Matt_in_VA

I don't know if anyone else remembers Doug Thoms (sp) he headed the DOT back in the 70's at one point. He had a plan to come up with a "Masters Drivers License" that would allow "talented drivers" who had successfully demonstrated their skill to qualify for a "Masters" License which under the plan would have allowed them to drive at over the posted speed limits or one option was to allow them to drive at their discretion.

I will use this for an example: I don't know about the state that you live in but it has long bothered me that here in the Commonwealth of Virginia to get a motorcycle drivers license one only has to drive around the parking lot at the DMV. All DMV parking lots have a cross walk and a stop sign. If one can demonstrate that they can do this without falling over they can get a motorcycle license. Of course, a circus bear could pass that "road test". A human can take this test on a 50 CC scooter with an automatic (centrifugal clutch) transmission. Then armed with that license and money can buy any number of Super Bikes that are capable of speeds of zero to sixty MPH in just over two seconds, or top speeds approaching 200 MPH. Or conversely, an S2000 or a Dodge Viper, etc.

My real question is like airplane pilots should the licensing system be tiered or staged if you like that term? As a pilot one starts out with single engine low performance planes and "graduates" to the next level of performance as one can demonstrate to a check pilot that one is capable of handling a single engine high performance plane, the on to the next rung of the ladder twin engine low performance and so on and so forth.

Should this logic be applied to drivers licenses? What do you think?

anarky

I have long been an advocate of more rigorous driver training, testing and licensing as well as reforms to the auto insurance system.

Having lived in Europe for many years I have seen firsthand the amount of training required to obtain a driver's permit. It is a long, thorough and expensive process. As long as we continue to allow the football coach to pad his income by "instructing" a "driver's ed" class, we will continue to churn out unqualified drivers and have to live with the consequences.

A more complete approach to driver's training would make our roads safer (at least one would hope) and lead to a decrease in the traffic fatality rate and insurance premiums.

Just my little peevish rant.

Kyras

I have my motorcycle license. To get it added to my regular car driver's license, I had to pass the written motorcycle test and pass the motorcycle driver's test. In California, there is a figure "8" painted on the asphalt and you have to be able to ride your motorcycle around it in both directions. It wasn't easy to do on my Yamaha Serow (200cc). It's hard to go that slow while doing circles. But that really didn't have anything to do with staying alive on the street.

I think it's a good idea about licensing driver's in a tiered way but I'm not for it. I don't like having to jump through hoops and wouldn't want any more put in front of me. On the other hand, how would it be enforced? How's a cop supposed to know who can go 80 mph and who has to go 66 mph, for instance? There aren't enough cops to catch the idiots weaving in and out of traffic now, doing 100 mph.

Warren J. Dew

I think that standards could perhaps be increased for initially getting a license. If having a learner's permit for a year or two were mandatory, I think you could then have a substantially tougher exam at the end of that period to get a permanent license.

I don't think having multiple tiers would work for enforcement reasons. If some people are allowed to go 10 mph over the posted limit, say, then police wouldn't pull over anyone within 10 mph of the posted limit because the person might be driving legally.

The way pilot's licenses work is not different tiers for better pilots, but licenses to fly different airplanes under different conditions - instrument, or multiengine, or turbine. If driver's licenses worked that way, you'd have additional exams for, say, manual transmission cars or rear wheel drive cars, or driving at night. It might be a good idea, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

I do think that the emphasis on speeding and posted speed limits is misplaced; on a dead straight deserted interstate in good weather, 120 mph can be perfectly safe, while in congested rush hour traffic moving at 40 mph, trying to drive at a technically legal 50 mph may require incredibly dangerous cutting and weaving. A return to the days before radar detectors and the "double nickel", when there were fewer speed limits and police used more discretion in determining whether people were driving dangerously, might be better.

Ulrich

Tell me about it...

Also, at least in Germany driver's licenses are "restricted" in the beginning when you get them. When you are within your probationary period (2 years?) and you get involved in an accident, there are some consequences (retraining?) you'll have to face. After two years I guess they assume you are experienced enough...

anarky

[quote name='Kyras' date='Feb 22 2005, 07:55 PM'] On the other hand, how would it be enforced?

BocaS2000

This is an interesting topic.
First off, while driving is considered to be a privilege, I feel that we as a whole are taxed enough and any adjustments to the given system would simply mean more taxes.
Second, lets focus on two groups who have demonstrated the need for regulation if there were to be any. Those groups are a) seniors who have diminished faculties and, b) those illegals who never drove in their country and have virtually no driving skill and often circumvent the current standards to obtain a driver's license in the US.
Lastly, until it becomes a well established fact that sports cars are involved in more accidents with mortality, I personal don't need big brother sticking his nose into the act with further regulation. Just my .02

After thought...raising the legal age to drive to 18 with a permit being granted at 16 would likely be a wise move that I would support in light of the accident rates of youthful drivers.

HydnHood

Motorcycle testing laws in WI have changed for the better over the years.

My dad got his motorcycle license back in the 50s by just saying, "Oh yeah, I ride bikes too".

Back in 70s it was like you described one parking lot test on any size bike and you can ride in traffic with any motorcycle.

In the 80s it was 2 tiered. If you took the test with a 500cc or under, you where licensed for 500 and under. If you took a test at 501+cc you could ride anything.

In the 90s they made it so you had to take a road test like a regular drivers test. Microphone and headset placed in your own helmut and an instructor following you in a car. This technology has been around for well over 10 years, any state not using it, is just asking for trouble.

Unlike Europe, there are many parts of this country where living without are vehicle is almost impossible. Consider me, I live alone, out in the country and I am a consultant. No drivers license = screwed. For sure the courts here are still very open to allowing people to maintain a to-and-from-work-only license even for repeated offenders and most that get it taken away just drive anyway. I remember my friend pointing to a car at bar time, he said "See that car? 4 people, not one with a license driving, a car that is not even registered, and they do it 5 nights a week."

Matt_in_VA

I was born and raised in Queens County in NYC where the legal driving age is eighteen. The question remains, was I more responsible at 18 than 16?

ralper

In answer to your question about whether driving is a right of a privilege, it is both. We live in a society, in a time where mobility is both valued and necessary. I would venture to say that most of us couldn't live our lives or earn our livings without the right to drive. At the same time, it is a privilege that demands the full focus and concentration of those participating, and should not be available to anyone whose commitment is less.

The tiered licenses sound wonderful in theory, but in reality they could never work. Especially here in the northeast or any other congested area. You are asking for trouble if you mix drivers with the right to go fast and drivers without that right on highways with bumper to bumper traffic. If you think drivers are stupidly aggressive now, watch what happens when you license them to drive above the speed limit. And no, I don't think a license to go fast would make the driver more courteous and respectful. It would only make him more aggressive.
Perhaps in Wyoming or Montana, but I can't imagine giving anyone the right to drive faster than the speed limit on the Garden State Parkway or the Long Island Expressway.

I have a motorcycle license. I haven't ridden a motorcycle since 1972, but I've kept the license all these years. My memory of the test is slightly different than what I've read here. I got my license in Brooklyn, NY in 1970. While not as difficult as it should have been, the test wasn't a walk in the park either. I had to demonstrate my ability to handle the bike and make it stop. As I recall, I too had to do figure 8s in both directions, and I had to ride on city streets while the tester followed me in a car. I had to provide the car and driver, and also get the motorcycle there either via a licensed rider or on a trailer.

Finally, there is one thing to keep in mind when we discuss questions like "driving right or privilege" or "tiered licensing". That is that we are a board of auto and driving enthusiasts. Of course we all know how to drive better than the public and of course we all have more respect, courtesy, consideration and more understanding. But out there on the streets, the picture is different. We are outnumbered by those who only want to get from point A to point B. In here, some of these things sound great, out there they would be a disaster.