My best friend though fits the perfect demographic. He's been in like 5 accidents. He was in an accident while he was test driving a brand new Dodge Ram. I've gotten like 6 tickets, and pay $142 full coverage.

Looking at the raw data in there it looks like drivers under 65 drove about 1201602 Million Miles while drivers 65 and up drove 116338 million miles. Drivers under 65 were involved in 6832 thousand crashes and drivers 65 and over were involved in 571 thousand crashes. So, if my math is correct, those under 65 were involved in 5.7 crashed per million miles driven while drivers 65 and over were involved in only 4.9 crashes per million miles driven.

Actually, after reviewing the data, if you want to take the most dangerous drivers off the road you should raise the driving age to 25. The graph below illustrates my findings.

well that would be a bit impractical, but ideally, you're right. I think how it should work out though is that there should be stricter testing for all age groups, like maybe a required driving test every 5 years or 10 years. (a shorter interval would be more of a hassle, but would produce better results, I would think)

So wait, going off one source, you're concluding that's the end all? Show more proof.

Besides, don't bring up raising the driving age--there are many very, VERY good reasons to not do that. And they're NOT for this thread.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't think I should have the burden to prove anything - I'm not the one saying we should change the law. The folks in this thread are all gung-ho about restricting a certain demographic and the only evidence they have is "Old people are lousy drivers". You say I only have one source of information? give me a break! I'm the only one in here with ANY source of information. Where's everyone else's "Proof" that old people are bad drivers?

I'm not trying to argue that we raise the driving age - I know this isn't the time or place - I was just pointing out to everyone (many of whom are under 25) that if we're going to start stripping off liberties why not do it all around and start with the folks causing the most trouble. And just for the record, I'm opposed to raising the driving age just as I'm opposed to these driving tests for old people - anything that further restricts the liberties we have or imposes restrictions on those liberties based on age, sex, race, or anything else superficial has no place in a free society.

DJ, reviewing this topic I haven't seen you pipe in once with anything. What's your stance on this whole issue? I'd like to know. At least that way you could make an argument instead of just shooting your mouth off.

*cough*

If you bother to read that post you will see that drivers over 65 cause 60% of fatal accidents. That's pretty dangerous wouldn't you say. The reason your data is slightly misleading (in this context) is that the elderly cause and are involved more fatal accidents. I think it would also be safe to assume that the reason youth insurance is higher and that your data shows they are involved in more accidents is that they are counting minor fender benders - accidents that require car insurance, but no medical bills.

Plus I'm suggesting that we test everyone, including your youth drivers.

(PS. Otter, can I see the source for your data? I'd like to see what else they have.)

EDIT: URL incorrectly pasted: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/1998/AgeSex96.pdf

I believe I posted that earlier, but just in case.



Ummm.... no. Maybe you should read it again yourself:



That's not saying that people 65 and over cause 60% of fatal accidents - that's ludicrous. It's saying that old people are involved in 17% of fatal accidents. and of those 17% they were at fault in 60% of the accidents. And that's only for California.

If they are involved in 17% of fatal accidents, but are only at fault 60% of those that that would indicate that they are at fault in 10.2% of all fatal accidents. since they represent 12% of drivers in California, 10.2% doesn't sound so bad.

There is also a point to be made that older people are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident simply because they're more likely to die in an accident - older people are far less resilient to injury than younder people.

In any case: I think it is more acurate to take raw data and produce your own results than to go on results produced by a news agency such as CNN - they will sometimes spin the data to support the theme of their articles



That's not a bad idea, but the title of this thread suggest that only old people should be tested - that's what I'm arguing against.

But your argument the whole time has been that if we want to make the roads safer we should test younger drivers! You can't go now and say that I'm bringing up an irrelevant point when I'm merely responding to one of yours.

Also, don't you think that there is a responsibility to protect these elderly who are at a greater risk of dying in an accident? 10.2% of fatal accidents is a significant amount. In 2000, there were reportedly 41,821 fatalities from car accidents. That means (using California statistics, which I've been assuming are true for most of the country anyway) 7,109 fatal car accidents involved elderly drivers and 4,265 were caused by them. That's at least 4,265 easily preventable deaths.

(PS. Sorry about asking for the data source. I didn't remember seeing it.)

My point was never to test younger drivers - my point is either test all drivers or test no drivers (aside from the initial driving test). I made the comment a few posts ago that if you wanted to keep the most dangerous drivers off the road you should raise the driving age to 25. that comment was made in jest - I think raising the driving age is a ludicrous idea - I just said it to point out that while everyone in here is complaing about old drivers they're are far from the biggest threats on the road. The only reason I brought up anything about young drivers was to discredit the assumption everyone seems to have that old people are this major menice on the road. I wasn't trying to say anything you were saying was irrelevant, I was merely agreeing with your point that we should test all drivers (or none) but that the specific discussion here is focused on old drivers.

As for your point that there is a responsibility to protect the elderly, I find that to be a very weak argument at best. I'm a fan of civil liberties and personal responsibility - it shouldn't be the governments job to protect old people from themselves.

10.2% of fatal accidents is a significant amount, but if you consider the fact that 12% of drivers are elderly, then they are causing less than their fair share of fatal accidents. What your CNN article didn't mention was the statistics for other demographic groups - which when doing an analysis such as this are incredibly important. If we could see the raw data CNN was going off of then we could have a more acurate image of the "big picture".

As for your statement that at least X number deaths could be prevented if elderly drivers were off the road - the same could be said of any demographic group. For instance, suppose women were at fault in 45% of fatal accidents. Using your data, that's 18,819 fatal crashes. Does that mean we should start testing all women drivers because those deaths would be "easily preventable"? No, that's ludicrous - it dousn't even make sence. The bottom line is that car accidents happen and sometimes people are going to get killed - regardless of who the person behind the wheel is. And agian, your figure of 4,265 doesnt prove that older drivers are more dangerous until you compare it to the figures of other age groups.

The bottom line is it isn't right to single out a particular demographic group for special testing unless it can be shown beyond reasonable argument that the group is significantly more dangerous on the road than other groups. I haven't seen any hard data that even comes close to justifying testing for old people. So my conclusion: test everyone or test no one: you can be unfit to drive at any age.

What evidence is there that this would not just shift the curve to the right? Would not 25 to 30 year olds just get into more accidents because they didn't have the 10 years of driving experience as they do in the current system?

As I understand it, the point of having drivers start at 16 is to have their parents be involved. If you start at 18, you can't enforce parental involvement.

I would say based on the above graph, there's no reason to test older drivers anymore than younger drivers. You could make the case they should be tested more than the 25-65 age group, since it looks like they are about twice as likely to be in an accident.

AGain, my point isn't to sugest that we raise the driving age or anything else like that. I agree completely with you about driving experience, etc. I only brought that up to make the point that elderly drivers are no more dangerous than your average teenager or twenty-somehing - certainly not justification to give them additional driving tests based solely on their age. I think if you read my other posts, you'ld see that I am not advocting raising the driving age or anything like that I only brought it up to make a point. Yes, clearly by my own graph, drivers between the age of 40 and 75 are the safest out there, but tht doesn't mean that we should start re-testing people once they reach a certain age. You don't have to be old - or young - to be a lousy driver which is why I'm leaning towards either no additional driver testing or universal driver testing regardless of age.

Only in the sense that it's discrimination not to let 12-year-olds drive. Surely some kinds of discrimination are warranted?

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

I never said we should just test old people.