A Driving School in France Hits a Wall of Regulations
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
When they do need to visit family in the more rural areas, they either take the train, or use a carpooling service (the most popular one is blablacar.com, which has been taking off like crazy in the recent years. The vast majority of French people I talk to when I go back home have heard of it- one of the few innovative French startups).
In France, I spent a year and half and about 1500 euros in driving lessons related stuff and didn't get my license. When I first moved to the US (southern state), it cost me something like 30 bucks and 30 minutes of my time. The test consisted of driving around the block, and parking the car (only snag: the inspector by my side, a rather overweight lady, told me that I'd lose points the further away I parked from the DMV's front door. I thought she was joking, but she wasn't).
The conservative French people say that more expensive, stricter, longer times for obtaining a driver license leads to safer roads; but if you compare US driving fatalities to French ones, there's not much of a difference- and people in the US drive way more than they do in France.
Like many other aspects of French culture, it's ridiculous how deeply legislated it is, and how the only ones benefitting from it are the ones making the rules. I find certain aspects of the US driving culture a little too much on the other extreme of the spectrum (learner's permit at 14? the driving test being just a drive around the block? the written test being a multiple choice questionnaire with the answers available on YouTube?), but France is worse by far, and it's hurting young professionals (my brother is without a college degree, and when he was unemployed he found that most jobs in rural areas require a car- but getting a license takes forever and is expensive. So that was a few months where he could do little but wait to get his driving license).
It cost you 30 bucks and 30 minutes of your time to pass the exam, not to learn how to drive. That’s what is costly in France, because it costs ~€50/hour to have someone teaching you how to drive. People usually take at least 20 hours to learn, which is 20x50 = €1000. If you already know how to drive you can bypass the whole process and pass the exam as a “candidat libre”, which is free [1] (but it’s hard to get a slot).
[1]: http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F2825.xhtml (in French)
I've never heard of anyone taking less than 30 hours. And if you do 30 hours sharp you're one the lucky ones.
I would like to add that in my opinion, the main problem in France is that everything related to driving is now turned into a business.
Usually the driving test is less about driving and more about how long they can keep you in the DMV to charge you money. There is not a lot of preparation to the driving test itself in order to fail the test the first time (so they can charge you after that). I've also seen verbal agreements between driving inspectors and DMV's (I guess this is easier to do on the country side).
This varies. Driving is regulated at the state level, not the federal, and even then, it's pretty subjective.
I grew up poor, so didn't get my first license until I was 22. I was in a small town in Oklahoma, so there was one place to take it. First two times I failed; the officer grading the test was pretty much by the book. Third time, it was a laid back dude, and he didn't even have me parallel park. Gave me a 97 or something crazy like that.
I'm pretty sure there are only 2 states where that's the case. It's definately not a normal thing for the vast majority of Americans. It's 15 in most states 16 in a few.
Edit: It's actually 5 states, plus 3 more that allow teenagers to get learners permits at between 14.5 and 15 with additional drivers education requirements.
Here's the numbers on just how many.
If you include Michigan with full permits at 14.75 at the asbolute earliest (though most teens wouldn't be able to complete a 40 hour drivers education course that fast so the average will be even closer to 15)--then around 7.3% of teenagers can get their learners permit sometime during their 14th year.
If you don't include Michigan only 4.1% can.
I was aware of Iowa and Sout Dakota, but I wasn't aware that North Dakota, Kansans, and Arkansas do this as well.
Michigan and Idaho issue learners permits at 14 years and 8 months, and 14 years and 6 months respectively. However they only allow driving during a drivers education class until that course is completed. Also Montanta issues permits at 14.5 if enrolled in a drivers ed class.
Most of these states are also very rural with very small populations, so the vast majority of American 14 year olds cannot get a learners permit.
it varies quite a bit by DMV location. i've seen a weak correlation between local traffic levels and test duration/difficulty. which isn't the most unreasonable thing.
i'd like to see the folks who administer the test given some feedback about the number of licensees they tested who had an accident in their first year driving. and then provided the mean value for other testers in their zip code/state/etc.
Source for this? There's someone a few comments down claiming that fatalities are much lower than the US.
* 4.9/11.6 fatalities per 100k inhabitants per year
* 8.5/13.6 fatalities per 100k vehicles per year
* 6.3/7.6 fatalities per 1B vehicle-km
The two countries get closer for the last figure because the French usually drive shorter distances.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Ideally you'd control for the length of the trip, types of roads they're traveling on, etc, but that data is nearly impossible to come by.
That means about 6000 less dead Americans per year.
America is much bigger country and people presumably drive much more than in Europe. So naturally vehicle deaths per 100K cars is higher in the US (because more time is spent at risk), irrespective of training/skill level.
4.0/5.2 fatalities per 1B vehicle-km on motoroways.
12.8/10.7 on non-motorways.
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_traffic_safet...
7.6 per 1 billion km in US against 6.3 per 1 billion km in France. I would say very comparable especially if you consider that more older/younger people drive in US than in France.
People in the US drive far more often than those in France, you'd expect for driving fatalities.
Like every other merit-oriented institution, there's an industry around gaming this system. Besides having valuable information about test details, the driving schools get to jump ahead of the line and get earlier test dates and plusher time slots, and take their lesson fee on top of the test fee. The message is pretty clear: Fork up the cash to go through a school if you want to get your license in a timely fashion.
The schools themselves vary from utter crap to the guy that I went with(Mr. Yu), who has done it part time for over 20 years and has perfect knowledge of all three of the designated routes the Daly City examiners use, tips for each intersection, tips for some specific examiners(!), and a pleasant and persistent attitude. Mr. Yu is popular enough to be booked solid for a month in advance, but apart from that there's hardly any wasted time - I am paying about $700 for three sessions of two hours(that time including pickup and dropoff, all of which I drove on my own) and the test itself, which I'm taking in September.
Those are, in fact, things a country can want - for a multitude of reasons. Environmental impact, cultural centers, oil politics, etc. The fact that car-centric suburban culture is difficult to attain may be feature, not a bug.
I'm usually for socialism in general, but not if it completely hinders the economy and reduce opportunity, and sets in monopolies.
The government recently did a study, and it showed that small but important local businesses like pharmacists, bakeries, notaires (civil law notaries), tobacco sellers, alcohol resellers, kiosks, doctors, and many more, are heavily regulated, and tend to be monopolies because the government don't deliver that many licenses.
It's weird because I tend to have leftish beliefs when it comes to politics, but you can't deny that you need to relax the rules if you don't want to have those kinds of situations.
I never worked more than 2 months in total in my life, I just wish I could just pick a shovel and do any kind of demeaning work for a change, just for the sanity of waking up in the morning to do something. It's just not possible because of labor laws and a high minimum wage. France is anti-liberal in many aspects, and it's not just sad, it's just depressing. I just can't like my country. I like many things, but in terms of economic opportunities, it's soviet-like. People just receive welfare, stay unemployed, get unmotivated, and this settles in, and there's nothing concrete you can really do for a change if you don't have a network.
At least in the US, there are shitty jobs by default. In france, the only one negociating are the unions. Companies can't even fire people unless they did real damage to the company. Nobody gets hired because of that.
Sometimes I honestly believe I could try to just become an illegal immigrant and go to places where they give work to strangers, but it's hard to give up comfort.
It's a life of being rewarded for being lazy. It's weird.
Zero work experience. You can't really change country without finding a job first in another country, or at least having a plan. I would gladly work any job to become an US citizen or canadian citizen. Sweden, Norway, Finland, any cold country.
I don't know how to search for a permanent job abroad. I don't want to just do tourism and work abroad for one year. There always seems to be tons of discouraging paperwork. Canada requires you to have 2000 euros or more if you want to go there. With 9/11 the US will be a difficult place to go as I don't have any job experience.
> I find it hard to feel sympathy
I don't care about your sympathy, I'm not asking for it. Nobody has sympathy anyway. What do you mean by that anyway ?
> be part of the change
What does that even mean ? I don't care about change, I just want to get out in the morning, do anything that can be done, and go back home.
Like I always say, where can I pick a shovel and start working ? Job applications are stupid too, there are always requirements, and nothing about the real supply and demand of the job market for that kind of job.
Things don't magically get better in other countries. Each has it's own set of crap that people there have to deal with. But you know this.
Bonne chance.
They always seem to pine for France, but they still stay in California. Its also really weird how fond and romantically they look upon such regulations. You'd think that they would be furious at the thought of such regulations in America, but they are actually pretty sympathetic about them. Even though such regulations have tied up the job market in France so much that they have been driven to a new continent, they still have faith in the State to fix things with rules.
That is one of the reasons I think libertarians can never win in the long run. Even very smart engineers have boundless optimism for the capacity of human managers to micromanage complicated systems like entire national economies. They also have boundless faith that bad actors and inside players can be prevented from manipulating regulations for their own benefit.
That's one of the reasons I think that those labels are idiotic and a form of secular religions - how about looking at how things actually work (and have worked out; we have plenty of past history to look at), instead of calling oneself a (e.g.) libertarian and saying "yay free market!" hoping that this particular idea is the silver bullet.
Doesn't take a genius to know that these extremist positions are the result of ignorance in the way money and power flow through society. Unfortunately, it's the sort of ignorance that reaches into the "not even wrong" territory.
Natural monopolies are a different issue (anti-trust laws can't affect a true natural monopoly because it's by definition impossible to break up.) Some libertarians dispute that they are an issue at all, more on that position here: https://mises.org/daily/5266/ Others believe the government should handle things like public utilities, just nothing else.
Accusing others of ignorance is never helpful.
Then, 2 weeks later, I get a letter from the French DMV. They were not going to accept the letter and said I needed to come down and turn in the license they had issued me and bring in a properly certified driving record from Texas.
I gave up. I did not comply with this letter and kept the French driver's license. Fortunately, I was never pulled over and did not have any problems. When I left the country, I went back to exchange my French driver's license for my Texas one. I got a nasty scolding from the clerk, but I just played the dumb American and she eventually gave me my Texas license back.
I have to say, the absurd bureaucracy in France was not limited to the DMV, and I have more horror stories about the government regulations and bureaucracy there.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/upshot/lesson-from-old-ind...
Growth for growth's sake is an irrational obsession. If people's standards of living are satisfactory, technology leads to reduced consumption without compromising standard of living, and individuals lead a good life, what more is there to it?
This article rings true. Driving in the U.S. is 100 times easier than back in France. The driving test is easy, if there is one! (I lived in Austin, Texas doesn't have anything OR at least doesn't have almost anything that looks like a driving test from a french perpective.)
I've spent something like 3,400 Euros to get my permit back in France, and I've waited maybe 9 months. It's true they are not giving away easily spots for the tests and it's also true that they try to get you doing as much as hours as possible.
"Individuals who hold a valid, unexpired driver license from another U.S. state or U.S. territory, or from Canada, France, South Korea, Germany or Taiwan (the countries Texas has license reciprocity agreements with), do not have to take the knowledge or driving tests."
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/movingtotexas.htm
My original point was that if you gave the DPS clerk a French license, you didn't have to do any of that because Texas considers it a license transfer.
They have half the rate of traffic accident as US or my country (Poland), so here's one obvious gain. I'm curious about the public and private transport infrastructure there - there seems to be an economic incentive to develop it.
I see the obvious injustices described in the article, but overall, this time it seems to have a positive effect. What the world needs is definitely not easier ways for people to get driving licenses.
If you live near Paris(or a big city), you dont need a car.
If you live anywhere else you absolutely need a car! (or a motorbike, scooter ... ).
The infrastructure is good,but the train is extremly expensive today,(wasnt the case 10 years ago) and railways are crumbling.
Up unti recently you couldnt cross regions by bus in France,it was forbidden to preserve the train monopoly.Today people use ridesharing a lot,because taking the train is such a ripoff.
Well, at least in Nantes, Lille, Lyon or Toulouse, you can live just fine without a car (and I have done so for years). I suppose it's the same in most cities with decent public transport. It makes holidays in the countryside complicated, though.
Where are you getting this from. Fatilities per 100,000 km driven is very comparable between the US and France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
Artificially making things hard for people is never positive. Even if it meets what you think are positive goals.
As opposed to what? Letting free market and anarchy solve everything?
We already have tons of rules and mechanisms preventing people for killing themselves and others in numerous of idiotic ways. Do you advocate dropping them because they inconvenience people who really believe it's their privilege to dump toxic waste into river or put cancerogenic stuff into food because it's cheaper this way?
Cars are weapons. The only reason people don't respect it as such is a cultural mishap in a way cars were introduced into society.
As opposed to clear, well defined, and fair rules. Rather than bureaucratic misery designed to annoy people.
> Cars are weapons. The only reason people don't respect it as such is a cultural mishap in a way cars were introduced into society.
Axes are weapons. The only reason people don't respect it as such is a cultural mishap in a way axes were introduced into society.
Your sentence had essentially zero semantic meaning, you can replace "car" with virtually anything without changing the meaning.
I believe the sentence you quoted actually has a lot of semantic meaning. Let's go counterfactual and imagine a world in which humanity stuck to trains and mass transit. If you went and told people of that world you want to give a car to everyone, they'd say you're nuts - general population can't be trusted with such a dangerous machine! But we don't live in this world, because cars were introduced gradually and we didn't notice the problems of "democratized transportation" until it was too late.
People have proven time and again that they are responsible enough to use axes. They have also proven time and again that they are not responsible enough to use cars.
"As long as" ? Really?
No, you don't get to limit yourself this way.
Either you are in favor of fair rules or you are not.
Sounds like you couldn't care less about fairness, you just want less driving. Your goal "less deaths" is laudable, your method "make people miserable" is not. Not only is it unfair, it's also infective.
And thus you have proven my claim against you: You do not care how much misery you cause, in your quest for your personal version of utopia.
> So in real world, relaxing those "unfair" rules will cause death of many people.
No, actually it doesn't. Compare death rate of France vs US. Basically identical. Yet one has stupid rules (only the rich can drive) one does not.
> they'd say you're nuts - general population can't be trusted with such a dangerous machine!
No, I would not say that at all. Can you name any useful tools are are restricted to professionals only in the US? The only restrictions are in commerce, you can't sell your services. But I can't think of a single one that is restricted for personal use. Not even explosives.
Some examples: Nail gun (explosive or air powered). Bench press. Milling lathe. Heavy machinery. Digging equipment. Chain saw. Fire. Knives. Slicing mandolin.
> People have proven time and again that they are responsible enough to use axes.
You suffer from recentisim. Back when axes were used routinely by everyone there were tons of deaths and injuries.
Every single tool ever can, and has, caused death and injury. Some tools are used by a lot of people, some by only a few.
You seem to want the world to be like a nursery - no one can use anything dangerous ever. There is nothing special about cars in this, they are just the thing you happened to notice.
I disagree. Let me rephrase my sentence. I'm in favor of clean, well defined and fair rules as long as they make sense and actually benefit the society. Rules can be well-defined and fair, and still be bad. For instance, let's look at the post 9/11 fluid limits in air travel. The rule is clear, well-defined (you can have max 100ml of fluid per container) and fair (you don't get to bring a 1L bottle on the same plane as everyone else who can't, just because you're rich) and still completely idiotic and harmful [0].
> You do not care how much misery you cause, in your quest for your personal version of utopia.
I do. I just happen to believe that millions of people dying (many of them due to no fault of their own) and resources being wasted on a terribly suboptimal way of transportation (especially in big cities) is more misery than those millions of people not dying and resources not being wasted.
> No, actually it doesn't. Compare death rate of France vs US. Basically identical. Yet one has stupid rules (only the rich can drive) one does not.
I read that as drivers in France are as bad as drivers in US, but because France has less of them, the rate of deaths per 100k people is less than half of the US.
> Some examples: Nail gun (explosive or air powered). Bench press. Milling lathe. Heavy machinery. Digging equipment. Chain saw. Fire. Knives. Slicing mandolin.
Well those are all tools that you use very rarely, in isolated environment and it is hard for them to hurt anyone else than their operator. Even so, people who use those tools very often (i.e. in a factory) have special security measures and training (or else their workshop gets shut down by EHS department).
Imagine if every other person were to use a nail gun for hours a day while working next to hundreds others. You couldn't possibly say that this wouldn't get regulated quickly, and if people were dying in accidents on a mass scale, the security wouldn't be improving until people would stop dying.
You say fire, explosives - but as far as I can tell, if you make anything more explosive than baking soda and water in a city, you'll quickly get arrested.
Basically, people are free to hurt themselves however they like, as long as they don't pose danger to others. That's the difference between an axe accident and a car accident.
> Every single tool ever can, and has, caused death and injury. Some tools are used by a lot of people, some by only a few.
Yes. And we care more about those that cause more injury than those that cause less injury.
> You seem to want the world to be like a nursery - no one can use anything dangerous ever. There is nothing special about cars in this, they are just the thing you happened to notice.
No, I just don't want to become a vegetable thanks to a random idiot who thinks speed limits are arbitrary numbers put in place to earn moeny for the police. And I don't like when people unnecessarily die (again, often due to no fault of their own) when they could not. I also pick on cars every now and then because drivers are making lives worse for us, people who live in big cities, and hell, we have some rights too.
[0] - annoys people, along with the rest of security theatre is responsible for deaths of many of those, who decided to travel by cars, and if the rule is to prevent someone from bringing significant amounts of liquid explosives, then why all bottles get thrown to the same container next to a line of 200 people?
I wonder what this would mean for the HN darling, Uber.
There is only a limited amount of exam slots, and they are assigned based on previous pass rates, ensuring you don't waste it on unprepared students. That seems like a perfectly sane policy when there's only a low fixed amount of exam slots. In Germany, you pay a fee (to the government) for the exam, so its possible to add more tester.
Why?
Deregulation and freeing the economy worked for Germany (they used to be considered the sick man of Europe) there is no reason it couldn't work for France.
It's a little like if the U.S. would merge with Mexico and give all Mexicans huge social benefits.
So I would be careful with an analysis why the economy has improved exactly. After all the regulated economy had worked fine in the West until 1990.