Maybe I’m not understanding the idea - if you’re saying we should punish people for demonstrated unsafe behavior (e.g seatbelt laws) then I agree, but that’s not really related to licensing requirements. Or is the idea that you’d just not issue licenses to people who are generally risk-seeking? If so, that doesn’t seem like something you could assess without a socially unconscionable false positive rate (and probably wouldn’t be very effective in changing cultural norms IMO.) Or something else?
Sorry if I'm not expressing myself well -- I was trying to draw a comparison between seatbelt laws (which, when introduced, were broadly griped about by drivers) and stronger licensing requirements (which, if introduced, will no doubt similarly be griped about).
I don't think there's a good (fair) way to devise a test for whether people will be risk seeking, in the same way that seatbelt laws can't stop scofflaws from not wearing their seatbelts. Instead, the purpose of these kinds of laws/regulations is to change the cultural "baseline" around safe behavior: wearing a seatbelt is the law, and most people do it by default now. Similarly, instituting a more intensive licensing regime (where people have to demonstrate not just driving ability but proficiency in safe driving) can change the cultural baseline around how drivers behave on our streets, our highways, etc.
In other words: let's keep licensing people, but make getting a drivers' license "intense" the way it is in much of Europe, rather than taking it for granted as a part of being an American adolescent. I think that can go a long way in terms of encouraging a more serious treatment of the responsibility that comes with driving, and which is currently lacking on American roads.
(And of course we should induce behavior away from driving to begin with, reconfigure our cities to favor pedestrians and cyclists, fund mass transit, etc.)
> instituting a more intensive licensing regime (where people have to demonstrate not just driving ability but proficiency in safe driving) can change the cultural baseline around how drivers behave on our streets, our highways, etc.
As I mentioned in my original post, the evidence that implementing stricter licensing requirements improves driver accident rates is mixed (really, mostly negative but not exclusively.) Personally, it seems much harder to impact broad cultural norms compared to a specific driver’s behavior, so I consider that to be pretty strong evidence against things working as stated. The parallel to seatbelt laws also seems dubious because a) it’s not really clear to me that seatbelt laws are the specific reason for the cultural shift and b) they were accompanied by enforcement, which tends to be a much stronger way to change behavior. A more analogues policy in my mind would be one that punishes drivers for a specific, dangerous, behavior - e.g. DUI laws, which have a lot of evidence of working. But that’s a completely different type of policy from what you’re suggesting.
That said, it’s not totally implausible that stricter licensing could improve things - part of the reason it gets brought up a lot is that people find it very intuitive. But in practice it doesn’t actually seem to work that way.
I don’t think stricter licensing requirements drove changes in attitudes towards seatbelts or airbags.