Would you be in favour of compulsory driving tests every 5 years?

[PorkChop]

Because I would. In the UK you can drive at 17, just pass your test and you never have to worry about it again for the rest of your life.

I think people should be tested every 5 years. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege, and if you want to continue receiving this privilege you should show you're fit and able. If you're hurling a box of metal around roads up to speeds of 70mph (and over, despite what the law says) you should demonstrate more than once in your life that you're able to do it safely.

FWIW, I'd also introduce regular testing for cyclists.

[Circled Square]

Yes, I think it'd be a good idea. Plenty of seniors drive when they shouldn't be.

[Everlong]

Plenty of seniors drive when they shouldn't be.

Not just seniors either, there are a shit ton of idiots on the roads of all ages. I'd absolutely be in favor of having to pass a driving test every five years.

[UTK]

No. In the 9 years that I've had my license, I've never gotten in an accident and I've only been pulled over once (for going 66 in a 55 zone.) But I'm sure I would struggle with the "road test." Driving in the real world and driving for the driving test are two different things. I wouldn't be surprised if some perfectly able drivers ended up failing this test because they are poor at parallel parking and they naturally do not make full stops at stop signs anymore.

That and I'd rather not be forced to go to the fucking DMV for anything.

[Circled Square]

I posted this in the wrong thread.

How about every 10 years for people under 50?

[Westcoastvibes]

I think it should be scaled to age and driving habits, if your under 30 then every 5 years, over 30 but below 60 every 10 years, 60+ every 3 years. If you are at fault for an accident, road test, to many tickets, road test.

[Str8Shooter]

If you have a certain amount of accidents, whether your fault or not, you should have to re qualify or something like that. I'm not sure people with spotless driving records should be forced into it.

Plus I think it's a manpower issue, there aren't enough people certified to give the tests and the wait times would go through the roof if everybody had to redo it every 5 years.

[Messiah]

The driving test isn't exactly a good representative of the driving you will typically do. I, personally, can't parallel park for shit.

Beyond that, barring some mental illness or old age or something along those lines, you aren't going to suddenly forget how to drive or get worse at it in a 5 year time frame. It would just make the DMV even more busy, something nobody wants.

[Chewy]

Reassessment if you're at fault for a collision seems sound but I wouldnt test everyone regularly unless there's an underlying medical condition, or if they're asian.

[CubsIn5]

I think that would be waaaaaay too much of a burden on the DMV but I do beleive random spot checking would be a good idea.

[The Legend]

First of all, I'm not sure about other states, but Ohio hasn't made you parallel park for years (decades even) as part of a driving test. You have to do a different movement standard.

As for, "naturally not stopping at stop signs anymore" that's exactly the kind of thing that makes me think re-examinations for everyone would be a good idea.

[Westcoastvibes]

First of all, I'm not sure about other states, but Ohio hasn't made you parallel park for years (decades even) as part of a driving test. You have to do a different movement standard.

As for, "naturally not stopping at stop signs anymore" that's exactly the kind of thing that makes me think re-examinations for everyone would be a good idea.

Ha-ha, the fucked up thing is Arizona does not do parallel parking on your driving test either, but... If you apply and test for a commercial drivers license, parallel parking a 18 Wheeler in a mock up test is required to pass. They use traffic cones as markers for what would be a "pedestrian vehicle" and if you hit the cone you fail, on yeah, you can't look over your shoulder either, you have to use the door mirrors only.

[Circled Square]

First of all, I'm not sure about other states, but Ohio hasn't made you parallel park for years (decades even) as part of a driving test. You have to do a different movement standard.

As for, "naturally not stopping at stop signs anymore" that's exactly the kind of thing that makes me think re-examinations for everyone would be a good idea.

Ha-ha, the fucked up thing is Arizona does not do parallel parking on your driving test either, but... If you apply and test for a commercial drivers license, parallel parking a 18 Wheeler in a mock up test is required to pass. They use traffic cones as markers for what would be a "pedestrian vehicle" and if you hit the cone you fail, on yeah, you can't look over your shoulder either, you have to use the door mirrors only.

Wait, what? Am I reading this correctly? Why the hell does the average driver need to know how to parallel park an 18 wheeler?

[Westcoastvibes]

First of all, I'm not sure about other states, but Ohio hasn't made you parallel park for years (decades even) as part of a driving test. You have to do a different movement standard.

As for, "naturally not stopping at stop signs anymore" that's exactly the kind of thing that makes me think re-examinations for everyone would be a good idea.

Ha-ha, the fucked up thing is Arizona does not do parallel parking on your driving test either, but... If you apply and test for a commercial drivers license, parallel parking a 18 Wheeler in a mock up test is required to pass. They use traffic cones as markers for what would be a "pedestrian vehicle" and if you hit the cone you fail, on yeah, you can't look over your shoulder either, you have to use the door mirrors only.

Wait, what? Am I reading this correctly? Why the hell does the average driver need to know how to parallel park an 18 wheeler?

No, this is for a commercial license, but i dont see any reason why anyone, including commercial licensed drivers, would ever need to parallel park an 18 wheeler

[lyonssv]

I definitely think that once you reach a certain age, you should have to retest. I'd even go as far to say ever 2-3 years. I can't tell you how many fatal crashes I've been on scene of that was caused by elderly people behind the wheel when they had no business driving.

[ShaneOfan]

I would no for some of the reasons listed above but also for another. It would force adults of working age (starting at 21) to take almost a full day off of work just to retake the test. There are roughly 204 million Americans of working age. Divided by 5, you get 40,800,000. Divided by 365 you have roughly 111,781 people taking the test every day. And I get that many people don't have cars and many walk or take public transportation, but that's a pretty good blow to the work force.

That said if you have a DUI, I have no problem with every five years or even two. Have a car accident that is deemed to be your fault, retest.