Should we require periodic driving tests in the US?

Yes. The only thing holding more testing up , I’m sure is the increased volume/costs of managing all the testing, their facilities, and on road testing required. Maybe select some at random, like jury duty, and have them come in for testing. Maybe require testing for anybody receiving moving violations. Include some more testing which is age related.

Yes! I would agree with you! Not only do people forget basic things as they get more comfortable on the road, but as people age, response times and awareness decrease. I’ve been in an accident where someone hit me from behind because she couldn’t react fast enough.

I also believe that it can be just as dangerous going 5 mph under the speed limit as 5 above. Drivers need to have the ability to move with traffic, in a safe fashion – whether they’re new drivers or they’ve had their license for decades.

I am not so much in favor of having to do a driving test, but I am in favor of requiring the eyesight check more often, especially in the elderly. This varies by state from what I understand. I do think I would pass a driving test with no problem. I have had to take the written test a few times when I have moved from one state to another. Only once did I have to retake the driving part.

Also, I am in favor of a more difficult driving test initially when you first get your license. Generally I find drivers in America to not take driving seriously enough. USE your signal BEFORE you start to brake or change lanes, don’t text or do anything that diverts your eyes from the road, look in the direction you are driving, be able to see the tires of the car in front of you when you stop (especially on a hill, I might roll back into you as I move my foot from the brake to the gas!), a flashing red is a stop sign, stop on red before right. All sorts of basics that people seem to not adhere to or not know. And that we don’t teach to flash our lights when wanting to pass a car I will never understand.

No.

@ChazMaz May I ask why you say that? This is a discussion, after all. :D

@JLeslie I do agree that driving tests should be more difficult. When I got my license all I had to do was go around a rotary, back up 50 feet and do a three-point turn. No parallel parking! I still have trouble doing that.

The thing is, students often put on their best face and try to do everything right for their test, then go straight back to their crappy driving habits. I don’t know if there’s anything we could do about that besides periodic testing.

@virtualist and @kgallo I agree with you both. Moving violations, especially repeat offenses, should require retesting. But what would it take to get something like this in motion? I bet it would cost a lot of money to do something like this, and in times like these people just don’t want to add expenses.

No. How about instead, police actually enforce the laws that say to use your blinker and park so far from the edge of the kerb. Then people might actually pay attention to them. Increased testing probably wouldn’t help if penalties aren’t enforced.

@ParaParaYukiko Another element that needs to be considered is the lack of public transportation in many areas. I know in my area, public transportation (which consists of buses) is extremely unreliable. That being said, I do support recurring testing – not necessarily for those who break the law (who I think should be fined so that more attention is paid to the laws), but for those who age has impaired their vision/response time/reflexes, etc…

Because the issue of periodic driving tests is petty.
Life is about taking the good with the bad. We have laws that eventually filter out the “bad” driver.

Periodic driving tests will only lead to driving becoming an elitist luxury.

@ChazMaz I have to disagree with you. Anything that concerns the well being of people is not petty. I believe that periodic road testing could lead to safer roads, and therefore decreasing the number of deaths or injuries sustained from car accidents. Consequently, it would also lower the costs to the state for cleaning up the accidents, and reduced health care costs for those who are hospitalized.

I am not saying is a ‘cure-all,’ there are always going to be bad drivers, and the hope is that the law will help. But periodic testing (once every 10 years, maybe), may be a step in the right direction.

@ChazMaz So you would rather have more bad drivers out there? Does “taking the good with the bad” mean we simply accept all the injury and death caused by people who aren’t paying attention when they’re driving? If driving were something that didn’t concern peoples lives then I would agree with you, but this is much more than that.

I asked a similar question a while back: http://www.fluther.com/disc/60838/should-people-who-have-reached-a-certain-age-be-required-to/

@ParaParaYukiko But I don’t think periodic testing will cure people of their bad habits, I think we gotta get ‘em while they’re young. Develop the habit correclty from the start. Although, I think most people grow up to drive like their parents to be honest.

I cannot imagine not hitting the signal before turning, it is a habit like flushing the toilette after I go to the bathroom. When I ask people sometimes they say, “well, if no one is around I don’t bother to signal.” So, they are always perfectly aware of if someone is behind them or if there is someone waiting to merge onto the road up ahead? It would be nice if we were all that perfect, but impossible, and I don’t really believe them anyway. If you just always do it, you always do it. My perception is people who don’t signal are cocky and feel like they are perfect drivers who own the road. If you (not you, third person you) signal and miss that I am in your blindspot I can honk my horn and warn you not to come over or I can slow down. This type of bad driving does not get cured with a driving test. It is an attitude. Some of it is discussed if you go back to driving school if you get a ticket.

“Anything that concerns the well being of people is not petty.”
There are bigger issues that need to be confronted, as far a road safety goes, then determining who is considered a bad driver.

“So you would rather have more bad drivers out there? ”
That is a matter of opinion as to what is considered a bad driver.

Not paying attention while on the road has nothing to do with bad driving. We are all guilty of being distracted now and then. Sometimes it leads to an accident. I would not label that individual a bad driver because of that.

“If driving were something that didn’t concern peoples lives then I would agree with you,”
No one is perfect. Your logic would eventually phase everyone out from behind the wheel.

@JLeslie I do agree with you on that. Driving is indeed an attitude, which makes it even harder to change. Although periodic testing probably wouldn’t change people’s driving habits permanently, it may be a reminder of what they’re doing wrong. It would be like going to the dentist: At least for me, when I realize I have a dentist appointment coming up, I start flossing more often, even if I’m bound to forget about it after a few weeks.

I’m not saying periodic testing should be the only thing we do. We definitely need to revamp the way driver’s education is taught. My driver’s ed class was a joke. But for those who have already had their licenses (and bad habits) for some time, something needs to be done to remind them of proper driving habits.

@ChazMaz To me bad driving = Cell phone use while driving, not signaling, not keeping up with traffic, tailgating, excessive/inappropriate use of the horn, delayed braking, etc. And these are things I witness every day multiple times. What do you consider bad driving?

“We are all guilty of being distracted now and then.”
Yes, but “now and then” seems to happen all too often for many drivers.

I don’t think testing would make driving a luxury for the elite. It would simply make people work harder to get their license.

“Cell phone use while driving, not signaling, not keeping up with traffic, tailgating, excessive/inappropriate use of the horn, delayed braking, etc. And these are things I witness every day multiple times.”

Do you think if someone is re tested that they would still do those things? In front of an instructor. Or express their desire to?

“excessive/inappropriate use of the horn” That again is your idea of what a bad driver is. If those examples were used. No one would get a license.

Sure, why not. But let’s make it mandatory to test those who cause accidents first.

I have been driving since 1976, and I am still a better driver than most people half my age. I think ALL people who have issues with large vehicles on the Interstate, as in not knowing the stopping distance and acceleration times of large 10, 14, and 18 wheeled vehicles should have to either drive one or ride in one for a week. I know hundreds of truck drivers that would be appreciative.

I’ve always said that driving is like a ballet. Done right, it is a beautiful thing. Done wrong, it looks like shit on a shingle. Courtesy and knowledge of other vehicles limitations goes a long ways towards reducing road rage and making the highways safe and happy places.

Younger folks rely too much on their brakes and usually follow too closely. And if you are in an accident due to your negligence because you just can’t stop using your cell phone behind the wheel, then you should have your license revoked forever. This would also apply to drunk drivers or people under the influence of illegal drugs.

As soon as we get the idiots off the road, the roads will be safer.

@ChazMaz No, but it would be a reminder of proper driving technique that people tend to forget as they get used to driving start doing it more intuitively.

@ParaParaYukiko Did you take drivers ed in school? I didn’t. My parents paid for a class and it was very good I have to say. I learned tons, not just what to do, but WHY to do it. At the age of 16 I think young men and women don’t appreciate just being handed a bunch of rules, but want to know why it is prudent. Like you should avoid using your brakes on the highway, one way is to keep a good distance to the car in front of you, because then all lanes can travel faster. I always wondered about drivers ed in schools?

My husband never took a class and I had to teach him a few things (little things) actually, even though he had been driving since 13 and was 23 when we met. He got his original license in Mexico. I remember driving with a Vietnamese friend of mine and he drove right through a flashing red. I said, “hey, you just drove through the red,” I thought he had not seen it, but he had. He said “but it’s flashing.” That is another thing, when people move here from outside of the country they might not have a full understanding of our rules. Get them at the start, when they first get their license here. Hell, I was in Michigan a few months ago and my husband and I were in a Michigan left, and I could not remember if I could complete the turn on the red or not.

“As soon as we get the idiots off the road, the roads will be safer.”
That is a personal judgment. You can not test people and determine what they should and should not be doing due to what pisses you off. That is communism. :-)

Some things have to be learned by mistakes. I am truly sorry if those mistakes will cause car accidents. There is a risk and a flaw to automobiles in general.

“but it would be a reminder of proper driving technique”
Ok I totally agree with you there. Drop something in the mail to remind me.

We all do understand that this is a discussion, nothing personal. ok? :-)

I agree that teaching them young would go a long way towards fixing the problem, but unfortunately, the younger drivers think they already know everything. I can’t count the number of times I have been flipped off by people under thirty for avoiding their stupidity. It seems to me that being stupid is idolized by people, and being a good driver is somehow frowned upon.

Did you know it is illegal to stop and let someone in the left turn lane, (usually a center lane) turn in front of you? Sure, you are being courteous, but you are holding up traffic in your lane, and that is illegal. So being courteous in that regard SHOULD get you a ticket. I’ve been cussed at for telling people to get out of the way in that regard. Sometimes I want to tell them, “Get your ass by, I can do a left hand turn against traffic without you stopping for me.”

@ChazMaz what pisses me off is obvious disregard for the law. If you do not know the rules of the road, why are you driving a 2,000 machine? While saying other peoples’ disregard for the law could be called a personal judgment, I happen to know the rules of the road. I have to, I drove commercial vehicles for years. Too many people have the attitude that driving is a right. It’s not, it’s a privilege.

So hitting someone head on because you are fussing with your cell phone or changing the CD in your stereo is something that has to be learned by mistake? I disagree.

@Psychedelic_Zebra We are on the same page for the most part here. The rules of the road are to help traffic, being “courteous” can make things worse because other drivers don’t know what the hell you are doing, you have become unpredictable, and predicting what another driver is going to do is very important on teh road. But even more, more than the law, people should want to do what is safest. That is what I don’t get. Even if someone doesn’t care about the law why do they want to go against common sense?

“what pisses me off is obvious disregard for the law”

Now that is something you are right on about!

“So hitting someone head on because you are fussing with your cell phone or changing the CD in your stereo is something that has to be learned by mistake?”

That is the only way those types of accidents are going to happen.
You are not going to eliminate them from re-testing.

But the ticked and/or license suspension will do the trick.

Speaking of people on the phone while driving. I have used an ear bud for years.
They have been around for years. I wont and actually I can’t drive comfortably with a phone held up to my head. It is a distraction.
I am totally amazed that everyone by now does not have an ear bud.

@ChazMaz Studies have shown that talking on the phone while driving, even when using an ear bud, greatly reduces your reaction time while driving. You are trying to focus on a conversation and driving at the same time, and unlike conversing with a passenger in the car, they’re not also acting as a second set of eyes to alert you to an unexpected oncoming car. The fact that it frees your hands does not make it safe.

This is a very interesting discussion so far… Don’t worry @ChazMaz, no personal offense is being taken :)

I am totally focused and alert when I have an ear bud on. Actually I am more focused, Could be because I multitask as a profession. :-)

Or should I say as focused as if my music is on or there is someone having a conversation next to me.
Holding a phone to my head? I wont do it unless I have to.

And, “hands-free” (as stated in the article) does not necessarily mean an ear bud. I do not have to fiddle with the phone at all with an ear bud. Using the phone hands free will cause me to fiddle with it that causing a distraction.

:-)

YES!

I was in an accident last year… when I went to court, the woman who hit me could barely walk and needed a cane and her husband’s assistance… I don’t recall her vehicle having handicapped plates. If she can barely ambulate her ~115 pound frame, how can she control a vehicle weighing over a ton!

In NJ, it seems that only a physician can advise Motor Vehicles to restrict driving privileges. But physicians already have enough to do, and I assume most sympathize with the patient’s desire to maintain their independence and don’t want to upset their patients.

I’m not going to say I never talk on my phone and drive at the same time, because I do. But, you simply are less attentive when you are talking to someone on the phone (or lets say most people are). Part of the problem is if you have someone in the car you both are aware of traffic, and if you pause to focus on something that is happening on the road, it does not seem odd within the conversation because both people are aware of what is going on. The driver feels more at liberty to switch to more attention to the road whenever necessary. If you are talking on the phone you feel more of an obligation to keep pace with a normal phone conversation because the other person doesn’t see what is going on, there is more effort having to say, “wait, I need to focus, someone is trying to cut in,” Or whatever the situation. If they were in the car they would pause themselves to watch the traffic or pay attention to the exit coming up, etc.

I’m pretty sure California already does require periodic driving tests, for all ages.

They absolutely should. They should also give hearing and vision tests to older people who are often hazards on the road because they don’t know when to give up driving.

@avvooooooo Let’s hope you are not picking on older drivers, because while I have been behind my fair share of old guys going 20 mph in a 40 mph zone, I have also had to dodge an awful lot of youngsters zipping through stop signs and making right turns on red without stopping. In IL, you can make a right turn on a red, after a stop, but if you don’t stop, it is the same as running the sign. When I say youngsters, I am talking about people under 30.

Yes, we should. It can’t do any harm, better safe than sorry….there are a lot of bad drivers out there, and it could only help.

Sorry. I started composing yesterday and I forgot I was here.

I don’t think periodic testing is really the solution. Once someone passes the test I’d prefer if the DMV left them alone. But more thorough testing the first time around would be beneficial, I think.

I was shocked when I passed my driving test. I had completely messed up with the parallel parking, I had been going about 10 miles per hour while the instructor kept saying ‘you can go faster than that,’

In other places the test might be more difficult, but it seems like for the most part, driving tests consist of going a few blocks, parking once, turning around once, and as long as the driver stops completely at every stop sign, it ends with the issuance of a license.

It would be great if the driving test required you to really drive, instead of just going around a quarter mile course, or around a city block.

There have been a host of new regulations passed in my home state for first time drivers, including limiting the hours new drivers are allowed to be on the road, limiting the number of passengers allowed in the car, requiring decals identifying the driver as a new driver. Some of these measures seem perfectly reasonable, and others seem completely unnecessary to me, but I don’t see why no one seems to have thought of just making sure the person is able to drive safely before issuing a license.

As it is now, in New Jersey, you may take your test once, and if you fail, you may take it again anytime after two weeks. If you fail the second time, you have to wait six months before taking it again. Almost everyone passes the first or second time.

I think it would be better if there were more chances to take it, but also a greater chance of failing—that is, a difficult test, one that I wouldn’t have been able to pass the first time.

@petethepothead I agree. The test should be more realistic. Parallel parking and then driving 15 foot isn’t how being on the road really is. It should include going somewhere where you actually have to drive fast…like merging on a busier road, because that’s what many people can’t seem to understand how to do, even though it’s a rather simple concept…

@petethepothead: Take them all out onto the Garden State Parkway between exits 129 and 142 at 8:00 am! Most of them will voluntarily surrender their license!

Yes, for people 75 and older. Plus people with a history of driving issues.