Drivers should prove their mettle annually
Campus Times
March 15, 2002
The fate of your future should lie in just one simple test. Yes, that
is right. Just one test to determine whether or not you deserve to remain
mobile and independent, based on your abilities.
This test should span all generations. Race, religion or creed should
not make a difference. It should be administered once a year because if
it were,America's mortality rate would drop.
The test I am speaking of is a simple driving test. I believe that drivers
should, from the day they earn their driver's license, be re-tested annually.
It's perfectly logical. If a driver is on the road they should at least
be able to drive correctly. If they can't, they just don't deserve to be
on the road at all, period.
For example, take the incident that occurred on Tuesday afternoon in
Anaheim. Two little girls were killed outside their elementary school when
a driver "lost control" of her car and smashed their bodies into
the wall. One died instantly, the other, later at a hospital. On top of
all of this, the mother and brother of one of the girls, were witness to
everything.
According to police, the woman may have accidentally hit the gas pedal
instead of the brake pedal. But that's not the real kicker. She was not
under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, which is what brings me
to my next point: you do not have to be drunk or high to be a hazard on
the road.
People should not take driving for granted when it should be considered
a privilege. A car can be used as a weapon, just like a gun can by normal,
everyday people. That is why kids aren't allowed to drive; it is a huge
responsibility.
But if driving was taken as seriously as it should be, an annual test
would be administered to all California drivers. Every two years would even
be acceptable, as long as drivers are consistently being tested.
Sure it may sound like a hassle, but think of all of the idiot drivers
who would be off the road. Think of the number of accidents that could have
been prevented or the number of pedestrians who could have still been alive.
If annual testing had been implemented prior to the incident in Anaheim,
two little girls might not have been dead right now and the 15 other kids
who witnessed the brutal accident would not have that violent image in their
minds. The testing would also reduce the number of teens and elderly people
on the road. The former have proven to be impulsive and rather reckless
on the road by not demonstrating proper judgment.
The elderly, meanwhile, may be cautious, but some can't help that some
of their senses essential to driving are fading or are diminishing.
Case in point: In January, an elderly woman plowed through a row of
about fifteen children outside their school. Grouping teens and the elderly,
of course, might be stereotyping, but these age groups are some of the worst
drivers on the road today. With the assistance of annual testing, some of
them, at least, would be off the road.
An argument could be made that while people might be stripped of their
licenses, they will still drive, which is true; all laws are eventually
broken. But even if the law gets just one bad driver off the road to possibly
save a life, then it would be worth all of the work.
I sincerely hope that a law similar to this is passed sometime in the
near future. If not, I can only hope I'm not the next victim because of
someone else's mistake.
Tim Tevault, a sophomore journalism major, is managing editor of
the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at zerotearx@aol.com.
