4 ms·

I'd go the other way; we really should require retesting for driver's license renewals. New Jersey for example just enacted a "safe passing" law earlier this y

I'd go the other way; we really should require retesting for driver's license renewals. New Jersey for example just enacted a "safe passing" law earlier this year in an attempt to make bicyclists and pedestrians safer. But existing drivers will never have to demonstrate that they know this because we never retest people after they get their license once.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
It's usually an equity issue, or championed as such by equity groups. America is so car dependent that for folks at the margins failing a driving test is the equivalent of losing your job. That's why DL renewals almost rarely require any re-testing and never require demonstrating driving skills.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Hitting pedestrians also poses issues for folks at the margins, yet we don't seek to educate those people on how to avoid this potentially life destroying situation.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I think you would be hard pressed to find someone currently living with a license that got it at a time where it was OK to will-nilly hit pedestrians.
    - CJefferson 4y ago
      I bet I can find plenty of people who have a licence, but if retested now would fail -- which suggests they now can't be trusted not to willy-nilly hit pedestrians.
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    I agree but a lot of equity groups are not willing to advocate for pedestrian lives. The perception a lot of Americans have is that folks are either walking because they have literally no option and are thus probably not really working-class folks or they're out for recreation. There's a growing number of organizations advocating for pedestrian and cyclist safety but they have a lot less funding and fewer connections that equity groups which protect drivers. If you have the opportunity in your area, donate to such a group or help make one yourself.
- Invictus0 4y ago
  Nonsense. It's an elderly issue, everyone knows elderly people shouldn't be on the road but no one wants to take their licenses (they vote in droves).
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    That is one end of this issue, yes. But there's more to it than just the elderly.
- Swizec 4y ago
  > failing a driving test is the equivalent of Devil's advocate: Maybe you shouldn't be driving, if you might fail a driving test. Being tested on this should be a complete non-issue for anyone with a few years of real world driving experience.
spurgu 4y ago
Couldn't the government (or state) simply run ad campaigns for a couple of weeks informing the public of new changes? Edit: Most changes are not rocket science, you simply need to be aware of them.
- germanier 4y ago
  A simple ad campaign running for a few weeks hardly reaches everybody. Not even close to.
  - spurgu 4y ago
    People discuss with each other. Someone from social sciences could probably back me up but out of my ass it'd prob. be enough to each 1/4 of people (likely less) and it'd eventually spread to everyone through word-of-mouth.
- frenchy 4y ago
  There's a difference between knowing the laws of the road, and being a competent enough driver that you can perform them. The rules are rarely, if ever, enforced, so a lot of drivers just figure it's not a big of a deal. It's easy to believe that road safety isn't that important when you're surrounded by several tons of plastic and metal armor.
nashashmi 4y ago
Then we should have licenses for bicyclists too! The reason we have licenses (aka controls on who can drive cars) is to curb dangerous and irresponsible driving, mark drivers for driving egregiously, and remove people or not allow drivers on the road when they don't have the motor skills to navigate a vehicle on the road. Knowing the rules is secondary, if not tertiary. Otherwise bicyclists should also have licenses and license plates because rules apply to them as well.
- piva00 4y ago
  Rules apply to them but they aren't driving a 2-3 ton hunk of metal that's basically a murder machine. Their danger to other road users is much, much lower than from anything self-propelled just due to physics. Here in Sweden it doesn't matter how much right of way you have, if you are driving a car you're responsible for the safety of others in the road, even more if they're a pedestrian or cyclist. It's not excuse that a pedestrian was jaywalking or whatever bizarre law to limit access to the road for people you got in the US, you are ultimately responsible for the safety of other users. You're drilled and tested on that in your driving lessons and exams, you will fail your driving test if you fail to yield for a pedestrian at any moment, even if it was just briefly not pressing the brake pedal way before another road user is in danger. This is a false equivalence, yes, the road is shared and has rules but one user of the road is safely driving on tons of metal powered by hundreds of horsepower, the other is pedaling a bike. Degree and level matter. Don't hold such a black-and-white view of the world, it's reductionist and not very smart.
  - nashashmi 4y ago
    The US has the same laws. Jaywalking is hard to prove. The bigger the vehicle, the more responsible it is, eg truck trailers are responsible even if the car crashes into them. Cars Always yield to pedestrians. Cars and Peds always yield to bikes. Bikes have to yield to no one unless they are driving on sidewalk. Then they should not be riding.
- JTbane 4y ago
  Bikes are not dangerous (unless you're talking about e-bikes with beefy frames and tires), if you get hit by a bike as a pedestrian you're probably only getting bruised. Cars are absolute murder machines.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

It's usually an equity issue, or championed as such by equity groups. America is so car dependent that for folks at the margins failing a driving test is the equivalent of losing your job. That's why DL renewals almost rarely require any re-testing and never require demonstrating driving skills.

whimsicalism 4y ago
Hitting pedestrians also poses issues for folks at the margins, yet we don't seek to educate those people on how to avoid this potentially life destroying situation.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I think you would be hard pressed to find someone currently living with a license that got it at a time where it was OK to will-nilly hit pedestrians.
  - CJefferson 4y ago
    I bet I can find plenty of people who have a licence, but if retested now would fail -- which suggests they now can't be trusted not to willy-nilly hit pedestrians.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  I agree but a lot of equity groups are not willing to advocate for pedestrian lives. The perception a lot of Americans have is that folks are either walking because they have literally no option and are thus probably not really working-class folks or they're out for recreation. There's a growing number of organizations advocating for pedestrian and cyclist safety but they have a lot less funding and fewer connections that equity groups which protect drivers. If you have the opportunity in your area, donate to such a group or help make one yourself.
Invictus0 4y ago
Nonsense. It's an elderly issue, everyone knows elderly people shouldn't be on the road but no one wants to take their licenses (they vote in droves).
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  That is one end of this issue, yes. But there's more to it than just the elderly.
Swizec 4y ago
> failing a driving test is the equivalent of Devil's advocate: Maybe you shouldn't be driving, if you might fail a driving test. Being tested on this should be a complete non-issue for anyone with a few years of real world driving experience.

spurgu 4y ago

Couldn't the government (or state) simply run ad campaigns for a couple of weeks informing the public of new changes? Edit: Most changes are not rocket science, you simply need to be aware of them.

germanier 4y ago
A simple ad campaign running for a few weeks hardly reaches everybody. Not even close to.
- spurgu 4y ago
  People discuss with each other. Someone from social sciences could probably back me up but out of my ass it'd prob. be enough to each 1/4 of people (likely less) and it'd eventually spread to everyone through word-of-mouth.
frenchy 4y ago
There's a difference between knowing the laws of the road, and being a competent enough driver that you can perform them. The rules are rarely, if ever, enforced, so a lot of drivers just figure it's not a big of a deal. It's easy to believe that road safety isn't that important when you're surrounded by several tons of plastic and metal armor.

nashashmi 4y ago

Then we should have licenses for bicyclists too! The reason we have licenses (aka controls on who can drive cars) is to curb dangerous and irresponsible driving, mark drivers for driving egregiously, and remove people or not allow drivers on the road when they don't have the motor skills to navigate a vehicle on the road. Knowing the rules is secondary, if not tertiary. Otherwise bicyclists should also have licenses and license plates because rules apply to them as well.

piva00 4y ago
Rules apply to them but they aren't driving a 2-3 ton hunk of metal that's basically a murder machine. Their danger to other road users is much, much lower than from anything self-propelled just due to physics. Here in Sweden it doesn't matter how much right of way you have, if you are driving a car you're responsible for the safety of others in the road, even more if they're a pedestrian or cyclist. It's not excuse that a pedestrian was jaywalking or whatever bizarre law to limit access to the road for people you got in the US, you are ultimately responsible for the safety of other users. You're drilled and tested on that in your driving lessons and exams, you will fail your driving test if you fail to yield for a pedestrian at any moment, even if it was just briefly not pressing the brake pedal way before another road user is in danger. This is a false equivalence, yes, the road is shared and has rules but one user of the road is safely driving on tons of metal powered by hundreds of horsepower, the other is pedaling a bike. Degree and level matter. Don't hold such a black-and-white view of the world, it's reductionist and not very smart.
- nashashmi 4y ago
  The US has the same laws. Jaywalking is hard to prove. The bigger the vehicle, the more responsible it is, eg truck trailers are responsible even if the car crashes into them. Cars Always yield to pedestrians. Cars and Peds always yield to bikes. Bikes have to yield to no one unless they are driving on sidewalk. Then they should not be riding.
JTbane 4y ago
Bikes are not dangerous (unless you're talking about e-bikes with beefy frames and tires), if you get hit by a bike as a pedestrian you're probably only getting bruised. Cars are absolute murder machines.