As far as I know, you are allowed several chances to pass the road test. I agree with you - I don’t see any reason why, if it does come to pass that older drivers are required to re-test, that they not be given more than one chance to do so, the same as those who are applying for the first time.
blowero: Nonsense.
I’ve already alluded to the potential cost and massive inconvenience of a “road test everybody over retirement age” strategy (not to mention repeat tests for the flunkers). I also suspect a goodly percentage of non-elderly drivers on this board would fail new road tests, even if they have good records.
In your lexicon, “sidestep issues” appears to mean “I didn’t read or correctly interpret his post”, and “make up stuff that’s not true” equals god knows what. You’ll have to cite what you mean, if you can do so without flying off the handle.
And dnooman, your point suggesting that susceptibility to cardiovascular disease means that the elderly pose some unique risk at the wheel has already been demolished, so nothing further needs to be said. Rather than wasting your time with unnecessary amateur refereeing, you might more profitably go practice your coding.
That’s actually a decent point - one which you didn’t bring up before.
The issue you sidestepped is why a mandatory written test is permissible in your view, yet a mandatory road test is not. It’s quite a reasonable question, yet you only seem to be capable of reacting to it with hostility and derision. You did allude to the cost, but refused to explain why you think such an argument applies to one and not the other. Frankly, I’m baffled as to why it enrages you so that I should ask such questions; isn’t this supposed to be a debate? I honestly am not seeing how my questions are unreasonable.
I have not “flown off the handle” at all. You attributed to me the strawman position that I was unwilling to consider the idea of a system of reporting unfit drivers by interested parties. I pointed out that such a system is ALREADY IN PLACE. Rather than acknowledge what I said, you simply repeated your assertion. The thing you “made up” is that there is no reporting system in place in California. There IS such a system, and you just ignored me when I pointed it out.
Sorry, but I have little patience for people in GD who ignore my posts and repeat assertions that I have already addressed, without acknowledging my previous response.
Throughout this thread, I have said nothing to denegrate elderly drivers, yet have continually been treated as if I had. Apparently this is one of those issues that is just too emotional for people to discuss rationally; I guess the best thing to do would be to drop this particular issue.
Sorry, blowero, it is not permissible to repeatedly mischaracterize arguments and then argue that a poster is “sidestepping” an issue, merely because you don’t like the answer provided. If (and believe me, this is the last time I’m going to refer to an answer that’s been in plain sight here for quite awhile) you think the expense and massive inconvenience to drivers is worth universal road testing of the “elderly”, that’s your view. I don’t think so. It is a debatable point, subject here to disagreement.
It is entirely obvious that mandating repetitive road tests for everybody is going to cost a lot more than doing so for (maybe) 10% of drivers who are suspected to have problems. That is not a debatable point in my view.
Wrong. I stated that it no system of complaints/testing triggering road tests under certain circumstances would satisfy you - since it appears to me that you will only settle for a change that involves universal road tests at a certain age. **
Your claim is untrue. Cite?
I agree with you that further exchanges on the subject of the thread topic are unlikely to be productive.
I’m flabbergasted. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked the question, yet you still mischaracterize it. The question is: “Why would WRITTEN testing be o.k., but not mandatory ROAD testing?” The question is about the RELATIVE advantages/disadvantages of each type of testing, yet you continue to pretend as if the first part of the question does not exist. At this point I can only conclude that you are being willfully obtuse.
Oh, I see - so you’re not going to explain what you’re talking about because it “wouldn’t satisfy me anyway”. THAT’S what I mean by sidestepping the issue.
What you’re really saying is that you think we should settle for the status quo. I don’t think the status quo is working.
You said, “…no proposals for written/cognitive testing and/or complaints from interested parties triggering road testing will satisfy you.”
With regard to complaints triggering testing, I believe that such a system is already in place. It makes no sense to propose something that is already a law. You are pretending that it’s a new proposal when it is not.
And with regard to written or cognitive testing, you have yet to explain why those are preferable to road tests. But I don’t expect that you will EVER explain it; I have obviously hit a brick wall here.
I have been thinking about this topic since reading about the Santa Monica accident.
To begin with, I have to state that I think everyone should be required to take a test, regardless of their age. In regards to costs increasing for the state, I would suggest passing them to the person taking the test. I regret that this may cause an finacial set back for some people, but IMO driving is not a right.
What I fear about mandatory testing is that the number of unlicensed drivers will increase, defeating the purpose of the law.
Let’s say that testing becomes the law. This sounds great on paper, but will it actually work?
In the case of the fictional elderly man who only drives 5 miles to the store. If he has failed his test, what’s to really stop him from driving? After all, how likely is he to get a ticket driving 10 miles a day? He may, in fact, be fortunate and drive this route a hundred times without incident. If by chance, he panics one day or is involved in a situation such as Phase42 mentions and gets into an accident, this mandatory testing didn’t do us a bit of good.
How do we work around this? Should we tie in vehicle registrations with testing?
Would an out of date registration sticker be helpful to the police in deciding who to stop for a license check?
No, I’ve addressed it repeatedly, but the answers are still unpalatable to you.**
And the answer is, yet again, that it might be reasonable to propose replacing the patchwork quilt of laws and guidelines existing in various states (I don’t know where you got the idea that I was talking specifically about California) with directed mandatory road testing, based on triggers built in to written and cognitive testing, as well as outside reports. It would not be reasonable in my view to demand every driver over the age of 65 or 70 come in every two years for a fresh road test. That would be (here comes the bolding, so that you will not miss it on the third or fourth go-round) intrusive, very expensive, and since it would not address well-established statistics by ignoring younger groups with equal risk, would be unfair.
I do not wish to expand the motor vehicles bureaucracy to the extent that you apparently do. **
Please cite any statement where I said we should settle for the status quo. You are inventing positions again.**
Yes. It’s called disagreement. You will have to live with it.
“The thing you “made up” is that there is no reporting system in place in California.”
I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that I said no such thing, and to withdraw the claim that I have “made up” anything in this debate.
Even when you bold it, it still fails to address my question. Of course at this point, I am convinced you are arguing from some kind of parallel universe where logic does not apply. It’s not that you haven’t made some good points; they just have nothing to do with my question. For the last time, I did not ask for your arguments against road tests (your position is already abundantly clear on that); I asked why your arguments do not equally apply to WRITTEN tests, which you espoused earlier. I don’t know which is more amazing - the fact that you can’t seem to respond to such a simple question, or your misplaced indignation about it.
I have no problem with disagreement, and have already said as much to other posters in this thread. But you have to actually address a person’s POINT to disagree with him. I wonder what the Blowero in your universe said that you are disagreeing with.
Hope you brought a book, 'cuz you’ve got a long wait ahead…
Even that wouldn’t be 100% effective, because the driver of a car isn’t required to be the registered owner of that car, so a person with a revoked license could simply drive a car registered to someone else, like a family member. I don’t think there IS any way to get 100% compliance, but if some incompetent drivers can be taken off the road, isn’t it still a good thing?
Notes to parallel universe: I did not “espouse” written tests in total exclusion of road tests. You persist, bizarrely, in ignoring that fact.
Obviously, since I feel mandating repetitive road tests at attainment of some magic age is unnecessarily obtrusive and expensive, I feel that written testing is less so. This speaks to things like hiring a mess of inspectors to go out on thousands/millions of new road tests, cost of gasoline, fees assessed by the state (which do you think will cost more, a paper test or a road test requiring direct interaction with examiners?), not to mention costs associated with the increased traffic congestion secondary to all those re-testees meandering cautiously around the roads hoping to pass their tests without violating some micro-rule (remember your own road test?). **
Terrific. When faced with disagreement, you falsely impute positions to an opponent and make up things that were never stated. Then you refuse to retract your nonsense.
Great debating style you’ve got there, “'cuz”.
I never said “in total exclusion”. Once again, you are making things up. My question was clear and succinct. For the life of me, I don’t understand why you can’t grasp it.
Wonder of wonders! You actually answered the question. And it only took about 3 pages, my asking 5 times or so, and your countless replies to questions that I did not ask. Well, better late than never, I guess…
This could have been an interesting debate, but if it’s going to take that much effort for me to get you to address one simple point, I’m loathe to pursue the matter any further.
In your typical obtuse style, you characterized something as a “proposal”, when it was already a law, and continued to assert that it was a proposal, without addressing the issue. If you disagree with someone, you need to to indicate why, not simply ignore the point. “Disagreeing with me” and “pretending I never said something” are not the same thing.
I’m through debating with you. My further responses to you will be limited to correcting your misstatements about me.
And once again, here’s a reminder of your misstatement of my position:**
I’ve seen posters before who are unable to accept partial agreement with their positions and wind up alienating everyone who doesn’t conform to their particular orthodoxy. If in addition to this, failure to read, fabrication and inane obstinacy are the hallmarks of your debating style, you’ll find it difficult to sell your ideas.
It’s a mystery to me what you see in there that is a misstatement, and had I misinterpreted your position, it would have been simplicity itself for you to explain why. But you chose instead to be obstinate, sarcastic, and rude. And at this point I am beyond caring. It’s a perfectly valid point of contention: Driving a car is as much about reflexes and hand/eye coordination as it is about logic and cognitive ability. If you’re going to require a test, don’t waste time on a written test; make it a driving test, so you’re actually testing the thing that’s at issue. But you seem more interested in berating me and obfuscating your points than actual discussion.
I guess I will have to be the bigger man here and end this right now. I won’t be responding to you any more in this thread at all. Have fun with your parting shot; I hope you enjoy the vitriol I’m sure you will unleash at me.
A few more misdirected insults to add to the pile of unretracted false statements, and then “I guess I will have to be the bigger man here…”
Classy.
I’m just glad blowero and Jack are keeping their rage on this thread, instead of taking it out on the road where someone could get hurt.
I’ve given up driving, after hearing about Bryan’s grandpappy.
They don’t call it the “information superhighway” for nothing.
So?
If they can’t demonstrate a certain basic competancy on command they shouldn’t be on the road regardless of age or spotless record.
Well, in theory, in some cases perhaps a restricted license might be the ticket. After all, some drivers are restricted from driving after dark (as an example). Perhaps something saying “no freeways” or something.
Problem with that is two-fold. First of all, it requires the willing participation of the driver. I have no doubt some elderly drivers ARE self-limiting to slow roads and daytime already, so their compliance wouldn’t be a problem. They know their limitations and respect them.
The problem is Gramps who is no longer able to handle freeway speeds but can’t admit it. Where he might be OK driving 25 mph three blocks to the grocery store but not at 55 mph or greater with heavy traffic swapping lanes. I have a vivid vision of Gramps saying “They say I can’t handle the freeway? Let me show them!”
It’s really part of the larger problem of keeping unlicensed drivers off the road. With cars so readily available, how do you prevent people from taking the wheel when they shouldn’t?
Interesting, Broom, that you used the example of “Gramps” and not “Grandma.” There’s a lot of perception of the little ol’ blue-haired lady being the menace. In my limited experience, although the lobhl would definitely be a menace on the highway, she is actually less likely to be there. She’ll really be much more amenable to limiting her driving or giving it up entirely, whereas her gentleman counterpart hates to lose control or to admit to being in any way less competent than when he was younger.
Oh, and I agree with the rest of what you said, too.