Good idea! I used to be a pilot, if drivers were regulated anywhere near as much as pilots, accidents would cut in half I'm sure! Pilots have to re-test all the time.

   

I noticed that Ralph didn't like the idea, but it's hard to argue with it.

   

I think it's a stupid idea to do wholesale testing on everyone. Test the people who have had accidents or who have been given traffic tickets, or who are over a certain age. Leave the good drivers alone.

   

Those sound a little re-active instead of pro-active. The good thing is, they're gonna do a test run in AB first (where they can afford it) and find out if it works at all.

   

I agree with Robair that this would be too reactive. I don't have the stats, but I would assume that the majority of accidents and tickets involve younger drivers who know better, but don't follow the appropriate "rules of the road". Retesting won't deal with these people because they know how to pass the test.

It would affect the middle-aged and older drivers, who've had their licenses for 20+ years and have developed a bunch of bad habits that they don't realize are bad habits. While I almost fit in this category myself, I would also agree that this is the group that could really benefit from this. How many times have you seen someone change lanes without checking their blind spot? Or signal incorrectly at intersections? Turn into the wrong lane? They may not yet have caused an accident, but it doesn't mean it won't happen and I'd rather be preventative.

This shouldn't be a punishment measure.

   

Another ill thought out government notion soon to become law in a province near you, no doubt.

This is akin to that stupid idea floating that young people should be exempt from income tax to give them an opportunity to purchase a house, car, pet, tv, surround sound, rsp . . . .

What about the old folks who have paid and paved the way forever? Many of them on fixed incomes just waiting for higher taxes so they're forced to sell their homes and move into social housing estates. Shouldn't they be given the break(s)?

Jack! Where's Jack? I wanna bounce an idea off Jack.

   

Ahhhhh...discrimination, discrimination. While I may agree with the well intentioned ideas you both have, never in a million years would it fly.

This is a great idea, a good way to have old people, people who drive once every 5 yrs, people who have medical/physical reasons they should no longer be able to drive etc etc ...retested. Safer roads are always welcome by me and the people I care about.

It's another one of those scenarios with those with some of the worst driving records in the country complain when rules come to bear on them.

Great plan, can't wait for it to fire up.

m

   

karra, karRA (slap) KARRA!
stick with me here, we're talking about drivers licenses. Why is it, that the first time you are tested for a drivers license, your vision is tested. But it never has to be re-tested unless you voluntarilly check the box saying "I have had vision problems in the last year."? This isn't discrimination against anybody, it's deciding who is still able to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Useless law? They are running a test pilot in Alberta, it may turn out to be useless, and it may show that half the population can't pass the drivers test taken by 16 year olds... Lets wait 'till the test results are in, ya?

   

robair robair robair

Stop being such a thick head and pay close attention, yeah?

If you read what was written you'd likely be somewhat quick (or slow) to realise that I have nay mentioned that awful word "discrimination" Are you with me so far?

So what does vision, these days, have to do with anything? See? Good man. . . (statue Gunga?)

As was stated earlier which you conveniently chose to ignore - young people, those who strictly by virtue of their age are involved in more collisions, more impaired driving, more careless, more leave the scene and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc and ditto - hey! where'd you go - get back here it's really quite simple, for most. . .

That is where the re-testing - higher insurance - loss of privilege etc should be applied - not the old folks who simply by virtue of their age should be re-examined - furthermore, if you had even a modicum of a clue of what you speak, you would know that most provinces, if not all, have procedures in place with the medical profession to alert their MoT of the driving ability/physical health of their aged and aging patients.

Carry on.

   

Whussamater karra? Not confident in your parrallel parking skills?

THAT is why I used the term discrimination. You may not have used it, but you're implying it. They aren't just re-testing old people, they're re-testing everybody. Every year, every three years, every five years or whatever they decide. The benifits are two-fold. You will get problematic drivers off the street, and having to brush up on your skills every few years will prevent you from developing bad habits. Argue that.

You have the habit of talking to people like they're stupid. I assure you darling, I'm anything but. I wore an eye patch for two years, drove everywhere and didn't check the little voluntary box (just 'cause I was used to not checking any of them). On the third year, when my eye had finally corrected itself, I actually read the boxes I was checking and checked the vision problem one. I then had to get tested before I could hold a drivers license. All my doctors were very aware of my condition. (This is when you insert the other foot)

   

Hey, what about the colors? Don't you like them?

Anyway, thanks for sharing all the personal stuff - I can assure you . . .

I suppose it's all right for you to assume I'm implying discrimination - I guess that's what the insurance companies must be guilty of too, in this case. Same as the police re crime statistics with a race indicator mmm? Nasty business this discrimination, doncha think?

No more mea culpas svp . . .

   

Way to skirt the issue! Ever think of going into politics? So a trial run on continuous testing, good idea, right? I win? Painful, isn't it?

   

Stop it - you're killing me

Of course you win - politics? Only if they promise to let me have the last word.

Only your painful bleating and breast-beating and accompanying mea culpas is painful. . . . .