Making the elderly re-take the license test?

[Blackbird.]

We all know, if you've experienced it, that elderly drivers are sometimes a nightmare to be behind because of how slow they drive. Now i'm not saying that ALL elderly drivers are slow and cannot drive at the flow of traffic but even so I think they should take a test again and if they fail not just tell them they must take it again and get their license taken away, possibly aids that would help them. Maybe not even necessarily take away their license but I dunno. That part would have to be thoroughly thought out, maybe some of you that agree with me could give some input.

Discuss.

Please don't flame me, it's just an opinion. And I'm open to hear yours.

 

[niky]

Hell, the way people drive, EVERYONE should retake the test every year.

 

[Event]

That's profiling. That's not right. 👎 That's like telling every asian (who stereotypically tend to not be the best of drivers) that they need to re-take the test b/c they suck at driving. Senior Citizens stereotypically are bad drivers. Both my grandmas are excellent drivers. 👍

 

[Blackbird.]

It's not profiling it's fact from experience.

 

[amp88]

Continual/periodical re-assessment is a good thing when it comes to driving, IMO.

Something like a re-assessment once every 10 years until age 60, then once every 3 years from there?

As people get older, their reactions detiorate, it's a known fact. Not every old driver is poor, not every young driver is good, but it's my opinion that older people (60+) are generally worse drivers than young people.

 

[Event]

Continual/periodical re-assessment is a good thing when it comes to driving, IMO.

Something like a re-assessment once every 10 years until age 60, then once every 3 years from there?

As people get older, their reactions detiorate, it's a known fact. Not every old driver is poor, not every young driver is good, but it's my opinion that older people (60+) are generally worse drivers than young people.

If the continual re-assessments are enforced for everyone, it would be a fine way to reduce accidents due to age. 👍

 

[amp88]

That's profiling. That's not right. 👎 That's like telling every asian (who stereotypically tend to not be the best of drivers) that they need to re-take the test b/c they suck at driving. Senior Citizens stereotypically are bad drivers. Both my grandmas are excellent drivers. 👍

That's a different kettle of fish altogether. Everyone who has a driving license has to have earned it (by passing the driving test). You say that asians are stereotypically poor at driving (which I've no experience of so can't comment), but they must have been good enough to pass the test in the first place.

Someone who has passed the test in the past may have, over time, become dangerous on the road. These are the people who should be re-tested.

 

[niky]

Nah... Asian drivers are inattentive, lead-footed and reckless. I should know, I'm half-a-one.

But I'd support periodic reassessment of everyone, NOT just the elderly.

 

[BlackZ28]

I think it may be a good idea. I've had a few run-ins with the elderly.

 

[VIPFREAK]

While they're at it actually make a decent test. 💡

 

[BlackZ28]

Ha, I remember I sucked at the parallel parking test and still passed perfectly. I'm sure I could do much better now.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think that when people reach a certain age, say 70, they should be assessed as to their fitness to drive, with yearly checks thereafter. If they are deemed to be potentially unfit to drive (say by a GP), they should have to take a driving competency test. From my own familial experience, I know how difficult it is to tell someone they should think about quitting driving. A family friend resolutely refused to give up driving, despite the fact that he was clearly not competent... in my opinion, he was endangering himself and others every time he got behind the wheel. But everybody ages differently, both physically and mentally, so to have a blanket driving test for everyone at age 65 or 70 is most probably not feasible or necessary, but people should atleast be assessed. Some elderly drivers are not as alert, not as able to see or not as able to hear as they used to be, and some are not physically fit enough to respond quickly enough to a hazardous situation that otherwise may be successfully avoided. Most elderly drivers are courteous, considerate, competent, careful drivers (whoa, alliteration! ) who should be treated with respect and not blindly subjected to unnecessary bias. But in the interests of safety, those drivers who are becoming incompetent should have to demonstrate that they are capable of driving to the high standards expected of all new drivers.

 

[VIPFREAK]

Ha, I remember I sucked at the parallel parking test and still passed perfectly. I'm sure I could do much better now.

I sure hope so.

 

[kragbees]

I reckon forsure ... I've been almost taken out by so many elderly people that it's a freakin' joke, I say if you're over 65 you need to go do your test again ... and you need to trade in your car for a 1.3 litre that can only go 60mph haha, how's that. And the thing that gets to me the most, they always act like nothing happened when they almost drive thru your car ! Probably did not even notice they swerved 10 metres into the wrong lane ...

 

[Swift]

They already do this in florida. People over the age of 65 I believe are randomly brought in for an assesment of their driving skills every year. But incase they miss someone, nobody can go more then two years without an assesment. I think that's perfectly fine. Especially since driving is NOT a right.

 

[Dave A]

^I agree, driving is not a right, it's a privilege. If you can't see well or hold a wheel steady then you should not be driving a car. I've seen older drivers make so many mistakes, it's not all of them some can carry on driving well, but the ones that don't, really don't and it's not safe.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why not have a family member or caretaker sign off to have them have to retest or be evaluated? That is what must be done to put someone into a home or institution involuntarily. The family signs and says that they believe the person is a danger to themselves and/or others and they need to be evaluated as such.

This would allow it to be taken on a case to case basis and not show bias towards any specific group. This should be for any age group so that someone who is younger but having health problems or some sort of mental/emotional problems can be taken in to be evaluated.

 

[Danoff]

Hell, the way people drive, EVERYONE should retake the test every year.

Driving tests don't weed out bad drivers (that's why it's possible for everyone to drive badly). Making people jump through more hoops isn't going to make anyone drive any better.

However, I think that reflexes and eyesight could be tested regularly and that would help weed out folks who shouldn't be driving.

 

[Kylehnat]

That's profiling. That's not right. 👎

Okay. But why is that any time a car is driven through the wall of a busy restaurant...it's an old person? When a car starts driving on a sidewalk? Old person. Furthermore, they all drive Lincoln Town Cars or old Cadillacs (why do old people love Caddies so much?), which are impossible to control by even the best of drivers. I like the family-recommendation thing, as not every elderly person is a worse driver than a 16-year old girl with four friends in the car. However, not every elderly driver has family nearby, so their homicidal driving may go unnoticed. I am definately for re-evaluating drivers as they age, though it may be hard to say at what age people need to be re-tested. People between the ages of 60 and 80 are vastly different. Some 80 year-olds drive just fine, and some 60 year-olds can no longer differentiate between the accelerator and the brake. A good example of this would be my parents. They're both in their 50s now, but it is likely that my mom will become a dangerous driver long before my dad, even though she's a couple years younger. However, my sister and I have already told them that when they start driving like the old lady in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off (eyes just barely peering over the dashboard, swerving all over a residential street), we're taking their keys.

 

[Zardoz]

Ask any insurance agent who he would rather insure: a 75-year-old woman, or a 19-year-old guy.

EDIT: Found some stats:

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002304.html

From that page:

What the Numbers Reveal

The worst drivers, measured by fatality rates compiled by NHTSA and published in the new AMA physician's guide, are 16-year-old boys. By age 17, those rates plummet, but from 17 through 24, male and female drivers continue to have significantly higher fatality rates than other drivers. From age 25 through 65, rates remain fairly low and constant. In general, younger drivers have high accident and fatality rates due to inexperience and drinking or other risky behaviors behind the wheel.

Although some drivers in their 80s and even 90s continue to drive safely, the odds in that age group are not good, according to NHTSA statistics. For drivers 65 and older, the crash rate per mile driven begins to increase slowly. For drivers 85 and over, NHTSA statistics show that the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled begins to zoom upward to a rate 9 times as high as the rate for drivers between from age 25 through 69. As with the 16-year-olds, men 85 and older have worse rates than women.

In Wisconsin, the Associated Press recently reviewed state accident data from 1998 to 2002. It showed that drivers 81 and older had a higher accident rate per estimated miles driven than any other age group except the youngest drivers. It also showed that drivers 81 and older were in a reported accident twice as often as drivers 31 through 70. (A study of crashes involving older drivers in Wisconsin cited in the AMA guidelines found that drivers in the 65-to-74 age group did not pose a greater risk of serious injury or death for others than did younger drivers.)

Rather than just increasing testing of older drivers, Dr. Duthie says, "perhaps it would be more productive to retest those in the highest risk groups - very young as well as very old drivers. "Maybe we should go where the peaks are."

Physicians can influence their patients' decision to modify or retire from driving, the AMA physicians' guide notes. "Clearly," it says, "some older drivers require outside assessment and intervention when it comes to driving safety."

 

[Kylehnat]

^Point taken, Zardoz. Young drivers are bad, too. However, I feel that young drivers reflect their parents' driving, as that is the model they have been exposed to for the first 16 years of their life. So, if you drive like a nutcase when your children are in the car 1)you're irresponsible for driving like a nutcase when your children are in the car and 2)that is how they are going to drive when the time comes.

But I digress. Young drivers get better with time, while old drivers get worse. For an 80 year old, they passed the test some 60+ years ago. For the 17 year-old, they passed the test one year ago. Consider other types of licenses, permits, etc. Which is more relevant: A permit issued one year ago, or a permit issued 60 years ago? If a restaurant's permit from the health department is 60 years old, and you see a family of possums in the kitchen, do you still think the restaurant is safe to eat at?

 

[Zardoz]

It looks like 80 should definitely be a "threshold" age, huh? We tend to start seriously falling apart by then. Oh, gee, what a surprise.

God forbid we should still be driving if we're as dangerous as a 16-year-old...

 

[Danoff]

The thing is, we can test for competency of the elderly. Eyesight and reflexes are typically the limiting factor - and those can be determined fairly easily. The tough part is when judgement is lacking... but that's usually more of a problem with 16 year olds than 80 year olds.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

I don't like elderly drivers because they're unaware of their surroundings and have slower reaction times. I also don't feel as comfortable driving with a female driver, because as far as I've noticed (not to start anything bad here), whenever I'm one of their passengers they just get tunnel vision. There could be a hostage takeover right to her left and she wouldn't notice; instead she'd be focused on the next set of lights 300m away.

 

[Swift]

The tough part is when judgement is lacking... but that's usually more of a problem with 16 year olds than 80 year olds.

16 year olds don't use judgement in driving. Yes, I'm saying 99.999999% of them. Including myself when I was that age. Even though I didn't get my license until I was 17, I still got into an accident because I was stupid enough to have friends in the car. I was a great driver, just had too many distractions in the car.

I'm just glad that Maryland upped the age to 18 for a license. Hopefully, that will help a bit.

 

[Danoff]

16 year olds don't use judgement in driving. Yes, I'm saying 99.999999% of them. Including myself when I was that age. Even though I didn't get my license until I was 17, I still got into an accident because I was stupid enough to have friends in the car. I was a great driver, just had too many distractions in the car.

I'm just glad that Maryland upped the age to 18 for a license. Hopefully, that will help a bit.

I'm not sure upping the age will help out a lot. The judgement issue for 16 year olds is a function of experience behind the wheel. It may be tough to develop that judgement until you've simply had some practice at driving - which means they have to get out on the road and drive.

There is a level of maturity required as well, but I'd say that's secondary to experience. And some people don't get certain driving experiences ever.

For example, many of the folks in southern california have never driven in snow or ice. If you put them on icy streets their judgement will be as bad (or worse than) a 16 year old. At least the 16 year old typically doesn't THINK he's a great driver. The 35 year old on ice for the first time in his life probably thinks he's in control of the situation.

So I'd chalk it up to experience and say that at 16 they've simply got to start practicing on a daily basis.

 

[Swift]

At least the 16 year old typically doesn't THINK he's a great driver. The 35 year old on ice for the first time in his life probably thinks he's in control of the situation.

That's exactly the problem with a lot of male drivers especially. They think that they are better then they are. I know I did.

 

[xXSilencerXx]

Teenagers behind the wheel the they're the best no matter who the are. I know I still think I'm better than my friends but I still mess up almost everytime I go out and drive, but I haven't got my liscence yet so I'm still learning. In terms of making the elderly take driving test again I'm all for it. Just a few months ago a cop was killed when an 84 year man drove head on into him.

 

[s0nny80y]

That's profiling. That's not right. 👎 That's like telling every asian (who stereotypically tend to not be the best of drivers) that they need to re-take the test b/c they suck at driving. Senior Citizens stereotypically are bad drivers. Both my grandmas are excellent drivers. 👍

lol, well thats the first time i heard that stereotype, considering driving in a 3rd world country would make you a better driver--or more perhaps a more primitive driver--in the states.

 

[Omnis]

If elderly drivers are competant enough to pass the test, then they shouldn't have a problem with taking it. It's just that old people get physically less able to drive as they get older. Many have bad arthritis and stuff, so don't count on them turning the wheel super quick at any time.

My grandma totally scares me. She drives like crap. The other day, we had to follow her home, and she just stopped right in there in the road because she wanted us to pull up next to her to talk. I was like, "Wtf, [Grandma]!!"

What a hoe. Gosh.