Driver's Licenses should expire every 5 years, and require a $50 test to obtain one. To take the test you have to show that your vehicle is currently registered and insured, and pay your $50 fee. Because here's the deal... things change. And the more we do something, the less precise we are about it. We cut corners. Literally. So making BMW drivers sit down and do a test every few years that reminds them how Stop Signs work, is a Good Thing. And the $50 fee? There isn't anyone in the USA who cannot save $10/year. Or even $1/week for a year. But it takes PLANNING AHEAD. Just like oil changes. And vehicle maintenance. And every other adult thing in your goddamn life. The opposite side of the coin is that there needs to be kinda draconian enforcement. Failure to have a current Drivers License or Insurance results in the vehicle being impounded. Even if it isn't yours. Two offenses, and you lose the right to a license for 5 years, but get discounted public transit fare. (Or something like that.) We need to incentivize people to do other things than drive. The bar is set far too low right now.
Oh hey... I missed the context of your "people who don't own a car", and realize it was a mis-interpretation of my poorly worded post. What I meant about draconian enforcement, is "...IF YOU ARE CAUGHT driving without a license or insurance..." I did not mean that acquisition of a driver's license would be a national requirement, or anything. Sorry for the confusion.
I read your post as saying that to get a license people would have to show up and get the car they wanted to drive inspected (and take a driving test). That seemed wacky considering how many people drive but don't own a car. I'm still opposed to mandatory inspection unless there is overwhelming evidence that the benefit would be significantly more than the cost. I think you are pretty cavalier about what $50 can mean to a poor person. It's half a week of groceries to a family that's already barely getting by. I'm opposed to more bureaucracy sucking our valuable​ wealth and time. I just shelled out $201 dollars today so a pair of firemen could walk around my shop for 5 minutes and tell me to buy a different kind if power bar. I don't feel like I got my monies worth in safety. This story came to mind thinking about your post. It seems applicable until you realize that the guy would have done the same thing under any safety regeime that didn't put him jail.
Almost an excellent point, but the "Not all _____" argument is just the millennial's version of the slippery slope. Sure. Some people don't own a car. That's fine. The vehicle they operate still needs to be maintained by the owner. And the driver still needs to prove they are capable of driving, by taking a test every 5 years. That's not too much to ask from someone sharing the road with me.
Lol, I don't even know what you are trying to say with that first bit . It seems like you are a little confused and really want two different but related things. You want drivers to have to prove they are capable drivers and you want cars to be inspected for safety concerns but you slammed them both together in your first post. I'm not sure what kind of impact safety inspections are going to make when the rubber hits the road. I've never had an accident caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Before we start charging everyone $50 a pop for each car they own I'd like to see some evidence that it would be worthwhile.
Association Fallacy. Aka, "Not all men..." or "Not all police..." or "Not all black men..." etc. It's a red flag that whatever follows the ellipsis is bullshit. All of the EU. All of Japan. China. Basically any civilized nation in the world has regular inspections for anything that operates in the public sphere, and could harm the public. Elevators, traffic lights, buses, and passenger vehicles, all require regular inspections, and defects found during those inspections must be repaired and validated. Or, ya know, like every single commercial vehicle operated on any road in America today. Lol, I don't even know what you are trying to say with that first bit .
Before we start charging everyone $50 a pop for each car they own I'd like to see some evidence that it would be worthwhile.
I agree with that. I think cgod's argument is correct, and I think there's a solution: Instead of checking the car, take a test. Road signs, situation response, maybe virtual driving around the city. Same $50, reasonable result. You fail, you take some time and try once more, for another $50. Speaking of which... Personal finance is not the most popular activity even in the US, is it?And the driver still needs to prove they are capable of driving, by taking a test every 5 years.
There isn't anyone in the USA who cannot save $10/year. Or even $1/week for a year.
Well, the knee-jerk liberal keyboard-jockey reaction to any sort of regulation is, "But the poor can't afford that! It prevents their access to (insert name of service here)." Which is patently bullshit. If you have a car, you have far larger expenses on far more regular basis. Coming up with $50 every 5 years is not a tall hurdle. So I wanted to stifle that particular complaint before it came up. Personal finance is not the most popular activity even in the US, is it?
Take a test every five years: yeah, but, the testers can't keep up with the demand for testing new drivers. A friend's daughter just flunked a driving test and all the slots are booked up until September for another chance to test. NOW - here's the thing. If you can train self-driving cars to also be testers, that would work. And why shouldn't a self-driving car also be programmed to note errors of human drivers. Given that self-driving cars will be taking over (See Humans Need Not Apply, we can get rid of testing humans altogether.
It kinda is. Dogs need to be licensed, and need to have a tag showing their vaccinations are up to date. The license is a one-time thing, but shots come up every 2-5 years, depending on the shot. Dogs that are a menace or injure other people or animals are captured and held until the owner can prove responsible. The state ensures children are in school, seeing a doctor regularly, etc, and generally not being "abused". And, well... CPS. In all these cases, the owner is showing themselves taking responsibility, on a regular basis, will a fee involved.
I think it could be argued that paying for tags/registration, and with states that require it, annual inspections is the same. For all three, the government doesn't look into your performance as a pet owner, parent, or driver unless there is a concern as to your ability to be responsible. For example, a cop wouldn't inquire about you as a parent unless they see you mistreating your child in public, nor would they inquire you as a driver unless they see you driving improperly. So for the driving, you're imposing additional tests, additional challenges that imposes upon a person's ability to be a free, independent citizen in a country that often requires the burden of car ownership to be able to be fully free and independent. There is no regularly scheduled state test to be a pet owner and there is no state test to be a parent. To be honest, I'd argue that regularly scheduled state tests for all three are unfair because they impede on us.In all these cases, the owner is showing themselves taking responsibility, on a regular basis, will a fee involved.
Yes I am, because it is a social good. Not everyone should always have access to everything. So for the driving, you're imposing additional tests, additional challenges that imposes upon a person's ability to be a free, independent citizen in a country that often requires the burden of car ownership to be able to be fully free and independent.
The same arguments could be used towards anything then, from restricting someone's right to use the internet (hey, if someone's computer savy, they don't deserve to use the internet, they could be contributing to malicious botnets) to voter I.D. laws (we gotta make sure people who are voting are who they say they are). What you're proposing is an impediment, and once that impediment is in place, it can have unintended consequences. You have good reasoning behind your opinion, I'm not gonna deny you that. I will say though, that your solution is very unfair and probably pretty unreasonable. Then again, that's what makes it an unpopular opinion, huh? Kudos.Yes I am, because it is a social good.
Maybe add to this a minimum level of car inspection? Many places require an inspection for emissions and safety, but not all. I've never had a car inspection. Too many things are treated as rights without exception when they should be earned privileges.
I'm with you on this one, Steve. When the GOVERNMENT gets involved in SAFETY, then things quickly get out of hand. Classic cars? Gone. Custom cars? Gone. Aftermarket parts? Gone. "Non-standard" anything? Gone. Art cars? Gone. Concept cars? Gone. Bespoke automakers (even something like Brabus)? Gone. Having a "safe" vehicle on the road is definitely important. But truly unsafe vehicles die, and are scrapped. Unsafe DRIVERS can be disincentivized to drive, thereby eliminating them from driving ANY vehicle: safe, or unsafe. The socially-constructed idea of "safe" is a moving target that, over time, moves in a more and more regressive direction. Putting that responsibility in the government's hands is what has led plastic bag manufacturers to printing "NOT A TOY" on the bag your TV came in. And that's stupid, not safe.
Cars here need a good inspection every year, with older cars excempt. You're telling me US cars don't get checked regularly? I'm genuinely astounded. You go ride whatever vehicle you want on a closed track, but on the open road, I feel much safer knowing the human-controlled boxes hurtling around me are actually capable of performing the task they need to do.
Required vehicle inspections do not improve safety. That's my somewhat unpopular opinion based in part on living in a state that requires annual safety inspections, N = 1. First hit for "effectiveness of vehicle safety inspections" says "We found no evidence that inspections significantly reduce fatality or injury rates." The second hit says "inspections should continue" but only looks at test pass/fail rates and not safety.
The EU requires vehicle inspections every 2 years. We all grumble every time our EU-kontroll comes due but dutifully take our cars in to find out there's a light burned out and a shock-absorber that's worn. We pay up, people complain but generally agree that it is nice to know that your car has everything fixed and every other car is in good condition. I actually like getting everything fixed on my car every two years. Folks that don't like the inspections quote the studies that say required vehicle inspections do not improve safety. But that doesn't seem to make sense. Google will give you stats favoring both side. I do know I see almost no cars broken down on the road, which I used to see often when in the US. How do cars on the side of the highway affect safety, both for the driver and passengers of that car and of the other cars? It is not zero. The question seems to be of cost-effectiveness: what is the cost of these inspections vs. the costs of repairs after failure/accident, hospitalization and funeral expenses related to vehicle failure, and is it worth this cost?
Thanks, I agree with most of your comments, especially the last paragraph acknowledging the trade-off between costs and benefits of an inspection policy. The choice of inspections every two years itself represents a decision to give up potential benefits of more frequent inspections. This sounds like wishful thinking. In order to have "everything fixed" we have to assume that every possible safety defect is included in the inspection standards, that every inspector does a perfect job, and that no one evades or cheats the system. Even so, two years is plenty of time for things to go wrong between inspections. Obviously the costs would be too high to aim for perfection, so we live with a balance of costs and benefits of imperfect inspections. One possible unintended cost might be encouraging drivers to assume their vehicles are safe as long as they pass inspections, so they are less inclined to look for problems on their own. The fact that we can find arguments for both sides online doesn't mean that both arguments are equally strong. If inspections significantly improve safety, it should be possible to measure that improvement in states with inspections. If we can't find clear evidence of a net benefit, we should not claim that there is a net benefit. I also wonder why I no longer see broken down cars at the side of the road in the U.S. It used to be common to stop and see if stranded motorists needed a hand. I think cars are generally more reliable, drivers are less inclined to try and fix problems, and most people can quickly summon help with a mobile phone. Flat tires used to be common. In the 1970s, "typical bias ply tires lasted less than 20,000 miles and were only expected to be in service for about two years" but today's tires are "approaching 80,000 miles of treadwear."people complain but generally agree that it is nice to know that your car has everything fixed and every other car is in good condition.
Lots of good points there. goobster makes the point about what vehicle safety inspections look like in Europe and Scandanavia. I live in Norway, where as he says the inspections take over an hour (and cost about $80). We don't have to be able to diagram engine parts for our driver's licenses, but it's not easy to get one. There are different requirements for immigrants based on the the country you're coming from. I got off easy because I moved from the US with a valid driver's license. I only had to take a 45 minute road test. One problem with Norwegian driver's licenses -- they are valid until you're 100 years old, although you have to a driving fitness test every 5 years starting at age 80. My driver's license expires in 2068.
I don't see the problem. I hope to be able to drive at that age, and read a magazine at the same time. My license expires every eight years. Last time I renewed it online. Paid the fee with my credit card and got my new license in the mail. If I renewed in person I would have to pay a $5 additional fee, wait in line for a new photo, and take a vision test. Easy choice! (Next time I will have to go in for the vision test, and again every eight years starting at age 75.) The obvious intended effect of stricter requirements is to improve skills and safety. But a possible unintended effect is to discourage people who might have jumped through fewer hoops from bothering to get licensed at all.One problem with Norwegian driver's licenses -- they are valid until you're 100 years old
I don't see the problem. I hope to be able to drive at that age, and read a magazine at the same time.
I can help with that. Add ride your bike to the tennis court to the goal.
You would be blown away by what a "vehicle safety inspection" looks like in the EU. I've been through a number of them, and it ain't some schlub with a clipboard and a pen. It is a TEAM of people, who swarm your vehicle for an hour(?), and check everything, right down to whether the bolts for your seatbelts are tight. Vehicle inspections in Nordic countries are even MORE thorough. Shit. To get a driver's license in Italy you used to have to be able to diagram and describe how a clutch, gearbox, and internal combustion engine WORK.
Yeah, I have never lived in a state that required regular vehicle inspections. Emissions testing? Sure. But checking your brakes work? Or your lights work? Or your bushings aren't worn and your wheels about to fall off? Nope. However, every single race track I have been on has required DETAILED inspections before racing. I have actually driven a vehicle to a race, failed inspection and denied access to the track, and drove the vehicle home. That's freedom American-style. (Completely illogical.)
My dad has an old truck in the twilight zone of pre-OBD but not antique (emissions exempt) yet. The equipment for emissions-testing those cars is expensive and fragile, and every year fewer have working test equipment.