“82 year olds shouldn’t be driving”. — THIS one shouldn’t have been; some people enter their90s with sight, hearing and reflexes intact.
Personally, I think that starting at 70, drivers should have to take the written test and screening every 5 years. If they fail to pass it they have to re-try until they do pass, and then take the practical exam again.
It should be gradual. Every 10 years starting at 40, every 5 years starting at 60, every 2 years starting at 70, every year starting at 80, and every 6 months starting at 90.
On the one hand, my dad literally drove right up to the day he died, and he shouldn’t have been driving for at least the last 10 years of his life. He drove straight into a light post in a parking lot because, “the sun was in his eyes”. It was dramatically sad, because he used to be the best driver around. However he didn’t have the capacity to face his growing limitations.
On the other hand, I’ve been rear-ended more than is reasonable (at least 30 times - I’ve lost count), and I’ve never been hit by anyone older than 60. There are plenty of people middle-aged and younger who shouldn’t be driving.
Maybe everyone should be required to be retested every five years.
Same. When i did my licence, i was like: never again. Now when j see people just yolo everywhere on the road i would verg much love to do a test annually if i knew other people have to do so as well
Instead you get people merging early, which results in some guy in his beamer speeding down thelane to merge in at the end, butthe guy in the jacked up GMC pulls out part way down the line to block him and the entire traffic pattern falls to pieces. Forcing an early merge free for all and creating a snake.
A few weeks back I saw the initial incident that triggered the zipper snake and it was still going strong 2 hours later on my way back, but had moved a mile or so up the highway.
Non-driving octogenarians have no other good means of transportation outside of Manhattan. It’s like NYC has decent pedestrian travel and everywhere else is … less.
The amount of bad that comes with allowing geriatric patients to drive far outweighs the good that comes from allowing 1% of competent seniors to drive.
How so? What percentage of serious accidents are caused by “geriatric patients”? Are they the same group as seniors (people over 64)? If not, should we maybe find a way to not lump them together?
The truth is, most serious vehicle incidents are caused by men between the age of 16 and 26.
Maybe we shouldn’t allow THAT age range to drive, despite all the competent drivers in that group?
The point being 70 is way too late to test, and every five years is too infrequently…
Honestly everyone taking it every five years might be ok from 16 to like 50? But not even just from age, lots of shit can happen before 70.
Once someone hits 60, it’s time for annual certification.
That’s just how aging works. And it’s certainly how accident mitigation works, you don’t wait till everyone is effected at some extent, you start *at least before the majority are statistically effected. That way you identify people as they lose their abilities rather than hoping they make it another five years without an incident serious enough to draw attention to
And that’s not even getting into how this kind of testing benefits the elderly population by early identification and then early treatments of conditions.
With people living longer and longer, this will become a bigger problem.
“82 year olds shouldn’t be driving”. — THIS one shouldn’t have been; some people enter their90s with sight, hearing and reflexes intact.
Personally, I think that starting at 70, drivers should have to take the written test and screening every 5 years. If they fail to pass it they have to re-try until they do pass, and then take the practical exam again.
Every year after 70, in that age bracket a decline happens way faster than 5 years.
5 years is too long, a lot can happen in that amount of time at that age. I would say 2 years
It should be gradual. Every 10 years starting at 40, every 5 years starting at 60, every 2 years starting at 70, every year starting at 80, and every 6 months starting at 90.
I’m of two minds.
On the one hand, my dad literally drove right up to the day he died, and he shouldn’t have been driving for at least the last 10 years of his life. He drove straight into a light post in a parking lot because, “the sun was in his eyes”. It was dramatically sad, because he used to be the best driver around. However he didn’t have the capacity to face his growing limitations.
On the other hand, I’ve been rear-ended more than is reasonable (at least 30 times - I’ve lost count), and I’ve never been hit by anyone older than 60. There are plenty of people middle-aged and younger who shouldn’t be driving.
Maybe everyone should be required to be retested every five years.
I would be perfectly happy renewing my license every year if I knew people understood how to zipper merge.
Same. When i did my licence, i was like: never again. Now when j see people just yolo everywhere on the road i would verg much love to do a test annually if i knew other people have to do so as well
I’d extend that to “…and did it.”
Instead you get people merging early, which results in some guy in his beamer speeding down thelane to merge in at the end, butthe guy in the jacked up GMC pulls out part way down the line to block him and the entire traffic pattern falls to pieces. Forcing an early merge free for all and creating a snake.
And then you have people slamming down to 20mph on the highway hours later for no discernible reason.
I literally watched it happen today.
A few weeks back I saw the initial incident that triggered the zipper snake and it was still going strong 2 hours later on my way back, but had moved a mile or so up the highway.
Non-driving octogenarians have no other good means of transportation outside of Manhattan. It’s like NYC has decent pedestrian travel and everywhere else is … less.
The amount of bad that comes with allowing geriatric patients to drive far outweighs the good that comes from allowing 1% of competent seniors to drive.
How so? What percentage of serious accidents are caused by “geriatric patients”? Are they the same group as seniors (people over 64)? If not, should we maybe find a way to not lump them together?
The truth is, most serious vehicle incidents are caused by men between the age of 16 and 26.
Maybe we shouldn’t allow THAT age range to drive, despite all the competent drivers in that group?
My intuition suggests seniors aren’t a greater statistic because they don’t commute for work or school and drive fewer overall mileage.
Lol
You have no idea how these thing progress bud, but thanks for the uninformed opinion
It’s a compromise; it’s better than the current situation, and better than removing the elderly’s ability to be mobile in a vehicle-centric society.
The point being 70 is way too late to test, and every five years is too infrequently…
Honestly everyone taking it every five years might be ok from 16 to like 50? But not even just from age, lots of shit can happen before 70.
Once someone hits 60, it’s time for annual certification.
That’s just how aging works. And it’s certainly how accident mitigation works, you don’t wait till everyone is effected at some extent, you start *at least before the majority are statistically effected. That way you identify people as they lose their abilities rather than hoping they make it another five years without an incident serious enough to draw attention to
And that’s not even getting into how this kind of testing benefits the elderly population by early identification and then early treatments of conditions.
With people living longer and longer, this will become a bigger problem.