# Would YOU support driving restrictions for the elderly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2005, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260 "2005-11-03T06:36:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/81 "2005-11-11T07:21:26Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > I got my Arizona driver’s license when I was 17. It doesn’t expire until I’m 65 years old. Anyone who’s ever been to Arizona knows that this kind of thinking really causes problems, but the deeply conservative retired population of the state, combined with the similarly conservative young population of its only truly major city, Phoenix, means that this probably will never change. (IIRC the only county that Kerry won was Pima, home of the University of Arizona.) Arizona lives off its old people, and doesn’t want to do wrong by them. I’m sure it’s not the only state like this. I get the impression from my uncle, a Utah man with a Nevada license, that Nevada hands out licenses to retirees like candy (personal incorporation plays a factor in this, of course). > > I’ve never heard of this. Are you talking about special license plates for DUI convicts? I bet the ACLU loves that one: cops can identify previous offenders, who are statistically more likely to commit an infraction, and then they can pull them > and throw them in jail for a tag that expired two days ago or a taillight that’s dimmed by 5%. > > Wrong. The slow driver helped to create a situation which served to flip a switch in the SUV driver’s head. The slow driver is not at fault, but it’s clear that the particular situation would not have happened were it not for said individual driving slowly. > > Here’s an analogy. You’re in LA and you cut off a truck driver. The driver follows you, takes your exit, waits for you to stop and then shoots you dead. Who’s at fault? The shooter. Is it your fault morally? No. But would the murder have been less likely if you hadn’t cut off the driver? Probably. Note here that I am applying NO FAULT to the slow driver or the off-cutter: I’m just trying to apply a pragmatic view to the situation, and my conclusion is that it’s in everyone’s best interests for drivers to avoid driving slowly and cutting off truck drivers. > > Perhaps you’ll be happier [here](http://www.genmay.net). That message board seems more suited to your tastes. Quote my conclusion is that it’s in everyone’s best interests for drivers to avoid driving slowly and cutting off truck drivers. As a licenced truck driver I think its a great idea. I’m afraid your understanding of pragmatic and mine differ greatly. You’d be shocked at how many really unsafe drivers there are out there. You gotta spend entire days on the road to really understand. Quote Wrong. The slow driver helped to create a situation which served to flip a switch in the SUV driver’s head. The slow driver is not at fault, but it’s clear that the particular situation would not have happened were it not for said individual driving slowly. Holy shit. So is it the fault of the banker if someone robs the bank??? Hey pal who are you or anyone else to say what speed is too slow? As I stated above the minimum legal speed here in Iowa is 40mph. I’m guessing that most that whine about too slow are probably exceeding the speed limit. There are just some people that aren’t mature enough to be behind the wheel. As for truck drivers you would be surprised how many times we’re cut off by drivers who are just in too big of a hurry. I sure won’t say that guy won’t be called a fucking idiot but 99.99999% of the time thats all that happens. rhaps you’ll be happier [here](http://www.genmay.net). That message board seems more suited to your tastes. [/QUOTE] No Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/82 "2005-11-11T07:37:58Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > It means drivers shouldn’t turn around while driving. If you can think of a practical way to enforce that, then I’m all ears, but obviously banning kids from riding in the back seat doesn’t fit the bill (where else are they going to sit?). > So, do you think drunk driving should be legal? > Obviously, that would be impractical. Let’s focus on the practical ways we can keep bad drivers off the road. > No, I’m calling them bad drivers because the statistics show that, as a group, they _are_. If these are just momentary lapses in judgment, why is this particular group so much more likely to have them than others? > > The fact is, people aren’t born knowing how to drive, so it makes sense that teenagers would be worse drivers than average. It’s also a fact that people’s mental facilities tend to deteriorate as they reach old age, so it also makes sense that elderly drivers would be worse than average. It’s not just random chance that teenagers and elderly drivers tend to get in more accidents per mile than other drivers. * * * quote No, I’m calling them bad drivers because the statistics show that, as a group, they _are_. If these are just momentary lapses in judgment, why is this particular group so much more likely to have them than others? group huh. So what happens if you look at this by age. Lets look at it in 5 year increments. Accidents by those in the 16 to 21 year group as compared to the 65 to 70 year group. What happens if you look at the 21 to 65 year old group? [QUOTE=Mr2001] It means drivers shouldn’t turn around while driving. If you can think of a practical way to enforce that, then I’m all ears, but obviously banning kids from riding in the back seat doesn’t fit the bill (where else are they going to sit?). quote a practical way Hmmm from your posts so far thats a novel approach for you. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/83 "2005-11-11T08:00:14Z")
If I’m not mistaken, in the Netherlands, there’s such a mandatory testing for drivers above a given age. Maybe a dutch poster could shed some light on this issue? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/84 "2005-11-11T12:08:24Z")
> [@justwannano](#): > > So what happens if you look at this by age. Lets look at it in 5 year increments. > Accidents by those in the 16 to 21 year group as compared to the 65 to 70 year group. The statistics I linked to are already in 5 year increments, for the most part. > [@](#): > > What happens if you look at the 21 to 65 year old group? Drivers 65 or older are involved in 51% more fatal accidents per mile than drivers 20-64 (as close to 21-65 as I can easily get), according to the NHTSA table I linked to earlier. Moving the age limit up a bit, we can see that drivers 80 and older are involved in 58% more crashes per mile than drivers age 20-79, and about three and a half times as many fatal accidents. An 80+ year old driver is nearly as likely to die in an accident as a 16-19 year old driver (0.27 fatalities per thousand drivers vs. 0.29, compared to 0.12 for ages 20-79). > [@](#): > > a practical way > > Hmmm from your posts so far thats a novel approach for you. That’s rich, coming from someone who apparently thinks drunk driving is no big deal. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/85 "2005-11-11T16:15:09Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > The statistics I linked to are already in 5 year increments, for the most part. > Drivers 65 or older are involved in 51% more fatal accidents per mile than drivers 20-64 (as close to 21-65 as I can easily get), according to the NHTSA table I linked to earlier. > > Moving the age limit up a bit, we can see that drivers 80 and older are involved in 58% more crashes per mile than drivers age 20-79, and about three and a half times as many fatal accidents. An 80+ year old driver is nearly as likely to die in an accident as a 16-19 year old driver (0.27 fatalities per thousand drivers vs. 0.29, compared to 0.12 for ages 20-79). > That’s rich, coming from someone who apparently thinks drunk driving is no big deal. Quote When the driver fatality rate is calculated based on the estimated annual travel, the highest rates are found among the youngest and oldest drivers. When compared to the fatality rate for drivers 25 to 70 years old, teenage drivers display a rate about four times as great, while the rate for drivers in the oldest group display a rate 9 times as great. Drivers 65 or older are involved in 51% more fatal accidents per mile than drivers 20-64 (as close to 21-65 as I can easily get), according to the NHTSA table I linked to earlier. Does this include non accident related injuries? Such as heart attacks? Some driving I’ve seen nearly scared me to death too. * * * quote That’s rich, coming from someone who apparently thinks drunk driving is no big deal There you go again making broad generalizations again. Most impared drivers do get where they are going without being in an accident. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/86 "2005-11-12T00:49:21Z")
> [@justwannano](#): > > Does this include non accident related injuries? Such as heart attacks? I’ve interpreted that PDF for you enough already. Read it yourself. > [@](#): > > quote > That’s rich, coming from someone who apparently thinks drunk driving is no big deal > > There you go again making broad generalizations again. > > Most impared drivers do get where they are going without being in an accident. I pointed that out myself in post #69. You’re still dodging the issue - _they’re more likely to get into an accident than other drivers_. There is an undeniable causal relationship between drunkenness (or the mental changes that come with old age) and risk of accidents. I asked you this directly, and you never answered. If you don’t want to be part of that “broad generalization” ( :rolleyes: ), perhaps you should answer it this time: Do you think drunk driving should be legal? ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/87 "2005-11-12T02:27:32Z")
[QUOTE=Mr200 I asked you this directly, and you never answered. If you don’t want to be part of that “broad generalization” ( :rolleyes: ), perhaps you should answer it this time: Do you think drunk driving should be legal?[/QUOTE] Hell No. What I’ve been trying to get across to you is that there is a lot more bad driving done by those other than oldsters. Good god all you have to do is open your eyes. The oldsters do get confused when confronted by changes. Like that of some “normal”(what appears to me as your definition) driver creating an unsafe situation by driving too fast or swerving in and out of traffic. Put them in a strange situation and the reflexes are slow.Stop the “normal” drivers from taking chances like driving too close behind the vehicle in front and you’ll reduce the accident level of elders. Now to answer the question No. Not by legislation alone. Perhaps by a MD. Any attempt at legislating the driving of the so called elderly would not take into account that just like in the general public there are good drivers and bad.There are those that are experienced and can react to situations and those that would find that difficult. Problem is there are those that create those situations by just being in too damned much of a hurry. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/88 "2005-11-12T02:41:43Z")
By the way. The drunk driving laws are written take into account that some people just cannot function with alcohol. The law does protect you from those people but is unfair to those that can function quite well with more that a couple of belts. So what is a drunk driver? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/89 "2005-11-12T03:48:37Z")
> [@justwannano](#): > > What I’ve been trying to get across to you is that there is a lot more bad driving done by those other than oldsters. > Good god all you have to do is open your eyes. Yawn. It’s true that most accidents are not caused by elderly drivers. Most accidents aren’t caused by drunk drivers, either. But when we can identify a group of drivers who are _more likely than the rest_ to cause an accident, even if they’re only a minority of all drivers–such as drunks, teenagers, and old folks–it makes sense to pay close attention to them and try to reduce the risk. That doesn’t mean we can’t _also_ try to help the majority of drivers who cause the majority of accidents (but who aren’t drunk, inexperienced, or elderly). Your argument that we shouldn’t worry about elderly drivers just because there are bigger problems just doesn’t float. There’s always _something_ bigger out there, but we don’t stop research on AIDS or avian flu just because heart disease kills more people. > [@](#): > > The oldsters do get confused when confronted by changes. > Like that of some “normal”(what appears to me as your definition) driver creating an unsafe situation by driving too fast or swerving in and out of traffic. Being able to deal with unsafe situations like that is a necessary part of being a good driver. It’s called defensive driving. If someone can’t handle those situations, they shouldn’t be driving. > [@](#): > > Put them in a strange situation and the reflexes are slow.Stop the “normal” drivers from taking chances like driving too close behind the vehicle in front and you’ll reduce the accident level of elders. What you seem to be saying is that in a perfect world where everyone was a good driver, elderly drivers wouldn’t pose a problem. That’s a nice thought, but we don’t live in that world. If you go out on the road, knowing that some of the people around you will be taking risks, and if you can’t handle that, you’re compounding the problem. And don’t forget, there would still be situations that require quick reflexes: animals or children darting into the road, snow and ice, rockslides, cargo falling out of a truck, etc. A driver with poor reflexes is bound to run into trouble sooner or later. > [@](#): > > Any attempt at legislating the driving of the so called elderly would not take into account that just like in the general public there are good drivers and bad. Of course it would. The suggestion is to _test_ older drivers more thoroughly, not take their licenses away immediately on their 80th birthday. I think we should do the same for younger drivers, actually. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/90 "2005-11-12T09:32:09Z")
\*\*Mr. 2001 \*\*, from the data it looks to me like you’re way overstating your case, and misconstruing some of those numbers. Three points: 1. Yes, driving does (on average) deteriorate with age, but not to the point of incompetence. [Your own pdf file](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/1998/AgeSex96.pdf) shows that the oldest drivers have only declined to the point where they’re driving about as safely as the average poster on this board - ie. about as well as someone 20 to 25. I suggest plotting it out to see what’s happening. In terms of crashes per mile travelled, the best drivers in the world are 55-65 year olds. As you get younger you get worse, and as you get older you get worse, so we can compare the age groups and see how far age rolls back your skills: 65-69 age bracket is about equivalent to a 50 year old driver (still really good) 70-74 = 40 year old 75-79 = 25 year old 80-85 = early 20s 85+ = 20 year oldSo yes, there is deterioration. But this isn’t in the same ballpark as drunken driving or being 16. Even the drivers pushing 90 aren’t as bad as a teenager. 1. Most importantly, that’s \*just \* per a mile travelled. In \*real \* terms (i.e. per driver), older people have the lowest crash rates of any age group. Because they just don’t drive all that much. The absolute crash rate is rock bottom even for the 85+ crowd. Which makes this statement: > [@Mr. 2001](#): > > You’re still dodging the issue - they’re more likely to get into an accident than other drivers. flatly untrue. In reality, nobody is less likely to get in an accident than your 85 year old great Aunt Minnie. The fact is old people are their own safety net. Because they usually recognize their limitations, they often only drive locally and in daylight and only when it’s necessary - to the store, or to church or to doctor’s appointments, etc. This is why the oldest of the old have the lowest crash rates of any age group. These infrequent trips - about as dangerous as a 20-25 year old driving but much rarer - are what keep old people living independently, so I would be cautious in the extreme in jeopardizing that independence. 1. You referenced fatality rates too much, which are more dramatic, but (from every disccusion I’ve read) are quite misleading when discussing the driving skills of the elderly. Because older people are much more likely to die in crashes (they’re frail), their “fatality” rates are highly inflated compared to their crash rates. (In fact you can see that effect clearly on your pdf file if you look at the ratio of driver fatalities to fatal accidents - i.e. how often the driver dies when involved in a “fatal accident”. On average, when a driver of any age gets in a fatal accident, they’re killed about 45% of the time. In contrast a driver over 70 is killed about 70% of the time, and a driver over 85 is likely to be killed almost 80% of the time. So you really should look primarily at \*crash \* rates to see how older drivers are driving (which is what I did above). * * * My opinion is that testing may save some lives, it’s true. But it could also conceivably throw thousands of older people who could otherwise manage into assisted living, or other forms of assistance at a huge financial and social cost. I don’t think we have the resources to handle that burden, frankly. Plus there are more conservative ways to deal with the problem. I’d personally prefer if health care providers made the call and narced on the patients they think are clearly unfit to drive. Also many accidents by older people are of certain patterns - the left turn at an intersection seems to nail them at three to for times the rate as younger people - and this is easily solved just by adding left turn signals. ---
**Author:** ![A.R.Cane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@A.R.Cane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.R.Cane)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/91 "2005-11-12T10:28:14Z")
The general consensus here seems to be that the majority of us past 60-65 are doomed to dottiness and well on our way to senility. If that’s your view then I just might be your worst nightmare. I’ll be 67 in Jan. and I hold a CDL that doesn’t need renewal until my 70th b’day. I also own an 18 wheeler that is licensed for 80,000 lbs. gross. On the other hand I’ve got about two million miles at the wheel of a big rig and I haven’t had an accident in over 15 years. Of the 5-6 accidents I did have, all but one were minor backing incidents and the one involving a car was only minimal property damage, no injuries. I am required, as are all commercial drivers, to get a physical and eye exam every two years. This is anecdotal, but I believe that most older drivers are much more attentive to their driving and younger drivers tend to be more cavalier. On the highway I see too many who follow too close, speed, weave in and out of lanes and are oblivious to what’s going on around or behind them, despite an earlier comment it’s important. Rarely are these the actions of older drivers. Another dangerous habit which seems to be popular among younger drivers is driving w/ one hand on the inside bottom, or using the spokes, of the steering wheel. You have severely diminished control when doing this and are not prepared for the unexpected. Cell phones and video screens are the latest distractions that contribute to inattention. I’m positive that talking on a cell phone is at least as dangerous as driving w/ a .08 BAC. To sum it up I would advise that all should, Drive Friendly. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/92 "2005-11-12T16:51:11Z")
(Nitpick: It’s **Mr2001** , not **Mr. 2001**.) > [@uglybeech](#): > > \*\*Mr. 2001 \*\*, from the data it looks to me like you’re way overstating your case, and misconstruing some of those numbers. I disagree. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider the numbers in terms of accidents per mile, rather than per driver. The fact that they already drive relatively few miles only limits the amount of time other drivers are exposed to them; from a pragmatic standpoint, more lives could be saved by focusing on the driving habits of drivers age 20-79 than age 80+, but there’s no reason we can’t do both. > [@](#): > > [Your own pdf file](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/1998/AgeSex96.pdf) shows that the oldest drivers have only declined to the point where they’re driving about as safely as the average poster on this board - ie. about as well as someone 20 to 25. I suggest plotting it out to see what’s happening. It already is plotted out in the PDF - see Figure 2. > [@](#): > > In reality, nobody is less likely to get in an accident than your 85 year old great Aunt Minnie. You’re right. I should’ve said, “They’re more likely to get into an accident than _most_ other drivers _while they’re on the road_.” > [@](#): > > These infrequent trips - about as dangerous as a 20-25 year old driving but much rarer - are what keep old people living independently, so I would be cautious in the extreme in jeopardizing that independence. I wouldn’t. I want teenagers to be able to live as independently as possible too, but not if it means putting others at risk. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/93 "2005-11-12T19:28:14Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I disagree. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider the numbers in terms of accidents per mile, rather than per driver. You can consider it, but I do think it’s unreasonable to make that the most important stat. You have to consider their driving habits as a whole. If they’re driving very infrequently for safety reasons, and if the upshot is that they have the lowest per driver crash rate of any age group, then I consider them very safe to license, frankly. Especially considering that they’re not - as you keep implying - driving like drunks or teenagers when they do get on the road. The oldest are driving like people in the 20 to 25 range - which I think everyone considers an acceptable (if not optimal) level. > [@](#): > > from a pragmatic standpoint, more lives could be saved by focusing on the driving habits of drivers age 20-79 than age 80+, but there’s no reason we can’t do both. Yes, we should make every age group as safe as reasonably possible, but universal road testing for old people is expensive, inexact and drastic considering: 1) they’re not that bad drivers as a group 2) they have proportionally fewer accidents 3) the social consequences of testing are liable to be severe, and 4) there are a number of more conservative means of improving their safety available to us. > [@](#): > > You’re right. I should’ve said, “They’re more likely to get into an accident than _most_ other drivers _while they’re on the road_.” That’s still a misleading way of presenting it, IMHO. That statement is also true of 35 to 40 year olds (in fact every age group under 40). But the difference is the under 40s are not only more likely to get into an accident while they’re on the road, they’re more likely to get in an accident period because they drive all the time. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t. I want teenagers to be able to live as independently as possible too, but not if it means putting others at risk. Again you’re comparing them to teenagers. Teenagers are much more likely to get in an accident than senior citizens, and still we don’t monitor them. We try more conservative means like education. > [@](#): > > It already is plotted out in the PDF - see Figure 2. Sorry I meant plot age groups against each other. Late night posting, what can I say. > [@](#): > > (Nitpick: It’s **Mr2001** , not **Mr. 2001**.) Oops sorry. Same answer. > [@A.R. Cane](#): > > If that’s your view then I just might be your worst nightmare. I’ll be 67 in Jan. Not at all, at your age you should be one of the safest drivers on the road, not only per driver but per mile. ---
**Author:** ![Fridgemagnet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/22d042/32.png) [@Fridgemagnet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fridgemagnet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/94 "2005-11-12T21:03:45Z")
> [@eviladam](#): > > > [@uglybeech](#): > > > > How are you imagining that older people get into accidents exactly? That they’re drivng too slow on the highway and someone rams into them??? > > accordian to statistics at the link i posted earlier, it’s because they drive slowly through red lights, stop signs, and pedestrians. Accelerator/brake pedal confusion is also a popular mode of accident trigger amongst the elderly that isn’t really seen too often in other age groups. esure motor insurance has some [sound advice for senior drivers](http://www.esurance.com/personal_auto_insurance/seniors.asp) _" As a group, drivers 75 and older have one of the highest rates of fatal daytime accidents. Often, senior drivers in such accidents had no idea that their driving abilities had gradually become impaired over the years. An accident is often the first indication that an elderly person should stop driving. Until one occurs, senior drivers are reluctant to give up their independence."_ Most experienced drivers know the limits of their capabilities, and drive within them. This is why teenagers don’t make the best drivers. But there comes a point in one’s life where all those years of experience are more than offset by increasing physical and mental deterioration. Eyesight, hearing, memory, concentration, coordination, speed and distance judgement - all gradually fall away over a certain age. There’s also the alarming possibility that some elderly drivers were automotively incompetent when they were younger, and have only got worse since. Driving licence tests were much, much easier years ago, or even non-existent. My father has a licence to drive a great big truck, which he got by default many years ago as he happened to be driving a truck when licences were introduced. He’s 70 now, and is fortunately a safe driver still. I make no promises for his driving skills should he still be doing it at 80, 90 etc. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/95 "2005-11-12T22:29:33Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > You can consider it, but I do think it’s unreasonable to make that the most important stat. You have to consider their driving habits as a whole. If they’re driving very infrequently for safety reasons, and if the upshot is that they have the lowest per driver crash rate of any age group, then I consider them very safe to license, frankly. Especially considering that they’re not - as you keep implying - driving like drunks or teenagers when they do get on the road. The oldest are driving like people in the 20 to 25 range - which I think everyone considers an acceptable (if not optimal) level. It makes no sense to calculate safety per person possessing a driver’s license (that’s what the report is actually using) rather than per mile driven. That would make my sister one of the safest drivers in the world- she’s never had an accident or gotten a moving violation or even a parking ticket in the 18 years she’s had a license. She’s also never sat behind a steering wheel since the day she took her road test. My sister’s an extreme example, but I’d be willing to bet that the older age groups have a larger percentage of people with licenses who don’t actually drive than younger ones- after all everyone needs ID, and if you have a license it’s generally easy enough to renew it even if you no longer drive , possibly easier than switching to a non-driver ID. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/96 "2005-11-13T01:00:14Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > Again you’re comparing them to teenagers. Teenagers are much more likely to get in an accident than senior citizens, and still we don’t monitor them. We try more conservative means like education. You’re mistaken if you think that’s all we do. First, teenagers can’t even get a license before age 16 - that age cutoff is far more drastic than just testing them more often. Also, in many states, they can only get “intermediate” licenses that don’t allow them to legally drive at night or with friends in the car. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/97 "2005-11-13T01:28:10Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > It makes no sense to calculate safety per person possessing a driver’s license (that’s what the report is actually using) rather than per mile driven. As I think was clear both from the report and my post, the report calculates both per license and per mile rates and I discussed both in depth. And as I said older drivers (over 75) are _per mile_ about as good as people in their twenties. In absolute terms (accidents per person) their crash rate is better than all other age groups. And \*of course \* you should consider the absolute crash rate because a) that’s precisely what should determine the cost/benefit of licensing drivers or launching an expensive and controversial universal testing program and b) when you choose to drive is part of what makes you a safe driver. If you drive all the time - regardless of your state or the conditions, then you may be a skilled driver, but you’re absolutely less safe then someone who decides to only drive when conditions are good and they absolutely need to. When I worked at a doctor’s office, older drivers would routinely cancel appointments if the weather was bad because they didn’t want to be driving in bad conditions. You could say that proves they weren’t safe drivers, but I think that proves that they are taking precautions to compensate. In fact this group is arguably \*overcompensating \* because their absolute crash rate is very low. By the way, and for the record, statistically we shouldn’t even be considering drivers under 75. Drivers in the 70 to 74 range are safer than average drivers both per mile and in absolute terms. > [@Mr2001](#): > > You’re mistaken if you think that’s all we do. First, teenagers can’t even get a license before age 16 - that age cutoff is far more drastic than just testing them more often. Also, in many states, they can only get “intermediate” licenses that don’t allow them to legally drive at night or with friends in the car. I was talking about licensed teens. But if you want to talk about 16 year olds, you’re talking about a group who has nearly \*five times \* the crash rate _as the most ancient drivers_, the ones \* over 85 \* - and that’s just the subset of 16 y.o.'s who actually \*passed \* their road test. You shouldn’t even be comparing old people to this group. Old people are statistically comparable to people in their 20s as far as their driving skills, and better than any age group on the road in terms of crashes per person. > [@Fridgemagnet](#): > > _As a group, drivers 75 and older have one of the highest rates of fatal daytime accidents_… I realize you were quoting another source, but can I again point out that one shouldn’t look at fatality or fatal accident rates as a measure of driving skill (or anything else) by age, because older people’s fatality rates are hugely inflated due to physical frailty. If you scroll above to my previous post I went into that statitically. But suffice it to say, older people’s fatality rates as pedestrians are also far higher, as well as their fatality rates watching t.v. It doesn’t mean that they’re particularly dangerous t.v. viewers. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/98 "2005-11-13T01:35:05Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > I realize you were quoting another source, but can I again point out that one shouldn’t look at fatality or fatal accident rates as a measure of driving skill (or anything else) by age, because older people’s fatality rates are hugely inflated due to physical frailty. This could be another argument against letting them drive - the danger they present to themselves. I don’t buy it myself, because I think everyone should be allowed to put themselves at risk… I don’t support seatbelt laws or helmet laws either. But a lot of people do, and I think they would find it alarming that elderly drivers are as likely to die in an accident as inexperienced teenage drivers. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/99 "2005-11-13T02:44:58Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > This could be another argument against letting them drive - the danger they present to themselves. > > I don’t buy it myself, because I think everyone should be allowed to put themselves at risk… I don’t support seatbelt laws or helmet laws either. But a lot of people do, and I think they would find it alarming that elderly drivers are as likely to die in an accident as inexperienced teenage drivers. Nice stab at devil’s advocacy, but that’s a really really bad argument. First, it’s the crash rate that matters, because old people are gonna die more whether they’re the drivers and get in a crash or if someone else is carting them around and they get in a crash. If their per mile crash rate is comparable to a person in their 20s, then the only way to statistically reduce their fatality rate would be to legislate that old people can only driven by the middle-aged. Or better yet just say they can’t be in cars at all. But the biggest reason is that old people are more likely to die doing literally anything. Old people are much more likely to die eating dinner. Does that shock you? \*\*Yes that’s right, seniors have nearly twice the mealtime fatality rate of any other age group except infants !!! \*\* (ok, I’m making that stat up but it’s probably about right). Should we legislate something to solve that? They’re also more likely to die as pedestrians, and they’re more likely to die if they don’t get to their doctors appointments or dont get food or are prematurely institutionalized and exposed to the waves of flu that rip through nursing homes. Unless you’d like to forceably put them in a bubble (and they’d still die eventually), their vulnerability is not something you can legislate away. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260/100 "2005-11-13T04:14:10Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > As I think was clear both from the report and my post, the report calculates both per license and per mile rates and I discussed both in depth. And as I said older drivers (over 75) are _per mile_ about as good as people in their twenties. In absolute terms (accidents per person) their crash rate is better than all other age groups. > > And \*of course \* you should consider the absolute crash rate because a) that’s precisely what should determine the cost/benefit of licensing drivers or launching an expensive and controversial universal testing program and b) when you choose to drive is part of what makes you a safe driver. If you drive all the time - regardless of your state or the conditions, then you may be a skilled driver, but you’re absolutely less safe then someone who decides to only drive when conditions are good and they absolutely need to. When I worked at a doctor’s office, older drivers would routinely cancel appointments if the weather was bad because they didn’t want to be driving in bad conditions. You could say that proves they weren’t safe drivers, but I think that proves that they are taking precautions to compensate. In fact this group is arguably \*overcompensating \* because their absolute crash rate is very low. Why would a testing program have to be expensive? I mean, sure it would be expensive to give everyone or even just those over 65 a road test every year. But there’s a whole lot between that and what my state currently does, which is every 8 years now, I take an eye test given to me by a DMV clerk or have my own doctor fill out a form saying my vision is good enough. My father renewed a license in person, with no restrictions when he was paralyzed on one side of his body and no one so much as asked a question. My grandfather’s doctor apparently lied when filling out the form for his renewal and guess what- there was no way that we could notify DMV that he wasn’t able to drive safely and they could pull him in for a road test (and we tried). Which would be an acceptable middle ground at least for me - and at least the motorcyclist Grandpa didn’t see and didn’t hear when Grandpa ran the stop sign that he also didn’t see wouldn’t have spent a year in a rehab center recovering from the accident. And that still wasn’t enough for his license to be revoked or for him to have to take a road test. I don’t think you get my point about licensed drivers who don’t drive. I’m not talking about licensed drivers who drive infrequently. I’m talking about those who don’t drive at all. My sister, for example, doesn’t drive. My father hasn’t driven in 15 years even though he held a valid license until a year ago. Let’s say you have two groups of 1000 licensed people. One group is aged 20-24 and the other is aged 70-74. The older group has 121 accidents and the younger group has 45. On a per person basis, the older group looks safer. But suppose that 99% of the 20-24 year olds actually drive and only 25-30% of the older ones drive. Now the older drivers don’t look so safe even on a per driver (not license) basis. Take into account that they may be driving fewer miles ( and we don’t know that the non- driving licensees haven’t affected that number ,too) and they actually look much worse. We don’t know what percentage of licensed drivers actually drive, but I’m certain there’s a difference by age group and I’m sure that the older age groups have more licensees who don’t actually drive. It makes about as much sense to talk about a crash rate per license (regardless of driving) as it does to talk about a crash rate per person (regardless of license or driving). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-driving-restrictions-for-the-elderly/329260.md?page=6)