Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Sure, you can get a Ford Brontasarus but you have to get a commercial driver's lisence (there are multiple classes of them: I don't mean an 18 wheeler lisence). I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who buy huge vehicles to actually be tested in driving them
Oh hell. Tweelis had a fit? Perhaps I am totally wrong. He's a good guy.
Actually, this is not my idea. I suggested just making people who drive large, dangerous cars legally responsible for anyone they kill in any accident which would not have been fatal had they been driving a large sedan, say a crown victoria. I suggested this because Republicans are so in favor of personal responsiblity, I thought they might like it - and Democrats generally worry about the environment so they might like it. For a week I told this (loosely, a version of this) to anyone who would listen until someone came back with the alternate driver's lisence thing, which I think is a better idea.
However, neither party has a chance of passing it: Repubs would hate to grow the DMV (or the branch of government which grants lisences) and the Dems would not want to give special access to those who can pay for the tests.
I think it is a very modest proposal. I can take my test in a sedan and run out and drive a Suburban? A Suburban which has been raised by 18 inches? At some point people should have to take another test with their vehicle. I'm not saying anything rash like: your DMV fees should be multiplied by 40 divided by the number of miles to the gallon your car gets, which I also think would make great law, but that no one would pass.