Well, the minimum age cutoff is already unfair to many young people.
Given the current legal situation, there’d be nothing unfair about setting a maximum age limit. Hell, it’d be a courtesy to let them take a retest instead of just stripping their licenses on their 75th birthday.
I’d much rather have individual testing at both ends of the age spectrum, though. If someone passes the test, he gets to drive, whether he’s 15, 50, or 90. If he fails, his application is denied or his license is revoked. Retests every 5 or 10 years.
I don’t object to retests every five or ten years for the majority of the population. However, I believe that at the upper age brackets, 80 and above, there’s good cause to suggest more frequent retests. I’m not about to suggest that all persons of a given age have to be taken off the road. I don’t think that’s right. But there are many who should be.
AIUI it’s relatively easy here, in NYS, for a doctor to write to the DMV to suggest someone have their license revoked. IIRC it’s what we had done to my grandmother. And contrary to what other posters are saying, I’ve not seen that there’s a consensus among elderly voters to prevent such testing. A blanket ban would get such, but I believe simply increasing testing wouldn’t be fought so hard.
Perhaps one of the manufacturers of high-performance engine-management chips could design one that does the opposite and severely limits sudden acceleration.
Then, if Granny or Gramps suddenly floors the gas, the car’s engine would die.
You could also incorporate a governor that would limit top speed and max. acceleration rate.
Come to think of it, this might be a good product for inexperienced young drivers as well. One of my sons knew a kid who thought his stickshift was in reverse but was actually in first. When the vehicle didn’t move backward,because it was hung up on the curb in FRONT of it, he floored the gas and went forward through a plate-glass window.
Special license plates could be issued to cars so equipped to warn the rest of us that an age-impaired or inexperienced driver was at the wheel.
Every bad winter storm, some old person goes missing and is found dead in their car in the midst of a field many miles from their home. GPS plus a chip that cuts off fuel after the vehicle has driven a given distance per day and/or per trip and must be reset by a designated party, a relative or maybe the local sheriff or town cop, would allow old folks to roam on a short tether and make them easier to find when they come up missing.
This could also work for drunks who have been given"work permits". Set the chip for 1 round trip/day to and from work and make the straying offender explain to the cop with the reset code why he’s out-of-bounds.
That’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that legislation which places restrictions on driving for the elderly is all well and good, but a belief that the authorities can single-handedly end problems with elderly drivers is simplistic. Not having a license didn’t stop my grandmother, because no one was willing to take the car away–because of other complications(see previous post). Many elderly persons (in my experience) see a slow decline in their ability to be a safe driver and take reasonable precautions (limit night driving, distanct driving, bad weather driving) but are understandably reluctant to give up their ability to drive to the grocery store in good weather. Preventing elderly problem drivers from driving is a complicated issue. I’m not sure we should throw up our hands and give up, but we do need to recognize that revoking someone’s license and telling them that they can not legally drive is not the same as rendering it impossible for that person to drive. Poorly thought out or enforced laws could result in little change in the number of accidents caused by elderly who shouldn’t be driving, just increase the likelihood that the driver does not have a valid license and perhaps does not have insurance.
That’s unbelievable! When my spouse had ONE non-epileptic seizure, the cause of which was resolved, the doctor was required to report it to the DMV. I believe the minimum suspension time after a seizure here is one year.
I don’t know-it might be because he usually has rather mild “focal seizures”. He’s still aware, but he can’t move-he can just sit there and say, “I’m all right, I’m all right.”
(It happened on Christmas Eve and my grandmother started yelling at him because he was holding up dinner. :rolleyes: sigh)
So since they’re not grand mal or whatever, it might not count. I don’t know. And my dad and my aunts are very hesitant to say something to him about it. I wish I could.
What happens when the older person drives himself to the DMV office to take the test and fails it. How does he then get home?
To answer the OP, I would support driving restrictions for the elderly IF some equitable means of enforcing those restrictions can be found.
I have to say this: I drive somewhat more than 100 miles every night and I feel a hell of a lot more threatened by younger drivers than elderly ones, especially right after the bars close.
The answer is to have everyone, young and old (to avoid charges of age discrimination), tested on a routine basis; maybe every two-three years. Then the question becomes one of how to pay for the increased testing, the personnel involved, and the multi new testing facilites that will be required.
What happens when the person drives himself to the DMV office to take the test and fails it? How does he then get home?
My solution’s actually less intrusive than yours, requiring less resources to implement. And one could even add a layer of protection - if they fail the minitest, then they have to take the actual road test.
This is a little different than the title. Yes, I would support more rigorous testing after a certain age. My father has passed, but my mother tells me stories about his last days and I now know just how dangerous he was on the road. I loved him, but he should have had his license revoked based on his physical limitations. So yes, I would support more rigorous testing after a certain age.
The most common gripe I’ve heard is old folks driving too slow. It really irks a lot of people. They are being careful.
IMHO thats a lot better than not being careful enough like a lot of youthful drivers.
If driving is affected by bad eyesight or reaction time then that driving should be at least limited.
I know of one old lady that is restricted to driving to town and only in the daytime.
So in certain circumstances driving is being restricted.
I also know that my own mother was so afraid of hitting someone she talked herself out of driving.Claiming that the floaters in her eyes might cause her to swerve causing an accident.
She has recently sold her car. Now she has restricted herself to her house.
I also know of one fella that drives a delivery truck hauling lumber.
He only has one eye. He has done it safely for years.
So where is the cutoff?
Statistically speaking, it isn’t. Elderly drivers are involved in as many accidents per mile as young, inexperienced drivers. A car that’s moving too slow is an obstacle, little better than a mattress in the lane.
Why not start testing drivers whenever they get their first Social Security check and ever two years thereafter?
That’s young enough that they shouldn’t feel too insulted; most won’t be affected at first. Besides, it will come with a paycheck and that will be a nice distraction. No one will take it personally since it will be an automatic process.
Yes, there may be some fight from the AARP. After all, there are some people who are quite sharp and focused at 90. Some of you kiddies treat us as if we are all chime heads at 50.
I have a very good driving record, but I wouldn’t object to being tested now that I’m 62 and beginning to get that vacant look.
And if you live where there is no public transportation or I suppose you can just starve to death, right?
Taxis? There are places that don’t have taxi nearby, you’d have to pay the driver for the time to come out to make the pick up, do the driving, then drive back to base. VERY expensive.
I think they already do this in Illinois and I see no problem with testing to be sure they’re mentally capable and all. I would have a problem with a blanket restriction though.
Probably a few, but it doesn’t seem likely. OTOH, speeders don’t just ram into people either, there’s always some loss of control or failure to pay attention involved when there’s an accident. Driving slowly is just an outward sign of the elderly driver being overwhelmed by the task of maneuvering a car.
If this is a good reason to let people drive who are incapacitated by age, I suppose we should also let people younger than 16 get a license if they can demonstrate the need.
Impaired vision and/or hearing. Especially dangerous at night.
Driving too slowly and unpredictably and irritating the sh!t out of everybody else.
In addition, not all elderly drivers drive too slowly. Some, especially men attempting to prove that they are still as good as they ever were, not only drive too fast relative to how quickly they can respond to hazards, but faster than they should have been driving when they were 20.
My late father’s accidents happened when he simply failed to notice things like a pickup truck. It was just sheer good fortune that it was a truck and not a person.