In the same vain of the cyclist hate thread, does anyone else get annoyed when they get stuck behind a school bus on a main road and they're stopping every tenth of a mile?
Please note, this thread is NOT meant to bash school bus drivers, just the laws and the nuisances they create. They have a duty to ensure the safety of the children they're transporting.
Yes, I do, but that is life. They are a fact of life on the road.
I'll turn around or pass them when legal.
Yep. There's one on my commute; just one stop on where I drive, but I try to get by him where I can; it's easy because of a turn onto a four lane road, unless someone in front decides they want to say behind the bus; it's as if some people want to stop (or force others to).
What's worse is when you're working a road construction job, and a school bus has to get through your job site. You have to allocate special turn radii and reconfigure your traffic control plan to accommodate them, or the bus stops right in the middle of your single lane of live traffic when the other lane's closed. Jobs usually start at 7am, and as soon as the contractors mobilize that's when the kids are transported to school. wahmp wahmp
Yes...just because I'm coming from the other direction doesn't mean I have to stop. It's rational if you had to stop behind it, but in front of it in the opposite direction?
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 21, 2016, 07:13:33 PM
Yes...just because I'm coming from the other direction doesn't mean I have to stop. It's rational if you had to stop behind it, but in front of it in the opposite direction?
If a child is on the opposite side of the road and they need to cross...?
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 21, 2016, 07:13:33 PM
Yes...just because I'm coming from the other direction doesn't mean I have to stop. It's rational if you had to stop behind it, but in front of it in the opposite direction?
I don't agree with your post, but even if I did, you're only stopping once for that bus, whereas someone behind the bus has to stop every time the bus stops.
I do not fault school buses for anything about the way they drive or stop.
I do, however, believe the expectation that all traffic in both directions must stop whenever the school bus does is needlessly heavy handed. This is an expectation largely particular to the US and Canada, most of the world allows drivers to pass stopped school buses at low speed and/or with appropriate caution. Children in these countries somehow survive in spite of this.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2016, 07:41:45 PM
I do not fault school buses for anything about the way they drive or stop.
I do, however, believe the expectation that all traffic in both directions must stop whenever the school bus does is needlessly heavy handed. This is an expectation largely particular to the US and Canada, most of the world allows drivers to pass stopped school buses at low speed and/or with appropriate caution. Children in these countries somehow survive in spite of this.
Do other countries allow busses to drop off children who live on the opposite side of the road? I think part of requiring all directions to stop when the road isn't divided/multi-lanes is to create a safe crossing for children.
It should also be noted that it is only illegal to PASS a school bus with its red flashing lights on. You can turn opposite the bus or go straight across an intersection
The only time I fault buses is when they stop in front of every single house, even when the houses are next door to each other. Even worse when the child remains in the house (or car) until the bus comes to a complete stop.
On a route I took on rare occasion, a school bus was picking up a handicap child. Instead of pulling over on the full shoulder, the bus remained in the travel lane, blocking traffic for over 5 minutes.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 21, 2016, 10:19:35 PM
Do other countries allow busses to drop off children who live on the opposite side of the road?
Yes. Other countries also trust drivers to yield to children crossing the street without issuing a commandment from on high that everyone shalt come to a complete stop in a situation where one might.
Because, y'know, other countries expect that if you have a license you should actually know how to drive.
Hate, no. Minor annoyance at most.
We don't do stops at every house, except for special ed students. The school buses in Seattle usually only stop every 1/10 to 1/4 mile, and at some point in their stop routine they'll sit without their red lights flashing so car traffic behind them can pass.
The district I went to high school in does stops at every house if there aren't sidewalks. That got annoying after a while because the town is quite developed, even were sidewalks are not present. There are routes that will stop at every third house for 6 straight stops.
As I've already said on threads about this before, I think Washington has the best laws: stop for a school bus if the road has two or fewer lanes. Three or more does not require a stop for traffic heading in the opposite direction. Traffic corresponding with the direction of the bus must stop, just in case a child attempts to cross the street anyways.
One big fault with school busses is the routes that have been plotted for them.
Case in point: my town (Marysville, WA) has a railroad running north-south parallel to the main arterial. School buses should, logically, try to avoid crossing the railroad unless at the tail end of their route towards school and only coming perpendicular without a turn. Instead, school buses are forced to wait a light cycle to turn, stop mid-intersection and wait at the track, then lurch over the raised crossing and be on their merry way. During morning peak, it often delays another light cycle, which creates some bad backups that could be avoided by smart planning (mainly, school assignments for certain neighborhoods and routing decisions).
Meanwhile, the local transit agency has done everything in their power to re-structure buses to avoid track crossings. Only from a perpendicular angle and never on a turn. It's worked out wonderfully, with most buses able to get out of the intersection before the next light cycle.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2016, 10:38:34 PMYes. Other countries also trust drivers to yield to children crossing the street without issuing a commandment from on high that everyone shalt come to a complete stop in a situation where one might.
Because, y'know, other countries expect that if you have a license you should actually know how to drive.
How very dare they! ;)
The US assumes that the person on the road is a total idiot needing to be told exactly how to drive and kept in a safety blanket of clear rules applied without nuance, the UK assumes that the person on the road has some sense and judgement (though less and less, and our fatality rate is stagnating, rather than declining - though it is still half of that in the US).
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 21, 2016, 10:19:35 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2016, 07:41:45 PM
I do not fault school buses for anything about the way they drive or stop.
I do, however, believe the expectation that all traffic in both directions must stop whenever the school bus does is needlessly heavy handed. This is an expectation largely particular to the US and Canada, most of the world allows drivers to pass stopped school buses at low speed and/or with appropriate caution. Children in these countries somehow survive in spite of this.
Do other countries allow busses to drop off children who live on the opposite side of the road? I think part of requiring all directions to stop when the road isn't divided/multi-lanes is to create a safe crossing for children.
It should also be noted that it is only illegal to PASS a school bus with its red flashing lights on. You can turn opposite the bus or go straight across an intersection
Regarding the bolder text, that depends on where you are. Once again we see why posts saying "it's illegal to..." or "you're allowed to...." in reference to traffic law are often misleading because the poster failed to specify in which jurisdiction that law applies.
Scroll to page 2, top of the right-hand column, of this document. In Virginia, if the school bus has the red lights on at an intersection, all directions have to stop: http://dmvnow.com/webdoc/pdf/dmv39d.pdf
What drives me crazy is people who won't pass the bus when the yellow flashing lights come on as the bus is preparing to stop. I try to accelerate, if possible, so as not to get stuck!
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 22, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
Scroll to page 2, top of the right-hand column, of this document. In Virginia, if the school bus has the red lights on at an intersection, all directions have to stop: http://dmvnow.com/webdoc/pdf/dmv39d.pdf
There's no flashing lights on the side of the bus. How would a driver on the cross street know if the bus is stopped at a stop sign, if the bus is waiting to turn, or stopped to let kids on or off the bus (especially if kids aren't actually crossing the street)?
I've seen on a few occasions the way-overly cautious driver. Bus is stopped waiting to make a left turn. Car coming the other way sees the bus stopped, and thinks it's stopped to let kids off (ignoring the fact that the left turn signal is flashing, and no red lights are flashing). So the car stops....directly in front of the side street the bus is waiting to turn onto!
School buses are also a big political thing, which can be (and actually is) misused quite a bit.
For example all the "stop for stopped school bus" thing doesn't account for 2/3 of "school-age pedestrian who died in school-
transportation-related crashes" were killed by.... school buses or vehicles used as school buses.
Or infamous accident (2 school buses, multiple casualties) which was used for "stop distracted driving" campaign.. Improperly maintained (actually failed during hard braking) brakes on buses were treated as a minor contributing factor.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2016, 09:05:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 22, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
Scroll to page 2, top of the right-hand column, of this document. In Virginia, if the school bus has the red lights on at an intersection, all directions have to stop: http://dmvnow.com/webdoc/pdf/dmv39d.pdf
There's no flashing lights on the side of the bus. How would a driver on the cross street know if the bus is stopped at a stop sign, if the bus is waiting to turn, or stopped to let kids on or off the bus (especially if kids aren't actually crossing the street)?
I've seen on a few occasions the way-overly cautious driver. Bus is stopped waiting to make a left turn. Car coming the other way sees the bus stopped, and thinks it's stopped to let kids off (ignoring the fact that the left turn signal is flashing, and no red lights are flashing). So the car stops....directly in front of the side street the bus is waiting to turn onto!
The left side has that stop sign that swings out. On the right side, you can see the kids. But the lights are not what control anyway, at least not here. Our law says you must stop for a school bus that's loading or unloading children. If the lights malfunction but kids are getting on, you stop or else you risk a ticket.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2016, 09:05:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 22, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
Scroll to page 2, top of the right-hand column, of this document. In Virginia, if the school bus has the red lights on at an intersection, all directions have to stop: http://dmvnow.com/webdoc/pdf/dmv39d.pdf
There's no flashing lights on the side of the bus. How would a driver on the cross street know if the bus is stopped at a stop sign, if the bus is waiting to turn, or stopped to let kids on or off the bus (especially if kids aren't actually crossing the street)?
If you and a school bus are both stopped at an intersection, the school bus isn't going to be directly in front of you, it's going to be off to the side. You should still be able to see the front of the vehicle.
Quote from: kalvado on April 22, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
School buses are also a big political thing, which can be (and actually is) misused quite a bit.
cf Daylight Savings Time
Around here, the big issue is out in the rural areas, where there are actually some 2 lane roads you can safely drive at 55 or more (I have never seen a school bus stopped on a rural 4-lane, DOH will always build a pull off and a bus shed as part of the construction). You can come up on a stopped school bus too quickly. More pull offs are needed.
On the road I drive every day, it is no big deal. Only a brief period of time each day, and only a short area, as the schools are nearby.
I remember during my years in Charlottesville I got annoyed because the local residents would stop for school buses even if there was a median. Drove me crazy to the point where I learned the bus schedules to avoid the problem!
Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 22, 2016, 10:46:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2016, 09:05:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 22, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
Scroll to page 2, top of the right-hand column, of this document. In Virginia, if the school bus has the red lights on at an intersection, all directions have to stop: http://dmvnow.com/webdoc/pdf/dmv39d.pdf
There's no flashing lights on the side of the bus. How would a driver on the cross street know if the bus is stopped at a stop sign, if the bus is waiting to turn, or stopped to let kids on or off the bus (especially if kids aren't actually crossing the street)?
If you and a school bus are both stopped at an intersection, the school bus isn't going to be directly in front of you, it's going to be off to the side. You should still be able to see the front of the vehicle.
IF you are stopped at the intersection. If you have the priority street without a stop sign (or you do have a green light), you won't be stopped, and thus may not notice the lights to the side.
If the extended Stop sign on the side of the bus is extended, it wouldn't be facing traffic coming up the cross street.
If kids are entering/exiting the bus and not crossing a street, that means they are hidden from view next to the bus.
Thus, in all 3 circumstances, a driver coming from the left may not know what the bus is doing.
Also, how close does a bus have to be to an intersection for the law to require all directions stop?
For what it's worth: Here's the VA laws pertaining to it: http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-844/ & http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/46.2-859/ . The laws do say "Passing in any direction". But it doesn't provide any guidelines as to what consistutes the distance in front of a school bus. Knowing NJ's law, it must be 25 feet from the front and back of a bus. If I translated this to Virginia, if a bus is 25 feet or further away from an intersection, it wouldn't seem necessary to stop for a bus.
Digging a little deeper...in this law, the bus stop must be in a place visible to traffic coming from BOTH directions...not 3 or more directions! Intersections often have signage, buildings and landscaping that can block the view of a bus. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-893/
Quote from: english si on April 22, 2016, 06:20:48 AM
The US assumes that the person on the road is a total idiot needing to be told exactly how to drive and kept in a safety blanket of clear rules applied without nuance, the UK assumes that the person on the road has some sense and judgement (though less and less, and our fatality rate is stagnating, rather than declining - though it is still half of that in the US).
Most of this is simple CYA. That's because the US legal system makes it very easy for an individual to sue somebody - including the government - for perceived omissions or negligence (like not posting signs regarding a regulation or hazard). It's much harder to do that under the UK and EU legal systems.
We need to reintroduce the concepts of personal responsibility and contributory negligence into our system of laws and justice - this will eliminate most of the frivolous lawsuits from people who believe they will get a huge lottery payment for suing others.
I figured I'd share with y'all the laws regarding stopping for school buses in Ontario, it's fairly interesting and a LOT of people would get tickets if it were enforced:
Quote(11) Every driver or street car operator, when meeting on a highway, other than a highway with a median strip, a stopped school bus that has its overhead red signal-lights flashing, shall stop before reaching the bus and shall not proceed until the bus moves or the overhead red signal-lights have stopped flashing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 175 (11).
(12) Every driver or street car operator on a highway, when approaching from the rear a stopped school bus that has its overhead red signal-lights flashing, shall stop at least twenty metres before reaching the bus and shall not proceed until the bus moves or the overhead red signal-lights have stopped flashing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 175 (12).
And as for Penalty:
Quote(17) Every person who contravenes subsection (11) or (12) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000; and
(b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 1997, c. 12, s. 14.
Read subsection 12, "shall stop at least twenty metres before reaching the bus". Think about that for a second, 20 metres, not converting, that's approximately 60 feet, and this law basically states that stopping CLOSER than 20 meters is just as bad as simply passing the bus with the red lights flashing. There is no one that stops that far back from a school bus.
It ain't the bus, it's all the little bastards, oops, darlings, on it.
:wow:
Well this is CT's "stop for busses" statute:
QuoteSec. 14-279. Vehicles to stop for school bus. Penalties. Written warning or summons. (a) The operator of any vehicle or motor vehicle, including an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in section 14-1, shall immediately bring such vehicle to a stop not less than ten feet from the front when approaching and not less than ten feet from the rear when overtaking or following any registered school bus on any highway or private road or in any parking area or on any school property when such bus is displaying flashing red signal lights, except at the specific direction of a traffic officer. Vehicles so stopped for a school bus shall not proceed until such school bus no longer displays flashing red signal lights, except that a stopped authorized emergency vehicle may proceed as long as such authorized emergency vehicle is operated pursuant to section 14-283. At the intersection of two or more highways vehicular turns toward a school bus receiving or discharging passengers are prohibited. The operator of a vehicle upon a highway with separate roadways need not stop upon meeting or passing a school bus which is on a different roadway.
(b) Any person who violates any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall be fined four hundred fifty dollars for the first offense and for each subsequent offense, not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.
(c) Upon receipt of a written report from any school bus operator or an evidence file from a live digital video school bus violation detection monitoring system, as defined in section 14-279a, specifying the license plate number, color and type of any vehicle observed by such operator or recorded by a camera affixed to such school bus violating any provision of subsection (a) of this section and the date, approximate time and location of such violation, a police officer shall issue a written warning or a summons to the owner of any such vehicle. A photographic or digital still or video image that clearly shows the license plate number of a vehicle violating any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall be sufficient proof of the identity of such vehicle for purposes of subsection (b) of section 14-107.
No mention of simply receiving or discharging, though I'm guessing a cop could ticket someone in good faith if their lights weren't on. And FWIW I did turn left (away) from a school bus once and didn't get honked at by the bus or receive a summons in the mail.
I hate them. Its the government's fault I do along with many others.
Around me, they frequently will not pull off of the major roads for stops. My community has the first house about a quarter mile off of the major road, but the bus still stops in the middle of the major roadway an stops all of the traffic and creates backups for miles. All the stops prior to my community are just one or 2 students, but my community pretty much fills up the bus all by itself. For each school. Then after the bus takes 10 minutes to unload all the students, there is traffic backed up for miles. This is pretty much the only time there is traffic on the road, but with the stop sign at our entry, and traffic for miles stuck behind the bus without a stop sign, and all the parents driving to park on the side of the major roadway, the entire entry is a problem for another 15-20 minutes after that. And another 10-15 minutes later, another bus shows up for the next school and it repeats. Of course I'm going to be rationally hate school buses when it makes my 3 minute trip to the grocery store into a 25 minute trip because I happened to go at the wrong time.
The entire problem could be solved if the bus could pull into the community, ideally off of the roadway to our park and pool in the center. Most parents would then likely walk instead of drive to the bus stop, and parents would trust their kids to walk home a bit more as well as they aren't near the major roadway and on the slow speed limit community roads. I know its not just my neighborhood, but its like this in nearly every single neighborhood around here. They claim it takes too long for the buses to drive 1-2 minutes off of the roadway and they would need more buses and drivers they don't have funding for in order to get the same bus to do all 3 pickups and dropoffs. And I know it would solve the problem entirely, because a year or two ago, we had a handicap kid move into the neighborhood, and they always pickup and dropoff at their house. The problem for that bus was eliminated, until he went to the next school, and they decided to send a van to pick him up separately because of the time it took to drive in again.
If we could get the buses to make sensible stops, pulling off of main roadways and trying to avoid disrupting traffic, even if it takes them an extra 10 minutes for their route, I think the hatred of them would go down drastically. And it would increase the safety for our children as well. I've seen much road rage from people stuck behind the bus for 20 minutes.
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 22, 2016, 08:09:32 PM
I hate them. Its the government's fault I do along with many others.
Around me, they frequently will not pull off of the major roads for stops. My community has the first house about a quarter mile off of the major road, but the bus still stops in the middle of the major roadway an stops all of the traffic and creates backups for miles. All the stops prior to my community are just one or 2 students, but my community pretty much fills up the bus all by itself. For each school. Then after the bus takes 10 minutes to unload all the students, there is traffic backed up for miles. This is pretty much the only time there is traffic on the road, but with the stop sign at our entry, and traffic for miles stuck behind the bus without a stop sign, and all the parents driving to park on the side of the major roadway, the entire entry is a problem for another 15-20 minutes after that. And another 10-15 minutes later, another bus shows up for the next school and it repeats. Of course I'm going to be rationally hate school buses when it makes my 3 minute trip to the grocery store into a 25 minute trip because I happened to go at the wrong time.
The entire problem could be solved if the bus could pull into the community, ideally off of the roadway to our park and pool in the center. Most parents would then likely walk instead of drive to the bus stop, and parents would trust their kids to walk home a bit more as well as they aren't near the major roadway and on the slow speed limit community roads. I know its not just my neighborhood, but its like this in nearly every single neighborhood around here. They claim it takes too long for the buses to drive 1-2 minutes off of the roadway and they would need more buses and drivers they don't have funding for in order to get the same bus to do all 3 pickups and dropoffs. And I know it would solve the problem entirely, because a year or two ago, we had a handicap kid move into the neighborhood, and they always pickup and dropoff at their house. The problem for that bus was eliminated, until he went to the next school, and they decided to send a van to pick him up separately because of the time it took to drive in again.
If we could get the buses to make sensible stops, pulling off of main roadways and trying to avoid disrupting traffic, even if it takes them an extra 10 minutes for their route, I think the hatred of them would go down drastically. And it would increase the safety for our children as well. I've seen much road rage from people stuck behind the bus for 20 minutes.
That's a fault of bad planning of course. It sounds like the bus is stopping on a suburban arterial....which is something I've probably only seen once in my life here. So does your community/subdivision only have one entrance/exit from this arterial where the bus stops at? If this is the case and it's making drivers angry, why isn't there any discussions with the schools and board about this?
Common sense needs to be applied to this after all, many would really hate the school buses here if they stopped in the middle of six lane arterials dumping entire busloads off.
As for parents DRIVING to the bus stop.....uh really, are you serious? Yes I see it everyday here in suburbia when parents drive their kids 400 feet on the same street to the school because of today's helicopter parenting, but I've never heard of a situation where someone needs to drive to the bus stop.
And as for kids walking to the bus stop themselves, as I said today's helicopter parents would NEVER allow that because there's a fear of an abduction on the way to the bus stop, even though they are probably (even by 1000 fold) more likely to get hit by a car than be abducted.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 22, 2016, 08:41:21 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 22, 2016, 08:09:32 PM
I hate them. Its the government's fault I do along with many others.
Around me, they frequently will not pull off of the major roads for stops. My community has the first house about a quarter mile off of the major road, but the bus still stops in the middle of the major roadway an stops all of the traffic and creates backups for miles. All the stops prior to my community are just one or 2 students, but my community pretty much fills up the bus all by itself. For each school. Then after the bus takes 10 minutes to unload all the students, there is traffic backed up for miles. This is pretty much the only time there is traffic on the road, but with the stop sign at our entry, and traffic for miles stuck behind the bus without a stop sign, and all the parents driving to park on the side of the major roadway, the entire entry is a problem for another 15-20 minutes after that. And another 10-15 minutes later, another bus shows up for the next school and it repeats. Of course I'm going to be rationally hate school buses when it makes my 3 minute trip to the grocery store into a 25 minute trip because I happened to go at the wrong time.
The entire problem could be solved if the bus could pull into the community, ideally off of the roadway to our park and pool in the center. Most parents would then likely walk instead of drive to the bus stop, and parents would trust their kids to walk home a bit more as well as they aren't near the major roadway and on the slow speed limit community roads. I know its not just my neighborhood, but its like this in nearly every single neighborhood around here. They claim it takes too long for the buses to drive 1-2 minutes off of the roadway and they would need more buses and drivers they don't have funding for in order to get the same bus to do all 3 pickups and dropoffs. And I know it would solve the problem entirely, because a year or two ago, we had a handicap kid move into the neighborhood, and they always pickup and dropoff at their house. The problem for that bus was eliminated, until he went to the next school, and they decided to send a van to pick him up separately because of the time it took to drive in again.
If we could get the buses to make sensible stops, pulling off of main roadways and trying to avoid disrupting traffic, even if it takes them an extra 10 minutes for their route, I think the hatred of them would go down drastically. And it would increase the safety for our children as well. I've seen much road rage from people stuck behind the bus for 20 minutes.
That's a fault of bad planning of course. It sounds like the bus is stopping on a suburban arterial....which is something I've probably only seen once in my life here. So does your community/subdivision only have one entrance/exit from this arterial where the bus stops at? If this is the case and it's making drivers angry, why isn't there any discussions with the schools and board about this?
Common sense needs to be applied to this after all, many would really hate the school buses here if they stopped in the middle of six lane arterials dumping entire busloads off.
As for parents DRIVING to the bus stop.....uh really, are you serious? Yes I see it everyday here in suburbia when parents drive their kids 400 feet on the same street to the school because of today's helicopter parenting, but I've never heard of a situation where someone needs to drive to the bus stop.
And as for kids walking to the bus stop themselves, as I said today's helicopter parents would NEVER allow that because there's a fear of an abduction on the way to the bus stop, even though they are probably (even by 1000 fold) more likely to get hit by a car than be abducted.
Thats what they do. Its been brought up many times with the school board, and there answer is always the same: have the buses turn off the arterials takes time to drive off of it, and then its difficult for the large school buses to get back on, and each individual bus is required to serve an elementary, middle, and high school every single day and if they turn into every community they stop at, they would supposedly only be able to serve 2 out of the 3 schools on time on most routes. I've had similar things happen now in the 4 counties in Florida I've lived in (all suburbs), one even had a bus driver get fired for deviating from the route to pull into the entry of our neighborhood after someone hit the bus while they were making a U turn in the entry of the community (off route).
The entry to my neighborhood cannot have grass survive because the sides of the road are a parking lot for the buses 6 times a day. I understand why they're driving, they don't trust their kids waiting for a bus or getting dropped off at a 50mph heavily trafficked arterial road. The county blames us for not giving them yet another sales tax increase which supposedly part of would go for additional buses and drivers to offer closer stops. I believe the rule around here is generally if there are sidewalks (and no disabled kids), a school bus stop shall be within 2 miles of the student's home. However, they measure it as the crow flies, not distance along a road. For me when I was young, I was at the end of a cul-de-sac with a canal between me and the bus stop I had to walk around, so i had to walk 2.5 miles to the stop (not sure if they ever changed that). Parents are gonna drive rather then walk several miles round trip to meet their kid at the stop.
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 22, 2016, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 22, 2016, 08:41:21 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 22, 2016, 08:09:32 PM
I hate them. Its the government's fault I do along with many others.
Around me, they frequently will not pull off of the major roads for stops. My community has the first house about a quarter mile off of the major road, but the bus still stops in the middle of the major roadway an stops all of the traffic and creates backups for miles. All the stops prior to my community are just one or 2 students, but my community pretty much fills up the bus all by itself. For each school. Then after the bus takes 10 minutes to unload all the students, there is traffic backed up for miles. This is pretty much the only time there is traffic on the road, but with the stop sign at our entry, and traffic for miles stuck behind the bus without a stop sign, and all the parents driving to park on the side of the major roadway, the entire entry is a problem for another 15-20 minutes after that. And another 10-15 minutes later, another bus shows up for the next school and it repeats. Of course I'm going to be rationally hate school buses when it makes my 3 minute trip to the grocery store into a 25 minute trip because I happened to go at the wrong time.
The entire problem could be solved if the bus could pull into the community, ideally off of the roadway to our park and pool in the center. Most parents would then likely walk instead of drive to the bus stop, and parents would trust their kids to walk home a bit more as well as they aren't near the major roadway and on the slow speed limit community roads. I know its not just my neighborhood, but its like this in nearly every single neighborhood around here. They claim it takes too long for the buses to drive 1-2 minutes off of the roadway and they would need more buses and drivers they don't have funding for in order to get the same bus to do all 3 pickups and dropoffs. And I know it would solve the problem entirely, because a year or two ago, we had a handicap kid move into the neighborhood, and they always pickup and dropoff at their house. The problem for that bus was eliminated, until he went to the next school, and they decided to send a van to pick him up separately because of the time it took to drive in again.
If we could get the buses to make sensible stops, pulling off of main roadways and trying to avoid disrupting traffic, even if it takes them an extra 10 minutes for their route, I think the hatred of them would go down drastically. And it would increase the safety for our children as well. I've seen much road rage from people stuck behind the bus for 20 minutes.
That's a fault of bad planning of course. It sounds like the bus is stopping on a suburban arterial....which is something I've probably only seen once in my life here. So does your community/subdivision only have one entrance/exit from this arterial where the bus stops at? If this is the case and it's making drivers angry, why isn't there any discussions with the schools and board about this?
Common sense needs to be applied to this after all, many would really hate the school buses here if they stopped in the middle of six lane arterials dumping entire busloads off.
As for parents DRIVING to the bus stop.....uh really, are you serious? Yes I see it everyday here in suburbia when parents drive their kids 400 feet on the same street to the school because of today's helicopter parenting, but I've never heard of a situation where someone needs to drive to the bus stop.
And as for kids walking to the bus stop themselves, as I said today's helicopter parents would NEVER allow that because there's a fear of an abduction on the way to the bus stop, even though they are probably (even by 1000 fold) more likely to get hit by a car than be abducted.
Thats what they do. Its been brought up many times with the school board, and there answer is always the same: have the buses turn off the arterials takes time to drive off of it, and then its difficult for the large school buses to get back on, and each individual bus is required to serve an elementary, middle, and high school every single day and if they turn into every community they stop at, they would supposedly only be able to serve 2 out of the 3 schools on time on most routes. I've had similar things happen now in the 4 counties in Florida I've lived in (all suburbs), one even had a bus driver get fired for deviating from the route to pull into the entry of our neighborhood after someone hit the bus while they were making a U turn in the entry of the community (off route).
The entry to my neighborhood cannot have grass survive because the sides of the road are a parking lot for the buses 6 times a day. I understand why they're driving, they don't trust their kids waiting for a bus or getting dropped off at a 50mph heavily trafficked arterial road. The county blames us for not giving them yet another sales tax increase which supposedly part of would go for additional buses and drivers to offer closer stops. I believe the rule around here is generally if there are sidewalks (and no disabled kids), a school bus stop shall be within 2 miles of the student's home. However, they measure it as the crow flies, not distance along a road. For me when I was young, I was at the end of a cul-de-sac with a canal between me and the bus stop I had to walk around, so i had to walk 2.5 miles to the stop (not sure if they ever changed that). Parents are gonna drive rather then walk several miles round trip to meet their kid at the stop.
What type of bus does your district use? Type C or D? Type D's have a slightly longer wheelbase.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 21, 2016, 07:14:26 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 21, 2016, 07:13:33 PM
Yes...just because I'm coming from the other direction doesn't mean I have to stop. It's rational if you had to stop behind it, but in front of it in the opposite direction?
If a child is on the opposite side of the road and they need to cross...?
Then you yield to them. Otherwise, keep going
Other bus hatreds:
- Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
- Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
- Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
Now there's an archaic law that needs to disappear pronto.
Quote from: Brandon on April 23, 2016, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
- Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
Now there's an archaic law that needs to disappear pronto.
The law passed in I'm Just a Bill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0
Quote from: Big John on April 23, 2016, 11:47:17 AM
Quote from: Brandon on April 23, 2016, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
- Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
Now there's an archaic law that needs to disappear pronto.
The law passed in I'm Just a Bill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0
The question I ask, what is the actual purpose of this law, I don't understand it myself. It makes sense in a case where you are crossing tracks with absolutely NO bells, lights, or barriers, but otherwise I never understood it.
And as for "I'm Just a Bill", is the school bus stopping at railroad crossings a federal law? Or is it a law in every state and thus it defacto is a national law since everyone has it? The regulations here in the province of Ontario about school buses stopping at railroad crossings are found in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
^^ I had to look it up, apparently it is the law in every state and a federal law.
This was spawned by a by a bad 1938 collision in Utah leading to state laws: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705338209/Bus-crash-in-1938-led-to-train-laws.html?pg=all
According to this it is also a federal law: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18733955
Quote from: ET21 on April 23, 2016, 11:24:52 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 21, 2016, 07:14:26 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 21, 2016, 07:13:33 PM
Yes...just because I'm coming from the other direction doesn't mean I have to stop. It's rational if you had to stop behind it, but in front of it in the opposite direction?
If a child is on the opposite side of the road and they need to cross...?
Then you yield to them. Otherwise, keep going
Kids have a tendency to run out into the street on occasion, not remember to look. Thus, the reasoning for all vehicles needing to stop for the bus.
The US assumes that the person on the road is a total idiot needing to be told exactly how to drive and kept in a safety blanket of clear rules applied without nuance, the UK assumes that the person on the road has some sense and judgement (though less and less, and our fatality rate is stagnating, rather than declining - though it is still half of that in the US).
[/quote]
Well, in my many years of driving I have to say a large number of drivers in the US are complete idiots. It seems to be a growing number. I lived in Europe for a few years and drove over most of western Europe. This even includes the UK where they drive on the "wrong side" of the road. :-D I even drove a delivery truck for a while. It has been a few years since this great experience but I would say, at least then, the European drivers, excluding Rome and Paris, are much more sensible than the US drivers.
I firmly believe the US needs to beef up the requirements to earn a driver's license. Some states need to do way more than others. This is one area we need to adopt more of the German requirements.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
- Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
- Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
My mom passed a school bus driver doing this once and was ticketed for doing it. If it ever happened to me, I'd get out of my car, inform the driver that they are in violation of CGS ch. 248 s.14-277-278 and that I will be calling the police if they refuse to move on.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
....
Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
Maybe I just don't drive behind school buses a lot, but I don't think I've ever witnessed this.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 23, 2016, 06:57:06 PM
My mom passed a school bus driver doing this once and was ticketed for doing it. If it ever happened to me, I'd get out of my car, inform the driver that they are in violation of CGS ch. 248 s.14-277-278 and that I will be calling the police if they refuse to move on.
You're awfully nice. I'd just get out and start yelling at them, totally incoherently, just to scare them into moving.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 22, 2016, 11:09:48 PM
As for parents DRIVING to the bus stop.....uh really, are you serious? Yes I see it everyday here in suburbia when parents drive their kids 400 feet on the same street to the school because of today's helicopter parenting, but I've never heard of a situation where someone needs to drive to the bus stop.
Speaking from personal experience here, when I started high school I found myself getting driven to the bus stop in the morning because while the walk wasn't that far (about 1/4 mile), at 6:30 AM getting me to walk from my bed to the front door was an achievement, 1/4 mile past the front door would have been a marathon. So my father would drive me to the bus stop and then once the bus came, I'd get on it and he'd continue driving to work.
In the afternoon I would walk home from the bus stop by myself no problem. By that point I was awake!
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 23, 2016, 06:57:06 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
- Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
- Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
My mom passed a school bus driver doing this once and was ticketed for doing it. If it ever happened to me, I'd get out of my car, inform the driver that they are in violation of CGS ch. 248 s.14-277-278 and that I will be calling the police if they refuse to move on.
Heh. If I tried that, the driver would just laugh. Not just because CGS isn't Washington laws, but because Seattle Police 911 response time for events that don't involve deadly weapons is 2-3 hours.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2016, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
....
Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
Maybe I just don't drive behind school buses a lot, but I don't think I've ever witnessed this.
Shoot, I remember parents doing that when I was young enough to be riding a school bus.
Quote from: kkt on April 24, 2016, 01:38:32 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 23, 2016, 06:57:06 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
• Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
• Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
My mom passed a school bus driver doing this once and was ticketed for doing it. If it ever happened to me, I'd get out of my car, inform the driver that they are in violation of CGS ch. 248 s.14-277-278 and that I will be calling the police if they refuse to move on.
Heh. If I tried that, the driver would just laugh. Not just because CGS isn't Washington laws, but because Seattle Police 911 response time for events that don't involve deadly weapons is 2-3 hours.
The proper thing to do would be to call the school district, or better yet, go to a board meeting and complain about the action (make sure you have the location, bus number, time(s) of occurrence, etc) so that way it's on the public record. I have seen this myself so I know what you're talking about, but really, the police aren't going to do anything about it, even if they were to get there in time. The conversation probably isn't lasting more than a half-minute, so it's more of the annoyance factor of blocking traffic than a significant delay.
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2016, 11:51:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2016, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
....
Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
Maybe I just don't drive behind school buses a lot, but I don't think I've ever witnessed this.
Shoot, I remember parents doing that when I was young enough to be riding a school bus.
The basic parent-bus driver interaction has been around for years. I've just never witnessed it while I was actively waiting behind a school bus. I've seen them pull off to the side to speak to a parent, but I've never seen them sit there, holding up traffic, as they endlessly yammer on.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2016, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 24, 2016, 01:38:32 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 23, 2016, 06:57:06 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 23, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
Other bus hatreds:
- Being stuck behind a line of buses from a nearby school approaching a railroad crossing...Better pack a lunch!!
- Parents who want to start conversations with the bus driver and who want to keep conversations going after all the kids are long off the bus.
My mom passed a school bus driver doing this once and was ticketed for doing it. If it ever happened to me, I'd get out of my car, inform the driver that they are in violation of CGS ch. 248 s.14-277-278 and that I will be calling the police if they refuse to move on.
Heh. If I tried that, the driver would just laugh. Not just because CGS isn't Washington laws, but because Seattle Police 911 response time for events that don't involve deadly weapons is 2-3 hours.
The proper thing to do would be to call the school district, or better yet, go to a board meeting and complain about the action (make sure you have the location, bus number, time(s) of occurrence, etc) so that way it's on the public record. I have seen this myself so I know what you're talking about, but really, the police aren't going to do anything about it, even if they were to get there in time. The conversation probably isn't lasting more than a half-minute, so it's more of the annoyance factor of blocking traffic than a significant delay.
Better yet, I'd just go to the bus company with my dashcam footage.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 23, 2016, 11:43:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 22, 2016, 11:09:48 PM
As for parents DRIVING to the bus stop.....uh really, are you serious? Yes I see it everyday here in suburbia when parents drive their kids 400 feet on the same street to the school because of today's helicopter parenting, but I've never heard of a situation where someone needs to drive to the bus stop.
Speaking from personal experience here, when I started high school I found myself getting driven to the bus stop in the morning because while the walk wasn't that far (about 1/4 mile), at 6:30 AM getting me to walk from my bed to the front door was an achievement, 1/4 mile past the front door would have been a marathon. So my father would drive me to the bus stop and then once the bus came, I'd get on it and he'd continue driving to work.
In the afternoon I would walk home from the bus stop by myself no problem. By that point I was awake!
I went to a private school. In a different town from where I lived. The bus made a single stop in the entire town in the morning. It wasn't too far, so we walked some times, but other families were further away. Granted, the stop was not on a public road, so it didn't affect too many people. In the afternoon, the bus did drop off everyone pretty much where they lived, presumably because the parents weren't home yet to pick their kids up.
Quote from: leroys73 on April 23, 2016, 03:01:41 PM
The US assumes that the person on the road is a total idiot needing to be told exactly how to drive and kept in a safety blanket of clear rules applied without nuance, the UK assumes that the person on the road has some sense and judgement (though less and less, and our fatality rate is stagnating, rather than declining - though it is still half of that in the US).
Well, in my many years of driving I have to say a large number of drivers in the US are complete idiots. It seems to be a growing number. I lived in Europe for a few years and drove over most of western Europe. This even includes the UK where they drive on the "wrong side" of the road. :-D I even drove a delivery truck for a while. It has been a few years since this great experience but I would say, at least then, the European drivers, excluding Rome and Paris, are much more sensible than the US drivers.
I firmly believe the US needs to beef up the requirements to earn a driver's license. Some states need to do way more than others. This is one area we need to adopt more of the German requirements.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, the idiot and jackass drivers are also all voters. If anybody proposes tougher requirements for driver's licenses, they're
aloha as in out of office.
Quote from: hm insulators on April 28, 2016, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on April 23, 2016, 03:01:41 PM
The US assumes that the person on the road is a total idiot needing to be told exactly how to drive and kept in a safety blanket of clear rules applied without nuance, the UK assumes that the person on the road has some sense and judgement (though less and less, and our fatality rate is stagnating, rather than declining - though it is still half of that in the US).
Well, in my many years of driving I have to say a large number of drivers in the US are complete idiots. It seems to be a growing number. I lived in Europe for a few years and drove over most of western Europe. This even includes the UK where they drive on the "wrong side" of the road. :-D I even drove a delivery truck for a while. It has been a few years since this great experience but I would say, at least then, the European drivers, excluding Rome and Paris, are much more sensible than the US drivers.
I firmly believe the US needs to beef up the requirements to earn a driver's license. Some states need to do way more than others. This is one area we need to adopt more of the German requirements.
Unfortunately, the idiot and jackass drivers are also all voters. If anybody proposes tougher requirements for driver's licenses, they're aloha as in out of office.
Yep. I've always thought that people should be retested every few years to cut down on the lazy drivers, while people over the age of 65-70 should be retested every year. A lot of the problems are caused by old drivers.
All drivers should be retested, regardless of age, to shut up anyone who complains about ageism. Plus there's a lot of re-education that is needed as technology advances and things change (many drivers here don't know how to react to things like a streetcar or light rail [which has no crossing arms for some segments] and thus need re-training).
And the license course should be a year-long class with monthly driving assessments, not a two-week class and one-time drive like what I experienced when getting licensed a year ago. It was a total joke, given that I barely practiced and still managed to pass the test.
Quote from: Bruce on April 28, 2016, 10:49:05 PM
All drivers should be retested, regardless of age, to shut up anyone who complains about ageism. Plus there's a lot of re-education that is needed as technology advances and things change (many drivers here don't know how to react to things like a streetcar or light rail [which has no crossing arms for some segments] and thus need re-training).
And the license course should be a year-long class with monthly driving assessments, not a two-week class and one-time drive like what I experienced when getting licensed a year ago. It was a total joke, given that I barely practiced and still managed to pass the test.
And Bruce, do you realize how much that would cost to give all licensed drivers another road test.....think about it for a second.
All you need for streetcars, assuming they run in mixed traffic like Toronto, is a simple message on the back of the streetcar "DO NOT PASS OPEN DOORS". Which is how the new streetcars in Toronto make this clear.
Again, I know what you are after Bruce, we in Ontario have seen a continuous decline in accidents, even with our population increasing and more licensed drivers on the road. Why fix a system of graduated licensing that's not broken, when you consider that Ontario's GDL's are actually fairly liberal compared to what some states have now.
But again I see what you are after, you want to make a license such a pain to get that you essentially force people to take the bus, I know that this anti-driving agenda is currently going on in Ontario, and I really want to know why you seem to feel this way, seriously.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 28, 2016, 11:30:45 PM
But again I see what you are after, you want to make a license such a pain to get that you essentially force people to take the bus, I know that this anti-driving agenda is currently going on in Ontario, and I really want to know why you seem to feel this way, seriously.
I also see what you're saying: make the licence as easy as possible to obtain, so that way, we can have as many poorly-educated people on the road as possible, all in the name of
more cars!
Driver's licenses are far too easy to obtain. Hidden agenda or otherwise, the system needs changing. If you can't operate a motor vehicle,
you shouldn't be licensed to operate one.
Quote from: Bruce on April 28, 2016, 10:49:05 PM
All drivers should be retested, regardless of age, to shut up anyone who complains about ageism. Plus there's a lot of re-education that is needed as technology advances and things change (many drivers here don't know how to react to things like a streetcar or light rail [which has no crossing arms for some segments] and thus need re-training).
I see your point, but I'm not sure how light rail necessitates re-training. The vast majority of car/train accidents around Puget Sound would be solved simply by cars obeying traffic signals and not attempting to turn across the tracks when the light is red.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 29, 2016, 02:35:29 AM
I see your point, but I'm not sure how light rail necessitates re-training. The vast majority of car/train accidents around Puget Sound would be solved simply by cars obeying traffic signals and not attempting to turn across the tracks when the light is red.
One of common problems over here is that some - especially older - drivers do not understand concepts of rondabouts. (I, for one, think most roundabouts should not be built to begin with - but at least I know dos and don'ts). Other relatively recent things include SPUI and move over law. I believe age requirements for licensing and alcohol limits also changes within past 15 years (not that I am affected by those changes, but still).
Would be great to require drivers at least review - and maybe pass a quick test - such newer things. No need to do test in person, can be just a part of renewal online/paper form; just to make sure they read that flyer. And I don't think reading 1 or 2 pages of text and putting few checkmarks is such a big burden.
I agree about the need to increase driving standards. Ideally, Driver's Ed would be a mandatory high school class. It would be a comprehensive course and cover just about everything, both in class and on the road, including freeway driving, winter driving, using the emergency brake to stop the car, navigating, etc. In lieu of a final, the students would take a revamped written test (which would have a difficulty on par with a typical college exam and include at least 50% short answer and essay questions) and road test (which would be a comprehensive test, not just puttering around a residential subdivision). People would periodically take abridged tests (similar to the current ones given by NY) when renewing their licence, ensuring their knowledge and skills are kept up to date.
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 01:23:14 PM
Ideally, Driver's Ed would be a mandatory high school class.
Thing is, I often hear that new generation is not so eager to get their licenses as a birthday present to themselves, and often graduate from college without one.
Pushing licensing through at early stages may be difficult - especially in places line NYC, where license is not required for... well, for survival.
Besides... Would such comprehensive course and exam be paid for by school district, students/parents, or state?
That's the easiest way to ensure everyone takes it and that quality is assured. Otherwise, people would have to carve out time of the day and pay lots of money for a course that could vary in quality a lot between places offering it.
One other thing: in Europe, it costs $300+ to get a licence. Even with Driver's Ed, people rarely pay anywhere close to that amount in the US.
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
One other thing: in Europe, it costs $300+ to get a licence.
Right now, NYS license fee is $64.50, plus mandatory 5-hour class - I saw $50 price tag lately. $115 is not $300, but not that far.
And.. You realize that teachers already praise those $2 free lunches since at least for some kids that is a deal breaker for actually coming to school? Spending a lot on mandatory driver ed seems not so reasonable...
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 01:23:14 PM
I agree about the need to increase driving standards. Ideally, Driver's Ed would be a mandatory high school class. It would be a comprehensive course and cover just about everything, both in class and on the road, including freeway driving, winter driving, using the emergency brake to stop the car, navigating, etc. In lieu of a final, the students would take a revamped written test (which would have a difficulty on par with a typical college exam and include at least 50% short answer and essay questions) and road test (which would be a comprehensive test, not just puttering around a residential subdivision). People would periodically take abridged tests (similar to the current ones given by NY) when renewing their licence, ensuring their knowledge and skills are kept up to date.
But V, are all these intense requirements necessary? Here in Ontario, only 16 teenagers in 2014, that's those aged 16-19 died in car crashes (as passengers and drivers). When you compare our amount of deaths with many states, it kind of shocks me why our fatalities are so low.
In Ontario, a sixteen year old can get his learner's permit, and 8 months later, if a MTO approved driver's education course is completed, one can obtain a restricted license, which practically has ZERO restrictions. There are no night curfews, and no passenger restrictions (until midnight to 5am) and a driver must have zero alcohol in their blood. However, I should note that every single driver in Ontario, teen or older and hasn't had a license from anywhere else has to go through GDL here.
I don't know if some driver's Ed courses are offered by the school board, apparently there are here in Peel Region, but I did mine which costed me roughly $500 back in 2005. And the learners permit/restricted license was covered under the same fee, I think it was $125.
To get a full license in Ontario, one has to pass TWO road tests, here in Brampton, the road test occurred of driving on Steeles Ave (a six lane arterial) and then lead to a residential subdivision where the usual skills were tested, like three point turn, parallel park, uphill/downhill parking, and so on. Brampton's test center has a failure rate of about 60% and yet I passed on the first try. The second road test that is taken at minimum a year after the first road test, is exactly the same except it involves driving on a freeway. In my case, they took me on Hwy 410 from Steeles to Clark Blvd and back again....and just so it happens this situation involved auxiliary lanes, so there is no need to merge, they ask you to change lanes once and that's it.
Of course, there are test centers in this province where there are no freeways nearby, so I assume at those ones, you just go on a rural highway for a bit.
QuoteThing is, I often hear that new generation is not so eager to get their licenses as a birthday present to themselves, and often graduate from college without one.
Sure I think a lot of kids nowadays may not head directly to the test center to get their learner's permit the day they can, but I don't think they are skipping out entirely. As I'm a mature student in college, I've asked some of my fellow classmates about this very topic, and maybe it's just luck, but it seems like the majority clearly have at least a restricted license (which is practically as good as a regular license here). Sure, the majority of students at my school by far take transit, (as it is a downtown campus) but that doesn't mean that they are skipping getting their licenses.
But generally I don't think a one size fits all approach to forcing kids to get a license at 16 is that good either. Some people aren't ready to drive, a kid should be ready before they start driving. I may have got my learner's permit at 16, but i was close to 18 when I got my restricted license just to say. This is just me thinking out loud, I'm not sure what the solution is myself.
Rather than lament the procedures for obtaining a license, I would argue that we simply need an attitude shift away from enabling idiocy by trying to idiot-proof every aspect of roadway design. Quit putting stop signs at every intersection and drivers will learn how to yield. Quit putting up nag messages to wear your seatbelt, turn your lights on when it's raining, maintain a safe following distnace, etc. and drivers will figure these things out on their own.
There needs to be more encouraging people to figure things out so they understand why to do things, and less putting signs everywhere and teaching everyone that you do this because the sign says so.
Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!
Yeah, that's pretty much the reason why I've been advocated for higher licensing standards: current driver behavior justifies things like the overproliferation of stop signs, "stop for school busses even if you're on the other side of a divided highway", and the underposting of speed limits. I'm also sick of all the people who cause congestion because they don't know the correct way to merge onto a freeway.
As for putting it into the high school curriculum... my thinking was to make it required for a licence, but then where do people find the time/money (it cost $350 and took 4-5 hours/day 3 days/week when I took it; it was basically a choice between driver's ed and a summer job) to do it? By making it part of the school curriculum, you solve both, because it becomes part of class time and paid with school taxes. I wasn't really thinking about mandatory licensing, though I don't see much in the way of downsides (unless you're part of the sovereign citizen movement, but you're probably not going to public school if you are) (it would even solve the voter ID debate). I suppose one could keep it required but leave the testing to the decision of the student.
MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's. Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.169943,-77.6557276,3a,75y,93.41h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D161.77519%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) and managing to not break any laws or hit anything. The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two). No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to). The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds. I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.
What we need is a way to cut down on the lazy drivers. I have noticed that drivers in just about every other country, including Canada, are better than the typical American driver. Likewise, drivers in very dense urban areas (such as the immediate New York metro area) tend to have higher skills because a lazy driver will get killed. I'm talking about rolling through stop signs and rights on red, people thinking right on red has the right of way, and seemingly-simple stuff like that. Nothing will get better unless we can cut down on that, part of why I think retesting every few years would be a good idea. I hate to say this, but people with certain medical conditions that impact reflexes and the like shouldn't be allowed to drive, either. If you can't drive close to the speed limit in perfect conditions with no traffic, you shouldn't be driving. End of story. I get stuck behind people (either really old, really young, or wearing hats) going 10-15 under way too often. Similarly, I think variable minimum speed limits of 5-10 under (less in poor conditions) on limited-access highways should be implemented as well to cut down on the people going way under.
If there's no sign, there's no doubt that people are going to ignore common sense and do as they like. Floor it through intersections where they should slow and stop, use unauthorized lanes, block intersections, use center turn lanes to zip around buses and hit people, etc.
Even with higher licensing standards, we're still going to need a lot of signs to remind people how to drive properly and so that they can't mouth off to a traffic cop when they're pulled over for making an illegal and dangerous move.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2016, 06:19:00 PM
Rather than lament the procedures for obtaining a license, I would argue that we simply need an attitude shift away from enabling idiocy by trying to idiot-proof every aspect of roadway design. Quit putting stop signs at every intersection and drivers will learn how to yield. Quit putting up nag messages to wear your seatbelt, turn your lights on when it's raining, maintain a safe following distnace, etc. and drivers will figure these things out on their own.
There needs to be more encouraging people to figure things out so they understand why to do things, and less putting signs everywhere and teaching everyone that you do this because the sign says so.
Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!
I bet there are people that don't even know what to do at an intersection without stop signs.
Quote from: Bruce on April 29, 2016, 09:22:26 PM
If there's no sign, there's no doubt that people are going to ignore common sense and do as they like.
Then they can suffer the consequences, whether imposed by cop or by Darwinism in action.
I also question whether this is as much of an issue as one might think. We like to lament how GPS has destroyed people's ability to navigate, and yet people managed before GPS were a thing and if you were to
force people today to navigate using paper maps, I'm sure they would figure it out. People haven't gotten stupider, they've just stopped learning skills that they think they don't need because it is now possible to get along without these skills.
This is why I'm advocating getting rid of the idiot-proofing. Force people to actually learn the rules of the road without signs to constantly remind them, and they will. It'll be rough at first because some people will have to learn some things the hard way, but in the long run I hypothesize we'd be better off.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2016, 11:47:12 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 29, 2016, 09:22:26 PM
If there's no sign, there's no doubt that people are going to ignore common sense and do as they like.
Then they can suffer the consequences, whether imposed by cop or by Darwinism in action.
Unfortunately, there's usually two parties involved in those Darwinism consequences, so it's a bit unfair for one to be the guinea pig just for the other one to learn something.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2016, 06:19:00 PM
....
Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!
You might be surprised at how many places, especially in the South, actually do paint designated parallel parking spots, even when there are no meters. I complained about it at Duke once and asked why they need spaces. Why can't it be like a regular city where if your car fits, you can park? (Makes a difference when you're trying to get to class on time.) The guy from the university administration said that isn't fair to people with big vehicles like pickups. Huh? How is it unfair? If your car doesn't fit, you go around the block looking for another space!
I think it's just a sign that a lot of people not from big cities can't parallel park worth a damn. I certainly see people leaving HUGE spaces between cars whenever I see on-street parking outside of cities. The Iraqi woman who lives across the street from us can't parallel park worth a damn and avoids parking near the two cars I have parked on the street because she knows I don't leave big gaps and she's afraid she won't be able to get out....
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 30, 2016, 08:08:44 AM
Unfortunately, there's usually two parties involved in those Darwinism consequences, so it's a bit unfair for one to be the guinea pig just for the other one to learn something.
Learn? Rhinoceros have poor eyesight, but at 5000 lb and 30 MPH that is usually someone else's problem...
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 08:30:36 PM
MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's. Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.169943,-77.6557276,3a,75y,93.41h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D161.77519%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) and managing to not break any laws or hit anything. The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two). No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to). The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds. I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.
Coming to NY from MA, the strangest difference was that NY required all sorts of extra documentation for their licenses that was not needed in MA, but that the eyesight test was ridiculously simpler. In NY, you just read the sheet with the huge letters on it from 10 feet away at the DMV; in MA, the RMV tested you for colorblindness (just telling the difference between red and green) and small lettering under a couple of conditions (you had to stare into a viewer for the tests).
So, proving that you are who you say you are is more important in NY than making sure you can actually see. :D
Red-green colorblind people can't get driver's licenses in Mass?
Quote from: kkt on May 02, 2016, 11:35:28 AM
Red-green colorblind people can't get driver's licenses in Mass?
http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/medical/policies/vision.htm
Quote
Applicant or licensee must be able to distinguish the colors red, green and amber.
If the applicant or licensee cannot distinguish the colors red, green, and amber, a license is not possible.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2016, 09:45:25 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2016, 06:19:00 PM
Rather than lament the procedures for obtaining a license, I would argue that we simply need an attitude shift away from enabling idiocy by trying to idiot-proof every aspect of roadway design. Quit putting stop signs at every intersection and drivers will learn how to yield. Quit putting up nag messages to wear your seatbelt, turn your lights on when it's raining, maintain a safe following distnace, etc. and drivers will figure these things out on their own.
There needs to be more encouraging people to figure things out so they understand why to do things, and less putting signs everywhere and teaching everyone that you do this because the sign says so.
Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!
I bet there are people that don't even know what to do at an intersection without stop signs.
I know theoretically what to do, but uncontrolled intersections are a horrible idea unless there is almost zero traffic or it's a T intersection where the right of way is clearly known. If you are at an unfamiliar intersection of two equal-looking roads without any sort of yield or stop sign in your direction, how are you supposed to know whether cross traffic has a stop sign or not? Now changing stop signs to yield signs would be fine and removing a lot of the 4-way stop signs is fine, but I would not recommend turning any controlled intersections into uncontrolled ones.
Quote from: kkt on May 02, 2016, 11:35:28 AM
Red-green colorblind people can't get driver's licenses in Mass?
See the previous post, but keep in mind that red-green colorblindness does not necessarily mean that a person cannot distinguish between red and green.
For example: Yours truly. Although my colorblindness is categorized as red-green, it's really matter of me not seeing red as intensely as others with normal vision do. So, I have a much harder time seeing the red tone in purple, making a lot of shades of purple look just blue to me. The red and green on traffic lights are two colors I have no problem distinguishing between whatsoever. They're quite distinct to my eyes.
There are a few shades of red and green that I confuse, but it always takes me by surprise when that happens since it's so rare.
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2016, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 08:30:36 PM
MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's. Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.169943,-77.6557276,3a,75y,93.41h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D161.77519%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) and managing to not break any laws or hit anything. The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two). No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to). The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds. I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.
Coming to NY from MA, the strangest difference was that NY required all sorts of extra documentation for their licenses that was not needed in MA, but that the eyesight test was ridiculously simpler. In NY, you just read the sheet with the huge letters on it from 10 feet away at the DMV; in MA, the RMV tested you for colorblindness (just telling the difference between red and green) and small lettering under a couple of conditions (you had to stare into a viewer for the tests).
So, proving that you are who you say you are is more important in NY than making sure you can actually see. :D
Yeah, it's amazing how much they need assembled for a fist-time licence here. You have to have a large number of IDs to get an ID. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who simply can't get a licence simply because they don't have 6 points of ID (even a passport is only 4, and that's about the highest number of points anything has other than a NY licence; out of state licences are only 2, the same as a social security card or high school ID with report card). It's about the only thing that's difficult in getting a NY licence.
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2016, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2016, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 08:30:36 PM
MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's. Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.169943,-77.6557276,3a,75y,93.41h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D161.77519%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) and managing to not break any laws or hit anything. The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two). No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to). The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds. I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.
Coming to NY from MA, the strangest difference was that NY required all sorts of extra documentation for their licenses that was not needed in MA, but that the eyesight test was ridiculously simpler. In NY, you just read the sheet with the huge letters on it from 10 feet away at the DMV; in MA, the RMV tested you for colorblindness (just telling the difference between red and green) and small lettering under a couple of conditions (you had to stare into a viewer for the tests).
So, proving that you are who you say you are is more important in NY than making sure you can actually see. :D
Yeah, it's amazing how much they need assembled for a fist-time licence here. You have to have a large number of IDs to get an ID. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who simply can't get a licence simply because they don't have 6 points of ID (even a passport is only 4, and that's about the highest number of points anything has other than a NY licence; out of state licences are only 2, the same as a social security card or high school ID with report card). It's about the only thing that's difficult in getting a NY licence.
Getting my permit, I needed a birth certificate, social security card, and an MV-45. It's ridiculous.
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2016, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2016, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 08:30:36 PM
MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's. Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.169943,-77.6557276,3a,75y,93.41h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D161.77519%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) and managing to not break any laws or hit anything. The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two). No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to). The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds. I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.
Coming to NY from MA, the strangest difference was that NY required all sorts of extra documentation for their licenses that was not needed in MA, but that the eyesight test was ridiculously simpler. In NY, you just read the sheet with the huge letters on it from 10 feet away at the DMV; in MA, the RMV tested you for colorblindness (just telling the difference between red and green) and small lettering under a couple of conditions (you had to stare into a viewer for the tests).
So, proving that you are who you say you are is more important in NY than making sure you can actually see. :D
Yeah, it's amazing how much they need assembled for a fist-time licence here. You have to have a large number of IDs to get an ID. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who simply can't get a licence simply because they don't have 6 points of ID (even a passport is only 4, and that's about the highest number of points anything has other than a NY licence; out of state licences are only 2, the same as a social security card or high school ID with report card). It's about the only thing that's difficult in getting a NY licence.
Maybe if we had a national identity card program that wouldnt be the case. Not advocating for it but it might help to streamline the process.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2016, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2016, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2016, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 08:30:36 PM
MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's. Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.169943,-77.6557276,3a,75y,93.41h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D161.77519%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) and managing to not break any laws or hit anything. The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two). No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to). The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds. I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.
Coming to NY from MA, the strangest difference was that NY required all sorts of extra documentation for their licenses that was not needed in MA, but that the eyesight test was ridiculously simpler. In NY, you just read the sheet with the huge letters on it from 10 feet away at the DMV; in MA, the RMV tested you for colorblindness (just telling the difference between red and green) and small lettering under a couple of conditions (you had to stare into a viewer for the tests).
So, proving that you are who you say you are is more important in NY than making sure you can actually see. :D
Yeah, it's amazing how much they need assembled for a fist-time licence here. You have to have a large number of IDs to get an ID. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who simply can't get a licence simply because they don't have 6 points of ID (even a passport is only 4, and that's about the highest number of points anything has other than a NY licence; out of state licences are only 2, the same as a social security card or high school ID with report card). It's about the only thing that's difficult in getting a NY licence.
Maybe if we had a national identity card program that wouldnt be the case. Not advocating for it but it might help to streamline the process.
Almost every other country has them. Pay for them with a small tax and, all of a sudden, everyone has a government-issued photo ID (that can be used for voting in places with ID laws).
Well, if we're comparing NY with MA - MA requires minimum of 3 or 4 documents for adults - SSN card and one each for residence, signature and DOB (one document can be used only in 1 category)
Random check shows things are fairly standard (4 pieces of documentation in FL, 3 in TX, 4 in IL)..
Quote from: cl94 on May 02, 2016, 06:30:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2016, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2016, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2016, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2016, 08:30:36 PM
MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's. Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.169943,-77.6557276,3a,75y,93.41h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeS8XWPNTaKCGXKDmfyTy9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D161.77519%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) and managing to not break any laws or hit anything. The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two). No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to). The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds. I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.
Coming to NY from MA, the strangest difference was that NY required all sorts of extra documentation for their licenses that was not needed in MA, but that the eyesight test was ridiculously simpler. In NY, you just read the sheet with the huge letters on it from 10 feet away at the DMV; in MA, the RMV tested you for colorblindness (just telling the difference between red and green) and small lettering under a couple of conditions (you had to stare into a viewer for the tests).
So, proving that you are who you say you are is more important in NY than making sure you can actually see. :D
Yeah, it's amazing how much they need assembled for a fist-time licence here. You have to have a large number of IDs to get an ID. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who simply can't get a licence simply because they don't have 6 points of ID (even a passport is only 4, and that's about the highest number of points anything has other than a NY licence; out of state licences are only 2, the same as a social security card or high school ID with report card). It's about the only thing that's difficult in getting a NY licence.
Maybe if we had a national identity card program that wouldnt be the case. Not advocating for it but it might help to streamline the process.
Almost every other country has them. Pay for them with a small tax and, all of a sudden, everyone has a government-issued photo ID (that can be used for voting in places with ID laws).
Or just give it to every baby upon birth like a SSN
Quote from: Buffaboy on May 02, 2016, 10:27:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 02, 2016, 06:30:26 PM
Almost every other country has them. Pay for them with a small tax and, all of a sudden, everyone has a government-issued photo ID (that can be used for voting in places with ID laws).
Or just give it to every baby upon birth like a SSN
Question is what can be used to identify a baby. Photo of a newborn is only that useful by the age of 2. Basically identification relies mostly on parent's word till the age of 14-18.
Some countries start doing DNA database, but that is apparently the sign of totalitarian society - same as dreaded Soviet Union, which required - just imagine that! - presenting ID to board a plane.
US is collecting fingerprints from non-citizens crossing the border, and probably its a matter of time before citizens are required to be fingerprinted as well. I would expect fingerprint-retina-DNA to become standard ID complex within foreseeable future, same as photograph and signature these days. With technology advances these are no longer invasive and humiliating procedures, not more than a photograph and vision check for driver license.
The driver's license is a de facto ID. You can get a state ID if you can't drive. Here in NJ you basically can't get a job without one, or a passport if absolutely necessary. Found this out the hard way when the certificate of citizenship suddenly lost its standing as a form of ID in the state. Had to scramble to get a non-driver ID the day I was to start work. So really, the national ID is already a reality. It's just administered by states, and you pay out of pocket instead of as a tax. And, for the record, how hard is it to assemble the documentation needed to prove your ID at the DMV? If you were born here you have a birth certificate. If you're a naturalized citizen you have a certificate of citizenship. If you are a legal non-citizen you have a green card. You have a Social Security card if you are legal. Most people have some sort of a bank account.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 09:35:52 AM
The driver's license is a de facto ID.
And, for the record, how hard is it to assemble the documentation needed to prove your ID at the DMV?
Correct. There is a great mythology that has developed about the whole issue, but I have yet to meet the first person who cannot get a non-drivers ID (issued by the DMV in most states) with a few easy to obtain steps. And I have yet to meet the first adult person who does not have a DL or a non-drivers ID. The whole idea is a myth.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 09:35:52 AM
The driver's license is a de facto ID. You can get a state ID if you can't drive. Here in NJ you basically can't get a job without one, or a passport if absolutely necessary. Found this out the hard way when the certificate of citizenship suddenly lost its standing as a form of ID in the state. Had to scramble to get a non-driver ID the day I was to start work. So really, the national ID is already a reality. It's just administered by states, and you pay out of pocket instead of as a tax. And, for the record, how hard is it to assemble the documentation needed to prove your ID at the DMV? If you were born here you have a birth certificate. If you're a naturalized citizen you have a certificate of citizenship. If you are a legal non-citizen you have a green card. You have a Social Security card if you are legal. Most people have some sort of a bank account.
There's an amazing number of people that have lost track of this information over the years when it wasn't really needed for anything. Many people had never really seen their birth certificate. Before 9/11, the only thing I used mine for was to enter Canada, when it was a permitted form of documentation. SS cards - same thing. I can't really recall needing to show it to anyone. Suddenly, when states required those documents, a lot of people had no clue where they were located.
It's also surprising how many people don't have bank accounts. That's why there's plenty of check-cashing agencies. And for many companies, if you don't have a bank account, they pay you with a debit card.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2016, 11:24:12 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 09:35:52 AM
The driver's license is a de facto ID. You can get a state ID if you can't drive. Here in NJ you basically can't get a job without one, or a passport if absolutely necessary. Found this out the hard way when the certificate of citizenship suddenly lost its standing as a form of ID in the state. Had to scramble to get a non-driver ID the day I was to start work. So really, the national ID is already a reality. It's just administered by states, and you pay out of pocket instead of as a tax. And, for the record, how hard is it to assemble the documentation needed to prove your ID at the DMV? If you were born here you have a birth certificate. If you're a naturalized citizen you have a certificate of citizenship. If you are a legal non-citizen you have a green card. You have a Social Security card if you are legal. Most people have some sort of a bank account.
There's an amazing number of people that have lost track of this information over the years when it wasn't really needed for anything. Many people had never really seen their birth certificate. Before 9/11, the only thing I used mine for was to enter Canada, when it was a permitted form of documentation. SS cards - same thing. I can't really recall needing to show it to anyone. Suddenly, when states required those documents, a lot of people had no clue where they were located.
It's also surprising how many people don't have bank accounts. That's why there's plenty of check-cashing agencies. And for many companies, if you don't have a bank account, they pay you with a debit card.
A ton of poor people don't have all of their documents, either. Good luck getting someone without a birth certificate or SS card a license or ID card.
Quote from: cl94 on May 03, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
A ton of poor people don't have all of their documents, either. Good luck getting someone without a birth certificate or SS card a license or ID card.
Birth certificate is just that - certificate that someone was born. I am not sure there were many babies who were born in a field and not reported to authorities within past 50 years. I can think of some babies being dropped of at hospital or police station without paperwork, but that is a rare occasion, and probably some documentation would be created anyway.
Then... you cannot get a legal job without SSN card. You may forgot that, but HR didn't.
Now if there is someone stupid or unlucky enough to loose these documents.. Well, that is a very different story.
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 03, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
A ton of poor people don't have all of their documents, either. Good luck getting someone without a birth certificate or SS card a license or ID card.
Birth certificate is just that - certificate that someone was born. I am not sure there were many babies who were born in a field and not reported to authorities within past 50 years. I can think of some babies being dropped of at hospital or police station without paperwork, but that is a rare occasion, and probably some documentation would be created anyway.
Then... you cannot get a legal job without SSN card. You may forgot that, but HR didn't.
Now if there is someone stupid or unlucky enough to loose these documents.. Well, that is a very different story.
Many people in impoverished inner-city communities just don't have these documents. My mother works with a ton of mentally ill and homeless people who don't have the documentation. Don't have a Social Security card and you can't get any form of government-issued ID in New York or a job. Some of these documents were lost by the parents through homelessness or arrests. It is a major issue in inner-city and immigrant communities.
Quote from: kalvado on May 02, 2016, 07:19:44 PM
Well, if we're comparing NY with MA - MA requires minimum of 3 or 4 documents for adults - SSN card and one each for residence, signature and DOB (one document can be used only in 1 category)
Random check shows things are fairly standard (4 pieces of documentation in FL, 3 in TX, 4 in IL)..
In NY we have no requirement to prove residency except for an enhanced license. We only require proof of name and age, and documents can be both categories.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 09:35:52 AM
The driver's license is a de facto ID. You can get a state ID if you can't drive. Here in NJ you basically can't get a job without one, or a passport if absolutely necessary. Found this out the hard way when the certificate of citizenship suddenly lost its standing as a form of ID in the state. Had to scramble to get a non-driver ID the day I was to start work. So really, the national ID is already a reality. It's just administered by states, and you pay out of pocket instead of as a tax. And, for the record, how hard is it to assemble the documentation needed to prove your ID at the DMV? If you were born here you have a birth certificate. If you're a naturalized citizen you have a certificate of citizenship. If you are a legal non-citizen you have a green card. You have a Social Security card if you are legal. Most people have some sort of a bank account.
A birth certificate provedes proof of age but does not contribute to proof of name. Social Security card is only 2 points; certificate of citizenship is 3. Bank account is only 1, and many people (such as myself) get all of our statements electronically (heck, the only paper bills I get are from State Farm, because they don't have paperless billing).
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 03, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
A ton of poor people don't have all of their documents, either. Good luck getting someone without a birth certificate or SS card a license or ID card.
Birth certificate is just that - certificate that someone was born. I am not sure there were many babies who were born in a field and not reported to authorities within past 50 years. I can think of some babies being dropped of at hospital or police station without paperwork, but that is a rare occasion, and probably some documentation would be created anyway.
Then... you cannot get a legal job without SSN card. You may forgot that, but HR didn't.
Now if there is someone stupid or unlucky enough to loose these documents.. Well, that is a very different story.
That doesn't mean that nothing ever got lost. And usually employers want the social security
number, not the physical card. And MANY people make money "under the table", ESPECIALLY poor people.
It doesn't help that a lot of people don't know what a birth certificate looks like. They think it's the novelty thing the hospital gave them with the footprints. They only find out otherwise when their kid turns 16 and they try to get some form of ID and can't.
In any case, birth certificate plus Social Security Card is only 2/6 points for NY. Good luck getting the other 4. If you have a job and paper pay stubs printed with a computer (last job I had before NYSDOT and my internship were both electronic pay stubs), that's 1. If you have paper bank statements, that's another 1. Now you're at 4. Where do you get the remaining 2? Your parents can't sign an affidavit if you're over 21 (and many people wait these days). If you have your HS diploma, that's 1 more but what about the other? Unless you have a passport (4 points), gun permit (2 points), certificate of citizenship (3 points) or out of state licence (2 points) (don't try with a foreign licence outside of Canada; NYS doesn't recognize them and you'd have to start over with a learner's permit), you're screwed (don't even try a college ID; you need an official transcript with it).
I think it's ironic that it's easier for an immigrant to get a licence than someone who was born here.
Let's not even get started with the two proofs of residency for an enhanced licence. Those are a lot harder to do if all your financial/billing affairs are all electronic, that's for sure!
I get some of my bank and credit card statements in paper form just in case I need to provide proof of residency for something. USAA does everything for banking, investments, and insurance electronically unless you opt-in to paper statements. I hate wasting paper, but so many things require proof of residency and a printout doesn't count. In many ways, it's ridiculous.
The points thing is why everyone in New York needs to get a license before the age of 21. Good luck getting 4 points if your parents don't sign a MV-45 and you don't have a passport. If you have Medicaid or food stamps, that's 2-3 points each. A college ID is 2 points with a transcript. Of course, it's hard to get any of those or a job if you don't have a permanent address...see how the cycle begins/continues?
Well, you need to PROVE who you are to get an ID - and it makes some sense DMV wants to get some proof.
If you're over 21, and you're not in college (2 point for college ID), do not have a job (1 point for employer badge + 1 point for W-2), and do not get public assistance (2 or 3 points for welfare card) - I start feeling bad for you. Of course, someone just graduated and looking for the first job can be lost in between..
Then, ATM or credit card gives 1 point - you cannot do online payment without some sort of account. 1 point for health insurance card (should be more common with Obamacare). Things start to add up, right?
Mentally ill and/or homeless - yes, that makes things more complicated..
I looked up the rules for getting a NY license and I don't think it's unreasonable at all. Let's look at my case, suppose I did an 8 month internship with the MTA, I looked up that my current Ontario license is 2 points, my legalization document for the internship, in this case being a J-1 allows for 3 points. Of course finally, to do an internship I need a SSN, and that gives me 2 points....there you go.
I believe this whole tangent started because cl94 said there should be a "National ID", we don't have one either cl94, and just because all other countries do it doesn't necessarily make it right. Nearly every other country uses the metric system so how about the US switches. Metrication, especially in the anglosphere was pushed through with force, also known as legislation which basically was an involuntary transition.
What happened here in Canada, was that the metric pushers eventually got thrown out of office halfway through forced metrification...leading to the metric limbo we are in today in Canada. There is no sane person in all of Canada who actually measures their height in cm, or weight in kg. The Region of Peel when they introduced their new garbage carts told us with signs around Brampton to "Place garbage carts THREE FEET APART", yeah....I know I'm going off on a tangent but that's honestly how I feel. Just because nearly every other country does something doesn't make it right.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 03, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
I believe this whole tangent started because cl94 said there should be a "National ID", we don't have one either cl94, and just because all other countries do it doesn't necessarily make it right. Nearly every other country uses the metric system so how about the US switches. Metrication, especially in the anglosphere was pushed through with force, also known as legislation which basically was an involuntary transition.
Well, with the RealID program - which is force fed to the states (at some point NYS got a threat that NY driver license wouldn't be accepted for plane boarding starting literally next week) - national ID program administered by local DMVs is a reality in US.
Metrication makes things a lot simpler in the global economy, so I would fully support it if done right. National IDs are mostly an internal matter (at least in the US. If you live in a passportless border agreement zone, some coordination would be needed), though I personally wouldn't mind them.
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 02:14:50 PM
Well, you need to PROVE who you are to get an ID - and it makes some sense DMV wants to get some proof.
If you're over 21, and you're not in college (2 point for college ID), do not have a job (1 point for employer badge + 1 point for W-2), and do not get public assistance (2 or 3 points for welfare card) - I start feeling bad for you. Of course, someone just graduated and looking for the first job can be lost in between..
Then, ATM or credit card gives 1 point - you cannot do online payment without some sort of account. 1 point for health insurance card (should be more common with Obamacare). Things start to add up, right?
Mentally ill and/or homeless - yes, that makes things more complicated..
Quick note: it says "College ID WITH TRANSCRIPT". You know, that thing you pay money for AFTER you graduated in case anyone ever needs to see your coursework...
Granted, these things are easier to deal with once employed. The ID stuff is much harder to assemble before one enters the workforce, especially the proof of residency (I lived at school and with my parents, so no lease, and I did all my billing online, so no printed statements; if I hadn't recently been summoned for jury duty, I wouldn't have been able to get my enhanced licence when I did).
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2016, 05:25:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 02:14:50 PM
Well, you need to PROVE who you are to get an ID - and it makes some sense DMV wants to get some proof.
If you're over 21, and you're not in college (2 point for college ID), do not have a job (1 point for employer badge + 1 point for W-2), and do not get public assistance (2 or 3 points for welfare card) - I start feeling bad for you. Of course, someone just graduated and looking for the first job can be lost in between..
Then, ATM or credit card gives 1 point - you cannot do online payment without some sort of account. 1 point for health insurance card (should be more common with Obamacare). Things start to add up, right?
Mentally ill and/or homeless - yes, that makes things more complicated..
Quick note: it says "College ID WITH TRANSCRIPT". You know, that thing you pay money for AFTER you graduated in case anyone ever needs to see your coursework...
Granted, these things are easier to deal with once employed. The ID stuff is much harder to assemble before one enters the workforce, especially the proof of residency (I lived at school and with my parents, so no lease, and I did all my billing online, so no printed statements; if I hadn't recently been summoned for jury duty, I wouldn't have been able to get my enhanced licence when I did).
This document from Bergen County College (http://www.bergen.edu/Portals/0/Docs/IntStudentsCenter/InfoResources/HowTo_NJ_driverslicense.pdf) implies that, at least in NJ, you can print out an unofficial partial transcript and use that while still a student (so I guess you can't do that until after the first semester is over). My college offered it for free even back when I was a student (1999-2003)
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2016, 05:25:16 PM
"College ID WITH TRANSCRIPT". You know, that thing you pay money for AFTER you graduated i
No, transcript is basically a progress report for current students - and the goal is to make sure student is actually attending college. Many colleges do not request ID cards back at the time of graduation, and those can sit on a shelf for extended periods of time. Since they are no longer valid and there is no point in safeguarding them, they can end up anywhere. But there is no expiration date stamped on them, so no easy way to check validity outside of college system.
May be a problem during first semester while there are no grades in the transcript - but I wonder if admission letter + college ID would be accepted, or an empty transcript saying "current student without any grades yet" can be issued.
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 03, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
I believe this whole tangent started because cl94 said there should be a "National ID", we don't have one either cl94, and just because all other countries do it doesn't necessarily make it right. Nearly every other country uses the metric system so how about the US switches. Metrication, especially in the anglosphere was pushed through with force, also known as legislation which basically was an involuntary transition.
Well, with the RealID program - which is force fed to the states (at some point NYS got a threat that NY driver license wouldn't be accepted for plane boarding starting literally next week) - national ID program administered by local DMVs is a reality in US.
RealID is stupid to me. The TSA agent who checks your ID and boarding pass is only looking to make sure that the information on both documents matches. They are not allowed to cross-check with terrorist watchlists or the no-fly lists. Why does that require a nationwide standard for IDs? If it was issued under the authority of a US state or territory it should be good to go.
All the more reason to drive or take Amtrak, though I bet in my lifetime the TSA will start screening passengers boarding trains because ISIS.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 03, 2016, 07:56:52 PM
RealID is stupid to me. The TSA agent who checks your ID and boarding pass is only looking to make sure that the information on both documents matches. They are not allowed to cross-check with terrorist watchlists or the no-fly lists. Why does that require a nationwide standard for IDs? If it was issued under the authority of a US state or territory it should be good to go.
All the more reason to drive or take Amtrak, though I bet in my lifetime the TSA will start screening passengers boarding trains because ISIS.
RealID is not about airline travel - it is about unified ID database (administered by a non-profit, not federal government) with unified requirements. Accepting certain state ID for certain purposes is a way to pressure states into compliance, same as highway funds dependent on state drinking age.
And Amtrak formally requires ID to travel. They didn't actually check anything last time I took the train, but they say ID must be available. Besides, I've seen CBP raiding Amtrak trains in Buffalo and Rochester NY...
Amtrak checks IDs when you check in for the Auto Train, although it's fair to recognize the process is a little different from many other Amtrak trains because you must go to the counter to check in for that service due in part to the need to make a dinner reservation.
I find it interesting how many Americans think a driver's license is the only acceptable ID. I carry a passport card because the design of my wallet obscures part of my driver's license and I dislike pulling it out of the leather case every time. One old lady at the polls tried to refuse it once because it didn't have my address on it, never mind that state law requires her to accept it (she backed down pretty quickly when I told her I'd report her to the State Board of Elections). The people at the prescription counter at the grocery store argued too.
Dumping two dashcam videos showing how stupid drivers are around school buses, from BC to Ohio:
Drivers who do this kind of move should have their privilege (not right) to drive revoked permanently, in my opinion.
Quote from: Bruce on May 08, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Dumping two dashcam videos showing how stupid drivers are around school buses, from BC to Ohio:
I firmly believe this occurs as frequently as it does because of the excessive use and stops of the signals when they're entirely unnecessary, much like the story of the communities I've lived in, where they won't pull in and unload an entire bus on an arterial road without anyone crossing the street... for elementry, middle, and high school. Its just like overuse of all of our other traffic control devices like stop signs instead of yield... when you put stops where there should be yields, we get used to rolling stops and otherwise yielding and ignoring the sign so the sign has no meaning when it is important. If we want this to stop happening, the stop signals on the buses really need to stop being extended when children are not crossing the street, so that way people do respect that they mean something when they are extended.
Without signals, no one would even stop for the kids.
I know this from experience, using unmarked crossings (but with clear curb cuts and sightlines, along with me staring at cars with my body language screaming my intent to cross) and having to wait for a kind soul to follow the law of the road. With a signal there, they wouldn't even dare run that crosswalk.
I think we should equip buses with long gates (similar to those at rail crossings) to create a physical barrier to lawbreaking drivers.
Quote from: Bruce on May 08, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Drivers who do this kind of move should have their privilege (not right) to drive revoked permanently, in my opinion.
Wow! The cop didn't even have a moment to run the license plate, he got out so quick from that car. I would love to know the tickets handed out in that one, and or the license suspension given!
I'm not usually on roads when school buses are picking up or discharging kids so I don't know how bad the problem generally is. I did witness someone not stopping for a bus once though. I would guess (hope) that the bus driver's personal instances in the 1st video were spread out over a long period of time, but made to look quite frequent in the news report.
In the one shot where the car goes between the driver's open door and the kids, I think I've seen that one before. I wondered why the bus wasn't closer to the kids to begin with, unless the driver just went around on a shoulder area.
I remember the sidewalk-driver being all over the news. It was in Cleveland. She did that regularly and the school bus driver contacted the police for help. The judge made her stand outside during rush hour wearing a sign saying what she had done and what an idiot she was. Her license was also suspended for 30 days and she paid $250 in court costs.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2016, 07:41:22 AM
I remember the sidewalk-driver being all over the news. It was in Cleveland. She did that regularly and the school bus driver contacted the police for help. The judge made her stand outside during rush hour wearing a sign saying what she had done and what an idiot she was. Her license was also suspended for 30 days and she paid $250 in court costs.
I wish more judges used public humiliation as a form of punishment.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 09, 2016, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2016, 07:41:22 AM
I remember the sidewalk-driver being all over the news. It was in Cleveland. She did that regularly and the school bus driver contacted the police for help. The judge made her stand outside during rush hour wearing a sign saying what she had done and what an idiot she was. Her license was also suspended for 30 days and she paid $250 in court costs.
I wish more judges used public humiliation as a form of punishment.
Seems rather barbaric to me, but if it's effective, I can't
not support it.
Technically that punishment probably violates the first amendment (due to the sign wearing).
30 days?? Should have been years.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2016, 05:31:22 PM
Technically that punishment probably violates the first amendment (due to the sign wearing).
It's quite possible he gave her a choice between that and something else, in which case there'd be no issue. I don't recall whether there were any reports about that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2016, 07:41:22 AM
I remember the sidewalk-driver being all over the news. It was in Cleveland. She did that regularly and the school bus driver contacted the police for help. The judge made her stand outside during rush hour wearing a sign saying what she had done and what an idiot she was. Her license was also suspended for 30 days and she paid $250 in court costs.
Similar to this - I remember several years ago when my wife and I were on our way up to Illinois, we were going through the courthouse square in Anson, Texas (yeah, "no dancin' Anson" of Footloose fame) and we saw a young lady walking around wearing a sandwichboard saying something along the lines of "minor caught in possession of alcohol." :-(
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2016, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2016, 05:31:22 PM
Technically that punishment probably violates the first amendment (due to the sign wearing).
It's quite possible he gave her a choice between that and something else, in which case there'd be no issue.
Would 'they chose that' be a way around the 8th amendment issues that might come up from sentences of public humiliation?
Quote from: english si on May 10, 2016, 06:30:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2016, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2016, 05:31:22 PM
Technically that punishment probably violates the first amendment (due to the sign wearing).
It's quite possible he gave her a choice between that and something else, in which case there'd be no issue.
Would 'they chose that' be a way around the 8th amendment issues that might come up from sentences of public humiliation?
Totally a guess, but it might depend on what the other option is, how "reasonable" an alternative it is.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2016, 07:41:22 AM
I remember the sidewalk-driver being all over the news. It was in Cleveland. She did that regularly and the school bus driver contacted the police for help. The judge made her stand outside during rush hour wearing a sign saying what she had done and what an idiot she was. Her license was also suspended for 30 days and she paid $250 in court costs.
I wonder if the sidewalk driver had that bumper sticker on her car that reads IF YOU DON'T LIKE HOW I DRIVE, STAY OFF THE SIDEWALK!