AARoads Forum

I think with the large number young people being killed in car wrecks there should be a Govt mandated requirement that all new drivers will attend a 3(??) wk drivers ed course before they can test for their first license. What are your thoughts?
When I was granted my first licence in Fayetteville, NC in 1969 I had to attend a drivers ed course during school summer vacation, seems it was about a 1-2 wk course, I dont rememeber if it was a state requirement or if my parents were wise enough to have me attend but the teachings of the course have stayed with me for 41yrs.

it depends on what they do in those three weeks!  

most of the standard drivers ed questions are patently useless.  Where does one stop at an railroad crossing, with two tracks and flashing lights arranged in a manner consistent with the 1976 MUTCD, that is on a 2% grade uphill, in daylight with average to slightly above average visibility?  300 feet away?  325?  350?  375?  Knowing such errata won't make you a better driver.

even the actual driving test: parallel parking and driving in reverse are favorites because they're easy to teach and test, but they are maybe 0.01% of all necessary driving related skills.  They turn people into drivers who can park two Cadillacs inside a grain of rice, but they also end up doing 52 in the fast lane with the left blinker on because no one ever taught them better...

what someone needs to invent is a driving simulator (hint, they've been around since the 80s and take 25 cents to operate) that throws a series of challenging driving situations at the applicant.  You are given a facing a standard gauntlet of red lights, green lights, ambulances, railroad crossings, and of course a sampling of your fellow motorists - people changing lanes suddenly, failing to negotiate four-way stops, indicating left and turning right, driving the wrong way, putting on makeup, reading the newspaper, doing 35 with OJ Simpson riding shotgun and half the LA police department following them, etc etc ...

if you can pass that, great, you're likely minimally qualified to use public roads.

Idaho's requirement when I got my license in 2003 was that you could get your daylight-only license at the age of 15, with it turning into an unrestricted license at 16 if you took driver's ed.

You could get your learner's permit at the age of 14 1/2 and begin driver's ed at that time. The state mandated 30 hours of classroom instruction, 6 hours of behind the wheel time, and 6 hours of riding with other driver's ed students. After completing driver's ed, you had to spend four months driving with a parent in the car, at which point you could get your daylight-only license if you were 15. If you entered driver's ed at 16 and came out with a license, it would be unrestricted.  
My sister got her license in 2007 or 2008, and they added one more restriction onto the 15 year old license, making it illegal to have more than one non-family member in the car. The other change is that when I got my license, passengers in 15 year old driver cars had to be wearing seatbelts, but that became required regardless of the driver's age a few months after I got my license

If you didn't take driver's ed, I think you have to be 18 to get your license.

Quoteeven the actual driving test: parallel parking and driving in reverse are favorites because they're easy to teach and test, but they are maybe 0.01% of all necessary driving related skills.  They turn people into drivers who can park two Cadillacs inside a grain of rice, but they also end up doing 52 in the fast lane with the left blinker on because no one ever taught them better...

Interestingly, when I got my license there was no parallel parking test, nor did we cover it in driver's ed. I'm entirely self-taught at parallel parking (as a consequence, I'm not horribly good at it- I can do it if I have to, but I try to avoid those situations).

Here in NY, you got a learner permit at 16, but had to wait six months before you could take the actual road test, and had to have proof of 20 hours of practice (which was merely a signed note from the parent).

In addition, you also had to take either a five-hour driving course or a formal driver's education course; doing the latter allowed you to get a full license (which allowed for night driving) at 17, otherwise you got a junior license until you were 18.

I did both; I was already enrolled in driver's ed, but didn't feel like waiting until the end of the semester to take my road test, so I also took a five-hour course, got my junior license, then got my blue card for taking driver's ed and got my full license that summer.

There's talk of potentially increasing the driving practice needed to take the road test to 50 hours.

The road test was easy- I passed it in my first try. My parallel park was perfect (which is ironic because I suck at it now), and the only place I really lost points was driving too slow around a corner.

I'm pretty good at parallel parking; my only problem is that I drive a different-sized vehicle every week!  :-D

Europe is generally much stricter with issueing drivers license's.

For example, I took 24 hours of driving lessons at ~$ 45 each, then a theoretical exam (passed the first time), and finally the practical exam (also passed the first time).

I think I spent about $ 1,500 to get my drivers license, which is below average in this country. Especially the driving lessons ($ 45 * 24 = ~ $ 1.100) add up significantly.

However, I sometimes doubt if this really works, if you see some stuntwork or erratic driving by young people, but not least by older people as well. Just yesterday I was on a 60 mph limit road, with some guy in front of me doing 35 mph with no possibilities to pass. While the Dutch speed limits are generally 10 - 15 mph lower than those in neighboring countries, some Dutch even manage to drive even slower. Man sometimes you just fall asleep in the car.

I got my learner's permit (in Kansas) in January 1992, took one semester of driver's education in high school, and got my full (unrestricted) license in late May or early June 1992.  I have been continuously licensed in Kansas since then and also have a British provisional driving licence (I passed the theory test but failed the driving test--the pass benchmarks were revised about a month before I took the driving test, so I would have passed under the old benchmarks but failed under the new ones).

Kansas did not then, and still does not, require driver's education.  My parents asked me to take it however because of the insurance discount.  Also, at that time, taking a state-approved driver's education class allowed you to get the full license without taking the driving test.  Nowadays I think most if not all public school districts in Kansas have eliminated driver's education--at the time I went through high school, it was available for a modest supplementary charge, but for budgetary reasons this charge was increased and (I think) students were required to take driver's education outside regular school hours.  Predictably, enrollment declined and the classes were eliminated altogether.

Kansas now has a 50-hour logbook requirement.  This was not in force when I still had my instructional permit, but I would have had no difficulty complying with it because I went out for one hour of supervised driving after school every day during the semester I was taking driver's education.

I don't have much respect for the driver's education curriculum as I encountered it.  Quite a lot of it was makework.  Since driver's education at that time was not selective, anyone could take it and so pacification and crowd control (as opposed to actual teaching) was a primary concern of the teachers.  However, there was a textbook (AAA's Sportsmanlike Driving), which had valuable information on driving systems; I read and absorbed this on my own.  We were not required to return our textbooks (!) so I poached a copy, which I still have.  I also have Roadcraft (later edition only, unfortunately), which has lots of good advice on vehicle handling--it is closely geared toward driving in Britain but a significant amount of the advice transfers to the US and other countries once differences in highway design, marking, and signing are taken into account.

My advice for anyone taking driver's education now or otherwise learning how to drive, in relation to my own experiences with driver's education, would be to pay a lot more attention to highway design standards, particularly the MUTCD.  Anyone driving on the public highway should be aware (1) there is no general requirement to post highway signs and (2) the doctrine of sovereign immunity still exists in some form in most states.  Put simply, no responsible driver should ever assume provision on the part of the public authority.

Another important lesson I had to learn, unfortunately outside the safe context of a driver's education course or supervised driving, is never underestimate your own capacity for incompetence.  In my case, I had to learn by trial and error how to manage alertness on long road trips--it cannot be taken for granted, and it is very difficult to teach new drivers how to recognize the signs of failing alertness through simulation or verbal instruction.

It has also been my observation, in relation to driver training practice in Britain, that the US is more likely to stress the philosophy and practice of defensive driving.  I think this is a strength of the US approach which helps keep the apparent safety disadvantage of the US relative to wealthy European countries (principally a higher motorway fatality rate per billion passenger-km travelled) down while allowing people to drive in the US at low skill levels.  Defensive driving is never explicitly addressed in training references in Britain; instead they stress a general philosophy of "making progress" and details of procedure (mirror-signal-maneuver) and vehicle handling (as epitomized by the earlier samizdat, and to a lesser extent the later formally published, editions of Roadcraft).  The British get away with their approach because their focus on spit-and-polish in the driving test helps keep the low- to medium-skilled hoi polloi out, but it does breed arrogance--British drivers are more likely than American ones to think they have the right to punish you for making small technical errors on the highway.  I would say that for this reason "road rage" is a fractionally more serious problem in Britain than in the US despite drivers in the US being more likely to carry guns.

Connecticut has gotten considerably stricter in recent years. When I started taking driver's ed in 2004, it was only required for minors and licenses were issued with no restrictions. Now, there are quite a few things you can't do as a driver under 18, and while adults aren't required to sit through the full driver's ed course (was 30 hours in my day, dunno what it is now), they are required to sit through an 8 hour class about drugs and alcohol (in my day, this was a 2 hour class...). The class itself, according to my younger sister who just took it, is little more than sitting there watching movies about the subject matter, then taking a brief test to prove you paid attention... which they let you use the study guide as reference for, so you don't need to actually have paid attention.
One other note: the state requires you actually spend at least 8 hours in the class. So, once it starts, they lock the doors. Nobody leaves until it's over, and no late arrivals allowed!

I'm in Colorado, with a kid who recently turned 15.  I won't bore you with all the details, but there are several steps we have to take in order to get him a provisional drivers license by the time he turns 16.  Included among these is a drivers ed course (that is, classroom instruction), plus 50 hours of actual behind-the-wheel experience (although I don't think any of that has to be with a certified instructor).  I'm not opposed to these requirements - I think they're good, and we're paying extra for a BTW instructor.  The thing that bothers me, though, is that if a kid is willing to wait until he's 18, he can just walk in, pass the written test and the BTW test, and he gets his license.  I'm astonished at some of the driver errors I witness around here, and my only explanation is that these must be people who have never learned some of the basic laws and precepts of driving.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 19, 2010, 09:00:29 AMthey are required to sit through an 8 hour class about drugs and alcohol (in my day, this was a 2 hour class...)

this seems like an inordinate waste of time.  I think I could pronounce "don't be a moron" in about 1.5 seconds.  

8 hours!?  I'd be showing up with a 6-pack of beer!

Quote from: usends on July 19, 2010, 10:47:57 AM
I'm astonished at some of the driver errors I witness around here, and my only explanation is that these must be people who have never learned some of the basic laws and precepts of driving.

I think most folks just don't care, rather than never learned.

What seems weird to me, is the number of left-lane hogs in the U.S. Left-lane hogging is absolutely not tolerated in most of Europe, and don't be surprised if some German muscle car will tailgate you from 10 feet and signal with his headlights. Once your pass is completed, move to the right immediately if there is a gap of traffic on the right lane. And a truck driving half a mile ahead is not seen as an excuse to stay on the left lane. It's also not appreciated if you pass someone else with a 2 mph difference.

Quote from: Chris on July 19, 2010, 12:53:56 PM
What seems weird to me, is the number of left-lane hogs in the U.S. Left-lane hogging is absolutely not tolerated in most of Europe, and don't be surprised if some German muscle car will tailgate you from 10 feet and signal with his headlights...

What do you mean, "not tolerated"?  How is it enforced?  I understand your example about tailgating and flashing headlights, but that happens here, and the left-lane-hog still doesn't get over!  Either they don't understand the concept, or else they do understand but don't give a rip.  (And in Europe, if the LLH slams on his brakes and gets rear-ended, who's at fault?)

Quote from: usends on July 19, 2010, 01:17:36 PM

(And in Europe, if the LLH slams on his brakes and gets rear-ended, who's at fault?)

anyone that purposely slams on the brakes at autobahn speed to prove a point is hopefully eliminated from the gene pool by his actions.

Quote from: Chris on July 19, 2010, 12:53:56 PM
What seems weird to me, is the number of left-lane hogs in the U.S.

I think the LLH problem is a legacy of the NMSL and the strict speed enforcement in some states.  Due to that, some folks feel that they can camp out in the left lane as long as they follow the speed limit.

I'll go on record as saying that the worst thing ever to happen for driving in the US was the 55 mph limit (NMSL).  It taught people some really bad habits, IMHO, from being and LLH to disobeying almost all regualtory signs.

In Ohio, if you are under 18 years of age, you have to go through a driver's ed course. You also have to complete 50 hours of driving. Of those 50 hours, 10 of them must be at night. Also, there are restrictions such as not to drive between midnight to 6 a.m. without a parent, not have more than one other person in a motor vehicle, and the like. I'm going to vote no on this as I have gotten my license at 19 without going through drivers ed. My dad taught me to drive.

Quote from: Brandon on July 19, 2010, 03:09:23 PM

Quote from: Chris on July 19, 2010, 12:53:56 PM
What seems weird to me, is the number of left-lane hogs in the U.S.

I think the LLH problem is a legacy of the NMSL and the strict speed enforcement in some states.  Due to that, some folks feel that they can camp out in the left lane as long as they follow the speed limit.

I'll go on record as saying that the worst thing ever to happen for driving in the US was the 55 mph limit (NMSL).  It taught people some really bad habits, IMHO, from being and LLH to disobeying almost all regualtory signs.

Some states already have a "keep right, pass left" law while others (such as Ohio, except the Turnpike) do not. Another issue is also the fact that if there is a left exit nearby, then they are just going to stay in the left lane doing 55 or fewer until they reach the exit. And then there are some who will just stay there after the fact.

Guys just a note this topic is Driver's ed requirement, not Left Lane hogs.

you split the topic, then!

I'm not sure if Mississippi requires a driver's ed class for younger drivers. I do know that some insurance companies (if not all of them) do give discounts for those who are enrolled in driver's ed. I wouldn't mind seeing such a law here, that is, if it's not already on the books.

As much as I really care, even at age 19, a driver's license is the least of my worries. When I was 6 I said to camp counselors I will get a driver's license at 24. Now it looks like that may be a reality. Besides, I like biking.

Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on July 20, 2010, 12:11:05 AM
As much as I really care, even at age 19, a driver's license is the least of my worries. When I was 6 I said to camp counselors I will get a driver's license at 24. Now it looks like that may be a reality. Besides, I like biking.

it makes sense to get a license as early as you can, even if you don't plan on driving.  One of the criteria by which insurance companies determine how much to charge you is "number of years you've had a license".

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 20, 2010, 12:34:26 AM

Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on July 20, 2010, 12:11:05 AM
As much as I really care, even at age 19, a driver's license is the least of my worries. When I was 6 I said to camp counselors I will get a driver's license at 24. Now it looks like that may be a reality. Besides, I like biking.

it makes sense to get a license as early as you can, even if you don't plan on driving.  One of the criteria by which insurance companies determine how much to charge you is "number of years you've had a license".

There's the reason right there. Cant' afford the insurance already, why bother

Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on July 20, 2010, 12:52:55 AM
There's the reason right there. Cant' afford the insurance already, why bother

you don't have to buy the insurance.  Just have a license and the time starts accruing.

agentsteele is absolutely right on this one-

Insurance companies basically look at three things:
1. How long has the driver been licensed?
2. How long has the driver been continuously insured?
3. Has the driver gotten tickets/accidents the last few years?

Now, if you're not getting insurance you're not getting insurance and there's nothing you can do about the second part. Your rates will be higher than almost every other driver of 24 as a result of that (possibly by as much as double or triple), but by getting your license today you can offset that substantially.

Whether you have insurance or not, the insurance company is assuming that if you have a driver's license you are driving. Without actually having to do any of these things, this could mean that you are borrowing a friend's car, renting cars, or if your employer or even college owns even a single vehicle you are almost certainly insured to drive those (regardless of whether you actually do or not).

What this means is that when they ask when you got your license, you can completely honestly say "several years ago," which helps with that first part. What helps you with that third part is that since you won't actually be driving, you won't get a single ticket or get into a single accident, which makes you a low-risk driver which will lower your rates significantly (you probably won't be able to get a formal "good driver discount" since you have not been continuously insured, but it will still dramatically affect your rates).

I'd take the plunge today- I'd wager a significant amount that the cost it costs to have a driver's license you're not using for the next five years will be less than the savings you get on your car insurance in your first 6 months of premiums

Is it true that if you get more tickets, your insurance goes up?

My insurance is based on the number of accident-free years. The more you have, the cheaper the insurance gets. I started around 140% (additional risk as a young person), and I am now around 80%. You can get as low as 40% I believe. Right now I pay about $ 50 per month all-risk for a 2004 commercial van. Liability only is only a few bucks cheaper.

It varies by the state, since insurance is regulated at the state level.  Insurers have to submit a rating plan to the state insurance commissioner (or equivalent regulator for insurance) and the plan has to be in conformity with state laws which place limitations on price discrimination in insurance.  In Kansas, for example, insurers can take some of the traffic citations a motorist has into account when setting insurance rates, but they are not allowed to consider, for example, speeding tickets on rural Interstates where the cited speed is less than 10 MPH over the posted speed limit.

Accidents are one of the biggest drivers of increased insurance rates.  If you are a young driver and have two single-vehicle accidents in a relatively short period of time, for example, you can expect to wind up in an assigned risk pool in Kansas.  This means that the state insurance commissioner intervenes on your behalf by requiring insurers to cover you in order to continue doing business in the state (so that the situation of "being uninsurable" does not exist in American states in the same sense that it does, for example, in Britain, where the financial services regulator gives insurance companies the technical option of refusing to do business), but the insurers are allowed to charge extremely high rates.  DUI is another big consideration--in Kansas I don't think you can get more than one DUI conviction without being put in assigned risk.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 20, 2010, 05:18:38 AM
DUI is another big consideration--in Kansas I don't think you can get more than one DUI conviction without being put in assigned risk.

the contrapositive of that is "if you get a single DUI conviction, you may not be put into assigned risk". 

Wow, dang, what do you have to do in a single incident to be reliably labeled the moron that you are? 

In Britain these days a speeding conviction generally doesn't have any effect on insurance. Age, or lack of, seems to be the biggest killer. Back in 1994 when I turned 17 the cheapest insurance quote I was given was £2000 ($3000). This was for a small 1 liter engine hatchback. The majority of insurance companies refused to quote. I dread to think what the situation is like today.

Quote from: Truvelo on July 21, 2010, 01:41:47 PM
In Britain these days a speeding conviction generally doesn't have any effect on insurance. Age, or lack of, seems to be the biggest killer. Back in 1994 when I turned 17 the cheapest insurance quote I was given was £2000 ($3000). This was for a small 1 liter engine hatchback. The majority of insurance companies refused to quote. I dread to think what the situation is like today.

good grief!  I thought 1000 a year in the US was bad.  Nowadays I'm down to about 133 every 6 months.  ah, the benefits of old age.  now as for that beer belly...

I've heard about these ridiculous auto insurances in the United Kingdom. I pay around $ 650 per year all risk. Before that, I had a liability only that was $ 550 per year, so the choice wasn't too hard.

Quote from: Chris on July 21, 2010, 02:11:54 PM
I've heard about these ridiculous auto insurances in the United Kingdom. I pay around $ 650 per year all risk. Before that, I had a liability only that was $ 550 per year, so the choice wasn't too hard.

I just carry a liability-only policy as I do not own a car.  At the time of rental, using my visa card gives me the necessary coverage on a rental car.

I know of people here who keep an insurance policy going when they sell their car so as to keep their no-claims bonus going should they return to driving in the future. This is the problem 17 year olds have when they pass their test and get their first car. After the first year or two the no-claims discount will reduce the ridiculous $3000 premiums somewhat. The high prices quoted to newly qualified 17 year olds is more of a kind way of saying we don't want your business than anything.

So one or two years of insurance (liability only?!) is more expensive than buying a second-hand car all together. That's BIZARRE.

Quote from: Chris on July 21, 2010, 03:55:45 PM
So one or two years of insurance (liability only?!) is more expensive than buying a second-hand car all together. That's BIZARRE.

Thats the case in NJ for the most part. If you are 17 and go out on your own and buy a policy, expect to pay A LOT. Most people are on their parent's policies for a few years until they have experience under their belt and the premiums go down.

In the state of Washington, you're required to take a certified driver's ed class before you can get our intermediate license, unless you wait until you're 18.  Your insurance will be much lower, if you take the class regardless. 

Everyone is required to take the drive test, and I've noticed people who score below an 85% and above a 95% on the test are generally horrible drivers. 

I took a 6-week drivers ed course in High School.  I drove a grand total of zero times.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 21, 2010, 04:19:25 PMMost people are on their parent's policies for a few years until they have experience under their belt and the premiums go down.

They do this in the Netherlands as well, although extensive driving on your parents insurance is considered insurance fraud (because the insurance holder is not the regular driver).

However, how do they measure experience? Just by the number of years you have a license? Some people have a license but rarely drive themselves. That doesn't make you experienced.

Quote from: Chris on July 22, 2010, 06:44:25 AM

Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 21, 2010, 04:19:25 PMMost people are on their parent's policies for a few years until they have experience under their belt and the premiums go down.

They do this in the Netherlands as well, although extensive driving on your parents insurance is considered insurance fraud (because the insurance holder is not the regular driver).

When I got my license, we had to fill out some paperwork to get me in on my parents' insurance policy. This then made all of my driving legit. Of course, this also meant having a driver under 25 registered, which means up go the premiums.

Quote from: Chris on July 22, 2010, 06:44:25 AM
They do this in the Netherlands as well, although extensive driving on your parents insurance is considered insurance fraud (because the insurance holder is not the regular driver).

However, how do they measure experience? Just by the number of years you have a license? Some people have a license but rarely drive themselves. That doesn't make you experienced.

To clarify, they are a named driver on their parent's policy along with their vehicle (if they have one). No fraud there. Experience is by the number of years you have your license. Years of continuous insurance coverage is factored in as well although I don't know exactly why that results in lower policy premiums (I'm not an actuary). If there is even a small lapse in insurance coverage, your premiums go up pretty quickly.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 22, 2010, 04:46:05 PM
Years of continuous insurance coverage is factored in as well although I don't know exactly why that results in lower policy premiums (I'm not an actuary). If there is even a small lapse in insurance coverage, your premiums go up pretty quickly.

I think they assume that with continuous coverage, you're continuously driving - and if there's a gap, then you have forgotten how to drive!  :-D

Quote from: Chris on July 22, 2010, 06:44:25 AM
However, how do they measure experience? Just by the number of years you have a license? Some people have a license but rarely drive themselves. That doesn't make you experienced.

I had over two years experience when I got my first driver's permit.  Driving on back roads with little to no traffic.  Driving on a highway was scary the first time when I actually had my permit.  But it was a wonderful way to learn to drive.

Here in Alabama, there ought to be a mandate that everyone, regardless of age, has to take a driver's ed course to renew their license next time, then start mandating that all new drivers must either take driver's ed or wait until 19 to get their license (since for some odd reason, in AL, you are considered a minor until 19 instead of 18)

People don't have a ****ing clue how to drive here.  And I've never once seen so much as a hint of a driver's ed car anywhere.