Hacker News Reader

Comment by myroon5 | Hacker News Reader

Even without changing processes, hundreds of years of time could be saved by reducing the frequency we have to interact with government at all

For example, almost 20 American states require license renewal every 4 years or more frequently:

https://ballotpedia.org/Driver%27s_license_costs_by_state,_2...

When I renew, there's no test (not even vision), and they don't even retake my picture or let me update my height. They just print the same ID with new dates

---

Obviously, Americans filing tax information the government already knows every year is another canonical example

View on HN

I'd go the other way; we really should require retesting for driver's license renewals.

New Jersey for example just enacted a "safe passing" law earlier this year in an attempt to make bicyclists and pedestrians safer. But existing drivers will never have to demonstrate that they know this because we never retest people after they get their license once.

Then we should have licenses for bicyclists too!

The reason we have licenses (aka controls on who can drive cars) is to curb dangerous and irresponsible driving, mark drivers for driving egregiously, and remove people or not allow drivers on the road when they don't have the motor skills to navigate a vehicle on the road.

Knowing the rules is secondary, if not tertiary. Otherwise bicyclists should also have licenses and license plates because rules apply to them as well.

Rules apply to them but they aren't driving a 2-3 ton hunk of metal that's basically a murder machine. Their danger to other road users is much, much lower than from anything self-propelled just due to physics.

Here in Sweden it doesn't matter how much right of way you have, if you are driving a car you're responsible for the safety of others in the road, even more if they're a pedestrian or cyclist. It's not excuse that a pedestrian was jaywalking or whatever bizarre law to limit access to the road for people you got in the US, you are ultimately responsible for the safety of other users. You're drilled and tested on that in your driving lessons and exams, you will fail your driving test if you fail to yield for a pedestrian at any moment, even if it was just briefly not pressing the brake pedal way before another road user is in danger.

This is a false equivalence, yes, the road is shared and has rules but one user of the road is safely driving on tons of metal powered by hundreds of horsepower, the other is pedaling a bike.

Degree and level matter. Don't hold such a black-and-white view of the world, it's reductionist and not very smart.

The US has the same laws. Jaywalking is hard to prove. The bigger the vehicle, the more responsible it is, eg truck trailers are responsible even if the car crashes into them. Cars Always yield to pedestrians. Cars and Peds always yield to bikes. Bikes have to yield to no one unless they are driving on sidewalk. Then they should not be riding.

Bikes are not dangerous (unless you're talking about e-bikes with beefy frames and tires), if you get hit by a bike as a pedestrian you're probably only getting bruised.

Cars are absolute murder machines.

It's usually an equity issue, or championed as such by equity groups. America is so car dependent that for folks at the margins failing a driving test is the equivalent of losing your job. That's why DL renewals almost rarely require any re-testing and never require demonstrating driving skills.

Hitting pedestrians also poses issues for folks at the margins, yet we don't seek to educate those people on how to avoid this potentially life destroying situation.

I agree but a lot of equity groups are not willing to advocate for pedestrian lives. The perception a lot of Americans have is that folks are either walking because they have literally no option and are thus probably not really working-class folks or they're out for recreation.

There's a growing number of organizations advocating for pedestrian and cyclist safety but they have a lot less funding and fewer connections that equity groups which protect drivers. If you have the opportunity in your area, donate to such a group or help make one yourself.

I think you would be hard pressed to find someone currently living with a license that got it at a time where it was OK to will-nilly hit pedestrians.

I bet I can find plenty of people who have a licence, but if retested now would fail -- which suggests they now can't be trusted not to willy-nilly hit pedestrians.

> failing a driving test is the equivalent of

Devil's advocate: Maybe you shouldn't be driving, if you might fail a driving test. Being tested on this should be a complete non-issue for anyone with a few years of real world driving experience.

Nonsense. It's an elderly issue, everyone knows elderly people shouldn't be on the road but no one wants to take their licenses (they vote in droves).

That is one end of this issue, yes. But there's more to it than just the elderly.

Couldn't the government (or state) simply run ad campaigns for a couple of weeks informing the public of new changes?

Edit: Most changes are not rocket science, you simply need to be aware of them.

There's a difference between knowing the laws of the road, and being a competent enough driver that you can perform them. The rules are rarely, if ever, enforced, so a lot of drivers just figure it's not a big of a deal.

It's easy to believe that road safety isn't that important when you're surrounded by several tons of plastic and metal armor.

A simple ad campaign running for a few weeks hardly reaches everybody. Not even close to.

People discuss with each other. Someone from social sciences could probably back me up but out of my ass it'd prob. be enough to each 1/4 of people (likely less) and it'd eventually spread to everyone through word-of-mouth.

Renewing online sure takes a lot of the burden out of the regular renewals.

Of course, I'm now 33 and still using a picture of 21yo me on my license which gets me second glances from bar tenders, TSA, etc. But if it keeps me from having to go in to the DMV...

I think the point was not to renew online, but renew less often.

It was indeed, but in absence of 20-year licenses or the like, I'll happily take the reduced friction of easier online renewals.

REAL ID requires renewal every 8 years or less.

Will they even allow that for REAL ID now?

Yes, I renewed my REAL ID earlier this year entirely online.

It's possible that it would have been more complicated if I had changed my address or needed to change any other information.

Seems odd they don't want an up to date photo.

They do, you need to submit at-most 6 month old photo while renewing. Or go to the office to take one. Either way, you also still need to go get the document from the office as it is only handed over by person (but you can pre-book a time slot!). Passport is a bit more complicated, since it requires fingerprints as well.

I don't know what to tell you, I renewed my 2-year-old REAL ID with no new photo in NJ remotely, no appointment or updated photo necessary.

I did have to go to an appointment to convert my previous ID into a REAL ID, so maybe that's what you mean.

Oof, now that you mentioned NJ I took a second look of the context .. you were talking about US. I mistakenly thought your comment was about Estonia..

Well then it's not "entirely online" like the other poster says.

I got an online renewal for a REAL ID, but that was for a 4 year replacement of a 4 year card, and there was specific language about having renewed in person the previous time.

So technically yes, but an 8 year REAL ID that has to be renewed in person would be strictly better.

Good question, I still need to get my REAL ID.

It's a decade over here, same for most forms of ID; there was a period where it was reduced to 5 years, but that was due to developing digital technologies, that is, chips on board the documents - they foresaw that they might be outdated or insecure in a few years, and they were right.

>Obviously, Americans filing tax information the government already knows every year is another canonical example

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous, especially when you hold things like mutual funds. You have to figure out how much to pay every quarter. Why can't the gov't bill me with the info they already have?

That's mostly an american problem, not a "government bad" problem.

It's almost a tautology. All things being equal, the less time spent on bureaucratic processes, the better.

Its just so that governments (and academic institutions, nonprofits, healthcare, etc.) are the natural environments for bureaucratic bloat.

It's not even necessarily an American problem; when I lived in Washington State, the last time I got a renewal was expedient and surprisingly efficient. I was impressed with how well run the place was.

I've got a driver's license in another country, and it's still up for renewal every 5 years.

Most countries treat driver's licences seriously, not like the US.

It takes months of classes and driving hours, exams and tests to get one where I live. Renewals mean getting your eyes checked, no photos etc.

Sounds exactly the same as the US. The question is: how difficult are the exams and tests? In the US, the written exams are 80% irrelevant information that you pass by wrought memorization right before, and the driving test is trivial (parallel park, left turn, k-turn, right turn back to start).

At least that was my experience in New Jersey.

Same story in much of Canada.

Arizona driver license don't expire until you are 65. The linked website is innaccurate.

They do if they're REAL ID. By law they can only be valid up to 8 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com