4 ms·

> One of the drivers had 56 near crashes and 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles! There would be a strong argument to simply banning the worst 1% of driver

> One of the drivers had 56 near crashes and 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles! There would be a strong argument to simply banning the worst 1% of drivers from driving, and maybe even compensating them with lifetime free taxi rides, on the taxpayers dime.

eptcyka 2y ago
Perverse incentives will just balloon the bad driver population. Funny, since the brits have a history with these kinds of things.
- allan_s 2y ago
  Yes something like free bus card and N kilometers of taxi fares per month, so that : 1. People who normally take the bus are not incentivise to get their driving license /make a big accident 2. People already driving are still blt rewarded ,just not blocked 3. One may argue that if some of the borderline "not that dangerous but still..." driver do it on purpose to cross the line it still may benefits soxiety economically wise
- n4r9 2y ago
  Hang on, why are brits suddenly being mentioned?
  - eptcyka 2y ago
    I am making rather overextended assumptions as to the ethnicity/nationality of the original poster based on their username.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      Aahh. I think your extrapolation is indeed correct.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
Nah, just revoke their licenses and make it much harder to get one to begin with. Autonomous driving removes the economic necessity of having one. Just get a proper car that can drive you to work. No need for you to do anything. Catch up on lost sleep (a common cause of accidents is people being to tired to drive) or whatever. Expect to pay for the privilege of driving yourself and putting others at risk. If you really want to drive yourself, you'll just have to skill up to get a license and proper training, get extra insurance for the increased liability, etc. And then if you prove to be unworthy of having a license after all, it will be taken away. Because it's a privilege and not a right to have one and others on the road will insist that you are competent to drive. And with all the autonomous and camera equipped cars, incompetent drivers will be really easy to spot and police. It will take a while before we get there; this won't happen overnight. But that's where it's going. Most people will choose not to drive most of the time for financial reasons. Driving manually then becomes a luxury. Getting a license becomes optional, not a rite of passage that every teenager takes. Eventually, owning cars that enable manual driving will become more expensive or may not even be road legal in certain areas. Etc.
- gambiting 2y ago
  >>Nah, just revoke their licenses and make it much harder to get one to begin with I 1000% agree with you, but unfortunately in some countries like the US that kind of argument leads to nowhere, because people think driving is a human right and also the entire country is built around having a car so you are actually truly screwed if you don't have one. >> Autonomous driving removes the economic necessity of having one. Just get a proper car that can drive you to work. Sure, except it doesn't exist and I honestly doubt it ever(in the next 50-100 years) will. If you need autonomous driving that takes you to your destination that already exists though - it's called a taxi.
  - nradov 2y ago
    The type of people who frequently cause collisions are the same people that will drive without a license. And because they're also judgment proof deadbeats they often don't have liability insurance either.
mattlondon 2y ago
It kinda works already without outright banning them: the mandatory insurance will get more and more expensive the more accidents they have. So they price themselves out. Of course, they may then decide not to have insurance at all. In most countries that is illegal and doing that in a premeditated way is criminality and something else entirely. Not sure if insurance is mandatory in the US or not - I assume instead you just get into a gunfight with the other party instead?/s
- londons_explore 2y ago
  If you're having an accident costing $10k twice a year, your insurance ought to cost at least $20k/year. But for whatever reason, it seems such people end up with far lower (yet still expensive) insurance quotes at more like $4k/year.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    They can't charge $20k/yr because that costs more than buying a POS, not registering it and getting it out of impound a couple times and then abandoning it. With numbers like that you're fundamentally running against the people's willingness to comply (which includes the cop's willingness to enforce).
    - steveBK123 2y ago
      Precisely - even insurance doesn't have the fat tail of awful driver data because they are disproportionately driving around uninsured illegally.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      That doesn't make any sense. The insurance company willingly loses money just to avoid the possibility of someone driving illegally?
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        They're not losing money. They're taking it from everyone else. "oh you hit a mailbox during an ice storm that we paid out $50 for after your deductible, that'll be a $400/6mo increase in premiums for the next five years"
HamsterDan 2y ago
Great idea. And people who start fires while cooking should be given free private chefs too.
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  It really depends on whether there's shame attached, which isn't easy to control. A private chef sounds good to me; having to go and collect specially marked "safe" meals at the supermarket with a card that's only given to adults the state deems incapable of looking after themselves, not so much.
pc86 2y ago
You don't have a right to free transportation. I'd immediately donate money to and vote for any politician stupid enough to say we should revoke licenses from the worst 1% of drivers. Revoke their licenses, let them figure it out. Get a ride from friends. Take the bus. Move closer to work. You're a danger. If they break the law and drive anyway, put them in jail.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > If they break the law and drive anyway, put them in jail. They are going to drive anyway, because in most of the USA, you need a car to get basically anywhere, including to work. So now instead of just being a bad driver, they're also unemployed and sitting in jail, which taxpayers are paying for. There are people with dozens of DUIs, totally uninsurable, their licenses pretty much permanently revoked, and they still drive every day.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Yes, people will break the law. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do things that are good for society (telling bad drivers they're no longer allowed to drive) because some percentage of those people will decide of their own volition to break the law.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > They are going to drive anyway Honestly, arrest them. Someone willing to operate a motor vehicle without a license is one step away from manslaughter.
    - pcwalton 2y ago
      > Someone willing to operate a motor vehicle without a license is one step away from manslaughter. I suspect there are plenty of undocumented immigrants in states that don't have the equivalent of AB 60 licenses who are perfectly safe drivers. Perhaps even safer than licensed drivers, since they have more to lose from moving violations.

eptcyka 2y ago

Perverse incentives will just balloon the bad driver population. Funny, since the brits have a history with these kinds of things.

allan_s 2y ago
Yes something like free bus card and N kilometers of taxi fares per month, so that : 1. People who normally take the bus are not incentivise to get their driving license /make a big accident 2. People already driving are still blt rewarded ,just not blocked 3. One may argue that if some of the borderline "not that dangerous but still..." driver do it on purpose to cross the line it still may benefits soxiety economically wise
n4r9 2y ago
Hang on, why are brits suddenly being mentioned?
- eptcyka 2y ago
  I am making rather overextended assumptions as to the ethnicity/nationality of the original poster based on their username.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Aahh. I think your extrapolation is indeed correct.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

Nah, just revoke their licenses and make it much harder to get one to begin with. Autonomous driving removes the economic necessity of having one. Just get a proper car that can drive you to work. No need for you to do anything. Catch up on lost sleep (a common cause of accidents is people being to tired to drive) or whatever. Expect to pay for the privilege of driving yourself and putting others at risk. If you really want to drive yourself, you'll just have to skill up to get a license and proper training, get extra insurance for the increased liability, etc. And then if you prove to be unworthy of having a license after all, it will be taken away. Because it's a privilege and not a right to have one and others on the road will insist that you are competent to drive. And with all the autonomous and camera equipped cars, incompetent drivers will be really easy to spot and police. It will take a while before we get there; this won't happen overnight. But that's where it's going. Most people will choose not to drive most of the time for financial reasons. Driving manually then becomes a luxury. Getting a license becomes optional, not a rite of passage that every teenager takes. Eventually, owning cars that enable manual driving will become more expensive or may not even be road legal in certain areas. Etc.

gambiting 2y ago
>>Nah, just revoke their licenses and make it much harder to get one to begin with I 1000% agree with you, but unfortunately in some countries like the US that kind of argument leads to nowhere, because people think driving is a human right and also the entire country is built around having a car so you are actually truly screwed if you don't have one. >> Autonomous driving removes the economic necessity of having one. Just get a proper car that can drive you to work. Sure, except it doesn't exist and I honestly doubt it ever(in the next 50-100 years) will. If you need autonomous driving that takes you to your destination that already exists though - it's called a taxi.
- nradov 2y ago
  The type of people who frequently cause collisions are the same people that will drive without a license. And because they're also judgment proof deadbeats they often don't have liability insurance either.

mattlondon 2y ago

It kinda works already without outright banning them: the mandatory insurance will get more and more expensive the more accidents they have. So they price themselves out. Of course, they may then decide not to have insurance at all. In most countries that is illegal and doing that in a premeditated way is criminality and something else entirely. Not sure if insurance is mandatory in the US or not - I assume instead you just get into a gunfight with the other party instead?/s

londons_explore 2y ago
If you're having an accident costing $10k twice a year, your insurance ought to cost at least $20k/year. But for whatever reason, it seems such people end up with far lower (yet still expensive) insurance quotes at more like $4k/year.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  They can't charge $20k/yr because that costs more than buying a POS, not registering it and getting it out of impound a couple times and then abandoning it. With numbers like that you're fundamentally running against the people's willingness to comply (which includes the cop's willingness to enforce).
  - steveBK123 2y ago
    Precisely - even insurance doesn't have the fat tail of awful driver data because they are disproportionately driving around uninsured illegally.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. The insurance company willingly loses money just to avoid the possibility of someone driving illegally?
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      They're not losing money. They're taking it from everyone else. "oh you hit a mailbox during an ice storm that we paid out $50 for after your deductible, that'll be a $400/6mo increase in premiums for the next five years"

HamsterDan 2y ago

Great idea. And people who start fires while cooking should be given free private chefs too.

akoboldfrying 2y ago
It really depends on whether there's shame attached, which isn't easy to control. A private chef sounds good to me; having to go and collect specially marked "safe" meals at the supermarket with a card that's only given to adults the state deems incapable of looking after themselves, not so much.

pc86 2y ago

You don't have a right to free transportation. I'd immediately donate money to and vote for any politician stupid enough to say we should revoke licenses from the worst 1% of drivers. Revoke their licenses, let them figure it out. Get a ride from friends. Take the bus. Move closer to work. You're a danger. If they break the law and drive anyway, put them in jail.

ryandrake 2y ago
> If they break the law and drive anyway, put them in jail. They are going to drive anyway, because in most of the USA, you need a car to get basically anywhere, including to work. So now instead of just being a bad driver, they're also unemployed and sitting in jail, which taxpayers are paying for. There are people with dozens of DUIs, totally uninsurable, their licenses pretty much permanently revoked, and they still drive every day.
- pc86 2y ago
  Yes, people will break the law. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do things that are good for society (telling bad drivers they're no longer allowed to drive) because some percentage of those people will decide of their own volition to break the law.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > They are going to drive anyway Honestly, arrest them. Someone willing to operate a motor vehicle without a license is one step away from manslaughter.
  - pcwalton 2y ago
    > Someone willing to operate a motor vehicle without a license is one step away from manslaughter. I suspect there are plenty of undocumented immigrants in states that don't have the equivalent of AB 60 licenses who are perfectly safe drivers. Perhaps even safer than licensed drivers, since they have more to lose from moving violations.