I know that a typical answer around here to any more government restrictions is a resounding 'NO', but in this case I think the restrictions are warranted for a number of reasons.

For the purposes of this argument what I mean by more restrictions is:

• Increase minimum legal age from 16 to 18.



• Thorough competency test every two years with a driving instructor.  Increase to every year once a driver reaches 70 years old.  Test includes eye exam, learning how to regain control of vehicle when hydroplaning or losing traction on ice (if applicable in area), and driving in inclement weather, etc.



• High fee to renew every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars.  (This one is highly debatable because my intent is to use it to offset road tolls and gas taxes, but we all know that the .gov would probably resist cutting any sort of established tax to any degree, so I don't know how effective it would be.)



• Lose liscense permanently due to various health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc.



• Lose liscense permanently after DUI.

The bottom line to me is that people are spoiled rotten with so few restrictions on such a dangerous activity.  I believe that getting on the road is pretty much the most dangerous thing we do in a typical day.  Regulating driver's liscenses more heavily would have the following benefits:


1) Would save thousands of lives each year

2) Reduce insurance premiums

3) Reduce traffic congestion

4) Reduce overall national fuel use/foriegn oil dependency

5) Reinforce safe driving habits for everyone

Along with this there would have to be greater emphasis on mass transit in urban areas, but we are already heading in that direction anyway so I think it is definitely feasible.

Your thoughts?

High fees so only the rich can drive? Dangerous territory.

The health issues, for the most part are already in place. People with seizure history must demonstrate >1 year seizure free to drive in most states. Also more frequent license renewals of elderly are already in place to catch those age related diseases. Strangely I'll wager more accidents are cause by diabetics that become hypoglycemic and  pass out than any other health condition, yet I know of no restrictions for these people.

Also as for penalties I will say if speeding tickets primary goal was for safety, they would be revoking/suspending alot more licenses or mandating speed limiters in cars instead of charging fees.

They give them out to idiots now.

Raise the age to 18
One strike you're out DUI.

The libertarian in me says no. The driver in me wouldn't mind.

Frankly, we do not have the right infrastructure to limit licensing that way. Too many people use cars for life's necessities, getting food, getting to work, etc. Heavier penalties for DUI would be great though.

Restrictions and laws only work with law abiding citizens.

People would still drive. I predict insurance would skyrocket based on all the nonpayers/non licensed drivers.  There would be an increase in traffic accidents and violations based on the unlicensed drivers not even bothering to get the eye test or take a drivers ed course.  

Quoted: High fee to renew every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars.  (This one is highly debatable because my intent is to use it to offset road tolls and gas taxes, but we all know that the .gov would probably resist cutting any sort of established tax to any degree, so I don't know how effective it would be.)

We don't pay enough high taxes already?  


Oh hell no.  I haven't looked at any statistics in a long time, but I'll guess it hasn't changed much.  The biggest reasons for accidents are: driver impairment, lack of attention, and slow drivers in passing lanes causing unnecessary lane changes.

All those rules won't really help, they are already pretty tough on DUI.

Commie.  

This country is built on the freedom of movement by use of a personal vehicle.  Attempts to limit through stricter controls on the issuing of licenses is not much better than having to ask the gov't for permission to go see family in another town in a commie country.


Not to mention, any money you think the gov't will make through higher fees will have to be spent on a robust public transportation network.  We don't have that in most of the US

Hell no.  

Driving is a necessity for most as we don't all live in NYC or Europe, and most of this country is not what you would consider an urban area where mass transit could be easily provided.

Save the heavy regulation and fees for Cnetral Europe and Obama.

On the DUI bit: never had one, never will, but I hardly think somebody with a .08 BAC should lose their license permanently.  Save that nonsense for MADD meetings.

Quoted: I know that a typical answer around here to any more government restrictions is a resounding 'NO', but in this case I think the restrictions are warranted for a number of reasons. For the purposes of this argument what I mean by more restrictions is: Increase minimum legal age from 16 to 18. Thorough competency test every two years with a driving instructor.  Increase to every year once a driver reaches 70 years old.  Test includes eye exam, learning how to regain control of vehicle when hydroplaning or losing traction on ice (if applicable in area), and driving in inclement weather, etc. High fee to renew every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars.  (This one is highly debatable because my intent is to use it to offset road tolls and gas taxes, but we all know that the .gov would probably resist cutting any sort of established tax to any degree, so I don't know how effective it would be.) Lose liscense permanently due to various health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc. Lose liscense permanently after DUI. The bottom line to me is that people are spoiled rotten with so few restrictions on such a dangerous activity.  I believe that getting on the road is pretty much the most dangerous thing we do in a typical day.  Regulating driver's liscenses more heavily would have the following benefits: 1) Would save thousands of lives each year 2) Reduce insurance premiums 3) Reduce traffic congestion 4) Reduce overall national fuel use/foriegn oil dependency 5) Reinforce safe driving habits for everyone Along with this there would have to be greater emphasis on mass transit in urban areas, but we are already heading in that direction anyway so I think it is definitely feasible. Your thoughts?

As a child, were you frequently beaten ??




5sub

Quoted: I know that a typical answer around here to any more government restrictions is a resounding 'NO', but in this case I think the restrictions are warranted for a number of reasons. For the purposes of this argument what I mean by more restrictions is: Increase minimum legal age from 16 to 18. ummm....no.  Most 18 aren't that much more mature than 16 Thorough competency test every two years with a driving instructor.  Increase to every year once a driver reaches 70 years old.  Test includes eye exam, learning how to regain control of vehicle when hydroplaning or losing traction on ice (if applicable in area), and driving in inclement weather, etc. Impossible.  Lines at the DMV too long already, no way to do this, plus you really want to take a day off work every other year just to have a licence?  You know the liability and costs that would occur with setting up loss of control tests.  Plus you would have to have tens of thousands of these to cover the US. High fee to renew every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars.  (This one is highly debatable because my intent is to use it to offset road tolls and gas taxes, but we all know that the .gov would probably resist cutting any sort of established tax to any degree, so I don't know how effective it would be.) .gov doesn't need or deserve more cheese Lose liscense permanently due to various health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc. depends Lose liscense permanently after DUI. Yes I compeltely agree wit you on this one The bottom line to me is that people are spoiled rotten with so few restrictions on such a dangerous activity.  I believe that getting on the road is pretty much the most dangerous thing we do in a typical day.  Regulating driver's liscenses more heavily would have the following benefits: 1) Would save thousands of lives each year prove it 2) Reduce insurance premiums As mentioned above people will drive anyway without a license, rates would skyrocket 3) Reduce traffic congestion It might, but then what is everyone doing.  We don't have public transportation to pick up the slack.  We are to spread out to implement it easily or efficiently.  So people can't get to work, they lose their jobs, they sit on their porch all day, crime skyrockets.  Great idea. 4) Reduce overall national fuel use/foriegn oil dependency How bout we just drill, build refineries, build nuke plants instead 5) Reinforce safe driving habits for everyone people are dumb doubt it will really help Along with this there would have to be greater emphasis on mass transit in urban areas, but we are already heading in that direction anyway so I think it is definitely feasible. Your thoughts?

NO!

I do agree that more competency testing is needed, since the current testing scheme focuses almost exclusively on "Rules of the Road", people aren't really taught how to DRIVE!  I just disagree with your draconian implementation.

The rest of your ideas are teh suck.

Quoted: Increase minimum legal age from 16 to 18.

They did that to the drinking age, and look how successful it was...

Thorough competency test every two years with a driving instructor.  Increase to every year once a driver reaches 70 years old.  Test includes eye exam, learning how to regain control of vehicle when hydroplaning or losing traction on ice (if applicable in area), and driving in inclement weather, etc.

The only one of your proposals that make some sense.  Maybe every 5 years though.  The DMV would balloon to administer this program.  

High fee to renew every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars.  (This one is highly debatable because my intent is to use it to offset road tolls and gas taxes, but we all know that the .gov would probably resist cutting any sort of established tax to any degree, so I don't know how effective it would be.)

The ability to pay is not related to the ability to drive.  The 'public' roads shouldn't be reserved for the people who can afford a license.

Lose liscense permanently due to various health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc.

 Wouldn't your driving tests cover this?  Besides, I'm against ANY 'permanent' legislation.  You HAVE to have the abiltiy to get your rights restored.  Many conditions are treatable.

Lose liscense permanently after DUI.

 Nope, if you've ever known anyone who had a DUI, you'd know it's pretty strict now.  Getting more strict will not help a whole lot.  Besides, I know it's not popular here, but I see a difference between someone blowing a .09, and someone blowing a .25.  

The bottom line to me is that people are spoiled rotten with so few restrictions on such a dangerous activity.  I believe that getting on the road is pretty much the most dangerous thing we do in a typical day.  Regulating driver's liscenses more heavily would have the following benefits:

 Are you sure you want to go down that road as a gun owner.  I mean, come on, you can walk into a gun store, and walk out with an AK47 and plenty of ammo, if you have $700 and a clean record.

Problems on the East Coast would reduce by 50% if people from Maryland had their DL's taken away.

Quoted: Problems on the East Coast would reduce by 50% if people from Maryland had their DL's taken away.

And by 100% if we did the same for NJ.

I'd like to see a lot more training.

Perhaps they're be some sliding scale where if you don't get trained, you pay more than if you do get trained.

Spending two hours daily in pretty permissive traffic has demonstrated some things to me.

1) Most people simply can't handle the task saturation of freeway driving/passengers/cell phones.

2) 50% of traffic congestion would be fixed if people just kept proper spacing with the vehicle ahead of them, avioded quick "cut-em-off!" lane changes, and maintained speed with the flow of traffic.

3) Most people make no allowance for wet or otherwise hazardous conditions.

People need more training.  Graduated drivers licenses for 16-18 year olds is a good thing, also.

Absolutely not.  I want less government in my life.  When has the government ever done anything well?  Any power you give to the government will only get more restrictive.  

Never.  Never vote to give a government more power over your life.  Never.  The result will be worse than the problem you're trying to fix.

-KW

Quoted: Increase minimum legal age from 16 to 18.

Dumb.  Inexperience behind the wheel can start at ANY age, and it is not always maturity that makes the difference, it is EXPERIENCE.

Thorough competency test every two years with a driving instructor.  Increase to every year once a driver reaches 70 years old.  Test includes eye exam, learning how to regain control of vehicle when hydroplaning or losing traction on ice (if applicable in area), and driving in inclement weather, etc.

I agree with a driver skills test, however it has to be implemented correctly or else we are stuck with what we have, rigid focus on "Rules of the Road".  BOTH are needed.  Testing every 2 years is far too often.

High fee to renew every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars.  (This one is highly debatable because my intent is to use it to offset road tolls and gas taxes, but we all know that the .gov would probably resist cutting any sort of established tax to any degree, so I don't know how effective it would be.)

This is a really dumb idea.  Several thousand dollars just for permission to take a car from your home to the grocery store once a week?  Frick.  19 year old college student needs to drive herself across the state 3 times a year?  Double Frick!

Lose liscense permanently due to various health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc.

No.  The number of accidents caused by people who forget where they live is probably not significant.  Epilepsy is an issue, and I believe there are already some restrictions.  Some people have epilepsy as children, should they be banned permanently?  It can be controlled.

Also, if ANY risk from ANY health matter can be articulated, it is only a matter of time, before the fat, the short, whoever we hate this week, can't drive.

Lose liscense permanently after DUI.

No.  .08 will become .05 then .02 or less, and pretty soon DUI becomes meaningless.  

The bottom line to me is that people are spoiled rotten with so few restrictions on such a dangerous activity.  I believe that getting on the road is pretty much the most dangerous thing we do in a typical day.  Regulating driver's liscenses more heavily would have the following benefits:

It still isn't that dangerous.  Spoiled?  I just like being an adult and keeping my freedom, thanks!

1) Would save thousands of lives each year 2) Reduce insurance premiums 3) Reduce traffic congestion 4) Reduce overall national fuel use/foriegn oil dependency 5) Reinforce safe driving habits for everyone Along with this there would have to be greater emphasis on mass transit in urban areas, but we are already heading in that direction anyway so I think it is definitely feasible. Your thoughts?

We do just fine around here.  Cheap insurance, little traffic, I couldn't care less how much fuel we use, thing that generally people drive safely just as I have done for 16 years.  Move away from the big city.

I'd like to see them get rid of the whole concept of licensing, for anything.

Too many incompetents hide behind a license.  Any idiot can pass a test and get a license.  Doesn't mean you know jack shit.  

How about:

Literacy test.  Signs are in English.

Competency test.  Annual

Medical exam.  Check for alcoholism etc.

Vision

Quoted: For the purposes of this argument what I mean by more restrictions is: Increase minimum legal age from 16 to 18. Thorough competency test every two years with a driving instructor.  Increase to every year once a driver reaches 70 years old.  Test includes eye exam, learning how to regain control of vehicle when hydroplaning or losing traction on ice (if applicable in area), and driving in inclement weather, etc. High fee to renew every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars.  (This one is highly debatable because my intent is to use it to offset road tolls and gas taxes, but we all know that the .gov would probably resist cutting any sort of established tax to any degree, so I don't know how effective it would be.) Lose liscense permanently due to various health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc. Lose liscense permanently after DUI.

I absolutely agree with these two.

How about you  just leave it to the states like it is now.  What a shitload of terrible ideas.

well done comrade... you deserve an order of Lenin for your contribution to the workers' paradise.  The peasants don't need mobility.  Take away their privileges for their own good because you know better.

How're all the millions of people who either cannot drive or cannot afford to drive going to get to work?

All you're doing (in essence) is trying to lower the number of cars on the road.  You simply can't do that without a public transportation infrastructure that quite frankly this country does not have.

Or did someone just cut you off on the road and fill you with "I'm a good driver, nobody else is, and I should have the road all to myself" piss & vinegar?

Quoted: How about you  just leave it to the states like it is now.  What a shitload of terrible ideas.

+1    Maybe the OP just moved here from Germany or something.

Quoted: Commie.   This country is built on the freedom of movement by use of a personal vehicle.  Attempts to limit through stricter controls on the issuing of licenses is not much better than having to ask the gov't for permission to go see family in another town in a commie country. Not to mention, any money you think the gov't will make through higher fees will have to be spent on a robust public transportation network.  We don't have that in most of the US

You have the freedom to drive, you have the privilege to drive, but you do not have a right to drive.

if they're made too restrictive and people will drive without a license

Germany already does stuff similar to that, in addition to actually enforcing things like the left lane being for passing only. They have a lot fewer deaths/mile of road than we do.

Its too easy to get a driver's license at the moment, and a lot more people die due to car accidents and idiot drivers than guns. Yet guns are the debil, but its fine for every sorority chick in town to drive her 5,000lb SUV while texting, sipping coffee and doing her makeup.

Quoted: Quoted: Commie.   This country is built on the freedom of movement by use of a personal vehicle.  Attempts to limit through stricter controls on the issuing of licenses is not much better than having to ask the gov't for permission to go see family in another town in a commie country. Not to mention, any money you think the gov't will make through higher fees will have to be spent on a robust public transportation network.  We don't have that in most of the US You have the freedom to drive, you have the privilege to drive, but you do not have a right to drive.

Technically, the first ammendment doesn't give you the right to have electricity, an the 2nd doesn't give you the right to have steel either.  However, if both are avaiable commercially, and they are restricted by fiat, I can see how such an action could be seen as movement toward an ending of a right.

Quoted: How about you  just leave it to the states like it is now.  What a shitload of terrible ideas.

+1

Only "libtards" engage in social engineering.

Here's my 2 part "plan"; no driver's licenses for illegal fucking aliens.

Americans and legal alien residents go about their business.

That's about it.

Oh; and I hate fucking commies; even more so when they masquerade as conservatives on a gun board.

Let me tell you something about DLs

DMV workers are not document experts so getting past their checks and balances is easy.

The documents you need are way too easy to obtain. Many states only require that you request a Birth certificate and do not even care if the birth certificate belongs to you.

The Social Security Card is easily faked and even if it weren't the Social Security dingbats clearly say that a SS card is NOT to be used as ID.

What does all of this mean? Well it means that bad guys are routinely arrested with 10+ DLs with their pictures but other people's info that the bad guy had issued to themselves via the DMV.

An Investigator working with Citigroup should me a case of his where a guy had 37 DLs issued to him in various names.

Damn right we need stricter standards.

This is the kind of topic though that gets the tinfoil hats going.

I see too many victims of ID theft in my line of work, serious victims.

Do not believe the commercials it is MUCH harder to restore your good name than they let on. I don't have the answer but something has to change.

For the purposes of this argument what I mean by more restrictions is:

Increase minimum legal age from 18 for longarms to 21 and from 21 for handguns to 25 as handguns are the number one killer in the 18 to 25 age group for males.

Thorough competency test every two years with a shooting instructor. Increase to every year once a shooter reaches 70 years old. Test includes range accuracy test, general firearms knowledge and safety exam, written exam covering state defense and hunting regulations, and shooting under stress.

High fee to renew your national firearms ownership card every two years of several hundred to several thousand dollars. NFA Branch will administer the distribution, applications, and background checks for the issue of said license. The revenue from every firearm owner should help offset other budget deficits.

Lose national firearms liscense permanently due to various health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc.

Lose national firearms license permanently after violating firearms safety rules or being in poseesion of a firearm with a BAC of .08 or greater.

Yeah, that sounds GREAT!

Quoted: if they're made too restrictive and people will drive without a license

and if they don't have a license they don't need insurance! It will be awesome.

So every two years I need to find yet more time out of my work day to go and take a test in a system that is run by retards?

Why would you even remotely trust the DMV to make anything better?

A good first step would be to fire all the crooks that work in DMVs and all the folks that can be bribed. Then make it run more efficiently.

I'd be all for letting a few companies take over DMV duties.

DMV is the single most fucked up Department in the government. I wouldn't trust them to implement any new improvements.

I'd be happy if we could just get them to be 50% more efficient.

The problem is they are shit for brains gov't types and those types of people can always be bribed or corrupted. While we were taking our time to go for your 2 yr testing the real dirtbags would pay their way through the system. So we'd be penalized for being good.

What part of giving DMV more responsiblity sounds even remotely legit?

The is a fundamentally flawed idea. People don't have accidents because they were not trained. (excepting the 16-21 crowd) people have accidents because they are NOT paying attention.

You would save more lives each year if you banned raido, CD players, subwoofers, books, magazines, newspapers, cell phones, and pagers from driver access.

Quoted: Quoted: if they're made too restrictive and people will drive without a license and if they don't have a license they don't need insurance! It will be awesome.

Yep, posted this story a week or so ago:

www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1092203.html

BENSON - Luz Gonzalez used to take spur-of-the-moment trips to the beach. Now, she is afraid to drive to the doctor for checkups on her new pregnancy.

She and her husband, Ismael, can no longer have a savings account or a car registered in their names. Every time they drive to church, they watch for the flash of blue lights in the mirror.

The Gonzalezes, who identified themselves by only one of their two surnames, are among many illegal immigrants in North Carolina who are beginning a new life -- one without driver's licenses.

A 2006 state law made it impossible for illegal immigrants to renew their licenses. The change was talked about mostly as a tool to combat terrorism -- several of the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks had licenses -- but it has created a crisis in the Hispanic community and a potential hazard on the roads.

As licenses issued under the old rules expire, advocates and law enforcement authorities say many illegal immigrants, who number an estimated 300,000 in North Carolina, are now driving without licenses or insurance.

"They do not want to be driving without licenses, but it's coming to a point where they can't do things the right way," said Tony Asion, president of the Hispanic advocacy group El Pueblo. "Realistically, you're not going to ride a bicycle all around the state."

Without licenses, they are unable to register cars or get insurance, and they are not tested on their knowledge of North Carolina traffic laws. Hispanic advocates say the law makes the roads more dangerous and could drive up insurance rates. Insurance companies charge their customers a fee to cover accidents caused by uninsured drivers, and the fee increases when there are more uninsured drivers on the roads.

States that deny licenses to their large illegal immigrant populations, such as California, typically have high rates of uninsured driving. About a quarter of drivers in California have no insurance.

As the rules in North Carolina have tightened, sheriffs concerned about illegal immigration are setting up random license checkpoints and sometimes jailing immigrants for driving without licenses. Those who go to jail risk deportation.

The number of charges for driving without a license is rising, and the share of Hispanics charged is soaring, according to a News & Observer analysis of data from the Administrative Office of the Courts. Hispanics were charged more than any other ethnic group, including whites, even though Hispanics make up less than 7 percent of the state's population. In 2007, 44 percent of charges were against Hispanics, up from 35 percent in 2003.

Some sheriffs say they hope those hardships will prompt illegal residents to leave.

"It's about high time that the DMV make it more strict," said Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell. "We have bowed down. You go to DMV now and everything is Spanish, and people are tired of it. This is America."

Bizzell said he has a squad of deputies assigned to setting up license checkpoints and "wolfpacking," a term he uses to refer to sending marked cars to drive the streets of a small community. Most of those arrested without licenses are Mexican, he said.

"We're trying to make it a little more inconvenient for them," Bizzell said of illegal immigrants. <snip>

I'd be all for a requirement for formal training and a road sign reading test in addition to what is in place now.

The only thing I agree with is raising the age.  I think 16 is too young in most cases.

Why just a lower age cut off and not a upper one?

I don't know that the system can be changed, or should.  Examples:

When I was 16 and did my driver's test with a ride along instructor, I failed.  BADLY actually, I hit a pothole which was 20 ft past an obscured sign, an intentional trick of the instructor.  I have never had an accident, my fault or otherwise.  No vehicle I've ever been in has so much as tapped another car.  I had 2 speeding tickets when I was 16 because I was a dumb kid with a sports car.

Every friend I have, with the exception of one, passed their driver's test the first time out.  Dozens of people.  They've ALL had accidents, most of them their fault, and many traffic violations.  An accident my cousin was in involved a death close to him.