Lorne Gunter‘s article in Sunday’s Edmonton Journal caused me reflect on the concepts presented in Nudges.
To adapt their thoughts, the Alberta Government could have chosen a nudging vs. Regulation strategy. As a nudge, we could establish 2 classes for the advanced driver’s test that is now required of new drivers. The ‘normal’ advanced test and the ‘distracted’ test. For the distracted test, the driver would be handed 3 to 5 random short printed messages during the test — requiring a correct answer about rules of the road. The driver would also receive 3 to 5 cell phone calls with the same question/answer format. A pass mark would be set for the questions while the road test would be done as normal — except the driver would be performing it while occasionally distracted.
We thereby protect Mr. Gunter’s interest in liberty — people can still choose to have a license that permits them to drive while distracted. But, they have demonstrated they are skilled in doing this. Insurance companies could potentially offer different insurance policies to holders of distracted vs. regular licenses. We might learn that holders of these licenses are actually better drivers and deserve lower rates. And, as now, individuals could choose whether to stay with the initial license they get, the advanced license or the distracted advanced license. My son, for example, has not done the advanced test — he doesn’t want to spend the money on the exam and he doesn’t find the restrictions inhibit him.
The debate on licenses is likely done in Alberta but this ‘nudge’ concept is really valuable — preserving choice and liberty for individuals in manners that encourage good choices — choices that appropriately reflect individual and societal risks and costs.