Would YOU support driving restrictions for the elderly?

Great Debates
121

Yes, everyone makes mistakes.
Even ignoring the fact that old people with deteriorated mental facilities are more likely to make mistakes like these, mistakes are one thing, but being physically and mentally incapable of driving is another. Why not give driving tests to older people and if they can drive fine, great, they keep their licence? If they can’t drive, they take the license, and they lose it because it would be dangerous to let them continue driving. Dangerous to themselves and to other people, and buildings. Yes, it’s for the greater good.

Biased, anecdotal, and Irrelevant. If you want to pull experience cards, how about this? I delivered pizzas from when I was 16 to 23. That’s seven years I spent on surface streets. I saw probably as much city traffic (the kind most old people drive in since they mostly just drive to and from the drug store and church) as it would take a truck driver hundreds of years to see. When I see someone driving like a retard, it’s usually an old person. Old people are terrible drivers. This is an opinion that I don’t actually hold, but if I did, it would be just as valid as some of the previous, “Best drivers I ever saw,” being thrown around about old people.

Of course, I’m not trying to base my argument on this. I wouldn’t even have brought it up if you didn’t ask for it.

This seems to be your only reason for being against lisence testing for the elderly, and it is just ridiculous. This is pure paranoia. Besides, If these tests were implemented, most likely you would be able to take it again if you failed, just like on the driving tests they give sixteen year olds. And if you happen to catch two saboteur testers in a row (like you’d ever even catch one), then you can take it yet again!

122

This is a circular argument, since “legal age” means 18 or older. We can discriminate against those under 18 because they’re under 18.

As long as we’re talking about changing the driver licensing laws, we don’t have to worry about that. We can change the age discrimination laws while we’re at it. Legally, I think the cutoff is currently 45, not 18, and I’m not sure whether that even applies to anything besides employment.

Finally, whether it’s legal to discriminate has nothing to do with whether it’s fair; unfair discrimination should be avoided whether it’s legal or not.

:rolleyes:

123

Quote:
Originally Posted by justwannano
So just how many times have you heard of this?
I can only remember 3 times.

I’ll skip the obvious jokes about memory and simply ask, how many of those 3 times involved drivers younger than, oh, 70?

Heh Heh Heh didn’t answer did he?

Quote:
If its true then Yes it does make your opinion worth more.
You have some experience that most don’t have.

All right. Then in my professional opinion, the glowing reports of elderly drivers’ safety we’ve seen here are due primarily to personal bias (unwillingness to admit that a group that includes you, or soon will, is dangerous) and self-selection (the people who can get a job driving for an auto auction are going to be the ones who are experienced and capable enough to be hired, not the confused old folks who get fleeced by telemarketers and can’t remember which pedal is the brake).

quote
…we’ve seen here are due primarily to personal bias …

Taken out of context but if the shoe fits.

Quote:
I’m guessing it wasn’t long. You don’t seem to have the temperment for it.

Swing and a miss. If you’d like to make any other false assumptions about my personal life, feel free to do so in the pit, because judging by this thread, you’d do better in a forum where facts and rational arguments aren’t so important.

So you’ve 20 or 30 years driving experience?
Or just enough to make the statement?

n0disguise
Quote:
Originally Posted by justwannano
…
I’ve said it before and evidentally it fell on deaf ears,or maybe a blind eye.
You put drivers in an unfamiliar situation and they will make mistakes. Its not just oldsters.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes.
Even ignoring the fact that old people with deteriorated mental facilities are more likely to make mistakes like these, mistakes are one thing, but being physically and mentally incapable of driving is another. Why not give driving tests to older people and if they can drive fine, great, they keep their licence? If they can’t drive, they take the license, and they lose it because it would be dangerous to let them continue driving. Dangerous to themselves and to other people, and buildings. Yes, it’s for the greater good.

Never did say people with deteriorated facilities should be able to drive.
Even those with physical disabilities should be looked at seriously.
The determination should be by a physician. NOT by some predjudiced layman like you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justwannano
I’ve tried to keep up with all the posts here so please forgive me if I am mistaken but has anyone noticed that the 3 professional truck drivers have said that its not
the elderly that are the problem but there are a few that are persistent in wanting to take their drivers licence away?
Biased, anecdotal, and Irrelevant. If you want to pull experience cards, how about this? I delivered pizzas from when I was 16 to 23. That’s seven years I spent on surface streets. I saw probably as much city traffic (the kind most old people drive in since they mostly just drive to and from the drug store and church) as it would take a truck driver hundreds of years to see. When I see someone driving like a retard, it’s usually an old person. Old people are terrible drivers. This is an opinion that I don’t actually hold, but if I did, it would be just as valid as some of the previous, “Best drivers I ever saw,” being thrown around about old people.

Of course, I’m not trying to base my argument on this. I wouldn’t even have brought it up if you didn’t ask for it.

Yeah I’ve watched pizza drivers drive. I’m not gonna look up my post that puts lots of blame on inexperienced drivers that weave in and out of traffic like some idiot but you can look it up yourself if you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justwannano
…
The drivers licence folks cannot be trusted to test.
Sometimes what they do is harmless and they probably have good intentions.
…
This seems to be your only reason for being against lisence testing for the elderly, and it is just ridiculous. This is pure paranoia. Besides, If these tests were implemented, most likely you would be able to take it again if you failed, just like on the driving tests they give sixteen year olds. And if you happen to catch two saboteur testers in a row (like you’d ever even catch one), then you can take it yet again! Today 05:43 PM TheLoadedDog In my jusrisdiction (New South Wales), drivers over 80 year

You obviously haven’t read all the posts.
Its not ridiculous and or paranoia.
It happened. Its just one instance that couldn’t happen to an elderly driver if a physician was the one that made the decision.

124

As a person who was in a crowd that was plowed into by a driver in his 20s (a girl three feet from me had her head crushed), I have an opinion on this. It’s because we don’t dwell on the age when it’s not a senior. The news report of that accident (which was buried in the metro section) did not dwell on the driver’s age. I’m not even sure if the age was even mentioned.

125

Well, I never said you said they should be able to drive.

The best way to see if someone can drive well is to watch them drive. Doctors don’t do that.

Way to ignore my point entirely. Or were you conceding it?

So you think it happened once, and maybe it did. Lots of things have happened once. We don’t get rid of all of the police because there may be some crooked ones (and there are plenty), we don’t get rid of congress because there may be crooked congressmen, we don’t get rid of licence testing for new drivers because some testers might fail some poor kid on purpose, and we don’t design cars to withstand direct hits from meteors.

And I think you missed this last time:

126

[QUOTE=n0disguise]
Well, I never said you said they should be able to drive.

The best way to see if someone can drive well is to watch them drive. Doctors don’t do that.

Neither do DMV officers.
They will never put them in a situation where some idiot driving crazy stresses them.

Way to ignore my point entirely. Or were you conceding it?

What point was that?
all I read was incoherent babbling.

So you think it happened once, and maybe it did. Lots of things have happened once. We don’t get rid of all of the police because there may be some crooked ones (and there are plenty), we don’t get rid of congress because there may be crooked congressmen, we don’t get rid of licence testing for new drivers because some testers might fail some poor kid on purpose, and we don’t design cars to withstand direct hits from meteors.
And your point would be?

And I think you missed this last time:
Originally Posted by Me
Besides, If these tests were implemented, most likely you would be able to take it again if you failed, just like on the driving tests they give sixteen year olds. And if you happen to catch two saboteur testers in a row (like you’d ever even catch one), then you can take it yet again!

Hell I wouldn’t want to have to take the test again. And I could show those examinators a thing or 2.
How can I ask someone who is a good driver to take a test i wouldn’t want to?
And, if I understand your "reasoning ", make him take it over and over again?

127

This is getting pretty ridiculous. I’ve made everything I’ve said very clear. I feel like I’m picking on you. Fair warning: I’m not sure I can spend much more energy on this.

Actually, that’s exactly what people at the DMV who administer driving tests do.

So just because they can’t catch the old people who only drive poorly in stressful situations, they shouldn’t even try to pick out the ones who can’t drive under normal conditions?

The point that a couple of truck drivers – elderly or not – saying that old people drive well is irrelevant.

Oh, and uh, pot, kettle, etc.

I’m tiring of spelling this out for you over and over. My point here is that just because some DMV guy may fail one elderly person on purpose, that doesn’t mean we should just forget the idea altogether.

Kids fail driving tests all the time and if they feel like they can pass it, they keep taking them over until they do. There are only two reasons for them to need to take the test more than once:
1)they didn’t drive well enough the first time
2)they got failed on purpose (yeah right)

If they fail for the first reason, they shouldn’t be on the street. In the very, very, very unlikely event that they fail for the second reason, well, that sucks, but they can (if the testing works like the testing for new drivers does) take it again.

With the exact same words we will ask a bad driver.

Heaven forbid we inconvenience a potentially dangerous driver!* Better to just let him drive, right?

*And by “potentially dangerous,” I mean more likely than younger people to have some kind of physical ailment which keeps them from driving well.

128

You’re not picking on justwannano, he’s just determined not to answer anything directly. I’m not going to waste any more time replying to him.

129

justwannano,

Your posts are too hard to read. Can you please adopt standard quoting, especially for a long post?

Thanks!

Julie

130

A summary

On one side we have folks that think being old is a reason for revolking driving privilages.
Never mind they don’t spend much time on the road.
One of them feels that because he was a pizza driver, who are well known for their erratic driving habits jackrabbit starts and stops and weaving in and out of traffic he is an authority on who is not a safe driver.
The other claims to be (have been) a professional driver. He won’t elaborate so we can make our own decisions. He also claims to be concerned because old drivers constantly drive through crowds of people in their out of control vehicles but he can’t seem to remember any more than a couple of situations that this happened.
Both state the obvious. After a certain age old folks shouldn’t drive.They both ignore the fact that it is different with each individual.
Both think the DMV should be able to revolk a persons drivers licence because they think he may not drive safely. Never mind they only have an often times confusing written test to go by and a driving test that is known to strike terror in many drivers.

On the other hand we have 3 licenced truck drivers who have years on the road and claim that older drivers are not a particular problem.I ve stated that erratic driving and speeding are far worse than driving slow.Older folks driving time is limited because it is more from need.We had a health professional who stated that many older folks will cancel their Dr appointments because of inclement weather where they may have trouble driving.Seeing it as a safety issue.I pointed out one situation, I’m sure there are more, where a mentally sharp aged woman was so concerned that she may cause an accident that she unnecessarily took herself off the road.Most of her driving was within a mile radius BTW.

Anyway off the top of my head there are the issues.

131

There is no way you could possibly still be this stupid after 2600 SDMB posts (even if you were a total moron to start), and you ignored my last post, so I’m just going to take this as a sign that you don’t want to discuss this anymore.

132

Moderator’s Warning: N0disguise, personal insults are not allowed outside of the the BBQ Pit.

Don’t do that again. Repeated rules violations will result in your losing your posting privileges on this board.

133

Well, n0disguise is gone, but I can certainly understand his frustration. Let me go back on my promise just once and point out the flaws in justwannano’s post a bit more calmly than our banned friend did:

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument, and although it’s been pointed out many times, he continues to beat up this poor strawman.

A hypocritical generalization. You can’t call for elderly drivers to be treated as individuals in one breath, then lump all pizza delivery drivers together in the next.

An interesting choice of words… my employment history is just a “claim”, while n0disguise’s was accepted as fact. “Constantly” is an exaggeration that wasn’t in any of my posts.

Once again, he’s attacking an argument that no one presented, and at this point it’s hard to believe that’s an honest mistake.

A lovely collection of anecdotes, with personal opinion mixed in - apparently we’re supposed to take j’s word as gospel when he says one type of dangerous driving is “far worse” than another. It’s a pity all those anecdotes don’t add up to data.

This last post isn’t a fluke, it’s characteristic of all his posts throughout the thread. There may or may not be a valid point in there, but it’s hard to tell with all the dodging, strawmen, and thinly veiled personal attacks (not to mention the spelling and quoting style). I’ve had enough.

134

Sorry about that my dear.
Ain’t much time for journalism class when you are working for a living.
I even type with 2 fingers.Takes me a long time to type replies.
I don’t use the standard quoting because sometimes i get credited for a quote that isn’t mine.
It happened at least once above.
I don’t know how to debate either but couldn’t just sit here and not respond.
What I do know about is driving.
I’ve spent a few years at it.
I have a feeling the other 2 drivers who contributed to this thread have more experience than I.
Driving is one of the few things in todays world that nearly everyone does where they could be putting their lives and that of so many others in danger.But you have to look at it realisticly. Old folks driving into crowds doesn’t happen very often as the here would like you to believe.
There are a lot of other things that are far more likely to cause problems.
Driving under the influence is one.Taking out your frustrations because of a fight with your boss or wife or that idiot that just cut you off from your exit are far more likely to cause an accident than grandmas age.

135

The worst drivers are the reckless ones.

And they are almost invariably young farts. Not enough experience in driving to know that they are dangerous,------- that a ton or two of metal and plastic is a dangerous weapon to play around with.

The ones who dart in and out of traffic, who want to drive 10-20 miles per hour over the speed limit–or more importantly even 5 mph over the speed of the traffic flow. Where are they going so fast? Don’t they realize that at the next traffic light they will be at the same position in traffic as the old fart?

Of course they realize nothing at all.

You can test for skills and reflexes. And you may get rid of a lot of elderly drivers who never get into accidents and never cause them.

Can you test for stupidity? Stupidity in driving is the major cause of accidents. And is almost invariably done by young farts.

136

Oh, by the way. Pizza delivery people?

Danger Danger.

Get them off the road now!!

(or at least drop that stupid requirement that your pizza is free if not delivered on time).

137

If that were true, “young farts” would be the cause of most accidents. They aren’t, unless you’re counting everyone below 40 as a young fart. Drivers age 16-24 are only involved in 25% of all crashes.

138

“Only?”

Sounds a little on the high side to me.

139

That’s right. A disproportionately small portion of drivers is responsible for a disproportionately large number of accidents. That is indeed a bit on the high side.

140

No one answered this, since they were too busy making baseless generalizations, so I will, for California.

We can start with the requirement of a certain number of supervised hours driving after getting a learner’s permit, including a certain percentage at night. (This is not checked, and there is no log, but it gives good guidance to parents about what is expected.)

After a young driver gets a license, for six months when my kids got theirs (it might be longer now) they are not allowed to drive alone at night, not allowed to drive with only people under 21 in the car. This is to avoid situations where they might get distracted. There are exceptions, like driving siblings or driving at night to get to a job. The penalty for not doing this is losing the chance of getting a licens e for some time. (I can look it up.) For the most part my daughter’s friends followed these rules, and I believe the accident rate for new drivers has gone down.

No additional testing. Most kids seem to buy into the rules, and most parents think they are good ideas. If you want details, I can dig up some cites.

it seems to me that the root cause of the distinction is that young drivers are dangerous now (and so need restrictions so they can get experience safely) but will get better, while older drivers are likely safe now, but will get worse, and so there needs to be a mechanism for determining when some threshhold of danger is crossed. My father in law, who is almost 90, only drives very close to home, and gets a car service for longer trips, or trips after dark. I drove with him the last time I visited and he is not bad, but he wants to be on the safe side.