I don’t know how much of it is related to the ability to get around. I live in NYC, a place where many people do not own cars or even have licenses. Elderly people are still reluctant to stop driving. My grandfather lived in NYC, spent most of his time at a senior citizen’s center that was four blocks from his home (which he drove to), had access to plenty of public transportation, rarely went anywhere that would cost more than $5 by cab , lived in the same house as my mother and three grandchildren and lived within 10 minutes of his two sons and eight more grandchildren, all of whom were willing to drive him anywhere. Still wouldn’t stop driving until that last accident when he put a motorcyclist in the hospital for a year. Didn’t want to stop driving even then- said it was the other guy’s fault even though Grandpa had the stop sign and neither saw nor heard the motorcycle. Pretty clearly had little to do with his ability to get around, and more to do with his inability or refusal to recognize that he was no longer a safe driver.
Why not retest everyone periodically? I think every five years is reasonable, every 10 is stretching it.
I’d go for it, even if I didn’t pass!
Well, I for one am all for treating all age groups equally. Demonstrate that you are unsafe (DUI, accidents, tickets, fail your vision, written or driving test) and treat you as an individual and yank your license accordingly. Diagnosed with alzheimers? Lose your license! However, one wreckless teenager does not represent ALL and one incompetent senior does not represent ALL.
Which is sorta how it already is, right? I’m certain that every state has some kind of point system by which you will lose your license after you’ve demonstrated that that needs to happen. I have always been unnerved by pre-emtive “punishments” for something you haven’t done yet and indeed may never do. We’d all be safer if we drivers were psychologically tested for “road rage” to keep our drving privilege, but no one would seriously suggest that. Or alcoholism, or a dare-devil personality, or chronic sleep deprivation, but no one would seriously suggest those things either. For the record, I’m still a couple of decades away from the age group in question, but I know for a fact that I’ll be there someday and so will all of you. Grandma’s reflexes are somewhat slower? So are yours when you’re tired or distracted, and it doesn’t matter how good they are if your going 90 miles an hour and weaving in and out of traffic or driving after you’ve had a few beers. If you’re gonna pick on grandma, pick on everyone. We all deserve it sometimes for one reason or another.
Notice the steep learning curve, as the fatality rate per miles driven at age 17 is less than half of that at age 16. In California new teenage drivers have severe restrictions. They can’t drive at night by themselves for 6 months (might be a year now) and cannot have passengers under 21 in the car with them without an adult. I suppose this was so easy to pass because 16 year-olds don’t vote.
We need tests and restrictions on both ends of the curve, but it seems we only get them at the young end. And young drivers get better, while old drivers get worse.
Sure. And when I am there, I’m pretty sure that I’ll be much more dangerous behind the wheel than I am today. If I’m not a safe driver, I don’t expect I’ll be able to drive then.
That’s not much consolation. I can get some rest, slow down to the speed limit, or sober up, but Grandma can’t get any younger. She’ll be a hazard even if she’s sober as a courthouse preacher on Teetotal Day, but just think of the hazard she’ll be if she is tired, distracted, or has had a few beers!
Hey, I agree in principle. I’m probably the SDMB’s biggest defender of the idea that we should treat people as individuals, regardless of age. But as long as we deny driver’s licenses to teenagers because of their presumed age-related deficiencies, it’s simply irrational not to do the same for elderly drivers.
Mr2001: And yet, some people have no problem denying that same [licensed-driver] status to teenagers, as if they don’t need a way to get anywhere. Funny how the ability to drive becomes a vital necessity when the (potentially dangerous) drivers in question are allowed to vote, eh?
In the first place, the transportation needs of other non-drivers besides the elderly are all the more reason that we need to have a better selection of transportation alternatives.
In the second place, as far as I’m aware, the minimum age for getting a learner’s permit in most states is no more than 16, and in some states it’s as low as 15 or even 14. Is anybody really advocating not issuing licenses to those under 20? I don’t think that will ever fly.
In the third place—even acknowledging that teenagers’ transportation needs are important—I think there’s a big difference between denying driving privileges to minors, most of whom are still supported by and under the authority of their parents, and denying the same privileges to people who have been living as independent adults for many decades.
Mind you, I’m not saying that the latter is necessarily a bad idea; I agree that older drivers who have significantly deteriorated driving competence are indeed a serious safety hazard. But understandably, it tends to hit people much harder when they lose independence that they’ve relied on for decades than when they just have to wait a year or two longer in their teen years to achieve that independence in the first place. (It just seems harder to bear when you’re a teenager because everything seems harder to bear when you’re a teenager. :))
Agreed.
True, not all teenagers are affected. But it’s certainly the policy of every state I know of not to allow anyone under 16 to even apply for a driver’s license, and in some places, those under 18 can only receive restricted licenses.
Well, it’s subjective in both cases. I don’t think it’s fair to discount the impact on young drivers, if you’re still going to count the impact on elderly drivers. I mean, you could just as easily say that it only seems harder to bear when you’ve been driving for 60 years because the loss of anything is harder to bear when you’ve had it all your life.