And I mean, driving exams every two years? I think this would be beneficial for the driving community. Every two years they go in for a complete driving test, “paper” test, eye test and the physical driving test.
Hell yes, in my opinion.
The last two weeks I sat out on a panel interviewing for driving testers. While chatting with the people from the RTA (Roads and Traffic Authority) I heard that, although an annual test is required for drivers over 85, most drivers pass the test even if they are barely able to remember where they parked the car.
Apparently even if family members beg to have the old fart’s licence cancelled, the process of driving is so automatic that severely dysfunctional people can pass the test and they have to be passed.
The driver’s doctor can tell the RTA that they are unfit to drive but family doctors aren’t willing to do it.
Hell yes, every six months I say.
EMPHATICALLY yes.
But I’m kind of a Nazi and don’t think kids should get a driver’s license until they turn 18 either.
Every six months is excessive.
I’m in favour of EVERYONE getting a driving test periodically; maybe every ten years until 65, and then more often afterwards.
The cost, however, would be extremely prohibitive. I have worked with the testing folks at the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario, and I can tell you right now they’re damned busy just doing first tests. Repeating the process for seniors would require hiring an immense number of additional driving testers.
So if you want seniors tested, don’t complain about paying more taxes or having your driver’s license cost quadrupled.
I agree and this is a good point, but to create jobs, the DMV could create a whole new section just for retests.
How ya gonna pay for it? For the record, I’m 66 and I would be perfectly happy to be tested every two years IF everyone else had to do the same thing. Otherwise, it would be age discrimination and the outcry would be heard in heaven. I’ll add that I drive a minimum of 146 miles per day, about half of it on US19; if you don’t live in Pinellas County Florida you have no idea of what I mean. Traffic on that route is horrid at any time of day. I do a lot of defensive driving.
Doesn’t that call for a study on how much damage is done by elderly drivers, particularly the fraction of them that are especially bad and cause multiple accidents; ideally the ones that should have their licenses yanked ASAP?
It might turn out to be an overall saving, with fewer hospital and legal costs. If a half-blind half senile codger causes a multiple pile-up, does that cost more or less than a retesting program?
Of course, the same is true for repeat drunk drivers and such.
Telling incompetent drivers not to drive will not solve the problem; most of them drive because they need to drive. The only solution is to provide alternate means of transport, ideally by designing communities around public transport. Otherwise all you get is more people driving without licenses.
I sense a lot of hand waving. I’d like to see a scientific study of accident rates and the effectiveness of tests at keeping dangerous drivers off the road. The vast majority of the bad drivers that I see on the roads are not the elderly or infirm.
You might have a point re the eldery drivers who cause accidents if it can be proven that they did, indeed, cause said accidents. As to repeat drunk driving offenders, taking their license is meaningless because they will probably continue driving without one. Come to think of it, that’s probably true for the elderly as well.
My dad has Alzheimers and for the last few months has been in a nursing home. For the last five years, his driving skills have shown a marked deterioration. He was quite willful about his right to drive and our family’s efforts to hide the keys from him got pretty elaborate. Occasionally he’d find them, slip out and strand himself somewhere about five miles away and forget how he’d gotten there.
I was quite horrified when the state of Maryland renewed his driver’s license last spring, no exam required.
The plain fact is, everyone who lives long enough reaches a point where he should stop driving. My mom is fast approaching that point. Thankfully, her mental faculties are still quite intact and she knows she’ll be off the roads in another year or two.
I don’t know where the line should be drawn–65 seems a little young to me–but some kind of vision test at minimum should be required.
Here are a few actual facts for this thread (I know, a rare species on the Dope these days).
I feel that 65 is way too young but perhaps 70.
I sincerely doubt that the courts would have any problem with this “age discrimination” because it’s apparently a quite meaningful number in regard to the publics traffic safety.
Having witnessed my grandparents’ driving, and recently having to deal with my grandfather being forced to give up the keys (where we had to take his vehicles away from him), hell yes!
I’ll gladly submit to full testing every few years if it gets dangerously impaired elderly drivers off the road. Of course, as many posters have pointed out, that’s a financial and logistical impossibility.
How about this? Drivers who have been found to at fault even partially in a vehicle crash that caused a fatality need to surrender their license until retested, regardless of their age.