Too Old To Drive

[nissangirl74]

We've all said it. OLD PEOPLE CAN"T FREAKING DRIVE!!!! We've been stuck behind a little old lady going 20 mph in a 55 or we've cringed watching an older guy trying to park his big Grand Marquis in a tight parking space. My father was always a really good driver until one day in his late 80s he had some sort of mental break (we think it was a stroke) and took off down the four lane, driving quite confidently IN THE WRONG DIRECTION! Thank God it wasn't rush hour and no one was hurt. He didn't remember the incident at all and was later horrified to learn what he had done and that he had put others in danger. He never drove another day of his life. My mother was 86 and had an accident not far from our home. A young girl ran a light and t-boned her. Although the police officer was quite adamant that the wreck was the young girl's fault, my mother was paranoid that the insurance company would find a way to pin it on her because she was old and she said that old people always got the blame in accidents. Although my parents were almost the same age when their accidents happened, the circumstances were very different. My dad was CLEARLY at fault, and my mother wasn't.

So, is age the defining unit of measure we use to determine a person's ability to drive safely? If not, what is? Do you believe in re-testing "ever-so-many-years" in order to be able to keep your license to drive? Do you think the standards should be the same across the board or do you think that the older you get, the harder the test should be?

Your thoughts?

[rwlesher]

u got all those cars

[gwoods]

When your over a certain age.... (70 or 75 are my guesses at an appropriate age)

Your driving should be evaluated when,

#1> you get into an accident your fault or not
#2> you get a ticket
#3> a officer observes you driving in a way that appears to be a danger, enough so to make the officer stop you

Otherwise, its a family choice. We took away Grandpa's keys at 90, he lived to be 98. His mind started to get a little less sharp and we wanted to protect him physically and financially. It was a family decision that he had a part in.

[themadscientist]

People should have to take a road test every two years regardless of age. Think of how many bad habits might be curtailed if people had to prove they could drive on a regular basis. I am also for a tiered licensing structure where you have to demonstrate you can handle a certain level of vehicle mass and power before you can operate one.

[Jesda]

I think it would be fair to test all drivers every 10 years. That would alleviate the AARP's concerns over age discrimination.

My BMW was t-boned in 2008 by a woman in her late 80s who ran a red light when she genuinely believed it was green. However, I've seen several people blow through that intersection who were about my age (30s).

http://chesterfield.patch.com/articles/ ... o-10884463



http://www.qualityplanning.com/qpc_reso ... rivers.htm

[Bubba1]

Bex, its true that 80+ yr old drivers are more dangerous as a group than 40 yr olds, but teenaged male drivers are even worse, so I'm curious why there isn't equal outrage to postpone male driving privileges until age 21.

That said, with the baby boom generation aging, there will soon more octogenarian drivers than ever, which could make US roads even more dangerous. I think Jesda's idea of testing everyone every 10 years is an interesting one. It doesn't discriminate against the single largest voting block. The downside I see, is that if we did test everyone, I suspect the vast majority the folks that flunk won't be elderly. so I'm not sure it would eliminate the old biddies in their Cadillacs/Buicks crawling in front of you..

Interesting topic.

[fluffybunny]

Well, even if you do make it fair by testing everyone. There are still ways to target and therefore curtail the number of older generation drivers. Simply add a reaction speed portion to the test.

[Bubba1]

Well, even if you do make it fair by testing everyone. There are still ways to target and therefore curtail the number of older generation drivers. Simply add a reaction speed portion to the test.

The problem is reaction speed does not determine a good driver. One would think a teenaged male would have good reaction speeds, yet as a group, they are considered among the worst drivers.

And since the AARP is such an influential voting block, I doubt legislaters would be inspired to do anything potentially negative toward older drivers. Sorry everybody, just gotta be more patient with those Buick drivers. They ain't going away any time soon.

[skydragoness]

Well, I'm not going to address the obvious elephant in the room of how s*** our driving education programs are to begin with; but I'm in agreement with Jesda.
Testing every 10 years.. for EVERYONE.

My 89 yr old grandmother recently got into a collision. She t-boned a man in a round-about type intersection at night. She's not supposed to drive at night due to cataract surgery years ago. I used to live with her 2 or so years ago, and whenever she needed something at night, she'd send me out in her car or have me drive her to where she needed to go. She had the faculties to know better. Now she's been mentally declining since she moved back to KY last summer to be closer to my uncle. As far as the collision, she totaled her Buick LeSabre and the man she hit broke a leg or something serious. She and her friend were fine. She asked why she was at the hospital later that night. I'm really disturbed that it took another collision, instead of her obvious mental decline for my uncle and the rest of my dad's family to realize she's not fit to drive. I feel like her keys should have been taken away once she moved closer to home.

[jdansmith]

75 ish, a driving simulator used to gauge daytime vs night time sounds reasonable to me.

[Oatmealman]

anything past 70 every 2 years.I never had an accident that was my fault from 16.I was t-boned by an elderly gentleman running 60 in a 45 and ran a redlight and totaled my brand f*** new car on christmas morning.I had that car for 2 days.

[Looneybomber]

Young folks are bad drivers because they're reckless.
Old folks are bad drivers because they're oblivious.

Insurance companies know this, which is why up until you're 25, insurance is high and once you go over 70, rates begin to increase. Simple statistics.

Yes, we need more frequent and more stringent driving tests. Every time you renew your license, you should have to take a driving test.

[alms24sebring]

This is screaming South Park. This old 80+ woman almost backed into a sexy 68 Camaro at our shop trying to turn around in the parking lot. I had to run out there and stop her. She was literally a fingers width away. They heavy scrapes and bent bumpers on all 4 corners told me something important right away...

[gwoods]

People should have to take a road test every two years regardless of age. Think of how many bad habits might be curtailed if people had to prove they could drive on a regular basis.

This would have no affect on me

[nissangirl74]

u got all those cars

Yes, and more.



I'm all about frequent testing for drivers over 70. In Arizona, your license is good for THIRTY years. That's insanity (and a huge loss in revenue, if you ask me).

[Bubba1]

I'm all about frequent testing for drivers over 70. In Arizona, your license is good for THIRTY years. That's insanity (and a huge loss in revenue, if you ask me).

Is that for just the license renewal or do you have to be retested after 30 years?

I doubt most younger folks would object to targeted frequent testing after age 70 until they reach age 70. that's when it'll be viewed as unfair and labelled discrimination.

[nissangirl74]

That's just for license renewal. You don't have to re-take the driving portion of the test but you do have to have your vision re-tested. That's how most people (of age) fail. And yes, they drove themselves to the DMV for their renewal.

[nissangirl74]

Loss of revenue numbers:

There are 3,819,425 licensed drivers in Arizona. IF we were all born here and we got our license at 16, 46, and 76, at $20 per license renewal fee, that's $229,165,500. Most of us were not born here so that number is inflated.

IF those same drivers were required to renew every 5 years (16, 21, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, 51, 56, 61, 66, 71, 76, 81, 86), that revenue would skyrocket to $1,145,827,500. Granted, not everyone lives to be 86, and not everyone who does will be bale to renew their license, but still. That's a staggering amount of income to just leave untapped, IMO.