AARoads Forum

Governor Stitt signed into law on the 16th the legislation that would increase the speed limit on rural interstates from 70 to 75 and on most of the turnpike system from 75 to 80.  The understanding is that this increase would be a gradual process, but in my opinion some of the worst four lane roads in the state are sections of the Cimarron, Indian Nation, and H. E. Bailey Turnpikes.  Any thoughts?

Quote from: dchristy on April 20, 2019, 10:30:35 PM
Governor Stitt signed into law on the 16th the legislation that would increase the speed limit on rural interstates from 70 to 75 and on most of the turnpike system from 75 to 80.  The understanding is that this increase would be a gradual process, but in my opinion some of the worst four lane roads in the state are sections of the Cimarron, Indian Nation, and H. E. Bailey Turnpikes.  Any thoughts?

I have only driven the section of the Indian Nation Turnpike north of US 69, but I have driven it several times, and I never found it to be unsafe.  One caveat, however, is that I only drove it in a company vehicle from my former job, which had a speed governor set to 65 MPH, so I did not get to experience the road at its speed limit.  Is the southern section less safe?  I would imagine it would be technically simple to replace the shoulderless median with a Jersey barrier plus shoulders.  My experience with the other Oklahoma Turnpikes that I have driven is that I have found them to be of generally higher quality than the non-toll freeways in the state (except for the horrendous construction zone on the Turner Turnpike).

This article gives more details:

https://kfor.com/2019/04/12/measure-to-increase-speed-limits-on-oklahoma-turnpikes-approved-by-senate/

Quote

OKLAHOMA CITY - A push to raise speed limits on Oklahoma turnpikes is headed to the governor's desk.

House Bill 1071 passed the Senate this week after the House of Representatives already approved the measure.

The bill would allow the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to raise speed limits on certain turnpikes from 75 miles per hour to 80 miles per hour.

If it becomes law, the bill's authors say speed limits wouldn't go up right away.

Instead, they say more studies would have to be done to determine if a speed increase is safe.

If higher speeds are approved, lawmakers say they would be limited to the H.E. Bailey, Cimarron, Indian Nation or Muskogee turnpikes.

Governor Stitt signed into law on the 16th the legislation that would increase the speed limit on rural interstates from 70 to 75 and on most of the turnpike system from 75 to 80.  The understanding is that this increase would be a gradual process, but in my opinion some of the worst four lane roads in the state are sections of the Cimarron, Indian Nation, and H. E. Bailey Turnpikes.  Any thoughts?





I do not have very much experience with the Cimarron, or the H.E. Bailey beyond Chickasha. I think the Indian Nation, is a very nice highway, for the most part. I would agree that the part north of US 69 is the best part. I will be traveling it this Friday, from Henryetta to Hugo, and then again on Sunday from Hugo to Henryetta, so I can give a full report.   :bigass:

If it is safe, they would not need to govern commercial vehicles. :crazy:

Quote from: In_Correct on April 21, 2019, 02:44:11 PM
If it is safe, they would not need to govern commercial vehicles. :crazy:

Speed governors in commercial vehicles are not mandated by law.  Rather, they are an industry standard for company drivers, and we can easily speculate as to the reasons for this practice (better insurance rates and better control over the company's own CSA score are two probable reasons).  Independent drivers typically do not have speed governors in their vehicles.

The H.E. Bailey Turnpike isn't all bad. Some portions of it have been improved between Chickasha and Newcastle. The last few miles leading up to Newcastle have an entirely new road deck.

I think the worst part of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike is South of Lawton to Randlett/US-70. The difference is pretty obvious when the first few "free" miles of I-44 from the Red River going North reach the US-70 exit. Those first few miles were completely re-built a few years ago and have all new concrete slab and shoulders. North of US-70 the quality goes down quite a bit. The road basically needs be re-decked. But ODOT and OTA treat that section of the turnpike system as a very last priority. It wasn't until just a few years ago that OTA finally installed cable barriers and removed the dangerous, narrow grassy median strip on that part of I-44. Roughly 20 years prior to that the OTA installed concrete Jersey barriers on I-44 from just North of Lawton all the way to the Missouri border. They didn't bother with the stretch South of Lawton until new Interstate highway regulations forced to the OTA to do so.

The Walters Toll Plaza is pretty bad. It's a very outdated, inefficient design. The road bridge over the top of the toll booths is in pretty dilapidated shape. The whole interchange needs to be re-built just like the toll plaza renovation on the Muskogee Turnpike at the interchange with OK-51 (just SE of Tulsa and East of Coweta).

I'm not really in favor of this speed limit increase.  I certainly won't be setting my cruise at 80 on the turnpikes--as it is, for fuel efficiency I set it at around 72 unless I have a tailwind.  The bulk of my travel in Oklahoma is on I-35 between the Kansas state line and Oklahoma City (quite good with full paved shoulders and, except for the very congested first 30 miles north of OKC, can easily handle 75) and the Cimarron Turnpike (has long lengths upgraded to a paved median with cable barrier, but IIRC still has a few sections with the raised grass median).

Is there to be any change of speed limit on non-Interstate freeways like the US 64 Sand Springs Expressway?  I worry more about higher speed limits there because speed change facilities are ungenerous (e.g., at Westport Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2166246,-96.3466774,3a,75y,277.39h,93.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_3Sg__efrYVfg5uUt58JWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 21, 2019, 07:21:02 PM
I'm not really in favor of this speed limit increase.  I certainly won't be setting my cruise at 80 on the turnpikes--as it is, for fuel efficiency I set it at around 72 unless I have a tailwind.  The bulk of my travel in Oklahoma is on I-35 between the Kansas state line and Oklahoma City (quite good with full paved shoulders and, except for the very congested first 30 miles north of OKC, can easily handle 75) and the Cimarron Turnpike (has long lengths upgraded to a paved median with cable barrier, but IIRC still has a few sections with the raised grass median).

Is there to be any change of speed limit on non-Interstate freeways like the US 64 Sand Springs Expressway?  I worry more about higher speed limits there because speed change facilities are ungenerous (e.g., at Westport Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2166246,-96.3466774,3a,75y,277.39h,93.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_3Sg__efrYVfg5uUt58JWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).

Exactly.

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 21, 2019, 03:19:22 PM

Quote from: In_Correct on April 21, 2019, 02:44:11 PM
If it is safe, they would not need to govern commercial vehicles. :crazy:

Speed governors in commercial vehicles are not mandated by law.  Rather, they are an industry standard for company drivers, and we can easily speculate as to the reasons for this practice (better insurance rates and better control over the company's own CSA score are two probable reasons).  Independent drivers typically do not have speed governors in their vehicles.

That is true, but why do Insurance base their rates on speed?

Hopefully this is a just a start. It would be nice to ultimately see speed limits go to 85 or even 90. Best just to do away with them all together but no way that happens in the foreseeable future.

I-35 having a lower speed limit than The Cimarron to Tulsa is ludicrous, given the difference in medians.  I'm in favor of raising the non-turnpike speed limit to 75, but there's no way the Cimarron should bounce up to 80.

(says the guy who once got a warning on the Cimarron for driving 81...)

Quote from: kphoger on April 22, 2019, 02:40:37 PM
I-35 having a lower speed limit than The Cimarron to Tulsa is ludicrous, given the difference in medians.  I'm in favor of raising the non-turnpike speed limit to 75, but there's no way the Cimarron should bounce up to 80.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of 80 mph limits on the turnpikes that still have the raised grass median with no inside shoulder, like the Cimarron (https://goo.gl/maps/aX1PKhvRmNfmgyyE9) and Indian Nation (https://goo.gl/maps/ubNCjgCebzipEws47). Never driven the HE Bailey myself, but it looks no different from the Turner or Will Rogers from a quick GSV.

But I agree that there's absolutely no reason the rural free interstates shouldn't be 75.

Quote from: US 89 on April 22, 2019, 02:44:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 22, 2019, 02:40:37 PM
I-35 having a lower speed limit than The Cimarron to Tulsa is ludicrous, given the difference in medians.  I'm in favor of raising the non-turnpike speed limit to 75, but there's no way the Cimarron should bounce up to 80.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of 80 mph limits on the turnpikes that still have the raised grass median with no inside shoulder, like the Cimarron (https://goo.gl/maps/aX1PKhvRmNfmgyyE9) and Indian Nation (https://goo.gl/maps/ubNCjgCebzipEws47). Never driven the HE Bailey myself, but it looks no different from the Turner or Will Rogers from a quick GSV.

But I agree that there's absolutely no reason the rural free interstates shouldn't be 75.

HE Bailey is fine except for the cable barrier in lieu of actual median on part of it.  Well, that and the undulating roadbed, but that's another story.

Quote from: dchristy on April 20, 2019, 10:30:35 PM
Governor Stitt signed into law on the 16th the legislation that would increase the speed limit on rural interstates from 70 to 75 and on most of the turnpike system from 75 to 80.  The understanding is that this increase would be a gradual process, but in my opinion some of the worst four lane roads in the state are sections of the Cimarron, Indian Nation, and H. E. Bailey Turnpikes.  Any thoughts?

Quote from: In_Correct on April 22, 2019, 12:28:05 PM
That is true, but why do Insurance base their rates on speed?

I'll assume that's a rhetorical question.  And if it isn't, ask an insurance expert.

Quote from: SoonerCowboy on April 21, 2019, 02:05:40 PM
I do not have very much experience with the Cimarron, or the H.E. Bailey beyond Chickasha. I think the Indian Nation, is a very nice highway, for the most part. I would agree that the part north of US 69 is the best part. I will be traveling it this Friday, from Henryetta to Hugo, and then again on Sunday from Hugo to Henryetta, so I can give a full report.   :bigass:

The Indian Nation Turnpike south of US 270 is in bad shape, or at least it was the last time I drove it. It was rough and you could hear and feel the tires hitting the expansion joints on the highway. The stretch of the turnpike from US 69 south to US 70 has daily traffic counts of less than 2000 cars a day so it is not a priority of the OTA.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 22, 2019, 01:29:21 PM
Hopefully this is a just a start. It would be nice to ultimately see speed limits go to 85 or even 90. Best just to do away with them all together but no way that happens in the foreseeable future.

No.  :-o Not until every rail is double tracked and grade separated and every road has passing lanes. With the Speed Unlimited Interstates there needs to be continuous frontage roads with passing lanes (in this case with speed limits) and the main lanes have three in each direction. The main travel lane is in the middle, with the slower traffic (entering and exiting) is on the far right lanes. (and no entrances nor exits in the far left lanes) As for Interchanges, the ramps between the frontage roads and the main lanes headed toward a Stack Interchange. The Frontage Roads can have the Clover & Diamond lanes.

Speed Limits On And Near Interchanges, Speed Limits for long bridges, also Speed Limits near Cities. No speed limits on Rural Interstates.


signs would be needed for bad weather (ice on bridges, bad visibility), and also if there are wrecks or road construction.

Isn't it the driver's responsibility to slow down when conditions require regardless of whether the government tells them to or not?

Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 12:56:09 PM
Isn't it the driver's responsibility to slow down when conditions require regardless of whether the government tells them to or not?

Only if you don't live in a nanny state.

I don't mind speed limits on some of the turnpikes and "free" Interstates in Oklahoma being raised to 80mph. Lots of people already go 80mph anyway. I don't drive quite that fast since the gas mileage in my truck goes to hell at that point; a little above 70mph is usually good enough.

I do not agree with eliminating speed limits. This notion that "people just need to be responsible" and keep the government out of regulating speed is a stance of denial over the realities of the roadways. It is something that would only work if everyone already drove courteously and responsibly. Sad truth: too many people are not responsible. They do blatantly stupid things behind wheel, like steering the car using one's kneecaps while thumbing text messages into a phone. They drive selfishly, as if there is no one else on the road but themselves. Or they drive aggressively, cutting off other motorists, blocking the flow of traffic or doing anything else to fuel road rage in other motorists. It would be one thing if a driver's own reckless habits cost him his own life in an accident. Far too often an idiot driver kills other motorists with his stupidity. I can just imagine some moron doing 130mph on I-44, losing control and then cartwheeling across the median into my lane.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2019, 02:35:10 PM
Sad truth: too many people are not responsible.

These are the people who should have never been given a licence in the first place.  Solution: increase the standards so that they can't, then force everyone to meet the new standards the next time they renew.

Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 09:05:44 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2019, 02:35:10 PM
Sad truth: too many people are not responsible.

These are the people who should have never been given a licence in the first place.  Solution: increase the standards so that they can't, then force everyone to meet the new standards the next time they renew.

I can't entirely disagree here.  If we had stricter standards for driver's licensing, we would see even more demand for walkable, bikable, transit-friendly cities, because more people would be disqualified from driving, or some people just wouldn't want to put in the effort to meet the higher standards.

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2019, 09:30:52 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 09:05:44 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2019, 02:35:10 PM
Sad truth: too many people are not responsible.

These are the people who should have never been given a licence in the first place.  Solution: increase the standards so that they can't, then force everyone to meet the new standards the next time they renew.

I can't entirely disagree here.  If we had stricter standards for driver's licensing, we would see even more demand for walkable, bikable, transit-friendly cities, because more people would be disqualified from driving.

Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

For suburban areas, look up sprawl retrofit.  It's off-topic for the thread, so I won't elaborate here. 

Quote
Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2019, 09:54:25 PM

Quote
Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

In some heavily rural states (the Dakotas, where much of my family comes from, come to mind), it's hard to be too fussy about the required level of "competence".

Even in the less rural states, older drivers raise holy hell when licensing agencies try to make sure they are still competent to drive, whatever their skills used to be. And that goes double when their children have to "take their keys away", as has happened in my extended family. As someone approaching that age range, I'm not real sympathetic to those gripes, but they are a problem. Better transit options would help, if you can get them to live where those options are possible (and avoid travel to places they aren't), and can get public officials to be less accommodating to those who balk. Good luck with that!

Quote from: vdeane on April 23, 2019, 12:56:09 PM
Isn't it the driver's responsibility to slow down when conditions require regardless of whether the government tells them to or not?

In addition to the other comments the other people made, it is unlikely that most drivers will know if the condition exists until they are too close to it. The  Flip Disc Displays With Flashing Yellow Lights are very useful to alert traffic to slow down or change lanes. The Department Of Transportation or Toll Authority can even close the entire road if the weather is too slippery or too windy.

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2019, 09:54:25 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2019, 12:51:26 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2019, 09:54:25 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

Quote from: vdeane on April 24, 2019, 01:09:45 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

It is a different world today. Apples to oranges take.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 24, 2019, 04:13:01 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 24, 2019, 01:09:45 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

It is a different world today. Apples to oranges take.

Most people stayed in their communities for day-to-day life before about 1900 (and possibly for a few decades after, but I'm not sure).

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2019, 12:56:50 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2019, 12:51:26 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2019, 09:54:25 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

In my driver's ed class, we had to search for several blocks before we found two cars that were even remotely close enough to count as a decent test of parallel parking skills.  I still struggle with it, just living in Wichita instead of Chicagoland (where I eventually got halfway decent at it, which skill has faded with disuse).

Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 24, 2019, 04:13:01 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 24, 2019, 01:09:45 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

It is a different world today. Apples to oranges take.

Most people stayed in their communities for day-to-day life before about 1900 (and possibly for a few decades after, but I'm not sure).

LOL. Things were certainly more local. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even things like mattresses were made locally.

Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2019, 04:46:31 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2019, 12:56:50 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2019, 12:51:26 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2019, 09:54:25 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

In my driver's ed class, we had to search for several blocks before we found two cars that were even remotely close enough to count as a decent test of parallel parking skills.  I still struggle with it, just living in Wichita instead of Chicagoland (where I eventually got halfway decent at it, which skill has faded with disuse).

They had us park between cones, which was probably a good idea, as the cones got run over a few times.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2019, 12:01:15 AM

Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2019, 04:46:31 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2019, 12:56:50 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2019, 12:51:26 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2019, 09:54:25 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

In my driver's ed class, we had to search for several blocks before we found two cars that were even remotely close enough to count as a decent test of parallel parking skills.  I still struggle with it, just living in Wichita instead of Chicagoland (where I eventually got halfway decent at it, which skill has faded with disuse).

They had us park between cones, which was probably a good idea, as the cones got run over a few times.

Before the automobiles were sold to customers, some times people took trains. And a very long time ago that was with steam locomotives.

All these comments about every body works hard in rural areas:  :sombrero:

I really doubt most will ride a passenger train any more. Nobody even wants buses either. Perhaps they have nightmares about school buses. I did and so I walked or rode with class mates that did not take the school bus either. I do not remember how many years I rode the school bus. But it was not every year (except for field trips and extra curricular) After high school, I was the just about the only person to ever ride public transportation. Asking neighbours or who ever about riding me they rolled their eyes, laughed, or panicked. Buses are a nice thing to have. 6 months before I got my second car, I was with one car that needed a new battery. There was a bus that let me take the old battery (carried in an ice chest and dried out and lid closed. the other passengers never bothered it.) and dropped me off at an auto supply place to get the new battery. Cars will take you to where ever you need to go (or want to go) that public transportation will not. Also most public transportation has a schedule to wait for.

But just be cause I am open to Public Transportation does not mean that Rural People are open to it. Strict requirements for Driver License might work in Urban Areas be cause They probably do not rely on their cars and are much more open to Public Transportation and use it regularly. In most Rural Areas they will never accept strict requirements. Thus lots of people drive unsafely. Some even want to reach the highest number on the speedometer. None of this will ever change.

Driving might as well be a right, not a privilege.

Also:

Parallel Parking between cones is one example, or some type of metal structures resembling two goal posts moved close enough together. And I suppose other example is that the examiners simply parked their other cars for the students to park between them.

You cannot elevate driving to a right because there are always going to be people for whom granting that right is a clear and present danger to others. People like the blind, or those who lack the manual dexterity to operate a motor vehicle, or those who have proven they cannot handle the responsibility through repeated DUI offenses.

Should someone find themselves unable to drive a car, either by their own limitations or by statute, they will need to take up some form of transportation. Should such a thing be impractical in the place they live at, they will need to relocate to somewhere that they are within easy walking distance to either amenities they need to access or public transportation that can take them there.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 24, 2019, 09:27:57 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even things like mattresses were made locally.

The bed my wife and I sleep on was shipped up the Mississippi River to Minnesota on a barge years ago.  It has a horse-hair mattress.  Taking it apart is a pain in the butt because of the square bolts–one of which is quite rounded off.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2019, 01:56:25 PM
You cannot elevate driving to a right because there are always going to be people for whom granting that right is a clear and present danger to others. People like the blind, or those who lack the manual dexterity to operate a motor vehicle, or those who have proven they cannot handle the responsibility through repeated DUI offenses.

Should someone find themselves unable to drive a car, either by their own limitations or by statute, they will need to take up some form of transportation. Should such a thing be impractical in the place they live at, they will need to relocate to somewhere that they are within easy walking distance to either amenities they need to access or public transportation that can take them there.

Like This?

https://www.chickasaw.net/Services/Road-To-Work-Services.aspx

Parallel parking should not even be on drivers tests.   I don't even do it, I don't have good depth perception.

I disagree.  In a lot of cases, they're the only available spaces.

There is often a distinction between what you are required to know to pass the driving test and what will actually be tested.  Kansas has a driving test, but waives it for people who can produce a certificate indicating successful completion of driver's education.  I obtained my license by certificate, so I don't even know whether the driving test requires parallel parking, let alone whether the examiners actually test for it.*  We certainly didn't do parking exercises during any practice driving sessions, which in my case were limited to three for the whole semester, two of which included actual behind-the-wheel time for me.  (The class was large enough that the instructor had to perform triage and I wasn't inept enough for significant behind-the-wheel time.)

The one jurisdiction where I have actually taken a driving test is Great Britain, where you are required to know how to back around a corner, but I was not asked to demonstrate this.  I did rehearse it in advance of the test.  And, FWIW, I can parallel park, but I have no memory of attempting it in a country that drives on the left (besides GB, I have driven in Ireland), and I do it so seldom that I am mildly amazed I can still execute the maneuver successfully.  (Pretty much the only occasion where I can count on having to know how to parallel park is when I go to the county courthouse downtown to look up records and choose to park at the curb for free rather than in their pay parking garage.)

*  A very common route toward a driving license when I was learning--but not one I took--was for a teenager to take the driving test and obtain a full license, not just an instructional permit, on the strength of very rudimentary driving skills, and then take driver's education to polish those skills or obtain the insurance discount.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2019, 12:21:14 PM
The one jurisdiction where I have actually taken a driving test is Great Britain, where you are required to know how to back around a corner, but I was not asked to demonstrate this.  I did rehearse it in advance of the test.

I had to perform this maneuver for my WA driver's test. It was the only part of the test where I was marked off (for failing to stop before backing around the corner). I turned right, stopped as instructed, and then basically just reversed the maneuver. Strangest thing I've ever had to do; have not done it at all since.

Parallel and bay parking (in both directions) was part of my WA driver's test as well. Of course, the car I used had a backup camera, which they didn't block, so it was a rather easy test. I later became a valet for several years, and learned to parallel (and reverse) park pretty much any car in a matter of seconds. Point-of-pride for myself these days, especially when parallel parking in a loading zone for Lyft passengers (which very few drivers do).

Quote from: bugo on April 23, 2019, 04:31:40 AM

Quote from: SoonerCowboy on April 21, 2019, 02:05:40 PM
I do not have very much experience with the Cimarron, or the H.E. Bailey beyond Chickasha. I think the Indian Nation, is a very nice highway, for the most part. I would agree that the part north of US 69 is the best part. I will be traveling it this Friday, from Henryetta to Hugo, and then again on Sunday from Hugo to Henryetta, so I can give a full report.   :bigass:

The Indian Nation Turnpike south of US 270 is in bad shape, or at least it was the last time I drove it. It was rough and you could hear and feel the tires hitting the expansion joints on the highway. The stretch of the turnpike from US 69 south to US 70 has daily traffic counts of less than 2000 cars a day so it is not a priority of the OTA.

Ok, I traveled the Indian Nation, both ways this weekend. I would say the road is fine southbound, up until about the time you enter the Choctaw Nation, which is at the South Canadian river. The right lane is rough, but the left lane is fine. I would say it is like that well past US 69 exit, almost to the Daisy/Stringtown exit. There are rough patches northbound, but I would say its worse southbound.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2019, 01:17:33 PMI had to perform this maneuver for my WA driver's test. It was the only part of the test where I was marked off (for failing to stop before backing around the corner). I turned right, stopped as instructed, and then basically just reversed the maneuver. Strangest thing I've ever had to do; have not done it at all since.

I think it serves as a proxy for backing through 90° in general, which is a very useful skill to have not just for parking but also for driveway turnarounds.  Backing 90° to the nearside (right in the US, left in the UK) minimizes the number of traffic streams that have to be crossed but is also more technically challenging since the driver is on the opposite side of the vehicle and thus has less easy line of sight to side guides.  So a driver who shows he or she can successfully back around a street corner can be presumed to have the ability to carry out the easier offside version of the maneuver.

Every so often I visit a family friend (former neighbor) who now lives in assisted living.

Where I park (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6986451,-97.3732657,47m/data=!3m1!1e3)

I refuse to nose in, so in order to access a free space, I drive up, turn left at the portico (covered by roof), back through a shallow angle so I am entering the parking area back first, and then back 90° nearside into the space I want.  This is probably the severest test of my parking skills I encounter on a regular basis.  About 50% of the time I hit it on the nose, and the rest of the time I have to drive out and back in again to center myself within the stall.

Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2019, 12:16:46 AM
Parallel parking should not even be on drivers tests.   I don't even do it, I don't have good depth perception.

Um, that's scary to hear if you're driving.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2019, 07:37:59 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2019, 12:16:46 AM
Parallel parking should not even be on drivers tests.   I don't even do it, I don't have good depth perception.

Um, that's scary to hear if you're driving.

Not really. In mid-2004, I was almost completely blind in one eye due to a temporary implant holding my retina in place while it healed from surgery. (Had to wait several months for the second surgery to remove the implant.) After a four-week limited-physical activity period following the first surgery, I was able to drive the rest of the summer, and indeed did a long road trip to Providence from D.C. via eastern Ohio and Massachusetts. I could only drive in daylight, but otherwise had no problem with limited depth perception.

I was surprised (but also concerned) to find that Virginia licenses drivers with only one eye.

Quote from: oscar on April 30, 2019, 10:22:25 PM
I was surprised (but also concerned) to find that Virginia licenses drivers with only one eye.

Less surprised than Jeff and I, that people with poor/no depth perception are driving? :biggrin:

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2019, 12:21:14 PM
Kansas has a driving test, but waives it for people who can produce a certificate indicating successful completion of driver's education.  I obtained my license by certificate, so I don't even know whether the driving test requires...

Same here.  I took driver's ed one summer in school, I forget how many sessions.  When it was time to get my license, I turned in my proof of course completion, took the written test, and got my license.  No road test required.  For what it's worth, I got my learner's permit at age 14.

This was an amazingly simple and affordable route to getting a driver's license for foreign exchange students from Europe, too.  They were able to follow the same process as I did, then simply exchange their Kansas DL for a European one upon returning home at the end of the school year.

Quote from: kphoger on May 06, 2019, 03:11:11 PM
This was an amazingly simple and affordable route to getting a driver's license for foreign exchange students from Europe, too.  They were able to follow the same process as I did, then simply exchange their Kansas DL for a European one upon returning home at the end of the school year.

Hopefully they had originally trained to drive in Europe! Otherwise...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JioWBnZXPxE/hqdefault.jpg)

Quote from: jakeroot on May 06, 2019, 06:53:30 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 06, 2019, 03:11:11 PM
This was an amazingly simple and affordable route to getting a driver's license for foreign exchange students from Europe, too.  They were able to follow the same process as I did, then simply exchange their Kansas DL for a European one upon returning home at the end of the school year.

Hopefully they had originally trained to drive in Europe! Otherwise...

Certainly not!  No, they came over as exchange students around age 17 with no driving experience at all.  They took driver's education in a town of 1300 people in the middle of western Kansas, took a written exam at the state office, and got a drivers license.  They then went back to Germany or Croatia or wherever they were from and promptly exchanged it for a national driver's license in their home country.

Quote from: kphoger on May 06, 2019, 09:02:41 PM
Certainly not!  No, they came over as exchange students around age 17 with no driving experience at all.  They took driver's education in a town of 1300 people in the middle of western Kansas, took a written exam at the state office, and got a drivers license.  They then went back to Germany or Croatia or wherever they were from and promptly exchanged it for a national driver's license in their home country.

Assuming that driver education in Europe wasn't hilariously easy at the time, I would hope they took additional training once back home! No disrespect to Kansas, but I doubt it's even remotely similar to driving in urban Europe. Sounds almost like it was a loophole!

I think the license exchange relationship between Germany and a handful of US states is connected to US service personnel being stationed in Germany.  The last time I looked at the list of states involved, it seemed to consist mostly of ones that have large Army posts--Kansas has Fort Riley.

Nothing similar is available for Britain, which does not even have exchange relationships with much of the Commonwealth (none of the Canadian provinces, for example), though it does with New Zealand and at least some of the Australian states.

The disadvantage of obtaining a license in a new jurisdiction by exchanging the old one is that the old one is sent back to the issuing jurisdiction for voiding.  This may not be a problem for a German exchange student who doesn't plan to come back to Kansas to live, but people who intend to maintain ties to a former home often choose to follow the new-driver process in the new one and then maintain licenses in multiple jurisdictions.  It is not uncommon, for example, for Britons to move to California and then need multiple tries to pass the driving test there.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 06, 2019, 11:57:59 PM
I think the license exchange relationship between Germany and a handful of US states is connected to US service personnel being stationed in Germany.  The last time I looked at the list of states involved, it seemed to consist mostly of ones that have large Army posts--Kansas has Fort Riley.

Nothing similar is available for Britain, which does not even have exchange relationships with much of the Commonwealth (none of the Canadian provinces, for example), though it does with New Zealand and at least some of the Australian states.

The disadvantage of obtaining a license in a new jurisdiction by exchanging the old one is that the old one is sent back to the issuing jurisdiction for voiding.  This may not be a problem for a German exchange student who doesn't plan to come back to Kansas to live, but people who intend to maintain ties to a former home often choose to follow the new-driver process in the new one and then maintain licenses in multiple jurisdictions.  It is not uncommon, for example, for Britons to move to California and then need multiple tries to pass the driving test there.

I grew up in England and learned to drive there. I still have my British "driving license" as it is good until I turn 70 (although I wouldn't dream of presenting it to a cop). The test was very difficult. It was pass/fail. Miss one thing and you had to try again six months later.  I took 3 months of lessons before I took the test.  When I cam back to the States to go  to college, I passed the OK test with zero problems. It was a cakewalk.

Quote from: rte66man on May 07, 2019, 01:56:16 PMI grew up in England and learned to drive there. I still have my British "driving license" as it is good until I turn 70 (although I wouldn't dream of presenting it to a cop). The test was very difficult. It was pass/fail. Miss one thing and you had to try again six months later.  I took 3 months of lessons before I took the test.  When I cam back to the States to go  to college, I passed the OK test with zero problems. It was a cakewalk.

I have a GB driver's license (green paper) that is valid through the day before my seventieth birthday.  At the time I obtained it, photocards were not yet compulsory, and the licensing process had just a written ("theory") test and a driving test.  I took the driving test with a full Kansas driver's license and six years' worth of behind-the-wheel experience, and failed.  Faults on the test were graded as dangerous, major, or minor, and as part of the New Labour government's road traffic reduction initiatives, the pass cutoffs for major and minor errors were rejiggered three weeks before I took my test so that it was much more difficult to pass.  I racked up enough major and minor faults that I would have passed under the old criteria but failed under the new ones.

Testing procedures have been updated since and I believe they now include a video-based hazard perception test.

The examiner who failed me suggested that I take lessons.  The implied message was this:  lessons not to learn how to drive, but rather to learn how to take the driving test as it is administered by the Driving Standards Agency in Great Britain.  This is actually the main reason I tend to push back against suggestions that driving tests be made much more rigorous.  When a test becomes more persnickety, with multiplication of the specific things examiners look for (e.g., in South Africa examiners check that you look at the inside rearview mirror at least once every 20 seconds), an ecosystem develops that is built around compliance (training drivers to do what the examiners expect them to do) rather than around safety.  This training is expensive, which serves as a drag on drivers becoming licensed (often a desired outcome from the standpoint of reducing car traffic), and is not portable, with the result that experienced and competent British drivers can go to California and fail the driving test there because they are not jumping through the hoops that the California examiners expect.  This focus on compliance, besides disadvantaging lower-income learner drivers, can actually get in the way of skills development by making it more difficult for novice drivers to practice in real-world settings.

When I say I want a more comprehensive driver's test, I'm not talking about things like "checked the mirror every 20 seconds" or even NY's infamous "have them pull off from the curb and then make an immediate right, and fault them if they fail just drive straight rather than pull left away from the curb first".  It's about things like "can they safely handle an arterial", "can they merge onto a freeway without causing congestion", etc.  Stuff that would actually make someone a better driver.  I'd even find a way to include winter driving/rain/etc. if possible (if simulators get good enough, it should be possible to cover all of this in one form or another - if not, maybe a system where you're not allowed to drive in circumstances you're not tested for, such as how Europe bans people from driving stick if they take the test in an automatic).

Quote from: vdeane on May 08, 2019, 12:38:00 PMWhen I say I want a more comprehensive driver's test, I'm not talking about things like "checked the mirror every 20 seconds" or even NY's infamous "have them pull off from the curb and then make an immediate right, and fault them if they fail just drive straight rather than pull left away from the curb first".  It's about things like "can they safely handle an arterial", "can they merge onto a freeway without causing congestion", etc.  Stuff that would actually make someone a better driver.

I would say that licensing procedures have been moving in this general direction with the inclusion of hazard perception testing.  Other than this, I don't think licensing authorities in general see their primary mission as ensuring that other drivers are socialized to drive in a fashion that is less annoying to you or me.  Safety is really the bottom line and also the performance measure that is most accessible to them, through data on reported crashes.

Moreover, I think a lot of annoyance is implicitly because there are other vehicles on the road.  In some countries, the licensing authorities are happy to try to solve this problem much as Pontius Pilate might, by making it far harder for new drivers to obtain a license than it was for us to obtain ours, economic nondiscrimination and intergenerational fairness be damned.  Be careful what you ask for . . .

Quote from: vdeane on May 08, 2019, 12:38:00 PMI'd even find a way to include winter driving/rain/etc. if possible (if simulators get good enough, it should be possible to cover all of this in one form or another - if not, maybe a system where you're not allowed to drive in circumstances you're not tested for, such as how Europe bans people from driving stick if they take the test in an automatic).

Good simulators are expensive, so barring any transformative changes in the technology, I am pessimistic about the possibilities of teaching new drivers about unusual driving conditions (I would include mountain driving as well) through simulation that is genuinely responsive to user input, let alone that reproduces the sensations and forces that a driver actually feels while driving.  (My driver education class relied heavily on simulators that were likely installed soon after the school was built in 1958 and relied heavily on filmstrips featuring automobiles from the mid- to late 1950's.  There was no element of feedback through any of the controls.)

I don't actually support automatics-only restrictions for people who test on an automatic.  They make self-study in a manual legally impossible, and this is an important way for people in the US to learn manuals after they train on automatics.  At some point, no matter how many boxes you require learner drivers to check or how many options for restricting licenses you make legally possible, you have to give drivers in general the autonomy to develop their skills further on their own and to choose voluntarily to refrain from types of driving for which they have no capacity.

Quote from: vdeane on May 08, 2019, 12:38:00 PM
I'd even find a way to include winter driving/rain/etc. if possible

I know a lady who grew up in central Iowa whose driver's ed instructor had them spin donuts in the snow, in order that they might know how to correct their steering during loss of traction.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 08, 2019, 01:47:22 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 08, 2019, 12:38:00 PMWhen I say I want a more comprehensive driver's test, I'm not talking about things like "checked the mirror every 20 seconds" or even NY's infamous "have them pull off from the curb and then make an immediate right, and fault them if they fail just drive straight rather than pull left away from the curb first".  It's about things like "can they safely handle an arterial", "can they merge onto a freeway without causing congestion", etc.  Stuff that would actually make someone a better driver.

I would say that licensing procedures have been moving in this general direction with the inclusion of hazard perception testing.  Other than this, I don't think licensing authorities in general see their primary mission as ensuring that other drivers are socialized to drive in a fashion that is less annoying to you or me.  Safety is really the bottom line and also the performance measure that is most accessible to them, through data on reported crashes.

Moreover, I think a lot of annoyance is implicitly because there are other vehicles on the road.  In some countries, the licensing authorities are happy to try to solve this problem much as Pontius Pilate might, by making it far harder for new drivers to obtain a license than it was for us to obtain ours, economic nondiscrimination and intergenerational fairness be damned.  Be careful what you ask for . . .

Quote from: vdeane on May 08, 2019, 12:38:00 PMI'd even find a way to include winter driving/rain/etc. if possible (if simulators get good enough, it should be possible to cover all of this in one form or another - if not, maybe a system where you're not allowed to drive in circumstances you're not tested for, such as how Europe bans people from driving stick if they take the test in an automatic).

Good simulators are expensive, so barring any transformative changes in the technology, I am pessimistic about the possibilities of teaching new drivers about unusual driving conditions (I would include mountain driving as well) through simulation that is genuinely responsive to user input, let alone that reproduces the sensations and forces that a driver actually feels while driving.  (My driver education class relied heavily on simulators that were likely installed soon after the school was built in 1958 and relied heavily on filmstrips featuring automobiles from the mid- to late 1950's.  There was no element of feedback through any of the controls.)

I don't actually support automatics-only restrictions for people who test on an automatic.  They make self-study in a manual legally impossible, and this is an important way for people in the US to learn manuals after they train on automatics.  At some point, no matter how many boxes you require learner drivers to check or how many options for restricting licenses you make legally possible, you have to give drivers in general the autonomy to develop their skills further on their own and to choose voluntarily to refrain from types of driving for which they have no capacity.

I would think that driving in a way that does not cause traffic backups would be an essential skill with our overloaded urban freeways.  Proper merging is the difference between smooth sailing and stop and go.

As for the restrictions, I was using that as an example of what I'd do for driving in things like slow (with the opportunity to test that specific part later; before then, it would be the same restrictions in those circumstances as if you had a learner's permit).  That specific restriction works there because manuals are still so common that most people test that on one to avoid the restriction, whereas here it would have the effect of killing them off since most people wouldn't take the extra effort.

Quote from: vdeane on May 08, 2019, 12:38:00 PM
I'd even find a way to include winter driving/rain/etc. if possible (if simulators get good enough, it should be possible to cover all of this in one form or another - if not, maybe a system where you're not allowed to drive in circumstances you're not tested for, such as how Europe bans people from driving stick if they take the test in an automatic).

Back to my experience...  My school's driver's ed course was offered after classes had already let out in May–kind of difficult to include winter driving.  The town I grew up in only receives an average 21 inches of rain per year–kind of difficult to plan for driving in the rain.  The nearest town with more than 20k population was more than 130 miles away–kind of difficult to include real city traffic. 

Today, ODOT approved increasing speed limits from 70 to 75 on the following sections of interstate:
- I-35 from the Texas state line to Purcell
- I-35 from the Oklahoma/Logan county line to Kansas
- I-40 from the Texas state line to Yukon (except for a short section in Elk City and from Clinton-Weatherford)
- I-40 from Shawnee to Sallisaw (US 59)

Quote from: okroads on August 03, 2020, 02:26:47 PM
Today, ODOT approved increasing speed limits from 70 to 75 on the following sections of interstate:
- I-35 from the Texas state line to Purcell
- I-35 from the Oklahoma/Logan county line to Kansas
- I-40 from the Texas state line to Yukon (except for a short section in Elk City and from Clinton-Weatherford)
- I-40 from Shawnee to Sallisaw (US 59)

One of the news stations warned people " not to drive faster until the signs are changed". As if!!

How long does it take to print a bunch of 5s on white reflective sheeting?

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2020, 07:40:32 PM
How long does it take to print a bunch of 5s on white reflective sheeting?

If Oklahoma prints 5s, it's called counterfeiting.

Honestly, it should be extended to the Arkansas State line on I 40. Everyone does 80 to 85 on that stretch as it is. I have a feeling that Roland and Muldrow didn't want it raised due to loss of revenue from tickets.

SM-S506DL

Quote from: robbones on August 03, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
Honestly, it should be extended to the Arkansas State line on I 40. Everyone does 80 to 85 on that stretch as it is. I have a feeling that Roland and Muldrow didn't want it raised due to loss of revenue from tickets.

+1 regarding Muldrow. They've historically been one of the towns that gets a majority of their revenue from tickets.

The speed limit on I-44 is now 75 from the Red River to the turnpike.  This means that the speed limit is 75 from the edge of Wichita Falls to the edge of Lawton, minus the toll zone.

They added wide shields at the toll booth.  Driving up to the coin machine is like a proficiency test, it's really narrow.  I didn't use the other two lanes, but since they're used by trucks I'd assume they aren't as narrow.

It's 80 on the Muskogee Turnpike north/west of Muskogee. The section south of Muskogee, which has much less traffic, is still 75. The western section has a concrete barrier while the southern section has a recently added cable barrier. That might have something to do with it.

There seems to be ZERO logic in how some of these sections are handled.  No 80 mph anywhere on the Bailey yet 80 on the Muskogee??

Seems to be little actual difference in driving speeds between a 75 mph and 80 mph speed limit. It's just a matter of whether it's 7-8 mph over or 2-3 mph over the speed limit. People will do it regardless. Even in 70 mph zones, people will drive 82-83 mph, and in the Northeast, even with 65 mph zones.

Quote from: wxfreeThey added wide shields at the toll booth.  Driving up to the coin machine is like a proficiency test, it's really narrow.  I didn't use the other two lanes, but since they're used by trucks I'd assume they aren't as narrow.

The Walters toll plaza on I-44 is a dilapidated piece of garbage. You have to slow down to next to nothing going through the toll gate even if you have a PikePass. The bridge that carries OK-5/US-277/US-281 over the toll booth is in fairly bad shape and so is the road on both sides of it.

They need to replace that ancient toll booth with a design just like the latest toll plaza remodel OTA did in Coweta on the Muskogee Turnpike at the OK-51 exit. That exit and toll plaza has actually been re-built TWICE since the 1990's. The original pre-1995 design was just like the existing Walters I-44 toll plaza. They built the first PikePass friendly version in 1995, which was not a good design because it featured single PikePass lanes flanking around the toll booth, causing those PikePass lanes to have weaving conflicts with traffic using exit ramps to get on/off OK-51. So they ended up re-doing the plaza again in 2017. The current design is much better. That's what they need to build at the Walters exit on I-44.

Oklahoma Turnpike Authority had at one time a plan to replace the Walters Toll Plaza (in 2020 no less). Now the project is apparently not on the radar scope at all. It took OTA for-freaking-ever just to get the cable barrier installed on the I-44 median between Lawton and the South end of the turnpike at US-70. They put up the concrete median barriers on I-44 North of Lawton to the Missouri border over 20 damned years earlier. Jerks.

I personally don't care if OTA installs any 80mph speed limit signs on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike. That particular turnpike needs quite a bit of attention in other areas. I don't tend to drive any faster than 75mph. The gas mileage in my pickup starts going to hell near the 80mph level.

Someone can pass the Oklahoma driver test and then on the same day use their license to drive down TX-130, so the OK drivers test should theoretically cover aptitude for driving at 85 anyway. They generally don't bother, though. I took my driving tests in both Norman and Chickasha; despite a nearby Interstate in both cases, the test was limited to low-speed residential streets. Not all driver license testing facilities have easy access to a limited-access facility, however. How do you test for freeway aptitude in Beaver?

It's not a terrible argument that drivers should retest any time there are changes in the MUTCD or driving laws. FYAs and HAWKs hadn't been invented yet when I took my test, and APLs were limited to a few one-off signs in other states. But that's an entirely different argument to make, and doesn't resolve the above issue regarding accessibility of testing of freeway-related skills.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2020, 02:15:55 PM
Someone can pass the Oklahoma driver test and then on the same day use their license to drive down TX-130, so the OK drivers test should theoretically cover aptitude for driving at 85 anyway.

Someone can get an Oklahoma license and then drive into Mexico the next day too.

A German exchange student can get an Oklahoma license and then swap it for a German one upon returning home.

Someone can get a Hawaii license (max speed limit 60 mph) and then rent a car in Nevada (max speed limit 80 mph).

Where would it stop?

Wouldn't an Oklahoma resident driving in the Austin area be more likely to occur than the other scenarios listed, though? Oklahoma doesn't use No Passing Zone pennants, but they're in the book (and thus theoretically can be a test question) in case you see one in New Mexico or Kansas.

The coach that taught our drivers ed classes at Quantico High School had us driving on all kinds of roads, including I-95. And he did so pretty quickly -like second or third time behind the wheel. We didn't have any 70-75mph speed limits back then however. Heck, the HOV lanes ended in Springfield, VA back then. Now they go clear down past Quantico and end in Stafford.

I had a license when speed limits all over the country bumped up from 55/65.  I don't think everyone should have been re-tested.

Is long term competency not taught? I don't feel like drivers ed is just about "here's what signs look like" and "here's how to turn left", but also theoretical concepts. Things like why staying right except to pass is not just important for flow, but how it plays a role in road rage. Or why speed limits vary and why they're enforced. So on and so forth. Things that allow drivers to leave their home area but remain competent; learning how to drive is easy enough, but the 'why' of roads is just as important.

I do have to question the long term viability of same-day in-person driving exams. It's easy enough to learn how to pass a driving test, but driving around a small urban area isn't enough. Drivers must be taught how to handle different conditions, at different times of day, etc.

Couple ideas (very conceptual):

(1) multiple driving tests on multiple days: day 1 might be day driving in urban areas, day 2 driving on freeways, day 3 driving at night; each test could take place in different areas. Simulations could be used to test for skills not available in the area (like snow, freeways, or busy CBDs).

(2) entirely simulation based testing: again, multiple days, split up into different skills.

Both of these would decrease testing capacity, but this could be offset by increasing the cost of a licence, or implementing a lottery system.

Pilots have been using 'sims' for as long as I can recall, since it's not feasible to test pilot competence at the helm of a jet every time retesting occurs. I don't see why we can't adopt similar measures for driving schools.

Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2020, 02:30:56 PM
Someone can get a Hawaii license (max speed limit 60 mph) and then rent a car in Nevada (max speed limit 80 mph).

Where would it stop?

Right there. Once the reciprocality of driver licenses is broken, retaliation is more than likely to occur. Expect NV lawmakers to get crucified within a month by those who flew to HI only to realize their vacation plans are no more.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 16, 2020, 05:47:34 PM
Is long term competency not taught? I don't feel like drivers ed is just about "here's what signs look like" and "here's how to turn left", but also theoretical concepts. Things like why staying right except to pass is not just important for flow, but how it plays a role in road rage. Or why speed limits vary and why they're enforced. So on and so forth. Things that allow drivers to leave their home area but remain competent; learning how to drive is easy enough, but the 'why' of roads is just as important.

a VERY high bar - and even bigger can of worms.
For one, few engineers - definitely very few from NYSDOT traffic devision - show understanding of "why". Requiring that from drivers.. Heck, we have hard time requireing that from graduate students in their area of study..
Second, you just made ALL road laws relative. If a driver need to understand WHY certain regulations are imposed, they are entitled to violate if conditions allow. Stop sign on a straight empty road with good visibility is now "yield" at best, and any speed limit is a mere suggestion - if that (not that those are taken seriously anyway). Those are commonly discussed ones.  But how about a red light on an intersection?

Regarding license reciprocity: I was stationed in Rota in the early 80's. If someone already had a driver's license from your state, all they had to do was pass a sign test for European signs to get a Spanish license that was valid as long as they were stationed there (military, and I think civilian) or a dependent. It meant I could buy a POS Seat and drive it around much of Europe (though it wouldn't have made it to Madrid, much less France). I believe military personnel in other countries had the same deal.

I'd say the challenges of driving in Andalusia frequently presented me with problems I would never have encountered in Wisconsin. Streets narrower than anything in Boston. Streets that literally had steps across the entire width on steep hills. Hundreds of scooters weaving in-and-out of traffic. Not to mention the UK with its left-side driving.

It's just not possible to cover every situation. That's why insurance costs less for those who have had driver's training.

I'm good with current drivers license laws. Some the ideas suggested are flat out ridiculous. If anything, we should train drivers to be able to drive at higher speeds and inclement weather conditions. That's about it.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 16, 2020, 05:47:34 PM
Is long term competency not taught? I don't feel like drivers ed is just about "here's what signs look like" and "here's how to turn left", but also theoretical concepts. Things like why staying right except to pass is not just important for flow, but how it plays a role in road rage. Or why speed limits vary and why they're enforced. So on and so forth. Things that allow drivers to leave their home area but remain competent; learning how to drive is easy enough, but the 'why' of roads is just as important.

My driver's ed class was taught by football coaches with nothing else to do for the month of June. They went with their normal approach to teaching anything–showing videos. Most of them were just videos of people who had been injured in car crashes. The practical driving practice did, however, include a tour of I-35 and I-240. I don't remember any specific discussion of lane discipline.

It could be done better.

Quote
Both of these would decrease testing capacity, but this could be offset by increasing the cost of a licence, or implementing a lottery system.

Neither of these would be acceptable in most states, because the rural American lifestyle is utterly incompatible with not having a license. There is no bus out there. Not having a license means you are totally reliant on the good will of friends and neighbors, or even hitchhiking, if you want to do anything other than sit at home. If you live 14 miles from the nearest store (a Walmart, naturally), the prospect of having to luck into getting a testing berth through a lottery system is simply unreasonable.

And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Having successfully avoided an injury accident in almost 30 years of driving, yet failed the only behind-the-wheel driving test I ever took, I am not really in favor of methods of tightening driver licensing procedures that result in it becoming significantly harder to drive legally.  As others have pointed out, many geographical areas afford limited scope for developing behind-the-wheel experience in certain types of driving, and making it hard to get a license also creates an income barrier to automobility.  My own experience has been that jurisdictions with difficult driver licensing often experience some clawback in safety outcomes because the licensing process itself has a negative impact on drivers' attitudes (e.g., "This license is hard to get, and I have it" = "Other drivers are idiots and need to get out of my way").  As a result, there are some countries with difficult-to-get licenses that have quite good safety records (e.g., Britain, Switzerland, Sweden), and others that don't (e.g., Germany).

In any event, the best a driving test can do is measure proficiency at a point in time.  Driving safely for the rest of your life on the road is largely about attitude:  you have to understand what defensive driving is, commit to doing it at all times, and never get behind the wheel unless you are prepared to use anything you learn on the trip (as well as independent study using any training resources that are available, such as the MUTCD, geometric design references, etc.) to become a better driver going forward.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
As a result, there are some countries with difficult-to-get licenses that have quite good safety records (e.g., Britain, Switzerland, Sweden), and others that don't (e.g., Germany).

Frankly speaking, Germany is still about 2x better than US for road fatalities per mile driven. Not a bulletproof metrics, but still a good one.

My mom grew up in the armpit of New Mexico, and still hates parallel parking because she never had to do it where she grew up. Hell, for the longest time, in order to go through a stoplight for the driving test, they had a stoplight on a pole in the HS parking lot that just had switches to turn in and off the lights, which is honestly kind of fancy for a town of (when she grew up) 6.8K. It's still there, but they have an actual stoplight now. And the speed limit on the highway might be 75, but except for a speed trap, we go 85-90 and still get passed when we visit her parents.

Quote from: MCRoads on October 19, 2020, 02:09:39 AM
My mom grew up in the armpit of New Mexico, and still hates parallel parking because she never had to do it where she grew up. Hell, for the longest time, in order to go through a stoplight for the driving test, they had a stoplight on a pole in the HS parking lot that just had switches to turn in and off the lights, which is honestly kind of fancy for a town of (when she grew up) 6.8K. It's still there, but they have an actual stoplight now. And the speed limit on the highway might be 75, but except for a speed trap, we go 85-90 and still get passed when we visit her parents.

Where exactly is "the armpit of New Mexico"? LOL I see you are in Colorado Springs, I just got home from a wonderful trip to the Springs.

Well, the only thing New Mexico has that could be considered an "arm" is the southern tip of Hidalgo County, which would make the "armpit" somewhere west of Columbus, NM...

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
As others have pointed out, many geographical areas afford limited scope for developing behind-the-wheel experience in certain types of driving, and making it hard to get a license also creates an income barrier to automobility.

I would not use this is as an argument, personally. There seems to be a connection between poorer countries and automobile crashes. This is especially evident around the African continent, where there seems to be widespread corruption around drivers licence procurement, where a test is not necessarily a "requirement" with the right connections. This leads to a large number of uneducated drivers behind the road, driving because they have little other choice. Some of these countries, like the Congo, Nigeria, and Cameroon have hiddeous fatality rates, far worse than the US.

Ignoring the dangers of driving simply because of "income barriers" or because of vehicle reliance is sticking our heads in the sand and giving up. This especially egregious when you consider the basic fact that driving is a privilege. A damn important one, granted, but it's not a right. The US, in my opinion, has a duty to step in and consider how driving reliance creates dangerous situations, and doing nothing about it is not the best option.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
Having successfully avoided an injury accident in almost 30 years of driving, yet failed the only behind-the-wheel driving test I ever took, I am not really in favor of methods of tightening driver licensing procedures that result in it becoming significantly harder to drive legally....My own experience has been that jurisdictions with difficult driver licensing often experience some clawback in safety outcomes because the licensing process itself has a negative impact on drivers' attitudes (e.g., "This license is hard to get, and I have it" = "Other drivers are idiots and need to get out of my way").  As a result, there are some countries with difficult-to-get licenses that have quite good safety records (e.g., Britain, Switzerland, Sweden), and others that don't (e.g., Germany).

I experience this first hand in BC, where "L" and "N" signs are used in the same manner as the UK. These drivers are often the butt of jokes and gags, and many drivers have created their own signs ("A" for "Asian") to further joke about them. This can sometimes create a rift between classes of drivers who have those stickers and those that don't. Still, by and large, road safety in BC is superior to WA, where there is no equivalent system (5.3 fatalities per 100,000 in BC (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/police/publications/road-safety/motor_vehicle_related_crashed_injuries_fatalities_10-year_statistics_for_british_columbia_2009-2018.pdf) compared to 8.9 per 100,000 in WA (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/)). Even sadder is that WA does quite well in the rankings.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
In any event, the best a driving test can do is measure proficiency at a point in time.  Driving safely for the rest of your life on the road is largely about attitude:  you have to understand what defensive driving is, commit to doing it at all times, and never get behind the wheel unless you are prepared to use anything you learn on the trip (as well as independent study using any training resources that are available, such as the MUTCD, geometric design references, etc.) to become a better driver going forward.

I don't think it take a genius to work out that long-term experience will be a driver's best asset. But that doesn't mean giving up all hope at the beginning. I previously outlined at a least a couple options for improving proficiency at testing time; ideally, it should involve some form of virtual simulation. I don't find this to be unrealistic at all when you consider how heavily other industries rely on it for maintaining proficiency (pilots, transit operators, delivery drivers, etc).

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 01:55:42 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

Many of the most "progressive" countries around the world have extremely expensive drivers licensing programs; Sweden is around $1700 USD (https://korkortonline.se/en/facts/#calculator) combining all possible costs (largest expense being schooling); Norway is around $3500 USD (https://www.vegvesen.no/en/driving-licences/driver-training/driving-licence-fees); other countries in Europe have similarly expensive licenses, although not all. There is not necessarily a 1-to-1 relationship, however, with some countries have very cheap licensing programs but low fatality rates (Italy).

In every country, there are places where driving is the only option. Japan is famed for its public transit, but driving is still dominant outside of urban areas even though the average license costs around $1400 USD (https://www.kikidrive.com/en/fee.html) (probably cheaper for Japanese speakers). Driving is still not a right, and licences are not just handed out like a bus pass because there's a few people in poverty who can afford an entire car but not a license.

Hm.  Wonder if there's a way to normalize those numbers as a percentage of income.

There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

Quote from: SoonerCowboy on October 19, 2020, 09:22:33 PM

Quote from: MCRoads on October 19, 2020, 02:09:39 AM
My mom grew up in the armpit of New Mexico, and still hates parallel parking because she never had to do it where she grew up. Hell, for the longest time, in order to go through a stoplight for the driving test, they had a stoplight on a pole in the HS parking lot that just had switches to turn in and off the lights, which is honestly kind of fancy for a town of (when she grew up) 6.8K. It's still there, but they have an actual stoplight now. And the speed limit on the highway might be 75, but except for a speed trap, we go 85-90 and still get passed when we visit her parents.

Where exactly is "the armpit of New Mexico"? LOL I see you are in Colorado Springs, I just got home from a wonderful trip to the Springs.

Based on New Mexico's road and signage quality, that could probably describe just about anywhere outside of Albuquerque or Santa Fe.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:38:07 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 01:55:42 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

You would be. Pretty much all of the people below the poverty line in rural Oklahoma drive. There's no other way to get to a job, so maintaining a car is basically a cost of living much the same way that housing is. Nobody out there is driving nice cars, but they're driving.

A high license fee would not necessarily be a barrier to entry, but it would definitely impose a hardship. That would be a non-starter, politically. If somehow that passed, you'd probably just see people driving without a license. Stick to the back roads, don't leave the county, trust the cops to be good ol' boys and look the other way...

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:38:07 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 01:55:42 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

You would be. Pretty much all of the people below the poverty line in rural Oklahoma drive. There's no other way to get to a job, so maintaining a car is basically a cost of living much the same way that housing is. Nobody out there is driving nice cars, but they're driving.

A high license fee would not necessarily be a barrier to entry, but it would definitely impose a hardship. That would be a non-starter, politically. If somehow that passed, you'd probably just see people driving without a license. Stick to the back roads, don't leave the county, trust the cops to be good ol' boys and look the other way...

If I'm not mistaken, those same drivers (who can barely afford a car) are the same ones who are already doing shifty things: driving without insurance, driving with expired registration, driving on a suspended license. The difference, to me, is that those drivers often already have a license. It may be from a state they haven't lived in for 10 years, or even expired, but they at least had a license. I don't believe never-licensed drivers is a serious issue in most civilized countries, no matter the cost of a license.

From what I've seen (again, anecdotal evidence), the biggest barrier to driving in places with expensive licenses is not the license itself, but everything else: finding a car that can pass an inspection (possibly repairing a car to pass an inspection), finding insurance for the car, paying for registration, cost of fueling the vehicle on a regular basis, paying road usage fees, etc. The license itself is relative chump-change. I would be curious how (why?) those drivers in rural OK are able to afford a car to drive illegally, but not a license, especially when considering the ongoing cost of ownership. It is a cost-of-living situation regardless of your state of 'licensed or not'.

If someone is in true financial dire straits, I think it's reasonable that the state could offset the cost of a license in some way, with the provision that drivers must show greater responsibility behind the wheel, or risk losing the license and being required to pay the original cost of a license. This would allow people in poverty to acquire a license relatively inexpensively, so they can still get the behind the wheel; if they rack up too many tickets, they lose the license and must pay the original cost.

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/) and roadskillmap.com (https://roadskillmap.com/)), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!); then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4). OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).

States that are above or at the US average of 12.4 include: WA, OR, CA, NV, UT, CO, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, OH, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY (highest in USA), CT, MA, VT, NH, and ME.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:38:07 AMI don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

You would be. Pretty much all of the people below the poverty line in rural Oklahoma drive. There's no other way to get to a job, so maintaining a car is basically a cost of living much the same way that housing is. Nobody out there is driving nice cars, but they're driving.

When I was active on the SaturnFans forum (dedicated to a marque that has now been dead for 12 years), I discovered most of the posting traffic was still on the S-Series boards (production ceased with model year 2002), with lots of posters buying mid-nineties Saturns more or less for scrap value (about $400) and fixing them up for use as daily drivers.  There is a lot of lifestyle variation even in the lower income deciles, but I'd peg $2000 at the upper end of what many are willing to pay for a used car, especially in the parts of rural Oklahoma Scott is talking about.  (These comments also apply to rural areas in the frontier-tier states more generally.)

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:34:14 PMIf I'm not mistaken, those same drivers (who can barely afford a car) are the same ones who are already doing shifty things: driving without insurance, driving with expired registration, driving on a suspended license. The difference, to me, is that those drivers often already have a license. It may be from a state they haven't lived in for 10 years, or even expired, but they at least had a license. I don't believe never-licensed drivers is a serious issue in most civilized countries, no matter the cost of a license.

The behavior you describe sounds more characteristic of immigrant communities in entrepôt cities where driving tends to be a smaller part of the puzzle of staying legal on low and very insecure income.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:34:14 PMI would be curious how (why?) those drivers in rural OK are able to afford a car to drive illegally, but not a license, especially when considering the ongoing cost of ownership. It is a cost-of-living situation regardless of your state of 'licensed or not'.

If you buy for scrap and fix things yourself (often using salvage parts--some people even save money by using salvaged tires), then gas and insurance are probably the biggest ongoing expenses.  I don't know about Oklahoma, but in Kansas, registration renewal has an ad valorem component that levels out to a fairly small amount.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/) and roadskillmap.com (https://roadskillmap.com/)), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!);  OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).

And that is a simple, easily calculable from basic data - but pretty misleading metrics since it doesn't take into account amount of driving. If you take NYC alone with few people having a car, it will be a safest place on earth in terms of driving. Insurance rates tell a very different story, though.  US data: https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm#

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM
then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4).

WHich has a good correlation with distribution of black population in US.
Two possible conclusions:
1. N-word cannot drive, so lets  ban them from driving by high license fees or whatever other means we can invent
2. Certain ethnic groups, dominant in those states, are at historical disadvantage, and then  see Scott's  message above about how cars and jobs are related. You may easily push poor further down the drain by requiring more costly this and that, though. Those states being in a less than great economic shape is also a part of it.

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 04:31:16 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/) and roadskillmap.com (https://roadskillmap.com/)), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!);  OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).

And that is a simple, easily calculable from basic data - but pretty misleading metrics since it doesn't take into account amount of driving. If you take NYC alone with few people having a car, it will be a safest place on earth in terms of driving. Insurance rates tell a very different story, though.  US data: https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm#

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM
then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4).

WHich has a good correlation with distribution of black population in US.
Two possible conclusions:
1. N-word cannot drive, so lets  ban them from driving by high license fees or whatever other means we can invent
2. Certain ethnic groups, dominant in those states, are at historical disadvantage, and then  see Scott's  message above about how cars and jobs are related. You may easily push poor further down the drain by requiring more costly this and that, though. Those states being in a less than great economic shape is also a part of it.

MS and AL have poor driver behaviors, I've been cut off by people when no traffic is present, seen plenty of blown red lights, and never seen a turn signal. They lack proper funding to maintain their infrastructure to good conditions, and Mississippi has virtually no highway patrol so people are speeding all the time (not that I've had any problems with it).

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/) and roadskillmap.com (https://roadskillmap.com/)), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!); then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4). OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).

States that are above or at the US average of 12.4 include: WA, OR, CA, NV, UT, CO, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, OH, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY (highest in USA), CT, MA, VT, NH, and ME.

Fatalities per 100,000 people is flawed. It gives worse numbers than it should to places where many cars pass through without stopping (such as the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware).

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:24:01 AM

Jake, do you have any life experience in farm country?  Ten-year-olds drive ten-ton grain trucks in order to help the family farm.  I went to junior high school with kids who drove their own cars to school.  How, exactly, do you think someone who lives on a farm down 15 miles of dirt and gravel roads is going to get to town, except by car?

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:24:01 AM
There seems to be a connection between poorer countries and automobile crashes. This is especially evident around the African continent, where there seems to be widespread corruption around drivers licence procurement, where a test is not necessarily a "requirement" with the right connections. This leads to a large number of uneducated drivers behind the road, driving because they have little other choice. Some of these countries, like the Congo, Nigeria, and Cameroon have hiddeous fatality rates, far worse than the US.

I knew a man who did mission work in west Africa for many years.  He jokes that, in Ghana, you could send your pet dog out with some money in its mouth, and an hour later it would come back with a driver's license.

Quote from: I-55 on October 20, 2020, 04:39:46 PM
MS and AL have poor driver behaviors, I've been cut off by people when no traffic is present, seen plenty of blown red lights, and never seen a turn signal. They lack proper funding to maintain their infrastructure to good conditions, and Mississippi has virtually no highway patrol so people are speeding all the time (not that I've had any problems with it).

There is a ton of supposingly great drivers on this forum who advocate cutting off people on an empty road under "keep right no matter what" mantra.

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 04:44:26 PM

Quote from: I-55 on October 20, 2020, 04:39:46 PM
MS and AL have poor driver behaviors, I've been cut off by people when no traffic is present, seen plenty of blown red lights, and never seen a turn signal. They lack proper funding to maintain their infrastructure to good conditions, and Mississippi has virtually no highway patrol so people are speeding all the time (not that I've had any problems with it).

There is a ton of supposingly great drivers on this forum who advocate cutting off people on an empty road under "keep right no matter what" mantra.

??

Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:41:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:24:01 AM

Jake, do you have any life experience in farm country?  Ten-year-olds drive ten-ton grain trucks in order to help the family farm.  I went to junior high school with kids who drove their own cars to school.  How, exactly, do you think someone who lives on a farm down 15 miles of dirt and gravel roads is going to get to town, except by car?

If it's absolutely necessary, try to ride with another car going the same way (this worked better before COVID, obviously).

Quote from: 1 on October 20, 2020, 04:39:56 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/) and roadskillmap.com (https://roadskillmap.com/)), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!); then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4). OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).

States that are above or at the US average of 12.4 include: WA, OR, CA, NV, UT, CO, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, OH, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY (highest in USA), CT, MA, VT, NH, and ME.

Fatalities per 100,000 people is flawed. It gives worse numbers than it should to places where many cars pass through without stopping (such as the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware).

^This.  Although the measuring of vehicle miles travelled is an estimation, it is a more informative statistic than merely dividing amongst the general population. Vehicle miles traveled gets at the driving population and driving frequency.

Quote from: 1 on October 20, 2020, 04:54:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:41:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:24:01 AM

Jake, do you have any life experience in farm country?  Ten-year-olds drive ten-ton grain trucks in order to help the family farm.  I went to junior high school with kids who drove their own cars to school.  How, exactly, do you think someone who lives on a farm down 15 miles of dirt and gravel roads is going to get to town, except by car?

If it's absolutely necessary, try to ride with another car going the same way (this worked better before COVID, obviously).

I'm talking about roads with AADT countable on two hands...

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2020, 04:52:03 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 04:44:26 PM

Quote from: I-55 on October 20, 2020, 04:39:46 PM
MS and AL have poor driver behaviors, I've been cut off by people when no traffic is present, seen plenty of blown red lights, and never seen a turn signal. They lack proper funding to maintain their infrastructure to good conditions, and Mississippi has virtually no highway patrol so people are speeding all the time (not that I've had any problems with it).

There is a ton of supposingly great drivers on this forum who advocate cutting off people on an empty road under "keep right no matter what" mantra.

??

There was a pretty long thread on "keep right". My take home message is that some people are religious about that,  including moving to right lane within 10 feet after passing. Moreover, that was seen as normal by many people here. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2020, 09:29:03 PM
Well, the only thing New Mexico has that could be considered an "arm" is the southern tip of Hidalgo County, which would make the "armpit" somewhere west of Columbus, NM...

That was the part I was thinking, but just never heard it referred to that name before.  :bigass:

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 05:11:05 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2020, 04:52:03 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 04:44:26 PM

Quote from: I-55 on October 20, 2020, 04:39:46 PM
MS and AL have poor driver behaviors, I've been cut off by people when no traffic is present, seen plenty of blown red lights, and never seen a turn signal. They lack proper funding to maintain their infrastructure to good conditions, and Mississippi has virtually no highway patrol so people are speeding all the time (not that I've had any problems with it).

There is a ton of supposingly great drivers on this forum who advocate cutting off people on an empty road under "keep right no matter what" mantra.

??

There was a pretty long thread on "keep right". My take home message is that some people are religious about that,  including moving to right lane within 10 feet after passing. Moreover, that was seen as normal by many people here.

I'm talking about people close enough that cut me off close enough that I can read the radio station they're listening to through the back window. I get keeping right, but if nobody else is there leave some room.

Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2020, 04:59:03 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 20, 2020, 04:39:56 PM
Fatalities per 100,000 people is flawed. It gives worse numbers than it should to places where many cars pass through without stopping (such as the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware).

^This.  Although the measuring of vehicle miles travelled is an estimation, it is a more informative statistic than merely dividing amongst the general population. Vehicle miles traveled gets at the driving population and driving frequency.

I agree that 'fatalities per 100,000' isn't perfect (it's not flawed), but it's the best we can do if we want to compare different countries. Vehicle miles/kilometres travelled data is hard to come by. The oft-referenced List of countries by traffic-related death rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) Wikipedia article has entries for all countries under the "per 100,000 people" column, but only a handful for "per 1 billion vehicle-km" since although we know the number of fatalities in each country and its population to calculate the former, not every country has those distance driven estimations to also calculate the latter.

Though I agree it isn't perfect, you still see the same countries coming out on top: the top five relative to vehicle-km are Norway, Switzerland, the UK, Sweden, and Ireland. The top five relative to per 100,000 are (ignoring the statistical outliers of Monaco, Micronesia, and Kiribati) are Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, and the UK. In that same list, the US is third from last (ahead of the Czech Republic and Mexico by healthy margins).

These are my takeaways considering everything:

(1) the US is not as dangerous when you consider how much we drive, but we are still behind most first-world countries even though we drive more than anyone else by a huge margin.

(2) countries with higher rates of public transport use seem to fair better, regardless of the preferred statistic. Though I have no idea why exactly, this could be due to fewer miles driven overall due to more compact geographic settings; less inexperienced drivers on the road due to availability of other options; or, perhaps a higher cost of driving (due to things like fuel prices, registration costs, license procurement fees, etc) leading drivers to exercise greater caution than if driving were a cheaper option.

Looking seriously at the US, we have a potentially fatal combination: driving is very cheap, so we can do it all the time without really thinking about it; many communities are connected only by car, making it the only realistic option for most people; and, things are spread out, so when we do drive, it can be for a very long time.

The US has a very apathetic approach to driving: it is simply something that must be done, at all costs. Therefore we must do what we can to improve accessibility to this mode of transport, and we should design our cities accordingly. We don't really care how many people die on the roads, since, by and large, it's the only way to get around. That's, frankly, pretty sad.

Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:41:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:24:01 AM
There seems to be a connection between poorer countries and automobile crashes. This is especially evident around the African continent, where there seems to be widespread corruption around drivers licence procurement, where a test is not necessarily a "requirement" with the right connections. This leads to a large number of uneducated drivers behind the road, driving because they have little other choice. Some of these countries, like the Congo, Nigeria, and Cameroon have hiddeous fatality rates, far worse than the US.

I knew a man who did mission work in west Africa for many years.  He jokes that, in Ghana, you could send your pet dog out with some money in its mouth, and an hour later it would come back with a driver's license.

Although I know you're only joking, this does seem to prove how important testing is: countries with little to no testing infrastructure have very dangerous roads, whereas countries with very sophisticated testing infrastructure (many EU countries) have relatively safe roads. And it's not black and white: the US has testing infrastructure with little-to-no corruption, but we still have rather high fatality rates.

Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:41:59 PM
Jake, do you have any life experience in farm country?  Ten-year-olds drive ten-ton grain trucks in order to help the family farm.  I went to junior high school with kids who drove their own cars to school.  How, exactly, do you think someone who lives on a farm down 15 miles of dirt and gravel roads is going to get to town, except by car?

Well, I grew up in a public school district that, per the McKinney Vento Act, must provide bus service to all children. So I assume you either went to school before this, or went to school with people who just didn't want to take the bus. Slightly higher vehicle operating costs may deter the latter a bit.

My father grew up on a farm, and the first 'vehicle' I ever operated was my grandfather's 2001 John Deere utility tractor with a Yanmar diesel. I know farm life isn't amazing, but I also know that not everyone who lives on a farm is living paycheck to paycheck. I also know this country could be doing more than we are to combat fatality rates, as I've attempted to address in my post above, and this does not necessarily need to start by making it harder for rural Oklahomans to get to work.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 01:05:59 AM

Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2020, 04:59:03 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 20, 2020, 04:39:56 PM
Fatalities per 100,000 people is flawed. It gives worse numbers than it should to places where many cars pass through without stopping (such as the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware).

^This.  Although the measuring of vehicle miles travelled is an estimation, it is a more informative statistic than merely dividing amongst the general population. Vehicle miles traveled gets at the driving population and driving frequency.

I agree that 'fatalities per 100,000' isn't perfect (it's not flawed), but it's the best we can do if we want to compare different countries. Vehicle miles/kilometres travelled data is hard to come by. The oft-referenced List of countries by traffic-related death rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) Wikipedia article has entries for all countries under the "per 100,000 people" column, but only a handful for "per 1 billion vehicle-km" since although we know the number of fatalities in each country and its population to calculate the former, not every country has those distance driven estimations to also calculate the latter.

Though I agree it isn't perfect, you still see the same countries coming out on top: the top five relative to vehicle-km are Norway, Switzerland, the UK, Sweden, and Ireland. The top five relative to per 100,000 are (ignoring the statistical outliers of Monaco, Micronesia, and Kiribati) are Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, and the UK. In that same list, the US is third from last (ahead of the Czech Republic and Mexico by healthy margins).

These are my takeaways considering everything:

(1) the US is not as dangerous when you consider how much we drive, but we are still behind most first-world countries even though we drive more than anyone else by a huge margin.

(2) countries with higher rates of public transport use seem to fair better, regardless of the preferred statistic. Though I have no idea why exactly, this could be due to fewer miles driven overall due to more compact geographic settings; less inexperienced drivers on the road due to availability of other options; or, perhaps a higher cost of driving (due to things like fuel prices, registration costs, license procurement fees, etc) leading drivers to exercise greater caution than if driving were a cheaper option.

Looking seriously at the US, we have a potentially fatal combination: driving is very cheap, so we can do it all the time without really thinking about it; many communities are connected only by car, making it the only realistic option for most people; and, things are spread out, so when we do drive, it can be for a very long time.

The US has a very apathetic approach to driving: it is simply something that must be done, at all costs. Therefore we must do what we can to improve accessibility to this mode of transport, and we should design our cities accordingly. We don't really care how many people die on the roads, since, by and large, it's the only way to get around. That's, frankly, pretty sad.

You're implying that if driving were more expensive that our fatalities would go down.  You're back to keeping the poor off the roads.

Of course, given BMW drivers' reputations, your assumptions may not play out as you'd think.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 01:05:59 AM
These are my takeaways considering everything:

(1) the US is not as dangerous when you consider how much we drive, but we are still behind most first-world countries even though we drive more than anyone else by a huge margin.

(2) countries with higher rates of public transport use seem to fair better, regardless of the preferred statistic. Though I have no idea why exactly, this could be due to fewer miles driven overall due to more compact geographic settings; less inexperienced drivers on the road due to availability of other options; or, perhaps a higher cost of driving (due to things like fuel prices, registration costs, license procurement fees, etc) leading drivers to exercise greater caution than if driving were a cheaper option.

Looking seriously at the US, we have a potentially fatal combination: driving is very cheap, so we can do it all the time without really thinking about it; many communities are connected only by car, making it the only realistic option for most people; and, things are spread out, so when we do drive, it can be for a very long time.

The US has a very apathetic approach to driving: it is simply something that must be done, at all costs. Therefore we must do what we can to improve accessibility to this mode of transport, and we should design our cities accordingly. We don't really care how many people die on the roads, since, by and large, it's the only way to get around. That's, frankly, pretty sad.

Good that we agree on (1). Moreover, with more driving and similar per-mile rates, US drivers must be better than their counterparts in countries with great testing as in US people have to drive in unfavorable conditions - sick, tired, etc.
As for (2)... We may agree on too much driving, but the punitive approach you suggest is not going to work. Punitive approaches rarely, if ever, work at all. Moreover, long driving commutes from suburbs are an established part of social contract, if you will; changing that without giving a clear alternative and wide consensus is a no-go. Same can be said about many hot issues, actually.
With all that... Lets test if you truly believe in what you say and willing to put your money where your mouth is. As far as I understand, you live in the area with pretty good public transportation anyway... Would you surrender your license to make your point really sound? If not - conclusion is that you are just trying to excersize your priveledged status and make others pay...

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 01:22:52 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:41:59 PM
Jake, do you have any life experience in farm country?  Ten-year-olds drive ten-ton grain trucks in order to help the family farm.  I went to junior high school with kids who drove their own cars to school.  How, exactly, do you think someone who lives on a farm down 15 miles of dirt and gravel roads is going to get to town, except by car?

Well, I grew up in a public school district that, per the McKinney Vento Act, must provide bus service to all children. So I assume you either went to school before this, or went to school with people who just didn't want to take the bus. Slightly higher vehicle operating costs may deter the latter a bit.

My father grew up on a farm, and the first 'vehicle' I ever operated was my grandfather's 2001 John Deere utility tractor with a Yanmar diesel. I know farm life isn't amazing, but I also know that not everyone who lives on a farm is living paycheck to paycheck. I also know this country could be doing more than we are to combat fatality rates, as I've attempted to address in my post above, and this does not necessarily need to start by making it harder for rural Oklahomans to get to work.

Where I grew up, school buses only ran unpaved roads on fair-weather days.  On rainy and snowy days, students on unpaved roads did not have the option to ride the school bus.  Outside of a two-mile radius around town, there were a grand total of two paved roads in the entire school district–the two state highways.

Quote from: Rothman on October 21, 2020, 08:18:43 AM
You're implying that if driving were more expensive that our fatalities would go down.  You're back to keeping the poor off the roads.

Well, if your implication is that our roads are currently a socialist construct where fatality rate is irrelevant, I feel you're missing the bigger picture.

Our current system already disproportionately effects those with lower educations (and thus usually lower incomes), as it naturally does in every country: poor people drive crappier cars, live in areas with more dangerous roads, and drive more due to longer distances between work and home. Unless your suggestion is "give poor people really nice self-driving cars", the only realistic option is to make driving less appealing across the board by improving our cities and alternative transport networks (pick any...they're all safer than driving). We can start by helping poorer people live closer to where they work, for one.

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 10:31:40 AM
Where I grew up, school buses only ran unpaved roads on fair-weather days.  On rainy and snowy days, students on unpaved roads did not have the option to ride the school bus.  Outside of a two-mile radius around town, there were a grand total of two paved roads in the entire school district–the two state highways.

I'm glad things have changed. No wonder people drove themselves back when you were in school.

The days of "uphill in the snow both ways" are long gone with modern laws and very comprehensive school bus route systems.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 02:51:32 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 10:31:40 AM
Where I grew up, school buses only ran unpaved roads on fair-weather days.  On rainy and snowy days, students on unpaved roads did not have the option to ride the school bus.  Outside of a two-mile radius around town, there were a grand total of two paved roads in the entire school district–the two state highways.

I'm glad things have changed. No wonder people drove themselves back when you were in school.

The days of "uphill in the snow both ways" are long gone with modern laws and very comprehensive school bus route systems.

Who said things have changed?  I was in high school during the late 90s.

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 08:42:56 AM
Good that we agree on (1). Moreover, with more driving and similar per-mile rates, US drivers must be better than their counterparts in countries with great testing as in US people have to drive in unfavorable conditions - sick, tired, etc.

Not exactly what I had in mind. I feel these unfavorable conditions are ticking time bombs, not something to be proud of.

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 08:42:56 AM
As for (2)... We may agree on too much driving, but the punitive approach you suggest is not going to work. Punitive approaches rarely, if ever, work at all. Moreover, long driving commutes from suburbs are an established part of social contract, if you will; changing that without giving a clear alternative and wide consensus is a no-go. Same can be said about many hot issues, actually.
With all that... Lets test if you truly believe in what you say and willing to put your money where your mouth is. As far as I understand, you live in the area with pretty good public transportation anyway... Would you surrender your license to make your point really sound? If not - conclusion is that you are just trying to excersize your priveledged status and make others pay...

The problem I have with your first paragraph is that "clear alternative and wide consensus" is not something that's realistically achievable. There is no clear consensus beyond "less driving exposes people to less dangerous situations, thus we need to reduce how much we drive". New Yorkers are statistically very safe because the vast majority don't have to drive to work. That's not ignoring the dangers of driving, but rather elevating the importance of "anything but driving".

Living in an area with public transportation is actually an important metric when it comes to driving safety: if the area is dense enough to support a public transit network, it's likely dense enough to have lower driving distances with less exposures to the inherent dangers of driving. If someone wants to live in a city and drive, I'm fine with that, because the distances they do drive are likely substantially lower than someone in "the country" or "the suburbs", with lower speeds to boot.

As an example: 14 people died on Seattle streets in 2018, compared to 546 across the state. Seattle has 9.8% of the state's population, but only 2.5% of the fatalities. Maybe this is due to the average Seattle driver being very well educated. Maybe its due to less driving in the city. Maybe it's due to poorer people having alternative options more readily available. Maybe.....the list goes on.

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 03:05:21 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 02:51:32 PM
I'm glad things have changed. No wonder people drove themselves back when you were in school.

The days of "uphill in the snow both ways" are long gone with modern laws and very comprehensive school bus route systems.

Who said things have changed?  I was in high school during the late 90s.

There may be some states that did not fully implement the law as I originally understood it. In Washington State, the McKinney Vento act generally requires that school districts provide transportation to all students until they graduate high school or turn 18. The original idea was to ensure homeless and disabled students were able to reach school, but in practice, it just means that all students in a school district receive bus transportation. Though, moving out of district does not guarantee transportation to that district unless the students actually meet the rules under the McKinney Vento act (namely, financial hardship).

Regardless of the current situation, the best way to improve access to education is not to make driving cheaper, but to improve our school bus system. If there are still districts where not all children are within a mile of a bus stop (or a similar metric), that needs to be rectified.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 03:08:19 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 08:42:56 AM
Good that we agree on (1). Moreover, with more driving and similar per-mile rates, US drivers must be better than their counterparts in countries with great testing as in US people have to drive in unfavorable conditions - sick, tired, etc.

Not exactly what I had in mind. I feel these unfavorable conditions are ticking time bombs, not something to be proud of.

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 08:42:56 AM
As for (2)... We may agree on too much driving, but the punitive approach you suggest is not going to work. Punitive approaches rarely, if ever, work at all. Moreover, long driving commutes from suburbs are an established part of social contract, if you will; changing that without giving a clear alternative and wide consensus is a no-go. Same can be said about many hot issues, actually.
With all that... Lets test if you truly believe in what you say and willing to put your money where your mouth is. As far as I understand, you live in the area with pretty good public transportation anyway... Would you surrender your license to make your point really sound? If not - conclusion is that you are just trying to excersize your priveledged status and make others pay...

The problem I have with your first paragraph is that "clear alternative and wide consensus" is not something that's realistically achievable. There is no clear consensus beyond "less driving exposes people to less dangerous situations, thus we need to reduce how much we drive". New Yorkers are statistically very safe because the vast majority don't have to drive to work. That's not ignoring the dangers of driving, but rather elevating the importance of "anything but driving".

Living in an area with public transportation is actually an important metric when it comes to driving safety: if the area is dense enough to support a public transit network, it's likely dense enough to have lower driving distances with less exposures to the inherent dangers of driving. If someone wants to live in a city and drive, I'm fine with that, because the distances they do drive are likely substantially lower than someone in "the country" or "the suburbs", with lower speeds to boot.

As an example: 14 people died on Seattle streets in 2018, compared to 546 across the state. Seattle has 9.8% of the state's population, but only 2.5% of the fatalities. Maybe this is due to the average Seattle driver being very well educated. Maybe its due to less driving in the city. Maybe it's due to poorer people having alternative options more readily available. Maybe.....the list goes on.

And why reducing those fatalities via less driving is a goal of its own? There is a certain mortality from appendicitis surgery, for example, but that is not the reason to reduce those surgeries.
Sane here - you are targeting a very intermediate process, a part of how people make their living,  without a clear idea where you're going in a global scale. Modifying travel practices are a better way of putting it, but what are the alternatives to driving and new approaches to consider? Do you suggest that less driving in the rural areas is a good thing - what is a bigger plan after those restrictions get implemented? Abandoning rural areas and enduring food (lumber, mineral resources) shortage? Restricting off-farm travel for non-farm related purposes, such as school  and side jobs?
Everything has a price - and the question is if solution would be worse than the problem.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 03:08:19 PM
There is no clear consensus beyond "less driving exposes people to less dangerous situations, thus we need to reduce how much we drive".

Is there really consensus on that?  I notice that there are about 40,000 to 50,000 cyclist injuries per year in the USA.  That number would certainly increase if we increased how many people cycle to work instead of driving.  Fatality rate for cycling is about 1 fatality per 65 injuries.  If my calculations are correct, that's higher than for vehicles–which is about 1 fatality per 80 injuries.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 03:17:09 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 03:05:21 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 02:51:32 PM
I'm glad things have changed. No wonder people drove themselves back when you were in school.

The days of "uphill in the snow both ways" are long gone with modern laws and very comprehensive school bus route systems.

Who said things have changed?  I was in high school during the late 90s.

There may be some states that did not fully implement the law as I originally understood it. In Washington State, the McKinney Vento act generally requires that school districts provide transportation to all students until they graduate high school or turn 18. The original idea was to ensure homeless and disabled students were able to reach school, but in practice, it just means that all students in a school district receive bus transportation. Though, moving out of district does not guarantee transportation to that district unless the students actually meet the rules under the McKinney Vento act (namely, financial hardship).

Regardless of the current situation, the best way to improve access to education is not to make driving cheaper, but to improve our school bus system. If there are still districts where not all children are within a mile of a bus stop (or a similar metric), that needs to be rectified.

Even if you somehow solve the issue of children from the country into town for school, you still haven't gotten them to their high school job, to church activities, to social activities with friends, extracurricular school-sponsored activities, etc, etc.

For example, take my friend who lived approximately 20 miles from town–only about 14 of which were paved–and who was on the high school scholastic bowl team with me.  We would get home from an out-of-town meet at, say, 7 pm.  How would he get home if he couldn't drive?  If you suggest that his parents should have picked him up, then you just multiplied his own two-way commute into his parents' four-way errand–assuming their schedule was free to run him back and forth to begin with.  Total number of miles driven, doubled.

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
And why reducing those fatalities via less driving is a goal of its own? There is a certain mortality from appendicitis surgery, for example, but that is not the reason to reduce those surgeries.

Sane here - you are targeting a very intermediate process, a part of how people make their living,  without a clear idea where you're going in a global scale. Modifying travel practices are a better way of putting it, but what are the alternatives to driving and new approaches to consider? Do you suggest that less driving in the rural areas is a good thing - what is a bigger plan after those restrictions get implemented? Abandoning rural areas and enduring food (lumber, mineral resources) shortage? Restricting off-farm travel for non-farm related purposes, such as school  and side jobs?

Everything has a price - and the question is if solution would be worse than the problem.

Well put.

When I was in high school, for example, I drove 30 miles one-way every week to the community college to take piano lessons.  One year, I drove that same 30-mile one-way trip once a week to play percussion in their orchestra.  If driving had been less accessible to me, jakeroot then what would your solution have been?

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
And why reducing those fatalities via less driving is a goal of its own? There is a certain mortality from appendicitis surgery, for example, but that is not the reason to reduce those surgeries.

Well, if you want to use that analogy: Europe has lower mortality rates from appendicitis surgery. The surgeries go on, but the chance of surviving them is higher outside the US.

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 04:07:09 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
Sane here - you are targeting a very intermediate process, a part of how people make their living,  without a clear idea where you're going in a global scale. Modifying travel practices are a better way of putting it, but what are the alternatives to driving and new approaches to consider? Do you suggest that less driving in the rural areas is a good thing - what is a bigger plan after those restrictions get implemented? Abandoning rural areas and enduring food (lumber, mineral resources) shortage? Restricting off-farm travel for non-farm related purposes, such as school  and side jobs?

Everything has a price - and the question is if solution would be worse than the problem.

Well put.

When I was in high school, for example, I drove 30 miles one-way every week to the community college to take piano lessons.  One year, I drove that same 30-mile one-way trip once a week to play percussion in their orchestra.  If driving had been less accessible to me, jakeroot then what would your solution have been?

Look, you guys are throwing very specific scenarios at me that obviously I'm not going to have a response for:

* what if I live 20 miles from the nearest paved road?
* are we going to totally abandon rural areas?
* how do children get to their youth jobs?
* etc

I don't know these answers. But then, I wonder, where did I say, or even imply, that I would want to make it impossible for these things to occur? This entire discussion started with me pointing out some correlation between countries with more expensive licensing programs and driver safety. Thus, I proposed the idea that perhaps the US could consider more comprehensive driver training programs that, being more comprehensive, would cost more money than schooling right now. It's not an ideal situation for those who face regular financial hardship, but it's hard to increase the cost of anything without inadvertently affecting the poor. Driving, a privilege, is no different.

Surprisingly, hardly any of you seem to care about how many people die on American roads. Does this not alarm anyone else? Because compared to other first-world nations, we are not doing well. As I said before, it just seems to be accepted because we designed our cities around the car. That is, simply, very sad.

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
I notice that there are about 40,000 to 50,000 cyclist injuries per year in the USA.  That number would certainly increase if we increased how many people cycle to work instead of driving.  Fatality rate for cycling is about 1 fatality per 65 injuries.  If my calculations are correct, that's higher than for vehicles–which is about 1 fatality per 80 injuries.

The vast majority of those deaths are caused by cars, not other bikes. An increase in cycling rates and a drop in driving would not result in an increase of cycling fatalities.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 08:41:50 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
And why reducing those fatalities via less driving is a goal of its own? There is a certain mortality from appendicitis surgery, for example, but that is not the reason to reduce those surgeries.

Well, if you want to use that analogy: Europe has lower mortality rates from appendicitis surgery. The surgeries go on, but the chance of surviving them is higher outside the US.

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 04:07:09 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 21, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
Sane here - you are targeting a very intermediate process, a part of how people make their living,  without a clear idea where you're going in a global scale. Modifying travel practices are a better way of putting it, but what are the alternatives to driving and new approaches to consider? Do you suggest that less driving in the rural areas is a good thing - what is a bigger plan after those restrictions get implemented? Abandoning rural areas and enduring food (lumber, mineral resources) shortage? Restricting off-farm travel for non-farm related purposes, such as school  and side jobs?

Everything has a price - and the question is if solution would be worse than the problem.

Well put.

When I was in high school, for example, I drove 30 miles one-way every week to the community college to take piano lessons.  One year, I drove that same 30-mile one-way trip once a week to play percussion in their orchestra.  If driving had been less accessible to me, jakeroot then what would your solution have been?

Look, you guys are throwing very specific scenarios at me that obviously I'm not going to have a response for:

* what if I live 20 miles from the nearest paved road?
* are we going to totally abandon rural areas?
* how do children get to their youth jobs?
* etc

I don't know these answers. But then, I wonder, where did I say, or even imply, that I would want to make it impossible for these things to occur? This entire discussion started with me pointing out some correlation between countries with more expensive licensing programs and driver safety. Thus, I proposed the idea that perhaps the US could consider more comprehensive driver training programs that, being more comprehensive, would cost more money than schooling right now. It's not an ideal situation for those who face regular financial hardship, but it's hard to increase the cost of anything without inadvertently affecting the poor. Driving, a privilege, is no different.

Surprisingly, hardly any of you seem to care about how many people die on American roads. Does this not alarm anyone else? Because compared to other first-world nations, we are not doing well. As I said before, it just seems to be accepted because we designed our cities around the car. That is, simply, very sad.

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
I notice that there are about 40,000 to 50,000 cyclist injuries per year in the USA.  That number would certainly increase if we increased how many people cycle to work instead of driving.  Fatality rate for cycling is about 1 fatality per 65 injuries.  If my calculations are correct, that's higher than for vehicles–which is about 1 fatality per 80 injuries.

The vast majority of those deaths are caused by cars, not other bikes. An increase in cycling rates and a drop in driving would not result in an increase of cycling fatalities.

Well, and you should by now notice that US northeast with coastal megapoises has traffic death rates similar to the blue banana - when using proper metrics. Which should give you a hint that license price may be not so relevant.
Then we try to show you that a non-insignificant part of US population, especially in areas of highest road fatalities, is not in the position to afford higher charges but often is in desperate need of transportation. You still bravely insist, to put it bluntly, that they will be better off starving to death than risking a crash.  Which is a great idea, except that those sentenced to starvation tend to disagree.

The only way to keep this on a semi-intelligent basis is to look for ways of accomodating these people in other ways, sometimes ideas would be controversial and counterintuitive.  And once there is a decent accomodation, we can talk about increasing license price in Seattle to $10k and single ride ticket to $20 in order to pay for those accomodations. Not the other way around. 

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 08:41:50 PM
It's not an ideal situation for those who face regular financial hardship, but it's hard to increase the cost of anything without inadvertently affecting the poor. Driving, a privilege, is no different.

I think what I'm getting at is that, for a very large portion of our nation, driving is not so much a privilege as it is part of the fabric of life.  Driving in most of America is as ingrained in the way of life as supermarkets, cell phones, and the internet.  Driving, for many Americans, is an integral part of their education, employment, and social engagement.

(Bear in mind that I lived for several years without a car.  I was in the Chicago suburbs at the time, where public transit does exist but isn't the greatest.  I got around by combination of public bus, commuter rail, the L, cycling, walking, roller-blading, bumming rides, and hitchhiking.  Even during the brief period when I owned a car up there, I still usually preferred to get around by other means.  (I commonly left my car at home, walked two blocks, and hitched a ride to community college, then either bummed a ride home from a classmate or hitchhiked from the parking lot, for example.)  Later, my wife and I moved to a small town in southern Illinois.  I worked three miles from home, she worked in another county, we had one car, and there was no public transit.  I got around by bicycle and hitchhiking.  All this is to say that I'm no stranger to getting around without a car, even in rural areas.)

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 08:41:50 PM
Surprisingly, hardly any of you seem to care about how many people die on American roads. Does this not alarm anyone else?

No, we're suggesting that the potential benefit of an enhanced and thus more cost-prohibitive driver education program isn't necessarily worth the negative consequences that would result from it. 

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 08:41:50 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
I notice that there are about 40,000 to 50,000 cyclist injuries per year in the USA.  That number would certainly increase if we increased how many people cycle to work instead of driving.  Fatality rate for cycling is about 1 fatality per 65 injuries.  If my calculations are correct, that's higher than for vehicles–which is about 1 fatality per 80 injuries.

The vast majority of those deaths are caused by cars, not other bikes. An increase in cycling rates and a drop in driving would not result in an increase of cycling fatalities.

But there are vastly more drivers than cyclists.  If you moved a certain number of commuters from cars onto bicycles, such that the number of cyclists tripled, then the number of drivers would decrease only slightly.  I'm saying that the number of cyclist injuries and fatalities might still come close to tripling because the difference in number of drivers on the road would be nearly statistically insignificant.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 08:41:50 PM
Look, you guys are throwing very specific scenarios at me that obviously I'm not going to have a response for:

* what if I live 20 miles from the nearest paved road?
* are we going to totally abandon rural areas?
* how do children get to their youth jobs?
* etc

I don't know these answers. But then, I wonder, where did I say, or even imply, that I would want to make it impossible for these things to occur?

OK, you didn't say you wanted to make it impossible.  But you are suggesting that driving should be more difficult and expensive to obtain.  Hence, some people who might otherwise drive would not be able to–because the current hurdles are surmountable for them but the new ones would not be.

I obviously gave very specific examples from where I grew up.  But such examples represent normal life for a large part of this nation.  You need to understand that the consequences of what you suggest would negatively impact a lot of people, in ways you perhaps had not considered.

But "are we going to totally abandon rural areas" and "how do children get to their youth jobs" are not "very specific scenarios".  They are general questions to which we haven't seen a real answer.

So how 'bout them speed limits?

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2020, 11:05:11 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 08:41:50 PM
Surprisingly, hardly any of you seem to care about how many people die on American roads. Does this not alarm anyone else?

No, we're suggesting that the potential benefit of an enhanced and thus more cost-prohibitive driver education program isn't necessarily worth the negative consequences that would result from it.

I can't speak for everyone involved in this discussion, of course, but the existence of risk compensation makes me fairly pessimistic about the potential for any given intervention to reduce the road fatality toll, either as an absolute number or as rates based on population or total vehicle-distance driven.  As a result, I--like many other drivers--tend to support measures that allow me to shave my risk at little net increase in inconvenience or out-of-pocket cost, such as changes in vehicle design, upgrades to roadside safety hardware, continued improvement of the highway infrastructure more generally, and so on.  Tightening driver licensing tends to fail on both of those criteria (though there are some measures that can be and in some states have been adopted with relatively little trouble, such as a logbook requirement for learners).

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2020, 01:02:45 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2020, 11:05:11 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 08:41:50 PM
Surprisingly, hardly any of you seem to care about how many people die on American roads. Does this not alarm anyone else?

No, we're suggesting that the potential benefit of an enhanced and thus more cost-prohibitive driver education program isn't necessarily worth the negative consequences that would result from it.

I can't speak for everyone involved in this discussion, of course, but the existence of risk compensation makes me fairly pessimistic about the potential for any given intervention to reduce the road fatality toll, either as an absolute number or as rates based on population or total vehicle-distance driven.  As a result, I--like many other drivers--tend to support measures that allow me to shave my risk at little net increase in inconvenience or out-of-pocket cost, such as changes in vehicle design, upgrades to roadside safety hardware, continued improvement of the highway infrastructure more generally, and so on.  Tightening driver licensing tends to fail on both of those criteria (though there are some measures that can be and in some states have been adopted with relatively little trouble, such as a logbook requirement for learners).

In general, lifetime risk of dying in a crash is about 1% in US right now, so out-of-pocket willingness to pay would be about $10K over the lifetime to cut that in half.
Low hanging fruits are alcohol and some tightening of maintenance rules IMHO.
It may be counter-intuitive, but I suspect improvement of vehicle design is not necessarily a net positive move past some point. Higher acquisition and maintenance cost would push people towards older clunkers  as described above - causing average vehicle on the road to be older and  less safe. This is a speculation only, however there are actual examples of such negative effects.
Possibly there are similar effects with respect to road budgets, where a great new structure leaves a lot of remote roads with diminishing maintenance,  but that is a whole different can of worms 

Quote from: kalvado on October 22, 2020, 02:37:53 PMIn general, lifetime risk of dying in a crash is about 1% in US right now, so out-of-pocket willingness to pay would be about $10K over the lifetime to cut that in half.

Low hanging fruits are alcohol and some tightening of maintenance rules IMHO.

I tend to agree.

Quote from: kalvado on October 22, 2020, 02:37:53 PMIt may be counter-intuitive, but I suspect improvement of vehicle design is not necessarily a net positive move past some point. Higher acquisition and maintenance cost would push people towards older clunkers  as described above - causing average vehicle on the road to be older and  less safe. This is a speculation only, however there are actual examples of such negative effects.

I do see such a mechanism for clawback of safety gains as at least a theoretical possibility.  However, given that the average age (https://www.statista.com/statistics/185198/age-of-us-automobiles-and-trucks-since-1990/) of a light-duty vehicle on the road in the US has increased only modestly since 2002 (9.6 years) to 2019 (11.8 years), I don't see that recent safety improvements are failing to percolate through the vehicle fleet, albeit at an increased delay that may very well be a result of greater durability due in part to improved corrosion resistance.  (It seems noteworthy, however, that the vast bulk of the increase in average age occurred in the eight years between 2007 and 2015, presumably in connection with household debt deleveraging following the Great Recession of 2008.)

From the standpoint of clawback, my big worry has been behavioral adaptation to the presence of safety devices, e.g. driving more recklessly because the vehicle has more airbags and is in general more thoroughly engineered to protect the occupants' lives in an accident.  This is what risk compensation essentially is.  One first-line solution is for the driver to take personal responsibility and continue to drive as if this sophisticated protection were absent, so that the safety gain is preserved.  I don't know what design approaches could be used to defeat risk compensation in a more systematic fashion.

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2020, 11:05:27 AM
So how 'bout them speed limits?

My thoughts exactly. :pan:

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2020, 01:02:45 PM
I--like many other drivers--tend to support measures that allow me to shave my risk at little net increase in inconvenience or out-of-pocket cost, such as changes in vehicle design, upgrades to roadside safety hardware, continued improvement of the highway infrastructure more generally, and so on.  Tightening driver licensing tends to fail on both of those criteria (though there are some measures that can be and in some states have been adopted with relatively little trouble, such as a logbook requirement for learners).

The best improvements are those that come free to us. I can absolutely understand your point of view here, and I agree with it.

To everyone else: I did not prepare to extend this discussion to such great length. I absolutely do not want to make things needlessly difficult or even impossible for those who have less income, or for those who simply have no other choice but to drive. I am aware that driving is ingrained into the fabric of so much of society (basically as kphoger put it); the difference is that I don't believe driving has to remain part of the fabric for so many people. Driving exists in every country, even North Korea, and the vast majority of first-world countries practice suburban development, but we have the unique ability to say that we drive more than anyone else despite not being exactly unique in our development patterns. I don't believe we can improve road safety without reducing reliance on vehicles amongst those that don't absolutely need to drive (so, excluding farmers, those off the beaten path, single mothers, et al). I feel this begins, at the very least, with stricter urban planning rules. Current practices are only cementing the concept of "the right to drive", and I feel that's unwise.

Interesting discussion, but how about those speed limits????  :ded:

Quote from: skluth on October 23, 2020, 12:36:32 AM
Interesting discussion, but how about those speed limits????  :ded:

To you and kphoger: thread discussions vary all the time. Get used to it, if you're not already.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2020, 12:57:26 AM

Quote from: skluth on October 23, 2020, 12:36:32 AM
Interesting discussion, but how about those speed limits????  :ded:

To you and kphoger: thread discussions vary all the time. Get used to it, if you're not already.

And thread variances get separated out or shut down by admins all the time.  Get used to it.

Quote from: Rothman on October 23, 2020, 02:28:21 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2020, 12:57:26 AM

Quote from: skluth on October 23, 2020, 12:36:32 AM
Interesting discussion, but how about those speed limits????  :ded:

To you and kphoger: thread discussions vary all the time. Get used to it, if you're not already.

And thread variances get separated out or shut down by admins all the time.  Get used to it.

But they shouldn't here. We have been discussing driving exams and related topics since the first page. This "second round" seems to have started after Scott (an admin!) made a point about retesting about 60 posts ago.

There is a very obvious connection between driver competence and increased limits. As in, we need the former in order to responsibly adopt the latter.

Nobody's ever gotten sanctioned for thread drift. It's so inevitable it's like tilting at windmills. Best we can do is just split threads when needed.

Anyway, I think there's definitely some people lacking in competence that should be excluded from driving on safety grounds. My main objection is to imposing a high license fee, which does nothing to inherently improve safety (since you are not selecting for the safest drivers, only the richest). The only reason to do such a thing is to penalize car usage and force drivers to other modes of transit (which is not feasible in rural states like Oklahoma, as the responses in this thread illustrate), or to implement a Fallinesque tax scheme to raise revenue "without raising taxes", which ends up being more regressive than the taxes it replaces.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2020, 04:47:33 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 22, 2020, 02:37:53 PMIn general, lifetime risk of dying in a crash is about 1% in US right now, so out-of-pocket willingness to pay would be about $10K over the lifetime to cut that in half.

Low hanging fruits are alcohol and some tightening of maintenance rules IMHO.

I tend to agree.

Quote from: kalvado on October 22, 2020, 02:37:53 PMIt may be counter-intuitive, but I suspect improvement of vehicle design is not necessarily a net positive move past some point. Higher acquisition and maintenance cost would push people towards older clunkers  as described above - causing average vehicle on the road to be older and  less safe. This is a speculation only, however there are actual examples of such negative effects.

I do see such a mechanism for clawback of safety gains as at least a theoretical possibility.  However, given that the average age (https://www.statista.com/statistics/185198/age-of-us-automobiles-and-trucks-since-1990/) of a light-duty vehicle on the road in the US has increased only modestly since 2002 (9.6 years) to 2019 (11.8 years), I don't see that recent safety improvements are failing to percolate through the vehicle fleet, albeit at an increased delay that may very well be a result of greater durability due in part to improved corrosion resistance.  (It seems noteworthy, however, that the vast bulk of the increase in average age occurred in the eight years between 2007 and 2015, presumably in connection with household debt deleveraging following the Great Recession of 2008.)

From the standpoint of clawback, my big worry has been behavioral adaptation to the presence of safety devices, e.g. driving more recklessly because the vehicle has more airbags and is in general more thoroughly engineered to protect the occupants' lives in an accident.  This is what risk compensation essentially is.  One first-line solution is for the driver to take personal responsibility and continue to drive as if this sophisticated protection were absent, so that the safety gain is preserved.  I don't know what design approaches could be used to defeat risk compensation in a more systematic fashion.

I don't see airbags as something that would affect risk estimates. I, for one, never saw a deployed one in person - it is more a subject of endless recalls than a safety device for me. Costs associated with an accident, however, are a very real thing. Even with comprehensive insurance package we have on our cars(and I actually think about coverage about once a year, during policy renewal), headache of managing service (been there!) and physical pain (never say never - so not yet) are very real things. Better brakes are a very visible thing, though.

As for age increase - I woulnd't call 20% "modest". If you think about it, it may very well mean multifold increase of 15+ year vehicles.
On a similar token, pickup age is significantly higher, 13 year - and if you think about pickup clunker as a workhorse for a lower end contractor/farmer - that blends well with the previous discussion. I saw more than a few of those with panels completely rusting off.
I don't know how much longevity enters the equation. It certainly does, though, no question about that. Ratio of that effect to financial considerations effect is harder to estimate, though.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2020, 12:57:26 AM
To you and kphoger: thread discussions vary all the time. Get used to it, if you're not already.

I know.  And I was happy to be part of this side-discussion.  I just wanted to get in front of the OP or another member complaining about the length of this particular thread drift.  It was getting long and a little heated, so I was just trying to steer us back before people started getting upset.