I feel like this is one of those things that I can agree to on paper but I can’t support because I feel like it would disproportionately impact those that are already struggling to get by.
I’m surprised to hear that. If someone can pay insurance, parking, fuel, road tax, maintenance, EU checks for a car surely they can pay for a (potentially subsidized) re-certification once in 10 years?
I’m referring to the US because it’s where I’m familiar:
Parking isn’t typically a cost outside of cities.
Road tax is included in fuel. I’ve never had to get a car safety inspected, I’m sure it’s a thing in some places
Anyway, it’s not just the associated costs but also another generally pointless reason for everyone to have to visit an already over busy DMV and waste hours at best to show they can do something they are likely doing every day? It’s a lot easier for someone like me to go to the DMV and deal with the BS than it is someone who is working multiple jobs, has to actually clock in, and is otherwise hovered over. It’s easy for me to say how easy it is when I’m not struggling through the shit trying to make ends meet. Then what’s the solution, if the DMV decides, nah you can’t drive, does the state start paying their bills or assign them a chauffeur service so they can get where they need to in order to survive?
Yet driving is a privilege not a right so there are already fees on every exam you take, at least where I come from.
Personally I’m of the opinion that there’s no need to retest healthy working-age adults unless they have traffic violations… But traffic violations should trigger retesting more easily. Right now you gotta fuck up real bad to have your license taken away (after which you can get it back after a while if you pass tests again).
And once you’re in your 60s or 70s, we should start retesting and it should be mandatory. We do have mandatory health exams that go from 10 years to 5 years when you age, but they mostly test the sharpness of your vision and such. They don’t test how you actually react to things in traffic, or how good your peripheral vision is. There’s other stuff they test too, but I’ve forgotten it, been a few years since my last one.
Also how do you judge a test? Like hey I’ve driven over 140 mph just fine, drifted in the rain, drop shifted to save myself out of an accident. How is checking to see if someone can tap the gas or brake pedal make me feel less like I’m trying to avoid collisions? It’s like wow you can use turn signals… good, you know where the brake pedal is… good, oh you forgot where the gas pedal was since you were watching tictock dance videos. Now add in all the new features like a corolla being able to drive you around with no input.
I feel like this is one of those things that I can agree to on paper but I can’t support because I feel like it would disproportionately impact those that are already struggling to get by.
I’m surprised to hear that. If someone can pay insurance, parking, fuel, road tax, maintenance, EU checks for a car surely they can pay for a (potentially subsidized) re-certification once in 10 years?
I’m referring to the US because it’s where I’m familiar: Parking isn’t typically a cost outside of cities. Road tax is included in fuel. I’ve never had to get a car safety inspected, I’m sure it’s a thing in some places
Anyway, it’s not just the associated costs but also another generally pointless reason for everyone to have to visit an already over busy DMV and waste hours at best to show they can do something they are likely doing every day? It’s a lot easier for someone like me to go to the DMV and deal with the BS than it is someone who is working multiple jobs, has to actually clock in, and is otherwise hovered over. It’s easy for me to say how easy it is when I’m not struggling through the shit trying to make ends meet. Then what’s the solution, if the DMV decides, nah you can’t drive, does the state start paying their bills or assign them a chauffeur service so they can get where they need to in order to survive?
It’s for public safety, so there definitely shouldn’t be fees. It should be covered with taxes.
Yet driving is a privilege not a right so there are already fees on every exam you take, at least where I come from.
Personally I’m of the opinion that there’s no need to retest healthy working-age adults unless they have traffic violations… But traffic violations should trigger retesting more easily. Right now you gotta fuck up real bad to have your license taken away (after which you can get it back after a while if you pass tests again).
And once you’re in your 60s or 70s, we should start retesting and it should be mandatory. We do have mandatory health exams that go from 10 years to 5 years when you age, but they mostly test the sharpness of your vision and such. They don’t test how you actually react to things in traffic, or how good your peripheral vision is. There’s other stuff they test too, but I’ve forgotten it, been a few years since my last one.
That would mean a drivers license should be covered by taxes because that is also for public safety. Yeah no I don’t agree
I disagree that one means the other. Initial license is s privilege. Testing is for safety and we want to limit incentives to skip it
that sounds an awful lot like communism /s
wut, no, unless ur tests are litarally held in a commune, dumass!
;-)
Also how do you judge a test? Like hey I’ve driven over 140 mph just fine, drifted in the rain, drop shifted to save myself out of an accident. How is checking to see if someone can tap the gas or brake pedal make me feel less like I’m trying to avoid collisions? It’s like wow you can use turn signals… good, you know where the brake pedal is… good, oh you forgot where the gas pedal was since you were watching tictock dance videos. Now add in all the new features like a corolla being able to drive you around with no input.