how about mandatory license re-testing every 2 yrs. If things go as planned the 70% of drivers that couldn't drive there finger up there #$% would be off the road, hence no reason to do any thing to the lanes.
|
|
|
Narrowing lanes in Toronto?
- Thread starter iFly55
- Start date
clutch
Well-known member
There' no politician walking the face of Ontario earth who would even suggest that. It's a political suicide ... it would have to have a support across the board and that's out of question, because the province believes their stats that it has one of the safest if not the safest roads in North America. So what would be the motive which could get it through? Not less cars on the road ....
I've been saying this for a while. At least do a written test for renewal every 5 yrs and do random road testing for a certain percentage. If you fail, back to a learners for you. The amount of people that would be taken off the road would be staggering.
that s the idea, its pathetic how many people have a drivers licence and have no clue how to drive or obey the rules of the road. At least once a week I could have a new car for the idiots out there. the sad thing is they don't think they have done any thing wrong.And some poor innocent person will get killed because of it. That's what really ticks me off.
matt220
Well-known member
To be honest, the written is a joke and the driving part, not far behind. I think the whole system is so flawed that it should be drastically modified and updated. Another big part is police being money collectors as opposed to promoters of safe driving.
Very much so. At least a written test would get the absolute stupid off the road. Couldn't agree with you more on the police issue also.
Riceburner
Well-known member
considering how some drivers can't stay in their own lane on a curve...with a small car...narrowing the lanes means they will be driving with half their car in the other lane instead of just the wheels.....
Last edited:
Don't even try to compare anything that is done in Europe with Toronto, it will frustrate you.
The most amazing thing I have seen in Toronto is a RoundAbout (one of the very few in the city) with a stop sign on each corner, so while you are inside the RoundAbout you must stop 3 times before completing it
There is a worse one in Edmonton. It has multiple street lights for incoming/outgoing AND during the circle.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.570...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJr7C6ou_ZB5TkTfdR_VoLQ!2e0
Ha, that is just fantastic.
my driving / riding skill's are just fine. 50% of drivers today should not be on the road in my opinion, and yes I am entitled to MY opinion.
You don't say? That implies that you think you're better than the 50% of the drivers you think shouldn't be on the road. You're not alone.
Wiki says
Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving safety and skill to the other people in the experiment. For driving skill, 93% of the US sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (above the median). For safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%.[SUP][26][/SUP]
McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions relating to driving skill (examples include the "dangerous-safe" dimension and the "considerate-inconsiderate" dimension). Only a small minority rated themselves as below average (the midpoint of the dimension scale) at any point, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being above the average driver.[SUP][27][/SUP]
Last edited:
Anything that decreases the number of drivers will not happen. The amount of insurance revenue would be greatly reduced therefore reducing taxes collected on those premiums. No government will do something that reduces that much tax revenue. And regular retesting would cost millions to implement, double revenue reduction whammy.
Regarding your first point that may be true. Regarding your second point that would be true if the government charges for the test the same amount as they do for people that have lost their driving privilege due to medical reasons and must take a driving test which is $0 or people aged 80 and above which is practically $0. If the fee charged is what the test costs to administer then how can the program cost tax payers money?
|
|
|
|
|