Abolish the Driving Test?

[triplemultiplex]

The attention-grabbing headline causes a gut reaction, but it turns out, the evidence shows basically zero correlation between driving test outcomes and accident rates.
I encourage people to read the entire article before you respond, because the first 5 things that pop into your head telling you this is a terrible idea are not based on anything concrete.
And yes, the author makes a statement deep in the article in favor of red light/speed cams and we all know how most people here feel about that.  But focus on the subject at hand.

Many of my own assumptions about the driver's licensing process were challenged and I am thinking more deeply about why we let ourselves get dicked around by local bureaucracies for something that really doesn't help people be better drivers.  I have long used driver's licensing as an analogy for other topics where the government demands we do something as part of civil society and this article has utterly shredded those lines of reasoning for me.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kvkna/abolish-the-driving-test

The implication of earning a driver's license is that the license can be suspended or revoked for driving like a maniac. And, indeed, they can be, including for dangerous behavior like drunk driving. But such cases are the exception, not the rule. One study looking at New Jersey licenses found that in 2018, 5.5 percent of all licenses were suspended, but a whopping 91 percent of those suspended licenses were for non-driving-related reasons such as failure to pay fines. By and large, licenses are suspended as a punishment not for driving poorly, but for being poor.

But the most famous study about driver education was the Dekalb County, Georgia experiment. In this landmark study from the early 1980s, researchers randomly assigned approximately 16,000 teens to two types of driver education and a control group that received no education over a period of five years. The initial study found training worked, in that it significantly reduced the rate at which the teen drivers were ticketed.

But a subsequent study that analyzed the same data in a different way found the opposite, that in fact the trained group had eight percent more crashes and 11 percent more road violations. These differences in findings come down to complex statistical analysis questions, but researchers have generally found the second study more convincing because it adjusted for the fact that trained drivers were able to get their licenses sooner. That being said, the study had other flaws–for example, about a third of students assigned to training didn't complete it and therefore weren't counted, leaving the students who completed the training more likely to be responsible individuals more generally–but it is still one of the best we have on the subject.

In 2015, California changed its laws so undocumented immigrants became eligible for drivers licenses under a law called AB 60. Prior to the bill becoming law, many arguments were made both in favor and against the bill on the grounds that it would either make roads safer or more dangerous. Nobody really knew for sure.

...

The researchers found crash rates stayed the same. AB 60's effect on crash rates per capita were "statistically indistinguishable from zero." The authors further concluded "obtaining a driver's license did not change their routine driving behavior," the exact opposite of what most people think the driver test is supposed to do.

This is an interesting subject because it pits individual liberty and freedom of movement against a desire for that travel to be safe and predictable.  So if it turns out what we have been doing making people jump through hoops to gain the privilege of automobile operation is not contributing to that safe travel, then what are we doing here?

There's an old insult to hurl at a bad driver that goes: "Did you get your license out of a Cracker Jack box!?"  It seems there are little bits of caramel on everyone's license.

[SectorZ]

I'm a tad confused on the driving habits of undocumented immigrants in CA. Just because they never passed a driving test here doesn't mean they didn't pass one in their home country (assuming they have them), and many likely have/had driving licenses in their home countries.

I think the writer didn't really think that one through. The debate (without making this political) about them getting licenses had very little to do with whether they could drive or not. Most already were driving.

[kphoger]

I'm a tad confused on the driving habits of undocumented immigrants in CA. Just because they never passed a driving test here doesn't mean they didn't pass one in their home country (assuming they have them), and many likely have/had driving licenses in their home countries.

I think the writer didn't really think that one through. The debate (without making this political) about them getting licenses had very little to do with whether they could drive or not. Most already were driving.

I think most states in Mexico require at least a driving theory test, but many states don't require a road test (I think Baja California doesn't).

Notably, Mexico City until recently saw DLs as regulatory documents, not certification documents–therefore no test of any sort was required, other than the applicant just saying he or she knew how to drive.  That only changed a few years ago.

[MikeTheActuary]

From what I've seen, "driving tests" in the US aren't really.  Contrast the experience of getting licensed in the US to that of, say, Germany.

I think there is something to be said for acknowledging that testing beginning drivers in the US is frequently just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through.  In most cases, some form of graduated licensing, including maintaining a log of supervised drives at the start, is probably a more effective tool to reducing the risk from new licensees. 

I wouldn't object to some form of mandated driver training, but that raises equity issues given that drivers ed programs at public high schools seem to be far less common than they were when I grew up (and even then they were starting to be cut back).

Similarly, the increased costs of driving -- insurance in particular -- seem to have caused teenagers to become slower to get their licenses than back in my day (like many of my peers in Tennessee, I got my first restricted license at 14).  I could see someone arguing for mandatory telematics-based insurance for new drivers, to provide quick feedback and an incentive to drive well before it becomes natural, although I acknowledge that there would be valid liberty-flavored objections to such.

I do think that some form of formal driver testing ought to be retained in some circumstances -- particularly at certain age thresholds, or perhaps after accrual of a certain number of points on one's license.   Starting a couple of years before I finally had to confiscate my father's car keys, I began to wish that TN required road tests of senior citizens; I suspect that even with the joke the local drivers tests were, he might have been challenged to pass it.  (Fortunately, during that time, my father voluntarily cut back his driving.  Not as much as I asked him to, but some at least...)

[kphoger]

From what I've seen, "driving tests" in the US aren't really.  Contrast the experience of getting licensed in the US to that of, say, Germany.

I know I've mentioned it before, but...  When I was in high school, I took driver's ed class in the summer.  At the end of the course, I took my course completion slip to the nearest DL office, took a 15-question written test, and got my license–never took a road test.  This was a town of 1300 people in rural northwestern Kansas.  In driver's ed, learning to drive on the Interstate involved going 30 miles away to the stretch of I-70 between exits #45 and #53.  The "city driving" involved going out of state to a town of 8000 people.  Also in my class was a foreign exchange student from Germany.  He was able to take that Kansas DL, obtained in rural northwestern Kansas without needing a road test, and exchange it for a full German DL upon returning home a month later.

[kalvado]

First of all, this is significantly relying on IIHS data. This means data is falsified - at least that is what I saw in most IIHS publications.
Second, if you need additional statistical analysis to extract 8% difference which was not seen before - this is mostly likely based on bias anyway, even outside IIHS. 

As for the test itself - there are many cases where the test itself is the icing on a cake, test preparation is more important than that.  With US general assumption that driving is pretty much a must for a normal life, setting the bar low enough that most people can pass with some effort is probably the goal. People keep learning even after passing the test anyway.
When they say that the effectiveness of driver training is not proven.. pardon me, did you try to put someone with 0 training into normal driving in traffic, without explaining them what two pedals do?   

One reasonable thing they propose is to keep drivers in check by analyzing the post-licensing behavior. Accident and fine history affecting insurance rates is an already an existing aspect of it. NY suspends licenses after a certain number of violations - although again,  people see speeding as the biggest sin. Unsafe lane changes are harder to quantify, though.

TL;DR: Journalist exercised his free speech right. Ok, next please.

[tolbs17]

Maybe cutback on studying on the workbooks and just take the damn sign test.

[Roadgeekteen]

no

[vdeane]

First of all, this is significantly relying on IIHS data. This means data is falsified - at least that is what I saw in most IIHS publications.
Second, if you need additional statistical analysis to extract 8% difference which was not seen before - this is mostly likely based on bias anyway, even outside IIHS. 

As for the test itself - there are many cases where the test itself is the icing on a cake, test preparation is more important than that.  With US general assumption that driving is pretty much a must for a normal life, setting the bar low enough that most people can pass with some effort is probably the goal. People keep learning even after passing the test anyway.
When they say that the effectiveness of driver training is not proven.. pardon me, did you try to put someone with 0 training into normal driving in traffic, without explaining them what two pedals do?   

One reasonable thing they propose is to keep drivers in check by analyzing the post-licensing behavior. Accident and fine history affecting insurance rates is an already an existing aspect of it. NY suspends licenses after a certain number of violations - although again,  people see speeding as the biggest sin. Unsafe lane changes are harder to quantify, though.

TL;DR: Journalist exercised his free speech right. Ok, next please.

That explains why the proposed solution is to mandate telemetry-based insurance.  Guess the insurance companies haven't gotten enough people to volunteer for that (gee, I wonder why...).  I also wonder how such coverage would work in a world with mileage-based user fees, given that both would need access to the car's OBD port.

[Duke87]

I'm a tad confused on the driving habits of undocumented immigrants in CA. Just because they never passed a driving test here doesn't mean they didn't pass one in their home country (assuming they have them), and many likely have/had driving licenses in their home countries.

Yeah the argument behind this was never that being undocumented might make one more likely to crash or drive dangerously. Rather, it was that being undocumented creates a motive to flee the scene of a crash, because stopping and waiting for the police to come and file a report like you're supposed to would mean getting in trouble for not having a license.


As for the broad argument that drivers tests don't really do much of anything to make roads safer... yeah, this makes perfect sense, really. It is (in the grander scheme of things), very easy to get a drivers' license, and very difficult to lose one. If it's something almost every functioning adult has, it doesn't exactly prove much about the individual's capabilities.

This is one of those things though where even if it's functionally pointless, it's never going to get done away with because it's a way of looking like we're doing something. This is America after all - we absolutely love our security theater.

[MauriceRobbins]

Consequently, without knowing the laws, you have no right to drive. If you know the laws and pass the exam, you get your license. In my opinion, it's all quite logical. I didn't quite understand the relevance of the conducted research because it probably shouldn't be used as an argument in this matter. Recently, I read a post https://www.harlemworldmagazine.com/the-impact-of-litigation-on-educational-equity/ about the impact of litigation on educational equity, and it made me think that judicial decisions can influence how equal opportunities are ensured in passing driving exams. To abolish the exam, there must be at least a better alternative, but that's all my subjective opinion.

[HighwayStar]

This is reason to improve the test, not abolish it.

I've said it before, the exam and the road test need to be longer, more difficult, and have higher fail rates. Otherwise its just a rubber stamp.

Some of the test material (ie. how far lights have to be visible) is beyond stupid, as virtually any vehicle made in the last 50 years would meet those requirements and we instead have an issue with too much light rather than not enough.

Conversely, the test lacks questions about things like FWD vs RWD vs AWD, navigation, vehicle loading, etc. which would actually improve safety and driver outcomes.

The road test is too short and not varied enough, it needs to be at least 10 miles, including freeway driving, as well as a variety of parking situations.

And if someone fails, they need to spend at least 6 months waiting period before they can retest.

[DriverDave]

Absolutely not. We need more stringent driving tests.

Post #4, that's insane, as those places are likely as opposite on the driving difficulty/testing spectrum as you can get.

[1995hoo]

Setting aside the issue of knowledge and road testing, one thing I consider very unfortunate is that the trend towards allowing online license renewals–which, taken in isolation, is a good and useful thing–has the undesirable side effect of ensuring that there are more drivers who don't get their eyes checked. License renewal periods vary from state to state, of course; in Virginia, which I obviously know best, your license is valid for eight years (used to be five) and you can renew it online every other cycle unless you get more than a certain number of moving violations during the validity period, in which case you have to re-take the knowledge test. A vision exam is part of any in-person renewal at the DMV, but no vision exam (nor results of such) is required for an online renewal. That means we can be 100 percent certain there are people out there who only get their vision checked once every sixteen years when they renew in-person. I've worn glasses since 2009 and it's made me well aware of how your vision can change year to year, especially as I've approached and then hit age 50. (My right eye's vision changed a fair amount just in the past year. Explains why I was getting headaches with my previous pairs of glasses.) I'm nearsighted. I can definitely tell that I need glasses to drive regardless of the restriction on my license, and the thought that there are other people out there whose vision is worse than mine but who have not had their eyes checked and won't have it done for over ten years yet who drive every day is somewhat disturbing.

[StogieGuy7]

Given the piss poor quality of driving that I see on a daily basis, we need more stringent testing and not less. I had to take a summer drivers' ed course at my HS before first passing a written test at the DMV, followed by a second appointment there for the dreaded driving test. Which wasn't all that hard but did include parallel parking. Even that stuff was the minimum and it was my father and decades of experience that made me the driver I am today (and able to drive in rocky canyon bottoms, snowstorms, LA freeways, Boston streets, French autoroutes, Central American byways, etc.).  The people I'm usually sharing the road with, on average, don't even understand that the left lane is for passing, who's turn is who's at a 4-way stop, and probably struggle with other basic daily life skills.

Abolish the driving test? Hell no. 

[SEWIGuy]

I understand in theory why more stringent testing would lead to better safety, but I am not convinced it would actually do so.  I thought I read somewhere that while only 3% of the drivers on the road are unlicensed, 20% of the accidents are caused by such drivers.  You make the test more difficult, and I think it is safe to say that that 3% would shoot up further.

I would like to see more severe punishments for the absolute worst of the moving violations.

But who knows?

[vdeane]

Setting aside the issue of knowledge and road testing, one thing I consider very unfortunate is that the trend towards allowing online license renewals–which, taken in isolation, is a good and useful thing–has the undesirable side effect of ensuring that there are more drivers who don't get their eyes checked. License renewal periods vary from state to state, of course; in Virginia, which I obviously know best, your license is valid for eight years (used to be five) and you can renew it online every other cycle unless you get more than a certain number of moving violations during the validity period, in which case you have to re-take the knowledge test. A vision exam is part of any in-person renewal at the DMV, but no vision exam (nor results of such) is required for an online renewal. That means we can be 100 percent certain there are people out there who only get their vision checked once every sixteen years when they renew in-person. I've worn glasses since 2009 and it's made me well aware of how your vision can change year to year, especially as I've approached and then hit age 50. (My right eye's vision changed a fair amount just in the past year. Explains why I was getting headaches with my previous pairs of glasses.) I'm nearsighted. I can definitely tell that I need glasses to drive regardless of the restriction on my license, and the thought that there are other people out there whose vision is worse than mine but who have not had their eyes checked and won't have it done for over ten years yet who drive every day is somewhat disturbing.

In NY, the vision test is still required for online renewals.  I think last time I renewed, I called my eye doctor's office and had them send some info to the DMV first.  It's also possible to have your doctor complete a form and then enter some details of that form online when renewing.

[Quillz]

Setting aside the issue of knowledge and road testing, one thing I consider very unfortunate is that the trend towards allowing online license renewals—which, taken in isolation, is a good and useful thing—has the undesirable side effect of ensuring that there are more drivers who don’t get their eyes checked. License renewal periods vary from state to state, of course; in Virginia, which I obviously know best, your license is valid for eight years (used to be five) and you can renew it online every other cycle unless you get more than a certain number of moving violations during the validity period, in which case you have to re-take the knowledge test. A vision exam is part of any in-person renewal at the DMV, but no vision exam (nor results of such) is required for an online renewal. That means we can be 100 percent certain there are people out there who only get their vision checked once every sixteen years when they renew in-person. I've worn glasses since 2009 and it’s made me well aware of how your vision can change year to year, especially as I’ve approached and then hit age 50. (My right eye's vision changed a fair amount just in the past year. Explains why I was getting headaches with my previous pairs of glasses.) I’m nearsighted. I can definitely tell that I need glasses to drive regardless of the restriction on my license, and the thought that there are other people out there whose vision is worse than mine but who have not had their eyes checked and won’t have it done for over ten years yet who drive every day is somewhat disturbing.

It seems you can only renew your license online a certain amount of times before you have to physically get it renewed in person. This happened to me this year. I was also getting the RealID so there was both vision test + driving test. I assume I can now renew online next time, but it seems like every 2-3 years, it won't let you.

[SeriesE]

Maybe there should also be a driving simulator test like flight simulators for pilot training so the driver can be tested on how to handle different situations

[kalvado]

I understand in theory why more stringent testing would lead to better safety, but I am not convinced it would actually do so.  I thought I read somewhere that while only 3% of the drivers on the road are unlicensed, 20% of the accidents are caused by such drivers.  You make the test more difficult, and I think it is safe to say that that 3% would shoot up further.

I would like to see more severe punishments for the absolute worst of the moving violations.

But who knows?

It's the same in any education - testing and exams are a good way of checking the outcome....  until education is replaced by preparations for tests regardless of overall outcome.
The only approach I can see is diversifying test to the point where any particular skill (e.g. parallel parking) isn't make-it or break-it.

[1995hoo]

Setting aside the issue of knowledge and road testing, one thing I consider very unfortunate is that the trend towards allowing online license renewals–which, taken in isolation, is a good and useful thing–has the undesirable side effect of ensuring that there are more drivers who don't get their eyes checked. License renewal periods vary from state to state, of course; in Virginia, which I obviously know best, your license is valid for eight years (used to be five) and you can renew it online every other cycle unless you get more than a certain number of moving violations during the validity period, in which case you have to re-take the knowledge test. A vision exam is part of any in-person renewal at the DMV, but no vision exam (nor results of such) is required for an online renewal. That means we can be 100 percent certain there are people out there who only get their vision checked once every sixteen years when they renew in-person. I've worn glasses since 2009 and it's made me well aware of how your vision can change year to year, especially as I've approached and then hit age 50. (My right eye's vision changed a fair amount just in the past year. Explains why I was getting headaches with my previous pairs of glasses.) I'm nearsighted. I can definitely tell that I need glasses to drive regardless of the restriction on my license, and the thought that there are other people out there whose vision is worse than mine but who have not had their eyes checked and won't have it done for over ten years yet who drive every day is somewhat disturbing.

It seems you can only renew your license online a certain amount of times before you have to physically get it renewed in person. This happened to me this year. I was also getting the RealID so there was both vision test + driving test. I assume I can now renew online next time, but it seems like every 2-3 years, it won't let you.

I've renewed my driver's license six times (as I noted earlier, Virginia changed the renewal period from every five years to every eight years, which first applied to me after the 2013 renewal), and of course for the first few of those online renewal didn't exist yet. Adding the original issuance of my learner's permit, I've had my vision checked five of seven times (I've renewed online twice). I had to re-take the knowledge test once because I had gotten two moving violations within the previous license term (at the time a five-year term), so because the knowledge test must be taken in person (that is, even if you would otherwise be eligible to renew online, if you get two or more moving violations you must renew in person to take the knowledge test), I had to have the vision test as well. But I have never had to re-take the road test.

In 2013, the last time I renewed in person, I attempted the vision test without my glasses but failed, so I put them on and passed and was issued a restricted license. Always worth trying it without glasses if they allow it.

In NY, the vision test is still required for online renewals.  I think last time I renewed, I called my eye doctor's office and had them send some info to the DMV first.  It's also possible to have your doctor complete a form and then enter some details of that form online when renewing.

That is really interesting and it strikes me as a very good idea.

[kalvado]

In NY, the vision test is still required for online renewals.  I think last time I renewed, I called my eye doctor's office and had them send some info to the DMV first.  It's also possible to have your doctor complete a form and then enter some details of that form online when renewing.

That is really interesting and it strikes me as a very good idea.

In the same boat - my online renewal was supplemented with a vision test in one of "non-DMV vision testing locations"
In my case, it was done at AAA...

[Max Rockatansky]

I've actually witnessed someone fail the written portion of the driver's test in California at a DMV.  Given how easy that test was it kind of made me wonder what said person is like behind the wheel?  Apparently she had tried it multiple times and was down to her last failure.  I forget how long, but she had to wait a period of time before trying again.  This was not a situation where there was language barrier or something of the like.

Amusingly my father in law recently failed the written DMV test twice when he took it in Spanish (his native language).  When he tried it in English the third time he got all the questions correct. 

[kalvado]

Amusingly my father in law recently failed the written DMV test twice when he took it in Spanish (his native language).  When he tried it in English the third time he got all the questions correct.

I heard more than once that English version of the test is much easier than tests in other languages in NY.  Granted, 7 out of 20 questions in English were some variation of "thou shalt not drive drunk, do you understand that?"

[Quillz]

I've actually witnessed someone fail the written portion of the driver's test in California at a DMV.  Given how easy that test was it kind of made me wonder what said person is like behind the wheel?  Apparently she had tried it multiple times and was down to her last failure.  I forget how long, but she had to wait a period of time before trying again.  This was not a situation where there was language barrier or something of the like.

Amusingly my father in law recently failed the written DMV test twice when he took it in Spanish (his native language).  When he tried it in English the third time he got all the questions correct. 

I took the written test two weeks ago, without any preparation (probably a mistake). The only questions I got wrong was because I erred on the side of caution. Questions like "how fast can you drive in foggy conditions?" I'd say 25 mph when the answer they wanted was 30 mph. I think I missed two or three of those. If people fail the test because of questions like that, it's understandable (better to be cautious, right?) I doubt most people are failing the less technical questions (I was asked "if the arrow is pointing left and red, can you turn?") But if they are, yes, those people should probably not be behind the wheel.