While I entirely agree with the above points for increased driver training and standards, let's look at the reality of the situation...

These systems work in Europe, because there is a well established, and comprehensive system of public transit. You don't NEED a driver's license there, because you can get to and from employment, etc. in a variety of ways. The problem with Canada, and Ontario in particular is that we've decided instead to build a transit system built around the automobile, and communities around the concept of long-distance commuting. Under our current system, it may mean that drivers are less skilled, and less safe, but if you decide to implement a system where your failure rate is increased (for argument's sake) from 10% to 30%, that is a substantial number of people now that are unable to reach their job, contribute in a meaningful way to society, and to pay their taxes.

Burning gas and keeping cars on the road keeps the economy flowing, at least at present. Until we are ready to have a complete shift in social and economic paradigms, more strict driver and vehicle inspection standards are not likely.

 

^^I don't agree with your premise; higher testing standards (and failure rates) will mean some who presently drive will lose their licenses, or not get one in the first place, but most will pass - eventually. And will have greater skills, and cognizance of the responsibility of driving. It is not a right, and not being able to drive does not exclude one from participation in the workforce and being productive. It might mean they have to make different choices in terms of where they live and work, such as living closer to public transit or their place of work, but it doesn't exclude them from work and productivity.

I'd daresay the net failure rate on driving exams is currently pretty close to zero - sooner or later, every clown squeaks by the test, even if they have to take it 10 times. I passed my driver's license 25 years ago, at age 16 - and in Alberta, I don't currently have to ever be retested, and show I've maintained my skills, knowledge, and good habits. At age 75 a doctor has to complete a medical and vision report - but no retesting. I don't think that's reasonable, either.

Higher testing standards and periodic retesting would likely exclude some small portion of the population from ever passing - and good riddance, I say! Those are likely the people who cause the most accidents, chaos, and congestion on the roads anyways. The economy may actually improve by removing them as a source of accidents, inflated insurance costs, medical costs, and time, fuel, and money wasted with traffic congestion caused by poor drivers and the accidents they cause. While improving the quality and attentiveness of those drivers left on the roads.

 

^ Well thanks for saying what I would have, only better.

A gradual integration of higher standards would allow everyone to adapt to the new standards and provide no excuses for those that can not meet them. I would never say just drop it on us all and be damned what happens, because there are a lot of us that would not be able to meet those standards even now. I know I am not a bad driver. In fact I'm confident enough to say I am a good, careful driver. Hell I do it for a living, so I better be capable. However driving in the conditions we have now means that we have to adjust to the majority of the drivers abilities, which is sad to say, not that great. We all pick up bad little habits, even if we could school a good chunk of drivers already. So gradually adjusting to higher standards would allow us all to gain a better skillset, while also allowing a high percentage of drivers to retain, or gain their licences. In the end we'd all be more capable, safer drivers, with an even lower accident/fatality rate. There is no excuse for not pushing for better standards. Even if the economy slows just a little bit, it's worth the lives it would save.

 

Higher testing standards and real consequences for failing are about the only way to improve driver skill. It's fairly evident that larger fines and more enforcement don't help at all, simply because few people take driving as seriously as they should and most people have their own inflated belief in their driving school. In the beginning, a more strict system would be a painful pill to swallow for most but the key is to introduce it gradually with larger grace periods. As it would take a (inefficient) government many years to set up the infrastructure (with appropriate scandal and budget mismanagement in the process) the public would have quite a lot of time to adjust.

I don't personally know about public transit, but in London and Toronto, it looks like it is adequate. No one needs to drive. Those who do (let's face it, most of the population considers driving a right) should be held to high standards.

 

There is also the Go transit system, which carries people from outside the GTA into it. They have buses and trains, and I believe they are reasonably priced. Perhaps farther up north things would be different, mainly in more rural areas. I have a few friends that go to UWO here in London, and though they own cars they manage to get around using mostly buses. Failing that, there are cabs, they bike or walk. Plenty of options for those that cannot meet higher standards. Just because people want to drive, doesn't mean they should.

 

do realy want to pay more for your licensing... cuz I dont... and do you really want to take more ridiculous standardized tests and wait in longer lines at the dmv to drive your car... and most of all more bureaucracy ... I DONT

 

Because if I do then so does everyone else, which means I can drive faster without fearing tickets, or go to work without wondering if asshat in the left lane doing 90 is going to jump into my lane and get me killed because he sucks at driving. I want everyone to be able to drive well. I want less people dead every year because of stupid idiot drivers that take the sad excuse for tests that we have to take now, and forget everything the second they get back in the car. If you don't want to, take the bus. My guess is that you either don't have your license or have just gotten it. You'll soon learn that there is more to driving than getting your license and carting your friends around. The more you drive the more you realize just how shitty some drivers are. Chances are you may end up being one of them if you don't make a conscious effort to ensure you keep up on your skills.

The tests we would have to take would be after getting trained by professional driving instructors. So maybe we might have to sit in a car with some MTO tester, feeling a little nervous, but we already have to and we will have much more confidence in our abilities while we are doing it. It's not like we would have a test for every little thing. We would have one test to get our full license, and that test would include the criteria for certain aspects of driving skill.

More bureaucracy? You mean the bullshit this thread was started about isn't useless bureaucracy? We wouldn't have to put up with **** like the "stunting" law if our drivers were more capable. That law was simply a pathetic ploy intended to give the impression that Fantino was actually doing his job. People bought it, and people got screwed over because of it. Some may have deserved it, but I'm willing to bet most didn't, at least not to the extent that the law allowed.

I've also never had to wait more than 10-15 minutes in the MTO to get paperwork taken care of.

By the way, this is Ontario. It's the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), not the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). That's U.S stuff. Welcome to Canada.

 

YES! I do!
Unlike most other developed countries, Canada and the US treat driving a vehicle as virtually a right; I have no problem with a little occasional pain for more rigorous standards and ongoing assessment, in return for a better experience day in and out on the roads. Less stupidity and incompetence, less snarled traffic and accidents caused by people who don't know the rules of the road, let alone understand them. That will save me time, aggravation, and money (because we all pay for accidents and traffic jams through insurance and taxes, as well as wasted fuel and time).

We also already get to pay loads more for insurance when we collect tickets; one of the reasons, no doubt, why insurance companies are big lobbyists for speed enforcement programs. Iirc, the government makes close to $1 billion a year in Alberta from ticket revenue - that's $285 a head for every single resident of the province, regardless of age. That's a lot of cash we're already paying.

As orion84gsl points out, we already have loads of useless bureaucracy. Much is in the form of legislation, policing, and courts dealing with enforcement of useless and often counter-productive laws. Speed enforcement is an industry in North America, one that makes a lot of money, selling and maintaining equipment and training law enforcement - and selling police and legislators on the dubious benefits of intensive speed enforcement. Big time, big money lobbying.

 

I couldn't agreed more with having drivers take a test to re-new their license once every couple years.

Couple years back when i was still living in Toronto i ran into an accident on Hwy7 that had me hospitalized for a month and had my first rx7 total lost. I got hit from the driver-side front by some middle age lady while i was boxed in by another car on the right lane on that bend before kelee (going westbound). No room to run on the right side and trying to brake from 80km/h+ while having another car PRETTY close to my rear (you know how people drive on 7 when they are west of young..). Ended up involving 4 cars damaged and 4 drivers SERIOUSLY injuried, all this because of the lady decided to make a lane change at such speed on a bend without checking bind-spot.

I bet she got her license even way before i did but she is not any safer having her on the road than a 18 year who just got his/her G. And yet the current system is still letting tons of drivers like this lady who caused this whole accident to keep driving on the road.