News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 137     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
News Roundup for April 24, 2024
 285     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
That's Some Arm
 610     0 

Too easy to get a driver's license?

W. K. Lis

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
24,074
Reaction score
14,768
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Is it too easy to get a driver's license in Ontario? For some, yes. For others, no.

From osterberger.org via streetsblog.org comes the following test, translated:

Sample Driver's License Test in Germany

This is only one of 60 different tests we had to memorize to pass the German written portion of the driver's license test. Luckily, the state of Tennessee has at least partial reciprocity with Germany and we didn't have to take the driving portion. All the correct answers are marked for you, so it seems easy. It gets rather confusing after 1800 questions!

First Page of the test:

Test1.JPG


Second Page:

Test2.JPG


Third Page:

Test3.JPG


Fourth Page:

Test4.JPG
Click to expand...

It is expected that you tick off multiple answers, not just one or the best answer.
You also have to be over 18 to drive in Germany. Also to get the license itself can very expensive, over $2,000 after everything. See this link for more information.
 
Last edited:
That is a good written test, but it depends on a proven ability to drive under real-world conditions, not only memorizing answers from a cheat sheet.

I passed the G1 entry written test no problem and even the G1 exit/G2 entry test (even at the former, notorious John Rhodes Centre the first time). The G2 exit test was marred by not following "by the book" answers vs. real-world driving, and I had a nasty woman examiner. Orangeville solved that. After 10 years with a full G, I have yet to get an accident or a HTA conviction, but I feel I am in a minority. I do not drive daily and I don't own a car, but I borrow often and I rent several times a year, in various North American jurisdictions. I do recognize mistakes in my driving, and not afraid of admitting I have done so (especially with rented cars, when one is less used to that car's blind spots and controls).

The problem is that once you pass a test, you go to bad habits, and dangerous, aggressive maneuvers. A tougher test won't solve that problem, even with better-than-average drivers. Better enforcement and smarter (not more) laws might. A smarter law would include reasonable speed limits - low in residential areas (40 km/h or lower), reasonable on arterials, and higher on rural roads (like the 90 km/h now in some rural W. Ont. roads) and freeways (120 outside urban areas, 100 inside), and consistent enforcement.
 
ShonTron said:
That is a good written test, but it depends on a proven ability to drive under real-world conditions, not only memorizing answers from a cheat sheet.

I passed the G1 entry written test no problem and even the G1 exit/G2 entry test (even at the former, notorious John Rhodes Centre the first time). The G2 exit test was marred by not following "by the book" answers vs. real-world driving, and I had a nasty woman examiner. Orangeville solved that. After 10 years with a full G, I have yet to get an accident or a HTA conviction, but I feel I am in a minority. I do not drive daily and I don't own a car, but I borrow often and I rent several times a year, in various North American jurisdictions. I do recognize mistakes in my driving, and not afraid of admitting I have done so (especially with rented cars, when one is less used to that car's blind spots and controls).

The problem is that once you pass a test, you go to bad habits, and dangerous, aggressive maneuvers. A tougher test won't solve that problem, even with better-than-average drivers. Better enforcement and smarter (not more) laws might. A smarter law would include reasonable speed limits - low in residential areas (40 km/h or lower), reasonable on arterials, and higher on rural roads (like the 90 km/h now in some rural W. Ont. roads) and freeways (120 outside urban areas, 100 inside), and consistent enforcement.
Click to expand...

Very good points. With regards to testing, I think it should be mandatory every 10 years until you're 60, then every 2 years after that. I don't mean to stereotype, but senior drivers scare me. The rest of the highway can be doing 115-120, and they're puttering along in the right lane at 100. To me, that's more of a dangerous driving offence than someone doing 125. It's also no secret that motor function, reflexes, and reaction time slow with age. If you're still sharp, the tests will prove it, and you'll get to keep your license. I'm all for seniors keeping their mobility, but if you aren't physically capable of operating a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be doing so.

With regards to the speed limits, I think that increased speed limits on highways need to be accompanied with tougher fines for speeding. The convention in Ontario is "anything under 15km/h over the speed limit, and you won't get pulled over" (at least on a 400 series highway). Without tougher penalties, 140 will become the new 120. Raise it to 120, but institute a $100 fine for 125, a $300 fine for $130, and keep the same $10,000 and roadside vehicle seisure for 150. Or maybe do like what they do in some countries in Europe, and make the fine relative to your pre-tax income. For a person making $25,000/year, a $100 fine can be a pretty hard financial hit. For someone making $200,000, it's a bit over a drop in the bucket. Make the fine X% of your pre-tax income, and suddenly the playing field is levelled.
 
gweed123 said:
Very good points. With regards to testing, I think it should be mandatory every 10 years until you're 60, then every 2 years after that. I don't mean to stereotype, but senior drivers scare me. The rest of the highway can be doing 115-120, and they're puttering along in the right lane at 100. To me, that's more of a dangerous driving offence than someone doing 125. It's also no secret that motor function, reflexes, and reaction time slow with age. If you're still sharp, the tests will prove it, and you'll get to keep your license. I'm all for seniors keeping their mobility, but if you aren't physically capable of operating a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be doing so.

With regards to the speed limits, I think that increased speed limits on highways need to be accompanied with tougher fines for speeding. The convention in Ontario is "anything under 15km/h over the speed limit, and you won't get pulled over" (at least on a 400 series highway). Without tougher penalties, 140 will become the new 120. Raise it to 120, but institute a $100 fine for 125, a $300 fine for $130, and keep the same $10,000 and roadside vehicle seisure for 150. Or maybe do like what they do in some countries in Europe, and make the fine relative to your pre-tax income. For a person making $25,000/year, a $100 fine can be a pretty hard financial hit. For someone making $200,000, it's a bit over a drop in the bucket. Make the fine X% of your pre-tax income, and suddenly the playing field is levelled.
Click to expand...

I think speeding fines should be a % of posted speed limit. For example doing 60 in a 40 zone is far more dangerous than doing 120 in a 100, however both are treated equally under the current system. If we treated it as a % than 60 in a 40 becomes 100% over speed limit while 120 in 100 becomes 20% over the limit.
 
It would be great to have the tests improved so that drivers better understand what cyclists and pedestrians are legally allowed to do on streets. In my opinion, a lot of road rage comes from the fact that too many drivers think they dominate the roads and believe, for example, cyclists aren't supposed to be there. Though I think this is something the cyclists union is working on.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
I think speeding fines should be a % of posted speed limit. For example doing 60 in a 40 zone is far more dangerous than doing 120 in a 100, however both are treated equally under the current system. If we treated it as a % than 60 in a 40 becomes 100% over speed limit while 120 in 100 becomes 20% over the limit.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good idea. I like that.
 
The one speed limit that really strikes me as overkill is the 50 km/h on Airport Road between the International Centre and the Mississauga/Brampton border in Malton. This is a 6-lane urban arterial with a median and lots of lights. There is very little residential development on the west side of the road, and there's no school zones anymore. It's a speed trap of the worst sort - it immediately goes to 80 upon entering Brampton, 60 closer to the airport.

I like the idea of percentage-based fines, as well as percentage-based enforcement. Speeding should be based on the percentage over the limit, minimum 10 km/h over (to correct for measurement errors), with a 20% differential. So going 51 in a 40 zone is treated the same as going 121 in a 100 zone.
 
I am surprised that no use is made of simulators in driver testing...although a road test is the ultimate checkout, it's possible to throw more numerous and diverse challenges into a simulator in a short period. Auto simulators are pretty cheap and very sophisticated these days.

I have long suspected that driving test centers all have their secret "fail points", places that they use only when they feel the driver is borderline. Someone I know failed their test because they missed the only No Right Turn on Red sign I know of in the east end of Mississauga. You can be sure the tester made sure he routed the test past that one!

As to mandatory testing beyond a certain age, I'm in agreement - but hey, be kind! Sixty is a bit harsh. I would say 75. A bad driver at age 60 is just a bad driver, it's in the seventies when serious health impairments set in. This is not just reaction time - hearing, vision, circulation, and motor skills all change dramatically. It's a very controversial topic with seniors, but the odds of some form of impairment rise dramatically with age.

- Paul
 
Driving skills and reaction times are degrading by 50. I don't see any reason not to start retesting at 40 if people want to continue to drive.

There's no question that some people out there shouldn't have licences.
 
nfitz said:
Driving skills and reaction times are degrading by 50. I don't see any reason not to start retesting at 40 if people want to continue to drive.

There's no question that some people out there shouldn't have licences.
Click to expand...

Pure reaction time degrades, yes. But experience and maturity compensates, up to some point. Insurance rates drop with age - "Grey power" rates are much lower than what a 30-year-old pays. Then, at some point, physical and mental decline takes over.

Unfortunately, driving habits degrade too, even for diligent drivers. Periodic requalification would be a good thing to address this.

- Paul
 
Compared to when I got my licence in '81, the test today are incredible hard.

I got my beginners on my 16th birthday and went for my full licence the very next day. Back then if you could fog a mirror then you passed. Got my full driver's licence the day after I turned 16 and there was no such thing as new driver restrictions. Once you had your licence then that was it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top