|
|
|
|
WANT TO SUBMIT
A COMMENT?
Go to FAQ #5 for instructions
|
Click on "Add Reply" to post your comment
Topic is locked
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
wreiter
Posts:6
 |
| 10/09/2012 12:51 PM |
|
Proposed amendments to § 7-205 are the result of a series of collaborative meetings with defensive driving school owners, judges, the Defensive Driving Board’s Rules Subcommittee, and the Defensive Driving Board. The proposed amendments to § 7-205 include:
• Establishment of certification and curriculum requirements for a teenage driver school – this amendment was suggested by Judge Anne Segal, Justice of the Peace in Pima County
• Clarification of student identification requirements for internet schools
• Establishment of factors for judges to consider when asked to grant a waiver to a police officer applying for certification as a defensive driving instructor – this amendment was suggested by Judge Norman Davis, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in Maricopa County
• Clarification on how school and other fees can be presented on a defensive driving school’s website
• Clarification on advertising restrictions including the use of the Arizona Supreme Court logo
• An increase in the reinstatement application fee from $100 to $1,000
The proposal will also delete the requirement that an instructor teach a minimum number of classes during a certification renewal cycle. With the increasing use of on-line classes, there are fewer opportunities for an instructor to teach – particularly in rural areas – and meet this requirement. Additionally, the fee distinction regarding the length of time from initial certification to renewal will be deleted in order to simplify initial certifications.
For more information about this proposal, please contact: Anne Hunter, Certification and Licensing Compliance Unit Manager, at(602)452-3415, ahunter@courts.az.gov
The deadline for public comment on this proposal is November 9, 2012. |
Attachment: 7205PubComVersOct2012.pdf
Attachment: 7205PubComVersOct2012.doc
|
|
|
|
eyad
Posts:1
|
| 10/10/2012 2:56 PM |
|
1. We support the establishment of certification and curriculum requirements for teen driver schools/courses. This will follow the precedent set by many other states that utilize driver education as one stage in a graduated licensing system.
2. We feel the current student identification requirements are sufficient and should not be changed.
3. We'd like clarification regarding police offers serving as defensive driving instructors. Are police officers allowed to have both jobs simultaneously? It seems like a large potential conflict of interest.
4. We store court fees in a master file that is easily editable and is used as part of a fee calculator on our website. The defendant can calculate his/her total cost to attend simply by selecting a county name and a court name. Storing the fees this way ensures accuracy because edits to the master file change the court fee as it is displayed everywhere on our website, ensuring that the entire web site displays the accurate court fee. Static HTML pages cannot have this functionality and we want to be able to continue operating this way as it is efficient and accurate.
5. We approve of any proposal to prevent defensive driving schools from using the Supreme Court's logo in any advertisement. Such use illegitimately implies that the court endorses a particular commercial service.
6. The proposed increase in the reinstatement fee from $100 to $1000 seems excessively steep. It may be necessary of prudent to increase this fee but not 10x. |
|
|
|
|
azdrv
Posts:2
|
| 10/17/2012 9:56 AM |
|
It is my belief that the teenage driver school should not be limited to only the classroom. Most States that offer a specific course for younger drivers offers an online delivery method as well.
Young people are comfortable in an online environment and don't feel "peer pressure" when asking questions or clarification on items. The online environment also offers the same curriculum each time and the class experience does not depend on whether the individual teaching the class is a good instructor or a bad one.
In addition to these points, online testing ensures retention of course materials since the users must review the curriculum and then answer questions about what they learned.
Some people prefer the classroom setting, but others, especially teens would prefer an online program |
|
|
|
|
azdrv
Posts:2
|
| 10/17/2012 10:48 AM |
|
The proposed amendments are vague and it seems like they are being rushed and not well thought out. Why create a new level of classes, fees and regulation? Why not incorporate more teen specific items to the existing defensive driving curriculum?
1. What is the proposed teen driver class going to be used for? Is it for teens trying to get a license, or teens with tickets?
2. If it's for tickets, when would a teen driver be ordered to take this class?
3. Is this for any teen driver that gets a ticket? What is the age range?
4. Does the teen have a choice between taking a regular defensive driving school or the teen school?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click on "Add Reply" to post your comment
Topic is locked |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DotNetNuke® is copyright 2002-2013 by Perpetual Motion Interactive Systems Inc. |
|