Poll
Question:
Should driver licenses be required?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 17
Option 2: No
votes: 3
Just throw the person in the car and let him/her take the test. I hate taking driving classes. More freedom!!!
Edit: meant for the General Highway Talk section. Not here.
2nd edit: Edited to make it more realistic and less fictional.
Very strong oppose. Drunks won't lose a license if they don't need one, so there will be more of them on the road. No minimum driving age. More Lord Carhorns.
Also, you want to change the entire country (or world) because you personally don't like taking driving lessons? While they have a few problems (e.g. teaching to the test), your personal beliefs don't trump the necessities of the entire country.
This kind of thread is supposed to wait another 3 1/2 months.
Passing the exam for a license is already easy enough in the US.
Or I can say, maybe make it easier just by putting the student in the vehicle and test him/her in the car and if he/she passes the course, then they should obtain their Driving Eligibility certificate.
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 07:52:26 PM
Very strong oppose. Drunks won't lose a license if they don't need one, so there will be more of them on the road. No minimum driving age. More Lord Carhorns.
I have people in my family that drive and they are not licensed, that's particular why I asked this question of why we should stop requiring licenses or at least make it easier to pass the driving class without having to go through a long series of boring indoor classes that take weeks to finish.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 07:59:19 PM
I have people in my family that drive and they are not licensed
Is Mary Hannah one of them? I see a suspicious link between attempting to drive without a license and peekaboo.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 08:03:07 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 07:59:19 PM
I have people in my family that drive and they are not licensed
Is Mary Hannah one of them? I see a suspicious link between attempting to drive without a license and peekaboo.
Noooo....
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road. And if they are able to get a license, they should get one.
Having just driven to from the Albany area to Boston and back today on what was apparently Reckless Driver Day in both New York and Massachusetts, I'm in favor of much tougher standards to obtain a license.
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Quote from: Jim on December 14, 2021, 08:08:23 PM
Having just driven to from the Albany area to Boston and back today on what was apparently Reckless Driver Day in both New York and Massachusetts, I'm in favor of much tougher standards to obtain a license.
Like should they extend the indoor instructional time to 2 months or give out harder quizzes? Or raise the driving age to 18 or even 21?
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Getting a license revoked for drunk driving is not a good reason to not require them anymore.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 08:12:55 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Getting a license revoked for drunk driving is not a good reason to not require them anymore.
Yes, but not my main reason why they should not do anything to the licenses. My main concern is that taking long-ass instructional time in the classrooms. Driving courses are quicker, more fun, and entertaining.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:15:58 PM
Yes, but not my main reason why they should not do anything to the licenses. My main concern is that taking long-ass instructional time in the classrooms. Driving courses are quicker, more fun, and entertaining.
The classroom instructional time is part of the driving course, and I think it's pretty important too. At least for Ohio, both the classroom instruction and on-road training are required actually: 24 hours in classroom, 8 hours driving w/ instructor, and 50 hours driving (including 10 hours of night time driving) on your own time, with a parent in the passenger seat.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:21:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.
That's not what I implied. People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license. At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license. Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria.
So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:21:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.
That's not what I implied. People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license. At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license. Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria.
So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.
And that's pretty much what a criminal is...
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:30:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:21:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.
That's not what I implied. People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license. At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license. Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria.
So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.
And that's pretty much what a criminal is...
No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense. It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:30:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:21:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.
That's not what I implied. People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license. At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license. Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria.
So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.
And that's pretty much what a criminal is...
No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense. It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads.
Understandable now.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:30:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:21:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.
That's not what I implied. People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license. At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license. Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria.
So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.
And that's pretty much what a criminal is...
No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense. It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads.
Understandable now.
I don't think you do understand. You keep creating these worthless threads, one would have thought you would stopped after the Peekaboo incident. Please do us all the favor of not spamming the forum with threads of little to no value.
Driving classes are a joke in the United States.
It should be a year-long course on the weekends, including field trips for practical training in all sorts of weather conditions and through diverse environments. The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
The tests themselves should be multi-part and be split into summer and winter sections. They should also be followed up every few years to assess drivers and teach them new skills as necessary, mostly to get senior drivers off the road before they kill more people.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:30:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:21:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2021, 08:08:11 PM
Is this because they cannot get a license for reasons unrelated to their ability to drive (e.g. they're undocumented immigrants)? If so, the law needs to be changed (16 states already allow it). If not (too visually impaired, under 16, etc.), it's not safe for them to be on the road.
Well one of them has done drinking and driving the cop caught him/her and another one... I don't want to say it... I prefer sending it in PMs.
Then they deserved to lose their license, seems like a simple cause and effect to me.
Yes. Criminals should not be allowed to drive.
That's not what I implied. People who were caught with a DUI deserve to lose their drivers license. At no point did I imply all people convicted of crimes should lose their license. Nor did I imply that someone convicted of a DUI shouldn't be denied the opportunity to obtain a license again if they meet specific criteria.
So you can take that as an inference that licenses are necessary and thusly drivers qualifications of some kind.
And that's pretty much what a criminal is...
No, a DUI is a specific criminal offense. It's stupid to lump everything criminal offense into the category of being criteria for losing a license. But then again, stupid/pointless kind of tracks with a lot of your threads.
Understandable now.
I don't think you do understand. You keep creating these worthless threads, one would have thought you would stopped after the Peekaboo incident. Please do us all the favor of not spamming the forum with threads of little to no value.
I did stop. This is a thread about what if we made the indoor classes easier to obtain a DL.
To add, I think the rest of the world's driving classes (Like in Europe) has harder lessons even Japan... they have much more difficult classes to pass.
Where can I obtain one of these indoor driving courses? I grew up in a household where indoor driving had a strong punishment.
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
Driving classes are a joke in the United States.
It should be a year-long course on the weekends, including field trips for practical training in all sorts of weather conditions and through diverse environments. The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
The tests themselves should be multi-part and be split into summer and winter sections. They should also be followed up every few years to assess drivers and teach them new skills as necessary, mostly to get senior drivers off the road before they kill more people.
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
Quote from: formulanone on December 14, 2021, 08:52:03 PM
Where can I obtain one of these indoor driving courses? I grew up in a household where indoor driving had a strong punishment.
I'm aware that this is related to corporal punishment in the schools.
Quote from: formulanone on December 14, 2021, 08:52:03 PM
Where can I obtain one of these indoor driving courses? I grew up in a household where indoor driving had a strong punishment.
Not on typical roads, but https://indoorautoracing.com
I have never taken a driving class. Written test, yes. Anything else that wasn't my actual road test? No.
Quote from: jayhawkco on December 14, 2021, 09:08:13 PM
I have never taken a driving class. Written test, yes. Anything else that wasn't my actual road test? No.
Well, I've taken the classes through high school, as well as the written and road tests.
This shows the list of what you have to do to obtain your permit: https://www.idrivesafely.com/dmv/north-carolina/learners-permit/driver-permit/
_______________________________
Steps to Complete
Once you turn 15 years old, you can get your drivers permit. Here's what you need to do:
Visit your local DMV office.
Bring proof of identity.
You will need two documents that prove your identity, one of which must contain your date of birth. To find out which documents are acceptable, click here.
Bring proof of Social Security.
Visit the North Carolina DMV website for examples of documents that you may bring. You will need 1 document as proof.
After completing an approved drivers ed course, present both your driving eligibility certificate (or high school diploma) and your driver education certificate.
Pass written, sign, and vision tests.
The written test will cover traffic laws and safe driving practices.
On the sign test, you will need to identify traffic signs by both color and shape, and be able to explain what each indicates.
For the vision test, be sure to wear you glasses or contacts if you need them. You will be required to wear them whenever you drive.
Complete at least 60 hours of supervised driving practice (10 of which must be at night), and provide your completed Driving Log to Advance to Level 2 Limited Provisional Driver License (Form DL-4A).
Pay the appropriate fee with cash, money order, or personal check.
___________________________________________________________
And I still have my full provisional license and now that I'm 18, I should probably go get my real driver's license. What do y'all think. I hope I don't get pulled over if I drive.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
You do realize that you just told the whole internet that your parents lied on your hours driven form right?
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
You do realize that you just told the whole internet that your parents lied on your hours driven form right?
So, should I cut that part out?
Edit: I've seen it on other forums as well.
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=124321601&page=1
QuoteMy parents filled it out fake.
I didn't have to do anything.
Because driver licensing is a slippery slope to toaster licensing?
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:23:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
You do realize that you just told the whole internet that your parents lied on your hours driven form right?
So, should I cut that part out?
It's up to you if you want to cut it out or not. I thought you would've known by now what to publicly post on the internet after the Mary Hannah and phone number incidents.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:28:30 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:23:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
You do realize that you just told the whole internet that your parents lied on your hours driven form right?
So, should I cut that part out?
It's up to you if you want to cut it out or not. I thought you would've known by now what to publicly post on the internet after the Mary Hannah and phone number incidents.
I do know. The only reason why I posted that is because I've seen a post like that on ANOTHER FORUM (which I edited my post and has a link to it).
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
I can't imagine that education through trauma is either wise or effective.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
You do realize that you just told the whole internet that your parents lied on your hours driven form right?
I don't think anyone is going to care or do anything, especially in this case, nor could anyone really do anything about it if they wanted to. Watch this:
I've stolen several Rand McNally maps from Walmart at the self checkout. Come and get me!
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 14, 2021, 09:33:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
I can't imagine that education through trauma is either wise or effective.
I got shown "idiots in cars" like videos (most likely from a different Youtube channel) during my classroom time in drivers ed.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:37:47 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 14, 2021, 09:33:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
I can't imagine that education through trauma is either wise or effective.
I got shown "idiots in cars" like videos (most likely from a different Youtube channel) during my classroom time in drivers ed.
An occasional video isn't really what bruce had in mind. He wants a "scared straight" sort of program.
In Missouri, a signature is needed by a legal guardian or instructor as well as the to-be licensed driver (maybe), on a form that acknowledges that the driver has completed 40 hours of behind the wheel training with a qualified adult, with ten of those being at night. Some people I know have taken and passed their test with significantly less than the required number of hours. It is possible that if you hold a permit at 18, you can skip the "Intermediate" license (with restrictions such as number of non-family passengers and cerfew).
Springfield's school district only offers an online driving course. From my personal experience with their online programs, the course is more than likely not very useful. and taking driver's ed has only one benefit around here: lowering insurance rates.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 14, 2021, 09:44:56 PM
In Missouri, a signature is needed by a legal guardian or instructor as well as the to-be licensed driver (maybe), on a form that acknowledges that the driver has completed 40 hours of behind the wheel training with a qualified adult, with ten of those being at night. Some people I know have taken and passed their test with significantly less than the required number of hours. It is possible that if you hold a permit at 18, you can skip the "Intermediate" license (with restrictions such as number of non-family passengers and cerfew).
Springfield's school district only offers an online driving course. From my personal experience with their online programs, the course is more than likely not very useful. and taking driver's ed has only one benefit around here: lowering insurance rates.
Well I know North Carolina is not one of the states that requires a "signature" to be signed on the driving log.
The sentence in bolded, I'm definitely one of them.
Also, I know here in this state is that you get a paper driving license first before your hard one comes. And it takes up to 2 weeks for it to happen.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 14, 2021, 09:44:56 PM
In Missouri, a signature is needed by a legal guardian or instructor as well as the to-be licensed driver (maybe), on a form that acknowledges that the driver has completed 40 hours of behind the wheel training with a qualified adult, with ten of those being at night. Some people I know have taken and passed their test with significantly less than the required number of hours. It is possible that if you hold a permit at 18, you can skip the "Intermediate" license (with restrictions such as number of non-family passengers and cerfew).
Springfield's school district only offers an online driving course. From my personal experience with their online programs, the course is more than likely not very useful. and taking driver's ed has only one benefit around here: lowering insurance rates.
Well I know North Carolina is not one of the states that requires a "signature" to be signed on the driving log.
The sentence in bolded, I'm definitely one of them.
Ohio doesn't require a driving log to track your hours driven per-se, but a form called the "50 Hour Affidavit (https://publicsafety.ohio.gov/static/bmv5791.pdf)" is required for parents to sign (at least for those under 18 when getting a license, like when I was in the process).
Note that this is in addition to the two other requirements, which I mentioned upthread.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 14, 2021, 09:44:56 PM
In Missouri, a signature is needed by a legal guardian or instructor as well as the to-be licensed driver (maybe), on a form that acknowledges that the driver has completed 40 hours of behind the wheel training with a qualified adult, with ten of those being at night. Some people I know have taken and passed their test with significantly less than the required number of hours. It is possible that if you hold a permit at 18, you can skip the "Intermediate" license (with restrictions such as number of non-family passengers and cerfew).
Springfield's school district only offers an online driving course. From my personal experience with their online programs, the course is more than likely not very useful. and taking driver's ed has only one benefit around here: lowering insurance rates.
Well I know North Carolina is not one of the states that requires a "signature" to be signed on the driving log.
The sentence in bolded, I'm definitely one of them.
Ohio doesn't require a driving log to track your hours driven per-se, but a form called the "50 Hour Affidavit (https://publicsafety.ohio.gov/static/bmv5791.pdf)" is required for parents to sign (at least for those under 18 when getting a license, like when I was in the process).
Note that this is in addition to the two other requirements, which I mentioned upthread.
Great to know. Also when clicking on that I saw this "
NOTICE: Falsifying an affidavit is punishable by fine and / or imprisonment (R.C Section 2921.21 and 4507.21[G])". That's even more harsh compared to the driving logs here in North Carolina!
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
Driving classes are a joke in the United States.
It should be a year-long course on the weekends, including field trips for practical training in all sorts of weather conditions and through diverse environments. The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
The tests themselves should be multi-part and be split into summer and winter sections. They should also be followed up every few years to assess drivers and teach them new skills as necessary, mostly to get senior drivers off the road before they kill more people.
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
Maybe the real question is: Why didn't you drive?
"I drove just fine"
Ask everyone you know that drives if they're a good driver, and they'll probably say they are a good driver. Then ask them who the bad drivers are, and they'll probably say everyone else.
Ask if they know how to knit, and they'll give you the honest truth. Ask if they can cook, and they'll tell you the truth. Ask if they know how do to their own taxes, and they'll give you the truth. Ask again if they are a good driver, and they'll just think they are. Clearly, we know there aren't good drivers out there.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 10:07:11 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 14, 2021, 09:44:56 PM
In Missouri, a signature is needed by a legal guardian or instructor as well as the to-be licensed driver (maybe), on a form that acknowledges that the driver has completed 40 hours of behind the wheel training with a qualified adult, with ten of those being at night. Some people I know have taken and passed their test with significantly less than the required number of hours. It is possible that if you hold a permit at 18, you can skip the "Intermediate" license (with restrictions such as number of non-family passengers and cerfew).
Springfield's school district only offers an online driving course. From my personal experience with their online programs, the course is more than likely not very useful. and taking driver's ed has only one benefit around here: lowering insurance rates.
Well I know North Carolina is not one of the states that requires a "signature" to be signed on the driving log.
The sentence in bolded, I'm definitely one of them.
Ohio doesn't require a driving log to track your hours driven per-se, but a form called the "50 Hour Affidavit (https://publicsafety.ohio.gov/static/bmv5791.pdf)" is required for parents to sign (at least for those under 18 when getting a license, like when I was in the process).
Note that this is in addition to the two other requirements, which I mentioned upthread.
Great to know. Also when clicking on that I saw this "NOTICE: Falsifying an affidavit is punishable by fine and / or imprisonment (R.C Section 2921.21 and 4507.21[G])". That's even more harsh compared to the driving logs here in North Carolina!
I'm kind of wondering if there's a correlation between the "strictness" of a state's driving program, and the quality of drivers in a state. Probably not, but at the same time, I don't know about drivers ed requirements for the other 49 states.
Though note that Ohio doesn't test parking (neither perpendicular or parallel) on the driving exam and does something else instead.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2021, 10:22:33 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
Driving classes are a joke in the United States.
It should be a year-long course on the weekends, including field trips for practical training in all sorts of weather conditions and through diverse environments. The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
The tests themselves should be multi-part and be split into summer and winter sections. They should also be followed up every few years to assess drivers and teach them new skills as necessary, mostly to get senior drivers off the road before they kill more people.
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
Maybe the real question is: Why didn't you drive?
"I drove just fine"
Ask everyone you know that drives if they're a good driver, and they'll probably say they are a good driver. Then ask them who the bad drivers are, and they'll probably say everyone else.
Ask if they know how to knit, and they'll give you the honest truth. Ask if they can cook, and they'll tell you the truth. Ask if they know how do to their own taxes, and they'll give you the truth. Ask again if they are a good driver, and they'll just think they are. Clearly, we know there aren't good drivers out there.
I do drive just not often. And I will do that. Knit? Some do and some don't. Same thing with cooking. And taxes. Yes...
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 10:25:56 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 10:07:11 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 14, 2021, 09:44:56 PM
In Missouri, a signature is needed by a legal guardian or instructor as well as the to-be licensed driver (maybe), on a form that acknowledges that the driver has completed 40 hours of behind the wheel training with a qualified adult, with ten of those being at night. Some people I know have taken and passed their test with significantly less than the required number of hours. It is possible that if you hold a permit at 18, you can skip the "Intermediate" license (with restrictions such as number of non-family passengers and cerfew).
Springfield's school district only offers an online driving course. From my personal experience with their online programs, the course is more than likely not very useful. and taking driver's ed has only one benefit around here: lowering insurance rates.
Well I know North Carolina is not one of the states that requires a "signature" to be signed on the driving log.
The sentence in bolded, I'm definitely one of them.
Ohio doesn't require a driving log to track your hours driven per-se, but a form called the "50 Hour Affidavit (https://publicsafety.ohio.gov/static/bmv5791.pdf)" is required for parents to sign (at least for those under 18 when getting a license, like when I was in the process).
Note that this is in addition to the two other requirements, which I mentioned upthread.
Great to know. Also when clicking on that I saw this "NOTICE: Falsifying an affidavit is punishable by fine and / or imprisonment (R.C Section 2921.21 and 4507.21[G])". That's even more harsh compared to the driving logs here in North Carolina!
Though note that Ohio doesn't test parking (neither perpendicular or parallel) on the driving exam and does something else instead.
North Carolina also doesn't test parallel parking. And my sister says she doesn't want to get her license because of that.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 10:29:42 PM
North Carolina also doesn't test parallel parking. And my sister says she doesn't want to get her license because of that.
So your sister doesn't want to get a license when potentially the most difficult part of a drivers exam isn't tested? I thought it would've been the opposite.
Many people can probably get by without parallel parking.
What they should teach though - on the road - is when someone is driving and the person in front of them wants to parallel park. If they see that driver putting on a turn signal and stop just after an open parallel parking spot, don't get right on their ass then be surprised that they start backing up.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 10:32:51 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 10:29:42 PM
North Carolina also doesn't test parallel parking. And my sister says she doesn't want to get her license because of that.
So your sister doesn't want to get a license when potentially the most difficult part of a drivers exam isn't tested? I thought it would've been the opposite.
Well, no...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2021, 10:34:22 PM
Many people can probably get by without parallel parking.
What they should teach though - on the road - is when someone is driving and the person in front of them wants to parallel park. If they see that driver putting on a turn signal and stop just after an open parallel parking spot, don't get right on their ass then be surprised that they start backing up.
Yes, sometimes when I'm driving I get confused by that.
Written tests have a completely different function than practical driving tests. The practical tests whether you have the ability to physically operate a car in a safe manner. In my experience, the written primarily tests knowledge of relevant law. The written also functions as a test of knowledge of the MUTCD (from a practical test there's really no way to reliably and safely test the knowledge of what, say, a yield sign means, as there's no way to guarantee that there will be cross traffic to yield to, and an incorrect response could lead to a crash). There are a lot of signs and markings that may not occur anywhere near the testing site but whose meaning needs to be tested.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:23:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 08:52:56 PM
And to add, when I was getting my restricted license, I literally did almost nothing and my mother just wrote down the hours and they accepted it, I drove just fine and I passed!
You do realize that you just told the whole internet that your parents lied on your hours driven form right?
So, should I cut that part out?
It's generally considered pretty dumb to admit to probably committing a crime to the entire Internet (I dunno how it is in North Carolina but damn near every form you turn into to the state of Oklahoma says that lying on it constitutes perjury). And now it's been quoted by a few people, so it's kind of too late for you to delete it...
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
Well I know North Carolina is not one of the states that requires a "signature" to be signed on the driving log.
Actually, NCDMV requires a parental signature on every single one of the Driver's Logs forms that get submitted (both Level 1 and Level 2). Plus, the required amount of driving for Level 2 cannot be completed on a single sheet unless the student driver takes a lot of long haul segments on cross-country road trips. Even then, there's a limit to the number of hours that can be logged per week. https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/downloads/Documents/DL-4A.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/downloads/Documents/DL-4A.pdf)
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2021, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 14, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
Well I know North Carolina is not one of the states that requires a "signature" to be signed on the driving log.
Actually, NCDMV requires a parental signature on every single one of the Driver's Logs forms that get submitted (both Level 1 and Level 2). Plus, the required amount of driving for Level 2 cannot be completed on a single sheet unless the student driver takes a lot of long haul segments on cross-country road trips. Even then, there's a limit to the number of hours that can be logged per week. https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/downloads/Documents/DL-4A.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/downloads/Documents/DL-4A.pdf)
Looking up the law cited on that form, we get the following:
QuoteIf the Division has cause to believe that a driving log has been falsified, the limited learner's permit holder shall be required to complete a new driving log with the same requirements and shall not be eligible to obtain a limited provisional license for six months.
It doesn't say what happens if the person was able to get a license before the document was discovered to be falsified.
Classroom instruction in driving is still not required in many jurisdictions, and I tend to favor repealing any such requirements. But new drivers definitely should be required to pass a written test and to demonstrate proficiency behind the wheel. (It would be hypocritical for me to suggest this should invariably be by a driving test, since I obtained my license without one. At bare minimum, the applicant should be able to prove successful completion of a driving course that has a significant component of behind-the-wheel instruction.) I also think there is an excellent argument for a third form of assessment that focuses on hazard perception, such as is being rolled out in many European countries.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 14, 2021, 09:40:48 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:37:47 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 14, 2021, 09:33:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
I can't imagine that education through trauma is either wise or effective.
I got shown "idiots in cars" like videos (most likely from a different Youtube channel) during my classroom time in drivers ed.
An occasional video isn't really what bruce had in mind. He wants a "scared straight" sort of program.
Not necessarily. Doesn't have to be gore, just showing a screwup and the full aftermath of deployed airbags, a crushed car, and going over the kind of injuries to expect would be enough.
Of course this still wouldn't deter the stupidest of the bunch, which is why we need more automated enforcement of high speeds, with actual penalties for unsafe driving.
The gory-film approach was tried in the 1950's, and my driver's education instructors showed one or two of those. (This was in the early nineties, but I suspect the media materials as well as the equipment, including the simulator, dated from construction of the high school in 1958.) I still remember a clip featuring a conversation with a quadriplegic.
Ralph Nader's Unsafe at any Speed (1965) decried these films, and driver education in general, as ineffective and not worthy of the discounts that insurance companies were then already extending.
More than fifty years later, I think the evidence base currently favors an emphasis on what goes before (for hazard perception training) than on what comes after, so far as audiovisual materials are concerned. One approach I've found interesting, but whose effectiveness I don't know to have been tested, is to show the aftermath of an accident from the perspective of someone stuck in a mangled wreck who has to watch as the first responders methodically assemble equipment to perform an extrication.
Quote from: Bruce on December 15, 2021, 05:24:30 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 14, 2021, 09:40:48 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2021, 09:37:47 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 14, 2021, 09:33:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 14, 2021, 08:43:45 PM
The in-person classes should focus on theory and watching examples of poor judgment and their consequences. There's plenty of dashcam videos out there, but they aren't gruesome enough to scare young drivers into behaving properly.
I can't imagine that education through trauma is either wise or effective.
I got shown "idiots in cars" like videos (most likely from a different Youtube channel) during my classroom time in drivers ed.
An occasional video isn't really what bruce had in mind. He wants a "scared straight" sort of program.
Not necessarily. Doesn't have to be gore, just showing a screwup and the full aftermath of deployed airbags, a crushed car, and going over the kind of injuries to expect would be enough.
Of course this still wouldn't deter the stupidest of the bunch
It's not a question of stupid. The tendency is for people to just zone this stuff out, or to resort to gallows humor in response to it, precisely because gruesomeness, even if it doesn't contain gore, is unpleasant, too unpleasant for people to actually deal with. Especially for people at 15 or so years of age. I mean, this is the general reaction of trained doctors to the death they face. No one, stupid or not, is really going to do anything different.
The result is that the experience you're proposing is ineffective, and worse, triggers disdain for other information being presented.
I get that you're trying to provoke some sort of emotional response in those learning how to drive, but this isn't the way to do so.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2021, 06:03:07 PM
The gory-film approach was tried in the 1950's, and my driver's education instructors showed one or two of those. (This was in the early nineties, but I suspect the media materials as well as the equipment, including the simulator, dated from construction of the high school in 1958.) I still remember a clip featuring a conversation with a quadriplegic.
They were still showing those at my school when I attended drivers-ed classes in the summer of 2005. (Our school building was only a year or two old at that point, but the school administration's worldview dated from 1958.) They had a few films that sounded from the audio quality like they dated from the 1960s or 1970s, and then they had a pair of cops come in and show some videos of scenes they had worked and provide color commentary. (I remember one of the officers going on a wholly unnecessary tangent about the texture of brain matter.)
I very pointedly did not watch the films, instead keeping my eyes focused on the desk in front of me the entire time, both because I simply did not want to see that sort of imagery, and because I resented the fact that the administration apparently thought I was enough of an idiot to think this exercise was necessary for me to come to the conclusion that crashing a car into something was undesirable.
Because I swear I imagined this but I asked classmates of mine to confirm, the driver's ed taught at my high school (not by the school, but by a hired company) spent as much time telling us our rights in a DUI stop as they did actual important things.
Probably explains why the townies I know have drunk driving issues.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 15, 2021, 07:21:00 PM
Because I swear I imagined this but I asked classmates of mine to confirm, the driver's ed taught at my high school (not by the school, but by a hired company) spent as much time telling us our rights in a DUI stop as they did actual important things.
Probably explains why the townies I know have drunk driving issues.
Probably the other way around. Since there is so much dwi, it may be reasonable to show resulting problems not in fear mongering way, but so that the question "is it worth doing?" comes to student mind without 1257th repeat of "don't do it!"
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 14, 2021, 09:40:48 PM
An occasional video isn't really what bruce had in mind. He wants a "scared straight" sort of program.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2021, 06:03:07 PM
The gory-film approach was tried in the 1950's, and my driver's education instructors showed one or two of those. (This was in the early nineties, but I suspect the media materials as well as the equipment, including the simulator, dated from construction of the high school in 1958.) I still remember a clip featuring a conversation with a quadriplegic.
Ralph Nader's Unsafe at any Speed (1965) decried these films, and driver education in general, as ineffective and not worthy of the discounts that insurance companies were then already extending.
More than fifty years later, I think the evidence base currently favors an emphasis on what goes before (for hazard perception training) than on what comes after, so far as audiovisual materials are concerned. One approach I've found interesting, but whose effectiveness I don't know to have been tested, is to show the aftermath of an accident from the perspective of someone stuck in a mangled wreck who has to watch as the first responders methodically assemble equipment to perform an extrication.
Oh yeah. In our part of West Virginia, we had a driver safety movie from Ohio entitled "
Bloody Mary (I recall it was from ODOT, but it may have been OBMV). That movie had a video clip from a fixed camera mounted along a freeway where someone purportedly got ejected from a car and was beheaded by a guardrail. The video clip was blacked out just split seconds before the moment of impact; virtually everyone in the class screamed or squealed (or blurted out something inappropriate, and you can just imagine what that means in the middle of Buckwild territory). I remember being totally convinced that the video must have been faked. We also had to watch portions of
And then there were Four (narrated by James Stewart) and
Last Date (which included Dick York, before his
Bewitched days). This all pales in comparison to the third rail power safety video employed by New York City Transit (NYCT).