Having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right. If you weren’t specifically referring to their licenses I apologize for singling your quote out, but it is a common misconception.
A few years back I applied for my Commercial Drivers License so that I could drive an 18 wheeler for a living. I had to attend 6 weeks of school, pass a physical, pass an eye exam, pass a written exam, and pass a driving test. None of these things were especially tough to do (if you’ve ever seen some of the truckers out there you’ll know what I’m talking about), but each phase had to be passed before I could even hope to legally drive.
The day I took all my paperwork to the DMV to get my license I got in line behind two women. One of them was an elderly woman and the other was apparently her daughter. The elderly woman was near deaf, her daughter had to yell at her and repeat herself constantly to be heard; near blind, her daughter had to lead her like a seeing eye dog; as frail as could be while still being able to stand without assistance; and seemingly confused by the whole process.
I watched in utter amazement as the elderly woman failed her eye exam at the counter twice, with different pairs of glasses each time, before getting enough right to pass (and we all know how difficult those tests are), and not understand the clerks directions on how to fill out the proper forms even with her daughter repeatedly shouting them. After much ado the DMV issued this woman a restricted license that allowed her to drive only during the day and only within 3 miles (I think it was) of her home so that she might visit friends and family and the local Y.
I stood there, mouth agape, shocked that they would allow this woman even that much privilege.
The Y that she is so intent on driving to is a block away from an elementary school and who knows how many busy commercial districts she has permission to drive through while running her errands.
I’m all for mandatory bi-yearly (or yearly for that matter) re-testing, of everyone–not just those above a certain age, but I also think that transportation for the elderly should be cheaper, safer, and more readily available to them. If getting around on a public or private bus were as easy as driving and cheaper than maintaining a vehicle, I think there would be a lot less potential hazards squinting over their steering wheels.
Situations like that woman and this gentleman in the story are prime examples that there exists a major problem that needs to be addressed, and soon.
If you want to argue for a higher minimum age for driving be my guest. If we as a collective society feel people aren’t mature enough to vote until 18 or drink alcohol until 21 you have to question why we feel it’s OK to turn over the keys to a car to a 16 year old.
In fact, watching my nephews in two states who are driving age, it seems that young driver’s are now issued restricted licenses - daytime only, only one passenger, etc. I have no objection to the concept of restrictions for drivers that (for whatever reason) can handle some driving situations but not others. The devil is in the details.
This is where we disagree. While I believe age is a significant factor at the beginning of the lifespan, I don’t believe it’s nearly as significant near the end. In the example given by soulmurk, that driver’s visual and auditory impairments (paritcularly the visual) would have been every bit as scary in an 18 year old as in an 80 year old. The problem is not age, it’s impairment. If the 80 year old woman jogged a 1/2 mile to the DMV, had 20/20 vision, perfect hearing, and was alert and oriented to her surrondings there would have been no issue, would there?
The variations in the rate of maturity is compressed into a shorter time range. I can’t think of any ten year olds I’ve ever know I’d trust with a car. A lot of 16 year olds can be trusted with one. That’s a mere 6 years. As I pointed out before, though, decline in driver ability ranges over decades. It has less to do with calendar age than individual impairment. All humans mature in about 15-20 years. All of them. Either they mature physically and mentally in that time frame or they never do. On the other hand, a human being can remain highly functional for 8 or 9 decades - or decline and die in 3 or 4. A lower age limit makes some sense because of the consistency of the maturation process. The upper limit doesn’t, because there is such variability in decline.
If we had a system that truly issued driver’s licenses based on demonstrated ability and a 12 year old was able to demonstrate said ability… I’d be open to the possibility. I think very few would qualify, but I would have no objection to those that do qualify getting a license. But it would HAVE to be a much tougher test than is currently issued.
And I’ve been saying all along that EVERYONE should be periodically retested REGARDLESS of age. Those who qualify should be allowed the privilege of driving. Those who don’t qualify - regardless of age or “need to drive” - should NOT have a license until they are able to qualify. In some cases, that would mean some people would never get a license, or lose it for good. In others, it might be a matter of getting a better pair of glasses or a hearing aid or some other adaption. Or some remedial education. Or taking care of a health problem.
Given the way the average American views a car as an extension of their body, imposing real health standards on drivers might even serve as an incentive for people to take better care of themselves. If having a blood pressure of 160/120 imposes no restrictions on you, where is the incentive to bring it under control? But if it might affect your driving privileges - well! NOW you have reason to do something about it. Of course, there are some folks who just wouldn’t care anyhow. You’re never going to elminate ALL the problem children on the road.
Or the opposite. If we as a collective society feel a 16 year old is mature enough to drive a 3000 lb death machine, and an 18 year old is mature enough to vote, sign himself into debt, run for mayor, or be drafted to fight a war, why do we feel he’s not mature enough to sit at home and drink a beer?
Age restrictions are not the solution to any of society’s problems: drinking, driving, voting, running for office, and other activies should not be segregated by age. I’m merely pointing out that if a little injustice and discrimination is okay when used to keep children off the road, then logically it must also be okay when used to keep the more dangerous elderly drivers off the road.
I agree that if there are people who can handle some drivign situations but not others, we ought to accomodate them instead of either allowing unsafe drivers on the road or denying them a license entirely.
The problem is there’s no real evidence that 16 year olds are unable to handle driving at night, or with passengers. Instead, the restrictions are based on hunches and gut feelings, appeals to emotion, and the desire for politicians to “do something”.
My point exactly. The problem is impairment, not age. Obviously not all elderly drivers are impaired, and neither are all young drivers.
From the statistics, though, it appears that elderly drivers tend to be more impaired than young drivers. So if you’re going to accept that age can be a proxy for measuring impairment, it would make sense to put an upper age limit on driving as well as a lower limit.
But surely you agree there’s some age at which the average person is too “declined” to drive.
Suppose that, say, 80% of 16 year olds are able to safely drive a car, and only 60% of 15 year olds are. You decide that 80% is a high enough number, so you set the lower limit at 16. Now you look at higher ages. Suppose 80% of 85 year olds are able to safely drive, and only 70% of 86 year olds are. Wouldn’t it make sense to set the upper limit at 85 years of age, using the same criteria as the lower limit? (I pulled those numbers out of thin air, but you can see my point.)
Of course, since everyone ages at a different rate, some individuals would be legally allowed to keep their licenses after they’re no longer safe to drive, and some would have their licenses taken away while they’re still able to drive safely. But if you support a lower age limit (which causes the same anomalies), that shouldn’t bother you, right?
I have a big problem with upping the legal drinking age to 21 and making it illegal for parents to use their own judgement in serving, say, a half glass of wine to a 14 year old at dinner - which is our current situation. And 18 is not necessarially the age at which you can enter into contracts - it was in Michigan when I turned 18, but when I moved to Illinois to go to school I found I couldn’t sign a lease or buy a car until I was 21 in that state, although I could do both things without so much as a co-signer at that age in Michigan. So there isn’t consistency from state to state.
Seems to me that a lot of baby boomer types who were little “wild child” types, who boozed and drugged their way through their teens, are now hypocritically imposing puritanism on today’s children. But that’s another topic…
Who said discrimination based on age was OK?
Ideally, I’d like adulthood to be something you earn - where you’d have to demonstrate the wisdom and maturity to be a full adult, but I haven’t a clue how you’d bring that about in our society which seems intent on slapping labels and barcodes on everyone so no one has to think anymore about people as individuals.
In fact, there ARE mechanisms where someone who would normally be a minor can be granted “early” adulthood - it’s called emancipation. But, again, that’s a little off track.
Then why take away the license of someone just because they are old if they are NOT unsafe mentally or physically?
I could say the same about elderly drivers.
Some teenagers aren’t mature enough to handle driving, some are. Some elderly can no longer handle driving, some can.
The statistics also say that an 18 year old is far more likely to get into an accident than a 30 year old. We still let them drive.
For that matter, at any age a man is more likely to get into an accident than a woman. But we still let men drive, don’t we? If you’re going to elminate whole categories of drivers based on statistics start with the men, why don’t you - that should eliminate a LOT of accidents right there. Unfair, you say, that the good male drivers should be tarred with mistakes of a few bad apples? Then why is it OK to punish all elderly drivers for the problems of a few?
I see, you are still not understanding my position.
The problem with young drivers isn’t their age, it’s their experience. If we all started driving as 12, the problems we see with 16 year olds now would be happening with 12 year olds, and the 16 year olds would be acting more like 20 year olds do at present. If we upped the age to, say, 19 then the “inexperienced driver” problems would be happening in the early 20’s. A 45 year old driver who got their license at 44 is NOT the average 44 year old drive, and has more incommon with a 17 year old. If we’re going to say that “all new drivers can carry no more than one passenger for the first year they have their license” it should apply to ALL new drivers, regardless of age.
Once a driver gets a certain amount of exeperience, however - let’s say 5 years for the sake of argument - then age doesn’t matter so much as mental and physical ability. At which point what should matter is ability and nothing else.
No, I don’t. And even if forced to give an age - if pressed, I’d peg it at 105 or 110 - there’s nothing to say that in 50 years that will still be a valid age to draw the line. Fifty years from now we might have 110 year old people running the Boston Marathon. Or maybe not. But once set, an age limit like that gets carved into bureaucratic stone and can almost never be changed even if it SHOULD be changed.
Um… nope. I’d say if the 60% of 15 year olds can demonstrate their ability to handle a car then they should be eligible for licenses.
I see your point, but I don’t agree with it.
You’re confusing maturation with age. Children are NOT minature adults. A six year old could manipulate the controls of a car, but because no six year old is mature he or she does not have the judgement or foresight to safely operate a car on the road in real-world conditions. The problem with elderly drivers is impairment - which often can be compensated for to allow them to continue driving safely. Cataracts can be surgically corrected these days, drivers who have gone deaf can mount extra mirrors and undergo some rehabilitative training to continue driving safely (I once worked for a woman who went completely deaf in her 20’s and had to do just that - but has since driven safely). In some cases, switching from a manual to automatic transmission may improve safety, or modifying a steering system to turn more easily, installing larger foot pedals, or hand crontrols for throttle and brakes instead of pedals. But many people aren’t going to do this unless they have have to (and even then there are going to be some stubborn ones) In other cases, an elderly person retains the ability to drive and unmodified car safely into their 90’s.
Even the issue of declining reflexes is a distraction in many cases - true, a 80 year driver doesn’t have reflexes as fast as a 20 year old - but presumably an 80 year old is more likely to have the experience and judgement to avoid situations where lightning-fast reflexes are required.
This isn’t what I’m advocating at all.
What I want to see is regular and serious testing of driver skill at ALL AGES. No one would either lose or keep their license based solely on age. If you’re 93 and can safely drive - more power to you. If you’re 40 and blow the test - you’re taking the bus. If it’s a correctable problem then come back for a re-test when the problem is resolved, otherwise, I hope you enjoyed the time you had on the road.
Again, you are confusing maturation with age. They aren’t the same thing. I repeat, children are NOT minature adults. It’s not just a matter of being physically able to manipulate controls or aim a vehicle down a road - an eight year old, ANY eight year old, lacks the reasoning ability of an eighteen year old.
Again, I’d rather see driving privileges based on demonstrated ability rather than age - ANY age. Forcing someone to stop driving at the abritrary age of, say, 75 is no more just or fair than insisting they MUST stop working at 65 and never seek employment in any form again. For far too many people there are too many useful years of life left ahead of them to do that. And since the trend is towards people not only living longer, but being healthier longer (on average) the average driver of 75 in 2050 should be safer than the average 75 year old driver was in 1950.
Anyone who supports an age limit (upper or lower) on driving.
I think we’re talking around each other here.
One problem is related to experience: A person who’s been driving for 2 weeks is almost certainly going to be more dangerous than a person who’s been driving for 2 years, whether he’s 16 year old or 30 years old. Thirty year old drivers are more safe, as a group, than sixteen year old drivers, mainly because people tend to get their licenses at age 16 instead of age 30.
But the driving age, the age at which a young would-be driver is allowed to apply for his license, has nothing to do with experience. A 16 year old first-time driver has no more experience than a 12 year old first-time driver. And while you might reasonably say there are no 8 year olds who have the reasoning or judgment to drive a car, you can’t say the same about 15 year olds, 14 year olds, 13 year olds, etc. There’s no evidence that 16 is a better driving age than 13, except for gut feelings, hunches, and vague prejudices.
The same is true of the lower limit. The onset of puberty is lower now than it was in the past, when our traditional age restrictions were formed - the 16 year old of today might be as mature as the 19 year old of the 1800s. The 14 year old of tomorrow might be as mature as the 16 year old of today.
I don’t think the gentleman in the OP’s article could have compensated for his impairment and confusion. Children aren’t all miniature adults, but elderly folks aren’t all just silvery adults either.
When you’re forgetting which pedal is the brake, or which street you live on, you shouldn’t be driving - but senility is as hard for the DMV to test as immaturity.
Experience and judgment won’t help you avoid dangerous situations entirely. When a child runs out into the street in front of you, you need reflexes, no matter how careful you are.
Many of the things elderly drivers do to avoid those situations actually end up impeding traffic or causing a hazard. A car going 15 MPH below the speed limit on the freeway is just as dangerous as a car going 15 MPH above the limit.
I agree - but it’s also no more just or fair than insisting they must wait until an arbitrary age to begin working.
Actually some do and many don’t. The problem is that some age-related declines also impair one’s judgement. Not only does the person not have the judgement to avoid such situations, they lack the judgement to detect that they even need to. Some will declare vehemently that they are as good a driver as they ever were, and no dam whippersnapper is going to tell them otherwise. Or they secretly do realize their limitations but cannot face up to them. IMHO, based only on anecdotal evidence, this is more common in men than in women.
It is very sad, but can be the consequence, for example, of decreasing blood flow to the brain because of cardiovascular disease, or slight damage due to tiny strokes.
Actually, MLS, you are very correct about judgement being impaired in many elderly drivers. One of the very first things that happens in people developing Alzheimer’s is that their judgement slips. Grandpa declared he was fine and didn’t need any help at all and yet he washed his hands with his toothpaste and couldn’t tell his shoes from his wife’s shoes.
I had a horrible time explaining this to my inlaws and was thankful for the Alzheimer’s support group that helped back me up! Now not every person who says ‘I’m fine’ is in this kind of dementia induced denial but if there are any other symptoms then the person really needs to be evaluated!