[Mike Cash]

Here in Japan elderly drivers have a distinctive mark they display on the front and rear of their cars so at least those around them know to be on the lookout for them; the marks are optional from age 70 and mandatory past age 75. Similarly, newly licensed drivers (of any age) are required to display dinstinctive marks front and rear for the first year after licensing.

There is also a mark for drivers who are hearing impaired (and who were only allowed to get drivers licenses at all starting about three years ago). Let's you know there's no damned point in honking your horn at them but beyond that I don't see the point on this one. Starting next year blind drivers will be required to drive white cars with the front 1/4 of the car painted a bright red.

You can drive, but can't spell?

Worrying.

You can drive, but use apostrophes to indicate plurals?

Glass houses, stones, etc. etc.

---

Last edited by Mike Cash; 01-14-2010 at 09:39 AM.

[BPT]

Mike ... wait a minute blind drivers?

[Rupert]

I hope those blind drivers have really good hearing! Perhaps they let their doggies drive?
Here in Texas blind drivers are required to let their doggies do all the driving. They are tested every two years (the doggies) and from what I hear do better than most Texans do.
Regards!
BTW- Kim is a nice looking Texas girl.....don't you think?

[Wheatfield]

As far as retesting, I am a firm believer in retesting of ALL drivers on a set timescale, something along the lines of every 5 years for people under 60, 2-3 years for people 60-70, and every year above that.

Unfortunately, retesting as a concept doesn't stand up to critical examination.
Think about who causes the most accidents? That demographic is held by the newest drivers, the teen aged to mid 20s drivers, or more to the point, the ones who are most recently tested.
It's not that they don't know how to drive, it's that they willfully ignore the rules of the road and drive without consideration for others.
Anyone can behave themselves for the 15 minutes it takes to pass a skills exam, anyone can brush up on the rules ong enough to pass a test.
This doesn't mean they will apply this to operating a vehicle, and unfortunately the facts bear witness to this.
Retesting will take the people off the road who are plain and simply incapable of proper driving, but honestly, that is an incredibly small % of bad drivers.
The rest of them are bad drivers because they choose to be bad drivers.

They just passed a law in Saskatchewan banning cell phone use while behind the wheel, though it's still OK to use a hands free device.
Yippee!!! Yesterday I saw 6 or 7 people driving while talking on a cell phone, and a couple of people obviously texting, but they were holding the devices on their laps so that someone beside them couldn't see the phone.
The new law so far seems to have little impact other than to force the people who are aware of it to take their attention even farther from the road.
And in the meantime, the fine for getting caught is about the same as doing a U-Turn at an intersection that is controlled by street lights, which is something that isn't inherently dangerous, though someone decided to arbitrarily pass a law banning it.
Rupert is right in that using a cell phone while driving puts you in a state of mind similar to being well over the legal limit for alcohol.
With this in mind, why isn't the law reflecting that fact? We take drunk drivers off the road, take their cars from them and give them hefty fines and/or jail time.
Why not do the same thing with cell phoning while driving?
Why not take a persons cell phone from them after an accident and see what it was doing prior to the collision? If it was in use, why not make it a manslaughter charge rather than a traffic violation?

[MRRiley]

Why not take a persons cell phone from them after an accident and see what it was doing prior to the collision? If it was in use, why not make it a manslaughter charge rather than a traffic violation?

I assume you mean IF there is a fatality involved? At the very least it should be reckless endangerment...

[Mike Cash]

Mike ... wait a minute blind drivers?

They stay in their lane by weaving left and right until they feel the rumble strips. Ladies doing their makeup have demonstrated that this works and that there is no need to have the slightest clue what is going on in front of them. So why shouldn't the blind be able to do too? This is the era of equal rights; don't be hatin' on people.

[WerTicus]

The problem I think is that people are not taught how to drive but rather how to pass the driving test.

The driving test isn't realistic at all to how a 17 yr old really drives.

If they were taught to drive like maniacs in a safe environment then they would know their limits, rather than finding them on public roads.

Otherwise no licenses till your 20 for women and probably 25+ for guys, because there is no way a 17 yr old male will not act like a tool.

There should also be a test every 10 yrs regardless of age and every 5 and every 2 as you reach the later years.

In Australia its illegal to drive with the phone, and your phone records will be looked up in event of a crash causing more than $1000 damage, you face criminal charges if your on the phone at the time. (culpable driving, vehicular manslaughter, grievous bodily harm etc.) You'd also have no insurance from that point on.