Would stricter requirements change anything? There are already rules and a test people have to pass, if they're not following those rules in the first place then more rules aren't going to help.

How would you implement stricter rules? Wouldn't they have to be written and enforced by those same incompetent people? Hypothetically you could appoint some expert authority to at least write the rules, but since our system pretends to be democratic that authority would need to be elected by those people who don't know what they're doing in the first place.

And strictly speaking, the things generally regarded as rights are treated differently. You can neither lose nor need a license to peaceably assemble or publish your ideas, for instance. But I'm pretty sure governments don't do things because it's good for the people regardless.

You don't have to retake the driving test. So you still have 70 year olds who probably can't even see properly being allowed to hold a license.

>>1621
It's been awhile, but as I recall the test wasn't set at a high bar. There was a couple minor things like 'keep X distance between you and the next car' but it was mostly basic competence at operating the vehicle. The types of mistakes people make when they genuinely do not know how to drive are like: stopping when they shouldn't, drifting out of their lane, turning when it's not safe, etc. But if they're driving too fast, not signaling, cutting people off, then they're driving recklessly because they choose to.

And you do have to take a vision test to renew your license. If an unscrupulous administrator is passing people they shouldn't, then they're already breaking the rules. More rules wouldn't fix that problem.

I don't think the problem is that people don't know how to drive well, it's that they don't try. People don't generally crash because they are bad drivers but because they were not following road rules.

>>1623
For people just not caring, I think there are two possible solutions:
One, disincentivize driving at all. Good public transit or self-driving cars would be the most realistic approach to this, but having a community that's small enough to just not require a car would be good too.
Two, better education. The reasons for the rules and guidelines should be explained and ideally, demonstrated. I think if people realized how little margin of error they were really dealing with, they wouldn't feel that getting somewhere a little faster is worth the risk of flipping their car or ending up in the hospital.

>>1619
Life is hard enough for me as it is, more legal requirements making me pass tests every year would just make it worse. I prefer as little involvement from governing institutions as possible. We already have waaaaaaay too many laws on the books regarding automobiles, and everything else.

>>1624
I hate public transport and urban communities. Self driving cars sound like a good idea if they could be made to work.

I'm not sure how well that would work, I think we all know why drink driving is a bad idea but it does not stop people. If anything what stops people are traffic cops and speed cameras, not popular but it works or if nothing else if people do make break road rules they are more likely to get caught doing it and lose their license.

>>1627
I suspect people only know it's bad in abstract, and don't really see how specific actions could lead to specific consequences. But then, I really don't understand people; it seems inherently obvious to me that driving inebriated is asking for death.

If people can't be taught then maybe more/better enforcement is a better solution. Though in general I think that just incentivizes people to get better at breaking the rules.

>>1627
>I hate public transport and urban communities.
Do you really, or do you just hate the blacks? It's two issues, not one.