The (ir)rational hatred of school busses

[hm insulators]

The US assumes that the person on the road is a total idiot needing to be told exactly how to drive and kept in a safety blanket of clear rules applied without nuance, the UK assumes that the person on the road has some sense and judgement (though less and less, and our fatality rate is stagnating, rather than declining - though it is still half of that in the US).

Well, in my many years of driving I have to say a large number of drivers in the US are complete idiots.  It seems to be a growing number.  I lived in Europe for a few years and drove over most of western Europe.  This even includes the UK where they drive on the "wrong side" of the road.    I even drove a delivery truck for a while.  It has been a few years since this great experience but I would say, at least then, the European drivers, excluding Rome and Paris, are much more sensible than the US drivers. 

I firmly believe the US needs to beef up the requirements to earn a driver's license.  Some states need to do way more than others.  This is one area we need to adopt more of the German requirements.     
[/quote]

Unfortunately, the idiot and jackass drivers are also all voters. If anybody proposes tougher requirements for driver's licenses, they're aloha as in out of office.

[cl94]

The US assumes that the person on the road is a total idiot needing to be told exactly how to drive and kept in a safety blanket of clear rules applied without nuance, the UK assumes that the person on the road has some sense and judgement (though less and less, and our fatality rate is stagnating, rather than declining - though it is still half of that in the US).

Well, in my many years of driving I have to say a large number of drivers in the US are complete idiots.  It seems to be a growing number.  I lived in Europe for a few years and drove over most of western Europe.  This even includes the UK where they drive on the "wrong side" of the road.    I even drove a delivery truck for a while.  It has been a few years since this great experience but I would say, at least then, the European drivers, excluding Rome and Paris, are much more sensible than the US drivers. 

I firmly believe the US needs to beef up the requirements to earn a driver's license.  Some states need to do way more than others.  This is one area we need to adopt more of the German requirements.     

Unfortunately, the idiot and jackass drivers are also all voters. If anybody proposes tougher requirements for driver's licenses, they're aloha as in out of office.

Yep. I've always thought that people should be retested every few years to cut down on the lazy drivers, while people over the age of 65-70 should be retested every year. A lot of the problems are caused by old drivers.

[Bruce]

All drivers should be retested, regardless of age, to shut up anyone who complains about ageism. Plus there's a lot of re-education that is needed as technology advances and things change (many drivers here don't know how to react to things like a streetcar or light rail [which has no crossing arms for some segments] and thus need re-training).

And the license course should be a year-long class with monthly driving assessments, not a two-week class and one-time drive like what I experienced when getting licensed a year ago. It was a total joke, given that I barely practiced and still managed to pass the test.

[MisterSG1]

All drivers should be retested, regardless of age, to shut up anyone who complains about ageism. Plus there's a lot of re-education that is needed as technology advances and things change (many drivers here don't know how to react to things like a streetcar or light rail [which has no crossing arms for some segments] and thus need re-training).

And the license course should be a year-long class with monthly driving assessments, not a two-week class and one-time drive like what I experienced when getting licensed a year ago. It was a total joke, given that I barely practiced and still managed to pass the test.

And Bruce, do you realize how much that would cost to give all licensed drivers another road test.....think about it for a second.

All you need for streetcars, assuming they run in mixed traffic like Toronto, is a simple message on the back of the streetcar "DO NOT PASS OPEN DOORS". Which is how the new streetcars in Toronto make this clear.

Again, I know what you are after Bruce, we in Ontario have seen a continuous decline in accidents, even with our population increasing and more licensed drivers on the road. Why fix a system of graduated licensing that's not broken, when you consider that Ontario's GDL's are actually fairly liberal compared to what some states have now.

But again I see what you are after, you want to make a license such a pain to get that you essentially force people to take the bus, I know that this anti-driving agenda is currently going on in Ontario, and I really want to know why you seem to feel this way, seriously.

[jakeroot]

But again I see what you are after, you want to make a license such a pain to get that you essentially force people to take the bus, I know that this anti-driving agenda is currently going on in Ontario, and I really want to know why you seem to feel this way, seriously.

I also see what you're saying: make the licence as easy as possible to obtain, so that way, we can have as many poorly-educated people on the road as possible, all in the name of more cars!

Driver's licenses are far too easy to obtain. Hidden agenda or otherwise, the system needs changing. If you can't operate a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be licensed to operate one.

[Kacie Jane]

All drivers should be retested, regardless of age, to shut up anyone who complains about ageism. Plus there's a lot of re-education that is needed as technology advances and things change (many drivers here don't know how to react to things like a streetcar or light rail [which has no crossing arms for some segments] and thus need re-training).

I see your point, but I'm not sure how light rail necessitates re-training.  The vast majority of car/train accidents around Puget Sound would be solved simply by cars obeying traffic signals and not attempting to turn across the tracks when the light is red.

[kalvado]

I see your point, but I'm not sure how light rail necessitates re-training.  The vast majority of car/train accidents around Puget Sound would be solved simply by cars obeying traffic signals and not attempting to turn across the tracks when the light is red.

One of common problems over here is that some - especially older - drivers do not understand concepts of rondabouts. (I, for one, think most roundabouts should not be built to begin with - but at least I know dos and don'ts). Other relatively recent things include SPUI and move over law. I believe age requirements for licensing and alcohol limits also changes within past 15  years (not that I am affected by  those changes, but still).
Would be great to require drivers at least review - and maybe pass a quick test - such newer things. No need to do test in person, can be just a part of renewal online/paper form; just to make sure they read that flyer. And I don't think reading 1 or 2 pages of text and putting few checkmarks is such a big burden.

[vdeane]

I agree about the need to increase driving standards.  Ideally, Driver's Ed would be a mandatory high school class.  It would be a comprehensive course and cover just about everything, both in class and on the road, including freeway driving, winter driving, using the emergency brake to stop the car, navigating, etc.  In lieu of a final, the students would take a revamped written test (which would have a difficulty on par with a typical college exam and include at least 50% short answer and essay questions) and road test (which would be a comprehensive test, not just puttering around a residential subdivision).  People would periodically take abridged tests (similar to the current ones given by NY) when renewing their licence, ensuring their knowledge and skills are kept up to date.

[kalvado]

  Ideally, Driver's Ed would be a mandatory high school class. 

Thing is, I often hear that new generation is not so eager to get their licenses as a birthday present to themselves, and often graduate from college without one.
Pushing licensing through at early stages may be difficult - especially in places line NYC, where license is not required for... well, for survival.
Besides... Would such comprehensive course and  exam be paid for by school district, students/parents, or state?   

[vdeane]

That's the easiest way to ensure everyone takes it and that quality is assured.  Otherwise, people would have to carve out time of the day and pay lots of money for a course that could vary in quality a lot between places offering it.

One other thing: in Europe, it costs $300+ to get a licence.  Even with Driver's Ed, people rarely pay anywhere close to that amount in the US.

[kalvado]

One other thing: in Europe, it costs $300+ to get a licence. 

Right now, NYS license fee is $64.50, plus mandatory 5-hour class - I saw $50 price tag lately. $115 is not $300, but not that far. 
And.. You realize that teachers already praise those $2 free lunches since at least for some kids that is a deal breaker for actually coming to school? Spending a lot on mandatory driver ed seems not so reasonable...

[MisterSG1]

I agree about the need to increase driving standards.  Ideally, Driver's Ed would be a mandatory high school class.  It would be a comprehensive course and cover just about everything, both in class and on the road, including freeway driving, winter driving, using the emergency brake to stop the car, navigating, etc.  In lieu of a final, the students would take a revamped written test (which would have a difficulty on par with a typical college exam and include at least 50% short answer and essay questions) and road test (which would be a comprehensive test, not just puttering around a residential subdivision).  People would periodically take abridged tests (similar to the current ones given by NY) when renewing their licence, ensuring their knowledge and skills are kept up to date.

But V, are all these intense requirements necessary? Here in Ontario, only 16 teenagers in 2014, that's those aged 16-19 died in car crashes (as passengers and drivers). When you compare our amount of deaths with many states, it kind of shocks me why our fatalities are so low.

In Ontario, a sixteen year old can get his learner's permit, and 8 months later, if a MTO approved driver's education course is completed, one can obtain a restricted license, which practically has ZERO restrictions. There are no night curfews, and no passenger restrictions (until midnight to 5am) and a driver must have zero alcohol in their blood. However, I should note that every single driver in Ontario, teen or older and hasn't had a license from anywhere else has to go through GDL here.

I don't know if some driver's Ed courses are offered by the school board, apparently there are here in Peel Region, but I did mine which costed me roughly $500 back in 2005. And the learners permit/restricted license was covered under the same fee, I think it was $125.

To get a full license in Ontario, one has to pass TWO road tests, here in Brampton, the road test occurred of driving on Steeles Ave (a six lane arterial) and then lead to a residential subdivision where the usual skills were tested, like three point turn, parallel park, uphill/downhill parking, and so on. Brampton's test center has a failure rate of about 60% and yet I passed on the first try. The second road test that is taken at minimum a year after the first road test, is exactly the same except it involves driving on a freeway. In my case, they took me on Hwy 410 from Steeles to Clark Blvd and back again....and just so it happens this situation involved auxiliary lanes, so there is no need to merge, they ask you to change lanes once and that's it.

Of course, there are test centers in this province where there are no freeways nearby, so I assume at those ones, you just go on a rural highway for a bit.

Thing is, I often hear that new generation is not so eager to get their licenses as a birthday present to themselves, and often graduate from college without one.

Sure I think a lot of kids nowadays may not head directly to the test center to get their learner's permit the day they can, but I don't think they are skipping out entirely. As I'm a mature student in college, I've asked some of my fellow classmates about this very topic, and maybe it's just luck, but it seems like the majority clearly have at least a restricted license (which is practically as good as a regular license here). Sure, the majority of students at my school by far take transit, (as it is a downtown campus) but that doesn't mean that they are skipping getting their licenses.

But generally I don't think a one size fits all approach to forcing kids to get a license at 16 is that good either. Some people aren't ready to drive, a kid should be ready before they start driving. I may have got my learner's permit at 16, but i was close to 18 when I got my restricted license just to say. This is just me thinking out loud, I'm not sure what the solution is myself.

[Duke87]

Rather than lament the procedures for obtaining a license, I would argue that we simply need an attitude shift away from enabling idiocy by trying to idiot-proof every aspect of roadway design. Quit putting stop signs at every intersection and drivers will learn how to yield. Quit putting up nag messages to wear your seatbelt, turn your lights on when it's raining, maintain a safe following distnace, etc. and drivers will figure these things out on their own.

There needs to be more encouraging people to figure things out so they understand why to do things, and less putting signs everywhere and teaching everyone that you do this because the sign says so.

Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!

[vdeane]

Yeah, that's pretty much the reason why I've been advocated for higher licensing standards: current driver behavior justifies things like the overproliferation of stop signs, "stop for school busses even if you're on the other side of a divided highway", and the underposting of speed limits.  I'm also sick of all the people who cause congestion because they don't know the correct way to merge onto a freeway.

As for putting it into the high school curriculum... my thinking was to make it required for a licence, but then where do people find the time/money (it cost $350 and took 4-5 hours/day 3 days/week when I took it; it was basically a choice between driver's ed and a summer job) to do it?  By making it part of the school curriculum, you solve both, because it becomes part of class time and paid with school taxes.  I wasn't really thinking about mandatory licensing, though I don't see much in the way of downsides (unless you're part of the sovereign citizen movement, but you're probably not going to public school if you are) (it would even solve the voter ID debate).  I suppose one could keep it required but leave the testing to the decision of the student.

MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's.  Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one and managing to not break any laws or hit anything.  The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two).  No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to).  The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds.  I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.

[cl94]

What we need is a way to cut down on the lazy drivers. I have noticed that drivers in just about every other country, including Canada, are better than the typical American driver. Likewise, drivers in very dense urban areas (such as the immediate New York metro area) tend to have higher skills because a lazy driver will get killed. I'm talking about rolling through stop signs and rights on red, people thinking right on red has the right of way, and seemingly-simple stuff like that. Nothing will get better unless we can cut down on that, part of why I think retesting every few years would be a good idea. I hate to say this, but people with certain medical conditions that impact reflexes and the like shouldn't be allowed to drive, either. If you can't drive close to the speed limit in perfect conditions with no traffic, you shouldn't be driving. End of story. I get stuck behind people (either really old, really young, or wearing hats) going 10-15 under way too often. Similarly, I think variable minimum speed limits of 5-10 under (less in poor conditions) on limited-access highways should be implemented as well to cut down on the people going way under.

[Bruce]

If there's no sign, there's no doubt that people are going to ignore common sense and do as they like. Floor it through intersections where they should slow and stop, use unauthorized lanes, block intersections, use center turn lanes to zip around buses and hit people, etc.

Even with higher licensing standards, we're still going to need a lot of signs to remind people how to drive properly and so that they can't mouth off to a traffic cop when they're pulled over for making an illegal and dangerous move.

[RobbieL2415]

Rather than lament the procedures for obtaining a license, I would argue that we simply need an attitude shift away from enabling idiocy by trying to idiot-proof every aspect of roadway design. Quit putting stop signs at every intersection and drivers will learn how to yield. Quit putting up nag messages to wear your seatbelt, turn your lights on when it's raining, maintain a safe following distnace, etc. and drivers will figure these things out on their own.

There needs to be more encouraging people to figure things out so they understand why to do things, and less putting signs everywhere and teaching everyone that you do this because the sign says so.

Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!

I bet there are people that don't even know what to do at an intersection without stop signs.

[Duke87]

If there's no sign, there's no doubt that people are going to ignore common sense and do as they like.

Then they can suffer the consequences, whether imposed by cop or by Darwinism in action.

I also question whether this is as much of an issue as one might think. We like to lament how GPS has destroyed people's ability to navigate, and yet people managed before GPS were a thing and if you were to force people today to navigate using paper maps, I'm sure they would figure it out. People haven't gotten stupider, they've just stopped learning skills that they think they don't need because it is now possible to get along without these skills.

This is why I'm advocating getting rid of the idiot-proofing. Force people to actually learn the rules of the road without signs to constantly remind them, and they will. It'll be rough at first because some people will have to learn some things the hard way, but in the long run I hypothesize we'd be better off.

[jeffandnicole]

If there's no sign, there's no doubt that people are going to ignore common sense and do as they like.

Then they can suffer the consequences, whether imposed by cop or by Darwinism in action.

Unfortunately, there's usually two parties involved in those Darwinism consequences, so it's a bit unfair for one to be the guinea pig just for the other one to learn something.

[1995hoo]

....

Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!

You might be surprised at how many places, especially in the South, actually do paint designated parallel parking spots, even when there are no meters. I complained about it at Duke once and asked why they need spaces. Why can't it be like a regular city where if your car fits, you can park? (Makes a difference when you're trying to get to class on time.) The guy from the university administration said that isn't fair to people with big vehicles like pickups. Huh? How is it unfair? If your car doesn't fit, you go around the block looking for another space!

I think it's just a sign that a lot of people not from big cities can't parallel park worth a damn. I certainly see people leaving HUGE spaces between cars whenever I see on-street parking outside of cities. The Iraqi woman who lives across the street from us can't parallel park worth a damn and avoids parking near the two cars I have parked on the street because she knows I don't leave big gaps and she's afraid she won't be able to get out....

[kalvado]

Unfortunately, there's usually two parties involved in those Darwinism consequences, so it's a bit unfair for one to be the guinea pig just for the other one to learn something.

Learn? Rhinoceros have poor eyesight, but at 5000 lb and 30 MPH that is usually someone else's problem...

[Rothman]

MisterSG1: New York's licensing standards are clearly WAY behind Ontario's.  Our road test consists of making one trip abound the block in a subdivision like this one and managing to not break any laws or hit anything.  The only skills tested are 3 point turns and parallel parking (behind a car, not between two).  No freeways, no arterials, and no hills (at least where I took it, in the subdivision I linked to).  The written test is a complete joke; just 20 very easy (I wouldn't be surprised if "does one drive on the right or left side of the road" is in the question bank!) multiple choice questions (heck, one question even contained the answer to the adjacent question when I took it!) that aren't necessarily kept up to date, at least not on matters of interacting with bikes/peds.  I am, of course, reacting in response to NY's standards.

Coming to NY from MA, the strangest difference was that NY required all sorts of extra documentation for their licenses that was not needed in MA, but that the eyesight test was ridiculously simpler.  In NY, you just read the sheet with the huge letters on it from 10 feet away at the DMV; in MA, the RMV tested you for colorblindness (just telling the difference between red and green) and small lettering under a couple of conditions (you had to stare into a viewer for the tests).

So, proving that you are who you say you are is more important in NY than making sure you can actually see.

[kkt]

Red-green colorblind people can't get driver's licenses in Mass?

[kalvado]

Red-green colorblind people can't get driver's licenses in Mass?

http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/medical/policies/vision.htm

Applicant or licensee must be able to distinguish the colors red, green and amber.
If the applicant or licensee cannot distinguish the colors red, green, and amber, a license is not possible.

[bzakharin]

Rather than lament the procedures for obtaining a license, I would argue that we simply need an attitude shift away from enabling idiocy by trying to idiot-proof every aspect of roadway design. Quit putting stop signs at every intersection and drivers will learn how to yield. Quit putting up nag messages to wear your seatbelt, turn your lights on when it's raining, maintain a safe following distnace, etc. and drivers will figure these things out on their own.

There needs to be more encouraging people to figure things out so they understand why to do things, and less putting signs everywhere and teaching everyone that you do this because the sign says so.

Note, for example, that we don't typically put lines on the street demarcating individual spaces for parallel parking. And yet, people manage to park neatly enough without them and no significant problems typically arise. Imagine that!

I bet there are people that don't even know what to do at an intersection without stop signs.

I know theoretically what to do, but uncontrolled intersections are a horrible idea unless there is almost zero traffic or it's a T intersection where the right of way is clearly known. If you are at an unfamiliar intersection of two equal-looking roads without any sort of yield or stop sign in your direction, how are you supposed to know whether cross traffic has a stop sign or not? Now changing stop signs to yield signs would be fine and removing a lot of the 4-way stop signs is fine, but I would not recommend turning any controlled intersections into uncontrolled ones.