Are freeways a complete failure in terms of safety and reliablilty?

[Brian556]

Think about it. Controlled access highways were touted as being way safer than conventional highways. They were also touted as being a very reliable way to get people and goods from Point A to Point B.

They have failed miserably.

Despite supposedly being safer because so many of the potentially hazardous situations found on convention roads are eliminated, they have an extremely high accident rate, way higher than the conventional roads in my area. I feel like I am in way more danger on freeways than conventional roads. All you have to do to be safe on a freeway is pay attention to two things: The vehicle in front of you, and what's in the other lane if you are changing lanes. People obviously can't handle these very well.

Also, when accidents do happen, people cannot turn around and go another way like on a conventional highway.

[froggie]

Not sure about your specific area, but in other areas, the numbers would go against your assertion.  Using 2013 Minnesota data for example, the crash rate on Interstate highways is the lowest of all the roadway classes, and the fatality rate is tiny compared with other roadway classes.

[iBallasticwolf2]

People obviously can't handle these very well.

Blame the bad drivers.

[silverback1065]

People obviously can't handle these very well.

Blame the bad drivers.

I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings.  Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving.  I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license.  This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones.  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

[Rothman]

I'm with froggie on this one:  The numbers back up differing rates per class.

[hbelkins]

In Kentucky, the vast majority of fatalities occur on rural surface routes, not the freeways.

[CtrlAltDel]

Controlled access highways were touted as being way safer than conventional highways. They have failed miserably.

No, they have not. The accident rate on interstates is between a half and a third of the accident rate on other highways.

It's possible that things might be different in your area, but even if they are, this would only be a condemnation of the interstates of your area and not overall. In short, even if your observations are correct (and they're probably not), you're extrapolating too much from them.

All you have to do to be safe on a freeway is pay attention to two things: The vehicle in front of you, and what's in the other lane if you are changing lanes. People obviously can't handle these very well.

You have to do all this, plus more, on regular roads. How can that possibly increase safety?

[jeffandnicole]

Think about it. Controlled access highways were touted as being way safer than conventional highways. They were also touted as being a very reliable way to get people and goods from Point A to Point B.

They have failed miserably.

Despite supposedly being safer because so many of the potentially hazardous situations found on convention roads are eliminated, they have an extremely high accident rate, way higher than the conventional roads in my area. I feel like I am in way more danger on freeways than conventional roads.

Is this based on facts you can back up with documentation, or just your opinion?

Let's say the conventional roads had 5 accidents, and freeways had 10 accidents. You may say that the freeway is more dangerous. But if the conventional highway averaged 10,000 vehicles daily, and the freeway had an 100,000 AADT, the rate of accidents are much lower on the freeway, making that the safer road.

[iBallasticwolf2]

People obviously can't handle these very well.

Blame the bad drivers.

I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings.  Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving.  I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license.  This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones.  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.

[noelbotevera]

People obviously can't handle these very well.

Blame the bad drivers.

I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings.  Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving.  I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license.  This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones.  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.

That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).

It's also if you move to another country. My dad finished college in the Philippines in 1987 or 1988 and moved to Dearborn, Michigan in 1989. He had to get a license in Michigan too, which was pointless, because my dad returned to Manila in 1991 or 1992 and had to get a Philippines drivers' license. Then, my family all moved in 2003 to North Carolina, yet again to get a North Carolina drivers' license.

[iBallasticwolf2]

People obviously can't handle these very well.

Blame the bad drivers.

I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings.  Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving.  I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license.  This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones.  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.

That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).

I didn't realise that. I was mentioning for anyone even if they don't  move out of their state. Driver education can change alot and people who took the test in the 70s might have different education then people who took the test in the 2000s

[silverback1065]

People obviously can't handle these very well.

Blame the bad drivers.

I agree, drivers are horrible, almost always distracted and are completely oblivious to their surroundings.  Don't understand simple signage and make dangerous errors when driving.  I've always believed that not everyone should be allowed to drive and that it's way too easy to get a license.  This isn't an indictment of all drivers obviously, just the egregiously terrible ones.  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

I've thought alot if drivers should have to retake their drivers test every 10-15 years and also have better education about driving. It is very easy to get a license.

That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).

I didn't realise that. I was mentioning for anyone even if they don't  move out of their state. Driver education can change alot and people who took the test in the 70s might have different education then people who took the test in the 2000s

exactly. they didn't have some of the new things we have now like: flashing yellow arrows, new signage, roundabouts (at least in most of the US), and many other new roadway innovations.

[roadman65]

Roads have changed indeed in the past several decades, but common sense has not.  If you cannot figure things out you are not going to either way.  Retaking a drivers test is not going to help in that matter. 

The dotted lines instead of the traditional broken lines at right lane exclusive exit lane you can educate people till they drop about its meaning, yet many drivers in later practice will still be surprised to find out later that the lane they are in exits upon encountering a real life situation.

[froggie]

You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test.

This is not true everywhere.  I was not required to retake the test when I moved to Vermont and got a Vermont license.

[Big John]

You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test.

This is not true everywhere.  I was not required to retake the test when I moved to Vermont and got a Vermont license.

nor WI or GA

[Rothman]

You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test.

This is not true everywhere.  I was not required to retake the test when I moved to Vermont and got a Vermont license.

nor WI or GA

Or NY.  They checked my eyes out very superficially, but that was about it.  No driver's test required.

[lordsutch]

I've never had to retake either the written or driving test since getting my first DL in Florida in 1991. Since then I've had licenses in TN, MS, GA, MO, TX, VA, and LA. The only thing that's been tested is my vision.

That said I think retesting is up to the discretion of the examiner in many states; if you have a record of violations or tick off the examiner, they can probably make you take their tests (and since you've already given them your license from another state, you'd better be prepared to pass it...). I'd guess that you're more likely to get reexamined if you need a CDL or a similar endorsement for non-standard vehicles like buses.

[pumpkineater2]

  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

YES!   In Arizona, once the written test is passed, all one needs to do in order to get a license is practice driving around on surface streets, stopping at stop signs etc. The majority of my driving test was on residential streets. Never even had to look at a freeway. Luckily for me though I had plenty of freeway experience anyway.

So theoretically, someone can get a license with little to no freeway experience,(I'm not saying this is always the case, but I'm sure there are plenty) and I believe that is what causes some of the problems.

_{I didn't even have to parallel park, but I'm willing to overlook that one}

[silverback1065]

  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

YES!   In Arizona, once the written test is passed, all one needs to do in order to get a license is practice driving around on surface streets, stopping at stop signs etc. The majority of my driving test was on residential streets. Never even had to look at a freeway. Luckily for me though I had plenty of freeway experience anyway.

So theoretically, someone can get a license with little to no freeway experience,(I'm not saying this is always the case, but I'm sure there are plenty) and I believe that is what causes some of the problems.

_{I didn't even have to parallel park, but I'm willing to overlook that one}

On my test I asked the teacher if I had to parallel park, he asked me if I wanted to and I said no, and he said "then we don't have to." I also only remember getting onto the interstate once and for about only 2 miles.

[roadman65]

  Does anyone else think it's too easy to get a license, and that driver education is extremely lacking?

YES!   In Arizona, once the written test is passed, all one needs to do in order to get a license is practice driving around on surface streets, stopping at stop signs etc. The majority of my driving test was on residential streets. Never even had to look at a freeway. Luckily for me though I had plenty of freeway experience anyway.

So theoretically, someone can get a license with little to no freeway experience,(I'm not saying this is always the case, but I'm sure there are plenty) and I believe that is what causes some of the problems.

_{I didn't even have to parallel park, but I'm willing to overlook that one}

Back in 1990 I had to take both to get a license in FL.  Obviously someone already commented that since then he has not had to take any test.  So the laws here have might of changed since I moved down.

[jeffandnicole]

NJ used to require a test for those moving into the state.  Some people would complain that they had been driving for many years, and then they wind up failing the test, and that the test was wrong and stupid.  Sadly, someone in the state agreed, and they did away with testing those that moved into the state.

And you don't have to take a test in PA anymore either... http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/new_residents/driver_license.shtml

Although a knowledge test is not required for new residents with out-of-state driver's licenses which are valid or expired six months or less, The Pennsylvania Driver's Manual is designed to help you become a safe driver and enjoy your driving privilege in our beautiful state.

But, you still have to get your car inspected every year in PA.  At a private facility.  Amazing how many repair shops they have in that state that also inspect cars.  And it's amazing at how many cars have minor issues that must be fixed before the car can pass inspection. 

[Pete from Boston]

That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).

Just to add to the chorus of "anecdotal evidence is not universal," Massachusetts never asked me to take a test when transferring a license.  New Jersey also never asked me for one when I re-upped years after my initial New Jersey license expired, apparently figuring once was enough.

And decades after obtaining a license, I will say that it was slow and full of requirements, but certainly not very difficult.  If you look at under-20 accident rates, this won't seem too surprising.

My understanding about modern written driving tests (here, at least) is that they spend far less time on rules of the road and far more on fines and penalties compared to in years past.  Of course, no one remembers those because they're not super relevant to everyday driving.  Pity they can't spend more time on things that are, since they'd stick better.

[PHLBOS]

But, you still have to get your car inspected every year in PA.  At a private facility.  Amazing how many repair shops they have in that state that also inspect cars.  And it's amazing at how many cars have minor issues that must be fixed before the car can pass inspection.

Similar scenario exists in Massachusetts as well; but the state sets the inspection price/fee not the individual station.

[corco]

That statement is half true and not true. It's if you move to another state, then you have to ditch the license you had for the state you last lived in. You must get a license for the state you currently live in by retaking the test. It's been about 9 or so years since my dad had to retake a driving test when we moved to Pennsylvania, and take the PA drivers' test (we previously lived in North Carolina).

Just to add to the chorus of "anecdotal evidence is not universal," Massachusetts never asked me to take a test when transferring a license.  New Jersey also never asked me for one when I re-upped years after my initial New Jersey license expired, apparently figuring once was enough.

And decades after obtaining a license, I will say that it was slow and full of requirements, but certainly not very difficult.  If you look at under-20 accident rates, this won't seem too surprising.

My understanding about modern written driving tests (here, at least) is that they spend far less time on rules of the road and far more on fines and penalties compared to in years past.  Of course, no one remembers those because they're not super relevant to everyday driving.  Pity they can't spend more time on things that are, since they'd stick better.

I know when I took it in Idaho it was mainly stupid shit that didn't have to do with the day to day mechanics of driving like "how far are your high beams allowed to shine? A. 200 feet, b. 250 feet, c. 350 feet, d. 400 feet"

That stuff was probably applicable in 1920 or whenever licenses were invented when people generally maintained their own cars but has nothing to do with the day to day efforts of driving in traffic.

[texaskdog]

and there are more distractions yet people have a fit when they pass anti-text messaging laws