Driver's Re-Testing in Ontario???
- Thread starter boyr
- Start date
I'm all in favour...
of another Ontario Government Cash Grab, `cause you know the "re-testing" will be free-of-charge.
of another Ontario Government Cash Grab, `cause you know the "re-testing" will be free-of-charge.
Being the owner of a commercial drivers license i can say it is so much fun being retested. Stand in line for an hour to be given a written multiple answer test. The test is a joke and if you fail you should loss your license permanent. I can say that of all the people i know with commercial license that i have never heard of anyone failing, just another way for the government to sap more money out of us.
The opposing view
I like the idea, but I'd like to hear how the Ontario government would implement it. I've driven in lots of places and I find that Ontario drivers are fair to poor. We have some of the best roads in the world here, but there seem to be lots of drivers who don't know how to use them properly. Drivers in California are much better on average than we are here. But to me there's nothing to beat driving in Europe - those guys know how to drive properly!
If there was a way to educate people to use our roads more efficiently and to teach them how to drive faster safely, I'd be all for it.
I like the idea, but I'd like to hear how the Ontario government would implement it. I've driven in lots of places and I find that Ontario drivers are fair to poor. We have some of the best roads in the world here, but there seem to be lots of drivers who don't know how to use them properly. Drivers in California are much better on average than we are here. But to me there's nothing to beat driving in Europe - those guys know how to drive properly!
If there was a way to educate people to use our roads more efficiently and to teach them how to drive faster safely, I'd be all for it.
Arguments against:
- The lineups are too long.
- If you fail, you lose your license and must start over from the beginning.
- You don't have time to take the test.
- You don't like being told that you're a bad driver.
- It is a cash grab by the Ontario government.
Arguments for:
- Most drivers pick up bad habits over the years when their driving skills aren't being monitored.
- The Ontario government will have a new source of revenue.
Now on the pro side, the fact that most drivers pick up bad habits is a major issue. No one is ever watching you, you have no idea what the current road laws are and in all honesty, most people don't care - and this is the source of some of the road rage.
On the con side, only the argument that you could lose your license is an issue because there are people who depend on their cars for work. The truth is, no one wants to be told that they're a bad driver - or a bad anything. You might be great driving a car with experience, but you're not driving smarter. Do you use your turn signals all the time? Do you even know when you're supposed to use them? The whole "lineups are too long" or "I don't have the time" is just you being impatient and selfish. Seriously, some people won't even spend 2 hours once every 5 years to make sure that they're a smart driver - and this affects everyone on the road as well as the passengers in your car. And this laziness argument doesn't relate to your driving skills, it relates to the infrastructure of the system, which can be improved by opening more licensing offices.
What should be done:
- Make drivers re-take their driver's test every 5 years.
- Open more offices to handle the increase of testing.
- If a person fails, give them 12 months to re-do the test.
- The lineups are too long.
- If you fail, you lose your license and must start over from the beginning.
- You don't have time to take the test.
- You don't like being told that you're a bad driver.
- It is a cash grab by the Ontario government.
Arguments for:
- Most drivers pick up bad habits over the years when their driving skills aren't being monitored.
- The Ontario government will have a new source of revenue.
Now on the pro side, the fact that most drivers pick up bad habits is a major issue. No one is ever watching you, you have no idea what the current road laws are and in all honesty, most people don't care - and this is the source of some of the road rage.
On the con side, only the argument that you could lose your license is an issue because there are people who depend on their cars for work. The truth is, no one wants to be told that they're a bad driver - or a bad anything. You might be great driving a car with experience, but you're not driving smarter. Do you use your turn signals all the time? Do you even know when you're supposed to use them? The whole "lineups are too long" or "I don't have the time" is just you being impatient and selfish. Seriously, some people won't even spend 2 hours once every 5 years to make sure that they're a smart driver - and this affects everyone on the road as well as the passengers in your car. And this laziness argument doesn't relate to your driving skills, it relates to the infrastructure of the system, which can be improved by opening more licensing offices.
What should be done:
- Make drivers re-take their driver's test every 5 years.
- Open more offices to handle the increase of testing.
- If a person fails, give them 12 months to re-do the test.
Re-testing can trickle down into savings in insurance. If ontario forces insurance companies te recognize that retesting makes a safer driver and explains it to the public, I'm sure there would be more support. I think re-testing is a greaat idea. To many people get nervous to do a road test. A road test is easy. If you are nervous about doing one, then you shouldn't be on the road.
I think a lot of those crappy drivers were trained here in North America.
Retesting has it's place, but only if the testing ultimately raises the standard of driving. If all they'll do is make you take the current test, I think it's a complete waste of time as the current test is too easy.
Incidentally, I think older drivers (over the age of 70?) already have mandatory periodic retesting.
Retesting has it's place, but only if the testing ultimately raises the standard of driving. If all they'll do is make you take the current test, I think it's a complete waste of time as the current test is too easy.
Incidentally, I think older drivers (over the age of 70?) already have mandatory periodic retesting.
Retesting should definitely be pursued as there are very few good drivers on the road already. The fact of the matter is the majority of our roads are designed for higher rates of speed but speed limits are posted much lower for one reason: the majority of drivers are unable to function with dependability at those speeds in the given conditions. Mandatory retesting is the first step to raising speed limits and everyone spending less time in the car. Take for instance the reason for most slowdowns on the 400-series highways: it's not accidents or breakdown, but people tapping their brakes to either check it out or no reason at all. This causes all cars behind to believe there is a real stoppage occurring and clogs all the roads for no reason at all. That first moron needs to be weeded out so that we all can get home an hour earlier each day, and putting him/her on a mandatory retest will do it.
As for those whining about waiting in line, you already have to do that every 5 years to get another photo taken for a renewed license so why not do a test while you are there? Another thing to consider is that doctors are totally deficient in their duty to remove licenses due to medical conditions so a mandatory retest of all necessary skills will remove these people from the road and save all our lives. As for the cost, it would likely be minimal if rolled together with process of reissuing the license since you'd only need to pay extra for the testing and not the extra desk staff that instead will already have your file up for the reissue (as well as no extra line-up). And while we're at it, we might as well restructure the license to give basic driving privileges and then have additional certifications that can be granted or revoked (such as one for highway driving and another for night driving, but could also have others) without losing a license altogether. Some people can drive in city conditions but are hopeless on highways or at night, so why not allow them to have such a basic license available? As for the testing being too easy, the current graduated licensing system has people who fail it all the time and then come back as better drivers as a result, and I see no reason why it couldn't be implemented to everyone every 5 years. I think most current drivers on the road would fail the current test the first time around anyways.
Finally, the insurance angle is definitely one to explore or legislate as well. Would you like to pay less insurance by paying an extra $30 every 5 years? As an added bonus, the government could start such a program of retesting by making it optional with the guarantee of an insurance decrease with participation. And even if they don't offer such incentives, they should force those people who garner moving violations to get a retest as a condition of continuing to hold a license that is not the right of anyone to hold in the first place.
In the end, the system of restesting has proven results in many jurisdictions and coupled with an insurance reward sytem it would do well for everyone....well, except the vultures who tow wrecked cars, those at the body shops, and the lawyers.
PAL
As for those whining about waiting in line, you already have to do that every 5 years to get another photo taken for a renewed license so why not do a test while you are there? Another thing to consider is that doctors are totally deficient in their duty to remove licenses due to medical conditions so a mandatory retest of all necessary skills will remove these people from the road and save all our lives. As for the cost, it would likely be minimal if rolled together with process of reissuing the license since you'd only need to pay extra for the testing and not the extra desk staff that instead will already have your file up for the reissue (as well as no extra line-up). And while we're at it, we might as well restructure the license to give basic driving privileges and then have additional certifications that can be granted or revoked (such as one for highway driving and another for night driving, but could also have others) without losing a license altogether. Some people can drive in city conditions but are hopeless on highways or at night, so why not allow them to have such a basic license available? As for the testing being too easy, the current graduated licensing system has people who fail it all the time and then come back as better drivers as a result, and I see no reason why it couldn't be implemented to everyone every 5 years. I think most current drivers on the road would fail the current test the first time around anyways.
Finally, the insurance angle is definitely one to explore or legislate as well. Would you like to pay less insurance by paying an extra $30 every 5 years? As an added bonus, the government could start such a program of retesting by making it optional with the guarantee of an insurance decrease with participation. And even if they don't offer such incentives, they should force those people who garner moving violations to get a retest as a condition of continuing to hold a license that is not the right of anyone to hold in the first place.
In the end, the system of restesting has proven results in many jurisdictions and coupled with an insurance reward sytem it would do well for everyone....well, except the vultures who tow wrecked cars, those at the body shops, and the lawyers.
PAL
I think re testing is totally ludicrous. If necessary make the original test harder but once you past you should if anything improve with 5 yrs experience. If you weren't competent why did you get a licencse anyway. I can't see anyone actually wanting to give the government more money , what's wong with you people don't they get enough anyway.BuffNaked said:
Re-testing won't make better drivers of road hogs and people who tailgate , enforcing the laws will.
This is where I see the problem. Graduated licesing was supposed to make roads safer, and I do think at one point the goverment announced that the was a reduction of accidents over the past 10 years. Now I would surmise that safer roads = less insurance, but that hasn't happened. infact insurance has been increasing over that past years. Most recently I've heard rates have gone up because of 9/11. not that it has anything to do with cars but that's what I've heard. So here you have a tierd system that makes roads safer but we don't see the rewards for our efforts. Now if you include re-testing this would force people to keep good driving skills (at least for the test), and that translates to even safer roads. Instead the public sees cash grab, insurance still wants it's cut, and the idea never gets pushed through cause our roads are safe enough.booboobear said:
I see enforcment of the traffic laws as the cash grab. Speed limits seem to always be just under my tollerance of slow speed so I'm always doing 15 over. Theres 50 buck + no demerit points. You're not going to fight it cause it's to much hassle. You don't think it will effect your insurace, but it's recorded anyways. I think you are allowed 2 minor infractions before your insurance does go up, so this can effect your insurace depending how many you get. And because they can issue more tickets with more staff, it's can be easy to fudge numbers and say roads are not safe, insurance increase for every one.
While I understand traffic enforcment is very important, I don't think it would be as necessary if we had driver who were curtious and safe. By safe I mean aware of your surrondings cause speeding does not always = unsafe.
