6 ms·

First, speeding is not a crime. Not everyone violation of law is considered crime, and not all violators are considered criminals. Second, I think most America

First, speeding is not a crime. Not everyone violation of law is considered crime, and not all violators are considered criminals. Second, I think most American drivers are reckless. Common driving behavior is not a good standard. Third, ticketing for speeding may not be ideal, but the things that are really dangerous are much harder to ticket. How do you enforce a law on safe following distance? How do you publish the standard? How do people know if they're following it or not? How do you prove they were violating it? How do you enforce a law on distracted driving? It is much harder to catch someone (provably) driving while texting than it is to catch them speeding. How do you set the standard? How long is too long to look at your phone? How do you enforce a law on emotionally unstable driving? Driving while enraged can be as dangerous or more dangerous than driving drunk, but there's no breath test for rage. How do you enforce a law of passing without checking your mirrors and blind spot? Or on cutting off other drivers? The author doesn't like speeding tickets. Fine. What's his solution? I have a solution, but most Americans don't like it. Require an expensive and hard to obtain license for driving (akin to a pilot's license, since cars are statistically more dangerous than planes anyway), and drastically increase public transportation to accommodate the increase in non-drivers. An average level of patience, skill and focus is simply insufficient to safely operate a car. Those unwilling to be unusually patient, well-trained and focused shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

tibbon 15y ago
I wholeheartedly support the idea of increasing the standards for driving skill, training and ability. I've heard in Norway/Sweden that you have to spend a large amount of time and money training specifically for night driving, snow driving, standard driving, etc. I know in most European countries getting a motorcycle license is far more difficult, expensive and restricting than in the US. Consequently, I bet they are more skilled drivers. I've been in the car with so many people in the US that say they know how to (and are licensed to) drive, but yet clearly don't know how to drive. They are unaware of the most basic mechanics of how the car actually moves. The terms oversteer and understeer are completely foreign to them. They probably don't even know if their vehicle is front or rear wheel drive. And of course most couldn't parallel park if the street was empty. Yet with the way we've architected America (huge and sprawling), everyone feels entitled and required to have a car. I moved to Ohio about a year ago, and apparently there's laws here that allow even 13 and 14 year olds to drive if no one else in the family can. I'm guessing in most countries the response wouldn't be to give a kid a license, but to say, "move to a city" or "here's some public transit". On the flip side, there are clearly many elderly that shouldn't be driving. Driving should be something you have to test for every few years, and that you're expected to always get better results on the test.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  What is your population density of the US compared to the UK for example? So how do you think that affects the average number of cars on the road that you will pass on your average commute? Do you think passing more cars increases or decreases your chance of death? Do you need more or less skill? How much of American towns, suburbs and cities were built before or after the introduction of cars? Were they designed to handle cars and not have really windy roads? Note that you said it, 'huge and sprawling'. Do you need to be taught snow driving, will there be snow on the road for 6 months a year? Is it more or less likely that you're going to be driving on a winding mountainous road or a big open freeway? You can't compare driving in different countries or even in different states in the US as the skill needed and problems are different.
  - tibbon 15y ago
    These things are true, but its also mindful to remember that the US is a huge place and once you're licensed to drive you can go to any public road in any state. You can go to Maine, Minnesotta or somewhere that there is a large amount of snow for a long period of time. You can drive the Blue Ridge Parkway, or rip through canyons in the southwest. You can go to NYC, or stick to superslab/highway roads. Yet any 16 year old that shows they can drive around suburban streets and get 80% of the questions right on a test can go absolutely anywhere, and hold that license until they die or a court revokes it. An idea just popped in my head that perhaps roads (like ski trails) could have different difficulty color codes, and that you had to be licensed to drive on each type. This is likely too much complexity, but still a neat idea. Public transit I feel (and perhaps I'm wrong on this) actually was something that many cities had in the US and were planning before every 3 person family had 4 cars. Here in Columbus, Ohio, we used to have street cars going up and down some of our main streets. At some point in the 60's or 70's they removed all of those in favor of lowering costs and making more room for cars. Its been through poor planning and assumption that they'll have an infinite supply of cheap petrol that we've gotten here. We started most of the cities pre-car, but once cars hit, we somehow thought the suburbs were a good idea and that everyone should be able to travel anywhere in a short period of time on their own.
neutronicus 15y ago
Second, I think most American drivers are reckless. I'd stay away from Latin America if I were you, then. I feel like your "solution" is mostly just making a moral point, and doesn't accurately reflect the amount of risk the voting public finds acceptable.
generalk 15y ago
> Second, I think most American drivers are reckless. > I have a solution, but most Americans don't like it. I'm fairly certain that poor driving isn't limited to Americans. Why call out them, specifically? > An average level of patience, skill and focus is simply > insufficient to safely operate a car. You have research to back this up? What's considered "average"? What's considered "safe"? > Require an expensive and hard to obtain license for driving (akin to a > pilot's license, since cars are statistically more dangerous than planes > anyway), and drastically increase public transportation to accommodate the > increase in non-drivers. Making something more expensive makes it more exclusive, but only to people who have money. Making it hard to obtain doesn't ensure that unsafe driver's won't get one, just that they'll go through more trouble to get it. If you remove drivers from the system, you also remove a source of revenue for the city in violation fees -- speeding tickets, moving violations, parking meters and tickets, etc. So your plan is to decrease revenue while drastically increasing the amount and quality of public transportation? My city can't even operate a municipal bus service properly, and that's at current revenue levels.
- roel_v 15y ago
  "I'm fairly certain that poor driving isn't limited to Americans. Why call out them, specifically?" Maybe the writer is American and is writing for an American audience, and was just using 'Americans' as a synonym for 'the general population'. "You have research to back this up? What's considered "average"? What's considered "safe"?" Well, the amount of traffic accidents is evidence enough, isn't it?
  - generalk 15y ago
    Maybe the writer is American, maybe he isn't, but it sounded to me as if he was specifically calling out Americans. Maybe I'm wrong. > Well, the amount of traffic accidents is evidence enough, > isn't it? What amount? Evidence of what? The original post I responded to claimed that in order to decrease the number of traffic accidents, we need to license fewer people to drive, because the average person can't operate a vehicle safely. But licensing fewer people != licensing only people who will always drive a vehicle 100% safely. The set of accidents includes accidents caused by factors other than lack of training or lack of attention. Poor weather conditions, drunk drivers, falling asleep at the wheel; these aren't things that licensing fewer people to drive will solve, not to mention that simply refusing to issue a license doesn't ensure that the person won't drive. It's an overly simplistic solution presented in a superior tone that does not solve the stated problem.
mikeash 15y ago
I'm a little confused. I agree that these various types of bad driving are difficult to enforce, but how does that justify the massive over enforcement of speed limits?
quanticle 15y ago
Second, I think most American drivers are reckless. Common driving behavior is not a good standard. Really? I think American drivers are amongst the least reckless in the world. If you want to see reckless driving, go to India, Brazil, or even places in southern Europe, like Italy or Greece.
- roel_v 15y ago
  I think he was talking in absolute terms, not relative. It's not because somebody is worse, that that person is good (or just 'not bad'). To take an extreme analogy: if I beat my wife daily, and my neighbor twice a day, does that make my behavior OK?
  - quanticle 15y ago
    But how do you even quantify recklessness in absolute terms? Recklessness is always relative to the risk tolerance of the society it takes place in. If you go back to even the 1950s, everyone was taking risks that look downright reckless today. But was it reckless for them? No, not really. The risk tolerance was higher, so things that look like unnecessary risks today were accepted as a matter of course.
- bh42222 15y ago
  Go to Germany and American drivers are super reckless.

tibbon 15y ago

I wholeheartedly support the idea of increasing the standards for driving skill, training and ability. I've heard in Norway/Sweden that you have to spend a large amount of time and money training specifically for night driving, snow driving, standard driving, etc. I know in most European countries getting a motorcycle license is far more difficult, expensive and restricting than in the US. Consequently, I bet they are more skilled drivers. I've been in the car with so many people in the US that say they know how to (and are licensed to) drive, but yet clearly don't know how to drive. They are unaware of the most basic mechanics of how the car actually moves. The terms oversteer and understeer are completely foreign to them. They probably don't even know if their vehicle is front or rear wheel drive. And of course most couldn't parallel park if the street was empty. Yet with the way we've architected America (huge and sprawling), everyone feels entitled and required to have a car. I moved to Ohio about a year ago, and apparently there's laws here that allow even 13 and 14 year olds to drive if no one else in the family can. I'm guessing in most countries the response wouldn't be to give a kid a license, but to say, "move to a city" or "here's some public transit". On the flip side, there are clearly many elderly that shouldn't be driving. Driving should be something you have to test for every few years, and that you're expected to always get better results on the test.

mattmanser 15y ago
What is your population density of the US compared to the UK for example? So how do you think that affects the average number of cars on the road that you will pass on your average commute? Do you think passing more cars increases or decreases your chance of death? Do you need more or less skill? How much of American towns, suburbs and cities were built before or after the introduction of cars? Were they designed to handle cars and not have really windy roads? Note that you said it, 'huge and sprawling'. Do you need to be taught snow driving, will there be snow on the road for 6 months a year? Is it more or less likely that you're going to be driving on a winding mountainous road or a big open freeway? You can't compare driving in different countries or even in different states in the US as the skill needed and problems are different.
- tibbon 15y ago
  These things are true, but its also mindful to remember that the US is a huge place and once you're licensed to drive you can go to any public road in any state. You can go to Maine, Minnesotta or somewhere that there is a large amount of snow for a long period of time. You can drive the Blue Ridge Parkway, or rip through canyons in the southwest. You can go to NYC, or stick to superslab/highway roads. Yet any 16 year old that shows they can drive around suburban streets and get 80% of the questions right on a test can go absolutely anywhere, and hold that license until they die or a court revokes it. An idea just popped in my head that perhaps roads (like ski trails) could have different difficulty color codes, and that you had to be licensed to drive on each type. This is likely too much complexity, but still a neat idea. Public transit I feel (and perhaps I'm wrong on this) actually was something that many cities had in the US and were planning before every 3 person family had 4 cars. Here in Columbus, Ohio, we used to have street cars going up and down some of our main streets. At some point in the 60's or 70's they removed all of those in favor of lowering costs and making more room for cars. Its been through poor planning and assumption that they'll have an infinite supply of cheap petrol that we've gotten here. We started most of the cities pre-car, but once cars hit, we somehow thought the suburbs were a good idea and that everyone should be able to travel anywhere in a short period of time on their own.

neutronicus 15y ago

Second, I think most American drivers are reckless. I'd stay away from Latin America if I were you, then. I feel like your "solution" is mostly just making a moral point, and doesn't accurately reflect the amount of risk the voting public finds acceptable.

generalk 15y ago

> Second, I think most American drivers are reckless. > I have a solution, but most Americans don't like it. I'm fairly certain that poor driving isn't limited to Americans. Why call out them, specifically? > An average level of patience, skill and focus is simply > insufficient to safely operate a car. You have research to back this up? What's considered "average"? What's considered "safe"? > Require an expensive and hard to obtain license for driving (akin to a > pilot's license, since cars are statistically more dangerous than planes > anyway), and drastically increase public transportation to accommodate the > increase in non-drivers. Making something more expensive makes it more exclusive, but only to people who have money. Making it hard to obtain doesn't ensure that unsafe driver's won't get one, just that they'll go through more trouble to get it. If you remove drivers from the system, you also remove a source of revenue for the city in violation fees -- speeding tickets, moving violations, parking meters and tickets, etc. So your plan is to decrease revenue while drastically increasing the amount and quality of public transportation? My city can't even operate a municipal bus service properly, and that's at current revenue levels.

roel_v 15y ago
"I'm fairly certain that poor driving isn't limited to Americans. Why call out them, specifically?" Maybe the writer is American and is writing for an American audience, and was just using 'Americans' as a synonym for 'the general population'. "You have research to back this up? What's considered "average"? What's considered "safe"?" Well, the amount of traffic accidents is evidence enough, isn't it?
- generalk 15y ago
  Maybe the writer is American, maybe he isn't, but it sounded to me as if he was specifically calling out Americans. Maybe I'm wrong. > Well, the amount of traffic accidents is evidence enough, > isn't it? What amount? Evidence of what? The original post I responded to claimed that in order to decrease the number of traffic accidents, we need to license fewer people to drive, because the average person can't operate a vehicle safely. But licensing fewer people != licensing only people who will always drive a vehicle 100% safely. The set of accidents includes accidents caused by factors other than lack of training or lack of attention. Poor weather conditions, drunk drivers, falling asleep at the wheel; these aren't things that licensing fewer people to drive will solve, not to mention that simply refusing to issue a license doesn't ensure that the person won't drive. It's an overly simplistic solution presented in a superior tone that does not solve the stated problem.

mikeash 15y ago

I'm a little confused. I agree that these various types of bad driving are difficult to enforce, but how does that justify the massive over enforcement of speed limits?

quanticle 15y ago

Second, I think most American drivers are reckless. Common driving behavior is not a good standard. Really? I think American drivers are amongst the least reckless in the world. If you want to see reckless driving, go to India, Brazil, or even places in southern Europe, like Italy or Greece.

roel_v 15y ago
I think he was talking in absolute terms, not relative. It's not because somebody is worse, that that person is good (or just 'not bad'). To take an extreme analogy: if I beat my wife daily, and my neighbor twice a day, does that make my behavior OK?
- quanticle 15y ago
  But how do you even quantify recklessness in absolute terms? Recklessness is always relative to the risk tolerance of the society it takes place in. If you go back to even the 1950s, everyone was taking risks that look downright reckless today. But was it reckless for them? No, not really. The risk tolerance was higher, so things that look like unnecessary risks today were accepted as a matter of course.
bh42222 15y ago
Go to Germany and American drivers are super reckless.