Subject: driver's ed. is a joke

From: [email-masked] (J. Hale )
Date: 16 Jul 1995 00:29:03 GMT

How can we even think of raising the speed limits to a reasonable level
with the current lack of skill displayed by most drivers on the road
today?  It seems to me that the whole driver's training system needs to
be revamped and all who are currently licensed need to be recertified
under more strict regulations before any other changes to driving laws.
 It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country.  Opinions?
 Comments?

Eric

---

From: [email-masked] (Greg Dunbar)
Date: 16 Jul 1995 01:24:23 -0700

J. Hale ([email-masked]) wrote:
: How can we even think of raising the speed limits to a reasonable level
: with the current lack of skill displayed by most drivers on the road
: today?  It seems to me that the whole driver's training system needs to
: be revamped and all who are currently licensed need to be recertified
: under more strict regulations before any other changes to driving laws.
:  It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country.  Opinions?
:  Comments?

In many european countries you get your drivers permit at age 15 like the 
US, but you can't get your liscence until age 18.  But I guess they need 
the extra practice because many speed limits are well above 100.
-- 
[email-masked]  Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 16 Jul 1995 13:00:40 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
J. Hale  <[email-masked]> wrote:
}How can we even think of raising the speed limits to a reasonable level
}with the current lack of skill displayed by most drivers on the road
}today?

Let Darwin handle the driver training.  It works for getting high
school football players with Mustangs and Camaros out of the gene
pool.  Besides, the speed limits aren't slowing people down NOW.

} It seems to me that the whole driver's training system needs to
}be revamped and all who are currently licensed need to be recertified
}under more strict regulations before any other changes to driving laws.
} It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country.  Opinions?
} Comments?

Sorry, this is the United States of America.  The driver's license is
a right which ranks up there with dial tone and cable TV.  You'll get
my driver's license when you pry it from the hot, smoking, wreck of my car.

Seriously, I don't think changing the driver training system will get
you much:  most of driving is learned through actual experience on the
roads, with other drivers, and can't be learned any other way, at
least at present.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert King)
Date: 16 Jul 1995 17:29:52 GMT

In article [email-masked], [email-masked] () writes:
>Let Darwin handle the driver training.

   I suspect that will happen to some extent, but often its not just the
driver that is involved in the accident.  What if its you, your spouse,
or your children?  I lost two of my best friends to drunk drivers.  They
died; the drink drivers did not.  Motor vehicle Darwinism does not work
well enough to make it a policy, my friend.

>  Besides, the speed limits aren't slowing people down NOW.

   It has been shown time and time again, that there's no significant
correlation between speed and accident rates.  However speed differential
DOES have a significant correlation, hence the 80% recomendation (set the
speed limit to be what 80% of the drivers on a particular section of road
drive.)

>} It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country.  Opinions?

   I've always believed that Driver's Education was a joke.  It needs to be
a REAL course - similar to Bob Bondurant's teen driving course - with a skid
pad, outrigger-equipped skid cars, and anything else needed to teach the
student about driving EMERGENCIES and how to manage them.

Sure, driver's education and defensive driving TELL you how to recover from
a skid, but they can't tell you how one feels, and they can't get you to
correct instinctively, and folks, that's the ONLY way you're going to
recover - you don't have TIME to think!

>my driver's license when you pry it from the hot, smoking, wreck of my car.

   Why is it that most people think this way?  Sure driving your car is a
right.  BUT driving your car on public roads is not!  Those roads arn't
yours and you don't own them, the PUBLIC does.  If you want to drive on
them, then you've got to obey the laws the public requires you to obey to
use them.

>roads, with other drivers, and can't be learned any other way, at

   Then include experience in the driver training program!  When I was
learning to drive, I did a lot of crazy things in my high-school parking
lot including burn-outs, cutting doughnuts, breaking hard and generally
throwing the car around a lot.  Little did I know I was also exploring the
dynamics of a car's handling.  I was teaching myself how a car felt as it
began to oversteer, and understeer.  I was learning how a spin felt and I
learned how to recover from one.  I was learning how the car felt as the
brakes locked up (and I learned first-hand that you really CAN'T steer
with the wheels locked.  I learned a lot driving like an asshole in that
big, empty parking lot.

   Another thing I'm in support of is re-certification.  Do you realize
that if you never move out of state, never let your license lapse, and
never have it revoked, that you can keep your license and drive for as
long as you live?!  All you have to do is pass an eye exam!  Folks, 
there's a LOT more involved in safe driving other than being able to
see a chart of letters!  80% of the students enrolled in Comedy Defensive
Driving thought the correct way to deal with a spin was to slam on the
brakes!  Now no one was taught that in their driver's ed class!  This is
somthing their "common sense" cooked up.

-- Robert King

---
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King                |                                       |
| Systems Software Engineer     |                                       |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems  |    "I drank WHAT?!?" -- Socrates      |
|                               |                                       |
| [email-masked]            |                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here arn't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: [email-masked] (John Kolego )
Date: 17 Jul 1995 06:11:46 GMT

>roads, with other drivers, and can't be learned any other way, at

Bulls__t! Most if not all car clubs offer some level of advanced driver
training, usually on a track. The PCA offers such training for Porsche
owners all over the country, as do BMW and Mercedes. Private high
performance driving clubs such as "Car Guy's" train you in whatever you
bring to the track. And there are many schools, such a Bob Bondurant's,
that will train you and provide you with a properly prepared car to
learn in. 

Drivers training, as seen in most high schools, is better described as
automobile operation and parking techniques, not driver's ed. 

The other problem, as I see it, is that most Americans believe that the
epitome of driving in ths country is demonstrated weekly by NASCAR 9or
INDY), it's not. Watch a European Grand Prix and tell me which
demonstrates a higher level of proficiency.

John (Targa)

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert M Paller )
Date: 16 Jul 1995 17:19:02 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (J. Hale )
writes: 
> It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country.  

I agree 100%. After visiting Germany last year and travelling the
Autobahn in both a car and on a motorcycle at speeds of 90mph+, I no
longer feel safe on American roads. Not only do we need to be retrained
on driving, DOT needs to do major work on the roadways and signs.

In Germany there is not such thing as a blind corner, they use mirrors
where ever they feel it is dangerous to pull into traffic. Thus there
is no need to have your car dangerously set in traffic to look for
oncoming cars.

Everyone on the road is courteous to other cars, bicycles, motorcycles,
and pedestrians. The AutoBahn is the only highway I have travelled
where people yield to faster traffic by moving to the right lane and
people actually pass on the left and not the right. Granted, if you do
not move over fast enough you will have a BMW or Mercedes three inches
off your rear bumper until you do. And the AutoBahn is a hell of a lot
smoother then the Highways here on East Coast!

                                                Rob

---

From: [email-masked] (Bradley Charles McFeters)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 02:21:30 GMT

Robert King ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >J. Hale  <[email-masked]> wrote:

: Sure, driver's education and defensive driving TELL you how to recover from
: a skid, but they can't tell you how one feels, and they can't get you to
: correct instinctively, and folks, that's the ONLY way you're going to
: recover - you don't have TIME to think!

: >Seriously, I don't think changing the driver training system will get
: >you much:  most of driving is learned through actual experience on the
: >roads, with other drivers, and can't be learned any other way, at
: >least at present.

:    Then include experience in the driver training program!  When I was
: -- Robert King

Maybe you should take a look at the new system we have in Nova Scotia, 
Canada.  Around a year ago, the system was changed from what I think 
yours is: a test consisting of road signs and simple road rules which you 
recieved a (minimum) 60 day beginner's license upon completion.  This allows 
you to drive with an experienced driver.  After the 60 days, a 20 minute 
test for a "real" license.

Now, the new system is called Graduated Licensing.  Nova Scotia modelled 
it after the system in place in New Zealand, however I think other 
Canadian provinces have it as well (Ontario?).  The way it works: At 16, 
you take your test for a beginners license, and the test is now harder.  
That license must be held for 6 months before the next stage.  After 6 
months there is another written test and the usual driving test.  At this 
point you recieve a special license for 2 years.  The restrictions on 
this license are: no driving between midnight and 5 am (exception if you 
have a job requiring use of a car), zero tolerance for alcohol ie 0%, # 
of passengers limited to # of seatbelts, and if you recieve a ticket or 
any other refraction during this period you have to start over again with 
no accumulated mileage.  At the end of two years of clean driving, and 
after completing a certified 6 hour defensive driving course, you move on 
to a "real" license.  BTW, this is not just limited to teens, every new 
driver no matter the age must go through this system.

What do you think?  Does it make sense?  Supposedly in New Zealand, the 
model, statistics show a decrease in the number of crashes involving 
people between the age of 16 and 24.  Some people argue that's just 
because they aren't on the road.  In any case, that's our current 
system.  Comments?

Brad..somewhere in Nova Scotia...

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert S. Jenkins)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 11:25:13 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (J.

>  It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country.  Opinions?

I am tired of the 55/65 speed limit around here and I am ready for for
at least a 70/75 mph speed limit, regardless of whether Driver Ed. is a 
joke or not!

Robert

--

---

From: [email-masked] (John Kolego )
Date: 18 Jul 1995 09:04:05 GMT

In <[email-masked]>
>>  It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country. 
Opinions?
>at least a 70/75 mph speed limit, regardless of whether Driver Ed. is
a 
Hey Robert, keep in mind the 85th percentile. At present 55mph limits,
15% of the population is driving at 65-70mph. If speed limits were
raised to 70mph, we would have 15% driving at 85-90mph. And somewhere
out there is some joker that want's instructions as to how to spin
doughnuts and drive the city streets at 110mph. Dosen't that trouble
you?

John the Scoff Law
(Targa)

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert M Paller )
Date: 18 Jul 1995 19:54:36 GMT

In <[email-masked]> Cindy Lu <[email-masked]>
writes: 
>That is Germany. In USA, our co-existing drivers don't yield to
>the fast traffic, use shot gun and middle finger to communicate.
>LA was famous for that couple years ago, we have two people in
>a stolen green Jeep did that last week.

Now we are talking morals and values. That is something for another
newsgroup or email. But I do agree with you wholeheartedly. 

>Driver's ed? I would recommand lisence for cars: everybody start
>with Yugo. Every several years of safe driving grant a promotion.
>For those repeated drunk driver and bad drivers, they shouldn't
>have air bag or ABS. Their existance are actually danger to the
>other innocent people. Everytime, watching a wreck caused by drunk
>driving F-150 or big Cadi, I always wish there were law to force
>those people drive a Yugo.

I dunno about starting off with a Yugo. That car is a death trap
itself. Not only that, but if you try to get a Yugo up to fifty five,
you will end up killing ten people behind you. But I understand your
point. 17-18 year olds do not need to drive Mustangs and Camaros. They
will only end up killing someone else (or themselves) from just plain
ignorance about driving. Placing an age restriction on some sports cars
would not be a bad idea, since ungodly insurance rates have not stopped
them.

I have to agree with some of the other people involved in this thread
when they state Driver's Ed only teaches traffic laws and parking. I
think US should adopt a program in which new drivers have to pass a
offensive driving course. (Since Driver's Ed is considered Defensive
Driving) This course should teach drivers how to handle a controlled
skid on various surfaces. How to avoid skidding a car along with
various other skills. (Too many to list and I have forgotten some at
this point)

Agree or Disagree? Feel free to express your opinions.

[email-masked]

---

From: "Nathan J. Nagel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:08:42 -0400

Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos.driving: 18-Jul-95 Re: driver's ed. is a
joke by John Kolego @ix.netcom.c 
> doughnuts and drive the city streets at 110mph. Dosen't that trouble

    Where are you from?  Around Pittsburgh I would say the average flow
of traffic is between 60-65 MPH (55MPH speed limit.)  Boston, Detroit
both around 70-75.  I agree there is no need to raise the speed limit if
only a small percentage of drivers are speeding... but where I am
familiar with driving, a large percentage of them do.  I also feel very
safe and comfortable at these speeds, and would probably feel very slow
at the posted limit.
    Yeah, there are scary people out there, but raising the speed limit
20 MPH isn't going to change that.  In fact, it might help, as then
police wouldn't always be on the lookout for speeders, but actual bad
drivers.  A friend of mine said it best - "when you see a cop in your
rear view mirror, you should feel safe, not scared, and that's just not
the way it is."

later,

Nate

---

From: [email-masked] (Walter H. Tondu)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:50:16 GMT

Just two little words, if followed explicitely, could make most
drivers better, safer and more courteous:

			PAY ATTENTION

Get off your damn phone, quit daydreaming, learn what the Left
lane is used for, quit dorking with your hair, merge at highway
speeds, shoot all old people, force all cars with no suspensions
off the road, build separate freeways for trucks, build separate
freeways for bikes, force international visitors to take 6 years
of intensive drive training, give me my own lane, do roadwork
at night, ......................

			PAY ATTENTION

Sorry, i digress.

  _/          _/            _/    _/                          
 _/          _/    _/_/_/  _/  _/_/_/_/    _/_/    _/  _/_/   
_/    _/    _/  _/    _/  _/    _/      _/_/_/_/  _/_/        
 _/  _/  _/    _/    _/  _/    _/      _/        _/           
  _/  _/        _/_/_/  _/      _/_/    _/_/_/  _/            

Walter Tondu
[email-masked]
'94 RX7 R2 blk

---

From: Jeff Witzer <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Jul 1995 14:16:32 GMT

[email-masked] (jd) wrote:
>
> In article <[email-masked]>
> [email-masked] (J. Hale ) writes:
> > It seems to me that the whole driver's training system needs to
> Most people, when asked, would say they consider themselves good or
> great drivers. Some are, and most are not. Most of them would resist
> the idea of (additional) driver education & practice.
> 
> Today, speeding fines and fines for other traffic infractions go into
> state and local coffers. What if laws were changed that these dollars
> would be returned to the cited drivers in the form of vouchers good to
> professional driving schools (such as the ones that advertise in
> Autoweek)?

Cool!  I've always wanted to attend another class but couldn't afford
it.  Now all I have to do is get caught speeding a few times and voila!
Free class!! ;->

Seriously, since most people are motivated by money instead of morals
or intelligence, why not mandate insurance discounts for professional,
accredited driving school graduates?  Since these people would,
hopefully, be better drivers anyway, why not recognize them as lower
risks than others who drive the same type of vehicle?

> Janos Dohanics
> National Motorists Association
> Pennsylvania State Chapter Coordinator

Jeff Witzer (using a friend's account)
1993 Mazda RX-7, Competition Yellow Mica / Pettit Turn Key Terror

---

From: Jeff Witzer <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Jul 1995 14:40:59 GMT

> > professional driving schools (such as the ones that advertise in
 
<snip>

> risks than others who drive the same type of vehicle?

And couldn't this be applied to other "we really wish everyone would do
this in the interest of safety but we don't want to FORCE them to do
it" kind of stuff?

For examples:  seat belts and helmets/eye protection.

Everyone knows (or should) that these safety measures save lives of
those who use them, but that's not why I care (see: gene pool cleansing).
These also affect how well that person operates their vehicle and I'd
like everyone to use them responsibly to save my ass and my loved
ones'.  I don't support LAWS that dictate their use, however...

So...hows about the auto insurance industry setting up safety equiptment
users schedules seperate from non-safety equiptment users like life
insurance companies do for smokers and non-smokers?  Drivers would
volunteer their safety/non-safety status and be charged appropriate
rates (non-safety being much higher due to the insurance companies'
higer risk of payout).  The liars (those who claim to use but really
don't) would not be covered for ANY claims caused by an accident in
which it can be proven they were not using the appropriate safety
equiptment.

Responsible drivers would benefit from lower insurance costs AND from
more people using their safety equiptment.  Those who chose to endanger
others and themselves could still do so but must pay for that 
irresponsibility.  The insurance companies could more accurately
charge for probable claims.  Who loses?

---

From: "Nathan J. Nagel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:01:40 -0400

Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos.driving: 18-Jul-95 Re: driver's ed. is a
joke by [email-masked] 
> In article <[email-masked]>,
> Robert King <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >before I let them on it.  The Government has that same right.  Driving
> >on public roads is a previlidge extended to us by our government.
>  
> The government doesn't grant us any privileges. Driving on public roads is a
> right for a competent driver. The government has the responsibility to
> verify that the people driving on public roads are competent.

    If you take that attitude, that means that the driver's tests have
to become a lot more stringent.  Mine (PA) involved nothing on public
roads, and nothing over 10 MPH (the officer actually asked me to shift
into second so he was "sure I knew how to drive a stick."  as if that
meant anything.  And I was going so slow I had to shift right back down
again.)
    If the test was a meaningful test of driving ability, then driver's
ed would have to begome more rigorous so people would pass their
driver's tests.   Any way you look at it, something has to be done.
    IMHO, the government has failed in its responsibility to ensure that
I am competent.  Sure, I think I am, but who knows?  The last time I
took any kind of test was 5 years ago, when I was 16.  And what about
people who are in their 80's?  Do you think that they all have the same
judgement and reflexes that they did when they got their licenses?  Some
might... but deinitely not all of them.

later,

Nate

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jul 1995 16:44:58 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Robert King <[email-masked]> wrote:
}In article [email-masked], [email-masked] (jd) writes:
}>In article <[email-masked]>
}>[email-masked] (J. Hale ) writes:
}>
}>> How can we even think of raising the speed limits to a reasonable level
}>> with the current lack of skill displayed by most drivers on the road
}>> today?  It seems to me that the whole driver's training system needs to
}>> be revamped and all who are currently licensed need to be recertified
}>> under more strict regulations before any other changes to driving laws.
}>>  It's just too damned easy to get a license in this country.  Opinions?
}>>  Comments?
}>
}>I don't think we should expect that the 'system' (any system) could
}>prevent unskilled, irresponsible and lousy drivers on the road.
}
}   On which road?  If I own a road, (racetrack, whatever,)  I have a
}perfect right to demand anyone using it to show me proof of competence
}before I let them on it.  The Government has that same right.  Driving
}on public roads is a previlidge extended to us by our government.

No, it isn't.  It is something which was perfectly legal for anyone to
do until about 1/3rd of the way into the 20th century, when
governments used the unfamiliarity of the motor vehicle as an excuse
to make driving illegal and provide exceptions for those who jump
through the aproporiate government hoops.

}   I agree.  It would be nice (although impractical at present,) to have
}limited access roadways (like a tollway,) that would have essentially
}unlimited driving speeds (an American Autobahn, if you will.) 

We've got THOSE now-- its just illegal.

---

From: [email-masked] (Eugene Tyurin)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 15:57:39 GMT

>>>>> Robert King <[email-masked]> writes:

 >    On which road?  If I own a road, (racetrack, whatever,)  I have a
 > perfect right to demand anyone using it to show me proof of competence

My follow-up is a US-centered one, but bear with it. :)

Quoting the "Frogfarm FAQ" (available at this URL:
gopher://gopher.etext.org/11/Legal/FrogFarm/ ):

"Operation  of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a
mere  privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of
Federal and State constitutions."  Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom
from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious
conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts."  People
v. Horton 14 Cal.  App.  3rd 667 (1971)

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit
Co.,  229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E.  579.

"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise
or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order
to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state
authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge
for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." - PG&E
v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.

-- 
Eugene Tyurin, Inst. for Theoretical Physics  -  Stony Brook Univ.
            WWW: http://www.physics.sunysb.edu:80/~gene/index.html
       Internet: [email-masked]
Those who don't understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bradley Charles McFeters)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 02:21:30 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert M Paller )
Date: 16 Jul 1995 17:19:02 GMT

Rob

---

From: [email-masked] (Eugene Tyurin)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 15:57:39 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert King)
Date: 18 Jul 1995 20:16:57 GMT

>Federal and State constitutions."  Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

   Granted, but one may think of it as a right that is EXTENDED to an
individual by the government rather than an inherent right that individual
posesses simply by existing.  A human being has a right to a fair trial is
accused of a crime, and he has a right to use office equipment assigned to
him to his employer, but the two rights are very different.  One right
cannot be revoked, the other can.

   I used "priviledge" in my previous post because most people cannot
discern the difference between various kinds of rights.  Most see a
right as somthing inviolate.  Some are and some are not.

>v. Horton 14 Cal.  App.  3rd 667 (1971)

   This case did not deal with driving as a right per se.  Rather it
dealt with a special case of unreasonable search and seizure, which
is a much broader civil right.

>Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E.  579.

   I`d like to see the ENTIRE transcript of the Supreme Court's position
on this and a DATE, since a literal interpretation of what you posted
would make it impossible to prohibit ANYONE from friving, and it would
make driver's licenses, automobile registration tags, and vehicle
registration unnecessary.  I suspect the above has been taken out of
context, or is further refined or restricted in some way (or perhaps even
reversed at a later date.)

   I suspect this is a VERY early ruling by the Supreme court, perhaps
as early as the turn of the century (predating legislation requiring
driver's licenses, automobile registration and safety inspections.) 

>v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.

   This simply states that the license charge is a flat fee, not governed
or determined by usage of the roadway.  (Although in Texas, this tax is
determined by usage - usually by vehicle weight.)

   My position stands.

---

---

From: [email-masked] (jd)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 07:16:26 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Robert King) writes:

> In article [email-masked], [email-masked] (jd) writes:
> >I don't think we should expect that the 'system' (any system) could
> >prevent unskilled, irresponsible and lousy drivers on the road.
> 
If you, a private entity, owns the road, you make the rules, no
question. It may be somewhat different with a 'government-owned' public
road, paid for by tax dollars, since restricting usage appears to
collide with your right to travel (one of your not-emerated rights in
the 9th Amendment). But check out
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver.html> for more on this.

> >I don't think much will change that some states increase their speed
> >limits to a breakneck 65.
> 
>    Agreed.  People tend to drive at a speed they are comfortable at.
> That speed happens to be higher than 65 on interstates.
> 
> 
> >But indeed, it would be better if people could drive better. So here is
> >an idea:
> >
>    If nothing else, its an additional hassle for them.
> 
> 
>    I have a problem "rewarding" cited drivers like this, but I think
> you're looking in the right direction.
> 
> 
I really don't think most people would perceive having been sent to
driver education and made pay for it as a 'reward'. This is still a
'big brother' approach just a tad more sensible than spending the money
on more radar guns.

> >I realize that such a change would still be troublesome for those of us
> >who think speed is best regulated by your own responsible judgement.
> >This is certainly not a solution that would cure all problems but at
> >least would connect traffic fines with traffic safety. As a side
> >effect, such a re-routing of dollars might just decrease interest in
> >writing traffic tickets.
> 
>    I agree.  It would be nice (although impractical at present,) to have
> limited access roadways (like a tollway,) that would have essentially
> unlimited driving speeds (an American Autobahn, if you will.)  Access to
> this roadway would only be granted to DRIVERS who have exhibited competence
> at driving in general and at high speeds, and to vehicles who have been
> certified to run safely at these high speedsi.  (Both would be subject
> to recurring certification fees to help defray the cost of setting this
> thing up.)  The technology is already there for this kind of non-intrusive
> monitoring.  Two "tolltag" like devices would be needed.  One permanently
> affixed to the car, and one in the posession of a certified driver.  These
> tags could be moonitored as the vehicle enters the roadway.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
Wouldn't it be nice to have such highways? I don't expect government to
build them. But private enterprise could one day.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert King)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 15:56:52 GMT

><http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver.html> for more on this.

   I've responded to these in a previous post.

>> >What if laws were changed that these dollars
>driver education and made pay for it as a 'reward'.

   Theres driver education and then there's a driving school.  They're very
different.  One is as boring as hell, the other is incredibly fun!

>> unlimited driving speeds (an American Autobahn, if you will.
>

   They can NOW.  The technology is there - all we need is financing and
the political clout to pull it off.

---

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert S. Jenkins)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 08:40:36 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (John

> doughnuts and drive the city streets at 110mph. Dosen't that trouble

NO! He will not last long driving at 110mph.

Robert

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert S. Jenkins)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 08:48:40 -0400

> doughnuts and drive the city streets at 110mph. Dosen't that trouble

What 55 mph limit around here(South Carolina) anything 10 miles out from 
city limits is 65 mph, and the average speed is between 65-75 mph.
Sure there is one or two who have go 85-90 and they are not going to change
regardless of the posted limit.

Robert

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert M Paller )
Date: 20 Jul 1995 23:25:10 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Joshua Kramer (Jish))
writes: 
>
>One of the things I look at when buying a car is the safety factor. 
>That is one reason I won't touch a GM product, or an import, or a Yugo

I beg to differ about you attitude towards GM products. I owned an 84
Fiero and broadsided a late model Mercede's sedan at 40 miles an hour.
I was able to get out of my car instantly with no injuries. Not even
bruised ribs from the seatbelt. (I was not at fault for this accident)
Needless to say, my car was even shorter and obviously totalled. (So
was the Mercedes) 8-)

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert S. Jenkins)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:36:17 -0400

> driving F-150 or big Cadi, I always wish there were law to force
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh great, another law just what we do not need: more big government 
 
> Not in the USA where the guilty prevail before you have them
> prooven guilty and beat their discusting lawer. I am ready for
> flame, be productive, please!

Try not to send duplicate messages please...then maybe you will be
productive and not waste bandwidth.

Robert

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Goudreau)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 22:44:59 GMT

Greg Dunbar ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In many european countries you get your drivers permit at age 15 like the 
: US, but you can't get your liscence until age 18.  But I guess they need 
: the extra practice because many speed limits are well above 100.

I presume you mean 100 km/h, not 100 mph.  AFAIK, the only place in
Europe where you can legally drive over 100 mph is on certain German
autobahns where there is no speed limit at all.  But every other
European country I've heard of has a limit of 130 km/h (~80 mph)
or less.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau			Data General Corporation
[email-masked]		62 Alexander Drive	
+1 919 248 6231			Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Foottit)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 17:26:07 GMT

> because they aren't on the road.  In any case, that's our current 

Ah, yes. graduated licenceing. We have been blessed with that in
Ontario for about a year now.

It sounds like a good idea - right? Force new drivers to get more
experience before we let them loose on the roads, etc.

What graduated licenceing does not address is the silly things you
have to perform in order to get your licence. Paralell perking,
3-point turns and other stupid things like that. When will the driver
testing system move out of the 50s and into the 90s?
They need to test highway driving, passing and mergeing skills. Skills
you need every day on the road.

Until the government testing becomes more comprehensive, most "drivers
ed" schools will only teach you the minimum required to pass the test.
Thus, graduated licenceing will only address part of the problem. 

Tom
_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
[email-masked]                Carleton University

---

From: [email-masked] (jd)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 07:39:47 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>

> [email-masked] (jd) wrote:
[...]
> 1993 Mazda RX-7, Competition Yellow Mica / Pettit Turn Key Terror

I'm qiute sure that people coming out of professional driving schools
are better drivers (what are they paying for then?) and most likely
they are lower risks. But I bet insurance companies don't see it that
way.

I don't know if lawmakers would be receptive to such a logical
argument. This is probably not politically correct.

On the other hand, I was wondering, how good an indicator is a speeding
ticket of propensity to cause accident? Since this is the argument for
raising your rates.

Janos Dohanics

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 24 Jul 1995 11:25:26 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
David J Heisterberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
}In article <[email-masked]>,
}jd <[email-masked]> wrote:

}Insurance companies don't need to justify this to you, it's the state
}insurance commissions they have to convince.  And I don't think it's a
}hard sell.  [Aren't they staffed by the same kind of people who think
}that smoking a joint leads to heroin addiction?]  They're the ones who
}determine a lot about rate structures.

IMO, the insurance commissions are "captive" regulatory agencies.
They regulate the insurance companies on behalf of the insurance
companies, not the consumer.  In Maryland, when the commission got
uppity and banned gender-based premiums, the insurance companies
showed them who was boss by having the State Court of Appeals overrule them.

}>Janos Dohanics
}>National Motorists Association
}>Pennsylvania State Chapter Coordinator

}You folks still have the 55mph speed limit, no?  I don't envy your
}task!  But keep at it, and good luck.

Nope, we've got 65mph, though not on any roads I use more than once a month...

}The Ohio Supercomputer Center               -- Heine

81/65 only an $85 speed tax in Ohio.  Not bad.  Even with the ticket,
I averaged over 70mph on the whole trip...  But what happens if you're
caught twice in 12 months?

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto      [email-masked]     [email-masked]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

---

From: [email-masked] (jd)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 07:43:51 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>

> which it can be proven they were not using the appropriate safety

They already do. You can get discounts for anti-lock barkes and
airbags.

---

From: [email-masked] (Craig Basten)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 03:17:51 GMT

>> insurance companies do for smokers and non-smokers? 

>They already do. You can get discounts for anti-lock barkes and

They do NOT.  All they lower for those two items are medical rates,
which are already incredibly cheap (at least fo me, $9 per 6 month
term),  They typically will cost MORE to insure, because it costs big
bucks to repack airbags.  On the ABS front, I have no idea.
===========================================================================
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government!"
		Peasant, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
Craig J. Basten	    N9ZIB	    TIP#978        [email-masked]

---

From: Jeff Witzer <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jul 1995 14:25:23 GMT

> Jeff Witzer <[email-masked]> writes:
 
[snip]
 
> > Jeff Witzer (using a friend's account)
[snip]
 
> ticket of propensity to cause accident? Since this is the argument for

I hope you didn't think I was supporting such logic!  That's the 
insurance industry's logic, probably because it would be too difficult
to accurately track insurance risks.  I assume that they equate speed
with recklessness, when, at worst, habitual speeders may have less
repect for speed limit laws and, with a great leap, for all auto
laws and regulations in general. <their thinking(?), not mine>

I think they should concentrate more on punishing recipients of
"reckless driving" or "driving to endanger" citations than simple
speeders.  These citations allow the officer to use his/her judgement
to indicate endangement to others.  Better yet, concentrate rate
increases more on those with a history of at fault accidents and 
endangerment citations.

Who, besides me, has received a speeding ticket delivered with the
phrase "I don't think you were doing anything *wrong*, but I felt
obligated to cite you for exceeding the speed limit"?  He tried to
make it up to me, though, by citing me for 14 mph over the limit
(at 15+ over its 4 points instead of 3 on your license) when I was
doing 130+ on a 4 lane interstate at 9am Saturday morning with
NO ONE else in either direction for MILES (literally).  Did I deserve
the fine?  ABSOLUTELY!  Was I endangering anyone besides myself?
NO!  Would I act irresponsibly and do something similar with other
vehicles around?  NEVER!  I think the cop realized this by my
equiptment (New Honda VFR 700 Interceptor, proper dress, full-face
helmet, etc) and my attitude (calm, mature, respectful).  He could
have easily thrown my ass in jail.  Instead, he thanked me for pulling
over when I saw him lite his blues on the side of the road a mile 
ahead.  He said he'd never have been able to catch me if I had
decided to try and run (Mustang GT State Trooper).

That's an extreme case where someone at the scene with a judgement
call can decide to recind someone's driving priviledge or just impart
a slap on the wrist speeding ticket for "5 miles over".  The insurance
industry seems to be trying to take a "record of speeding" (meaning
ONE ticket within the past 3 years) as a reckless scofflaw attitude
(no matter how wreckless you really are (sorry, couldn't resist)).

Jeff Witzer (using a friend's account)
1993 Mazda RX-7 - Competition Yellow Mica - Pettit Turn Key Terror

---

From: [email-masked] (James McElroy)
Date: 24 Jul 1995 11:50:44 GMT

jd ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>
: Jeff Witzer <[email-masked]> writes:

: > So...hows about the auto insurance industry setting up safety equiptment
: > users schedules seperate from non-safety equiptment users like life
: > insurance companies do for smokers and non-smokers?  Drivers would
: > volunteer their safety/non-safety status and be charged appropriate
: > rates (non-safety being much higher due to the insurance companies'
: > higer risk of payout).  The liars (those who claim to use but really
: > don't) would not be covered for ANY claims caused by an accident in
: > which it can be proven they were not using the appropriate safety
: > equiptment.

: They already do. You can get discounts for anti-lock barkes and
: airbags.

Ah, but I believe he's referring to *users* of safety equipment.  I thought I
just read a statistic that said up to 80% of drivers do not properly operate
ABS.  As for air bags, I know a few people that stopped using seat belts
because they have air bags, and one driver I know (ok, so this is extreme) now
doesn't feel as bad about driving drunk because his car has air bags.

There's a very important distinction here; just because people have safety
equipment in their cars (seatbelts, ABS), they don't necessarily use them
(although you can't really "not" use airbags).

James McElroy
[email-masked]

---

From: Jeff Witzer <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Jul 1995 14:35:32 GMT

>They already do. You can get discounts for anti-lock barkes and

I was refering to rewarding drivers for responsible use of voluntary
safety equiptment (seatbelts in cars and helmets on motorcycles).

Anti-lock brake and passive restraint insurance discounts reward the
purchase of a so equiped car but does nothing to ensure their proper
use.  Air bags offer close to no protection if you're not wearing
seat belts and anti-lock brakes do not reduce stopping distances
especially if drivers modulate (pump the brakes).

Driver education, the other half of my post, would help to inform
drivers of the need to properly use the equiptment they purchased.
I fear that most drivers of such equiped cars may believe themselves
somehow more invincible and even less responsible for their car's
actions.

If you think that's rediculous...

I was in traffic court (aquitted, BTW) when I witnessed a case
where the driver of a vehicle struck another vehicle from
behind.  The driver pointed out that the officer at the scene reported
skid marks.  The driver claimed that, therefore, it couldn't
possibly be his fault because *his car was equiped with anti-lock
brakes* which obviously locked, which obviously CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.
The judge then *immediately* ruled for the defendent... no questions
like "Did you attempt to steer around the other vehicle?".  THE JUDGE
IN A MOTOR VEHICLE COURT assumed that an anti-lock equiped vehicle
would have stopped shorter.  

Other points missed: 
   The vehicle was a Bronco-like truck - rear anti-lock only!
   The impact was enough to severely injure 3 small children 
       (properly restrained) - how much shorter would anti-lock have
       stopped the truck, judge?!?
   
So the parents, also injured, face large medical bills and the Bronco
driver escapes with a crumpled fender for either following to closely
or not paying attention.  Justice.

Jeff Witzer (using a friend's account)
1993 Mazda RX-7 R1 - Competition Yellow Mica - Pettit Turn Key Terror

---

From: [email-masked] (David J Heisterberg)
Date: 24 Jul 1995 14:33:51 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>they are lower risks. But I bet insurance companies don't see it that

I wonder if it isn't just that there are so few people who go through
these schools that a) there's not enough data to be statistically
significant and b) they don't have enough clout anyway.

>ticket of propensity to cause accident? Since this is the argument for

Insurance companies don't need to justify this to you, it's the state
insurance commissions they have to convince.  And I don't think it's a
hard sell.  [Aren't they staffed by the same kind of people who think
that smoking a joint leads to heroin addiction?]  They're the ones who
determine a lot about rate structures.

>Pennsylvania State Chapter Coordinator

You folks still have the 55mph speed limit, no?  I don't envy your
task!  But keep at it, and good luck.
-- 
David J. Heisterberg                        Ich grolle nichte, und
Dept. of Chemistry OSU /                  wenn das Herz auch bricht.
The Ohio Supercomputer Center               -- Heine