Testing a Driver's Knowledge at Licence Renewal

This is such an interesting subject.  Age vs skill/competence.  First, I am pension age, have had my license since 16 and obtained my motorcycle license at age 53.  I took an ICBC accredited motorcycle course and practiced for the entire year before my road test.  I had to write the M/C written test, which I failed twice before a pass.  I took two advanced training courses (vehicle) through ICBC & Cdn.Direct Insurance, they were awesome.  My biggest hurdle from 45+ years earlier, some of the rules changed and I was not aware.  e.g. it was a serious violation to cross a double yellow, for passing, turning.... anything, unless it was ‘broken.’  Now, some ill informed rule changer decides it’s perfectly ok to make a left turn on a double solid yellow so long as you don’t impede traffic.  Well that’s a game changer cause there’s a lot of drivers out there that think holding up any number of vehicles is open to their interpretation, unfamiliar with the term/definition of impede.  I also learned that a driver is not to cross a solid white line, either the fog line or to change lanes.  Like they do in the HOV or on ramps - wait for the dotted lines!  

Course, I also found the written test challenging in respect to multiply-choice answers.  I think from experience, we all know whoever writes these Gov’t tests has a very sinister motive when providing multiple answers.  The “all of the above” drives me crazy.  Trick questions, as I like to refer them.  After I’ve read the question half dozen times, trying to visualize what exactly they are getting at, I inevitably pick the wrong one that was very similar to all the others! 

I think what the real tragedy in today’s application for teaching people how to drive needs to be removed from Ma/Pa training.  The traffic is not like it was for me in my younger days and it is actually scary to think of all those bad drivers teaching their children how to drive aggressively and poorly.   Everyone should attend an ICBC accredited course, after their written test.  Not only classroom time, but consequences time, either photos and stories or perhaps a morgue visit wouldn’t hurt.  I volunteer for Operation Red Nose and we had a speaker (RCMP member) who came to tell us how much he appreciated us as he was nearly killed by a drunk driver.  He had a 10 year (nearly return to normal) recovery time and the photos of his twisted squad car were brutal.  I cried when he finished.  I also wrote him a letter and thanked him for sharing his story and I always think of him and CST. Beckett (sp).

You can’t pull trailers, campers, 5th wheels etc., without a course.  

While I have never had an accident, caused an accident or ever made a claim with ICBC (knocking heavily on wood here) I would agree we can always need updating.  I think us more experienced drivers could use a mandatory classroom upgrade (rules-scenarios) and gives us an opportunity to catch up on new or amended road rules/regulations/laws.  Also, some “seniors” who need that encouragement to restrict their driving perimeter would benefit.  I do appreciate sites like this that teach us the right/proper driving rules.  I am always reading the legal decisions and I am surprised by some outcomes.  You can never stop learning or improving.

Promoting driver training as a means of improving driving skills and knowledge assumes that there are deficiencies in the skills or knowledge of drivers, and that these can be improved via training. It also assumes that these skill deficiencies increase the risk of crash involvement. These assumptions are largely false and based on beliefs not supported by research evidence.

In my opinion ICBC has found this out in their Graduated Licencing program where new drivers that have taken professional training have more accidents within the first year than those that did not go to an accredited school. This can be found in the ICBC document listed as GLP Year 3 and GLP Year 6 Evaluation Reports. In year six it is noted on page 60. In other countries where a Graduated Licencing program has been implemented similar statistics have been found. Unfortunately I have not found any information of accident rates other than through GLP programs.

I have taken the sample tests numerous times and recently found that one of the answers is incorrect. The question is which lane should one drive in on a four lane highway. The correct answer according to the sample test is the LEFT lane which is contrary to the MVA. in sections 150 and 151.

When contacted got a vague answer that ICBC does not write the MVA. Apparently having questions that are at odds with the Act is not a concern for them. Even though a person could fail the test with the correct answer.

This sounds like a good idea on the surface but I don't think the government could implement it sucessfully. They would need more employees to handle the workload so the taxpayer would have to fork over more in salaries and benefits. The already exorbitant cost of renewing your license would surely increase to avoid adding to the huge deficit they incur every year. That won't be popular. Of course some will claim the potential decrease in accidents will make up for the increased costs. Yeah right. If that oft-used excuse had any validity our governments would be overflowing with cash. When was the last time that was the case?

it was a serious violation to cross a double yellow, for passing, turning.... anything, unless it was ‘broken.’  Now, some ill informed rule changer decides it’s perfectly ok to make a left turn on a double solid yellow so long as you don’t impede traffic.

If the intent, as you state, is for the criteria for executing a left turn when crossing a double yellow is deliberately meant to be ambiguous, I would suggest that willy-nilly approach is many accidents waiting to happen, if not already.  Why was that rule changed in the first place?  Very negligible at best.  The rule “was” if the lines did not have a break to indicate permission to cross, then you could not cross!  

To the best of my recollection, while it's always been a common misconception that a driver shouldn't cross a solid (or double solid) yellow line, I'm pretty sure that Section 156 has been around since I learned how to drive forty seven years ago ...

Look at it this way - the purpose of a double solid yellow line is to prevent passing, using the other side of the road; but this has nothing to do with someone wanting to turn left into their own driveway. And so long as that maneuver doesn't adversely affect traffic flow, then why disallow it? It ain't willy-nilly, and it doesn't usually lead to collisions. Traffic laws are designed both to prevent crashes and to maintain traffic movement where possible, and that will be the rationale for Section 156.

Other common examples of traffic laws being designed to allow free movement when safe would be pedestrians crossing mid-block (only illegal under Section 180 if they get in the way), or turning right on a red light instead of having to wait for a green.