Actually I pulled out of my spot, went to the end of the row of parked cars, wanted to turn left, saw a car coming right, I went out before he was close and I didn’t see this car on the left until it nearly hit me, 2 more seconds of waiting and I would have been t-boned.
My reflexes and perception were temporarily weakened.
A bad example, it actually just makes me look like a dumbass
But point being is that your mind is not always 100%. My perception was slightly off at the time, because I was disorientated at having gone forward into the curb when I clearly remember puttiing it into reverse.
Lots of accidents happen this way, but on the poilice report I would have no chance of claiming temporary psychosis, it would just be labeled a dumbass move by a Mr. Macabresoul.
I disagree. There are plenty of elderly driving who should not be driving and who could easily be screened out by a test. My neighbor for one. She is practically blind and infirm but she continues to drive. Any test would deny her the license.
But he very well may NOT have been driving just fine. There are lots of elderly drivers in my neighborhood, and while most are quite competent, I still see almost every day those who appear confused or disoriented. Just because Mr. Weller was a beloved icon doesn’t mean he was capable of safely operating a vehicle. I’m not advocating changing the laws for ONE person, I’m basing it on statistics. As the L.A. Times article pointed out, those who oppose changing the law are (incorrectly in my opinion) using absolute numbers in their statistical analysis, rather than adjusting the data for the fact that young people drive many many more miles than elderly people. Once that data is properly adjusted, it becomes obvious that elderly drivers are a big problem. It’s not just this one case; this case just happened to bring the issue to the forefront, that’s all.
Why do you say it’s impossible to test? Drivers over age 75 are already required to renew in person and take a vision test; presumably so their renewals don’t just get “rubber-stamped”. Why couldn’t they simply require a driving test at that time? I’m sure some incompetent drivers still might fall through the cracks, but how exactly would it HURT to have the test?
My point before was that if you think it’s unfair to single out a particular age-group, then how is it fair to single out drivers under 18 for stricter requirements? Obviously, such things are not unfair in principle, so what’s wrong with requiring a road test over, say, age 75?
Right, that’s kinda my point. Not every young driver is immature and engages in risky behavior, any more than all old drivers are confused and slow. I think both are reasonably difficult to test for.
Banning drivers over 80 seems draconian to me, too, but so do the driving restriction measures aimed at younger people.
I have no idea what current California law says. It always used to be 15 1/2 in my state. There have been various motions around to country to raise the driving age to 18, or prohibt passengers until age 20, or prohibit night driving for those under 18. As opposed to ability-based procedures, as seem to be put forth for oldsters, they seem to be blanket restrictions.
Interesting to see how respondents are defining restrictions to be placed on the “elderly”. For some, it’s drivers over 80. Another wants to start at 60. I get the feeling that where one draws the line is based in part on how many years till one gets to it.
Here are statistics on fatalities and injury rates by age group. You’ll notice that drivers aged 55-64 are one of the safest groups, and that the fatality rate doesn’t really begin to climb until after age 75 (and is still better than among drivers in their 20s or younger).
My perception is that, with the exception of horrific accidents which make the national news every now and again, “old age”-related accidents are far more typically of the minor fender-bender type than involve high-speed crashes. And Grandpa is less likely than a lot of drivers to be drunk, drugged-up, seething with road rage or yakking on the cell phone with one hand and waving the other hand around to dry his nails.
I have no problem with retesting drivers more frequently starting at age 75 or so, and including some sort of written test to begin to sort out those who are beginning to have cognitive problems.
But in spite of a rare personal encounter of my own with the dotty driver (Alphonse, I haven’t forgotten you, though you are no doubt deceased), I worry more about other problem drivers who are much more likely to kill me, and who can renew their licenses with no problem at all.
I saw a very interesting thing the other night at the go-cart track. It was something I’d often suspected happened on a very regular basis, but had never actually witnessed on a regular basis. It was like rush hour in minature!
Anyway, there was an alarmingly bad driver out there on the course. She went wide on every turn, cut in front of people, was completely off the line, did not keep a consistent speed, and was generally oblivious to the other cars around her. She was not the fastest driver out there. She did not impact people at high speed and kill them or herself. In fact, she didn’t hit anyone.
However, trailing in her wake were numerous accidents of people trying to avoid her stupid moves. She swung wide, people pulled pst her. She cut them off, and they had to brake suddenly, causing accidents. She steered into people and then away, causing them to react and crash.
By accident rates, she would have been the safest driver out there. But she was absolutely the most dangerous.
This is what I see with elderly bad drivers. Their complete obliviousness to the surrounding world is hat makes them dangerous, not because they hit people. Young people have high accident rates because they hit people.
Actually, it’s far easier to test for confusion than for immaturity and inappropriate risk-taking. There are several commonly used cognitive tests (the Mini-Mental Status Exam, Trails A and Trails B, etc.) which physicians often use to screen for signs of early dementia, and whch could presumably be adapted for use as part of a driving test for older drivers.
I used to have a friend who works for a Driver Examination Center in Ontario. It used to be that people over 80 years of age had to take a mandetory road test (I am not sure if it was annually). Anyway, I once asked him how the road tests went. He told me that it wasn’t uncommon for a senior to mistake the accelerator for the brake, it happened a lot on hills in particular. The part that bothered him was they wouldn’t just hit the gas once and realise their mistake, they would keep their foot pressed on it all the way down the hill.
(You know what’s funny? The Simpson’s episode is on right now where Abe smashes Homer’s car)
I’ve looked at the posts and can’t find any that suggest restrictions at an arbitrary age. What is being proposed is that at some age to be determined by records of accident rates/mile driven, driving tests be given to sort out those whose skills are not adequate to the task at hand. I don’t see how anyone can object to that.
The only reason I would see for not testing everyone is the volume of license renewals would make it impractical and not cost effective.
Your statistics are based on accidents/100000 population without any indication of how much actual driving those 100000 people do. As the LA Times article I cited earlier shows, when the rate is based on accidents per mile driven, then old drivers and young drivers both have more accidents that others.
Could be. I would suggest basing it on the actual data.
Apparently you skipped over my posts. That appears to be the un-normalized data, which I explained isn’t really an accurate way to judge. The graph to which I referred earlier, that’s adjusted for miles driven, shows that death/injury rates are approx. the same at 20 years old as they are at 75 years old, and the graph rapidly spikes upward as the ages get both younger and older at both ends of the spectrum. In fact, the safety rate is much worse after age 75 than it is for those in their 20s, and as I pointed out before, by age 85 it even surpasses that of 16-year olds.
Your perception doesn’t mesh with the data.
Why only give a written test? We want to know how well they drive, not how well they write. Give them a driving test.
Just curious - I can see why risk-taking is difficult to test for; because the subject will simply not take risks during the test, but continue to do so afterwards. Honestly, how many of us made extra-certain that we went exactly 25 in that residential zone on the test, but routinely exceed that speed every day of our lives? But what is your reason for believing that confusion is hard to test for? If a person is presumably making driving errors due to confusion, would this not show up in a test? It’s not like you can decide not to be confused.
Haul out the actual graph (or even better, the study from which it’s derived), and we’ll see how it much it differs from the stats I cited.
Jackmannii: I have no problem with retesting drivers more frequently starting at age 75 or so, and including some sort of written test to begin to sort out those who are beginning to have cognitive problems.*
blowero: Why only give a written test? We want to know how well they drive, not how well they write. Give them a driving test.
*italics added for emphasis, as it seems that cognitive impairment can strike at any age.
AARP member here. Damn right we vote. I am, btw, 58.
Unless I missed something, those charts were for occupant fatalities. I’m curious to know how many people are killed and injured by 80+ drivers nationally every year. Raw numbers. All I seem to be able to find is per mile stats.
I’m just wondering how big the problem actually is.
The only way I see to attack this thing is to provide free, on demand, secure, and quick limo or taxi service for anybody deprived of driving because of age.
The constitution does, after all, insure mobility.
Notice the careful absence of the word “right” in this reply.
I’m almost as old as you, mangeorge, and I vote, too. When I lack the skills to drive safely, I hope somebody tells me so if I don’t notice it myself.
How, pray tell, does the constitution insure mobility? Am I being whooshed here? Why should society have to pay to provide me with free limo service? Society doesn’t pay for my gas and oil now. It’s up to me to plan for that eventuality. When I am nearing that time when I can’t drive safely, if I don’t have a friend or family member nearby to help me, I should plan to move someplace where I won’t have to, or plan to have enough cab fare to get around.
Regardless of how you spin the statistics, it’s common sense that someone who can’t see well, has poor reflexes and slow reaction time, and/or has moments of confusion or lapses of judgement should not be on the road. This is simply more likely to be the case with an 80-year-old than a 40-year-old.
I have no problem with mandatory re-licensing starting at retirement age. Most of us will breeze right through with no problem.
I pretty much agree with you, MLS. I was picking on the youngsters.
But I am curious about the actual numbers. It just seems like I hear and read about a lot more accidents that don’t involve seniors than do. A lot more. Maybe the news doesn’t get too excited about it, huh? [sub]There he goes again[/sub]. Really, it seems that the problem is blown out of proportion. Of course it doedn’t seem that way to the victims and their families/friends.
I don’t think I’d mind an annual drining test after age 70 or so. Sounds expensive.
Mandatory re-testing every five years for everyone. This isn’t a problem limited to the elderly; 50% of all drivers on the road right now are below average drivers, and the other 50% aren’t much better (in my opinion). Re-test for road rule knowledge, mental state, and reflexes. These can be quick tests done right in a DMV office.
Increase the re-testing for people over 70 to every 2 years.
Give eye doctors the responsibility and authority to report people who can’t make a certain cut-off on their eye exams with corrective lenses. Automatically revoke the driver’s license of anyone who is reported by an eye doctor as having eyesight too poor to function as a driver.
Give police forces the authority to force retesting for people who are reported by family as not being able to drive. I’ve heard too many stories of people who know Grandpa shouldn’t be driving, but they have no way of stopping him.
Finally, public education programs. Emphasize the fact that driving is a privilege, not a right, and when you cannot safely exercise that privilege, you must lose it for the safety of everyone around you.
(By the way, regarding stats about old people and accidents, I read that old people are far more likely to be seriously injured or killed due to relatively minor accidents - fragile bones and health conditions make the elderly much more susceptible to injury.)
None of this is ever going to help unless we improve public transportation so that the elderly are not cut out of their ability to be independent- and for those without friends and family- to live, once they are too old to drive. Even if we do take away their licenses, many will drive without, simply because there is no other way for them to get groceries, pay bills, visit friends etc.
I have the graph right here. It’s printed in my copy of the Los Angeles Times, so I’m not sure how you’re going to be able to read it. Which is why I already explained the difference. To explain it again, when you normalize the data, your claim that 75+ drivers are safer than drivers in their 20s is NO LONGER TRUE.
And this is the crux of the matter: You and mangeorge seem to be of the opinion that actual miles driven should be used; in other words, data that is not normalized. The problem I have with that is that seniors tend to drive a lot less than younger people, so if you don’t take that into account, the younger drivers will incorrectly appear to be more dangerous than they actually are.
To give you a slightly simplified example, let’s say Bob is 80 years old. He drives 5 miles to the grocery store twice a week, and that’s it. So his total miles driven per year is 520. Bob has 3 accidents in one year, so he has one accident for every 173 miles driven. Jeff is 30 years old. He drives 12,000 miles a year. Jeff also has 3 accidents in one year, or one accident every 4,000 miles. Can we really say the two drivers are of equal skill, because they had the same number of accidents? Jeff most likely ALREADY drove several times over more distance than Bob before he even had his FIRST accident. So after 520 miles, Bob had already had 3 accidents, while Jeff had none. Jeff has only had as many accidents by the sheer volume of driving he does. It’s an unfair comparison, and doesn’t tell us what the real situation is.
