🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33A7FE3F.75FC@net-link.net>, Aeoleus  <osiris@net-link.net> wrote:
(snip)
>I always thought people should have to pay for driving tests (after
>their first one) and have some kind of government subsidy program for
>those who can't pay because they don't have the cash.  The money could
>to to the roads (which we desperately meed here in Michigan).  Then we
>could have a driving test at 16 to get the license, then again at 25,
>then every 10 years until 55, then every 5 years.  Once your sight or
>reflexes get too bad, you don't get a license anymore.  If you can
>improve (through glasses or training) you can apply for a new one.  I
>think that would do more in reducing the number of accidents than
>messing around with the driving age.

That sounds good. I guess you could combine it with the procedure for
getting a new license every few years or so in most states (four here
in Ohio). I'm British, so I'm used to having to pay for driving tests
anyway - and you can't be that poor if you can afford the luxury of
running a car, with the gas, insurance, maintenance, etc.

Though, if driving isn't a constitutional right (!), there's a
necessity for decent public transport of course.

-- Mark