DescentBB

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 6:31 am**

Many agree that as people get older, they should be retested for their ability to drive in a safe manner. If they cannot, their license should be suspended. Some argue that a majority of older people, if this process were to exist, would lose their freedom because they would not be able to pass the test(s). Others refute this stating that people's lives are more important than the freedom of driving; the elderly who cannot drive themselves should be taken care of by someone.

What do you think?

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 7:04 am**

Freedom is not always a good thing. Allowing people to drive that can't properly do so is very dangerous. As there is a law against young adults that can't drive, there should be one against old adults that can't drive too.

And more trains and buses wouldn't go amiss too.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 8:46 am**

I agree that if they can't pass the test, remove the license. I can't count high enough how many times some old person nearly ran me off the road because they changed lanes without looking. It's like they just think \"I'll just merge and if I don't see them, then there's noone there\".

Also, their reaction times are horrible. They drive to slow too.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 11:20 am**

I got tee boned by an elderly driver who couldn't see a white vehicle that was twice the size of his vehicle, and accelerated into me.. So yes, I very much support yearly testing.

people have the freedom to own a gun, but that doesn't mean they can go around shooting others. I look at vehicles the same way. A two ton slab of metal going at 35mph can do a LOT of damage if it hits someone.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 12:51 pm**

Euthenasia.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 2:23 pm**

Since when was driving a freedom (you all make it sound like its a right you have)? It's a priviledge and if the elderly can't do it safely then they shouldn't be allowed to. No one should.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 7:03 pm**

When are you \"Elderly\"? Most areas and certainly here in British Columbia Canada insist on more and more frequent testing as you get over 70 and by 80 it is once a year and doctors are obligated to report any patient whose condition makes their operating a motor vehicle dangerous. If reported by your doctor your licence is suspended until a doctor clears you.
The testing is not a road test unfortunately. It should be but that costs money and irritates a very powerful voter group.
Mind you if an elderly person is suffering from dementia they are quite likely to forget that they have a suspended licence. I would wager that the really bad elderly drivers you see are driving without a licence.
And don't complain if the old person is driving slow. It is a lot safer if he stays within his abilities than if he tries to drive like he's twenty again.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 9:46 pm**

Or we could Launch them into the sun.

Oh sorry you wanted a serious answer?

After 50 people should be required to pass a standard driving/vision/sign test on a yearly basis. Why is this such a ★■◆●ing hassle? You're old - what else do you have to do?

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 10:38 pm**

lol.. 50 haha..

no.. 60 would be more appropriate; and then only every 2 years. Most states have something like this in place.

Also, I don't think you understand the what driving means to people. There are two things that older folks relate some of their self worth: thier house (if they own one) and driving. Once you take both away, many don't last long. I've seen it happen more than once.

Granted, ANYONE who is impaired should not be able to drive.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2007 11:30 pm**

I dont care how pissed off the elderly get when their license is revoked, my insurance rates and safety are at stake when they recklessly navigate their 2-ton mobile coffin recklessly. I nearly got t-boned by some grandma who didn't bother to look at oncoming traffic while turning in front of me. If I didn't sharply swerve into the opposing lane, or if that lane I swerved into was jammed pack with cars and I had no room to do so, there would have been serious and possibly fatal consequences. So you can take your self-worth and shove it, its not going to save you when you sit in a hospital for the rest of your life due to a neck injury from an accident that you caused.

Driving is a privilege, and not a right. Cant keep the car off of the gravel on the side of the road? Dont bother to check for traffic or check your mirrors? Then kiss your license goodbye, grandma. I hope you hiked alot when you were younger, cus you gonna need to have good legs with all that walking you're gonna do.

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2007 3:32 am**

Beowulf wrote:Or we could Launch them into the sun.

Ooh, that reminds me of Black&White2, where one strategy in being evil is to kill off anyone that's too old to work!

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2007 7:38 am**

I think the the people who argue about \"freedom\" are not referencing freedom as in their freedom to drive a car (it's obvious that driving a car is not a given \"freedom\"), but rather their freedom of mobility - as in, they only have a car to get around, take it away, and they're housebound. AKA their independence.

Not necessarily my argument, but it is a sad reality. I personally think that there should be some kind of re-test (maybe more) when a person hits 60/65.

And, a little off topic - but I wouldn't mind a refresher test for all the morons on the road who are perfectly capable, but approach a 4-way stop like it's a rubix cube, using a turning lane, using your signal, or driving in the left lane. You know, the stuff that really mattered for you to remember from your original drivers test

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2007 3:37 pm**

If you're not competent, you shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle. Don't care if your incompetence stems from age, a handicap, or just plain stupidity... you shouldn't be allowed to drive. Take a cab, take the bus, or have a friend drive you around.

My dad hasn't been allowed to drive for probably 30 years because of his seizures and blackouts. It's not really convenient for him, my mom, or the rest of the family, but we found ways to deal with it.

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2007 4:41 pm**

For some strange reason, epileptics don't seem to mind that they're not allowed to drive. Something about understanding that they're moving and might be the cause of their own seizure and subsequent multi-car pileup.

If only there were a word to describe this sensation of... oh wait, I got it! PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

Posted: **Tue May 29, 2007 4:53 pm**

DCrazy, I think you misspelled something. It should read \"I DEMAND MY RIGHTS!\"

Posted: **Wed May 30, 2007 12:19 am**

It's a right because it falls under freedom of movement.

Posted: **Wed May 30, 2007 12:41 am**

Ferno wrote:It's a right because it falls under freedom of movement.

In the U.S., at least, freedom of movement refers to the individual states' lack of right to prohibit the entry, movement, and fair treatment of residents of other states, and of the federal government's lack of right to do the same as well as prohibit, impede, or regulate movement within the states. Exceptions are made for both in the case of a fugitive from justice.

It says nothing about the method of locomotion. If a state prohibits me from driving (like New Jersey state law, which is one of the most restrictive, prohibits drivers who would otherwise be of age to drive without inhibition in states such as Michigan and Florida), then they have every right to arrest, detain, and charge me for driving in that state, even if I was just passing through. They do not, however, have the right to arrest me for riding on a train through the state, unless some judgment had been entered barring me from traveling on a train in that state for some strange reason (maybe my past history of attacking Amtrak conductors and forcing them to let me drive the train

).

The same argument comes up with the No-Fly list. Does the TSA have the right to restrict individuals' airline travel within the country?

My point is that "Freedom of Movement" applies to the concept of letting me get from A to B, not how I choose to get from A to B.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 12:45 am**

yet you have to pay for all methods of going from A to B.

yes, walking is included because you have to pay for shoes.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 4:39 am**

The first sentence in the driver's license guide is.
\"Driving is a PRIVELEDGE, NOT a RIGHT!\"

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 7:28 am**

(That's because you already signed the contract, Behemoth, relinquishing your right to use the roads.)

Old people are the scourge of the roads. I think 55 is a good age to start retesting. If they fail, throw'em off a cliff. Err wait, I meant something else.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 8:22 am**

So are the young, a 17 year old with raging hormones is an accident waiting to happen.

The maximum speed limit is 55 in the US no? How do you guys die?

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 9:27 am**

The driving age has been bumped up to 18 recently, which is probably a good move 'cause 16yo's are stupid. (Not when I was 16, though, we were smarter than our parents then. I don't know how they all got so dumb after I turned 21)

Some states the max legal limit is 70. My state is maxed at 65. Realistically, only a few old people actually do the speed limit. The rest of us are at least 15mph faster. I think 80 is my average cruising speed...and I get passed often enough.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 11:46 am**

Legal voting age = 18
Legal age to drive a 2 ton vehicle at 100KPH+ is 16.

WTF thought this up?

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 12:43 pm**

also, there is no age limit on piloting a boat (small craft) or planes...at all.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 5:04 pm**

FC, the national speed limit was 55 mph up until about 15 years ago. The federal government repealed that law, and individual states set their own speed limits. Many states set limits of 65, 70, or 75 mph. Montana tried to set their speed limit at \"safe and prudent\", but as a result of court challenges, they had to change it to an actual number.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 5:20 pm**

Driver Makes Two U-Turns on Interstate 5

Driver Makes Two U-Turns on Interstate 5
The Associated Press

MARYSVILLE, Wash. - A \"confused\" driver made two U-turns on Interstate 5, nearly causing two head-on crashes, then exited from the freeway before she could be stopped, state troopers said.

\"I'm amazed, I'm stunned we didn't have a fatal collision,\" Washington State Patrol Trooper Kirk H. Rudeen said.

The driver could not be located immediately following the harrowing episode Wednesday morning near this town about 30 miles north of Seattle, but a license plate number provided by a witness led investigators to a 71-year-old woman who admitted responsibility, Rudeen said.

\"She said she got confused,\" he said.

Witnesses told troopers a tan Honda entered the northbound lanes of the state's busiest freeway at 88th Street Northeast, then abruptly turned around and began driving south , against traffic , in the far left lane.

One driver managed to swerve out of the way, but another lost control of his car, hit a cable barrier and wound up on the shoulder of the road uninjured, Rudeen said.

About two-tenths of a mile farther, the Honda made another U-turn and headed north, exiting at 88th Street Northeast, where witnesses lost sight of it.

The driver, the registered owner of the car, was not arrested but the patrol will recommend that she face charges and be required to retake a driver's license examination, Rudeen said.

Note age!

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 5:38 pm**

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 6:51 pm**

People have the right to travel. People do NOT have the right to travel in a way that compromises others' safety. People who are lacking the knowledge, maturity, ability, sobriety, or focus to operate a motor vehicle safely need to find an alternative mode of travel. Such things as public transit, taxis, and bicycles provide viable alternatives for those who can't safely drive.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2007 7:22 pm**

Some elderly represent a danger to themselves and society, but \"testing\" by age clearly discriminates. Based on tech advances in precision GPS, I doubt it will be necessary.

Either directly or indirectly, corporations already track our purchases, phone calls, and web activity. I can very easily see a day when precision GPS will track ALL vehicles ALL the time. Erratic and dangerous driving habits will be detected by algorithmic formulas from GPS data, and bad drivers will be held responsible, regardless of age.

Sadly, it appears as if our \"safety\" often comes at the expense of our privacy.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:54 am**

Illegal age discrimination only exists in the employment world, specifically to employees over the age of 40. (See the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967).

Disability is also a federally protected class. Is it abhorrent to discriminate against blind people driving?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:16 am**

If age discrimination helps stop old folks from doing stupid things because they cna't think properly behind the wheel of a car, then so be it. I'm tired of seeing them change lanes on highways without looking to see if someone is coming, or just plainly stop for no reason.

I'm also for raising the driving age to 21. Why should you be allowed to drive at 16 hen you can't vote till 18 or drink till 21?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:29 pm**

CDN_Merlin wrote:I'm also for raising the driving age to 21. Why should you be allowed to drive at 16 hen you can't vote till 18 or drink till 21?

You have just outlawed grocery shopping, going to community college, and holding a job for anyone under the age of 21.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:36 pm**

DCrazy wrote:You have just outlawed grocery shopping, going to community college, and holding a job for anyone under the age of 21.

I'm sorry DC, you appear to be stuck in a parrallel universe again...

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:58 pm**

DCrazy wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:I'm also for raising the driving age to 21. Why should you be allowed to drive at 16 hen you can't vote till 18 or drink till 21?
You have just outlawed grocery shopping, going to community college, and holding a job for anyone under the age of 21.

I was 34 before I started to drive so this is pure fracking bullcockle. I did groceries with a cab, or took the bus, I went to college by bus and I work by bus.

What you are saying is for lazy people. Well, TFB for them.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:39 pm**

CDN_Merlin wrote:I was 34 before I started to drive so this is pure fracking bullcockle. I did groceries with a cab, or took the bus, I went to college by bus and I work by bus.

What you are saying is for lazy people. Well, TFB for them.

What, were you raised in or near a city or something? What about everyone else?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:02 pm**

DCrazy wrote:Illegal age discrimination only exists in the employment world, specifically to employees over the age of 40. (See the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967).

Disability is also a federally protected class. Is it abhorrent to discriminate against blind people driving?

Let's say universal vehicular GPS tracking hassles bad drivers strictly on basis of exact driver historical evidence rather than age or disability.

-If the issue truly is safety and not age discrimination (in the literal sense, not the ADEA "workplace" sense), would you completely agree and advocate someone continuously monitoring your abilities for the safety of others as well?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:42 pm**

CDN_Merlin wrote:I was 34 before I started to drive so this is pure fracking bullcockle. I did groceries with a cab, or took the bus, I went to college by bus and I work by bus.

Well good for you! Glad to know that unlike most people living in North America you had access to public transportation.

I commuted to high school on a combination of bus, train, and subway. Most people are lucky to have one of those three, all of which can only be implemented in areas with a certain population density.

Therefore, you have legally barred anyone who does not live in a city or other suitably-developed area from commuting to college (community colleges don't have dorm rooms), buying groceries (good luck getting a cab or Peapod to come out to your home in the sticks), and going to work (ditto).

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:43 pm**

ArcherOmega wrote:-If the issue truly is safety and not age discrimination (in the literal sense, not the ADEA "workplace" sense), would you completely agree and advocate someone continuously monitoring your abilities for the safety of others as well?

No, I didn't and I don't think anyone else did. That came from left field.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:26 pm**

Community Colleges in Canada have dorms. Yes I live in a city when growing up.

For people living in rural areas, what can I say. Get a job in town and rent a room. There's no excuse. If the law was changed, people would adapt.

Posted: **Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:31 am**

Genghis wrote:What, were you raised in or near a city or something? What about everyone else?

My brother cycles 6 miles in to college and 6 miles back again. Yet he's 22, and fully able to get a drivers license and car if he wanted to.

DescentBB

The Elderly and their Drivers License

The Elderly and their Drivers License

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: