This makes so much sense to me
 

ok so in my mind this idea seems so simple and obvious. is there any flaw in this?

ok so atm we renew our drivers licences every 4 years and it costs 75 bucks.
most people agree that there are people on the road that clearly shouldn't be.
most agree that people generate bad driving habits over time
most people think they are good drivers
most people think that icbc's prices are to high
most agree that driving is a privilege and not a right


what if we were to bump the renewal to every 5 years (like passports) and charge 125-150 dollars. and aslo include a manditory driving test.
in my mind this solves so many inherent problems with our current system.

the extra renewal cost will cover the new employees needed to do the tests.
it will create some jobs
it will help take some of the people off the road that clearly shouldn't be
it will help to provide a refresher to those that pass and will help drivers identify the bad habits that plague our roads (like passing but the tester is like "you should be careful about sutting corners" or "you missed 2 shoulder checks") just to make people aware they ARE making mistakes.
it will reduce the number of accidents
it will help keep insurance priced down because of less accidents
the good drivers may not like doing the test but in general for those people is should be a cake walk.
transit use will rise and maybe translink will stop bitching so much and stop trying to gouge every one with rediculous taxes.

honestly there are so many benefits to having manditory road tests every 5 years. the only issue i see if that currently icbc wouldn't have enough staff, but honestly that shouldn't be that big of an issue.

i have an issue knowing a particular person that took 9 tries to pass his first road test and then doesn't need to ever take the test again... tbh he shouldn't have ever passed in the first place. using the law of averages to pass a test isn't beneficial to anyone.

am i out of my mind here?

edit: nm

Yes, but so are most people.

There are waitlists to take the test now, imagine if 4.5 million (population of BC) would have to do it. The system wouldn't handle it.
Posted via RS Mobile

I feel if you have a clean record, then you should just be able to renew. What I don't like is the fact that people who get suspended can just pay and get their license renewed when their suspension is over. Those are the people I think should have to redo the test before re-instating their license.

People bitch now about paying $75 every 5 years to renew, imagine the up roar if they were also required now to do a road test and pay more money. Its not that I think the idea is bad but I don't see this idea ever going anywhere.

It's a great but unworkable idea. As a driving instructor I train students now for the tests. All students need training and it depends on their current skills. W/o any training I would expect that very few would ever pass. You need to know the specifics of the tests and you need to have someone teach you them. The result would be almost a 100% fail rate for drivers as they renewed. Now they need training and to be retested...where do they get that and who is trained to provide it? Without long advance notice, lots of instructors, vehicles and examiners...and lots of $$$ who do we make it work in real life,?

I would love to see people re-tested on a regular basis but that's just not going to happen. Bring drivers who have been driving for twenty, thirty years up to current standards is a nice thought, but it's just not happening.

My time in the GLP was over ten years ago. I have a friend who put off getting his licence because he couldn't afford lessons. His dad took him out several times before he finally asked me for a few lessons.

He was overwhelmed with the number of small technalities that made up the new driving tests. He said his dad just sat in the passenger seat and said nothing as they drove around. He thought he only needed to go out a couple of times with me, it ended up being about ten times before he was comfortable taking the test.


Then you have people who know the rules, but choose not to follow them on a regular basis. They'd likely pass a simple driving test, but with no examiner present they're the sort of people who tailgate in school zones and speed up before the zone ends. Or blow through playground zones because they can't see the playground.

We just need the German system where getting your license costs a small fortune with lots of tests. The cost of the tests covers administering them.

Cause of the cost of the many tests people will invest $$$ into training, which then could lead to a boom of training programs available.

What are the current standards? Do you mean new rules and regulations? Do you mean there is a different way to drive a vehicle "now-a-days"?

Let's see....99.99 per cent of driving is common sense. In North America, we KNOW we should be driving on the right side of the road for instance. That's an easy one...every one else is doing it! :fullofwin:

Mmmm...what speed should I do....oh hang on! There's a sign that tells me!! The signs are there to tell EVERYONE what is allowed or is not allowed.

Don't tailgate...that's easy...if you drive a vehicle for a year, you soon learn that it takes time to stop a vehicle. How many of us use the "measurements" we learn when taking a drivers test? How many of us just use common sense?

Make sure your mirrors are set...common sense if you want to see what is happening around you.

Check you vehicle (which I doubt many regular drivers do, new ones or old ones)...common sense if you want a safe ride.

Don't park on the railways tracks......well.....that doesn't even need an explanation.

Shoulder check.....duh......

Don't drink and drive....that's been around for....over 30 years? Sure, the penalties for drinking and driving have changed...but it's always been illegal.

Slow down in inclement weather....yup....who of us have learned that lesson the hard way? By slipping and sliding a bit?

.....and so on...and so on.....

You see my point? There may be new regulations involved as with the MVA, but "old" drivers and "new" drivers all know the new regulations. But driving a vehicle has not changed in HOW it is done for a very long time. Not all of us that have driven for over 25 years got our license from a cereal box....driver training, defensive driver training.....having a "learners" first etc. have been around for a loooong time!

Look at the accident stats....who needs to be brought up to "current standards", if that's the way you wanna put it? The "new" drivers and the "old" drivers that have yet to realize their time of driving is up!

Perhaps you didn't mean it as it sounds. I think you COULD say that people get "lazy" about their driving....it's not that they DON'T know how to drive....or have forgotten how to drive...they get "lazy" about their driving. But, it's not just drivers that have been driving for 20-30 years, but ALL aged drivers are guilty of it! But then, that's why we have police officers on the road....to remind us!

:fullofwin:

im all for old people having to retake their tests every 5 years...

there are a lot of 'mas and 'pas that shouldnt be driving their buicks and regals

maybe once every 10 years would be reasonable?

exams at 16,26,36,46 etc ?

I agree. But instead of them taking the normal licensing test, we should be testing them to see if they are safe enough to drive. You see the difference? This would also involve medical testing. I hate to single a particular group of people, but some of them (and we will ALL get there, some day) just don't have the mental OR physical faculties to drive safely anymore.

I was so proud of my grandfather, he walked into the licensing office and surrendered his license. He had trouble with his legs, and he realized that it was becoming dangerous. You know what that took? He was a widower at the time, and had numerous ladies relying on him for rides etc., a great life! :D But HE knew it was time.

I think I meant "Driving accordign to today's current examination standards".

Passing a test 20, 30, 40 years ago was likely a lot easier than passing one now.

I'm not sure I like the sounds of the DriveABLE testing for seniors however.

We've had stories in the media or seniors who have been cleared by doctors, cleared by driving instructors but have failed the DriveABLE test and have had their licence revoked.

We simply don't have the infrastructure to do it. It needs to be planned for years untill being brought into action. Not happening since the mayor is still busy playing with his little bike lanes. Remember that the city is trying to get rid of cars. There's no point funding the development of such infrastructure.

And most people aren't good drivers. Good to me mean you know how to react in extreme conditions or when your car is being pushed to the limit and able control your car. Ending up in a ditch or plowing through others and kill everybody isn't good driving. Autocross teach things like that.

i feel that a lot of rich ppl who cant drive wortg a damn (mainlanders and hongers) can just buy their renewals just like their licenses
Posted via RS Mobile

Good driving means you don't get into those situations in the FIRST place! :D

I think it would be a good idea to require re-tests every 5 -10 years, but as zulutango wrote, I doubt that it is financially and logistically feasible. But it would be a good thing primarily because there are so many drivers that are driving with a BC driver's licence that never took a BC driving test.. they just transferred their licence and we have no idea who good or bad a driver they are.

Then what happens if people fail their tests? They will drive anyways, without a licence and insurance, and that will make it even worse if they get into an accident, because they won't have insurance and the victims won't get paid out for it unless the victims have insurance for uninsured motorists.

it would be more like you get a letter from icbc saying your renewal is coming up in 6 months you need to pass a driving test. so people go 3 months before and then fail and book for 2 weeks later...

and for uninsured drivers, your still covered. icbc will pay out and then sue the shit out of the other party.

The problem still is the huge numbers of drivers/riders who would have to do this. Even with 3 month's notice where do they get trained instructors with the time to train them? Where do ICBC get the offices to house the examiners and the facilities to train them? All you have done is backup the problem by 3 months. As it is now there is a waiting list that can take 2 months or more to get an opening....imagine what would be required to test and train thousands daily across the province ?

Ok I'm going to play devils advocate here.

From what I've read so far, the ability to pass a current drivers test without taking a "course" on exactly how to pass the test given the "rules" the administrator will grade you on is slim to none. I got my license 20 years ago. I took 1 try and I took the test the earliest I possibly could after getting my Learners. Not an L but previous to that just a learners. Now if you were to make me retest, by the sounds of things I would fail based on a million little technicalities that I wouldn't know about in the current system. Does that make me a bad driver?
Ok So I go take "lessons" which are more like instructions on how to get by the "system" (do this because if you don't you'll fail) which end up costing me money, time off work, etc. Then I go take the test and I pass. Great. Do you think I'm going to drive daily like I did on the test? Fuck no. I'm driving the way I have driven for 20 years and just because I get retested or forced to retest is NOT going to change that. All it's going to do is cost people money and time.

The ONLY people I think mandatory retesting should be done on is people over 60 years old. I personally think they should be tested at 60, 65, and every year after 70. The tests should be free but mandatory. And that is because your ability to drive actually becomes a physical problem for many people as they advance into their elder years. I've seen the rapid degradation of people of age happen in 1 year. From mobility, to sight and hearing as people advance in age they may not physically be competent enough to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

Berz out.

Hmm I think that in Canada...

Driving should be a right not a privilege considering how bad the transit system here is.

I think it's far more troubling that people who are passing the test, may simply be passing because they've been "trained" on exactly what they need to do to pass it... rather than actually being trained to drive properly.

Reminds me of working in an IT shop where we took MCSE practicum students who couldn't even swap a computer's floppy drive, because their training only taught them how to pass the MCSE exams, rather than actually imparting IT knowledge and skills.

Exactly my point. Taking the "lessons" are just circumnavigating the system. Sure if you instill those skills on NEW drivers they may stay ingrained for a longer period of time but teaching "old dogs new tricks" is only showing them how to get past the test they are not going to change their driving habits.

Berz out.