It’s true that it would do nothing for someone who deliberately breaks the law but, especially when it comes to the elderly, poor vision and reaction time is a big factor in driving ability - both would be obvious during a practical exam.
Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?
In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it’s on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don’t get to renew.
Because things change? People get worse at different ages? I dunno man, I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I’m thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?
I’m all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it’s always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn’t create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.
You asked me why I liked Idea A more than Idea B and I told you.
No, I didn’t. I asked “What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?”.
You replied specifically referencing the elderly and vision and reaction concerns.
Which is why I asked “Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?”
Then you replied with “I don’t know”, routine verification, and saving lives, but that’s not supported by the data and, similar to gun control, a written AND practical test every year only burdens law abiding drivers because not having a valid license doesn’t actually prevent anyone from driving.
Now you’ve just written me a lengthy reply about why Idea B is actually bad and expecting me to defend it.
I don’t think a practical driving test is bad. I’m just unclear why you think every 10 years makes sense, especially when your concern seems to be elderly drivers. That’s why I asked “Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?” which you seemed to struggle to answer.
You are being weirdly aggressive about a strawman and it’s extremely offputting. Please don’t do that.
Where am I being aggressive? By asking questions to understand what logic and information was used to arrive at “a written and practical test every 10 years”? These are pretty basic questions a logic based and data driven solution should answer.
What strawman? Where did I misrepresent or distort your argument for “a written and practical test every 10 years”?
I truly wouldn’t care if your idea became the law tomorrow but I would still have all the same questions.
We have new drivers in Minnesota currently that have to book practical driving tests months in advance or go way out state just to get in. If everyone had to do the practical to renew the burden on the examiners and DVS would skyrocket.
The public testing centers for practical driving tests are not as prevalent as regular licensing centers that just process paperwork here either. This adds a burden to people, especially lower income, who would now have to travel further and take more time missing work just to renew their license.
But changing traffic laws isn’t what makes people bad drivers.
Everyone should have to take the written AND driving portion of the test every 10 years or so.
Is your idea for a written and practical test every 10 years supported by any data or is it arbitrary?
Edit: tl;dr it’s arbitrary
deleted by creator
It’s true that it would do nothing for someone who deliberately breaks the law but, especially when it comes to the elderly, poor vision and reaction time is a big factor in driving ability - both would be obvious during a practical exam.
Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?
In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it’s on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don’t get to renew.
Because things change? People get worse at different ages? I dunno man, I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
Legally using a 2-ton murder machine. The requirement itself doesn’t actually stop anyone from driving.
I don’t even know how you’d prove it prevents deaths. The increased fatal crash risk among older drivers is largely due to their increased susceptibility to injuries, particularly to the chest, and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.
I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I’m thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?
I’m all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it’s always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn’t create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.
You asked me why I liked Idea A more than Idea B and I told you.
Now you’ve just written me a lengthy reply about why Idea B is actually bad and expecting me to defend it.
You are being weirdly aggressive about a strawman and it’s extremely offputting. Please don’t do that.
No, I didn’t. I asked “What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?”.
You replied specifically referencing the elderly and vision and reaction concerns.
Which is why I asked “Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?”
Then you replied with “I don’t know”, routine verification, and saving lives, but that’s not supported by the data and, similar to gun control, a written AND practical test every year only burdens law abiding drivers because not having a valid license doesn’t actually prevent anyone from driving.
I don’t think a practical driving test is bad. I’m just unclear why you think every 10 years makes sense, especially when your concern seems to be elderly drivers. That’s why I asked “Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?” which you seemed to struggle to answer.
Where am I being aggressive? By asking questions to understand what logic and information was used to arrive at “a written and practical test every 10 years”? These are pretty basic questions a logic based and data driven solution should answer.
What strawman? Where did I misrepresent or distort your argument for “a written and practical test every 10 years”?
I truly wouldn’t care if your idea became the law tomorrow but I would still have all the same questions.
We have new drivers in Minnesota currently that have to book practical driving tests months in advance or go way out state just to get in. If everyone had to do the practical to renew the burden on the examiners and DVS would skyrocket.
The public testing centers for practical driving tests are not as prevalent as regular licensing centers that just process paperwork here either. This adds a burden to people, especially lower income, who would now have to travel further and take more time missing work just to renew their license.
I was literally giving an example of something apparent at a practical exam. I’m not reading another essay from you, farewell!