BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I don't think new laws will do the trick because the only way you learn them is via the news or signs, which no one pays attention to. We need to go further and require retesting.

I like the signs (and law), but according to the news accounts the driver did change lanes, he then passed and turned right in front of them - right turn from left lane. I can see the driver using the sign to justify what he did. Until the DA puts these assholes behind bars I don't think anything will change.

I don't think new laws will do the trick because the only way you learn them is via the news or signs, which no one pays attention to. We need to go further and require retesting.

Agreed. I'd also suggest becoming a bit less lax as regards enforcement; people becoming better-aware of the rules they're casually violating does not make me feel better.

a safe passing law will at least be pointed to in a situation like this in the media to help even put down those "bikers shouldn't be on the road types"

wow, that was a really terribly constructed sentence. it's a hectic day

AARP offers and promotes refresher driving tests every three-years to seniors. What if this were for all drivers not just retirees? What if the testing was random selection and mandatory like jury duty?

Much can be done to change the car/bike road relationship before we think about signage and lanes and atypical pavement markings...

Drivers who are reckless around cyclists are most likely reckless around pedestrians and other cars. So by that assumption, employing a broad coalition of advocacy groups representing pedestrians, retirees, cyclists, motorcyclists, etc would insure good policy is legislated and enforcement tools are readily available to handle reckless behavior swiftly and boldly.

when you need to refresh your license, the only thing you need to verify is your address. they don't even have checkboxes saying things like "since your last renewal, are you aware of XXXX change in the law?" When you consider that some people got their license in say 60 years ago...well, there's a lot of new laws and changes since then.

Randomly select 1% of all drivers for retesting every year? Sounds like a great idea. Or maybe better yet - randomly select 5% of all drivers who have been cited the previous year (convicted or otherwise) for any motoring infraction (including parking and paperwork violations.) The purpose being twofold: (1) to select for drivers who have better than average odds of being bad drivers and (2) to select for drivers who do more than the average amount of driving.

So in other words, if you get a ticket, the DMV computer rolls a 20-sided die and if the number comes up 1, you must schedule a retest sometime during the next 12 months or be suspended.

i like the idea of a dmv worker rolling a 20-sided die all day.

*clatterclickclatterclickclick*

"Ooo, I'm sorry. That was a critical hit. Not only will we _not_ be renewing your license, but we're going to have to confiscate your right foot."

I'm for the random 1-in-20 renewals getting a mandatory re-taking of the paperwork test, and a random 1-in-20 of those getting a mandatory re-taking of the road test. Just the threat of needing to stay current will cause more people to pay attention to changes in the law, and that itself will accomplish much of what we want.

Makes complete sense.

You know reddan, that's a modest proposal which could ameliorate the shortage of donated organs...

For this "retesting" to work, there would need to be a rethinking of the paper and road tests. After all, the current tests certified the drivers now on the road. That said, I'm completely supportive of making people think more about what they are doing when they pilot a two ton or more metal structure at high speeds. I cynically believe that computerized collision avoidance systems will have a more positive effect then any program depending on humans to change.

I cynically believe that computerized collision avoidance systems will have a more positive effect then any program depending on humans to change.

So long as there are no legal allowances made (EVER) for "It wasn't my fault, the computer was driving", I'm okay with such systems; wouldn't choose to use 'em myself, but I have this old-fashioned preference for minimal layers between myself and the task at hand.

Saw an ad on TV(Ford, perhaps) for an autonomous parallel parking system...my first thought was "Oh good, now people can check their text messages while their car parks itself."

[edited to add:] As far as modest proposals go, I find many people too Swift to look for easy answers.

I knew a girl who would yell "If you can't get it in, it's too big!" at SUV drivers who were badly muffing a parking maneuver.

Horizontal flags are one solution: http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html

Way back when I was young these came with spikes at the end, as an extra inducement for drivers to keep their distance. (Yeah I realize that the spikes is maybe not a great idea, for all sorts of reasons.)

Computerized collision avoidance does not mean the computer is driving, it means there are sensors around your car that slam on the brakes if you're about to plow over a pedestrian or deer (or cyclist).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6ZvLSmo_uU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FfI_SouD6g

I'm sure the day will come though that there will be autopilot cars ala the google car, but that goes beyond collision avoidance.

@Lyle - That's what she said.

A lot could be accomplished by making it harder to drive without a valid license.

This could be done by better enforcement or more strict penalties. Or through technology ("When you start the car, you put your license in this slot and a little light comes on in the back or the car"),

A lot could be accomplished by making it harder to drive without a valid license.

This could be done by better enforcement or more strict penalties.

I vote for draconian penalties. Like, automatic confiscation and sale at auction of any vehicle driven without a valid license, regardless of ownership. Exceptions to confiscation granted only in case of demonstrable emergency ("Hold on, honey! We're almost to the hospital!") or if the vehicle was reported stolen.

The police notice a kid hotwiring your car, and grab him before he's gone two blocks with it. Sadly, he has no license. So when the police knock on your door to tell you what just happened, they've got good news and bad news....

Perhaps it needs another exception.

Perhaps it needs another exception.

Oh, sure. Overly simplistic solutions are rarely complete. (Although I believe that the "reported stolen" case would cover that; the police just happened to be the ones reporting the theft...)

Regardless, I do believe that the best way to make suspension of a license meaningful is to exact meaningful penalties if it's disregarded. I'm not interested in throwing people in jail for driving sans license, and fines only have meaning if they materially affect your life. Vehicular confiscation is one apropos penalty...I'm sure there are others, but this is the one that makes the most sense to me.

reddan - that would require someone actually stopping a driver without a license to notice that they were driving. Since driving without a license is not typically observable from a squad car or traffic camera, they'd probably be stopped for another reason. I'd normally say for some kind of traffic violation, but we don't stop people around here for that.

I'd normally say for some kind of traffic violation, but we don't stop people around here for that.

It's not ENTIRELY unheard-of...

I like Reddan's idea, but you would probably only need to impound the car for thirty days or so to have the same impact.

i don't know, driving without a license is a stupid idea, but people who make stupid decisions tend to make a bunch of them so they'll probably get pulled over eventually. it's like when you read about people get pulled over on the highway for driving 110 mph, then the police find a pound of cocaine in the trunk.

"...but people who make stupid decisions tend to make a bunch of them so they'll probably get pulled over eventually."

Way too broad an assumption. Stupid people seem to be incredibly lucky. Stupid dangerous people even more so.

I LOVE the idea of a card reader in every vehicle that you have to stick a valid license in for it to run. That seems dead simple. Not to mention that, if a vehicle is seen making traffic violations, it would positively verify the operator without visual identification. Where do I get this started?

well good luck - i don't even think police cars have this technology yet, but it seems like a good place to start. a few weeks ago, i saw a police officer that had to call the main office to run the license.

I LOVE the idea of a card reader in every vehicle that you have to stick a valid license in for it to run. That seems dead simple.

Don't forget to include some form of non-easily-falsifiable biometric identification, or you've just created one hell of a market for stolen licenses.

I prefer non-technical approaches to this sort of problem, because they require nothing more than procedural change. Technology is great (says the guy monotonously cursing his compiler), but it's often difficult to apply to a preexisting real-world situation as well as it does in the abstract.

Eh, It would be my guess that the black market for stealing licences specifically in order to drive a car illegally would be infinitesimal in comparison to ID theft for all the other illegal purposes that are already popular.

Don't forget "loaner licenses", or the problems involving verification. If a car can't contact a central server to validate a license, should it refuse to start? Or, in the event of an actual emergency, do you really want someone to be incapable of breaking the law for a good reason?

Expecting our tools to be smart enough to know when to allow us to use them is a bad idea in my book.

Seriously, I'm not trying to discourage discussion of technical fixes to the problem; however, security has historically been hard to get right even merely in the digital realm; adding in meatspace concerns makes it that much tougher.

heh... you said meatspace....

I think making Allegheny county known as a place where you don't break traffic laws would improve things drastically. Don't need new technology or even new laws, just enable the PD to enforce existing laws for existing travelers/vehicles. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for better and more sensible laws, and technology to make it easier for a previously errant public to follow sensible laws, but enforcing what we have with what we've got would be nice too.

@ejwme: Abso-friggin'-lutely.

A car that requires a license scan... no sorry, I can't support that. It's just one more thing that can go mechanically wrong. It sounds great in principle but I can imagine a lot of scenarios where it wouldn't work. I mean, ideally, non of us would drive with a check engine light on, but how many people do? Besides, it would be a pain in the arse to scan every time. What if there was an emergency and you didn't have your licence with you? What if your license itself was damaged due to magnetism or something? I've had enough trouble with hotel room keys. I'd hate to think that I had to take a trip to the DMV before my car could be used again. We have enough bureaucracy already.

I don't know, people are getting upscale cars with these "fob" keys that aren't even keys, and they have been convinced by advertising that they are the mostest awesomest thing ever (along with those stupid friggin' "START" buttons, wtf?). Next logical step, the dealer makes your valid magnetically striped license, or any license you approve, the key. Stone simple.

And I'm not concerned about accessing a server, apparently my phone is accessing a server constantly.

can you start your car if you can't find wifi or 3G?

Have it start, but as soon as it rolls through 3G it checks and limits your speed to 20mph or something, politely telling you to find a safe place to pull over if you fail the check?

It is doable, but I think most of the jerks that drive sans license will just buy an old junker and drive that without a check.

More traffic policing in the city would go a long way. I can't count the number of times I see someone do something really dangerous/illegal right in front of a cop here, and nobody seems to bat an eye.

Instead of trying to modify every car, it might be easier to modify those people caught in a traffic violation.

Make it a condition of probation or parole that they wear some tech: some kind of ankle monitor that talks to a smartphone. The smartphone beeps whenever they go faster than 20 mph, and they have to prove it's OK by taking some video in the next few minutes to prove they're on a bus/bike/passenger seat, or else their parole officer calls them, or dispatches the cops.

If they don't want the intrusion, they can go to jail or pay a car-price-sized fine.

Of course, our fine PA legislators can't seem to prohibit texting while driving, so good luck getting any serious changes done.

enforcement. period.

I agree the idea of allegheny county, or even just the city, being a 'zero tolerance' area would have a drastic impact.

Or even just Penn Avenue between Braddock and Shady.

Thomas Boulevard would then become a very busy street.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11154/1151129-100.stm

At least we've got our priorities straight! Let them speed, let them run lights, let them change lanes and turn without signals, let them roll stop signs, and let them not yield for pedestrians crossing the street, but they must be wearing their seatbelt or else someone might get hurt!

wait a minute... so if they stop you to do a license and registration check, and you're in order but don't have your seatbelt on, they can't issue you a citation? I knew they couldn't *stop* you for it, but I didn't realize they also couldn't cite you for it if you were doing everything else right.

That's so dumb. You can follow all rules and still get into an accident serious enough that a seatbelt would save your life (drunk crosses the double yellow, for example). Thus you should be able to do everything right and still be able to get a ticket for not wearing one, if we're going to ever issue tix for things like that.

Otherwise it's all utterly pointless.

I look forward to the day of the Opening Salvo against speeders and intersection violations.

They would not need to make the city a "zero tolerance zone" to make people stop at stop signs - they would merely need to occasionally cite people for failing to stop.

They don't need a zero tolerance zone for keeping people from speeding. Just cite. Ditto red lights.

They would not need fancy technology to prevent people from driving without a license- just make it a serious crime and enforce it.

The system responds to elections, though, and our populace has a high tolerance for car-related violations and the attendant deaths.