Re-testing drivers

[mcm1610]

This happened last night:

dyomm6qZgdU

It's the school I attended my jr and sr year, and it's a teacher that everyone loved. Struck and killed by a 75 year old woman who ran a red light.

Now, I've held this view for years now, but, in the name of safety, and since driving really is a privilege, would it ever be practical to re-test drivers every so often? You should have to prove that you are both still capable of driving well and alert enough to do so safely.

In today's economic shit-hole, state gov'ts could require these tests to come with a fee that nets some sort of gain for public finance, and it would employ more people as testers and DMV employees.

Yea, it'd be a pain in the ass, but driving really is a privilege, so you can take half a day off to retake your road test.

Edit: I'm certainly not the first to propose this, either. (http://www.google.com/search?q=driver%27s+license+retest+ checkup&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Sxg&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=retesting+drivers&aq=f&aqi=g-sx1g-msx1g-o1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=334fd24029d43054) Maybe it's something to actually look into.

[perceptrons]

I'm totally fine with that. My grandpa had terrible sight and poor hearing, but it wasn't legally bad enough to bar him from driving, so he just kept on doing it. I don't care if it was legally bad enough or not, I was afraid every time I got in the car with him.

[Simulcast]

I'm on board. A Re-test is a great idea.

[mcm1610]

Not just for the elderly withering away, either. This wouldn't be an anti-old people effect, because I think there's plenty of absent-minded or shitty drivers of all ages.

[Simulcast]

Not just for the elderly withering away, either. This wouldn't be an anti-old people effect, because I think there's plenty of absent-minded or shitty drivers of all ages.

Agreed. As the OP stated, a lot more stress should be put on the aspect of driving as a privilege.

[The Indigo]

It'd be fucking annoying, but I don't see how it'd do anything other than good.

[.dot]

It would annoy me, but at the same time I think it is necessary. Sadly, it will never happen though.

[mcm1610]

It would annoy me, but at the same time I think it is necessary. Sadly, it will never happen though.
I feel this way too, but the whole time I've had this going through my head, I've been trying to think of WHO, actually, would be opposed. I can't think of any big lobbies that would be against it- no businesses, etc. Hell, insurance companies could use it as another screener to hone in on more accurate insurance rates based on performances.

I think people's unwillingness to be inconvenienced is the only thing standing in the way.

[perceptrons]

Not just for the elderly withering away, either. This wouldn't be an anti-old people effect, because I think there's plenty of absent-minded or shitty drivers of all ages.
But I think those drivers could pull it together for the test.

[.dot]

I feel this way too, but the whole time I've had this going through my head, I've been trying to think of WHO, actually, would be opposed. I can't think of any big lobbies that would be against it- no businesses, etc. Hell, insurance companies could use it as another screener to hone in on more accurate insurance rates based on performances.

I think people's unwillingness to be inconvenienced is the only thing standing in the way.
I think the average American would probably fail the retest. Hell, most people need to take the road test a couple times before passing it.

[mcm1610]

But I think those drivers could pull it together for the test.

Maybe that could be enough of a point to remind them they have the power to kill someone quite easily by getting lazy.

[.dot]

Also, this needs to be posted

4P7_t4-WsB8

[barkingincision]

a retest is completely logical. i'd be worried with my own mother on the road, she's far to cautious as a driver, it actually backfires.

[perceptrons]

Maybe that could be enough of a point to remind them they have the power to kill someone quite easily by getting lazy.
I doubt it. I think that re-testing is good to weed out drivers who physically cannot handle the task. As far as making better drivers in general, that should be accomplished by making drivers training, and testing, more in-depth.

[ACA]

Also, this needs to be posted

4P7_t4-WsB8

beat me to it, you bastard

[saysmydoctor]

Here I am thinking we should focus more on eliminating car dependence.

[Simulcast]

Here I am thinking we should focus more on eliminating car dependence.

Yeah, but then you'd have fleets of old people on segways, crashing into your family at the park and falling down manholes. The carnage would be incalculable.

[mcm1610]

Here I am thinking we should focus more on eliminating car dependence.

The way this country developed physically, is that really an option without a total overhaul of most cities?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

A recently released online national survey of 5,202 drivers by GMAC Insurance showed that almost a fifth of drivers on the road today would fail a written driver's test. (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/national-test-shows-many-pa-drivers-would-fail-written-driving-test-today-1.844989)


(http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/national-test-shows-many-pa-drivers-would-fail-written-driving-test-today-1.844989)Mr. Boyer said most drivers forget about the need to keep up on driving and motor vehicle laws after they pass driver's examinations as teenagers, showing an "I-don't-have-to-worry-about-that-any-more" attitude. (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/national-test-shows-many-pa-drivers-would-fail-written-driving-test-today-1.844989)

[troubledbyinsects]

A re-test is a terrific idea. The amount of people that are just fucking horrible drivers is unbelievable.

[fightinirish217]

I'm so behind a re-test. Old people drive through storefronts in my town far too often.

[.dot]

A recently released online national survey of 5,202 drivers by GMAC Insurance showed that almost a fifth of drivers on the road today would fail a written driver's test. (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/national-test-shows-many-pa-drivers-would-fail-written-driving-test-today-1.844989)



This is why a retest will never happen. How the hell would America be able to function when a good chunk of the population loses their license?

[troubledbyinsects]

This is why a retest will never happen. How the hell would America be able to function when a good chunk of the population loses their license?
God forbid we prevent a good chunk of the population from losing their lives

[perceptrons]

This is why a retest will never happen. How the hell would America be able to function when a good chunk of the population loses their license?
If the option was study for this driving test again or lose your license, I think a large chunk of people would make sure they studied up. They passed it once, they can do it again.

[Kozzy333]

I think in Ontario when you reach age 80 you have to take a re-test. That's probably way to late however. Maybe every 15 years is reasonable?

[troubledbyinsects]

I think in Ontario when you reach age 80 you have to take a re-test. That's probably way to late however. Maybe every 15 years is reasonable?
i'd say like every 10 years, then when you hit a certain age like 60 or something it becomes every 5 years.

[nicwtor]

I'm all for it. I know many people who get lucky their first time passing the test, myself included, and it doesn't really show that I'm a good driver. I can just drive down a few back roads and stop at a stop sign. How long would the time be in-between each testing?

Also, I know it's not the same in all states but in North Carolina, I think we should have to pass one before we can get our after-nine licenses.


Ohhh and my post count is my area code right now.

CONCITYREPRESENTTTTTT
or what ever those gangster/scene/white kids say here.

[perceptrons]

I'm all for it. I know many people who get lucky their first time passing the test, myself included, and it doesn't really show that I'm a good driver. I can just drive down a few back roads and stop at a stop sign. How long would the time be in-between each testing?

Also, I know it's not the same in all states but in North Carolina, I think we should have to pass one before we can get our after-nine licenses.


Ohhh and my post count is my area code right now.

CONCITYREPRESENTTTTTT
or what ever those gangster/scene/white kids say here.
After-nine license?

[tkamB]

California already has the elderly retest every few years after 70 I believe. I thought all states had this...

[saysmydoctor]

The way this country developed physically, is that really an option without a total overhaul of most cities?
If a total overhaul is what's required, then that's what we should do. We shouldn't use our lack of foresight as an excuse to not do anything about our increasing car dependence.

[chrislauren]

Not just for the elderly withering away, either. This wouldn't be an anti-old people effect, because I think there's plenty of absent-minded or shitty drivers of all ages.

I completely agree.

[nicwtor]

After-nine license?

Very jealous you've never heard of this.

Basically, for the first six months of your license, you're only allowed to drive between the hours of 5am and 9pm with only one person in the car. The only exception to the time rule is if you're going to or coming from work/member of volunteer fire department. If you get caught breaking any of these rules (or I think if you get any kind of traffic violation) your six months starts over.

[.dot]

If the option was study for this driving test again or lose your license, I think a large chunk of people would make sure they studied up. They passed it once, they can do it again.
True. But it takes a lot of people multiple times to pass the test (written and road). People view driving as a right and not a privilege. I just never see this happening, because the country is set up in a way where you basically need a car to survive (Unless you live in a big city).

[mcm1610]

In NY, a junior license currently has restrictions of not being able to drive between 9pm and 5am, and you can only drive with one non-related passenger unless an older (I'm not sure of the age, either 18+ or 21+) licensed driver is in the car and sitting shotgun. At 18, or 17 with drivers education course, you can get a normal license without these restrictions. I guess NC is like that, too, at least in part.

[mcm1610]

If a total overhaul is what's required, then that's what we should do. We shouldn't use our lack of foresight as an excuse to not do anything about our increasing car dependence.

Obama is trying to push something like this through, no? It's meeting resistance.

[mcm1610]

True. But it takes a lot of people multiple times to pass the test (written and road). People view driving as a right and not a privilege. I just never see this happening, because the country is set up in a way where you basically need a car to survive (Unless you live in a big city).

Boo-fucking-hoo. Study harder and practice driving more.

[secretsociety92]

Re-tests have been needed for a long time. If I remember rightly, Finland has the toughest tests when you start and you can't drive fully until way after most countries let you. Also young drivers are just as bad as older drivers, I see some retarded driving around my college all while they are in unsafe cars.

[perceptrons]

Very jealous you've never heard of this.

Basically, for the first six months of your license, you're only allowed to drive between the hours of 5am and 9pm with only one person in the car. The only exception to the time rule is if you're going to or coming from work/member of volunteer fire department. If you get caught breaking any of these rules (or I think if you get any kind of traffic violation) your six months starts over.
Do you have permits as well? Or just a license with the first six months being restricted?

[caveBEAR]

I think you should be re-tested every 10 years, and re-tested should you be in any accident that's above a fender bender/not oustide of the driver's control, i.e., 'reckless driving'.

Driving's a priviledge, not a right; let's treat it like one.

[nicwtor]

Do you have permits as well? Or just a license with the first six months being restricted?

One year for permits. First six months 5-9 then after that you're available to drive whenever. Then license.

[zion the lion]

I most certainly dont want to take that stupid test more than once. Ever.

But I was at the car insurance place a while ago, and there was this old couple who seemed like they were in their 80s and they didnt know how to ring the bell for someone to come and talk to them, they didnt get the whole signing in thing. They were there because they wrecked their car by driving on someones lawn and hit a boulder...I guess the lawn had a bunch of boulders in the place of a fence, and they apparently had no clue why the boulder was there in the first place, they actually said it was the home owners fault for putting a boulder in the middle of the road.

A week or two after that, I was leaving village inn and I was behind this old couple who were moving super slow. As we got into the car and were leaving the parking lot, we let them go first and they pulled out and went the wrong way down a busy one way road.

So...there is obviously a big reason for the retesting thing, as much as I dont want to retest I'd rather have old people drive their car on to my lawn and possibly into my house.

[Oddpac87]

I don't think it'll ever happen, but it definitely should. Maybe you have to retest every 10 years or something.

[circasuicide]

I think you should be re-tested every 10 years, and re-tested should you be in any accident that's above a fender bender/not oustide of the driver's control, i.e., 'reckless driving'.

Driving's a priviledge, not a right; let's treat it like one.

every ten years until age 50, then every 5, i think.

[caveBEAR]

I most certainly dont want to take that stupid test more than once. Ever.

But I was at the car insurance place a while ago, and there was this old couple who seemed like they were in their 80s and they didnt know how to ring the bell for someone to come and talk to them, they didnt get the whole signing in thing. They were there because they wrecked their car by driving on someones lawn and hit a boulder...I guess the lawn had a bunch of boulders in the place of a fence, and they apparently had no clue why the boulder was there in the first place, they actually said it was the home owners fault for putting a boulder in the middle of the road.

A week or two after that, I was leaving village inn and I was behind this old couple who were moving super slow. As we got into the car and were leaving the parking lot, we let them go first and they pulled out and went the wrong way down a busy one way road.

So...there is obviously a big reason for the retesting thing, as much as I dont want to retest I'd rather have old people drive their car on to my lawn and possibly into my house.

I don't want to take the test again, but I want to remove half of ton of scrap metal (delievered by an elderly couple) from my abdomen even less.

By the way, those could be the most relevant, concise and well structured stories you've ever posted here. Congrats!

[zion the lion]

I don't want to take the test again, but I want to remove half of ton of scrap metal (delievered by an elderly couple) from my abdomen even less.

By the way, those could be the most relevant, concise and well structured stories you've ever posted here. Congrats!

I actually thought those stories wouldnt make any sense. I'm getting better with telling my stories.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Another thought... you take away an elderly person's drivers license because they failed the test, it's not going to stop them from getting behind the wheel again

[<*)))><]

Most old people should not drive.

[saysmydoctor]

Obama is trying to push something like this through, no? It's meeting resistance.
It's uninspired and bipartisan and still meets resistance.

[Simulcast]

Another thought... you take away an elderly person's drivers license because they failed the test, it's not going to stop them from getting behind the wheel again


Good point. It doesn't stop illegal immigrants from doing the same thing either.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Good point. It doesn't stop illegal immigrants from doing the same thing either.

From my thinking, when a person who has been driving for 50+ years, being told they can no longer do that isn't going to sit well with them.

[Simulcast]

From my thinking, when a person who has been driving for 50+ years, being told they can no longer do that isn't going to sit well with them.

It wouldn't sit well with me either, haha.

[alantbs]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Even though I love my friends to death, some of 'em just aren't too great at driving. I've been in two accidents over the summer, and I actually saw one of my friends crash into a parked car in a parking lot at about 5 miles per hour(all of us were completely dumbfounded), so yeah, this definitely would be practical and logical.

[Nick Hull]

honestly, it's not a 'privelage' at this point. It's necessary.
and I know if I had to re-take my test, I'd be livid.

I stand behind your intent, but think in practice it would be ridiculous.
Just because some old people can't drive doesn't mean they all should have to re-take their tests.
It's discrimination, really. With honest intent, I'll admit, but discrimination nonetheless.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

It wouldn't sit well with me either, haha.

I agree. I admit I'm not the best driver and probably wouldn't ace the written exam. Whenever I have to leave my car at the service department at a local dealership to get fixed, I almost feel helpless without it. At least I live in walking distance from the dealership and a grocery store (for basic human necessities).

[wildaman1]

I would like to say that I fully agree with the OP. This past summer in Vermont I did more driving/time than I ever have before, about 5,000 miles in 4 months. Undoubtedly the worst drivers were old ladies who had less awareness of what was going on than I would if I were driving changing a song on my laptop and texting all at once.

I don't care if it wouldn't "stick" with them to tell them that they can't do something they have been able in the past. When a pilot is in his 60s and doesn't have the reaction speeds to deal with on the fly (pun intended) issues, people aren't going to say "you can't tell him that he can't fly now when he could before." Driving on the roadways is honestly a privilege after you have showed that you're capable of taking on the immense responsibility of holding everybody's life that is around you in your hands.

[wildaman1]

honestly, it's not a 'privelage' at this point. It's necessary.
and I know if I had to re-take my test, I'd be livid.

I stand behind your intent, but think in practice it would be ridiculous.
Just because some old people can't drive doesn't mean they all should have to re-take their tests.
It's discrimination, really. With honest intent, I'll admit, but discrimination nonetheless.

just out of curiosity, how do you feel about young drivers facing more strict punishments for a similar offense by an adult driver? by your reasoning that seems like discrimination as well

[EvilZeppelin]

I remember seeing this on the tv earlier. I think once your at the age of 65 you should be required to retake your test every year.

[jump start]

Very jealous you've never heard of this.

Basically, for the first six months of your license, you're only allowed to drive between the hours of 5am and 9pm with only one person in the car. The only exception to the time rule is if you're going to or coming from work/member of volunteer fire department. If you get caught breaking any of these rules (or I think if you get any kind of traffic violation) your six months starts over.

In Georgia, we have the first six months as you can't drive between 6AM and midnight, and you can only have immediate family members in the car. The second six months, only one non-family member under 21 can ride in the car. The time restriction goes away when you get a new license at 18.

Ours don't start over if we get a violation, though.

[Nick Hull]

just out of curiosity, how do you feel about young drivers facing more strict punishments for a similar offense by an adult driver? by your reasoning that seems like discrimination as well
I do think that's discrimination. Stereotyping really, I guess. But still.
I happen to be a safe driver, and think it's ridiculous that I have to pay so much more for insurance alone,
so if I happen to accidentally do something wrong, I would be extremely upset with having to pay more
than someone who committed the exact same fault as I did.

I assume that the belief is that younger drivers are less 'responsible,' with their driving, and therefore should
be charged more because they're 'reckless' in comparison?

[deFobbed14yrs]

i think so, me and my friends talk about it all the time. driving is dangerous, and if you aren't capable, you shouldn't.
i mean if you have good habits the test isn't hard, at all. i mean I passed the first time

edit: also i saw last night on campus some girl hit another girl with her car, and laid that girl flat out on her back. driving tests have to be better, more adapt to actually driving than just k-turns.

[spiffa0]

The majority of the people in this thread are blaming old people when young people are just as bad. Old people may go dangerously slow and have poor eye sight, but younger people talk on the phone and text while driving (both should be illegal).

[deFobbed14yrs]

honestly, it's not a 'privelage' at this point. It's necessary.
and I know if I had to re-take my test, I'd be livid.

I stand behind your intent, but think in practice it would be ridiculous.
Just because some old people can't drive doesn't mean they all should have to re-take their tests.
It's discrimination, really. With honest intent, I'll admit, but discrimination nonetheless.

Dude there is discrimination all over this country, some for benefit btw (like medicare and social security), and with something like driving that kills thousands a year, i think we could use this discrimination.

[nicwtor]

In Georgia, we have the first six months as you can't drive between 6AM and midnight, and you can only have immediate family members in the car. The second six months, only one non-family member under 21 can ride in the car. The time restriction goes away when you get a new license at 18.

Ours don't start over if we get a violation, though.

I think I'd prefer that. I'd only drive after twelve if it was for work or I was coming back from a show far away. If it's like it is here, cops wouldn't care about the people rule. So many of my friends have been pulled with multiple people and nothing has happened about that.

[jump start]

I think I'd prefer that. I'd only drive after twelve if it was for work or I was coming back from a show far away. If it's like it is here, cops wouldn't care about the people rule. So many of my friends have been pulled with multiple people and nothing has happened about that.

Yeah, I was hardly ever out past midnight. If we got pulled over past midnight, we'd just tell the cops we were on the way home and they'd be fine with it. But the cops around here were pretty strict about the number of people in the car thing, though. At least, that's what I've heard. I only got pulled over once, and I was the only person in my car at the time.

[caveBEAR]

The majority of the people in this thread are blaming old people when young people are just as bad. Old people may go dangerously slow and have poor eye sight, but younger people talk on the phone and text while driving (both should be illegal).

The bolded is, in many states (and that numbers increasing), illegal. Of course it's stereotyping, for the same reasons that we don't allow 98 year olds into the police force; when you get older, you fall the fuck apart.

The cool part about re-testing people across the board is that if you can still drive well...awesome! You get to keep your license! However, if you fail the test...tough titties, you failed the test.

[deFobbed14yrs]

The bolded is, in many states (and that numbers increasing), illegal. Of course it's stereotyping, for the same reasons that we don't allow 98 year olds into the police force; when you get older, you fall the fuck apart.

The cool part about re-testing people across the board is that if you can still drive well...awesome! You get to keep your license! However, if you fail the test...tough titties, you failed the test.

This is exactly what it's going to say in that letter that they mail you to notify you if you passed or not.

[wildaman1]

I do think that's discrimination. Stereotyping really, I guess. But still.
I happen to be a safe driver, and think it's ridiculous that I have to pay so much more for insurance alone,
so if I happen to accidentally do something wrong, I would be extremely upset with having to pay more
than someone who committed the exact same fault as I did.

I assume that the belief is that younger drivers are less 'responsible,' with their driving, and therefore should
be charged more because they're 'reckless' in comparison?

hmm I guess we are in agreement about this then. but I still think that once you get over the age of 50 maybe is when you should have to start taking older age license tests

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I think once you turn 40, you should be required to take an American Civics exam to test your knowledge on this great nation of ours. That way, we can determine who are patriots and who are freeloaders. Those who fail, should have their right to vote be taken away.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

And those with an Obama bumper sticker on their car should have their license revoked because obviously they are not capable of common sense.



...this rationale taken directly from a caller on the Rush Limbaugh Program this afternoon.

[mcm1610]

Haha /\

I've gone back and forth on the idea that you should be required to have a high school diploma or equivalent in order to vote, but there's obviously a downside of that.

[UnderclasHero]

I think its a great idea, more and more ppl are taking this into consideration now I think. But I dont wanna have to pay for a retest, and we should only retest ppl up to a certain age. (like really, really old ppl) but for this particular incident, I dont think it wouldn't mattered, cuz they said she was under the influence.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Haha /\

I've gone back and forth on the idea that you should be required to have a high school diploma or equivalent in order to vote, but there's obviously a downside of that.

If you commit a felony crime, you automatically lose your right to vote.

[UnderclasHero]

I think once you turn 40, you should be required to take an American Civics exam to test your knowledge on this great nation of ours. That way, we can determine who are patriots and who are freeloaders. Those who fail, should have their right to vote be taken away.
I think it should be a little older than that

[mcm1610]

Well, there's two ways to go. Either pretend we're not discriminating, when really... we pretty much all know that's the main effect that it'll have is to get old people off the road, and everyone gets retested every so often, or we stop pretending and pick an age where we start testing. I'd say 60 if it were up to me.

But the testing-everybody pool could also get people who have physical challenges, such as debilitating disease or disability, and can't drive safely.

[aoftbsten]

This a very good idea. I pretty sure you have to retake the test every 10 years in the UK. Also they should really make driving tests harder in the states. US tests are a joke compared to the rest of the developed world.

[mcm1610]

What's the rest of the world like? Really, I've only taken NYS's and have heard about MA's so I know very, very little.

[MyWorldEntire]

Here I am thinking we should focus more on eliminating car dependence.

What steps would you like to see taken?

[saysmydoctor]

What steps would you like to see taken?
Even more than the proposed investment in infrastructure, in high speed rail, in local initiatives like streetcars and subway expansion. We could possibly speed up the process of the 2nd Ave subway in NYC that's taken forever and a half. Building denser cities, so on and so forth.

[zachff]

I'm for retesting. As for "building denser cities," that's a laugher.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Even more than the proposed investment in infrastructure, in high speed rail, in local initiatives like streetcars and subway expansion. We could possibly speed up the process of the 2nd Ave subway in NYC that's taken forever and a half. Building denser cities, so on and so forth.

i will forgive you for this part since you are from upstate.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, that was kind of a slip--lol. I think you all got my point though.

YOU GUYS CAN'T EVEN FATHOM....

[mcm1610]

As further evidence of my "test everyone!" stance - I watched, and laughed at, a girl on UB's campus today try FIVE times to parallel park in the same spot before giving up and driving away. She was TERRIBLE. Not even close to coming close to being close to getting it right. She was at roughly an 85* angle from the curb at one point. It was drawing a small crowd, which is why she finally quit, I think.

[troubledbyinsects]

As further evidence of my "test everyone!" stance - I watched, and laughed at, a girl on UB's campus today try FIVE times to parallel park in the same spot before giving up and driving away. She was TERRIBLE. Not even close to coming close to being close to getting it right. She was at roughly an 85* angle from the curb at one point. It was drawing a small crowd, which is why she finally quit, I think.
ahaha that's hilarious. i went to taco bell tonight and watched as some idiot spent about 5 minutes trying to park in a parking spot, he was like half in one and half in another spot every time he tried lol. some people.

[x togepi x]

i fucking hate the "driving is a privilege" ideology, especially when i consider that our generation probably won't get to retire since social security is basically fucked.

[mcm1610]

Wah. Live closer to work, then. If it were a right, they would mail you a license when you hit 16 and you wouldn't have to prove anything.

[x togepi x]

Wah. Live closer to work, then. If it were a right, they would mail you a license when you hit 16 and you wouldn't have to prove anything.

This is the most privileged position I've seen on the site in a long time. "living closer to work" isn't necessarily easy, especially if you're in a lower socioeconomic class (you know, the one where you'd be required to work long into old age).

[mcm1610]

Then take the bus! To assume you have the right to drive, even if you're risking the lives of everyone around you by doing so, is taking a more privileged stance, I'd say.

Owning a vehicle itself is a privilege for those who can afford it.

Edit: And before you try to call me privileged, I've lived the last three years on between 12 and 14 grand a year, often working 60 hour weeks regularly. I choose to own a car, but have three friends that don't, and get to work just fine in a city that isn't known for its public transportation.

[x togepi x]

Then take the bus!

Where I live there are huge portions of the city that the bus doesn't go, these also happen to be the poor parts where someone would have to work well into old age.


To assume you have the right to drive, even if you're risking the lives of everyone around you by doing so, is taking a more privileged stance, I'd say.

One can say they have the right to drive as long as they are able to do so safely. My problem with your view is that it provides little to no alternative for people who, for whatever reason, lose their license. Merely saying "take the bus" is problematic, at best, because some places don't have good, or even decent, public transit systems.

Owning a vehicle itself is a privilege for those who can afford it.

Clearly on some level, but it's possible that getting a shitty car is less expensive than getting up and moving, especially when you already have owned that car for awhile. You can get a beater for a few hundred dollars, moving closer to where you work might be a lot more expensive depending on where you work.

Edit: And before you try to call me privileged, I've lived the last three years on between 12 and 14 grand a year, often working 60 hour weeks regularly. I choose to own a car, but have three friends that don't, and get to work just fine in a city that isn't known for its public transportation.

I'm calling your position privileged because it carries with it assumptions that certain things are easy when in reality they aren't. I mean in certain areas because of how the cities are laid out, and how the public transit system is, it isn't possible to go carless, especially if you're elderly and can't really walk a couple miles or so like someone like us could.

Plus, you're assumptions only work in urban settings. What about people in more rural/small towns where there is no public transit system besides calling a taxi (which is expensive)?

i mean look, i have no problem with the idea of retesting, but it must come with programs that provide an alternative to car ownership for those who lose their license. Merely relying on public transportation doesn't work in some areas.

[Dan1234]

old people vote.... so none of this stuff is ever going to happen.


It doesn't matter how many people they kill on the road, no politician is ever going to piss off old people in any way.

[Simulcast]

i fucking hate the "driving is a privilege" ideology, especially when i consider that our generation probably won't get to retire since social security is basically fucked.

Start eating ramen noodles and veggies man. Save that money.