Drivers over the age of 75 should have to have a medical and an eye exam by the appropriate professionals every 2-3 years after that. I see no problem road testing drivers after 80 ... the test doesn't have to be as complete as when people first get their licence ... imo.
I don't think you can just go by stats alone ... most drivers 65 and under are driving a lot more than over 65 and the older you get the less your driving.
Nope.
That is an unsubstantiated claim. One could easily say that the 25-34 age class- the working class- is doing less driving: they are at work most of the time.
The retirees are driving big motor homes and beetling about town during the day going for coffee with their friends, playing cards and whatever else suits their fancy. They are typically not just sitting on their asses all day waiting to die.
except when their not at work they shuttling the kids around town, doing errands etc...and as people get older move passed 65 and then passed 70 they do drive less...and I'm not talking about the 65-75 age group, nothing wrong a medical at 75 and nothing wrong with limited drivers test at 80 ... it sucks to get old, but something we all strive for.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Drivers over the age of 75 should have to have a medical and an eye exam by the appropriate professionals every 2-3 years after that. I see no problem road testing drivers after 80 ... the test doesn't have to be as complete as when people first get their licence ... imo.
I don't think you can just go by stats alone ... most drivers 65 and under are driving a lot more than over 65 and the older you get the less your driving.
Nope.
That is an unsubstantiated claim. One could easily say that the 25-34 age class- the working class- is doing less driving: they are at work most of the time.
The retirees are driving big motor homes and beetling about town during the day going for coffee with their friends, playing cards and whatever else suits their fancy. They are typically not just sitting on their asses all day waiting to die.
except when their not at work they shuttling the kids around town, doing errands etc...and as people get older move passed 65 and then passed 70 they do drive less...and I'm not talking about the 65-75 age group, nothing wrong a medical at 75 and nothing wrong with limited drivers test at 80 ... it sucks to get old, but something we all strive for.
Hey... don't get me wrong here. I agree that it would be precautionary to have the elderly tested when they get really old; but let's acknowledge that, in the bigger picture, we could be precautionary about many other things as well- some bearing much more significance than targeting our older generation.
This is not an epidemic: we do read of sometimes hilarious and sometimes tragic road accidents involving the old driver... but these are just some samples in the neverending catalogue of incidents involving all types of drivers.
Age 16-19: 240 deaths and 1,400 serious injuries
Age 25-34: 364 deaths and 1,946 serious injuries
Age 55-64: 252 deaths and 1,089 serious injuries
Age 65+: 389 deaths and 1,116 serious injuries
2009 Number of licensed drivers:
Age 16-19: 1,096,437
Age 25-34: 3,999,556
Age: 55-64: 3,652,594
Age: 65+: 3,254,110
When one combines deaths and serious injuries... the 25-34 age class kicks ass
The statistics do not lay blame to any particular group so it is tough to ascertain which age class is responsible for deaths and fatalities. I guiess I would suggest that the only prudent way to dissect such data without knowing exact proof of fault is to attribute blame evenly across the board.
* Included the young daredevil class. I revise my earlier statement: the young ones are the most dangerous group by far comparatively speaking.
** Edited twice. Sorry.
To truly compare among the groups though, you have to compare per driver, thereby making the 16-19 group the true ass kickers and 55-64 the most safest
(per driver is calculated by dividing the # of deaths (or # of injuries) by the # of drivers in each range)
Deaths per Driver
16-19 range 0.0002188908 (#1 Spot)
25-34 range 0.0000910101 (#3)
55-64 range 0.0000689921 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.0001195411 (#2)
Serious Injury per Driver
16-19 range 0.001276863 (#1)
25-34 range 0.000486554 (#2)
55-64 range 0.000298144 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.000342951 (#3)
Its a sad day a grown child needs to take away their parents car keys, but we sometimes need to do whats right for them as well as the rest of the drivers on the road...
Its the elderly's independence that we take away and I'm sure its a horrible feeling...
I think we should all be tested every two years for motor skills and reaction times after age 62. It could be part of our annual physicals and submitted to the DMV. Annually after 70. Doesn't mean we would have to re-new our licenses... more like a Smog Test for the drivers.
And I think it is much better to deal with the personal drama of revoking a parent's driving privileges than having to face criminal and civil cases after they drive through the window of the local Subway Sandwich shop.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
We have all heard the stories of elderly folks being "responsible" for automobile accidents and that they are stereotypically not the best drivers. Should people over 70 have to take a sensory acuity test and renew their license through another driver's test?
I think 70 is a bit young for that but 80 maybe yes. This would relieve many children
who are watching over their elderly parents and worry about them.
It would save some family arguments too if it was mandatory for all that age.
I'll add, many if not most of the elderly are really good drivers, they drive
defensively and not as readily distracted by phones etc.
Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.
We have all heard the stories of elderly folks being "responsible" for automobile accidents and that they are stereotypically not the best drivers. Should people over 70 have to take a sensory acuity test and renew their license through another driver's test?
I think 70 is a bit young for that but 80 maybe yes. This would relieve many children
who are watching over their elderly parents and worry about them.
It would save some family arguments too if it was mandatory for all that age.
I'll add, many if not most of the elderly are really good drivers, they drive
defensively and not as readily distracted by phones etc.
Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.
Coming from the perspective of nearly being sidelined from a car accident, I now drive like an elderly person: slow. It does not get me into trouble, I'm scared to death of being in another accident, and going slow is much better than going fast, especially when I see road rage caused by angry people insisting on driving fast and being bitter by everyone else on the road.
I know this thread is not about younger drivers, but I just can't see any laws being made for 80+ years of age, when there isn't more laws being made for the teenaged, unexperienced and iphone addicted drivers.
Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.
...
Actually, the thing that bothers me the most is when they stop in the middle of the street to let the hallucination pass by.
I've had a few close calls like that...or the old "just merge! Don't bother checking to see if you can". In my immediate area, it's typically elderly drivers (and occasionally the dipshit fascinated with their phone).
Jeanwah, perhaps you drive slowly, but I bet you're aware. That's my beef, no matter the age of the driver. Lack of attention/quick-enough reaction due to age, impairment, texting, etc...unfair to put others at risk for those reasons.
Coming from the perspective of nearly being sidelined from a car accident, I now drive like an elderly person: slow. It does not get me into trouble, I'm scared to death of being in another accident, and going slow is much better than going fast, especially when I see road rage caused by angry people insisting on driving fast and being bitter by everyone else on the road.
I know this thread is not about younger drivers, but I just can't see any laws being made for 80+ years of age, when there isn't more laws being made for the teenaged, unexperienced and iphone addicted drivers.
...
Driving a tad slower than the rest of the traffic is okay if you are aware of the rest of traffic. That is, you are in the right lane and are withing the posted speed limits, but not exceeding them.
I'm the same way... but, mostly for safety and fuel efficiency reasons. I only drive in the passing lane... to PASS a slower moving vehicle. I am aware of the flow of traffic and tend to stay in the second to the right lane on the freeway. If the average speed in that lane is 65 MPH... it's good enough for me.
The place i like best... when there are a bunch of cars way ahead of me and a bunch of cars way behind me. I like those open areas on the freeways, rather than cruising in the peleton.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I dont even know where to start on this one. Being from Florida, I think about t his everyday. Lots of elderly here, and they often like to drive their cars through the front windows of the neighborhood convenience store. I used to ride a motorcycle in north Florida, when I came south, I ditched it because I was almost killed by too many old folks who forget that their heads actually turn to the side.
I dont even know where to start on this one. Being from Florida, I think about t his everyday. Lots of elderly here, and they often like to drive their cars through the front windows of the neighborhood convenience store. I used to ride a motorcycle in north Florida, when I came south, I ditched it because I was almost killed by too many old folks who forget that their heads actually turn to the side.
...
You deserve a Purple Heart for riding a motorcycle in Florida. Or a Certificate stating how insane you were for riding a motorcycle in Florida.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
This is a good point- one I want to back but also one not easily to totally justify. Old drivers do kill people. Of course, as you said, young drivers do as well- maybe as often.
I know there are stories of older people injuring or killing people while driving; but more often than not... when I come across an idiot on the road... they are younger or middle-aged.
Let's get real: old people tend to drive very (perhaps over) cautiously.
Without digging through the statistics, I will go out on a limb and state that young drivers kill many more people than old drivers.
As I understand it, young people are responsible for most auto accidents but older adults are the next highest group. I think it's already been pointed out that older adults may have slower reflexes and vision or hearing problems that affect their ability to drive safely.
I know when my grandfather was living in NSW every year after his 80th birthday (I think it was 80, once he reached a certain age anyway) he was required to take a new drivers test once a year. This eliminated people who couldn't drive sufficiently well to hold a licence (although a lot of people who can't drive have one!) whilst not removing elderly drivers who were good drivers.
The only problem with this is that my grandfather always said he found it terribly humiliating to be going in and judged and dictated to by the young tester bloke, who from my understanding was a very small (and I don't mean physically) little man who got off on being as harsh and rude and arrogant as he possibly could
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
I know when my grandfather was living in NSW every year after his 80th birthday (I think it was 80, once he reached a certain age anyway) he was required to take a new drivers test once a year. This eliminated people who couldn't drive sufficiently well to hold a licence (although a lot of people who can't drive have one!) whilst not removing elderly drivers who were good drivers.
The only problem with this is that my grandfather always said he found it terribly humiliating to be going in and judged and dictated to by the young tester bloke, who from my understanding was a very small (and I don't mean physically) little man who got off on being as harsh and rude and arrogant as he possibly could
Wait so DMV people are the same there as here all idiots :shock:
I work for an agency that specifically provides services for older adults, so I meet lots of 'em! I also hope to be one eventually.
I like the idea of re-evaluating people as they age, looking at overall health and especially vision and hearing. The problems for me would be choosing the cut off age. Lots of older people are still very active and are conscientious drivers. Lots of them aren't. Many of the ones who aren't never were good drivers in the first place. They never took driver education but learned to drive on back roads and took their initial driver's exam when standards were more lax.
For me, the biggest problem with an age appropriate re-certification is that it does nothing about people in the younger age groups that are careless drivers. A few years ago a good friend of mine was killed by a guy who drifted over into the other lane as he came around a curve and hit her head on. I know that everybody is careless or inattentive some of the time. But I don't know how you find the people who don't think basic traffic laws apply to them, no matter what their age is.
Age 16-19: 240 deaths and 1,400 serious injuries
Age 25-34: 364 deaths and 1,946 serious injuries
Age 55-64: 252 deaths and 1,089 serious injuries
Age 65+: 389 deaths and 1,116 serious injuries
2009 Number of licensed drivers:
Age 16-19: 1,096,437
Age 25-34: 3,999,556
Age: 55-64: 3,652,594
Age: 65+: 3,254,110
When one combines deaths and serious injuries... the 25-34 age class kicks ass
The statistics do not lay blame to any particular group so it is tough to ascertain which age class is responsible for deaths and fatalities. I guiess I would suggest that the only prudent way to dissect such data without knowing exact proof of fault is to attribute blame evenly across the board.
* Included the young daredevil class. I revise my earlier statement: the young ones are the most dangerous group by far comparatively speaking.
** Edited twice. Sorry.
To truly compare among the groups though, you have to compare per driver, thereby making the 16-19 group the true ass kickers and 55-64 the most safest
(per driver is calculated by dividing the # of deaths (or # of injuries) by the # of drivers in each range)
Deaths per Driver
16-19 range 0.0002188908 (#1 Spot)
25-34 range 0.0000910101 (#3)
55-64 range 0.0000689921 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.0001195411 (#2)
Serious Injury per Driver
16-19 range 0.001276863 (#1)
25-34 range 0.000486554 (#2)
55-64 range 0.000298144 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.000342951 (#3)
So... the most deadly age group: the really young ones.
The second most deadly: really a tie between the 25-34 group and the 65+ group when you factor in both fatalities and serious injuries.
The safest: 55-64.
And... given this... judging from the last dozen or so posts... people are ready to implement laws that require the older people to re-license. Isn't this attempt to safeguard our roads a little misplaced? Of course older people failing with vision should not be driving, but what about the testoserone driven idiots that race about our streets? Or the chatterboxes using their phones and not paying attention? I see tons of young women grooming themselves while driving? They are clearly the bigger problem. Maybe we are issuing licenses at too young of an age? Why be stuck on targeting our mothers and fathers? If we can look to the stats to tell us anything... we should be targeting our kids.
I feel that people deadset on having old people re-license are choosing to ignore the bigger problem to focus on another.
And... given this... judging from the last dozen or so posts... people are ready to implement laws that require the older people to re-license. Isn't this attempt to safeguard our roads a little misplaced? Of course older people failing with vision should not be driving, but what about the testoserone driven idiots that race about our streets? Or the chatterboxes using their phones and not paying attention? I see tons of young women grooming themselves while driving? They are clearly the bigger problem. Maybe we are issuing licenses at too young of an age? Why be stuck on targeting our mothers and fathers? If we can look to the stats to tell us anything... we should be targeting our kids.
I feel that people deadset on having old people re-license are choosing to ignore the bigger problem to focus on another.
Personally, I think 16 is too young for driver's licenses and think it should be increased, especially having read deadly statistics of this age group in my state a couple years ago. Maybe FL does need to pay more attention to the seniors, since there are so many of them, but the bigger picture does seem to point the finger to the youngest being the most dangerous.
Comments
except when their not at work they shuttling the kids around town, doing errands etc...and as people get older move passed 65 and then passed 70 they do drive less...and I'm not talking about the 65-75 age group, nothing wrong a medical at 75 and nothing wrong with limited drivers test at 80 ... it sucks to get old, but something we all strive for.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Hey... don't get me wrong here. I agree that it would be precautionary to have the elderly tested when they get really old; but let's acknowledge that, in the bigger picture, we could be precautionary about many other things as well- some bearing much more significance than targeting our older generation.
This is not an epidemic: we do read of sometimes hilarious and sometimes tragic road accidents involving the old driver... but these are just some samples in the neverending catalogue of incidents involving all types of drivers.
To truly compare among the groups though, you have to compare per driver, thereby making the 16-19 group the true ass kickers and 55-64 the most safest
(per driver is calculated by dividing the # of deaths (or # of injuries) by the # of drivers in each range)
Deaths per Driver
16-19 range 0.0002188908 (#1 Spot)
25-34 range 0.0000910101 (#3)
55-64 range 0.0000689921 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.0001195411 (#2)
Serious Injury per Driver
16-19 range 0.001276863 (#1)
25-34 range 0.000486554 (#2)
55-64 range 0.000298144 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.000342951 (#3)
Its the elderly's independence that we take away and I'm sure its a horrible feeling...
And I think it is much better to deal with the personal drama of revoking a parent's driving privileges than having to face criminal and civil cases after they drive through the window of the local Subway Sandwich shop.
Hail, Hail!!!
who are watching over their elderly parents and worry about them.
It would save some family arguments too if it was mandatory for all that age.
I'll add, many if not most of the elderly are really good drivers, they drive
defensively and not as readily distracted by phones etc.
Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.
Actually, the thing that bothers me the most is when they stop in the middle of the street to let the hallucination pass by.
Hail, Hail!!!
Coming from the perspective of nearly being sidelined from a car accident, I now drive like an elderly person: slow. It does not get me into trouble, I'm scared to death of being in another accident, and going slow is much better than going fast, especially when I see road rage caused by angry people insisting on driving fast and being bitter by everyone else on the road.
I know this thread is not about younger drivers, but I just can't see any laws being made for 80+ years of age, when there isn't more laws being made for the teenaged, unexperienced and iphone addicted drivers.
I've had a few close calls like that...or the old "just merge! Don't bother checking to see if you can". In my immediate area, it's typically elderly drivers (and occasionally the dipshit fascinated with their phone).
Jeanwah, perhaps you drive slowly, but I bet you're aware. That's my beef, no matter the age of the driver. Lack of attention/quick-enough reaction due to age, impairment, texting, etc...unfair to put others at risk for those reasons.
Driving a tad slower than the rest of the traffic is okay if you are aware of the rest of traffic. That is, you are in the right lane and are withing the posted speed limits, but not exceeding them.
I'm the same way... but, mostly for safety and fuel efficiency reasons. I only drive in the passing lane... to PASS a slower moving vehicle. I am aware of the flow of traffic and tend to stay in the second to the right lane on the freeway. If the average speed in that lane is 65 MPH... it's good enough for me.
The place i like best... when there are a bunch of cars way ahead of me and a bunch of cars way behind me. I like those open areas on the freeways, rather than cruising in the peleton.
Hail, Hail!!!
You deserve a Purple Heart for riding a motorcycle in Florida. Or a Certificate stating how insane you were for riding a motorcycle in Florida.
Hail, Hail!!!
I thought you were going to say to let the person leaving the gas station into traffic.
That bothers me, but you're right, it's not as bad as letting the hallucination pass by
not only that but a lot of them are doped up too.
Philadelphia 10/22/2013
Baltimore 10/27/2013
Hampton 4/18/2016
Ft. Worth 9/13/2023
Ft. Worth 9/15/2023
Wrigley 8/31/2024
Baltimore 9/12/2024
Fenway 9/15/2024
The only problem with this is that my grandfather always said he found it terribly humiliating to be going in and judged and dictated to by the young tester bloke, who from my understanding was a very small (and I don't mean physically) little man who got off on being as harsh and rude and arrogant as he possibly could
Wait so DMV people are the same there as here all idiots :shock:
I like the idea of re-evaluating people as they age, looking at overall health and especially vision and hearing. The problems for me would be choosing the cut off age. Lots of older people are still very active and are conscientious drivers. Lots of them aren't. Many of the ones who aren't never were good drivers in the first place. They never took driver education but learned to drive on back roads and took their initial driver's exam when standards were more lax.
For me, the biggest problem with an age appropriate re-certification is that it does nothing about people in the younger age groups that are careless drivers. A few years ago a good friend of mine was killed by a guy who drifted over into the other lane as he came around a curve and hit her head on. I know that everybody is careless or inattentive some of the time. But I don't know how you find the people who don't think basic traffic laws apply to them, no matter what their age is.
So... the most deadly age group: the really young ones.
The second most deadly: really a tie between the 25-34 group and the 65+ group when you factor in both fatalities and serious injuries.
The safest: 55-64.
And... given this... judging from the last dozen or so posts... people are ready to implement laws that require the older people to re-license. Isn't this attempt to safeguard our roads a little misplaced? Of course older people failing with vision should not be driving, but what about the testoserone driven idiots that race about our streets? Or the chatterboxes using their phones and not paying attention? I see tons of young women grooming themselves while driving? They are clearly the bigger problem. Maybe we are issuing licenses at too young of an age? Why be stuck on targeting our mothers and fathers? If we can look to the stats to tell us anything... we should be targeting our kids.
I feel that people deadset on having old people re-license are choosing to ignore the bigger problem to focus on another.
Personally, I think 16 is too young for driver's licenses and think it should be increased, especially having read deadly statistics of this age group in my state a couple years ago. Maybe FL does need to pay more attention to the seniors, since there are so many of them, but the bigger picture does seem to point the finger to the youngest being the most dangerous.
Got it.