Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodruffw | Hacker News Reader

> For the uninitiated, how do differing european rules make people safer?

By and large, they're substantially stricter. Using Germany as an example[1]: they require potential drivers to take a multi-segment first aid, submit to a recent optical exam, and perform at least 37 hours of officially overseen driving practice. I believe there are additional training segments that German drivers are required to pass as well, but I'll let an actual German (or other European) speak about those.

For contrast: in New York (a somewhat strict state, by US standards), there is no hours of practice requirement once you're over 18. I don't believe there's a medical knowledge requirement either, and the DMV accepts whatever optical record you give them.

Germany's car fatality rate is roughly a quarter of the US's[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Germany

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

View on HN

But how does this improve safety? Which one or combination of these things causes a four fold reduction in traffic accidents?

I did indeed need to take a vision test on the states, three times, once in each state, these look comparable to what I had to pass in California- less the first aid part.

Are new drivers causing all the excess accidents?

After 10 years of driving the average American and German driver should be about as safe? If not, why not?

Stricter licensing requirements get talked about a lot, but as far as I know the actual evidence that they improve driver safety is pretty mixed (with some exceptions, e.g. vision tests for people over 85.)

IMO it’s more likely things like street design and cultural attitudes towards risk are responsible for most of the difference.

My understanding is that German highways are similarly safer than American highways, so it's not just street design.

I agree that cultural attitudes play a large part; a somewhat easy way to change America's culture of unsafety is to gate the privilege of driving to those who are willing to change it. It's what we did for seatbelts, airbags, and just about everything else that's saved countless drivers' (and passengers') lives over the last few decades.

Street design broadly construed.

I don’t think stricter licensing requirements drove changes in attitudes towards seatbelts or airbags.

> I don’t think stricter licensing requirements drove changes in attitudes towards seatbelts or airbags.

No; laws on those things did. Similarly, stricter licensing requirements will change attitudes around safe driving.

Maybe I’m not understanding the idea - if you’re saying we should punish people for demonstrated unsafe behavior (e.g seatbelt laws) then I agree, but that’s not really related to licensing requirements. Or is the idea that you’d just not issue licenses to people who are generally risk-seeking? If so, that doesn’t seem like something you could assess without a socially unconscionable false positive rate (and probably wouldn’t be very effective in changing cultural norms IMO.) Or something else?

Sorry if I'm not expressing myself well -- I was trying to draw a comparison between seatbelt laws (which, when introduced, were broadly griped about by drivers) and stronger licensing requirements (which, if introduced, will no doubt similarly be griped about).

I don't think there's a good (fair) way to devise a test for whether people will be risk seeking, in the same way that seatbelt laws can't stop scofflaws from not wearing their seatbelts. Instead, the purpose of these kinds of laws/regulations is to change the cultural "baseline" around safe behavior: wearing a seatbelt is the law, and most people do it by default now. Similarly, instituting a more intensive licensing regime (where people have to demonstrate not just driving ability but proficiency in safe driving) can change the cultural baseline around how drivers behave on our streets, our highways, etc.

In other words: let's keep licensing people, but make getting a drivers' license "intense" the way it is in much of Europe, rather than taking it for granted as a part of being an American adolescent. I think that can go a long way in terms of encouraging a more serious treatment of the responsibility that comes with driving, and which is currently lacking on American roads.

(And of course we should induce behavior away from driving to begin with, reconfigure our cities to favor pedestrians and cyclists, fund mass transit, etc.)

> instituting a more intensive licensing regime (where people have to demonstrate not just driving ability but proficiency in safe driving) can change the cultural baseline around how drivers behave on our streets, our highways, etc.

As I mentioned in my original post, the evidence that implementing stricter licensing requirements improves driver accident rates is mixed (really, mostly negative but not exclusively.) Personally, it seems much harder to impact broad cultural norms compared to a specific driver’s behavior, so I consider that to be pretty strong evidence against things working as stated. The parallel to seatbelt laws also seems dubious because a) it’s not really clear to me that seatbelt laws are the specific reason for the cultural shift and b) they were accompanied by enforcement, which tends to be a much stronger way to change behavior. A more analogues policy in my mind would be one that punishes drivers for a specific, dangerous, behavior - e.g. DUI laws, which have a lot of evidence of working. But that’s a completely different type of policy from what you’re suggesting.

That said, it’s not totally implausible that stricter licensing could improve things - part of the reason it gets brought up a lot is that people find it very intuitive. But in practice it doesn’t actually seem to work that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com