Re: Tougher licensing = Safety Fast?

[Dale McCormack <profit@mcs.net>]

Peter Henriksen wrote:
 OK, so maybe I missed something, but how come "better tests don't make
> for better drivers"? If there are better (==stricter and more
> comprehensive) tests, the education needed will have to be better. 
> >>
Peter and members of the Qlist Braintrust,
This discussion has taken us off the Audi focus, but there's obviously a
lot of thinking about the driving task which goes on in our group. 
Here's some more food for those thoughts:
I guess I'm basically skeptical about the hyperpoliticized US government
that gave us a national "energy-saving speed limit," later justified on
numersous vested-interest "safety" studies and which believes
steadfastly that lower speeds are a panacea for safety would, or could,
design a driver/vehicle test which rewards competancy in real world
situations.  State and national governments also lack the will to get
involved unless there is a overwelming evidence of a problem and
solution.  Drinking and drugs are good examples, but "better drivers"
are very difficult to define (as evidenced by the multi-day persistance
of the Agressive Drivers thread). 

My favorite idea (dream?) has always been a graded driver test in which
higher demonstrated skills in a closed course test environment would be
rewarded with a higher speed limit on limited-access or rural roads. 
For example, whenever you entered your vehicle you'd place a visually
distinguishable license in the rear window for easy ID. To maintain
revenue flow these drivers would pay for their testing and the license
could also be priced accordingly. (perhaps offseting previous citation
revenue?)  Revocation of these speed privledges would also need to be
quickly enforced if they were abused non limited-access roadways.
 
Anyone else willing to anty up?