|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
1adam12 
Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 02 2003,11:26 am |
|
   |
The world's a risky place, it isn't possible to foresee and prevent every hazard. Some people are just plain stupid, reckless or careless. The rest of us just need to watch out for them.
I think the tire-damage devices would cost a lot for installation, and they would freeze in the winter, causing snowplows to rip them up. That's why you rarely see them in Minnesota. And this only addresses what the DPS analysis calls a "rare type of accident".
More signage is only going to further confuse people (there was a recent article in Reader's Digest about over-signage).
Jim - I have thought for years that all drivers should be retested. That way you avoid the "age-discrimination" debate. You take your driver's test over every 4-5 years when you renew your license. And, no, it's not a knee-jerk reaction to one or two collisions.
There are a lot of older drivers who seem to have forgotten the "rules of the road". Retesting, although it would be a time-consuming hassle for some, would at least force people to focus on their driving. Problem drivers could be identified early on and action taken.
Minnow - skip the hummer, or we'll see you on this page   -- www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/police/prostitution_photos_current.html
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 02 2003,11:45 am |
|
 |
nevermind 
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 02 2003,12:54 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | Maybe it wouldn't be so hard to do the same thing with an ignition interlock for cars--I know they already have a "breathalyzer" interlock that can be installed for people with multiple DWI offenses). |
What do you think about the idea? I don't like the thought of a whole corps of drivers examiners, making subjective decisions on driving. I think it would be a lot like pilot examiners--each with their own standards, likes, and dislikes--people to be tested would start "shopping" for a favorable examiner. If you think the hassle of just getting your drivers license renewed NOW is bad, try scheduling a bunch of exams.
I like the interlock idea because it is not subjective, reasonably quick, and tests for all kinds of impairment. It would weed out the truly impaired, instead of people meeting an artificial standard. For example, we all know people that are impaired after one drink--while others seem to function OK beyond the .10 standard (soon to be reduced to .08).
I suppose it could be defeated by having someone else do the test to start the vehicle--and it is unlikely to be instituted--but I would certainly like to get away from arbitrary definitions of impairment. U.S. law makes it illegal to discriminate against a certain age group in nearly every other aspect of our lives--a performance-based testing system would meet that test. It would also weed out drug, sleep, or emotional impairment. It would provide a benchmark for elderly drivers and their families as to when to stop driving, and I would think it would make it easier for police officers to make their judgement call following a stop.
Just another option to consider. Can someone tell me how to get back to the home, now--I seem to have lost my way! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Mamma
Group: Members
Posts: 1474
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 02 2003,5:18 pm |
|
|
I'd help you out Jim, but I am in the boat next to you....I think "I've fallen and I can't get up".
--------------
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
1adam12
Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 02 2003,5:37 pm |
|
|
Maybe for drunk drivers, but do you want to sit through this test everytime you want to drive?
Driving examiners have a checklist on their tests. Either you violate a driving rule, or you do it correctly. There's not much room for subjectivity.
Both measures are pretty cost prohibitive, though. The state can't afford to hire all of the examiners needed, so it's moot at this time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 03 2003,11:31 am |
|
|
I agree--it isn't going to happen--but I would gladly put up with a 15-second tests if it would keep "all those other drunks" off the road--not to metion being able to PROVE non-impairment. Of any of us that imbibe, who among us hasn't worried that even though we watch our drinking, that we might be pulled over (perhaps in one of the "safety checks" and charged?
As a police pro, I'm sure you have seen many other factors other than age and alcohol in poor driving--distractions, hurry, anger, drugs, poor health, or just having an "off day"--all contribute to unsafe driving. That's what I like about the Russian system--it does a good job of screening for all of the above.
Pro pilots can refuse to take a flight for any of the reasons above(they better not make a common practice of it, however) in the interest of safety--if only more drivers held themselves to a higher standard.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
