What if we stopped requiring indoor driving classes?

[tolbs17]

Just throw the person in the car and let him/her take the test. I hate taking driving classes. More freedom!!!

Edit: meant for the General Highway Talk section. Not here.

2nd edit: Edited to make it more realistic and less fictional.

[hotdogPi]

Very strong oppose. Drunks won't lose a license if they don't need one, so there will be more of them on the road. No minimum driving age. More Lord Carhorns.

Also, you want to change the entire country (or world) because you personally don't like taking driving lessons? While they have a few problems (e.g. teaching to the test), your personal beliefs don't trump the necessities of the entire country.

This kind of thread is supposed to wait another 3 1/2 months.

[SkyPesos]

Passing the exam for a license is already easy enough in the US.

[tolbs17]

Or I can say, maybe make it easier just by putting the student in the vehicle and test him/her in the car and if he/she passes the course, then they should obtain their Driving Eligibility certificate.

[tolbs17]

Very strong oppose. Drunks won't lose a license if they don't need one, so there will be more of them on the road. No minimum driving age. More Lord Carhorns.

I have people in my family that drive and they are not licensed, that's particular why I asked this question of why we should stop requiring licenses or at least make it easier to pass the driving class without having to go through a long series of boring indoor classes that take weeks to finish.

[SkyPesos]

I have people in my family that drive and they are not licensed

Is Mary Hannah one of them? I see a suspicious link between attempting to drive without a license and peekaboo.

[tolbs17]

I have people in my family that drive and they are not licensed

Is Mary Hannah one of them? I see a suspicious link between attempting to drive without a license and peekaboo.

Noooo....

[hotdogPi]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road. And if they are able to get a license, they should get one.

[Jim]

Having just driven to from the Albany area to Boston and back today on what was apparently Reckless Driver Day in both New York and Massachusetts, I'm in favor of much tougher standards to obtain a license.

[tolbs17]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

[tolbs17]

Having just driven to from the Albany area to Boston and back today on what was apparently Reckless Driver Day in both New York and Massachusetts, I'm in favor of much tougher standards to obtain a license.

Like should they extend the indoor instructional time to 2 months or give out harder quizzes? Or raise the driving age to 18 or even 21?

[SkyPesos]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Getting a license revoked for drunk driving is not a good reason to not require them anymore.

[tolbs17]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Getting a license revoked for drunk driving is not a good reason to not require them anymore.

Yes, but not my main reason why they should not do anything to the licenses. My main concern is that taking long-ass instructional time in the classrooms. Driving courses are quicker, more fun, and entertaining.

[Max Rockatansky]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me. 

[tolbs17]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.

Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.

[SkyPesos]

Yes, but not my main reason why they should not do anything to the licenses. My main concern is that taking long-ass instructional time in the classrooms. Driving courses are quicker, more fun, and entertaining.

The classroom instructional time is part of the driving course, and I think it's pretty important too. At least for Ohio, both the classroom instruction and on-road training are required actually: 24 hours in classroom, 8 hours driving w/ instructor, and 50 hours driving (including 10 hours of night time driving) on your own time, with a parent in the passenger seat.

[Max Rockatansky]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.

Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.

That's not what I implied.  People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license.  At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license.  Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria. 

So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.

[tolbs17]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.

Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.

That's not what I implied.  People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license.  At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license.  Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria. 

So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.

And that's pretty much what a criminal is...

[Max Rockatansky]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.

Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.

That's not what I implied.  People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license.  At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license.  Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria. 

So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.

And that's pretty much what a criminal is...

No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense.  It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads. 

[tolbs17]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.

Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.

That's not what I implied.  People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license.  At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license.  Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria. 

So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.

And that's pretty much what a criminal is...

No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense.  It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads.

Understandable now.

[Max Rockatansky]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.

Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.

That's not what I implied.  People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license.  At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license.  Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria. 

So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.

And that's pretty much what a criminal is...

No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense.  It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads.

Understandable now.

I don't think you do understand.  You keep creating these worthless threads, one would have thought you would stopped after the Peekaboo incident.  Please do us all the favor of not spamming the forum with threads of little to no value. 

[Bruce]

Driving classes are a joke in the United States.

It should be a year-long course on the weekends, including field trips for practical training in all sorts of weather conditions and through diverse environments. The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.

The tests themselves should be multi-part and be split into summer and winter sections. They should also be followed up every few years to assess drivers and teach them new skills as necessary, mostly to get senior drivers off the road before they kill more people.

[tolbs17]

Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.

Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.

Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.

Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.

That's not what I implied.  People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license.  At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license.  Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria. 

So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.

And that's pretty much what a criminal is...

No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense.  It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads.

Understandable now.

I don't think you do understand.  You keep creating these worthless threads, one would have thought you would stopped after the Peekaboo incident.  Please do us all the favor of not spamming the forum with threads of little to no value.

I did stop. This is a thread about what if we made the indoor classes easier to obtain a DL.

[tolbs17]

To add, I think the rest of the world's driving classes (Like in Europe) has harder lessons even Japan... they have much more difficult classes to pass.

[formulanone]

Where can I obtain one of these indoor driving courses? I grew up in a household where indoor driving had a strong punishment.