4 ms·

I don’t think vehicle licensing should be easy, and should fairly strict as I understand it to be in Germany. The extent of training increases the investment a

by xattt 4y ago

I don’t think vehicle licensing should be easy, and should fairly strict as I understand it to be in Germany. The extent of training increases the investment a person has around the regulated activity. The person is more likely to abide by the rules because (a) they have a deeper knowledge, and (b) they don’t want to lose the privilege of being able to carry it out. Increasing the strictness of license requirements could be a small nudge towards decarbonization to slow the growth of personal vehicles on the road.

dylan604 4y ago
>Increasing the strictness of license requirements... Sadly, I'd have to disagree. I think all this would do would be to increase the number of drivers operating illegally. Increase the friction, and people will just find a way to avoid it all together. The only real way to stop it would to have mandatory checkpoints. The push back from the masses for any kind of change like this would be enormous that you'd be asking Roe v Who? in comparison.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Should everyone just have to take a high-end defensive driving course? Sure. Why not? I can afford it. You can't? What a pity. But honestly I think demands to make a driver's license harder to get largely miss the point. From my own experience, time on the road makes far more difference than training or harder tests. As does, general maturity and attitude which isn't going to be taught by a class.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >Should everyone just have to take a high-end defensive driving course? Sure. Why not? I can afford it. You can't? What a pity. What does this have to do with anything? Advocating that people that can't afford to take training shouldn't be restricted from getting licensed? With that logic, let's all become pilots for free too! >time on the road The rest of this I can almost agree with, but you're glossing over that bad habits become entreanched. Distracted driving from today's smartphone use to the classic putting on makeup while driving, constant changing of the radio/spotify/etc, or just shoving fries/chips down your gullet while driving is never going away no matter how many years you've drive. In fact, the longer one goes with out having a wreck with these bad habits, the more one is emboldened that they are safe. It's not just teenagers with low hours behind the wheel that do any of the things listed above.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I'm not sure what training regime gets people to not do those things however. I assume US driver ed courses still include obligatory horrific videos of crashes resulting from people doing stupid things.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        Like most training, I think the biggest thing is the learning before the official training that is avaialable. Mainly, I'm talking about a kid learning from watching their parent's behavior behind the wheel. If kiddo sees the Parental Training Unit(TM) doing stupid things behind the wheel, then kiddo will assume that's okay to do. Then when being told that's not the correct thing to be doing in official training courses, kiddo=>teenager now rolls their eyes to the back of their head as the teacher is just out of touch. So, you must be the change you wish to see in the world. So in today's view, we're all screwed!!
        ghaff 4y ago
        Oh I agree with that as well. If kiddo sees parents driving drunk all the time, they'll dutifully say you shouldn't do that on the driver ed test then do it anyway. (And it's really broader than parents as there are broader social mores as well.) I think we're in general agreement. My original point was that making getting a driver's license a leetcode interview-level requirement puts more barriers in place but probably doesn't (by itself) mean you have a lot better drivers on the roads. To be clear, if you can afford it, a high-end driving course is probably both useful and a lot of fun. Though I wonder if it's more useful for someone who has some experience. (I've never take a course though I have done some driving on BMW's track in SC which was a great experience.)
        dylan604 4y ago
        I think we need some sort of Homer Simpson level whackiness that provides a gentle shock when your hands leave the wheel for a predetermined time, force pupil tracking to provide a gentle shock when no longer watching the road or checking mirrors for predetermined time. The shock would have to come from different places so you can't learn to avoid where it comes from when you want to deviate from task at hand. There was a post here a while back where someone built a keyboard that would deliver shocks when it detected improper typing techniques. It wasn't enough to do anything other than make you really want to type well. It was funny that they went through with it, but that's the level of schtick I'm intending by gentle shock.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  If you increase the burden of getting a license you don't simultaneously invalidate all existing licenses at once obviously you focus on new licenses and renewals over many years. It is impossible to get insurance, plates, tabs, park your car in your apartments lot without proper licensing. Everyone eventually messes up and gets pulled over or gets in an accident and then you are basically going to jail. In theory your cousin can buy and register your car but if you kill someone he will be legally and monetarily responsible. Logically it would have to be fantastically burdensome to convince many people to drive without licenses. It is silly to both pretend we absolutely must impliment a law either without the slightest bit of sense or not at all and presuppose that everyone is going to ignore the law when clearly this is actually fairly hard to do.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    > Logically it would have to be fantastically burdensome to convince many people to drive without licenses. Based on experience (admittedly biased), plenty of people are driving without a valid license or insurance right now. That’s not an argument not to increase proficiency standards, but I think people who naturally follow rules (like my spouse) have a hard time comprehending people who would see a rule and then evaluate whether or not to follow it.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I think you and I are experiencing different realities. I know first hand it is easy to drive without a valid license whether that means not having one at all, having one but currently it is suspended, or any other various ways. I also know direct* 2nd hand of how easy it is to have a car that does not have proper official paperwork/stickers/plates. If you are operating a car in someone else's name does not mean they are ultimately on the hook. Yes, they will probably be main suspect, but they will/could be able to prove not involved. Easiest would be to say you were using the car without permission. >Logically it would have to be fantastically burdensome to convince many people to drive without licenses. WAT! this happens every. single. day. *I know direct 2nd hand is counter-intuitive, but I mean I personally know people with cars like this.
    - 4y ago

by xattt 4y ago

dylan604 4y ago

>Increasing the strictness of license requirements... Sadly, I'd have to disagree. I think all this would do would be to increase the number of drivers operating illegally. Increase the friction, and people will just find a way to avoid it all together. The only real way to stop it would to have mandatory checkpoints. The push back from the masses for any kind of change like this would be enormous that you'd be asking Roe v Who? in comparison.

ghaff 4y ago
Should everyone just have to take a high-end defensive driving course? Sure. Why not? I can afford it. You can't? What a pity. But honestly I think demands to make a driver's license harder to get largely miss the point. From my own experience, time on the road makes far more difference than training or harder tests. As does, general maturity and attitude which isn't going to be taught by a class.
- dylan604 4y ago
  >Should everyone just have to take a high-end defensive driving course? Sure. Why not? I can afford it. You can't? What a pity. What does this have to do with anything? Advocating that people that can't afford to take training shouldn't be restricted from getting licensed? With that logic, let's all become pilots for free too! >time on the road The rest of this I can almost agree with, but you're glossing over that bad habits become entreanched. Distracted driving from today's smartphone use to the classic putting on makeup while driving, constant changing of the radio/spotify/etc, or just shoving fries/chips down your gullet while driving is never going away no matter how many years you've drive. In fact, the longer one goes with out having a wreck with these bad habits, the more one is emboldened that they are safe. It's not just teenagers with low hours behind the wheel that do any of the things listed above.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I'm not sure what training regime gets people to not do those things however. I assume US driver ed courses still include obligatory horrific videos of crashes resulting from people doing stupid things.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Like most training, I think the biggest thing is the learning before the official training that is avaialable. Mainly, I'm talking about a kid learning from watching their parent's behavior behind the wheel. If kiddo sees the Parental Training Unit(TM) doing stupid things behind the wheel, then kiddo will assume that's okay to do. Then when being told that's not the correct thing to be doing in official training courses, kiddo=>teenager now rolls their eyes to the back of their head as the teacher is just out of touch. So, you must be the change you wish to see in the world. So in today's view, we're all screwed!!
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Oh I agree with that as well. If kiddo sees parents driving drunk all the time, they'll dutifully say you shouldn't do that on the driver ed test then do it anyway. (And it's really broader than parents as there are broader social mores as well.) I think we're in general agreement. My original point was that making getting a driver's license a leetcode interview-level requirement puts more barriers in place but probably doesn't (by itself) mean you have a lot better drivers on the roads. To be clear, if you can afford it, a high-end driving course is probably both useful and a lot of fun. Though I wonder if it's more useful for someone who has some experience. (I've never take a course though I have done some driving on BMW's track in SC which was a great experience.)
        dylan604 4y ago
        I think we need some sort of Homer Simpson level whackiness that provides a gentle shock when your hands leave the wheel for a predetermined time, force pupil tracking to provide a gentle shock when no longer watching the road or checking mirrors for predetermined time. The shock would have to come from different places so you can't learn to avoid where it comes from when you want to deviate from task at hand. There was a post here a while back where someone built a keyboard that would deliver shocks when it detected improper typing techniques. It wasn't enough to do anything other than make you really want to type well. It was funny that they went through with it, but that's the level of schtick I'm intending by gentle shock.
michaelmrose 4y ago
If you increase the burden of getting a license you don't simultaneously invalidate all existing licenses at once obviously you focus on new licenses and renewals over many years. It is impossible to get insurance, plates, tabs, park your car in your apartments lot without proper licensing. Everyone eventually messes up and gets pulled over or gets in an accident and then you are basically going to jail. In theory your cousin can buy and register your car but if you kill someone he will be legally and monetarily responsible. Logically it would have to be fantastically burdensome to convince many people to drive without licenses. It is silly to both pretend we absolutely must impliment a law either without the slightest bit of sense or not at all and presuppose that everyone is going to ignore the law when clearly this is actually fairly hard to do.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > Logically it would have to be fantastically burdensome to convince many people to drive without licenses. Based on experience (admittedly biased), plenty of people are driving without a valid license or insurance right now. That’s not an argument not to increase proficiency standards, but I think people who naturally follow rules (like my spouse) have a hard time comprehending people who would see a rule and then evaluate whether or not to follow it.
- dylan604 4y ago
  I think you and I are experiencing different realities. I know first hand it is easy to drive without a valid license whether that means not having one at all, having one but currently it is suspended, or any other various ways. I also know direct* 2nd hand of how easy it is to have a car that does not have proper official paperwork/stickers/plates. If you are operating a car in someone else's name does not mean they are ultimately on the hook. Yes, they will probably be main suspect, but they will/could be able to prove not involved. Easiest would be to say you were using the car without permission. >Logically it would have to be fantastically burdensome to convince many people to drive without licenses. WAT! this happens every. single. day. *I know direct 2nd hand is counter-intuitive, but I mean I personally know people with cars like this.
  - 4y ago