The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns: I Am Slowly Going Crazy

Support This Site

I find it interesting that Dianes Stuff brings up the question:

"What are your feelings about mandatory driver’s testing for seniors? Should there be a law? How strict should the tests be?"

I find it interesting because for many, many years, I've been telling friends that I think it should be mandatory for EVERYONE to have a driving test every year or two.

I don't know how many near misses I've been in because some f*cknut doesn't know how to bloody follow the rules anymore.

I don't know if a test would change that, but I think it's worth a try.

I mean, the driving around here is so bad that it sometimes makes me question my own driving, and I sometimes end up referring to the drivers manual just to make sure I'm not in the wrong.

AND I'M NOT!

They're wrong, all the time, they're wrong.

But, I suppose I can't ask for much from the transportation department since they allow people to slip through the driving cracks all the time, particularly for immigrants and especially here in the lower mainland of BC.

People who can barely see over their steering wheels, are holding everyone's life at risk by speeding, or sometimes crawling, in their death traps. And, I can't count how many times I've been cut off by some goober who doesn't check the lane s/he's merging over to.

Now, I'm not looking down upon immigrants - in case that's where you went - because I think they would be better off if the driving test were more challenging for them, too. I'm sure a lot of people new to the country would be less stressed at the end of the day knowing they have confidence in their own driving skills as a result of being properly challenged. I've seen it happen where a new driver to this country gets flipped the bird by someone because they didn't do the correct thing.

You can't tell me that makes a person feel good.

There are also different approaches taken in different towns. Smaller towns seem to have easier tests, so when those small town people drive in the big city, they mess things up royally. I know someone from a small town who took her driving test and didn't have to do half the things I had to do on my test, including parallel parking. She had no clue how to do that.

It really frustrates the heck out of everyone when they encounter a poor driver.

And, for the umpteenth time, the LEFT lane is the fast lane and the RIGHT lane is the slow lane, you ignorant knobs who aren't following the rules.

I'm flabberghasted by how many people have the right to drive when clearly they haven't a clue.

I'm really interested to hear what others think about yearly, every second year, or so mandatory tests for everyone. Aside from the obvious "who's going to pay for it" problem and "it sounds like a hassle" issue, is there any hazard you see in having such a thing?

May 2008

Comments

Heh ... you would LOVE living in Boston, NYC or Philly.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa | December 19, 2005 11:21 AM

Testing should not just see whether you know the rules but whether you lose your cool in some situations and whether your reaction times are up to the demands of driving. Hate to take a persons "freedom" away but that beats the hell out of taking someone ELSEs life, health or property away...courts and lawyers really don't make anybody "whole" after an accident so erring on the side of caution seems wise.

Posted by: greensmile | December 19, 2005 03:40 PM

We take driver's liscences away all the time for Driving while under the Influence.

The rationale is that after a certain amount of alcohol imbibed a person's reaction time is dangerously impaired.

I am sorry, but age does the same thing.

To give an example from my own experience, my Father was a Chief Warrant Officer in the Navy. After he retired, he worked in industry for a few years and then bought a small Farm Store. One day a retired Admiral walked in and met Dad, upon finding out Dad was a Lifer the next time he came in he knew Dad's total career history. EVERYONE liked the Admiral and my Father idolised him. As he aged it became apparent it was no longer safe for him to drive. Our store was on a very busy highway.

Dad could not bring himself to do it, so it was up to me to talk to the Admiral's son and daughter-in-law while they were visiting, and tell them, "We have the greatest respect and admiration for your father but if he continues to drive, he will get killed in an accident and might cause the death of others. We cringe everytime he pulls out of the parking lot into traffic" None of us wanted to do what had to be done it was a very sad day for all but it was necessary.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman | December 19, 2005 04:52 PM

I'm all for teseting everyone every so often. Why do you get tested as a teenager, then it's assumed that you know what you're doing the whole rest of your life?

Do police get tested on their shooting abilities when they join the force, then have it assumed that they know what their doing? No they get routine re-testing.

If you're putting other live potentially at risk, which you are if you are driving, you should be checked regularly for competence.

Posted by: FIAR | December 19, 2005 05:42 PM

Its not a bad idea, the logistics of it are a bit vexing though. For the sake of cost and convenience, might I suggest every five years.

Posted by: AnonCon | December 19, 2005 07:53 PM

Driving is a privilege, not a right. You are correct in saying regular tests are important. Politically, of course, finding the will to institute this is another matter. Then there is the question of how often tests should be administered. Debates over THAT issue will prevent much from being done, I'm afraid.

Posted by: MisterSnitch | December 19, 2005 09:52 PM

Did you see David's reply in the comments Sam? He thinks an IQ test should be part of the testing. LMAO

Posted by: Diane | December 20, 2005 10:16 AM

Diane - Ya, damn, there goes my licence.

Posted by: Sam | December 20, 2005 12:00 PM

Hee Hee Mine too.

Posted by: Diane | December 20, 2005 04:49 PM

I think they should do away with licensing all together ... and auto inspections ... and highway patrol. That'd thin the herd a bit, no?

Alright, just kidding. The IQ thing is OK. Your personal speed limit should be your IQ. A genius would be allowed to go 146MPH ... no wait, maybe we should do kPH for this. LOL! Then a genius with an IQ of 146 would be allowed to go 146kPH (which is what? 88MPH or something) also there would be lanes that only allow you on them if you are smart enough. ;)

Posted by: Mark B. | December 24, 2005 07:13 AM

class c license is for driving cars or 'passenger' vehicles, right?

well I think they should have class c.1 or c.3. class c.1 license would legalizle you to 15 miles an hour faster than class c.2. and class c.3 license would restrict you to certain zones, speeds, roads and freeways. I can just hear it now 'oh but I would not be able to get home' or something, well learn how to drive, and get a class c.2 license or take a bus, (or walk you dumb*ss).
then test throughly and more often for class c.1 license. make sense? what you think?

Posted by: dumb people | December 31, 2005 12:13 AM