DescentBB

do you think Senior Citizens once they reacha certain age, should be tested again with a full driving course and written test?

also, alot of Senior Citizens are buying more and more Full sieze vehicles, do you think they should implement a driving course specifically on how to handle large vehicles.

i have come across many incidents lately in parking lots, were a elder person is driving a full size vehicle and they cannot park the vehicle straight in their parking space, and are usualy either: over the line, or completely parked across to entire spaces.

What do you guys think?

AceCombat wrote:do you think Senior Citizens once they reacha certain age, should be tested again with a full driving course and written test?

Yes, we should really have retests at certain predetermined points, as well as if you have had your license suspended. These would each be different tests than normal, tailored to the specific situation that warranted a retest.

also, alot of Senior Citizens are buying more and more Full sieze vehicles, do you think they should implement a driving course specifically on how to handle large vehicles.

Yes, but not just for the elderly. Besides, cars when they were younger were at least as big as our current full-size cars, so it's not really that different.

There should be different tests for vehicles that measure outside certain dimensions and handling characteristics. So for example, there might be a "Mid-size Test" (for the "normal" vehicles), a "Full-size Test" (for the full-size vehicles), and an "SUV Test" (for at least full-size SUVs, and possibly mid-size; compacts are basically tall hatches).

These different types of cars (certainly the full-size SUVs) have different handling characteristics, and it would be safest to ensure that people driving them knew how to handle them properly. Though until we can get people in subcompacts to drive properly, we certainly can't expect anyone else to....

i have come across many incidents lately in parking lots, were a elder person is driving a full size vehicle and they cannot park the vehicle straight in their parking space, and are usualy either: over the line, or completely parked across to entire spaces.

I've come across many more young people who can't park. It's not just the elderly, it's everybody. People in general like to buy large vehicles, and then don't care to park in spaces that are the proper size and park in a proper and safe manner. Even compact owners (who really have no excuses at all) tend to park horribly much of the time.

We need to completely overhaul the licensing system, to get people to be more aware and responsible. And if they prove they can't be, then I guess they just ensured that they lost the privilege of driving. They'll just have to bum a ride from a friend or coworker, or take public transportation.

But, that'll never happen. This is America, so we can do whatever we want, however we want, to whomever we want, and the government shouldn't tell us we can't (even if it infringes on these same perceived rights of everyone else). Driving is something that is taken for granted, and people view it as a right, which is the attitude that causes most of the issues with bad driving -- they don't have to care, just be glad they let you on their roads....


Or maybe it's just me who sees it like this.

Hell yes. When the old codger turns 60, and every 4 years when the license needs renewal for the picture.

I'd like ot see seperate tests for different vehicle types. We have Class A,B,C. We should extend that to Class T for the fools on the road with thier big lumbering (empty..when's the last time you saw one on the way to work with more than 1 person in it)Yukons that tend to think they're Toyotas, and rip through traffic like they aren't a 2-ton waste of gas.

Every four years? i don't agree with that. annually, yes. Mainly because I've been t-boned by an old person who figured the gas was the brake. I'll go more in-depth, but right now i don't have the time. maybe this evening i will.

Yes to elderly recertification.
Yes to size specific certification.

Additionally, I think there should be higher certification standards for EVERYONE. We should all have to demonstrate mastery of the vehicle, not just the ability to drive in a straight line under ideal conditions.

In order to get a drivers license people should have to demonstrate they can control a car in adverse conditions. This would require the driving section of the test to be conducted on a closed course. We should all know how to put a car into a spin and get a car out of a spin or at least be able to control it. We should all know about and be proficient in differential braking. The list goes on and on. Far too many people get killed each year because of incompetent driving.

How about this, there must be a 1-to-1 corrolation between the number of doctor visits per year and the number of times you are tested per year.

So, I see the doctor about once every 5 years at the moment. Elderly will see the doctor once a year or more. then e

It's flawless.

I have an elderly friend who once had a special drivers licence: He could only drive from home to the grocery store, in daylight in good weather. I happened to pass him one day driving that route, and it made sense why -- he could do it, but I sure wouldn't want him anywhere he had to read street signs or deal with unfamiliar traffic patterns.

Yeah, the elderly should be retested. There should also be a mandatory retest anytime you get a vehicle that changes more than 25% in GVWR from your prior few vehicles.

I'm all for re-testing and applying restrictions but you have to offer an alternative to those who fail completely. It's a sad fact of life that some of these folks don't have family or friends to do the grocery shopping, go to the bank, etc., so what do you propose we do if they aren't allowed to drive? Don't say public transportation because that's not realistic for many senior citizens. Basically the only real alternative is taxis at the tax payers' expense. Social security ain't going to cover it. Keep that in mind when you're cursing out the blue hairs and the disembodied arms.

Can we add soccer moms with minivans, a cell phone, makeup, and a gaggle of children in the back?

Amen to that.

Topher wrote:How about this, there must be a 1-to-1 corrolation between the number of doctor visits per year and the number of times you are tested per year.

So, I see the doctor about once every 5 years at the moment. Elderly will see the doctor once a year or more. then e

It's flawless.

Correlation is not causation. Just because two things are correlated does not mean they are related.

bash wrote:I'm all for re-testing and applying restrictions but you have to offer an alternative to those who fail completely.

I would think that especially in the case of the elderly, there would be a way to have a restricted license like Lothar mentioned, where they're only allowed during the day to go specific places in the area. Usually they won't have to drive all over town (and those who fail shouldn't be allowed to drive all over town anyway, for their safety as well as everyone else's), but can be trusted to safely navigate their way in the immediate vicinity. Either that, or set up a free or very cheap service to shuttle grandma and grandpa to the store.

People who failed who didn't fall into that category (such as young idiots), I'd imagine that there would be classes available to help try to pound some sense into them. They're fully capable of being safe drivers, they just chose not to (unlike the elderly, who aren't always physically able, due to declining sense, etc.). If they still fail to pass tests (even with the availability of extra education), then there's no real reason to let them on the roads, in my opinion.

index_html wrote:Can we add soccer moms with minivans, a cell phone, makeup, and a gaggle of children in the back?

No no no, you have it wrong. It's soccer moms with SUVs, a cell phone, makeup, and a single kid in the back that they're slapping around. (Been there, seen that, on the highway no less.)

Doesn't beat the one guy I saw a while back who was reading a map while driving!! And my wife's seen people eating cereal (you know, in a bowl with milk and a spoon), too....

index_html wrote:Can we add soccer moms with minivans, a cell phone, makeup, and a gaggle of children in the back?

good point..........

All the more reason to invent a system so cars drive themselves.

I say, if you can't maintain a good drift around a stationary object, you should start dusting off those walking shoes.

Bonus points are awarded if you can, when driving 90 miles per hour, start a skid and end up perfectly parallel parked between two vehicles perpendicular to your original path.

Bonus points can be used as a get outta jail card when you're caught for exhibition of speed or under the influence.

If you cannot read the copyright at the bottom of this page without touching your nose to the screen, you are automatically disqualified.

I wonder why we still have the red faction part of the copyright notice, I havnt seen any red faction forums around here lately...

here (OZ) when you are over 70yrs old you require a medical certificate to drive.
it must be renewed every 1 or 5 years, depending on doctor's opinion. (my 81yr old grandfather gets doctor tested every 5 years, he's such a battleaxe. but his wife gets tested every 1yr. i think it mostly depends on eyesight.)

I think it is probably a good idea to test the elderly. There is such a thing as being too old to drive, in my opinion. However, there is a real question of how exactly we punish those who drive anyway. We can give them restricted licenses, it's true. But you can't yank a license away from someone and totally expect them not to drive, considering how many people fall into this category and also the uninsured catagory.

We should, however, overhaul the general licensing system. In Oregon, new drivers must undergo about 60 hours of supervised driving, keeping a detailed log. I think a mandatory driving instruction course is also part of the requirement for getting a license. This is good thinking. However, as I said, the problem is that if you make a system too rigorous, people are going to start breaking the law intentionally until they get caught.

Kyouryuu wrote:I think it is probably a good idea to test the elderly. There is such a thing as being too old to drive, in my opinion. However, there is a real question of how exactly we punish those who drive anyway. We can give them restricted licenses, it's true. But you can't yank a license away from someone and totally expect them not to drive, considering how many people fall into this category and also the uninsured catagory.

how about the same thing that happens to everyone else.
a criminal charge, a fine, and possibly jail time (especially for repeat offenders).

what they shouldn't get fined or goto jail coz they're old? why the ★■◆● not?

roid wrote:what they shouldn't get fined or goto jail coz they're old? why the **** not?

Because nobody wants a geriatric cell-block biotch.

roid, try locking up granny because she had to run to the drugstore to get her heart medicine and see how long you retain your job.

that would be an emergency circumstance bash.
even ambulences run red lights.

i've sometimes had emergencys where i've had to drive with dangerously low blood sugars. otherwise i stay away from the wheel.

I am 46 and have lived in 5 different states over the last 20 years and had to retest fully everytime I went to a new state. I think people should retest every 10 years or so just to keep up to date on new traffic laws and ensure people are physically able to drive and not just limited to the elderly.

It's a good suggestion, overall, that driving skills be reinforced from year to year. Though, I have a gut feeling it would become like the DEQ test program - a money pit for the government.

I agree with bash on this (holy ★■◆●! Did I just say agree and bash in the same sentence?!?! ). While making senior citizens retest after a given ammount of time, there should be a fair alternative if they can't cut it such as a "Call a shuttle" service or a limited license like previously mentioned in this thread. Outright banning them from the road sounds like a fine idea to some, but try to keep in mind that some elderly don't have relatives nearby (or ones that care) to drive them around so they can pick up supplies.

However, I also agree on Cuda68-2's post that EVERYONE should be forced to re-test after a given ammount of time. Quite frankly, most people can't drive worth a ★■◆●. I've seen people get on an entrance ramp and just floor it and swerve right across 3 lanes of traffic just to get to the left lane, not even looking to see if someone was there. Then theres the sockermoms in their minivans that act like they have a Saturn-V strapped to their ass and fly down the road, cutting off people left and right just to make it to a game. Then we have the teenagers that JUST get their license and think they're invincible behind the wheel. The driving tests required are a damn joke anymore. As long as you can drive a mile or two and use your blinkers, you're set. You aren't even tested on how you can park, whether or not you pay attention to people wearing seatbelts, etc. If you ask me, the whole system needs to be revamped and the tests need to be made ALOT harder to pass. If you can't prove to your instructor that you can recover from the back or front end of your vehicle swerving, park exceptionally with no trouble at all, and pay attention to the other vehicles around you, then you don't deserve the privilige to be able to drive.