Different Levels Of Licenses?
 

After reading through a few threads on multiple boards of young kids with fast cars plowing into people at insane high speeds I thought I'd ask an interesting question.


Do you think there should be different levels of licenses for certain cars. Such as Passenger, Performance and Light Truck in the same way they have the Motorcycle, Hazmat, Commercial and Airbrake endorsements. Maybe anyone under 21 should only be allowed to have a Passenger car endorsement and must take a specific oriented test for the other two upon reaching the age of 21.

Good i dea but i believe this would be good for everyone.

it would be for everyone but anyone under 21 would only be allowed to have the ''passenger car'' endorsement. wouldnt be able to take the performance and light truck test till theyre 21

Can't keep kids from being stupid.

You can go fast enough to kill people and do stupid things in pretty much any vehicle.

No.

Most cars can do 100 mph it'll just take the teen to get there slower but same outcome.

^^^ yea only difference is instead of going 120 in a gto they will be going 100+ in their parents corolla that handles a 1/4 as good as the gto... there is no benefit to this other than creating more crazy laws... they already have the provisional liscense crap now... iv owned muscle/sports cars since i was 16 and have yet to get in a terrible accident (knock on wood) especially due to excessive speed or recklessness... most on this site prob are in the same boat... so no i dont support it... unforunatly like matt said you cant fix stupid... and accidents are going to happen and people will die... look at all the dui cases that go on for 3 -4 or more offenses and the people still drive without their liscenses... i doubt it would fix anything but hurt responsible kids with a love for the hobby as we all were at one time...

i agree with the above. and its not always teens. and it doesnt need to be such a high speed to be dangerous. what about old people? its just peoples personalities and maturity levels.

or maybe its just cause im not 21 yet :(

im saying that 21 plus would still have to take the same tests, same endorsements just limit the age you would be eligible to take those tests. even without the age limit, have specific tests for vehicle types. seems like it would limit just the random idiot getting in a 400 hp car.



im not trying to take the gun away from the person, just trying to soften the ammo. :wink:

i noticed that teens, atleast in my school, that owned passenger cars were worse than those who drove performance cars.. really depends on the person though IMO

look at the new Ford tarus SHO, drivers can be programmed and parents can limit top speed and music volume for their kids. now thats a good step by ford imo

i agree... leave the responsibility to the parents...

I'm not sure about different levels...... but I do feel that people should have to take recertifications.

September 2008 - a late 20's/ early thirties woman hit me at 40 mph - she wasn't looking.

June 2009 - a mid 50's man t boned me - he wasn't looking.

Both accidents have permanently affected me for the rest of my life (spinal injuries).

While I do feel younger drivers are reckless.... stupidity affects all drivers - no matter what their age.

interesting.

and you dont drive a 400 hp car any different than a 120 hp car.. not on a driving course anyways.. so i dont see how it would make a difference. its a gas pedal and a brake pedal and maybe a clutch ohh and a steering wheel .. they all work the same way in all cars.. so im still not seeing how it would differ... maybe in a truck because its larger in size? or higher up.. but a civic to a vette? like on a drivers course it would be the same thing.. ur not flooring during a driving test..

one thing... a gto is a "passenger car" a g8 is a "passenger car", etc. what criteria would you use to differentiate a "performance" car from a "passenger" car?

+ 1

This: "You can go fast enough to kill people and do stupid things in pretty much any vehicle"

Extra fail on the basis you cannot determine what a 'performance car' is. Look how many of you guys go around inspection now. Then there is the cost.


I like graduated license program they have now. I think they should retest drivers every 10 years and every 5 from age 65+

Like most everyone else said, NO. Not to mention this would also affect the jobs people can have depending on their license.

Agree to a point :lol: The people who tend to lack common sense tend to lack it in all areas...so that includes behind the wheel.

europe and other countries give you a special sticker to put on your car/vest (motorcycle rider) to let everyone around know you suck at life.

can't stop the inevitable....

its a terrible idea. your sayin that since some kids cant handle sports cars all kids shouldnt be allowed to drive them? thats retarded

i'm 19 and i'm a hell of a lot better of a driver than most people on the road. i can't count the number of accidents i've avoided that were almost caused because of other peoples' carelessness and poor judgment.

parents really just need to do more. if your kid is an idiot, don't let them get a fast car. if they're irresponsible, make them pay for the insurance. if they do something dangerous, take the car away. you can't blame it all on the parents, but they can definitely do more. seems like most parents who give their kids brand new sporty cars can't tell their children "no". you can't penalize all teenage drivers for a few peoples' mistakes.

I agree completely. The fact that some drivers on the road today passed their basic driving test over 50 years ago is crazy! A mandatory re-test every now and then would benefit everyone on the road.

Yup, agreed.

I would have no complaints if I had to recertify every 10 years and pay for it. Good way to make the state some money.... and great way to get idiots off the road.... and greater way to save in auto insurance.