Another person killed by an elderly driver

No problem with testing the elderly. Well, except for me.

That said, the 20 somethings --as a demographic ---are a bigger safety threat that seniors.

That, as Pastor would say, is a FACT.

 

Did you not read the last sentence?

"It's not like there aren't crappy 30-year-old drivers. And it's not like people don't forget certain rules of the road over time."

That's why. The crappy 30-year-old driver who barely passed the test when he was 16, gets retested at 30 and fails and is off the road until he improves and retakes and passes the test. Thus the road is safer for everyone else with this crappy driver off it. What's wrong with that? If you're a good driver, you'll pass and you have nothing to worry about.

Just because you do it every day doesn't mean you're good at it and know all the rules. Doctors and umpires and airline pilots undergo constant training, yearly, monthly, even though they do their jobs daily. It's called keeping your skills sharp. That's what re-testing would do -- make sure your skills stay sharp, and if they don't, it takes you off the road until you improve.

 

My grandmother also has macular degeneration, and was scheduled to lose her driver's license when it expired later this year. However, her eye doctor recently cleared her to continue driving. Apparently that means she doesn't have to take the eye test at the DMV in the fall.

While I am thankful my mom won't have to drive her everywhere, I fear for anyone on the road while my grandmother is out running errands. However, my now-dead grandfather had more than his share of car accidents with no eye problems, and long before he would have been considered "elderly."

Either one would likely have passed a test on the rules of the road, and quite possibly a road test as well. That doesn't mean I want to be a passenger in their cars.

 

Part of the problem is that there is no infastructure in place for older people to get around to the stores, medical appointments. If I had the money, get a couple of transpo buses and use it to shuttle old folks around (for a small fee). With the booomers exploding in coming years, its a win-win.

Oh, and I am absolutely for testing everytime you go in for a license renewal (every 5-6 years or so). I see so many bad drivers, its nuts.

 

A friend of my late grandmother's once was driving into his 90s. He'd just gotten his license renewed when he was about 92 or 93 and his son asked to see it. His son took it, then tore it up, saying he was too old to drive.

The next day, the old man died.

I'd ridden in the car with the old man while he was driving. He was fine to drive as far as I was concerned.

 

I want to die peacefully in my sleep at age 87 like my grandfather.

Not screaming in abject terror like the passengers on the school bus he was driving.

 

This is the best, fairest post of this thread.

The slowdown of reaction time -- not necessarily dementia issues, because, let's face it, there's lots of mindless driving that goes on, and it can be done, usually without incident -- is the more prevalent, problem-causing loss among older drivers.

They realize this, too. I'm convinced that's why they generally slow down, sometimes dangerously so, on the highway. Theoretically, it's to give themselves more time to react if/when needed.

But, let's all admit it: This is one of those issues that is very easy to pontificate about -- as long as you're not the one who's in the situation, and about to lose your transportation, and consequently, probably your personal routines and activities that make your everyday life meaningful, not to mention your independence, your freedom and your sense of adult-ness.


The idea of re-testing everyone, periodically, with more frequency for younger and older drivers, is a good one.

 

When the stupid things other people are doing in their cars, like yakking on cell phones, and texting, to name a few - quit leading to accidents that kill and maim other people. But as long as they are legal and tolerated, yakking on your cell phone and texting will lead to accidents and deaths and injuries.

Drinking and driving used to be tolerated, even encouraged by the lax laws of some states. Then came MADD and government action that started us down the "slippery slope" of tougher laws against inpaired drivers. Now fewer people are killed by DUII drivers and the roads are safer. That's a good result, no?

Driving is not a right. Everyone over 70 should be tested at least every other year. So what if they scream "age discrimination." So is a drinking age of 21, or a minimum driving age of 15 or 16. They are laws for the good of the majority. There was a death in my state last week when some 84-year-old guy drove the wrong way on the freeway and killed someone in a head-on.

Everyone's actions have consequences for other people, a concept you seem to have completely disregarded in your tiresome "get the government off my back" rants.

 

where do you live? There are plenty of shuttle services in my area for the elderly......plus, there's always taxi's.

And testing everyone is a ridiculous idea. The safest drivers are between 30 and 60, why force them to re-test? Now, if a 35 yr. old has a bad driving history, sure, force him to pass a test.

 

Testing everybody might be the only way to get any sort of testing passed though, Ashy.

That said, I'd probably fail it (I hate driving and am really scared at intersections after a horrendous accident in my 20s), so whoever's got that shuttle feel free to stop at my place!

 

SC....if politicians weren't such cowards it would pass easily, unfortunately they're terrified of the AARP.