So I was talking with Anna today about cars and driving and what-not, since she'll be driving soon. Through this conversation I realized how utterly stupid I think the Pennsylvania driving laws are. I know a few of you that may be reading this aren't from here, but in PA after you get your license (which you can start testing for at 16) you have to drive with an adult afterwards for 6 months. Doesn't that COMPLETELY defeat the purpose of taking all the driving tests? Because most kids aren't going to want to drive with mom or dad around most people probably won't be doing that anyway. But I don't understand the point of having an adult in the car. What are they going to do, drive from the passenger seat? That's not very safe. And so what if the kid sucks at driving? Then you shouldn't have given them the license in the first place. I feel like all the testing and classes you have to take are a joke, if even after getting your "I'm a competent driver" card you still have to be driving around with the 'rents. I thought about it and decided that maybe the issue is that the state is worried about the kids forgetting some of the laws or something, and having the adults there to remind them would help. But if that's the concern then you should be making the classes longer. I feel that before you're given a license you should be given multiple tests. And some without warning. If you want to get a license you should have to go to formal classes given in schools or at registered licensing buildings (aka Driver's Ed). And through out the classes there should be many written and field examination of the driving skills MORE THAN ONCE. It's like how teachers are convinced that after we take one test on something we'll remember it come time at the end of the year when we have to take the final. Anna's taking Driver's Ed in school (or was) and I think it's a good amount of time. It's two months, and you go to two classes a week (Tuesday and Thursday). There was also another run that was four months going once a week (just Thursdays). But I think that the two months is good amount of time, as long as you have an efficient teacher. With the frequent testing it would certainly ensure that the kids have the laws drilled into their heads. Although I do note that we should only be teaching the practical laws and signs, make the "Horse Carriage Crossing" sign a bonus question or something.. Most signs are intuitive enough that you can figure them out anyway. But the only complaint I have about that class is that there's no field testing at all. The more data you have the more accurate the results, so the more tests you give someone the better an idea of their driving skills you'll have. Now obviously this doesn't have to be completely personalized, just do it like the public school systems do. Teach, give quizzes and tests, average the grade together to see if it's a pass or a fail. If it works for them it should work for (supposedly) competent adults who are being allowed clearance to drive vehicles. I just feel that it's REALLY stupid to give someone that kind of permission after one test. I'm sure if we gave a more rigorous testing phase then there would be a lot less bad drivers on the road too. So what if they fail and they can't drive and you say that it's going to damage the economy because they won't be able to get to work now? That's crap. Take public transportation, that's what it's there for. And if you can't, then you should learn to be a less sucky driver. Work is no excuse to give someone permission to get behind the wheel. Health classes stress all the time how cars are powerful weapons when used in the wrong or incapable hands, why won't the states?
No comments:
Post a Comment