Over 65 years ::: Required Drivers License Renewal Testing

This should be law. Old drivers upset me… they really need retested. In fact, some really old drivers, NEVER had to take a test. They just applied and got their license.

Over 65… test them. Dont you think?

I think we should re-test EVERYBODY when they’re up for renewal - every two or three years, say, both a written and road test. If you flunk either your license is suspended until you get remedial training and can pass.

hear, hear!!!

According to my wife, this is SOP in Japan, although she’s not sure if it applies to everyone, or if it kicks in after a specific age. Damn good idea, what with all us aging boomers…

well, retesting from ages 16-65 based on driving record.

from 65+ mandatory each 2 years. This is what I think. Grandpa cant drive … but still does. :-/

On the other hand, my paternal grandfather is nearing his 96th birthday. And just renewed his driver’s license in CT. With a doctor’s note and everything.

He’s a better driver than my mom is, too.

Ditto what Broomstick said.

Driving standards in the United States are notoriously lax – the only place I’ve seen with less restrictive standards have been in “backwoods” areas, such as rural China and India, where people just make do and try not to hit anything. While it’s not so bad in the U.S., it does seem like you can make a lot of errors on the written and/or road test and still pass – and if you don’t, just try again. Or as my brother the wag quips, “if you can enter the car without hitting your head, you’ve passed.”

My father used to work as a taxi driver in Hong Kong, and according to him, the driving test for that was one of the most restrictive on the planet. Items included driving in reverse in a perfectly straight line for 1000 meters, or pulling up to 5cm of another car without striking it. And failing to pass a test means waiting a full year before reapplying. The consequence of this is that (last I visited, anyway) all drivers in Hong Kong have a precision and accuracy that borders on the uncanny, and traffic accidents are an uncommon experience.

While I think suddenly applying such stringent standards would be impractical for the United States, it’s definitely something to shoot for, IMO. If that means fewer motorists on the road, then so be it; it’d help reduce congestion, reduce dependenceon foreign oil, and put more pressure on improving mass transit anyway.

Holy guacamole, last time I went to replace my lost license, I ended up waiting 90 minutes just to be seen.

I’m all for raising the driving standards, but it sounds to me like a very expensive set of regulations to put into place. You’d have to hire many more driving testers and more employees to process the additional paperwork.

In Virginia, you can now renew your license for another 5-year stretch without even having to pass an eye exam. My almost 85-year-old mother just renewed her license over the internet. As it happens, she’s recently had two cataract surgeries, so she actually sees a lot better than she did a year ago, but the way she was seeing a year ago, she shouldn’t have been on the road!

If anything, it seems that the standards are becoming less stringent, rather than more.

Good luck getting it put into law though.

The elderly do a good chunk of voting in elections both local, state and for the US and a lot of them go the way of Grampa Simpson (cept it was for his social security check) “I don’t use it, don’t need it, but durn if they try to take it away from me.”

I could see them raising a BIG stink about this and not stopping till the roust the perpertrator who brought it to the table.

I would love to see mandatory driving tests for those over 65. My father in law hasn’t been able to feel his feet (poor circulation) since I married my husband almost 17 years ago, yet continues to drive by using the steering column as a guide where to find the accelerator and brake!

This is a major sore point between Mr. Adoptamom and I as he feels his father should be allowed to drive as long as he desires, regardless of his inability to move his feet quickly from brake to accelerator.

I absolutely refuse to allow our kids to ride in the car with him.


Young drivers have restricted options because of their age - they can’t get a license until 16, for one. In many states they get restricted licenses for a few years, meaning they can’t drive at night, or with other minors, or various other things. The justification is that young drivers are bad drivers, and this is backed up with accident statistics.

However, elderly drivers cause nearly as many accidents as young drivers, and since they drive a lot fewer miles, they’re considerably more dangerous in terms of accidents per mile. There’s simply no excuse for restricting one group but not the other.

Did I read something recently that it’s really drivers 20-45 who are most likely to get into an accident?..

Forget the age limits and damn the expense - when you get your license renewed you have to prove you can still pass a road test, AND you have to come in for an eye test to prove you can still see the road itself.

Maybe we can use driving simulators to test drivers like the airlines use flight simulators to test pilots.

I’m getting sick of bad, stupid, ignorant driving and it’s NOT just the very young and the very old doing it.

I don’t think that ‘bad’ drivers are generally drivers with substandard skills. Rather, I think that drivers in the US tend to be inattentive, or in a hurry, leading to poor decisions and accidents. Neither of these factors will play into a driving test, everyone is on their best behavior. When I was younger, I drove foolishly, but would easily pass any driving test you could throw at me. Therefore, I do not support the idea of rigorous testing for all drivers at license renewal.

Requiring a standard eyesight and driving test schedule starting at age 65 may or may not be worthwhile. The question comes down to: How many older drivers will you take off the road? and How many accidents will be prevented as a result? I suspect that number would be low enough that the huge cost of running the tests would outweigh the benefits.