Speaking of driving threads (let's not make this one like the one that most likely you all have seen by now), do you think that people around 65 and older should have to take some sort of driver's test again to drive.

I personally think they should, because frankly, they have no idea on what's going on. Of course, this is a generalization. My grandpa drives like a crazy man, but most of the time when I see someone going 50 in a 65, they are usually old.

So, do you think drivers test for 65+ should be enforced. My opinion, driving is a privilige, not a right, and it should and can be taken away when needed.

I think we should have a system along the following lines.

Currently, a written exam is required every 10 years (or it might be every 5 when your liscence expires, can't remember, and I'm not sure if it's different in different states). I would propose that a written test be required every 10, and a actual drive be required ever other 10 (along with a written test). This would be somewhat inconvenient, but would weed out all the older drivers that are not as capable as they once were.

Last time I checked, the term speed limit meant that you couldn't go OVER that speed, and not that you HAD to go that speed.

Just because they drive slow doesn't mean they're bad drivers. It means they're slow drivers, and a lot of age groups have them.

If driving too slow isn't bad, why do cops pull people over for that? They're just as bad as speeders.

It's a matter of degree. If you're going 5 mph on the freeway... there's gonna be problems (unless of course there's bad traffic, and that's the flow of traffic). I believe the freeway has a minimum speed limit of 55. But the problem I have is not that they drive slow. It's that their spacial perceptions are off generally. I don't know how many times I've had an old lady almost hit me, as she's pulling out of a parking lot or something, just cause she doesn't see me. I lay on the horn and crack my wheel over or something, and at the last minute she backs off... But it's about a weekly occurance. Happens with old men sometimes too, but not nearly as often.

Maybe it's different out here, but here old people drive very fast and dangerously. They don't look at the roads or see what other cars are doing - they just zoom on by. For example, if you're in a turn only lane, you turn. You *don't* go straight! I watch a couple of old ladies in the turn only lane (going probably 10 over the speed limit) almost hit a guy who was going straight. The only reason there wasn't an accident was the guy swerved and had to stop his car as the old ladies just kept on going. They definately need to take the test again!

I say dog eat dog.

They piss you off now, so you ought to be allowed to piss off the next generation to come along when you're 75 without having to take a test.

We had an old lady try to change lanes, while we were next to her. And it couldn't have been because we were in a smaller car, we were in an Aztec, and she was in a dinky granny-mobile.

Elderly divers have more accidents per mile driven than teenagers. There should be more than just an eye test and written test for people to drive once they reach a certain age.

And yes, driving too slow on the freeway is dangerous, especially when those **** nuts decide they need to be in any lane but the slow lane and blindly pull over into faster moving traffic without looking to see what's there.

First point: Yes I agree. Written tests aren't really needed. If you have 50+ years of operating a motor vehicle and you've not caused grave accidents, then I think you pretty well know how to operate a motor vehicle. But sight and hearing tests should be done on elderly because these senses diminish over time. This is caused by biology and not some oppressive politician/group. If you have good vision for driving great! You keep your license. No harm no foul.

Second point: Oh God yes! I swear people NEVER grasped this concept on CA-78. And it just pisses me off when people do 60 in the fast lane.

Haha ya maybe even kill a few of them right? Haha.

They are not just a nuisance but a deadly hazard. Same with very young people of course.

Last time I checked, I took a drivers ed class, and the instructor had this to say:

Going far under the speed of the flow of traffic can be just as dangerous as zooming far over the speed of traffic, not to mention there ARE minimum speed limits posted in areas (I have seen them).

Not all old people drive terribly, but some of them, its just ridiculous. I've seen 20 in a 40, 35 in a 55, and sometimes you nearly rear end them as they slowed down even MORE as you checked your blind spot to try and get around them, only to slam on the brake barely in time.

Not according to the driver's education department of Missouri or its traffic laws. The speed limit is the speed you are supposed to drive unless conditions (traffic, rain, snow, fog, etc.) prevent you from doing otherwise.

Should old people need to take a driving test? YES ABSOLUTELY! But why stop there? I also think we should test all women and Chinese people on a yearly basis! Why not make it all Asian people? In fact, the only people who should not have to be tested regularly are those leadfooted 30 & under white males who stack up more speeding ticets and driving violations then any other one demographic out there! Let's make an amendment to the constitution for it.


Give me a break.....

That comment was completely unjustified otter. We are not being irrationally discriminating. It is proven that the elderly are more likely to be in accidents. Saying we should give old people tests is not like saying we should give tests to Asians or whatever because the same thing happens to everyone when they get old.

I don't know where you all come from, but where I drive I find that the majority of the traffic hazards come from SUV driving yuppies with a cell phone to their ear and a coffee cup in their hand. I agree, old people drive slowly but I generally find them to not be overly dangerous drivers. overzealous young people in a hurry to get everywhere are a far greater danger than old people. I bet the people who are complaining that old people need licence tests are the same people who ride in the left lane on highways.

Do you have proof that your yuppies are a greater danger on the road? I've studied a bit of this and I know that there is research that shows the elderly are a big danger. Granted, cell phones are a big problem, but I don't think as big as blinded old bats.

Also, whether or not drivers talking on cell phones are dangerous is not the issue. I am also in favour of banning talking on the cell phone while driving. (Actively driving. Having it on and in the car is okay.)

Well now you're talking about Blind old people - that's a different story. I don't think blind anyone should be driving. Here in MA when you renew your licence every 5 years they give you an eye test. Fail the eye test, get no licence.

And it's also proven that more crimes are committed by young black males, or young males in particular. Should we allow random searches for young males, especially young, black males?

It would be discrimination to make any particular age take a license test after getting the license. Once you get the license, short of breaking the law or something happening, you really don't have to retake it unless it's randomly. Specficially targeting old people though to take them would be illegal and unconstitutional.

Not just the old people, but people should retake driving tests more often. Sucky drivers exist everywhere. At least I'll stick up with bicycles for a long time.

Source: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/1998/AgeSex96.pdf

Old data, I know, but it's still relevant.

In Germany you may report old (I think starting at 70) people so that they take a test. But I don't know how much justification you need.

Depends how close they live to a farmer's market...

The only drivers I have a problem with are those stupid rednecks with huge pickup trucks and women in their 20s who drive large SUVs while talking on the cellphone.

Where I walk, there's no sidewalk, and there's often large ponds of water because it's a country road and it's very uneaven. There is relatively low traffic, so everybody just switches to the opposite lane when they see me, so that they don't hit me or splash me. But SUV and pickup drivers? They just zoom half a foot away from me, going at about twice the speed limit (in a deer crossing zone!) and almost killing me every time.

I hate speeders, go die plz.

age 70: remove legs.

You guys keep mentioning discrimination. It's not discrimination. Everyone gets old! Everyone's senses deteriorate when they get old. Sure, some people's senses go faster or get worse than others, but that's just like not allowing people who were born blind. They're not allowed to drive for something they can't change.

I'm more in agreement with FGR. Everyone should have to take more driver's tests. You take them less frequently when you're younger, but as you get older and older you have to take them more frequently (as your senses are more likely to go, if they haven't already, as you get older).



The only reason this is true is that crime is more likely to occur in slums or ghettos and especially among youth (crazy teens) and that a large percentage of young black males live in these places, making significant portion of crime their fault.




Please!

I'm just saying that if someone's sight has gone to the point where they shouldn't be driving then they will fail the RMV eye test and be denied a licence. I didn't mean literally blind - I'm not that naive.

As for having to take more driver's tests as you get older: No one has presented any evidence that older drivers are more dangerous than younger drivers. The onlly anctual data is that graph I posted from the DOT - which indicates that older people are involved in fewer accidents than younger people. Show me some data. Don't just say "Old people are lousy drivers so lets test them more" - that doesn't mean anything.

Sure I see people out there who I think, "Too old to drive", but that doesnt mean that they have any less right to it than any one else. In my experience, there's just as many lousy old drivers as there are lousy young drivers.

SMOCK!, it is age descrimination. Not everyone gets old. I could drop dead tomorrow of a heart attack, I could get heart disease and die at 30. You are specifically targeting a group of people in order to make it more difficult for them.

It's as equal as not letting people below the age of 16 in the U.S. drive.

Because 16 year olds have no rights over themselves, there parents do. There parents can say "I dont want you driving" until you are 18 and they can't do crap to stop the child. And a 15 year old can get a hardship license.

Trust me, we discussed this in my TX Government class. My teacher had a PhD. in law and she said it would never happen cause it would be discrimination.

BTW FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE TESTED. I am merely arguing the point that they will never pass sucuh a law because of discrimination.

Otterbine et al: We're not talking about having them take tests like the "voter tests" that black people were given in the 1960s so that they purposefully denied to vote. We're talking about vision and hearing tests because, when you get old, they diminish. This is biology. Yes, not everyone does have diminished senses but it would be a hassle to weed out those select few.

Also, it sounds like some of you think that driving is a right, it is not. It is a priviledge. The DMV can revoke your license if they deemed that you are not fit to operate a motor vehicle. By no means is this a perfect solution to the problem, there are going to be crashes.

I agree. They passed a law in Illinois recently that you can be pulled over for impeding traffic in the fast lane EVEN IF the people in that lane are driving over the speed limit. What some people don't seem to understand is it is not your responsiblity to enforce the speed limit!!! It's a lot more dangerous to have people driving 50 and 90 on the same road, than having everyone drive 90.



To the first half of that quote and a few other "facts" thrown around in this thread (an interesting tidbit I learned in psychology class): I'm sure we all know the difference between a cause and a correlation. It's "proven" that in areas where more ice cream is served more crime is committed. This is an obvious example where ice cream clearly does not cause crime, but because more ice cream is served when it's hot out (and more crime is committed when it's hot out (temper, temper)) it appears that their is a relationship between ice cream and crime. The point is, don't jump to causations.

To the second half of the quote I give the classic answer: freedom from searches and seizures without a warrent is a right; driving is a privalege. They could make patting your head and rubbing your stomach, while balancing on one leg a requirement if it could be shown that people who can do this make better drivers.

I think IF evidence exists that older drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents, they should have to take a test of some kind. I don't think a written test would be that beneficial, but some kind of vision or spatial awareness test would probably be a good thing.

Here in the great state of New Mexico, if you fail the eye test, but are assuming (ie. like the old lady who can't see over the wheel, and even if she could, she still can't see) you get your licence, that or if you're related to someone in the DMV. :/

Well, Mr. Quesadilla, if the existing laws and guidelines were better enforced we wouldn't have to worry about this whole matter. But if what you're saying is true and the eye tests already administered are essentially useless what makes anyone think that a new driving test law would be any different? If the laws we have now arent being enforced what's the point in making new laws - especially if the ones we already have would likely be effective if enforced.

And Gandalf - I agree - all drivers should have to take eye tests when renewing their licence, not just old people. And - at least in my state - whenever you renew your licence you ARE given an eye test. There's no reason why only old people should be subjected to eye tests - You don't have to be 65+ to have diminished eyesight.

Investigate number of accidents per mile driven while breaking it down by age.

Home_Sliced, sorry, I should of said below it that I was being sarcastic about the blacks committing crimes. I wasn't trying to be serious (and I understand that you would/could take it that way) but was just setting an example that just because more anything (crimes, accidents, etc) are committed by a certain class of citizens, be it race, gender, age, financial, etc. does not mean we should create laws to specifically target them.

When I took my license test to get my license at 16, I got my license bing bang boom. I've never taken a test since then. But if young 16 year olds cause the most accidents, why not retest them until they are 25, when insurance drops?

Apparently
we can't trust you or your professor. It appears that California has instituted driving tests and eye tests (that don't necessarily mean no license if you fail) for the eldery.




While the study was done in California, my guess is that those trends will tend to occur nationwide.



That's inefficient. There are only 9 years between age 25 and 16. You can't test them too often, or the DMV would become overworked. If you test them at an efficient interval, you probably get only one or two additional tests.
Also, I would assume that most accidents that young people are involved in are caused by recklessness and not bad driving or deteriorated senses. While the latter two causes are easy to test for, the first is not. Additionally, we already have punishments for reckless driving, we don't need more (that wouldn't work anyway).

Well, if California does that and you don't fail, whats the purpose of the test? Besides, maybe no one has bothered to take it to the supreme court and get it removed for being unconstitutional?

And besides, each time I go to the DMV to get my license removed, they do eye tests on me. They just don't stick me in a car.

THRAWN, no prob. I wasn't tyring to accuse you of believing that or anything, I probably took it too seriously. If anything, it merely reinforces your point. I was commenting more on the repeating statements in this thead, "The most dangerous type of driver is x because I see them doing y..." (I realize some of these are sarcastic.)

I've never been in an accident or even gotten a ticket, yet I still have to pay $50 to $100 more every six months in insurance than my sister who is 4 years younger than I am, and has gotten several tickets, and been in an accident. It sucks, I don't like it, but it's a fact that males under 25 are involved in and cause the most accidents. It's a certainty that any system they implement will screw someone.