a very intresting thought
2007-02-19 02:17:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem is that they "predict" to reduce vehicular volume by 40 per cent. A less stressful life in the big city is a completely different thing. Easing the traffic at EDSA, a greener city, and having a smiling populace all at the same time is more than just playing with numbers and reducing vehicular volume. On one hand, because of Metro Manila's own fault, there are people coming from all over the country and they need to be somewhere. People cannot help it when they come to Manila to trade, work, study, and transact business with government offices. So they buy cars or ride buses. Every year, this is increasing. What's not increasing are the roads. There should have been a more dynamic city planning system and that maybe they should have heeded the words of urban planners. There was talk before that provincial buses were not to be allowed anymore in Metro Manila. I don't think there's no solving the problem of the number of cars and buses along EDSA except probably constructing more roads, something like secondary roads but along EDSA. This seems to be a logical step because Manila has grown since the early 1900s but the physical systems and utilities in place for a growing city were never implemented. Another way is decentralization through a workable federal system of government. For example, a province in northern Luzon has two power plants and is strategically located facing the South China Sea. Construct international air and sea ports and you have decongested Metro Manila. I think the full potential of Subic and Clark are still to be realized. You can forget about SCTEx-like projects and extending the NLEx to up north. In the east facing the Pacific Ocean, a father and son political tandem is building their province to be an international shipping center. There are more of these exciting opportunities if people in power just take a long hard look at the big picture. If there are attractions elsewhere that are good enough, people may stop coming to Metro Manila.These are enormous undertakings but in time they will be realized.
2016-05-24 08:42:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am a Senior Observer for the Institute of Advanced Motorists and Observer/Gold driver for RoSPA. All RoSPA Advanced driving qualifications must be renewed regularly; Bronze passes every year and Silver/Gold every 3 years. So far I've achieved 6 Golds.
Your suggestion has been proposed before and discussed within the Advanced Driving groups. I totally agree with your view that Driving Licenses must be a privilege and not a right because people currently drive so badly / dangerously.
Unfortunately when this has been suggested to Government in the past, the stock answer is that it would cause huge economic impact (cost of tests, lots of people who drive for a living who would loose their jobs etc).
However, I think there is a good compromise. Suppose people have to take an automatic retest for most driving offenses? If people knew that they would suffer loss of mobility, inconvenience and expense through bad driving, then they would be much more careful. Plus, the really bad drivers would get much overdue refreshers of their skills and the really bad ones wouldn't get back on the road.
2007-02-21 07:35:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Surely there are no poor drivers? If you're poor you can't afford a a car.
As for you other points: Driving test should be last a little longer and cover different types of driving. Anger level does not impeded competence of driving. Maybe the questions at the end of the test could incorporate questions about vehicle safety.
Re-test? No, no, no, no, no and no again. Maybe sight tests every 5 or 10 years and every year after a certain age.
The advanced test compulsory? The greatest improvements in driving will come with experience. Including speed of response, due to better potential risk assessment
The use of a car is already a privilege, hard earned by many.
2007-02-19 02:24:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by DanRSN 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hmm, interesting but ultimately flawed.
I do about 20,000 miles a year, it is my business lifeline. If I lose my license, i lose my house, my job, and undoubtably go into bankruptcy.
I'm sure 90% of us would fail a test if we took it now due to minor things. But I also know from years of experience that I can handle a car better than any fresh faced 18 year old, and statistically, 17 to 21 is the highest accident rate zone, so maybe they should be tested every year.
However, think it would be a good idea to have people take a mandatory refresher course every few years to brush up on skills.
I still believe the way to make britains roads safer is education, not totalitarian laws. Little bit like condoms really, preventions better than cure........
2007-02-19 02:26:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Steven N 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
does this mean that the Sunshine's out of ya ***
when it comes to driving.would you have passed if what you are suggesting was implemented b4 you became an eligible car driving scroat?
sorry but what you are imposing is categorically impossible because everyone has the right to be treated the same thus ,the test is fair for all,but i do agree there should be regular 5 or 10 yearly recaps to determine safety of competent driving skills,meaning that we should undergo a test of character and common sense.to be able to keep driving in our later years.what i do find hard to understand is why does'nt anything get done before some one gets hurt,spot the dodgy driver with his bad eyesite or aggressive behaviour behind the wheel,take away their licence,"dont use the handheld,your be in the clink"attitude is what we want ,
2007-02-21 11:36:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by billybus 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with your ideas. Unfortunately most of them will not be put into place, but at least they could make everyone resit their driving test every 5 years or so, including the written test. How many drivers have looked at the Highway code once they have passed their test. Their bad habits would be picked up and if they amount to dangerous bad habits they should have to go back and resit again to show they have overcome them before being given a full licence again.
2007-02-19 02:28:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by ELIZABETH M 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you, but while this would mean more careful, responsible drivers - and that's good - it won't necessarily reduce traffic.
The only way this could be done is to make public transport more accessible, more reliable, and extremely cheap, so that people are tempted away from using the car for short trips - most car journeys are 2 miles or under. Also make it much safer for people to use bikes, with more dedicated cycle tracks as they have in many European countries.
It's not impossible - it has been done in many European countries. It's not impossible in the UK either but one thing is missing and that's the political will.
2007-02-23 01:05:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by squeaky guinea pig 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you on the rage issue but have you any idea how expensive it is to take lessons and do your test, its just putting people off so u get more maniacs on the road who don't even bother getting their license. Cost should come down to allow people to gain a more comprehensive knowledge of driving, safety, etc, i'm still learning and i've held a license for 4 years!!!
2007-02-19 02:18:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by green cat 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In theory great idea, but in practice it will never happen! How will driving schools etc. be able to deal with the extra courses/lessons/tests? Besides, the majority of the pratts that are on the road are invariably driving without licenses anyway so it wont stop them.
2007-02-19 02:21:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Germany (home of the Autobahn) uses several of the methods you just mentioned. It costs about $3000 american to take all the tests, lessons, and aquire all the permits required. All this over a period of 2-3 years. The Germans take driving SERIOUSLY. So should we.
2007-02-19 20:00:43
·
answer #11
·
answered by all_wheel_driven 1
·
0⤊
0⤋