Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh
No, not really. The Government already intervenes by having regulations for driver training in preparation for a person to earn a driver's license. Improving driver education means just doing a better job at what we have already agreed to let Government do.
Most states have an effective period for how long licenses remain active before they are renewed. That would be the time for retesting, it would be up to the individual to decide whether he needs to attend a driver training course in advance of retesting to renew his driver's license. Making the initial training more effective and making renewal testing more difficult to pass (than just a vision test) may require continuing (refresher) education is just doing a better, more effective job at training the driving population.
The discussion of this thread pertains to additional and new requirements for monitoring behavior via electronic surveillance technology (and making it mandatory).
|
Making it harder to get a license, that's more government intervention. The government adding retesting for license renewals to "make renewal testing more difficult to pass (than just a vision test)" is more government intervention too.
Again, you originally suggested "stricter licensing requirements, and periodic testing and continuing/reinforcement education". Since much of this would be
in addition to the current state laws that provide initial and ongoing oversight over driver's licenses,
then it's more government intervention. Of course it doesn't matter whether it's the federal or state gov't, it's all a slippery slope of 'some government arm' adding regulations to make our lives more difficult, right?
So then the question becomes which government intervention makes the most sense in our "free society" that would impact saving lives? Not an easy question to answer.
Keep in mind, over the last 50 years, the government has intervened at various times to make driving safer, requiring certain manufacturing principles or adding specific laws:
Stronger bumpers
Strengthened crumple zones
Added seatbelt laws
Cars now required to have:
-Mirrors on both sides of the car
-ABS
-3rd brake lights
-DRLs
-Airbags
-3-point seatbelts (and rear seatbelts)
Were these
interventions not to our collective, societal benefit? And I'm sure every time one of these was even suggested in the legislature, corporations and some group of American citizens strongly opposed each of these new regulations because of our "loss of freedom" and the "added costs". I bet many even argued that aesthetically, it makes the cars look bad. ......aesthetics > safety
