Ab_Normal

I agree that testing should be made more stringent and more frequent as drivers age. However, I think JH has put his finger on it; doing so will take increased governmental spending, and our society is currently in a frame of mind that any increased governmental spending is bad, bad, bad.

Derec

However it would be in service of public safety.

Also, testing fees right now are very symbolic. Make the fees more realistic and you don't have to increase the public expenditure.

UMoC

Ab_Normal

I'm pretty jaded about my fellow citizens right now.

Let's see, I paid less than $20 to renew my license the last time it expired, and it's good for five years. I wouldn't mind paying up to $100, I suppose, in order to fund testing that has been discussed in this thread. However, events of the last decade here in Washington State have led me to conclude that my fellow citizens will vote for anything that cuts their taxes, regardless of its affect on the government services they claim to want. I'm imagining the hue and cry that would be raised, the campaigns to remove representatives from office, and the initiative drives to undo the "tax increase". It would be ugly.

As an example, there was a referendum on the November 2002 ballot to increase the gasoline tax to fund tranportation projects. It failed. The legislature ended up passing a similar tax to fund transportation projects in the next session. In response, our serial initiative-monger, Tim Eyman, put forth an initiative to cut property taxes specifically as a response to the gas tax increase. It was presented as, "They dared to raise taxes, we'll show them, hah!" Thank goodness, it didn't get enough signatures.

But, I'm off topic, and we agree on the jist of the thread.

NialScorva

The problem is that drasticly increasing licensing fees is a burdan upon the poor who can barely make ends meet as it is.

Loren Pechtel

However, there's a problem with such things:

Note how government projects that don't have popular appeal always seem to get funded anyway, often by rather underhanded means. When it's something with a direct impact on the average person it normally gets shortchanged because such cuts tend to get people to be willing to cough up more taxes.

Locally we keep seeing bond issues for schools and a fair number for libraries and fire stations. Now, they are all worthy things but why are we getting bond questions about them? Bonds are for capital expenses. Why do we need more schools, libraries and fire departments? Because the city is growing like crazy. Why are we paying for it, though? Because the impact fees being assessed on the developers aren't high enough.

donaldkilroy

I see...so at the expense of peoples lives, we shouldn't raise licensing fees at the benefit of the poor

donaldkilroy

Getting Grandpa Off the Road
How old is too old to drive?

Since when has material items (e.g., cars, campers, boats, toys, tvs, etc.) defined one's independence?

Uh, last time I checked there was a positive correlation between age and an individual's abilities waning. So it most certainly is an issue of age!

I'll definately second that!

Just this morning I saw an older person run a steady read light just because he figured that since the semi with the trailer was already in the middle of the intersection when it was yellow that he could run the red!

Every single day I see someone driving irresponsibly and more often than note it is a person over the age of (approximately) 60.

And they say teenagers are bad...

Jimmy Higgins

Well then it might be plausible to help fund it through bad drivers. License fees could be higher for people that do poorer on the tests, which when combined with an automatically higher insurance rate, would certainly encourage the driver to improve.

NialScorva

*blink* *blink*

Bringing the conversation back from way out in left field...

I was thinking of the thousands of people who are daily drivers to their jobs at the factory or McDonalds, where $100 is a major outlay. On the other hand, for many of us here, $100 isn't pocket change, but isn't crippling. We do the same thing with most government programs. Those that have excess subsidize those that don't.

My statements simply pointed out a reason why increasing the budget from existing income and possibly raising income taxes would be better for the economy than increasing fees for people who barely have enough money to make it already.

Majestyk

Maybe, "the poor" ought to consider public transportation.