Think about it. Controlled access highways were touted as being way safer than conventional highways. They were also touted as being a very reliable way to get people and goods from Point A to Point B.
They have failed miserably.
Despite supposedly being safer because so many of the potentially hazardous situations found on convention roads are eliminated, they have an extremely high accident rate, way higher than the conventional roads in my area. I feel like I am in way more danger on freeways than conventional roads. All you have to do to be safe on a freeway is pay attention to two things: The vehicle in front of you, and what's in the other lane if you are changing lanes. People obviously can't handle these very well.
Also, when accidents do happen, people cannot turn around and go another way like on a conventional highway.
Not sure about your specific area, but in other areas, the numbers would go against your assertion. Using 2013 Minnesota data (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/trivia13/minnesotaroadway&crashfacts.pdf) for example, the crash rate on Interstate highways is the lowest of all the roadway classes, and the fatality rate is tiny compared with other roadway classes.
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
People obviously can't handle these very well.
Blame the bad drivers.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 07, 2015, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
People obviously can't handle these very well.
Blame the bad drivers.
I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving. I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license. This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones. Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
I'm with froggie on this one: The numbers back up differing rates per class.
In Kentucky, the vast majority of fatalities occur on rural surface routes, not the freeways.
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
Controlled access highways were touted as being way safer than conventional highways. They have failed miserably.
No, they have not. The accident rate on interstates is between a half and a third of the accident rate on other highways.
It's possible that things might be different in your area, but even if they are, this would only be a condemnation of the interstates of your area and not overall. In short, even if your observations are correct (and they're probably not), you're extrapolating too much from them.
Quote
All you have to do to be safe on a freeway is pay attention to two things: The vehicle in front of you, and what's in the other lane if you are changing lanes. People obviously can't handle these very well.
You have to do all this, plus more, on regular roads. How can that possibly increase safety?
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
Think about it. Controlled access highways were touted as being way safer than conventional highways. They were also touted as being a very reliable way to get people and goods from Point A to Point B.
They have failed miserably.
Despite supposedly being safer because so many of the potentially hazardous situations found on convention roads are eliminated, they have an extremely high accident rate, way higher than the conventional roads in my area. I feel like I am in way more danger on freeways than conventional roads.
Is this based on facts you can back up with documentation, or just your opinion?
Let's say the conventional roads had 5 accidents, and freeways had 10 accidents. You may say that the freeway is more dangerous. But if the conventional highway averaged 10,000 vehicles daily, and the freeway had an 100,000 AADT, the rate of accidents are much lower on the freeway, making that the safer road.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 07, 2015, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
People obviously can't handle these very well.
Blame the bad drivers.
I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving. I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license. This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones. Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 09:53:49 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 07, 2015, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
People obviously can't handle these very well.
Blame the bad drivers.
I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving. I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license. This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones. Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.
That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).
It's also if you move to another country. My dad finished college in the Philippines in 1987 or 1988 and moved to Dearborn, Michigan in 1989. He had to get a license in Michigan too, which was pointless, because my dad returned to Manila in 1991 or 1992 and had to get a Philippines drivers' license. Then, my family all moved in 2003 to North Carolina, yet again to get a North Carolina drivers' license.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2015, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 09:53:49 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 07, 2015, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
People obviously can't handle these very well.
Blame the bad drivers.
I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving. I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license. This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones. Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.
That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).
I didn't realise that. I was mentioning for anyone even if they don't move out of their state. Driver education can change alot and people who took the test in the 70s might have different education then people who took the test in the 2000s
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2015, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 09:53:49 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 07, 2015, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
People obviously can't handle these very well.
Blame the bad drivers.
I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving. I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license. This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones. Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.
That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).
I didn't realise that. I was mentioning for anyone even if they don't move out of their state. Driver education can change alot and people who took the test in the 70s might have different education then people who took the test in the 2000s
exactly. they didn't have some of the new things we have now like: flashing yellow arrows, new signage, roundabouts (at least in most of the US), and many other new roadway innovations.
Roads have changed indeed in the past several decades, but common sense has not. If you cannot figure things out you are not going to either way. Retaking a drivers test is not going to help in that matter.
The dotted lines instead of the traditional broken lines at right lane exclusive exit lane you can educate people till they drop about its meaning, yet many drivers in later practice will still be surprised to find out later that the lane they are in exits upon encountering a real life situation.
Quote from: noelboteveraYou must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test.
This is
not true everywhere. I was not required to retake the test when I moved to Vermont and got a Vermont license.
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2015, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: noelboteveraYou must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test.
This is not true everywhere. I was not required to retake the test when I moved to Vermont and got a Vermont license.
nor WI or GA
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2015, 10:49:44 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2015, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: noelboteveraYou must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test.
This is not true everywhere. I was not required to retake the test when I moved to Vermont and got a Vermont license.
nor WI or GA
Or NY. They checked my eyes out very superficially, but that was about it. No driver's test required.
I've never had to retake either the written or driving test since getting my first DL in Florida in 1991. Since then I've had licenses in TN, MS, GA, MO, TX, VA, and LA. The only thing that's been tested is my vision.
That said I think retesting is up to the discretion of the examiner in many states; if you have a record of violations or tick off the examiner, they can probably make you take their tests (and since you've already given them your license from another state, you'd better be prepared to pass it...). I'd guess that you're more likely to get reexamined if you need a CDL or a similar endorsement for non-standard vehicles like buses.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
YES! In Arizona, once the written test is passed, all one needs to do in order to get a license is practice driving around on surface streets, stopping at stop signs etc. The majority of my driving test was on residential streets. Never even had to look at a freeway. Luckily for me though I had plenty of freeway experience anyway.
So theoretically, someone can get a license with little to no freeway experience,(I'm not saying this is always the case, but I'm sure there are plenty) and I believe that is what causes some of the problems.
I didn't even have to parallel park, but I'm willing to overlook that one :-P
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 08, 2015, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
YES! In Arizona, once the written test is passed, all one needs to do in order to get a license is practice driving around on surface streets, stopping at stop signs etc. The majority of my driving test was on residential streets. Never even had to look at a freeway. Luckily for me though I had plenty of freeway experience anyway.
So theoretically, someone can get a license with little to no freeway experience,(I'm not saying this is always the case, but I'm sure there are plenty) and I believe that is what causes some of the problems.
I didn't even have to parallel park, but I'm willing to overlook that one :-P
On my test I asked the teacher if I had to parallel park, he asked me if I wanted to and I said no, and he said "then we don't have to." I also only remember getting onto the interstate once and for about only 2 miles.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 08, 2015, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
YES! In Arizona, once the written test is passed, all one needs to do in order to get a license is practice driving around on surface streets, stopping at stop signs etc. The majority of my driving test was on residential streets. Never even had to look at a freeway. Luckily for me though I had plenty of freeway experience anyway.
So theoretically, someone can get a license with little to no freeway experience,(I'm not saying this is always the case, but I'm sure there are plenty) and I believe that is what causes some of the problems.
I didn't even have to parallel park, but I'm willing to overlook that one :-P
Back in 1990 I had to take both to get a license in FL. Obviously someone already commented that since then he has not had to take any test. So the laws here have might of changed since I moved down.
NJ used to require a test for those moving into the state. Some people would complain that they had been driving for many years, and then they wind up failing the test, and that the test was wrong and stupid. Sadly, someone in the state agreed, and they did away with testing those that moved into the state.
And you don't have to take a test in PA anymore either... http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/new_residents/driver_license.shtml
QuoteAlthough a knowledge test is not required for new residents with out-of-state driver's licenses which are valid or expired six months or less, The Pennsylvania Driver's Manual is designed to help you become a safe driver and enjoy your driving privilege in our beautiful state.
But, you still have to get your car inspected every year in PA. At a private facility. Amazing how many repair shops they have in that state that also inspect cars. And it's amazing at how many cars have minor issues that must be fixed before the car can pass inspection.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2015, 09:58:33 AM
That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).
Just to add to the chorus of "anecdotal evidence is not universal," Massachusetts never asked me to take a test when transferring a license. New Jersey also never asked me for one when I re-upped years after my initial New Jersey license expired, apparently figuring once was enough.
And decades after obtaining a license, I will say that it was slow and full of requirements, but certainly not very difficult. If you look at under-20 accident rates, this won't seem too surprising.
My understanding about modern written driving tests (here, at least) is that they spend far less time on rules of the road and far more on fines and penalties compared to in years past. Of course, no one remembers those because they're not super relevant to everyday driving. Pity they can't spend more time on things that are, since they'd stick better.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 08, 2015, 01:35:53 PMBut, you still have to get your car inspected every year in PA. At a private facility. Amazing how many repair shops they have in that state that also inspect cars. And it's amazing at how many cars have minor issues that must be fixed before the car can pass inspection.
Similar scenario exists in Massachusetts as well; but the state sets the inspection price/fee not the individual station.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 08, 2015, 02:39:40 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2015, 09:58:33 AM
That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).
Just to add to the chorus of "anecdotal evidence is not universal," Massachusetts never asked me to take a test when transferring a license. New Jersey also never asked me for one when I re-upped years after my initial New Jersey license expired, apparently figuring once was enough.
And decades after obtaining a license, I will say that it was slow and full of requirements, but certainly not very difficult. If you look at under-20 accident rates, this won't seem too surprising.
My understanding about modern written driving tests (here, at least) is that they spend far less time on rules of the road and far more on fines and penalties compared to in years past. Of course, no one remembers those because they're not super relevant to everyday driving. Pity they can't spend more time on things that are, since they'd stick better.
I know when I took it in Idaho it was mainly stupid shit that didn't have to do with the day to day mechanics of driving like "how far are your high beams allowed to shine? A. 200 feet, b. 250 feet, c. 350 feet, d. 400 feet"
That stuff was probably applicable in 1920 or whenever licenses were invented when people generally maintained their own cars but has nothing to do with the day to day efforts of driving in traffic.
and there are more distractions yet people have a fit when they pass anti-text messaging laws
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
Quote from: Brian556 on July 07, 2015, 08:46:41 PM
Think about it. Controlled access highways were touted as being way safer than conventional highways. They were also touted as being a very reliable way to get people and goods from Point A to Point B.
They have failed miserably.
Despite supposedly being safer because so many of the potentially hazardous situations found on convention roads are eliminated, they have an extremely high accident rate, way higher than the conventional roads in my area. I feel like I am in way more danger on freeways than conventional roads. All you have to do to be safe on a freeway is pay attention to two things: The vehicle in front of you, and what's in the other lane if you are changing lanes. People obviously can't handle these very well.
Also, when accidents do happen, people cannot turn around and go another way like on a conventional highway.
There are no statistics to support your view.
In your own state of Texas, in 2014:
Total fatal crashes: 1737
Total fatalities: 1974
InterstatesCrashes: 206
Fatalities: 246
US & State HighwaysCrashes: 827
Fatalities: 968
Farm to Market RoadsCrashes: 425
Fatalities: 467
County RoadsCrashes: 247
Fatalities: 257
City StreetsCrashes: 30
Fatalities: 34
TollwayCrashes: 1
Fatalities: 1
Other RoadsCrashes: 1
Fatalities: 1
Source: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/trf/crash-statistics/2014/11.pdf
On city streets, there are very few fatalities, but no one is going very fast, so the chances of a fatal accident go down dramatically. But of the road types where drivers are traveling faster than city speeds, interstate highways are most definitely the safest roads.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
And roundabouts
When I moved to Washington, I had to take the written test but not the driving test.
Freeways generally have been very successful in terms of safety and reliability. The accident rate per vehicle mile is much lower than on 2-lane or expressways. It's true that the fatality rate per accident is higher, because of the higher speeds, but the fatality rate per vehicle mile is still lower than the 2-lane roads.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 12:49:32 PM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 08, 2015, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?
YES! In Arizona, once the written test is passed, all one needs to do in order to get a license is practice driving around on surface streets, stopping at stop signs etc. The majority of my driving test was on residential streets. Never even had to look at a freeway. Luckily for me though I had plenty of freeway experience anyway.
So theoretically, someone can get a license with little to no freeway experience,(I'm not saying this is always the case, but I'm sure there are plenty) and I believe that is what causes some of the problems.
I didn't even have to parallel park, but I'm willing to overlook that one :-P
On my test I asked the teacher if I had to parallel park, he asked me if I wanted to and I said no, and he said "then we don't have to." I also only remember getting onto the interstate once and for about only 2 miles.
No interstates or controlled-access highways on NJ tests. In fact, if you can find a DMV sandwiched between limited access roads, you will never leave the facility during the entire test. It's clearly a lot more important that you know exactly what the penalty is for an nth time DUI than actually knowing how to drive on a freeway. Parallel parking is a must, though.
I’ve long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they’d be able to test various situations that don’t come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can’t do out on the road, either because they’re dangerous or because they just don’t exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers’ abilities.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2015, 09:58:33 AM
It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test.
That's only true for a handful of states. If you move to Illinois, you do not need to retake any driving test of any sort. Also true for Colorado, Louisiana, etc.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
Massachusetts doesn't have the budget for this.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
The school I went to in Washington State had a simulator like this.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 08, 2015, 07:44:58 PM
Massachusetts doesn't have the budget for this.
Does the state run the driving schools?
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
Brilliant Idea
Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2015, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 08, 2015, 07:44:58 PM
Massachusetts doesn't have the budget for this.
Does the state run the driving schools?
No, it gives the test at Registry of Motor Vehicles offices, using (inexplicably) specially assigned State Police officers.
Hiring civilians instead of police might free up some simulator money, but police rarely cede the most pedestrian of their tasks in this state.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
The problem with simulators is that they can be modified to make the test harder or easier. And because of that you'll have people complaining that the computer was set to an expert level in order to make them fail the test.
Quote from: 1 on July 08, 2015, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
And roundabouts
I agree with testing stuff normally found, but not special road features. Since Michigan lefts are mostly found in Michigan, the chances that someone from the other 49 states will encounter one is fairly remote. And then, they just revert to other common knowledge, such as reading signs to figure out what to do or not do.
And roundabouts, of course.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 06:24:42 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
The problem with simulators is that they can be modified to make the test harder or easier. And because of that you'll have people complaining that the computer was set to an expert level in order to make them fail the test.
Quote from: 1 on July 08, 2015, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
And roundabouts
I agree with testing stuff normally found, but not special road features. Since Michigan lefts are mostly found in Michigan, the chances that someone from the other 49 states will encounter one is fairly remote. And then, they just revert to other common knowledge, such as reading signs to figure out what to do or not do.
And roundabouts, of course.
The problem with that logic is most people don't even pay attention to signs at all to begin with. Which is a huge problem.
Regarding driver testing, one thing I think is unfortunate is that there seems to be a trend towards longer license validity periods coupled with online renewal. Here in Virginia, your license used to be valid five years, expiring on the last day of your birth month in years when your age ended in "0" or "5" (so your initial license might be valid less than five years). You had to get your vision tested every time you went to the DMV.
Then they kept the same five-year period but allowed you to renew online every other time unless you had two or more moving violations, in which case you had to renew in person because you had to retake the knowledge test (this part had already applied).
Now you can still renew online every other time (subject to the violations part), but licenses are now valid for eight years. That means the DMV checks your vision every 16 years. I am absolutely certain there are a lot of people who never get their eyes checked except when they go to the DMV. Your eyes can change an awful lot over a 16-year period (I know mine sure have, and my awareness of it is what spurred me to get them checked by a doctor, and then to start wearing eyeglasses).
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2015, 06:26:26 AM
The problem with that logic is most people don't even pay attention to signs at all to begin with. Which is a huge problem.
Absolutely true. I wouldn't even be able to conduct the research on this one due to my inherently strong bias -- I just don't understand people who don't read road signs. I view such drivers as broken and in need of some serious rehabilitation or having their license revoked altogether until they're able to overcome whatever psychosis is occurring to keep them from understanding road signs.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2015, 06:26:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 06:24:42 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
The problem with simulators is that they can be modified to make the test harder or easier. And because of that you'll have people complaining that the computer was set to an expert level in order to make them fail the test.
Quote from: 1 on July 08, 2015, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
And roundabouts
I agree with testing stuff normally found, but not special road features. Since Michigan lefts are mostly found in Michigan, the chances that someone from the other 49 states will encounter one is fairly remote. And then, they just revert to other common knowledge, such as reading signs to figure out what to do or not do.
And roundabouts, of course.
The problem with that logic is most people don't even pay attention to signs at all to begin with. Which is a huge problem.
False.
If "most people" don't pay attention to signs "at all", then we have a nation of people that fly thru Stop signs all the time. That doesn't happen.
If people actually read signs, they would get lost way less often, and also make safer choices when driving because they would actually know what's going on ahead on the road
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 08:20:14 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2015, 06:26:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 06:24:42 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
The problem with simulators is that they can be modified to make the test harder or easier. And because of that you'll have people complaining that the computer was set to an expert level in order to make them fail the test.
Quote from: 1 on July 08, 2015, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
And roundabouts
I agree with testing stuff normally found, but not special road features. Since Michigan lefts are mostly found in Michigan, the chances that someone from the other 49 states will encounter one is fairly remote. And then, they just revert to other common knowledge, such as reading signs to figure out what to do or not do.
And roundabouts, of course.
The problem with that logic is most people don't even pay attention to signs at all to begin with. Which is a huge problem.
False.
If "most people" don't pay attention to signs "at all", then we have a nation of people that fly thru Stop signs all the time. That doesn't happen.
The statement is really in reference to warning and information signs, not typical signs like stop signs and speed limit signs. If people read exit signs and warning signs life would be better for everyone. I don't think people understand most of these signs.
I person on the south side of Indy recently died because they didn't read or at least understand a sign explaining what the flashing yellow signal was for.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 08:20:14 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2015, 06:26:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 06:24:42 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I've long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they'd be able to test various situations that don't come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can't do out on the road, either because they're dangerous or because they just don't exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers' abilities.
The problem with simulators is that they can be modified to make the test harder or easier. And because of that you'll have people complaining that the computer was set to an expert level in order to make them fail the test.
Quote from: 1 on July 08, 2015, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
And roundabouts
I agree with testing stuff normally found, but not special road features. Since Michigan lefts are mostly found in Michigan, the chances that someone from the other 49 states will encounter one is fairly remote. And then, they just revert to other common knowledge, such as reading signs to figure out what to do or not do.
And roundabouts, of course.
The problem with that logic is most people don't even pay attention to signs at all to begin with. Which is a huge problem.
False.
If "most people" don't pay attention to signs "at all", then we have a nation of people that fly thru Stop signs all the time. That doesn't happen.
Still, the number of people that don't figure out where they're going until they're at a gore on a properly signed freeway is ridiculously high in my experience.
Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 08:25:36 AM
Still, the number of people that don't figure out where they're going until they're at a gore on a properly signed freeway is ridiculously high in my experience.
The most amusing part of when this happens is when they pass the gore, pull over, reverse into the striped area, and proceed to exit. Like, how many times did the signs tell you the exit was there? Oh right, you don't pay attention.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2015, 08:23:40 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 08:20:14 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 09, 2015, 06:26:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 06:24:42 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 08, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
I’ve long thought it would be a good idea to have part of the driving test in a simulator. This way, they’d be able to test various situations that don’t come up in a humdrum run-of-the-mill road test. The simulation could put you in a skid and test whether you could get out of it. Or have you merge onto the expressway with someone in your blind spot. Things you can’t do out on the road, either because they’re dangerous or because they just don’t exist in that geographical area. That is, testing things more significant than where you hold your hands on the wheel and whether you stop at the stop sign for three mississippis or not would go a long way toward improving drivers’ abilities.
The problem with simulators is that they can be modified to make the test harder or easier. And because of that you'll have people complaining that the computer was set to an expert level in order to make them fail the test.
Quote from: 1 on July 08, 2015, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
the test should be focused on the rules of the road (i.e. who has the row) signs, signals (types and their function), types of roads, and roundabouts and other special road features like Michigan lefts and jughandles.
And roundabouts
And roundabouts
I agree with testing stuff normally found, but not special road features. Since Michigan lefts are mostly found in Michigan, the chances that someone from the other 49 states will encounter one is fairly remote. And then, they just revert to other common knowledge, such as reading signs to figure out what to do or not do.
And roundabouts, of course.
The problem with that logic is most people don't even pay attention to signs at all to begin with. Which is a huge problem.
False.
If "most people" don't pay attention to signs "at all", then we have a nation of people that fly thru Stop signs all the time. That doesn't happen.
The statement is really in reference to warning and information signs, not typical signs like stop signs and speed limit signs. If people read exit signs and warning signs life would be better for everyone. I don't think people understand most of these signs.
I person on the south side of Indy recently died because they didn't read or at least understand a sign explaining what the flashing yellow signal was for.
OK, fine, then we will have a nation of people that go straight instead of heeding the curve ahead sign.
As for the ONE person that died, you do understand that hundreds or thousands of others that day alone went thru that light without an issue, right? And then we can say that's true every day. If one person died at that intersection over the past year, that's a very low percentage of people (like, 0.000000001%) that didn't understand the sign.
Yes, not everyone may read every single sign out there, or comprehend every single sign. And they still read Exit signs...they just try to get over too late, or figure out that's the exit they wanted too late.
Trust me, no one here is a perfect driver. No doubt you've almost missed your exit too once in a while.
Nah. I am a perfect driver.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 09, 2015, 08:27:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 08:25:36 AM
Still, the number of people that don't figure out where they're going until they're at a gore on a properly signed freeway is ridiculously high in my experience.
The most amusing part of when this happens is when they pass the gore, pull over, reverse into the striped area, and proceed to exit. Like, how many times did the signs tell you the exit was there? Oh right, you don't pay attention.
Heh. Sunday afternoon I saw someone stop on the shoulder and then drive across the grass between the road and the exit ramp to go from I-295 in Maryland to the Wilson Bridge.
Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2015, 09:16:31 PM
Not sure about your specific area, but in other areas, the numbers would go against your assertion. Using 2013 Minnesota data (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/trivia13/minnesotaroadway&crashfacts.pdf) for example, the crash rate on Interstate highways is the lowest of all the roadway classes, and the fatality rate is tiny compared with other roadway classes.
I agree with what Adam has written above, and assert it holds true across the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Freeway-class roads are generally the safest roads. Note that there are some known unsafe limited-access roads, generally with older designs and not always built to freeway standards.
Three examples are I-278 in much of New York City, I-76 in Philadelphia (Schuylkill Expressway, sometimes called the Sure-Kill for that reason) and D.C. 295 in the District of Columbia.
All are relatively old, and have segments that were designed and engineered with features that would never gain approval today.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 08, 2015, 03:20:20 PM
On city streets, there are very few fatalities, but no one is going very fast, so the chances of a fatal accident go down dramatically. But of the road types where drivers are traveling faster than city speeds, interstate highways are most definitely the safest roads.
When vehicle miles travelled (VMT) is accounted for, the case for freeway-class roads becomes compelling.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2015, 10:57:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2015, 09:16:31 PM
Not sure about your specific area, but in other areas, the numbers would go against your assertion. Using 2013 Minnesota data (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/trivia13/minnesotaroadway&crashfacts.pdf) for example, the crash rate on Interstate highways is the lowest of all the roadway classes, and the fatality rate is tiny compared with other roadway classes.
I agree with what Adam has written above, and assert it holds true across the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Freeway-class roads are generally the safest roads. Note that there are some known unsafe limited-access roads, generally with older designs and not always built to freeway standards.
Three examples are I-278 in much of New York City, I-76 in Philadelphia (Schuylkill Expressway, sometimes called the Sure-Kill for that reason) and D.C. 295 in the District of Columbia.
All are relatively old, and have segments that were designed and engineered with features that would never gain approval today.
Even then, they are safe, and fatals are minimal - lower than some properly designed but very rural highways - because speeds tend to be low from congestion.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2015, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2015, 10:57:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2015, 09:16:31 PM
Not sure about your specific area, but in other areas, the numbers would go against your assertion. Using 2013 Minnesota data (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/trivia13/minnesotaroadway&crashfacts.pdf) for example, the crash rate on Interstate highways is the lowest of all the roadway classes, and the fatality rate is tiny compared with other roadway classes.
I agree with what Adam has written above, and assert it holds true across the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Freeway-class roads are generally the safest roads. Note that there are some known unsafe limited-access roads, generally with older designs and not always built to freeway standards.
Three examples are I-278 in much of New York City, I-76 in Philadelphia (Schuylkill Expressway, sometimes called the Sure-Kill for that reason) and D.C. 295 in the District of Columbia.
All are relatively old, and have segments that were designed and engineered with features that would never gain approval today.
Even then, they are safe, and fatals are minimal - lower than some properly designed but very rural highways - because speeds tend to be low from congestion.
Heh. So...perhaps we should poorly engineer freeways so they cause congestion and are therefore safer? :D
Quote from: Rothman on July 10, 2015, 11:41:24 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2015, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2015, 10:57:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2015, 09:16:31 PM
Not sure about your specific area, but in other areas, the numbers would go against your assertion. Using 2013 Minnesota data (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/trivia13/minnesotaroadway&crashfacts.pdf) for example, the crash rate on Interstate highways is the lowest of all the roadway classes, and the fatality rate is tiny compared with other roadway classes.
I agree with what Adam has written above, and assert it holds true across the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Freeway-class roads are generally the safest roads. Note that there are some known unsafe limited-access roads, generally with older designs and not always built to freeway standards.
Three examples are I-278 in much of New York City, I-76 in Philadelphia (Schuylkill Expressway, sometimes called the Sure-Kill for that reason) and D.C. 295 in the District of Columbia.
All are relatively old, and have segments that were designed and engineered with features that would never gain approval today.
Even then, they are safe, and fatals are minimal - lower than some properly designed but very rural highways - because speeds tend to be low from congestion.
Heh. So...perhaps we should poorly engineer freeways so they cause congestion and are therefore safer? :D
Or crowd an area. Take NJ for example: NJSP & NJDOT notes in many of their publications that NJ has one of the lowest fatal rates in the country because the roads are too crowded much of the time.
I first learned to drive in Hawaii and my road test was on "urban" (Lihue on Kauai is not a big town) and suburban streets (no freeways on that island), and I had to renew my driver's license once while I lived over there, and I had another eye test. When I moved from there to California, I took a written test. When I moved to Arizona, I didn't even have to take a written test; just exchanged my California driver's license for an Arizona one.