I don’t like the idea of cracking down on drivers once they reach a certain age. Everyone ages differently. Just require that all drivers re-test every five years. I bet we’d be surprised at how many 40 year olds flunk out.
Appropriate! I’m actually a pro-2A gun owner who believes states should have licensee-paid training course requirements operated by ranges alongside properly funded per-gun licensing programs, both of which potential buyers would have to pass/obtain before use, perhaps additionally subsidized with a small annual fee per gun.
I definitely am guided in this opinion by the way I think we should regulate cars. Cars and guns are way more analogous to one another than hard-line advocates for either are usually comfortable admitting. I think that both have their place but need to be treated responsibly. The current lassiez-faire approach in most states is definitly a major factor in the number of deaths attributable to both. This doesn’t mean it has to feel punitive or be needlessly difficult, it just has to comprehensively address obvious risk factors.
We largely agree. There’s perhaps something to be said for the people who complain the gun licensing fees like this are mainly used to keep guns out of the hands of the poor, however.
As long as the licensing has a focus on competency, safety, and perhaps some kind of objective measure for mental health/civic mindedness/violent crime/appropriate red flags I can’t define on the spot - rather than just fees that makes guns “for rich folk” I’m all for it.
Yeah I remember like half the time I read about a road fatality in NYC it was mentioned that the driver was unlicensed. Absolutely an institutional “fuck it” indicator.
NHTSA FARS 2023 ARF dataset reports that 45-54 has a higher accident rate than 55-64, 65-74, or 75+ groups. The most fatal-accident prone age groups are 15-20, 21-24, and 25-34.
Gotta rip off that band-aid! Every flunk is an opportunity captured to educate an under-trained driver or identify what is otherwise making them unsafe. It wouldn’t just be about taking these people off the road, it would be about making them safe enough to go back on it should they be willing to do the work required to get there. I had an ex who’s mom drove around without Rx lenses and literally couldn’t read the road signs. Just a rolling disaster waiting to happen. If she had to re-test she probably wouldn’t flunk, she’d just finally get her prescription filled. There are probably millions of situations like hers that simply having a test on the horizon would fix.
While that sounds good on paper, I get the impression that would be an administrative nightmare. For one, having enough staff to handle all the extra DMV traffic; two, handling all the court cases of people trying to skirt rules because they feel hassled by the 5 year limit.
I could agree with you if your response to them is “Too bad” but it would still be a mess.
It would not be an administrative nightmare. Many other responsibilities in society require more rigorous continuous government compliance than one test every five years, fluid administration of compliance generally just depends on sufficient funding for that administration.
Lawsuits challenge every new law we create, that’s par for the course and surviving that just requires well-considered legislation and state attorneys. You knock down the first lawsuit and the rest get denied on precedent of the first.
These aren’t the damning challenges you might think they are. They pale in comparison to the real challenge: Getting popular support for such a bill in the first place.
I don’t like the idea of cracking down on drivers once they reach a certain age. Everyone ages differently. Just require that all drivers re-test every five years. I bet we’d be surprised at how many 40 year olds flunk out.
Now do guns
Worst killing machines first, but I’m not opposed.
Appropriate! I’m actually a pro-2A gun owner who believes states should have licensee-paid training course requirements operated by ranges alongside properly funded per-gun licensing programs, both of which potential buyers would have to pass/obtain before use, perhaps additionally subsidized with a small annual fee per gun.
I definitely am guided in this opinion by the way I think we should regulate cars. Cars and guns are way more analogous to one another than hard-line advocates for either are usually comfortable admitting. I think that both have their place but need to be treated responsibly. The current lassiez-faire approach in most states is definitly a major factor in the number of deaths attributable to both. This doesn’t mean it has to feel punitive or be needlessly difficult, it just has to comprehensively address obvious risk factors.
We largely agree. There’s perhaps something to be said for the people who complain the gun licensing fees like this are mainly used to keep guns out of the hands of the poor, however.
As long as the licensing has a focus on competency, safety, and perhaps some kind of objective measure for mental health/civic mindedness/violent crime/appropriate red flags I can’t define on the spot - rather than just fees that makes guns “for rich folk” I’m all for it.
In before we deem that such tests fail too many current drivers and decide “fuck it, what’s a few dead kids anyway”
We’re already past the “fuck it” phase. 16.7% of fatal crashes involve unlicensed drivers (NHTSA FARS 2023 ARF).
Yeah I remember like half the time I read about a road fatality in NYC it was mentioned that the driver was unlicensed. Absolutely an institutional “fuck it” indicator.
NHTSA FARS 2023 ARF dataset reports that 45-54 has a higher accident rate than 55-64, 65-74, or 75+ groups. The most fatal-accident prone age groups are 15-20, 21-24, and 25-34.
Every age group will flunk out, young and old.
Gotta rip off that band-aid! Every flunk is an opportunity captured to educate an under-trained driver or identify what is otherwise making them unsafe. It wouldn’t just be about taking these people off the road, it would be about making them safe enough to go back on it should they be willing to do the work required to get there. I had an ex who’s mom drove around without Rx lenses and literally couldn’t read the road signs. Just a rolling disaster waiting to happen. If she had to re-test she probably wouldn’t flunk, she’d just finally get her prescription filled. There are probably millions of situations like hers that simply having a test on the horizon would fix.
Really 99.99% of people shouldn’t be allowed to have a license and with the cleared up space we need real public transit
While that sounds good on paper, I get the impression that would be an administrative nightmare. For one, having enough staff to handle all the extra DMV traffic; two, handling all the court cases of people trying to skirt rules because they feel hassled by the 5 year limit.
I could agree with you if your response to them is “Too bad” but it would still be a mess.
It would not be an administrative nightmare. Many other responsibilities in society require more rigorous continuous government compliance than one test every five years, fluid administration of compliance generally just depends on sufficient funding for that administration.
Lawsuits challenge every new law we create, that’s par for the course and surviving that just requires well-considered legislation and state attorneys. You knock down the first lawsuit and the rest get denied on precedent of the first.
These aren’t the damning challenges you might think they are. They pale in comparison to the real challenge: Getting popular support for such a bill in the first place.