently awful: > “Automotive ads are generally really bad, but Dodge is, above and beyond, worse than any other car company,” said Harris. “There’s not even a hint that a speed limit even exists, much less that a driver might abide by one. They’re inciting road violence in every single one of their commercials.” https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/10/26/americas-most-toxic-car-ads-semi-finals-dodge-vs-chevy/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/10/26/americas-most-toxic-c...

dazc 5y ago

My solution would be to use dangerous/anti-social driving as an extreme revenue generator for Govts. Why print so much money when there are so many ignorant fools we can tax to death whilst also improving the lives of law abiding people as a happy side-effect. Get caught speeding and get an automatic 1K fine. Do it again and it's 5K. Tailgating would be 10K and an instant 12 months ban. Same for using a phone/texting. What reasonable excuse do people have for committing these crimes in the first place? They deserve no sympathy or leniency.

mikepurvis 5y ago
I completely agree, and you can tell where the Ontario government start to take speeding seriously— going 149km/h where it's signed for 100? $400 fine. Going 151km/h on the same road? Now it's $10000 and roadside vehicle seizure. Pretty clear message about which one actually matters to them. But ultimately it's the same issue here with everything else; except in extreme cases, it's not realistic to take away people's licenses when driving is a critical part of getting themselves to work.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Perhaps they can fund public transit with all the fines and property seizure, like rural bus/van routes.
giantg2 5y ago
"whilst also improving the lives of law abiding people" I think only people who think they know the law and believe the system is fair/without error, would take such a hard line. "Get caught speeding and get an automatic 1K fine. Do it again and it's 5K. Tailgating would be 10K" These values seem wildly out of touch with, not only severity of criminal fines, but also with the ability of people to pay them. Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved. Now we could make it a means based fine, like 1% of AGI. It would still be a stiff penalty for people making $50k or $200k. As it stands now, $150 ticket is nothing for some high earners, but may be sufficient punishment for a first time offense for some low earners (eg <$25k). https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-090000503.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-09000...