Making the elderly re-take the license test?

[James2097]

Maybe folks should just have to re-take their driving tests every 10-20 yrs or so? That way its not an ageist law, but just making sure everyone (of all ages) are competent behind the wheel & know their road rules well.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. This is because you potentially endanger other road users when you get behind the wheel of a large chunk of metal and drive it close to other big chunks of metal that are going 100kph in close proximity to each other... The roads are a public space, hence they need adequate rules and to make sure those rules are upheld. Its perfectly reasonable for a country to make sure (in a reasonable way) motorists aren't going to kill each other excessively.

 

[a6m5]

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.

I agree 100%. Maybe if they take a physical and/or driving test every 5 - 10 years(kinda like James suggested), it will be best for everybody.

I've had some scary experience with elderly drivers. The worst one was this man coming on to the road from the parking lot. I see him from like two blocks away. Nobody's on the road, but he doesn't move. As I'm finally in his range, he accelerates, crossing over five lanes, almost hits me. I slam on my brakes, he misses me by about a 2 feet.

Having said all that, I must say, idiot drivers on the cell phone and drunk drivers are far more dangerous and annoying in my book. I almost t-boned a cell phone driver few months ago. I was probably doing 40 - 45 mph, slammed on my brakes and barely missed her. She made a right turn on a red. Smoke everywhere, around hundred people saw it happen, except her. I caught up with this fool, she had no idea what had just happened. She's still chatting on her phone, smiling. I kind of wished I had hit her.

 

[Zrow]

What a hoe. Gosh.

Um, did you just call your grandma a hoe?


I agree that what teenagers lack is experience, and you can't remedy that by not letting them drive.

 

[Pupik]

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.

Not quite. I meet elderly drivers all the time in my job, and some of them just take an eye test, confirm their vitals, and they're back in their ES300.

http://www.floridagranddriver.com/facts.cfm

After living here 20+ years, I can confirm that many elderly drivers drive pretty much like new drivers; sometimes unaware of conditions, but whereas kids are more likely to wrap their car around a tree, the elderly prefer to strike shops and businesses. No, not all of them are dangerous, but sometimes they're a nuisance, driving too slow or forgetting to stop because their reactions are dulled by lethargy, aging, or medications. Some of them don't have good eyesight, and don't watch what they're doing in parking lots and can't hear other cars, horns, sirens, etc. which can also be dangerous.

But usually, this isn't an issue until they're 70-80.

Let's face it, some of them are stubborn old geezers that shouldn't be in control of a potential death machine, but how are you going to react when your licence is taken from you?

 

[Swift]

Let's face it, some of them are stubborn old geezers that shouldn't be in control of a potential death machine, but how are you going to react when your licence is taken from you?

If I can't see, I had better give it up. Or I'm putting people in escalated danger on purpose and that constitues a crime in my opinion.

 

[Zardoz]

...but how are you going to react when your licence is taken from you?

Its a tough situation. When they lose their license they lose their independence, and, in fact, their freedom. They're pretty much stuck at home.

You can't blame them for resisting it. I know I would...

 

[Pupik]

If I can't see, I had better give it up. Or I'm putting people in escalated danger on purpose and that constitues a crime in my opinion.

That's the tricky part about getting old; you aren't going to just "stop seeing" one day (unless you mysteriously go blind). Your senses will degrade slightly with each day, your reactions will fade a little bit at a time. You can do the same things you did yesterday, but perhaps you aren't aware that what you could do well 5 years ago, might not look so good today.

It's hard to do something basic like driving one day, and just giving it up the next. It took us about 3 years to convince my grandmother not to drive her Civic, because every time we saw the car, it had more scratches on it. We had to tell her that "it's a good thing that you haven't been in a big accident". She knows her reactions aren't the same, but since she lives alone, she still needs to go to the store, see the doctor, etc.

Again, I hate to say simplistic things like: "Put yourself in thier shoes...", but I think we gearheads are going be quite stubborn about handing over that driver's license if we're not capable of doing so. But my experience seems to be that there should be mandatory testing every few years after the age of 55, and every year after the age 70. Road signs, driving tests, vision, and hearing (although the deaf are permitted to drive in Florida) tests should be performed.

 

[Blackbird.]

I've never seen an old person that was so short that it looked like no one was driving the car but they just don't know what they are doing (or it looks like it). One backed up and we were coming so we gave like a second long horn to her and she kept going so my mom layed on the horn and she finally stopped. Then when she did get out (took forever) she was playing with the shifter trying to find the gear (can't find "D") and when she did go she was going like 2 mph. And while i've been in the car we've been cut off by an old person numerous times.

And for "if they passed the test then they can drive". It's easy. Act your best and do everything right and when you pass when you're alone you drive like you want to. That's how they get their licenses they do it perfect and then they get laid back and do driving their own way.

 

[///M-Spec]

I too, think there should be mandatory re-testing every 4-5 years for every driver regardless of age.

I also have more elaborate ideas on what type of testing should be done and what the consequences of failing them should be. The test should be much more than a simple eye exam, but verify on multiple levels whether or not the driver has the skills and judgement nessessary to operate a motor vehicle on today's roads. But that's for another thread.

I also think insurance companies should be allowed to set their rates based on the results of this testing --as well as prior history. But that too is for another thread.


M

 

[Danoff]

I also think insurance companies should be allowed to set their rates based on the results of this testing --as well as prior history. But that too is for another thread.
M

Seems fairly on-topic to me. Maybe the elderly wouldn't drive nearly as much if their insurance were monsterous.... come to think of it. Why isn't their insurance monsterous? I'd expect insurance companies to ratchet up the premiums as people cross 80 years old.

 

[///M-Spec]

Seems fairly on-topic to me. Maybe the elderly wouldn't drive nearly as much if their insurance were monsterous.... come to think of it.

Well, I guess it's actually pretty straight forward. Insurance companies should be allowed access to these test results (over-riding a motorist's rights to privacy) and base their rates on them. This would (perhaps justifiably) make privacy advocates enraged, but is no more intrusive to my privacy than having to put a license plate on my vehicle and carry a photo ID at all times.

At least this way, it doesn't become an AGE issue (possibly discriminatory), but rather an ABILITY issue; which it should be.

Why isn't their insurance monsterous? I'd expect insurance companies to ratchet up the premiums as people cross 80 years old.

I'm not sure. My quick and cynical answer is to blame these people.

The difference between an 88 year old who can't drive for sqaut and an 18 year old who can't drive for squat is the 88 year old is about 4 times more likely to vote.


M

 

[Blackbird.]

Oddly enough i've seen more elderly make more mistakes then teenagers. Really. Just I hear about them all the time getting in accidents.

We could start a test where cops get scouted on their driving abilities. THEY BREAK SO MANY LAWS.

Change lanes in intersection
Speeding
Don't use signals
and more...

They are supposed to set an example, and right now. Everyone's driving is right on par with the cops. But that's definetly a whole different topic.

 

[Kylehnat]

I too, think there should be mandatory re-testing every 4-5 years for every driver regardless of age.

I would like to see something like this as well, but as my mom pointed out when I ran a similar idea by her, there would have to be TONS more people working at the DMV, just to cover all of the driving tests. Let's suppose you have to re-take the drivers test every time you renew your license (every 5 years in WA). Now think about how many people have to renew their license on any given day (it's a lot). Now, there would have to be a lot of people administering driving tests each day. How many people are there now? The DMV where I got my license has 3 or 4. Do you think most states have enough money to triple or quadruple that capacity? Probably not. In fact, now that I think of it, I had to take my driving test 2 weeks before my 16th birthday, as there were no open appointments between April 1st and 18th. (so I took it in my dad's car, which I'd never driven before. 100hp more + finnicky clutch= ) So yeah, there are barely enough people now to cover just the new drivers, let alone every other driver in the state.

I won't want to give up driving when I'm old either, but if my children start saying "Dad, you're dangerous behind the wheel," I'll listen. I take great pride in my driving, and I don't want my driving legacy to end by driving through the front doors of a Burger King.

 

[Blackbird.]

Of course they don't want to give it up it gives them a sense of independence.

 

[///M-Spec]

I would like to see something like this as well, but as my mom pointed out when I ran a similar idea by her, there would have to be TONS more people working at the DMV, just to cover all of the driving tests. Let's suppose you have to re-take the drivers test every time you renew your license (every 5 years in WA). Now think about how many people have to renew their license on any given day (it's a lot). Now, there would have to be a lot of people administering driving tests each day.

Sounds like a great way to create new jobs and jump-start a laggin economy while improving the quality of our roads and highways. I should run for Congress on this platform

Seriously, the cost of this will be subsidized by the cost of the 5-year renewal. So instead of $100 bucks or whatever to get a license, it will be like $200 every 5 years. It's still less than insurance.


M

 

[Kylehnat]

Sounds like a great way to create new jobs and jump-start a laggin economy while improving the quality of our roads and highways. I should run for Congress on this platform

Seriously, the cost of this will be subsidized by the cost of the 5-year renewal. So instead of $100 bucks or whatever to get a license, it will be like $200 every 5 years. It's still less than insurance.


M

Good lord! License renewals cost $25 here.

Let's do a little math, then. Say that it does cost $100 more to renew a license. Let's say the DMV hires 15 new people to take care of the testing in my area. I'll guess that the DMV I go to serves an area with about 50,000 people. Say that 30,000 of those people drive. So, over a five year period, the money raked in from those 30,000 people renewing their licenses would be $3 million. That's $600,000/year. Divide that by 15, and each of those people could earn roughly $40,000/year (unless the state buys $20,000 toilet seats). Okay, that'll make ends meet around here. But I'm not sure anyone would like the license renewal fee mysteriously increasing 5 fold

 

[Omnis]

Um, did you just call your grandma a hoe?


I agree that what teenagers lack is experience, and you can't remedy that by not letting them drive.

Nobody calls my grandma a hoe!

I was just kidding. But, I implied hoe as in tool, anyway. It's my thing.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Seems fairly on-topic to me. Maybe the elderly wouldn't drive nearly as much if their insurance were monsterous.... come to think of it. Why isn't their insurance monsterous? I'd expect insurance companies to ratchet up the premiums as people cross 80 years old.

Well they do, sort of...

I know that with Cooperators insurance company, your rates are based on years of driving experience, type of vehicle, manufacturer, drivers' training, and location. Now, when you're between the ages of 55 and 69, you get a seniors' discount. However, that discount is revoked once you turn 70.

Also, if you go 7 years without an accident, your rates get reset as though you've had an accident-free history.

Drivers 16+ with Drivers' Training get a 10% discount, and drivers who started between 16-20 who don't get an accident in their first 4 years of driving also get a 10% discount.

And then there's the shared vehicle clause, number of seats in the car, color, etc. which are just some more little factors adding to the equation. (a limited edition copperhead Viper will cost more to re-paint/repair than the plain red/black/blue/yellow ones)

I could elaborate much more if need, I know a bunch of National Underwriters who deal with this kind of crap every day.

 

[Kylehnat]

http://www.komotv.com/stories/40550.htm

Does this convince anyone?

 

[James2097]

I too, think there should be mandatory re-testing every 4-5 years for every driver regardless of age.

I also have more elaborate ideas on what type of testing should be done and what the consequences of failing them should be. The test should be much more than a simple eye exam, but verify on multiple levels whether or not the driver has the skills and judgement nessessary to operate a motor vehicle on today's roads. But that's for another thread.

I also think insurance companies should be allowed to set their rates based on the results of this testing --as well as prior history. But that too is for another thread.


M

Hardcore. 👍

Elderly ladies doing advanced driver training? You'll get grandma 180-degree-hand-braking the camry into a narrow parking spot at the bowls club!

 

[jammyozzy]

Hehe, I remember my Grandad would throw his Mk III Capri 2.8i 'Special' about on twisty roads. Damn I miss that car.

But still, I reckon re-testing could be a good idea, especially if it was implimented ot properly.