Advocacy & Safety - CS Monitor Opinion on Older Drivers

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p09s02-coop.html

This should be of interest to our members at BF.net

The part about increasing mirror sides has me a little scared though.:eek:

Drivers over 65 should have to take a mandatory vision / behind-the-wheel driving skills test every 2 years. Those younger should have to take the same test every 5 years (or whenever it comes up for renewal in your location) I for one am sick to death of getting buzzed by 82 year old women who weigh 70 lbs and can't see over the wheel of their 1972 Coupe De Ville

http://www.libertysoftware.be/cml/mycars/1972/mycadillac/72coupe.jpg :crash: :crash:

Man JoeTown, you and I must be on a similar thought process wavelength or something. I was just thinking about how elderly drivers should be required to have a regular driving test administered on a regular basis.

This thought came to me as I was out for my ride this morning before work and was "brushed" by a car when there was PLENTY of room. From what I could tell of the driver she was a "Q-Tip, BlueHair, ...etc."

L8R

BTW, I live in Sarasota, FL only an hour from Tampa and there are A LOT of retirees. The average age here is like 73! (seems higher!)

L8R

Funny- I haven't had any near misses with older women, but I've been nearly hit by older men behind the wheel more times than I can count.

I just wonder why every time someone brings up a point about bad drivers, it ALWAYS goes to the stereotypical and insulting idea that it's women drivers doing the damage?

BTW, the only time I've ever been hit was by a man- but I do find that overall, my near misses are spread pretty evenly between men and women drivers. Drivers in general just have very little concept of sharing the road with cyclists. And the elderly person they mentioned in that link that plowed into the Farmers Market? That person was also a man.

Moving back to the point of an article- I agree about manditory testing, but I really think vision should be checked once a year for everyone- you never know what health factors are affecting people at any age, so it would be smart to just do a manditory, just-in-case check. I had a friend who had a brain tumor of some sort, and that affected his vision- luckily, he went to a doctor and got checked before he had a chance to get behind the wheel, since he had eye problems as a result... now that could have been a nightmare.

Koffee

I totaly agree with you two. Last month I was driving down westminster Blvd in seal beach. There are ALOT of cyclist riding that road, so I'm sort of glad I was hit in my car then some of them. My car stalled at a redlight, I knew the problem so had to let it sit a minute to cool down (was not fixed right at shop earlier that day) I watched these cars buzz pass me the big stream of cars had stopped finaly! I figured I was safe light had just turned yellow and I look back and this one car is coming down the street no other cars around for about 200-300 yards. And she never even slowed down and plowed into my car completely totaling it! I was extremely upset when I got out of the car. So I got out and noticed it was this little old lady so I stood their for a minute took some deep breaths. Then walked over to make sure she was alright. She had a bloody nose and did not seem to be hurt otherwise. I asked if she was alright, she just said how do I get to PCH and woodruff (if I remember correctly) I need to get over there and wanted to drive off. Told her she needed to stay till the police showed up. Police made her pull off the road, they were just shaking their head when talking to her. Well later that evening after calling up my sister-inlaw to get a ride home. Her care-taker called us up, and told us that the lady had got home and did not know what had happened just had my information on a piece of paper and her car was damaged.

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Funny- I haven't had any near misses with older women, but I've been nearly hit by older men behind the wheel more times than I can count.

I just wonder why every time someone brings up a point about bad drivers, it ALWAYS goes to the stereotypical and insulting idea that it's women drivers doing the damage?

BTW, the only time I've ever been hit was by a man- but I do find that overall, my near misses are spread pretty evenly between men and women drivers. Drivers in general just have very little concept of sharing the road with cyclists. And the elderly person they mentioned in that link that plowed into the Farmers Market? That person was also a man.

Moving back to the point of an article- I agree about manditory testing, but I really think vision should be checked once a year for everyone- you never know what health factors are affecting people at any age, so it would be smart to just do a manditory, just-in-case check. I had a friend who had a brain tumor of some sort, and that affected his vision- luckily, he went to a doctor and got checked before he had a chance to get behind the wheel, since he had eye problems as a result... now that could have been a nightmare.

Koffee Let's not turn this into a sexist issue Koffee my example just happened to be the last person to buzz me. Remember that I live not 15 blocks from where that clown rammed the St. Pete bike club so I KNOW it goes both ways.

I think that any prudent person would agree that older individuals should be tested @ some age interval in an effort to determine their ability to operate a potentially lethal device. So then, I wonder why this hasn't happened? The answer is pretty simple. Older individuals vote, and they have VERY strong lobbyists. The AARP and other institutions will continue to influence politicians with cash and other methods. As the older population grows, this force will only get greater.

This should be an issue about safety. Unfortunately, like so many other issues, it's really a matter of politics and money. Sad, but oh so true.

Yeppers bac

Originally posted by bac
Older individuals vote, and they have VERY strong lobbyists. The AARP and other institutions will continue to influence politicians with cash and other methods.

Well, maybe just maybe, there could be a bright side to this. Say the elder bad driving thing gets bad enough and a law DOES pass saying they must be tested.

Then, all these people that vote will have a vested interest in public transport. Perhaps if oldsters were forced through circumstance more often to rely on the public transport option more of them would support it at the polls knowing someday they might need it?

In other words, it would be a dream of mine to have seniors as a voting block be pro public transport. All in all this is unlikely, as mandatory testing, like you said, won't ever make it. But i can dream, cant i? ;)

take care,

Jester

I'm NOT turning this into a sexism issue- just noting my observations about how people seem to be always putting women drivers into this category. I am glad that some people know it goes both ways- it would just be prudent to make sure that it's more obvious, because I rarely see anyone suggesting otherwise.

Back to the issue at hand- if we all agree it's a good idea to test older drivers, why isn't it manditory? I would think it would be difficult to get all those drivers in for a once a year test- what if they just refuse to come? Do we wait for them to have their next accident before we notice that they haven't been in for their test? The states could just renew their licenses for a year, but we know they would most likely just continue driving anyway when the year was up and the license expired, so what's the solution? I have no idea.

Koffee

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
what if they just refuse to come? Do we wait for them to have their next accident before we notice that they haven't been in for their test? The states could just renew their licenses for a year, but we know they would most likely just continue driving anyway when the year was up and the license expired,
Koffee Real easy: if they refuse the test their license is suspended untill they do also no new plate stickers issued to those who haven't taken / passed the test. If said driver is caught driving on a suspended license they are ticketed and / or their car is impounded (like anybody else) get busted twice and the car is forfeited etc. I'm not trying to be harsh here but bad drivers of ANY age put us all at risk

What I really think should happen is that when anyone hits a pedestrian or cyclist, they should just have their car immediately impounded indefinitely, and that should just be the end of it. I'm not 100% sure, but after that guy hit the cyclists in Florida, didn't they allow him to drive away? If my memory is correct, that is INSANE!

Not renewing the stickers is a good idea- now we just need to get the cops to pay attention and get the tow trucks ready!

Koffee

Where I live, we have a great number of retirees, mostly military. Interestingly enough, they seem to be among the better drivers I encounter. In my experience olderdrivers will generally allow me plenty of room or hang back untill they can pass safely. I realize if a person's cognative and visual abilities have declined that individual could present a hazzard to others and so testing seems to be a reasonable solution to the problem, but overall older drivers seem to have more respect for human life and seem to be less likely to do things deliberatly that might cause harm to others. Self absorbed, over-stressed turbo Yuppies and over agressive pickup/SUV drivers cause me far more trouble than the old folks. Just my experience.

Originally posted by Big Johnson
Where I live, we have a great number of retirees, mostly military. Interestingly enough, they seem to be among the better drivers I encounter. In my experience older drivers will generally allow me plenty of room or hang back untill they can pass safely. I realize if a person's cognative and visual abilities have declined that individual could present a hazzard to others and so testing seems to be a reasonable solution to the problem, but overall older drivers seem to have more respect for human life and seem to be less likely to do things deliberatly that might cause harm to others. Self absorbed, over-stressed turbo Yuppies and over agressive pickup/SUV drivers cause me far more trouble than the old folks. Just my experience. Down here the old folks drive more like psychos than do the yuppie SUV crowd (which isn't much better given cell phones and the fact that they're driving an Escalade like it was a Accord)

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Funny- I haven't had any near misses with older women, but I've been nearly hit by older men behind the wheel more times than I can count.

Since you seem to be sensitive to the issue of sexism, i'd like to ask: How is the above statement not sexist against men the same way Raiyn's statement was sexist against women?

Just curious,

Jester

I'll address this issue one more time, then I'm not going to comment again, as it's getting the thread off subject... AGAIN!


I for one am sick to death of getting buzzed by 82 year old women who weigh 70 lbs and can't see over the wheel of their 1972 Coupe De Ville

This is a generalized statement. Show me that every person in Florida driving badly is an old woman in a 1972 Coupe de Ville.

My statement is just a plain observation- I'm sorry I don't have pictures of every person that's almost run me off the road, but I'll faithfully look at the person in the vehicle I've had the confrontation with, and it's ALWAYS been older men- my latest was an older gentleman driving a taxi, and I rode up to him, slapped on his window and yelled at him to watch out. He squinted, looked at me, apologized, and swore he didn't see me. I also had a bus driver run me off the road- he came up from behind gunning his motor, overtook me, then moved over all the way to the right, forcing me to jump the curve and get on the sidewalk. I reported the incident, and whether the bus driver was lying or not, he claimed he didn't see me. :rolleyes:

Regardless, taking my words out of context doesn't help your point either- I said my personal experience, but followed up by saying that my near misses have always been pretty evenly spread out between men AND women- so I didn't exactly generalize there. Again, there's a difference between making a statement based on my experience and making a generalized statement about a group or class of people (old ladies in a coupe de ville)- but this is just in MY opinion.

Say whatever in response... I'll not hijack the thread and detract from the issue of importance here, which needs a discussion on possible solutions to a big problem out there. If you're really that concerned, drop me a PM and we can discuss this elsewhere.

Koffee

Originally posted by JoeTown244GL
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p09s02-coop.html

This should be of interest to our members at BF.net

The part about increasing mirror sides has me a little scared though.:eek:

The same could be said of young drivers. I have had more close calls with teens yakking with their friends, changing CD's, eating burgers, and generally not paying attention than I have with older drivers.

But, you point is well taken. At 57, I am approaching that age when I will be an "older driver." A vision and driver's test every two years for those over 65 sounds like a good idea. I think I would take it a step further and say every two years from 65-71, then ever year until age 75. I would also make it mandatory for doctors and other health care professionals, including optometrists and opticians to report anyone with eye sight that might restrict their driving or other physical or mental conditions incompatible with driving.

After one at-fault accident or ticket for careless or reckless driving, a complete eye examination and a test for manual dexterity and reactions times, then retesting every six months for two years.

Allowances would have to be made, however, for the fit old people. One of my wife's grandmothers was spry, active, and capable of driving cross country well into her 90's. A friend of my mother's was 65 and barely able to climb into her Caddie without having a coronary. While anecdotal, this does suggest a need for some discression.

Originally posted by TrekRider
The same could be said of young drivers. I have had more close calls with teens yakking with their friends, changing CD's, eating burgers, and generally not paying attention than I have with older drivers.

So have I for that matter, and I've had still more problems with middle-aged men in pick-up trucks (that is not a generalisation, that is a solid fact!). For that reason, I ask why wait until someone is 65 or whatever to start re-testing their suitability to be holding a licence. Why not re-test them sooner?

If I got a licence tomorrow and didn't drive for 20 years, I'd hardly have the skills necessary to operate a motor vehicle appropriately - yet because I wouldn't be 65, hardly anyone would make an issue of it. I say mandatory re-testing from the time someone first gets a licence.

Remember, age is not the only issue.

Originally posted by Chris L
Remember, age is not the only issue.

Exactly... it's all about skill and judgement. I personally would like to see the following type of checks modified and applied to the automotive world.

http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/acs/61-98a.txt

As to the issue of medical conditions, I too agree that everyone should be tested every few years. This is actually how it's done in the aviation world. Albiet there is still an age consideration for third class medical certificates.




§61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration.
...
(c) Duration of a medical certificate.

(1) A first-class medical certificate expires at the end of the last day of --

(i) The sixth month after the month of the date of examination shown on the certificate for operations requiring an airline transport pilot certificate;

(ii) The 12th month after the month of the date of examination shown on the certificate for operations requiring a commercial pilot certificate or an air traffic control tower operator certificate; and

(iii) The period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section for operations requiring a recreational pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate, a flight instructor certificate (when acting as pilot in command or a required pilot flight crewmember in operations other than glider or balloon), or a student pilot certificate.

(2) A second-class medical certificate expires at the end of the last day of --

(i) The 12th month after the month of the date of examination shown on the certificate for operations requiring a commercial pilot certificate or an air traffic control tower operator certificate; and

(ii) The period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section for operations requiring a recreational pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate, a flight instructor certificate (when acting as pilot in command or a required pilot flight crewmember in operations other than glider or balloon), or a student pilot certificate.

(3) A third-class medical certificate for operations requiring a recreational pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate, a flight instructor certificate (when acting as pilot in command or a required pilot flight crewmember in operations other than glider or balloon), or a student pilot certificate issued --

(i) Before September 16, 1996, expires at the end of the 24th month after the month of the date of examination shown on the certificate; or

(ii) On or after September 16, 1996, expires at the end of:

(A) The 36th month after the month of the date of the examination shown on the certificate if the person has not reached his or her 40th birthday on or before the date of examination; or

(B) The 24th month after the month of the date of the examination shown on the certificate if the person has reached his or her 40th birthday on or before the date of the examination.

The fundamental problem is that, at least in the U.S., it is far too easy to obtain and to retain a driving license. Since the California Department of Motor Vehicles charges only $15 for a 5-year license, they do not have enough money to screen motorists properly.

The only solutions I can see are improved public transit and road systems designed to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, which would give less-competent drivers a measure of independence and mobility, while limiting the amount of damage and mayham they can inflict on the rest of us.

AARP has been soliciting me to join for the past 3 years, even though I am at the peak of my career in an exciting new field and nowhere near retirement. However, I am tempted to join them just so that I can lobby FOR mandatory testing of ALL motorists.

I'm nowhere close to being in the AARP age group, but I hope to retire soon ( :p ).... I say go for it and join and get some of those benefits!

Koff

Hi Koffee,
women not only outlive men, they deteriorate more slowly. That means in a place like Florida, you are going to see a disproportionately large number of elderly female drivers. If you remember, the thread started with an event in florida. What I take from this is that as Boomers retire, the roads are going to get really dangerous; not beacause of sex, simply because there will be vast numbers of impaired drivers.

At the risk of sounding like a looped recording (when was the last time you actually saw a broken record), way too many people regard driving a car as fast as they want, for as long as they want, some kind of a God-given right. It will require a major shift in our culture to change this.

And to add fuel to the fire, there's this:
Elderly Driver Slams Into 6 Cars At Merritt Island Red Lobster
http://www.local6.com/news/2457703/detail.html

Actually, the thread started with an event out of California. The article happened to be written by a social worker in Florida.

Regardless, even if there is a disproportionate amount of elderly female drivers in one state, show me where they are all 82 year old women driving Coup de Villes. What I said I didn't like is the stereotypes that seem to punctuate posts about who the bad drivers are, and I don't like the insistence of board members to constantly feel free to exascerbate this stereotype/generalization based on whatever problems they may have with that class/group of people.

Can we stop hijacking the thread and deal with the issues at hand? If you insist on discussing this, drop me a PM and we can debate until the cows come home. Thanks.

Having said this, and moving on, I thought about this last night- my parents got in a fight earlier in the week, and my 67 year old, Parkinson's Disease-afflicted father wanted to drive home. This, after asking him NOT to drive and after he agreed that he couldn't drive, after admitting he had problems with feeling his feet sometimes, which led to problems driving. I had to voice some strong frustrations to him, because I really thought we made it clear to him, and I thought that he understood how dangerous it was for him to be out on the roads in a car and not know when he'd lose sensation of his foot (his right foot, btw, and he drives an automatic). My brother managed to talk him out of this, but not before we all felt a lot of stress.

At the same time, I'm not so sure it's that great that my mother is driving either. I observe her every time I see her, and I see she has a tendancy to squint when she's reading, and sometimes when she comes to visit, she'll forget her glasses and be driving around with no glasses. Yet this is the only way my parents can get around- they constantly drive from Indiana to Illinois (they have 2 homes but are working to sell their home in Indiana). They own the condo I live in, so I've made the choice to move out and I've encouraged them to move in and just live downtown and give up the car, except in emergencies. They hate public transportation (takes too long, and my dad gets tired very easily), and they're always whining if they need to take a taxi (costs too much for the short trips they take as well as for the longer trips), so we're really in a quandry. So far, I think the best thing we can do let me move out of here and we'll move them into the condo here downtown where everything is just a block or two from the condo except their doctor visits- we'll have to figure out something for that.

I would hope the solution for all elderly drivers is to find a way to accomodate them- and not just by providing public transportation. I wouldn't really want to start taking public transportation when I'm older if I were used to driving myself and being independent. A network of people who can support them- a good social network- would really work for them. I'm not sure what else to do beyond that.

Besides all that, there are bad drivers of all ages out there- I had some dumb fed ex guy stop in my lane about a block ahead of me, then he got out of the truck and walked to the front of it, then proceeded to step right into my path as I came barrelling down the road this morning. I nearly hit him- I had to practically pull the brakes off my bike in the process of making such a sudden stop. I also cursed him good and long in the process. Then a couple of folks attempted to jump in front of me, then turn right, so there were some pretty hairy moments there. I also had some people not looking where they were going, and as I tried to proceed through intersections, they almost turned and hit me head on. None of these people were older folks- they were all in their 40s and younger (from my estimation). What we need are tests, plus re-testing, and it needs to be A LOT HARDER to get your license to begin with, and it should be equally as difficult to maintain your license too. It shocked the hell out of me when I was living in Australia to see people struggling to get their licenses when they were in their 20s, and I was telling them that I got my license when I was 17, and that's after I failed drivers ed once, the written test 2 times, and the driving test once. I am a truly bad driver- I take up 2 lanes, I have a huge blind spot, I can't park in a straight line or even in an empty parking lot, and I hit things when I drive- not people, but like poles and posts and highway dividers and stuff like that. My sister-in-law always drives behind me when I rent a car because she's afraid I'll do some major harm, and she keeps me on the phone and talks me through the driving so I can make sure I'm in ONE lane- I don't even rent cars anymore, because until I started hitting stuff when I was driving, I truly had no idea that I was that bad... even when my sister-in-law was telling me that I was hugging two lanes and stuff. But when I started hitting stuff the last time I rented a car, that was my last time driving. She's promised that if I ever want to learn how to drive properly, she'll teach me herself, but so far, I just prefer my bike. Driving sucks. But if I'd been in Australia, I'd either be a better driver, because I'd be forced into those drivers ed classes, or I wouldn't have a license to begin with, because I'd be too terrible to get the license!

Finally, there should be a way to check for people who drive under the influence. They will just get ticketed, and even if they kill someone, they just get a suspended license and a fine, unless they killed someone deliberately with their car while driving under the influence, and even then, it's still difficult to prove that the person did it on purpose, since they were under the influence. If someone is caught driving under the influence, they should have the boot put on their car, and their car towed, and that's the end of that. Upon repeated drug testing and manditory counselling for at least a year, if they demonstrate that they've conquered their addictions, then they should have limited driving privileges revoked (like only driving during daylight hours), and not only that, they should have SPECIAL license plates (like blue colored or red, or a symbol on the plates) showing that they have limited driving privileges so they don't go sneaking out at night. And if they try to rent a car, their info should be in a system that's updated every day that the agencies can access that will show who's got a valid license or not. In fact, until they get all their driving privileges restored, they should initially have their license taken away, and when they get their limited privileges, they should get a special license that looks different from the everyday driving population so that just in case the system isn't updated, bad drivers can still be identified.

Ooooooh, I am so conservative. I know this may open up a can of worms (right to privacy, etc), but at the same time, I think when you violate the laws, you forfeit those rights until you've served your time and then some.

Koffee

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
I'm nowhere close to being in the AARP age group, but I hope to retire soon ( :p ).... I say go for it and join and get some of those benefits!

Koff

Although I disagree with AARPs politics, they do have some pretty good discounts. My first year, I got discounts on motel rooms that paid for my membership.

I join every organization that offers discounts on things I need. AARP, the Fleet Reserve Association, and one or two others.

Originally posted by Raiyn
Drivers over 65 should have to take a mandatory vision / behind-the-wheel driving skills test every 2 years. Those younger should have to take the same test every 5 years (or whenever it comes up for renewal in your location) I for one am sick to death of getting buzzed by 82 year old women who weigh 70 lbs and can't see over the wheel of their 1972 Coupe De Ville



Raiyn - did you read the article?

It specifically said the exact opposite of what you are proposing. Please read the following quotes:

"Most important, we must dismiss the notion of a single, simple solution. Elder driving cannot be viewed in a vacuum - nor can the lack of concrete action taken to address the issue.

Publicize the warning signs of diminished road competence for aging drivers so they and their families can better identify them and take action before tragedies occur.

Increase physician education about medical conditions that can impair older patients' driving skills. Though it could strain doctor-patient trust, physicians should be required to refer seniors for further evaluation when a clear risk to personal and public health exists

Develop comprehensive, objective, technologically sophisticated driver evaluations to replace simplistic vision and road tests. Given the tremendous variation between individuals and degree of impairment, it should not be age or diagnosis alone that determines whether drivers can keep their licenses."

The whole point of the article was that there is not and should not be a simplistic solution, as you propose by stating:



Drivers over 65 should have to take a mandatory vision / behind-the-wheel driving skills test every 2 years

Then you attempt to prove your statements about those over 65 by discussing someone who is 82.


getting buzzed by 82 year old women

What does a 82 year-old woman have to do with a test for those over 65?

I know that to some of our younger subscribers and participants, 65 seems ancient. I am 64, have excellent vision and hearing, fast reflexes, can ride a bike 100 miles in a day, have never caused an accident in 52 years of driving - I have had only two tickets in my life - the last one in 1977 for being in a 4:00 pm bus lane at 4:01 (my watch was slow - this was a "trap" with 3 police cars pulling folks over) and the other at age 21 (1960) for going through a stop sign at 3 miles per hour. I drive over 20,000 miles per year.

I have taken three different "defensive driving courses" and special courses about how to drive a fire truck (something I used to do).

Yes, there are some folks my age, and a LOT of folks about 21 - 25, who need to have driver's tests and education. But, this can not be based upon an attained age. It has to be based upon driving record, and other kinds of criteria as suggested in the article that apparently you missed.

I know in CA when I had to renew my drivers license a few years ago I had to take a vision test again.

As for you're mother if she is squinting to read a book or magazine etc sounds like she is nearsighted which does not necessarily mean she will have problems driving. Alot of areas to offer alternate transportation for the elderly. I know before my grandmother passed away, she used one of these services (sorry can't remember the name, has been quite a few years). You have to make appointments with them normaly a few days ahead of time but it is only a few dollars to go virtualy anywhere.

Hey Kev-

I'm just generally worried in general about my parents- I had a long discussion with my sister-in-law, and now I'm about to call my brother and talk with both of them about the situation. They're generally agreeing with me, and we're going to take the steps to get them out of driving altogether.

I forgot to mention that my mother has been seeing an eye doctor, and I'm not sure what's going on there, but the doctor called me frantic to tell me to tell my mother that she was supposed to make her appointment for two weeks from now, not two MONTHS from now. I'm not sure what's going on there, but I'm investigating that.

I'm not sure if they have these same transportation services for the elderly in Indiana or Chicago. The problem is, I know them well enough to know that they may not go for this- it's no different than public transportation for them, but just a service for the elderly, and they can't stand public transportation, even if it takes them wherever they need to go. It's irrational (to me), but that's their way, so I don't know if I can fight them on it. All I can do is work to change their surroundings so that they could walk to their intended location. They don't mind the walk, as long as it isn't far (like over 4 or 5 blocks for them), which I can totally understand. Sometimes, my father will fall while they're walking, and in one situation, my mother was a little ahead of him and didn't realize he'd fallen and had walked at least a hundred yards before she realized he wasn't there and when she looked back, he was still on the ground trying to get up. What I find crazy is that no one stopped to help my dad in the time that he was laying on the sidewalk trying to get up! :rolleyes:

Koffee

I still think Lido "Lee" Iacocca has the right idea with his neighborhood electric vehicles. Electric scooters are another possibility; perhaps we have found that elusive market for the Segway. People with declining reflexes would be far less threatening on Segways than in Cadillacs.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Raiyn - did you read the article? Yes I did.

It specifically said the exact opposite of what you are proposing. Please read the following quotes:

"Most important, we must dismiss the notion of a single, simple solution. Elder driving cannot be viewed in a vacuum - nor can the lack of concrete action taken to address the issue. So let's sit on or hands and hope they don't kill anyone because the AARP is going to lobby against a test that might save lives

Publicize the warning signs of diminished road competence for aging drivers so they and their families can better identify them and take action before tragedies occur. Families can't suspend a Driver's License or even lawfully prevent someone (who is legally unimpaired ie: not drunk etc) from driving without legal action.

Increase physician education about medical conditions that can impair older patients' driving skills. Though it could strain doctor-patient trust, physicians should be required to refer seniors for further evaluation when a clear risk to personal and public health exists Gee I didn't dispute that at all - must mean I think it's a good idea. :o Along with a driving skills test

Develop comprehensive, objective, technologically sophisticated driver evaluations to replace simplistic vision and road tests. Given the tremendous variation between individuals and degree of impairment, it should not be age or diagnosis alone that determines whether drivers can keep their licenses." No kidding a practical road test would be a valid point of consideration






I know that to some of our younger subscribers and participants, 65 seems ancient. All about you I am 64, have excellent vision and hearing, fast reflexes, can ride a bike 100 miles in a day, have never caused an accident in 52 years of driving - I have had only two tickets in my life - the last one in 1977 for being in a 4:00 pm bus lane at 4:01 (my watch was slow - this was a "trap" with 3 police cars pulling folks over) and the other at age 21 (1960) for going through a stop sign at 3 miles per hour. I drive over 20,000 miles per year.

I have taken three different "defensive driving courses" and special courses about how to drive a fire truck (something I used to do).Great so you might actually PASS a test of those skills. Right?

Yes, there are some folks my age, and a LOT of folks about 21 - 25, who need to have driver's tests and education. Ya think? But, this can not be based upon an attained age. Again I suggested it it for all ages with decreased intervals for those over 65 It has to be based upon driving record, and other kinds of criteria as suggested in the article that apparently you missed. Oh I'm sorry I must have missed it in the sugar coating Did you actually read what I had to say?
The "over 65 test"?
That's easy to explain every two years. If you're under 65 every time you get your license renewed. I didn't say what kind of test and could really give a crap about how old anyone here is or what kind of training they've received. You pass you drive; you don't pass you don't drive.

What does the 82 year old Q-tip have to do with a test for those over 65?
She damn sure wouldn't have passed it the way she was driving.

Why the "magic number of 65?
It's also the commonly accepted age when people enter the "elderly" status. . I could honestly give a flying (expletive deleted) how old you are if you can't pass a test or are afraid of taking it then get off the road. It seems to me that the only thing you got going on in your life is the fact that you're nearly the age when people feel they have a right to start b!tch!ng about "senior discounts" and complaining that the world is trying to till them under if they don't get the world handed to them on a silver platter. God forbid someone says something disparaging about a "person of advancing age" (like that PC garbage do ya?) even if it is the truth. As one ages their reflexes diminish, mental capacities decrease, physical strength begins to wane etc etc. So why is it so unreasonable to suggest that over age 65 (again the supposed "senior age mark") take the SAME test as a 20 year old only more often? Would you prefer that it be prorated somehow that the rules and laws be "softened" to protect members of the AARP? To this I say (censored)! Everyone passes the same test or they don't drive period REGARDLESS OF AGE.

This isn't the first time we've tangled on an issue where you got all offended over a supposedly evil age reference I've made. (Last time you got pissy with me because I called my mother an "older lady") You really need to get over yourself and stop thinking that everyone under 40 is out to get you. We're not we've got better things to do then plot against you. (I'll let you know when I think of one :rolleyes: )

On a personal side note:
With all do respect, In general I find your posts useful and sometimes insightful but I feel that whenever you go off on this "The world is against "people of advancing age" kick you really just end up polarizing the issue even more than what it is or needs to be.

As long as you continue to make statements that I should be treated differently after a certain age, I will respond.


I know that to some of our younger subscribers and participants, 65 seems ancient . All about you I am 64, have excellent vision and hearing, fast reflexes, can ride a bike 100 miles in a day, have never caused an accident in 52 years of driving - I have had only two tickets in my life - the last one in 1977 for being in a 4:00 pm bus lane at 4:01 (my watch was slow - this was a "trap" with 3 police cars pulling folks over) and the other at age 21 (1960) for going through a stop sign at 3 miles per hour. I drive over 20,000 miles per year.

No, it is not "All about you." I am using myself as an example of many, many folks that I know. Sorry if that was not clear.

There are hundreds of thousands of folks my age who are safe and cautious drivers, who in no way need a driver's test every 2 years. This is a totally unthought out suggestion, based upon ABSOLUTELY NO empirical evidence - just your own age-related biases. It is blatant evidence of those biases.

And, yes, the world is full of age-related (and sex-related - see Koffee Brown's contribution and your "women" statement) biases.

And I will continue to bring my perspective of older folks to this forum - until I get kicked out, I guess. If you don't like my posts, you can easily block my posts - or simply don't read them. As long as you continue your statements against older folks, I will respond. You can count on it.

That is one of the things a forum is all about - different perspectives.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
There are hundreds of thousands of folks my age who are safe and cautious drivers, who in no way need a driver's test every 2 years.

The simple fact is that age HAS to be the criteria for testing. It's the only practical way. Yes, it would be nice to retest EVERYONE, and I would be in favor of that. However, it's simply not practical, and will never happen. I agree that other demographics are poor drivers also, but that's not the point. How do you suggest that we identify these people? Should we test based on past offenses? Hey, I'm certainly in favor of that also!

I just don't see this as being a bias issue @ all. If you'd like to admit it or not, when the human body/mind ages - eyesight, judgement, reflexes, etc, deteriorate. I don't think that it's asking too much of our older population to go in for a test every few years in the name of safety. Why would that be such a problem? I just don't get it?

DnvrFox,
denial won't fix the problem. Perhaps I should say problems; as each age group has it's share. The major problems, as I see them, are inadequate training, alcohol, distractions like cellphones, and physical impairments. If you drive professionally, as I do, you can see and feel the effects of age. I am aware of them because I can see guys failing the tests we have to take as professionals. We know that the combination of age and intense scrutiny will eventually end our driving career.
We have made cars fairly safe. There are things we can do to make the roads safer. SUV rollovers are a large portion of highway fatalites. SUVs killing people in smaller vehicles are a small but preventable fatality. Government subsidies make roads cheaper for freight; but total cost analysis shows that trains would be cheaper and safer than roads for freight. Outside the politics of the issue; it's an easy fix, alter the subsidies to reflect real world costs. But these things are dwarfed by operator error. If we are ever going to make the roads safer; addressing operator error is how we are going to do it.

denial won't fix the problem.

Who is denying?[

Please see my response where I stated:


Yes, there are some folks my age, and a LOT of folks about 21 - 25, who need to have driver's tests and education.

That is not denial - that is the truth.

You are.
We had 42,000 fatalities last year, and it appears that the trend we have had for decades of reducing highway fatalities is being reversed. You pointed out others had problems, this doesn't
fix much.

The whole concept of anti discrimination laws is based on the premise that you don't make laws or do things to folks based upon arbitray assumptions about race, age, discrimination or other factors.

You base things on individual needs and differences. If a driver at age 40 needs more testing, then he/she gets tested. There is nothing magical about ages 65 or 64 or 66 or 40 or 70 that requires a difference in treatment simply based on age alone. We are all different, and the law must respect those differences.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
There is nothing magical about ages 65 or 64 or 66 or 40 or 70 that requires a difference in treatment simply based on age alone.

That's simply ridiculous.

Your answer is to let impaired drivers kill/injure someone first, then take action - which almost never happens regardless. Again, why can't we be proactive, and save some lives? The only cost would be some sort of test taken on some time schedule for our older population. I guess that's too much of a cost for you?

I'm working my way toward this demographic, and I would have no problem taking a simple test to determine if I am a hazard on the road. I would prefer to do this, as opposed to killing someone, and dealing with that cost for the rest of my life. I guess that's just me. :rolleyes:

I'm with Denver on this. Age discrimination has got to be one of the dumbest ideas to make the roads safer that this forum has ever come up with.

If you really want safer roads bombard your legislatures to make mandatory written and eye exams every single year. If a driver has had any kind of moving violation they should also take a driving test. And if you really want to weed out the sick and incompetent people who shouldn't be on the roads, then require a physical and mental exam by competent Dr's as well.

In order to implement this license fees would probably go up to $25./yr (plus Dr fees) to hire the extra people to do the testing. And it would all be a terrible inconvience which not one of you would condon or accept. I would venture to say that the hue and out cry of rage that would be raised would make the Civil Rights demonstrations seem pale by comparison.

But, true to our American way, none of you will accept responsibility for your own ignorant age groups when behind the wheel. It's so much easier to place the blame elsewhere. "It's not MY fault." you all cry; "It's THEIR fault!" "So," you collectively say, "lets make laws against them, and then the roads will be safe again." That kind of shallow thinking and prejudice is the most asinine there is. And everyone of you younger drivers should be ashamed for not taking your share of the blame and placing all the onus on older drivers. If you REALLY want to make the roads safer, I challenge you to do as I suggested in my opening statements. I'll bet not one of you does.

DnvrFox,
an interesting attempt to hide; but I would imagine you are as aware as I just how flimsy your rationalisation is. You are counting on political muscle with this; and not your brilliance. I get tested annually, as do pilots. as should every driver. It would be more cost effective to test those most at risk; but it would be easy to set up an effective schedule. Once a decade until you hit 50, then once every year or two after that. Funny how everybody loves safety until it might cost them.

Being between the "older" drivers and the "younger" and having been paid to drive more than a million miles on the road.

I am scared of:

1.) old drivers
2.) drivers with too much Testestroene!!!
3.) drivers with CELL PHONES!!!

My grandfather went to the local police station on his 75th birthday and turned his license in...I RESPECT THAT MAN.

My 32yr old son drove his mothers Z-28 with me in the car at 120mph...ONE TIME!!!!!

I can handle a truck weighing 80,000# over 70ft long in NYC traffic....but, I WILL NOT USE A CELL PHONE WHILE I DRIVE!!!

the above is only my opinion.:beer:

I think we can safely state that all people when they get older there reactions slow down.. and there health gets worse. Now reactions slowing down is not a big a problem with driving since their skills go up. So is a trade off but based on research can determine a basic year where the skills do not compensate for medical deteriation in the average person and there motor skills slowing down. I don't know what this year is maybe it is 40.. maybe 80.. This could be proven with facts just look at statistics of accidents etc, even go out and do a study on a wide range of people. THe you could come up with a age to start testing every 1-2 years. And that would not be discrimating against age. Since it would be based on Facts not opinions.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
As long as you continue to make statements that I should be . As long as you continue your statements against older folks, I will respond. You can count on it.

:rolleyes: Don't bust me up. You haven't read a damn thing I've typed in this thread. Live in your little dream world, I on the other hand will continue to argue for mandatory testing of all (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=all) ages (WHICH I'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING) with the only variable being duration of the interval between tests. I'm willing to take a test (better yet make it a medical, written and practical combo) why are you so afraid Mr. Icandriveafiretruck? I'm willing to take my own medicine



My grandfather went to the local police station on his 75th birthday and turned his license in...I RESPECT THAT MAN.
1oldRoadie: Your grandfather sounds like he was one helluva guy. I too respect a man who knows his limitations and gives credence to them rather than living in denial about himself or others.

Personally, I'd re-test all drivers every two years, regardless of age. I don't think the cost would be that prohibitive, especially with the savings that would be made on removing pressure from the health system.

Originally posted by Chris L
Personally, I'd re-test all drivers every two years, regardless of age. I don't think the cost would be that prohibitive, especially with the savings that would be made on removing pressure from the health system.

In the aviation world, the cost of testing is put upon the pilot. Every two years, a pilot regardless of age must undergo a minimum of one-hour ground/theory and one-hour flight/practical review. Have the driver pay for the biennial review.

I would like to see the driving world go even further than just retesting every two years but require an actual review. The difference being that a review implies training and instruction as well as testing. And once again, require the driver to pay for this out-of-pocket instead of subsidising it through the department of licensing/motor vehicle/etc.

I agree that older drivers should be tested frequently. By the same token, if i'm not mistaken most traffic "accidents"
are caused by under-30 males.

I've had very few close encounters with older drivers, but the recklessness & aggression of many young white male motorists has caused me many a close call.

(One of them last year deliberately pulled out from a side road & passed at speed within inches of me while i was ON FOOT, with the green, at an intersection. I managed to slam my cherrywood walking stick into the side of his nearly new truck as he went by, very satisfying it was too).

Unfortunately there's no remedy for this problem as easy as a test, altho i think that heavy video surveillance of the highways, as done in Israel, would help.

However, with the lost war on drugs still endlessly being fought, vast sums of law enforcement money & numberless personnel are wasted & unavailable for socially productive uses, like getting dangerous drivers into some form of reeducation.

I've also wondered why any civilian highway vehicle should be capable of doing over twice the legal speed limit anywhere in the country, but i suppose to even suggest changing that would violate the soul of American driverhood & meet with widespread & violent opposition.