A better way of licensing drivers
Published by Ravikiran Rao February 11th, 2004 in GovernanceI got my driving license recently. I did not have to actually take the test or anything. The driving school had bribed the RTO officials and we got the license just by going there.
I believe that this is the norm all over India. Even when the test does take place nominally, it is essentially a charade. Whether you get the license or not depends on whether you pay the bribe or not.
I have some ideas on how to reform this system.
(“Hey why are you talking of reforming the system rather than abolishing it?” I hear you ask. “You are a libertarian. Shouldn’t you be questioning the government’s power to require licenses of drivers in the first place?”
Well, unfortunately, the Government owns the roads. If the roads were owned and run by a private entity, then it would certainly have the right to expect that those who drive on those roads be trained and licensed by some authority. I would love to see a working model of privately owned roads, but till I see such a model, I am resigned to the government owning and running roads. I reluctantly concede that it may mandate licensing. )
So here are the ideas.
Abolish the driving test requirement.
How is this different from…?
Hear me out okay? Automatically hand out licenses to everyone above 18. People aren’t stupid. They have an incentive to learn safe driving, because, well rash driving is unsafe for their own selves too.
Yes of course, there will always be some people who will drive rashly and cause accidents. But I am pretty confident that the problem is not so much due to novice drivers, but because experienced drivers got careless, overconfident or drunk. So I am sure that abolishing the test requirement and handing out licenses to everyone won’t cause an increase in the number of accidents. (In any case, right now you can get a license knowing any knowledge, so how much worse can things get?)
So why have a license at all? So that you can have a penalty-points system where you get points for violating traffic rules, rash driving, causing accidents, etc. If you accumulate a certain number of points, you have your license taken away from you and you cannot drive.
In general I think that we are better off if we are free to do everything except that which the law prohibits us for specific reasons, and this system satisfies the principle.
If the above idea is too spontaneous order for you, here is another one. As it is, it is mandatory to insure cars. Why not replace the driving license with a certificate from the insurance company that you know driving? This should work. Your insurance company has an incentive to make sure that you drive properly, because otherwise they will have to pay for your accidents. So if we put in this requirement, chances are they will franchise out the the testing to driving schools, but put in some kind of quality control.This assumes that we have a vibrant private insurance sector and also that the insurance companies are actually insurance companies and not some fraudulent outfits. But that shouldn’t be difficult.
Of course, we can combine both ideas, i.e. have the points system anyway and these points count both against the driver and the insurance company.
What do you guys think? Any loopholes?
For idea # 1, I’d think your assumption is of a morally responsible society functioning for it’s own good and the maximization of benefits for all concerned. While distributing licenses to anyone above 18 is slightly uncomfortable, I wouldn’t object to a mixture of the current system and the penalty points system.
For idea # 2, what would the insurance company be insuring? The vehicle (in which case it makes it compulsory to own a vehicle to get a license) or the person?
Our society doesn’t give a rat’s ass about fellow citizens. I hold no hope for it.
For 1, the assumption of a morally responsible society works in so many other places. We don’t have to assume that everyone is responsible and self-interested, just that most people are. We penalise only those who aren’t. We don’t assume that people are irresponsible unless proven otherwise.
For 2, Oops - I hadn’t thought of that! The idea is that the same company that insures the car (car insurance is mandatory anyway) would certify the driver. The insurance company would have an incentive to test the driver before certifying him because it doesn’t want the car to get smashed up.
We could still introduce it as an alternative to the current system i.e. get a license from the RTO or from your car’s insurance company. That way at least some people won’t have to go through the corrupt RTO. But I’ll have to think over this loophole!
I got my PGDM degree from IIMC recently. I did not have to actually take CAT. I had bribed some people who provided me with the question papers.
I have some ideas on how to reform this system.
1. Abolishing CAT
The main flaw in your argument is the assumption that all people bribe their way through a driving test, and hence, a test is irrelevant.
I gave a test for gaining my license…and so have many people I know. Many people I know have done the same as you but that doesn’t mean the concept of a driving test is flawed and needs to be done away with.
The second solution you’ve given makes sense from a logical viewpoint, but not from an operational one.
I know many people who file false/inflated insurance claims and then bribe them through by offering a percentage to the insurance agent who investigates the claim. What prevents people from bribing the insurance agent who’ll conduct their driving test too?
Granted that since an insurance company has more at stake than a government when accidents take place, yet assuming that they’d be a good option to run the driving test is imho not the solution as it may just transfer the power-centre (”person-to-bribe”) from the government to a private company.
Besides, imagine if you’re “shopping” for a driving license/insurance policy and 3-4 insurance companies are competing for your business. Wouldn’t it be make eminent business sense for a sales-quota-starved insurance salesman to “rig” your test with his agency in order to ensure he got your policy?
The CAT analogy is flawed.
Firstly, *if* cheating at the CAT were so widespread that the test results are essentially meaningless and whether you get through to the IIMs is on the basis of how much you bribe the authorities, then yes, abolishing the CAT would be one of the options on the table (Note the choice of words.)
That is the problem with the RTO driving tests, so abolishing the driving test is an option on the table.
Even assuming that corruption in the CAT is as horrible as in the RTO, I would still use different approaches to fix the two.
That is because:
1) I have an incentive to drive safely even without the driving tests. Most people bribe because they have to not because they want to. (It is too tough and dicey to get it otherwise, regardless of how good a driver they are.) The RTO official who is taking the test is not responsible if the driver he passes goes and kills someone (how *can* you hold him responsible? Can you definitively prove that the accident was because he was a novice?)
On the other hand, the applicant to the IIM does not have the incentive to…how do I put it?… get into the IIMs only if he thinks he has the aptitude? They do have the incentive to cheat. The institute officials, on the other hand do have an incentive to conduct the test fairly, because they need good students. (If the whole institute system gets subverted or Murli Manohar Joshi takes it over, then we might as well close it down).
2) A policy of “Let’s let everyone in. Let the traffic police catch those who don’t drive well” is feasible. “Let’s let everyone in. Let the grading system flunk those who aren’t up to the mark” won’t work because, as you know the IIMs are exclusive and select only people like us who are the cream of the cream.
So this is why the reasons for abolishing the driving test would probably not apply to CAT.
As for your arguments against the insurance idea, don’t you think the salesmen’s antics would show up in the claims record of the companies? i.e. If insurance salesmen rig the tests and as a result novice drivers do commit accidents, then the insurance companies will lose money and the execs will take notice?
U got driving license by paying bribe bcse u chose to pay. I got mine some years back by going on my own filling necessary forms standing in Queue and showing tat I deserve to get license by taking proper turns and giving test… Yes this way was time consuming and frustrating. But I found no major difficulties in getting license. I guess if u dont want corruption u shld start from urself by refusing to offer money. Dont blame system w/o trying it. Ive both 2 and 4 wheeler license w/o giving any bribe but I had to find time out of my busy schedule.
All those shitty asses who find loopholes in corrupt RTO, I have one question for u what have u done with tat corrupt system other than assisting with all ur heart and brain to make it more corrupt.
U made a choice dont blame others.
In the second case that you put forward, what about those ppl wanting to get licenses but dont own/drive any vehicle?
I have a different take on things and I guess it partly stems from what gautam might call differing “a priori convictions”.
For me “we” own the roads(opposed to your view of the government owning the roads) and the government only administers them on “our” behalf. Now, the roads being public property everyone has a right to use them but vehicles are ‘machinery’ that can be dangerous in ‘untrained’ hands. And the purpose of the driving test is bring a level of objectivity to what can be deemed ‘trained’. By the way, contrary to your belief that most accidents are caused by experienced drives, I remember from somewhere(I can digup the source if you insist) that a disproportionately large percentage of the accidents are caused by novice drivers.
Considering my ‘communal’ view of the ownership of roads, why would I allow a private entity decide who is fit to drive?
As jivha points out any other system could be just as faulty too.
And in closing, just for the fun of taunting you: Isn’t it ironical that you place your trust in a morally responsible society when you yourself bribed your way through the system?
In defense of jivha’s analogy:
It’s important to realize that in both the cases the testing process has been corrupt. Assumed corrupt in the later and admittedly so in the former.
In both the cases candidates have an incentive to cheat inorder to get “in”…and in both the cases there’s an incentive to ‘perform’ good once you are “in”.
I still don’t see how it is flawed.
Well anonymous, I did not bribe the RTO to avoid the test. I diligently took the driving classes and went to the RTO fully expecting to get tested. It so happened that the driving school had made really good “arrangements” with the RTO. That my instructor had recently coached the police commisioner’s son and daughter-in-law didn’t hurt either.
I don’t claim to be innocent. I knew fully well when I paid my 2500 bucks to the driving school for “training and license” that part of the money would be paid as a bribe. But I did not pay the bribe to get myself any special privileges. I just viewed it as ransom money that I had to pay to get what I was entitled to in the first place.
Digdug, don’t you still see? You’ve pointed out that drivers have an incentive to ‘perform’ once they get in.
I don’t know why you have put ‘perform’ in scare quotes. Conducting the test is not an end in itself. It is supposed to ensure that those who clear the test are safe and competent drivers. If people have an incentive to be safe and competent drivers even without the test AND the system does a poor job of filtering out the few who are careless or reckless AND the system is so irredeemably corrup that it hassles the honest more than it does its job THEN ditching the test is an option. If you want to come up with an apt analogy, it would have to satisfy all three clauses connected by ANDs.
The CAT is supposed to filter out everyone except the few who fit. Applicants do not have an incentive to rate themselves fairly.
The CAT, when it is fair, does a good job of predicting performance at the IIMs.
The CAT is not irredeemably corrupt. What happened recently was an aberration
A more apt analogy would be if the government conducted a nationwide literacy test for 10 year olds and jailed the parents whose kids did not do well.
I’ll assume you missed my point. I didn’t imply that the CAT is irredeemably corrupt in reality. Infact I said: “Assumed corrupt in the later and admittedly so in the former.” the later being jivha’s analogy and the former being the driving test case. And I must also note once again, jivha’s analogy rests on the hypothetical assumption that the CAT system is corrupt too.
While I’m at it let me also copy-paste my view again: In both the cases candidates have an incentive to cheat inorder to get “in”…and in both the cases there’s an incentive to ‘perform’ good once you are “in”.
and if I should put it in those clauses connected with AND:
If people have an incentive to get a management degree even without the test AND the system does a poor job of filtering out the few who are illfit for a management eduction AND the system is so irredeemably corrup that it hassles the honest more than it does its job THEN ditching the test is an option.
and to add:
The drivers test is supposed to filter out everyone except the few who are qualified enough to operate motor vehicles. Applicants do not have an incentive to rate themselves fairly.
The drivers test, when it is fair, does a good job of predicting safe driving performance on the road.
Now I hope you see why I still don’t see!
i think the whole point is lost here. If you are thinking about removing corruption then you may as well think about breathing without oxygen!
It’s not the system which is corrupt but the people, if at all you think about improving the system start by changing mindsets! If at all it’s handed over to an insurance company what makes anyone sure that the insurance company itself does not begin to accept money for small favours like easy clearance?? And this process(changing mindset) from the looks of it might very well start at home!
If you people are really bent upon improving the system then they might as well formulate an action plan in changing mindsets. Why did you pay Rs2500 for something you thought was “entitled to you” anyway? Is fighting for your basic rights become so difficult in this world?
I have held a drivers license in India and have got two driver’s licenses here in the US from North Carolina and Washington. I have never seen (or heard) about an instance of bribery at a US DMVs. They have exactly the same system as us - written test, driving test, learner’s license, points deducted for bad driving etc. and mandatory car insurance.
So I don’t think the issue is a flaw in the driver’s license system but a flaw in the menality and insufficient penalties for corruption per se.
And anybody who thinks that you don’t need driver’s licenses has obviously never driven on a US freeway at 85 mph (about 136 kmph)on a 8 lane highway. Believe me you don’t want people on the road who don’t know how to react in a split second and know what their car can and cannot do at those speeds. Driving through Atlanta I have see a 50 car pile up happen just behind me because some damn fool was doing 80 mph and decided to suddenly step on the brakes - if you want to know what this looks like watch the Matrix highway chase scene. THe reason this happens so infrequently is becuase people are trained and licensed.
I agree you probably don’t need a license to putter around Bandra at 10 kmph in a Maruti 800.
GK,
People have got shot for trying to tell the PM about corruption. Yes it is difficult to reform the system.
CK,
All that you are proving is that you need to learn to drive to drive, not that you need a license to drive.
Yes people have been shot, but unless people make some kind of action group it doesn’t make sense. Recently i came across liberalsindia.com; while i had no particular interest in politics, i thought perhaps if i could join some organization maybe i could work towards something better. It seemed for a while that i have found what i had been searching for, Now if they are going to remain contend with discussion am not so sure!
If we are going to argue over merits and demerits of a particular system and even go to the extent of suggesting an alternative one then we might as well work towards promoting what we perceive to be right system. Otherwise it remains just what the politicians are used to, a charade!
Am not against fruitful discussion, just that if we are to think about improve upon something in ‘existence’ them we might as well ‘do’ something about it. :/
digdug & jivha, here is a simple reason about why the CAT analogy is flawed here. Even if we assume it to be THE most corrupt entrance exam in the world.
The keyword is ENTRANCE. 1 lakh people apply, but no matter how good anyone performs, only 1 thousand people get selected. In the case od a driving test however, if everyone performs well, everyone gets a license.
CAT is a selection, driving test is a rejection.
Having debunked the CAT analogy, let me disagree with Ravikiran now. :)
People aren’t stupid? This is something that can neither be proved nor denied. A person who is stupid enough to take drugs will be stupid enough to drive on the streets without knowing how to drive. Yet, I support legalising drugs, but not your idea. Why? Becuase a drug addict does harm to his own self. It is his body, let him screw it up if he wants, who am I to stop him? But when you let a guy drive without the test, you are jeopardising the lives and properties of other people on the street. Even if we accept your premise that the number of accidents won’t increase, I would sleep easier if such accidents were the results of the flawed implementation of the current system, rather than the results of the correct implementation of a flawed system.
Gaurav, thanks for debunking the CAT analogy. That was getting tiresome.
As for your disagreement with me, my choice is a pragmatic one, not a philosophical one. I do not question the government’s *powers* to license me. I am only saying that it is not a good idea to do so. Let me explain.
I know that the traffic police are corrupt too. I don’t like it, but I am not out to abolish traffic policing. That is because drivers don’t like paying a bribe just as they don’t like paying a fine. So either way they have an incentive to keep on the right side of the law. In this case a flawed system is better than no system.
On the other hand, if the traffic police were so corrupt that whether you violate the rules or not has nothing at all to do with whether they catch you or not, then I would do some serious rethinking of the system. But even then I would not abolish it.
On the third hand, there is a pragmatic case for abolishing licensing which is:
1) Even without it, drivers have the incentive to learn to drive.
2) Catching those few who do not learn properly and/or those who are careless is a real alternative.
3) Even when it is done properly, the driving test does not ensure that you are a good driver.
(I did not mention another embarrassing personal detail. I had already applied and got a license 3 years back in Chennai. That time I had actually taken the test and cleared it. I later lost the license. The point is, even though I had cleared the test, my driving skills left a lot to be desired. If I had driven on a high-traffic Mumbai city road, I would certainly have killed some people. I needed a lot more practice before I could say that I am a fairly competent driver. I guess my experience is quite typical. Every learner I’ve seen so far has to take a lot more lessons than what is prescribed. So the testing has to be a lot more stringent. But making the testing more stringent will only make it more corrupt.)
4) The RTO is irredeemably corrupt.
All I am saying is that instead of trying to reform two broken systems - RTO and traffic police, we can abolish one and concentrate on the other.
gaurav, A test classifies test takers into 2 mutually exclusive sets: those selected and those rejected.
Is something wrong if I call CAT a rejection, and driving test a selection process?
Anyway, I’ll quit posting anymore comments since ravi himself no longer seems interested.
You mean posting a 10 paragraph comment is an indication of my loss of interest? I had just got tired. I am still interested.
As for the CAT, the difference is that there is a limited number of seats which we have to give out. There is no limit in the driving license test.
Just use my analogy - suppose that we have a nationwide literacy test for for college students. How would the test be different from the CAT? Apart from the differences in the content of the test of course.
Ravikiran - Can you please let me know whether you know of any system in any country where a model like what you have proposed is working?
ravi, good to know you are still interested. This has been quite a stimulating experience for me and in a certain way I should thank you I guess. Well, I thought you lost interest cos you said it’s getting tiresome. Anyway, Let me begin by putting things in perspective(this might get long!).
sifting through your post and all the comments, I see two distinct issues.
the FIRST issue ofcourse, is opinion regarding your suggestion. Lots of people pitched in with their opinions and each of them is right in a certain way. I strongly believe no single opinion is exclusively right. Not just in this case, but as a general rule. I think opinions lack or gain in strength sheerly on the basis of their perspectives. Shollow perspectives lead to weak opinion and better perspectives lead to stronger. And when I consider an opinion weak it’s my responsibility to point out the shollowness of the perspective. I had to say all this ’cause I thought we lost sight of the essence of having a discussion in our urge to get polemical and I’m partly guilty of it too. With that cleared, let me restate your opinion the way I understand it.
1.) You believe that the purpose of a driving test “is to ensure that those who clear it are safe and competent drivers” and since the system is “irredeemably corrupt” and since “people have a incentive to learn safe driving” we can safely do away with the driving test.
2.) “replace the driving license with a certificate from the insurance company” since the “insurance company has an incentive to make sure that you drive properly” it is bound to do a better job than the RTO which ofcourse lacks any significant incentive to do its job.
In response my opinion was:
1.) I see the driving test as a means “of bringing a level of objectivity to what can be deemed ‘trained’” and since trained drivers are more apt to be safe and competent drivers, I agree with you here(but you must note the difference in opinion here). I also agree with your other two propositions (to a certain degree, in the case of the 2nd and completely in the 3rd). But since, I put greater trust in the effectiveness of an ‘objective’ measure than a ’subjective’ measure even when it is driven by self-interest, I’m against doing away with the driving test.
2.) I agree with you here that a private entity motivated by self-interest is more likely to perform a better job. But I’m apprehensive about concentrating power that’s previously diffused, more so when it is public utility related and in india!
The SECOND issue is the real fun issue. Its where we can really argue and its where one of us can be exclusively right! I first thought jivha’s analogy was more akin to what I call a literary analogy and it was too, I think!…he was using it only to illustrate his opinion.
Anyway, you treated it as what I call a logical analogy and I did so too for our argument’s sake.
I’ll be relying on this link for my argument:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html
Though I’m sure you are aware of this just for clarities purpose let me quote this: “…but ‘False Analogy’, its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity.”
I only meant to argue that the dissimilarities you pointed out are really similarities in the context of this case! You listed out the clauses that an analogy needs to fulfil in this context and I thought CAT(making the assumptions jivha made) satisfies those. And gaurav, yes those are differences but I don’t see their purpose in this context and if you did try to demonstrate their purpose too, sorry I missed it.
Swami, so what if no country has a system similar to what Ravi is proposing? It simply means that Ravi’s proposal is unique. Imagine if we had to do something that was always done by someone else before.
I wonder if this question was put to a certain Mr. Gandhi. “Do you know of any system in any country where non-violence was used to overthrow a colonial power?” The answer (before 1947) would have been “No.” Luckily that did not stop M K Gandhi.
Ravi - Just want to know if your idea is like Gandhi’s - first of its kind. Thats all.
Yazad - you asked me so what? The answer is nothing at all. I just want to know whether the model he is proposing has worked anywhere before.
WTF, I dont have the time to read through these comments. All I wanted to mention was that I not only took a test, I even flunked it! My examiner was very straight-forward (which I appreciated) but also terribly grouchy and flunked me on a technicality (which I didnt). I’m only one of 2 people I know who’s flunked a driver’s test.