godfry n. glad

I wonder the same thing, but driver's tests seem to have gotten easier and enforcement of violations of the rules supposedly learned in preparing for the driver's test is lax.

I'd like to see every driver retested on a ten-year basis. That'd allow a lot of folks to develop bad habits that would then result in temporary suspension of their license after they'd demonstrated unacceptable driving habits during their retest. It'd also catch a lot of those who've become too fragile or incapable of driving.

I've spent twenty-five years as a driver, five of them as a professional driver of large intracity trucks. I've seen lots of idiots, morons and imbeciles behind the wheel.

On the face of it, I agree with you. The problem arises when you allow "responsible" behavior. Many drivers...most, I'd bet...have absolutely no realistic idea of how good or poor their driving skills are and have no idea, realistic or otherwise, as to what qualifies as "responsible". Plus, the definition of "responsible" would probably vary by the driver.


As before, there is a sizeable proportion of the drivers out there who can't discern "responsible" from "behavior applicable to someone dumber than a bag of hammers." I'd guess they're a majority.

In this controversy, you wouldn't believe some of the hare-brained rationalizations I've heard. One of my favorites is that "cellphone use while driving a vehicle isn't illegal."

Well, yeah...Smacking yourself hard in the forehead with a ballpeen hammer ain't illegal, either. But it sure is both stupid and dangerous, and it's even more so when you're driving. The same goes for talking on a cellphone while driving.

Another is the specious argument that if we ban drivers using cellphones, then we should ban drivers engaging in conversations with passengers. These people don't seem to understand that the passenger has a vested interest in the driver driving safely and sanely, whereas the person at the other end of the cellphone conversation has no idea of the situation. Most intelligent passengers can see upcoming problems and shut their yaps for the duration, as it is in their own interest to do so...Not so with the cellphone conversant. Big difference.

Granted. That's acceptable and as it should be.

Again, what's "responsible"? I've actually heard mature adults claim that driving 45 mph _over_ the speed limit was "responsible" because the roadway was dry and their car was manueverable. Honest. I'd guess you, or anybody else, would have a devil of a time getting agreement on what's "responsible."

<snip>

Okay... It occurs to me here that you live and drive in the one and only state in the U.S. that actually criminalized the behavior we're talking about. The state I live in, Oregon, and 48 other states still have not made conversing on the cellphone while operating a motor vehicle illegal. Most state and municipal police officers don't enforce it unless there are other egregious violations of traffic laws.

Again, I pay attention and I see a lot of idiots, morons and imbeciles. The bar to drive is much too low.

<snip>

So... Here's a question:

If you had to choose, which would you select, owning a cellphone or owning a car?

That's the choice that should, in my opinion, exist for those who wish to drive and have limited income. Anything which acts to bring about or enforce proper and appropriate driving behavior is a benefit to us all.

godfry

godfry n. glad

I agree. Using a cellphone while driving a car should be banned for ALL drivers. Experience or inexperience as a driver should have no bearing on the issue.

As for not wearing your safety belt, let me tell you that the states of Washington and Oregon have recently been test states for additional special federal highway safety funding to state patrolmen to actively seek and cite non-belt-wearing drivers. Considering that Washington has a 93% compliance rate and Oregon's is 91% and the two states rate as a couple states with the highest compliance rates, get prepared for additional enforcement...it's coming your way. Soon.

godfry

Detached9

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder why it isn't already implemented though.


Well that explains my lack of experience. You've had 25 years experience driving, while I haven't even had 25 years experience living.

That's my problem with the argument as well: trying to define responsible. I get tired of arguing semantics quickly, and recently (including now), I've decided to opt out on those arguments.

I completely forgot that cell phone use was only banned in NY.

I usually replace the ballpeen hammer analogy with something like "gouging your eyes out with scissors". Admittedly, I like yours better; mostly because it is far less crude.

I didn't even think of that way to rebut the argument, but it certainly works.

I can't believe someone would argue that's being responsible. I've driven 95 or so around 4 A.M. on dry roads with no traffic in a reliable car, but I was by no means being responsible.

:banghead: yep. Semantics, semantics.

My bad. I forgot it's only been criminalized here in the NY. I didn't mention that earlier.

I would definitely select a car. About five years ago when cell phones weren't as popular, people lived without them. I can definitely manage without them, but they are a convenience I'd like to keep.

godfry n. glad

My guess? It means additional staffing for state DMVs, because of the additional testing needed. That means more tax money to pay more public employees. Most shallow thinkers don't like that scenario...ergo, it hasn't happened and probably won't happen in the near term.

Instead, state legislators usually opt to maintain the status quo and shift the costs involved with crappy drivers, who would have tested out of a license, off on individual drivers and their insurance companies. So, instead of paying the costs of taking dangerous drivers off the road through the privilege issuing agency of the state, they make individuals pay through increased insurance premiums, hospitalization, and repair costs instead.

Remember, those high premiums you pay as a 19-year (male?) driver are the results of actuarial tables that are based upon the stupid decisions of hundreds of thousands of other 17-25 year-old (male) drivers. Next time you see one of your friends acting like a butthead behind the wheel, ask him if he's willing to pick up your insurance costs.

That's just my guess, though....short-sightedness is an American tradition!

godfry

godfry n. glad

Oh... I forgot to state the obvious.... Most Americans have come to perceive the privilege extended to them by the state in which they live, to operate motor vehicles on state and local roadways, as some kind of "God-given right". Just try to enforce more demanding performance on people who've been practically given something already...They think of it as an inherited entitlement. They resist and claim rights and privileges that don't exist.

Again, it's another American tradition!

godfry

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
I wonder the same thing, but driver's tests seem to have gotten easier and enforcement of violations of the rules supposedly learned in preparing for the driver's test is lax.

I'd like to see every driver retested on a ten-year basis. That'd allow a lot of folks to develop bad habits that would then result in temporary suspension of their license after they'd demonstrated unacceptable driving habits during their retest. It'd also catch a lot of those who've become too fragile or incapable of driving.

I don't know about the road tests but the written tests I find disgusting. They are fine for a starting driver but for an experienced driver they ask a lot of garbage. Thinking of things I've missed over the years:
Just how close to a train track can you park? Who cares--stay well clear!
A sign that turned out to be a school warning--I interpreted it as a watch for kids. So what?
The penalty for DUI. I don't drink, period! Half a dozen questions related to alcohol laws.
Exactly how far away one dims headlights at night--I don't carry a rangefinder! When all you can see is a pair of headlights in the distance you can't get range. If he's anything other than a huge distance away and we are lined up I dim.

sakrilege

When I moved to Ohio, I had to take a written test. One question was How many points does it take to get your license suspended. Didn't know that answer. Been here >13 years and I still don't know, probably because I have never received any.

Loren Pechtel

That one is at least more reasonable than some. My memory of the test is a lot of distance questions that an experienced driver certainly isn't going to pay one bit of attention to the #'s--they know what's ok or not. The numbers are a guide for new guy just learning but you can't use numbers once the skill becomes reflex--and driving is one of those skills that's only done well by reflex. (For other common examples: Touch typing and playing a piano.)

echidna

My BIL's nephew boasts that his dad can drive his truck round a roundabout with a cigarette in one hand, eating a Big Mac while talking on his non-hands-free mobile phone. And knowing John, I wouldn't be surprised.

sakrilege

Even if I knew the range, say 500 yards, in practice I couldn't tell you how far away 500 yards is.