Advocacy & Safety - 20% i.e. 38 million drivers may be "unfit for roads"- insurance co. survey

Is anyone here even remotely surprised?
Can't pass the written test- never mind how many can't actually drive safely . :eek:

NYtimes article link (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/nearly-20-percent-of-drivers-may-be-unfit-for-roads-says-survey/)

Reminds me of this Yehuda Moon cartoon (http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2010-05-17)

I think it'd be a good idea to force you to retake the written exam every 5 years or something.

I think it'd be a good idea to force you to retake the written exam every 5 years or something.

And it would be nice if it were possible to fail. The last time I took a written, they said that any you get wrong they just tell you what the right answer was and pass you anyway.

And it would be nice if it were possible to fail. The last time I took a written, they said that any you get wrong they just tell you what the right answer was and pass you anyway.

Wow! When I took it in New York (about 5 yrs ago) they flunked a whole bunch of people in my batch.

When I first got my license in CT, most people who showed up that day failed the test. I can't remember if it was because of written, road, or a combination of both tests? ( I don't remember seeing anyone sent home for poor vision... )

No worries, the CDC has addressed the problem by recommending that all motor vehicle operators wear their seat-belts, that motor-vehicle manufacturers produce even better airbags and other protection systems for drivers, and that all other users of the road wear helmets or stay off the road. :thumb:

I'm not sure I buy that number, although some people are only dangerous some of the time. I would guess the number is probably less than 5% of the people on the road at any given time, I don't know how that compares to the population of licensed drivers though.

I think it'd be a good idea to force you to retake the written exam every 5 years or something.

I tend to agree, as laws change, and new laws are added. I wonder how many motorists are out there right now that have the '50s notion that cyclists are supposed to go against traffic. I know my mother and father had no idea that cyclists have the same right to use the roads as motorists... I had to explain that to them after bike touring across several western states and finally arriving at their house.

I wonder how many motorists are aware of new 3 foot laws in their states?

In CA the written driving test was actually made harder, and within the last few years, has included a question or two about cyclists.

Of course the whole drivers license thing in the US is still a joke compared to some other countries... and heaven forbid that one should lose their license... the system really doesn't take away licenses.

No worries, the CDC has addressed the problem by recommending that all motor vehicle operators wear their seat-belts, that motor-vehicle manufacturers produce even better airbags and other protection systems for drivers, and that all other users of the road wear helmets or stay off the road. :thumb:

Sure, cars are safer... but the driver is still pretty much the same... this is what galls me about the escalation of speed limits... we aren't making smarter drivers... just smarter, safer, more comfortable cars. This pretty much means that if you aren't protected by a smarter, safer car... the roads might be rather dangerous.

(as an aside... one has to wonder a bit about the "smarter" aspect of cars... especially in light of the recent Toyota fiasco of sudden acceleration.)

The GMAC survey exam was pretty easy, and it is scary that so many people failed it. Even scarier is that there is probably a discrepancy between what somebody answers "on paper" versus what they do "in practice"... You don't have to be a cyclist to realize that a huge chunk of drivers should not be driving. Many simply do not have either the skill and/or the common sense to drive an motor vehicle safely.

Even though the test seems to me more about reading than driving, the results off putting. I scored 100% but sort of cheated in being sober and not on the phone.

It seems to me that licenses have become too cheap and easy. I'd support a graduated system in which more comprehensive tests are required every three years.

91-100 you pay $100
90 - 81 you pay $300 for a license or $100 for class and $100 for retake
80 - 71 you pay $1,000 for a license or $500 for a longer class and $100 for a retake
70 - 00 you pay $500 for the longer class and $100 for a retake

Every six years or so I would throw in a road test. I'd also offer optional premium photo services. <G>

I suppose those fees are to support the more rigorous testing costs? That'd be the only reason for THAT....

Bu testing DOES need to be more intense; the GMAC test was a joke as it applies to real road skills and knowledge. For people to fail THAT is just sad.

Overseas in the service, the test I had to pass was mild compared to the local nationals in Germany, and my test was 100 questions and ID of 50 signs. (We were allowed to miss 10 questions and 5 signs and still pass. No 'mulligans'......)

Make the test tougher; more expensive license just keeps more unlicensed drivers behind the wheel, as they'll drive anyway....

I suppose those fees are to support the more rigorous testing costs? That'd be the only reason for THAT....

Bu testing DOES need to be more intense; the GMAC test was a joke as it applies to real road skills and knowledge. For people to fail THAT is just sad.

Overseas in the service, the test I had to pass was mild compared to the local nationals in Germany, and my test was 100 questions and ID of 50 signs. (We were allowed to miss 10 questions and 5 signs and still pass. No 'mulligans'......)

Make the test tougher; more expensive license just keeps more unlicensed drivers behind the wheel, as they'll drive anyway....

And when they are caught, severe sentences and take away the cars. It won't be too long before people understand the consequences. Since there are no consequences right now... even for killing a fellow human using the road, people don't care.

I am scared ****less of seniors behind the wheel. By 2036 something like 25% of Canadians will be seniors.

That is f'n scary.

They can pass the tests, but their reactions are so slow to anything unexpected happening - say having to watch for a cyclist.

Two of the questions on that survey can be wrong, depending on the state. I'm originally from Illinois, so I know their laws fairly well(as of a few years ago anyways).

I would guess most people would answer these two correctly, according to the survey, the survey stated my answers were wrong:

There is an emergency vehicle coming from behind you with emergency lights on and flashing. You should:
In Illinois, you are not required to stop, only to slow and yield. And I answered as such, getting it wrong.

When you approach a traffic signal displaying a steady yellow light, you must:
Again, depends on the state. AFAIK, most states only state that a yellow means a red is coming. Not that you have to "stop if it is safe to do so." I can safely stop my car with a screeching halt in a very short distance with no one else around. But I'm not going to, just because the light is yellow. By law, it simply means the light is about to change to red.

When you approach a traffic signal displaying a steady yellow light, you must:
Again, depends on the state. AFAIK, most states only state that a yellow means a red is coming. Not that you have to "stop if it is safe to do so." I can safely stop my car with a screeching halt in a very short distance with no one else around. But I'm not going to, just because the light is yellow. By law, it simply means the light is about to change to red.

In Michigan, yellow does mean stop if safe, but whether specifically stated or not (I don't know offhand), it is understood to mean stop if you don't have to make an extreme maneuver (like screeching to a halt) to do so. Legally in Michigan, I believe it DOES mean stop, not just that the light is about to change.

I am scared ****less of seniors behind the wheel. By 2036 something like 25% of Canadians will be seniors.

That is f'n scary.

They can pass the tests, but their reactions are so slow to anything unexpected happening - say having to watch for a cyclist.

That slow reaction time doesn't mean much if you drive for the conditions... it is the perceived "need for speed" that requires a fast reaction time.

That slow reaction time doesn't mean much if you drive for the conditions... it is the perceived "need for speed" that requires a fast reaction time.

Sure, but seniors already drive well below the speed limit in many cases and it still doesn't make a difference. Somebody one told me the older the brain gets the less capable it is to respond to dynamic situations. If a senior citizen drives the same route to the mall for 5 years and nothing unexpected happens they'll be fine but if something unexpected happens they're almost guaranteed to crash.

And when they are caught, severe sentences and take away the cars. It won't be too long before people understand the consequences. Since there are no consequences right now... even for killing a fellow human using the road, people don't care.


The whine on this one would loud and substantial. Virginia tried to increase fines on unliscensed motorists , and the whining of the subsidised motoring crowd was so loud the fines were repealed.

Cars can be impounded in Va, but only under very specific instances and not if it imposes a "hardship" on the driver or their family. Don't think it happens very often.

I think it'd be a good idea to force you to retake the written exam every 5 years or something.

+ ∞ !!!!!

The whine on this one would loud and substantial. Virginia tried to increase fines on unliscensed motorists , and the whining of the subsidised motoring crowd was so loud the fines were repealed.

Cars can be impounded in Va, but only under very specific instances and not if it imposes a "hardship" on the driver or their family. Don't think it happens very often.

I'd like to see them explain why impounding the car of someone who doesn't have a license to drive anyway is a hardship.

Yeah, I know.

Sure, but seniors already drive well below the speed limit in many cases and it still doesn't make a difference. Somebody one told me the older the brain gets the less capable it is to respond to dynamic situations. If a senior citizen drives the same route to the mall for 5 years and nothing unexpected happens they'll be fine but if something unexpected happens they're almost guaranteed to crash.

Before I resort to one of my usual witty, but biting replies to gross over-generalizations, please provide your definition of "senior citizen".

Before I resort to one of my usual witty, but biting replies to gross over-generalizations, please provide your definition of "senior citizen".

Who knows, not my definition. Maybe you'll know one when you see them driving straight for you eyes squinting, hands clenched and body hugging the wheel.

Warning: explicit language! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPzRXYexLI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpk28G9qZdM

Who knows, not my definition. Maybe you'll know one when you see them driving straight for you eyes squinting, hands clenched and body hugging the wheel.

Well I'm approaching 51 and I can pretty much guarantee that I can still maneuver my pick up truck fast and accurate enough to drive it right up your ass before you could do anything about it, never touching skin, with little or no warning on either of our parts. :eek:

So for the sake of discussion, perhaps we should define senior citizens as over 65, at least until one of them old fossils come in here and kick both our asses. ;)

Well I'm approaching 51 and I can pretty much guarantee that I can still maneuver my pick up truck fast and accurate enough to drive it right up your ass before you could do anything about it, never touching skin, with little or no warning on either of our parts. :eek:

So for the sake of discussion, perhaps we should define senior citizens as over 65, at least until one of them old fossils come in here and kick both our asses. ;)

Approaching 51...? LOL. Whippersnapper!

I am 54, and still bike and ocean swim... Hardly the "fossil" that some here may be thinking.

I will say that my reaction time is probably not what it was when I was 1/2 my current age, but then I also don't try to drive like a NASCAR driver on city streets.

Speed limit inflation by motorists that "feel comfortable," in their newish cars that tend to isolate them from the road, is a far greater problem than "slow reacting" oldsters.

I don't think 51 is senior citizen territory... you have to be at least 65 to get the discount. Though apparently 67 is now the average retired/senior citizen age.

I am all for increased testing when you get above 65, most people won't be able to bring themselves to surrender their license for good and will need an intervention from authority to tell them via a test or whatever they're dangerous out there.

I wonder how many motorists are out there right now that have the '50s notion that cyclists are supposed to go against traffic.

I learned to ride a bicycle in the 1950s and I have no recollection of this fallacy being promulgated at that time. I wonder if it crept in at a later time?

I learned to ride a bicycle in the 1950s and I have no recollection of this fallacy being promulgated at that time. I wonder if it crept in at a later time?

It was probably because you actually learned to ride a bike... I have heard this fallacy being promoted by people that think cycling is like walking, and should be done facing traffic. This same fallacy gets promulgated to their young and perpetuated, thus we have at least one reason for some salmon cyclists out there.

I support more frequent testing, particularly for younger drivers and for older drivers such as myself. However, the written test alone does not provide a complete assessment of driver risk. An actual driving test should be administered. But of course, state governments have no budgets for that. With software technology being where it is today, it seems like some entrepeneur could develop a simulator that could realistically assess driving skills, with drivers taking the test at a workstation in the DMV. This might not detect some destructive behaviors like aggressive or distracted driving, but would be a giant leap beyond the written test.

I don't think 51 is senior citizen territory... you have to be at least 65 to get the discount. Though apparently 67 is now the average retired/senior citizen age.

I started getting offers for AARP membership (and discounts to the Golden Corral) months before my 50th birthday. :o

This would suggest that drivers who recently passed the tests (under 25) have an similar fatal crash rate per mile as drivers over 75yrs. old
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/tra/rpt/images/2002-R-0021-13.gifhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/tra/rpt/images/2002-R-0021-13.gif

In Michigan, yellow does mean stop if safe, but whether specifically stated or not (I don't know offhand), it is understood to mean stop if you don't have to make an extreme maneuver (like screeching to a halt) to do so. Legally in Michigan, I believe it DOES mean stop, not just that the light is about to change.

I can't speak for Michigan, but Colorado states:

(b) Steady yellow indication:

(I) Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter.

(II) Pedestrians facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian-control signal as provided in section 42-4-802, are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown, and no pedestrian shall then start to cross the roadway.

Found Michigan:

(b) If the signal exhibits a steady yellow indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection.

So the question is very state specific. Obviously(or maybe not, depending on how many answered it which way), it is prudent to stop if safe to do so on a yellow. But if the survey is asking what the law is, it really depends on the state.