I thought about this a bit, and here's how I imagine it would work (based on how my state works currently):
1. You turn 16. You drive on the simulator - if you pass, you do a real drive with a human tester.
2. In 5 years when you renew your license, you go on the simulator again. If you pass, you get to renew your license. No human-in-car test required.
------------------------------------
The advantages:
- This covers things we can't currently test for:
- Marijuana
- Spice and unknown drugs
- Sleep deprivation
- Deterioration due to age (afraid to bring this up, but it's an issue)
- It's exact - there is no interpretation by a person.
- It's an actual impairment/ability test. Rather than putting a number on how much {x} you consumed - it measures what matters.
--------------------------------
For accessibility issues, traditional driving tests (and blood tests for impairment) would have to be used. If your vision doesn't allow you to test on the simulator - you take a physical driving test with a person. Simulator tests can't be used for impairment.
Other interesting ideas:
- Insurance rates based on your score in the simulator (not sure if this would be fair, or could be abused - but thought it was an interesting idea).
- We could have data for how your driving ability degrades with age.
- It should maybe be codified that equipment changes (new simulators, etc.) are not allowed between a test and impairment test. So the state would need to keep old equipment around for 5 years for migration.
> Any reasonable device of this kind would fail a nonzero perccentage of sober drivers and pass a nonzero percentage of intoxicated drivers. And not just because of noise -- some people drive worse sober than others do high. So don't hold your breath waiting for laws to allow it.
Yeah I agree that people will take issue with that. I personally don't care what someone did 15 minutes before getting into their car, so long as they can safely drive.
Anyway, I thought this was fun to think about. It seems like a really nice solution. I'd love to hear some more reasons why it wouldn't work!
1. You turn 16. You drive on the simulator - if you pass, you do a real drive with a human tester.
2. In 5 years when you renew your license, you go on the simulator again. If you pass, you get to renew your license. No human-in-car test required.
------------------------------------
The advantages:
- This covers things we can't currently test for:
- It's exact - there is no interpretation by a person.- It's an actual impairment/ability test. Rather than putting a number on how much {x} you consumed - it measures what matters.
--------------------------------
For accessibility issues, traditional driving tests (and blood tests for impairment) would have to be used. If your vision doesn't allow you to test on the simulator - you take a physical driving test with a person. Simulator tests can't be used for impairment.
Other interesting ideas:
- Insurance rates based on your score in the simulator (not sure if this would be fair, or could be abused - but thought it was an interesting idea).
- We could have data for how your driving ability degrades with age.
- It should maybe be codified that equipment changes (new simulators, etc.) are not allowed between a test and impairment test. So the state would need to keep old equipment around for 5 years for migration.
> Any reasonable device of this kind would fail a nonzero perccentage of sober drivers and pass a nonzero percentage of intoxicated drivers. And not just because of noise -- some people drive worse sober than others do high. So don't hold your breath waiting for laws to allow it.
Yeah I agree that people will take issue with that. I personally don't care what someone did 15 minutes before getting into their car, so long as they can safely drive.
Anyway, I thought this was fun to think about. It seems like a really nice solution. I'd love to hear some more reasons why it wouldn't work!