You must log in or # to comment.
Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can’t we trust them to drive? /s
We can only trust people that old if they are mentally unstable
Should be every 2 years past age 60 if you want to keep your license.
Sorry, for every 20 year old doing 90, there’s ten seniors wobbling between 2 lanes in a giant SUV intentionally purchased to protect them from the accidents their diminished capacity will cause, about to do a double lane change in the opposite direction of their blinker that’s been on since they left their driveway.
Ive always found it bonkers that young drivers with the sharpest reflexes are punished to the maximum from insurance to rental car rates, as they should, while no one dares punitive action against people who literally lack the faculties to drive safely if they wanted to and incur the wrath of AARP and the like. But those necrotic seniors make the rules, sadly. They can cause accidents with abandon, but some thing’s gotta be done about those young maniacs on the road driving 10 over the speed Limit as you drive 30 under it with white, arthritic knuckles on the steering wheel for dear life, calling your impromptu roadblock “safe.”
Part of that is a legal issue. People over 40 are a protected class, you can’t discriminate against old people for being old. Young people can get fucked though.
I say this as a now old person at 40, that’s hypocritical bullshit as far as policy goes, but that’s humans for you.
typical boomer privilege - oh wait, now I’m old? no don’t test me…
Republicans: “Hillary Clinton was pushing population control!”
Also Republicans:
I would say 79 is way too high, seniors should be tested every 5 years after 65. Another commentor points out we should be doing every 10 years which is a decent idea as well.
frankly there should at least be an online refresher and test that people have to take every year, traffic laws change and people forget things.
But changing traffic laws isn’t what makes people bad drivers.
Everyone should have to take the written AND driving portion of the test every 10 years or so.
Is your idea for a written and practical test every 10 years supported by any data or is it arbitrary?
Edit: tl;dr it’s arbitrary
deleted by creator
It’s true that it would do nothing for someone who deliberately breaks the law but, especially when it comes to the elderly, poor vision and reaction time is a big factor in driving ability - both would be obvious during a practical exam.
Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?
In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it’s on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don’t get to renew.
Because things change? People get worse at different ages? I dunno man, I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
Legally using a 2-ton murder machine. The requirement itself doesn’t actually stop anyone from driving.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I don’t even know how you’d prove it prevents deaths. The increased fatal crash risk among older drivers is largely due to their increased susceptibility to injuries, particularly to the chest, and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.
I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I’m thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?
I’m all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it’s always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn’t create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.
Hmm
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias alongside AARP Illinois
Guess the old regulations might have been eating into profits
Still out of 55,000 administered tests only 97 failed. Imho they should keep the restriction because it did remove 97 unsafe drivers.
However, This also creates a path for immediate family members to report unsafe elderly family members. There was no way to report anyone before this was created.
So is it midlyinfurating? I suppose in that it may allow unsafe drivers to stay on the roads but with immediate family reporting it could also be a wash. I very much doubt these changes will pull more unsafe drivers than the regulations from before since family members will probably be hesitant to report elderly family members
why should reporting be limited to immediate family?
if the neighbors see mr. jones take out a shrub or hop curbs the rest of the world ceases to matter, just immediate family?
Also what if they don’t even have immediate family?
indeed.
also, what if… they ate their own immediate family?
wait, which thread is this?
Well there wasn’t any path for anyone to report anyone before so this is better than nothing.
This is your regular reminder that it’s generally not older people who are high-risk drivers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628ce5c7e90e071f68b19dfa/02-image-2.svg
Drivers get safer until about 70, and only get less safe than your average young driver when over 86.
There is a perception that older drivers are an absolute liability on the roads, which I can only assume stems from impatient people who get frustrated when stuck behind an older driver going more slowly than they’d like.
Not every 70 YO is the same health. Some can barely see at that age, or at night. There are also plenty of health issues or medications taken at this age which could affect reactions or alertness. Not saying it can’t happen to the young, but it’s far more prevalent.
Fact is that if you want to spend some money, time or political capital on improving road safety, targeting older drivers is not where you should focus your efforts. The fact that it frequently is, is due to ageism.
That’s from the UK? I don’t think you can extrapolate UK driving data to the US. Roads and car use don’t compare at all.
In the absence of forthcoming data (hint hint), what factors do you think differ between the UK and USA which affect the ability of very old/very young drivers?
Car dependency mainly. A 65yo in the UK that dosen’t feel physically capable of driving can still have an independent live, using public transit or walking. In the US you depend on cars for everything.
That doesn’t affect the ability of older drivers, only the number of them.
In fact, since one reason very old drivers might get more accident prone is because they stop driving as much and lose some of the skills, you would expect that, if older Americans really persist in driving more as they get older (you haven’t provided any evidence that they do) they would retain those skills and be less accident prone, not more, so would be safer, and less at need of re-tests, than their UK counterparts.
Focusing on the driving safety of the elderly is a classic example of Saliency Bias. A 20-year old kid wrecking his car is nothing unusual so you don’t remember it when thinking about safety. An 80 year old who can’t even remember which way to turn the wheel getting in a wreck is unusual and extreme, so it’s more salient. Getting stuck behind an elderly driver gives you the impression that they’re a bad and hence unsafe driver, which contributes to this.
It’s self select the drivers that have the ability to drive. A nearly blind old person on the UK can have a fulfilling live walking and using public transit, the same nearly blind old person in the US have no choice but to keep driving.
It’s a shame that you’re so quick to express skepticism but so reluctant to do any research of your own, because the facts are a bit embarrassing with the exact same trend in the USA as in the UK.
Driver safety peaks in the 60s, and only moderately worsens after then. The large increase in fatal accidents, by the way, is clearly a result of older drivers being more vulnerable in a crash - because the chart at the bottom doesn’t show any such large increase for passengers and others.
I’m interested to know if this changes your mind.
I wonder if raising the licencing age to 25 would reduce the curve or just shift it to the right
My nanna drove until 80. My Nana shouldn’t have driven until 80. He hit something once a week
I expected the main writers of the bill to be about 78, but they look younger. (I’m not digging into it more)
Maybe it’ll save money. Illinois is broke and we’re one of the last good states
Arent the drivers required to pay the fee?
that’s the point
