The Elderly and the right to Drive

[alicetheDroog]

A few days ago, a women in her late 80s crashed into my father's parked car, killing the passenger. This was not her fist accident, in fact she crashed into our car a few years ago when it was parked in the same spot. She knew she was a danger behind the wheel, due to her many previous accidents, and I consider the death of the passenger to be murder by neglect.

Anyways, this could all be avoided if we were all required to retake the driving exam periodicity. You're not going to be the same driver when you're 80-something that you were when you took the test. Some people remain of sound body and mind into their old age, and some don't.

[BrianEtrius]

Wait wait wait, are you saying we need to make the DMV even more crowded? Aw fuck.

Also, how do you defining passing? How would you define safe driving? Do you hold a different standard for elderly? Then you're going to having a giant ACLU lawsuit on your hands, claiming elderly discrimination. See where I'm heading with this? Yeah, it may be a good idea to get some people who have disabilities off the road, but you're going to have to defend that idea in court, and let me tell you, there's nobody more hated than the guy who's telling you he's taking away your freedom for the "greater good".

[Richard]

Kill 10 people, get probation.

At the least elderly folk should have to renew their license every year rather than every 4 years.

Ridiculous.

[TheGuyAtYourWindow]

driving to me isnt a right, a right is something you cant take away from a person, driving is a convenience that you have to earn, its a privelage.

so absolutely they should be forced to take driving tests if they are over a certain age. dont they already? whats the age on that in the states?

[Magic-Mushroom]

Drving is NOT a right, it's a privilege that can be taken away. If someone's an unsafe and or high risk driver then of course they should have to take more drving tests until they show improvement.

[SmilezRoyale]

There's no such thing as a right to drive.

Ideally the question of who is qualified to drive and who is not would be 'discovered' by auto insurance companies and private road owners. For now we have toput our trust in the DMV and Government traffic officers to decide whether people are competent drivers or not.

[LordJaric]

I wouldn't say that the age of the person matters, it's their condition, if they can barely react to a situation then they probably shouldn't drive anymore, my great uncle has had his license taken away because of the accidents he has caused, only a few, luckily no one was killed, though I'm not sure about injured.

[Light]

I'm going to have to agree with the majority here; the elderly NEED to be tested every so often to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves and others on the road. Normally, anecdotal evidence would not suffice in making an argument, but in this case, we can make an exception. We frequently hear of old people on the road killing several, if not dozens of people because their reflexes are not as sharp as they used to be. It's a proven fact that the average person's reflexes diminish as they become elderly. Obviously, one needs decent/good reflexes if one is to be a good driver on the road.

Perhaps the elderly can somehow compensate for their diminished reflexes. How, you may ask? I don't know, but until we can find a way to accomplish this, I think it would behoove us to compel the elderly to undergo certain driving tests if they are to keep their driver licenses. A driver license is a privilege, not a right.

Such testing is feasible, in my opinion. I believe we can determine who is still good behind the wheel and who isn't. If such testing was not viable, then how is learning to drive for the first time viable? It's not too different in all likelihood.

[Ericho]

Aww, it reminds me of that "South Park" episode that talked about the same thing. I think that in terms of driving, you should simply treat the elderly as you would any other person. If you kill a person by accident, then simply punish that person in the same way you would a younger person. I guess you can make arguments but I don't know much about this subject, which is why I'm just giving my two cents worth.

[Iron-Hampster]

there comes a point where you have to realise that its time for you to stop driving, weather its because you have a petit mal siesure behind the wheel and end up in a ditch or when your sight wears out. So some of it is personal responsibility as well as the DMV having to expand a little bit more to accomadate such problems.

[tomjamesdc]

Yeah, my Mom is 85 abd in great shape, still driving safely. I agree that there should be a test every year or two. The problem is that at some point in time' your Karma runs over my Dogma', so to speak. At least the oldies try to be careful, the majority of accidents I see are from cell phone use, whether talking or texting.

[orangebomb]

In theory, that does sound like a good idea for the elderly to get off the streets and stop driving altogether, but in reality, that would simply make things much more complicated, considering the ACLU would claim age discrimination in a heartbeat, among many other things.

The obvious solution is to test the elderly drivers to make sure that they can see what's out there on the road, and what to do if something happens. {i.e if a kid darts across the road, or if there are train tracks nearby.} Even with dimished reflexes, senior drivers still need to know the basics of defensive driving and how to approach situations on the road.

Of course, that may not be enough, due to the constant amount of accidents with older drivers everywhere, but that's the best solution the government can come up with dealing with this issue.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/28/11 11:46 AM, orangebomb wrote: In theory, that does sound like a good idea for the elderly to get off the streets and stop driving altogether, but in reality, that would simply make things much more complicated, considering the ACLU would claim age discrimination in a heartbeat, among many other things.

they could claim age discrimination on the basis of the fact that liquour stores are barred from performing sales to minors.

the ACLU might have a case if the Government simply barred edlerly people from driving, but they would look foolish if they took it to court because the government was requiring tests every interval of years.

Which reminds me of another descrimination lawsuit that had been going on.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/28/11 12:37 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: they could claim age discrimination on the basis of the fact that liquour stores are barred from performing sales to minors.

Except children are not full people until the age of 18.

the ACLU might have a case if the Government simply barred edlerly people from driving, but they would look foolish if they took it to court because the government was requiring tests every interval of years.

That depends. If the tests were universal, like a vision test when you go to the DEQ, then they have no argument. However, if we're doing the test some of the posters have been suggesting, where only old people have to be tested then the ACLU might have a good argument.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/28/11 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Except children are not full people until the age of 18.

That's a legal precedent. But we do know that childeren have 'certain rights' and these 'rights' have changed over time.

That depends. If the tests were universal, like a vision test when you go to the DEQ, then they have no argument. However, if we're doing the test some of the posters have been suggesting, where only old people have to be tested then the ACLU might have a good argument.

Yeah. If this sort of thing had to be done by the government i envisioned it being done in the form of interval drivers tests. Every 5 or 10 years or something.

[drknes]

Every winter here where I live when the snowbirds come the vehicle accident rates rise and it sucks, I've seen 3 accidents with in a 4 hour period when I was working at a grocery store the crashes were on a bridge over the highway which no crashes happen there except during winter.

[Fluffington]

They should be required to take driving tests on a yearly bases, but it shouldn't be taken away once they reach a certain age.

[morefngdbs]

Actually , in Canada you do have the right to drive.
You also have the right to drive unlicensed vehicles.
They also do not have to be insured.
BUT
THIS ONLY APPLIES TO A PERSON, OPERATING THE VEHICLE ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.

Otherwise if you wish to drive on the public road system, driving in Canada is a privilege. That can be taken away. You also can't drive on crown land, without license, plates etc, even if its only a trail. The law holds there as well.

I know a land owner who I buy my firewood from.
He has a pickup truck, that he uses on his 1200+ acre woodlot. He uses it only on his private roads & it not only doesn't have a license plate or insurance. It IMO isn't legal for the road either.

[Dogbert581]

Well my driver's licence expires the day before my 70th birthday, I'm not sure what happens then, whether I have to retake the test or not. I assume it's the same for all UK drivers

[miner08]

"At 6/23/11 03:24 AM, alicetheDroog wrote:

A few days ago, a women in her late 80s crashed into my father's parked car, killing the passenger. This was not her fist accident, in fact she crashed into our car a few years ago when it was parked in the same spot. She knew she was a danger behind the wheel, due to her many previous accidents, and I consider the death of the passenger to be murder by neglect.

Anyways, this could all be avoided if we were all required to retake the driving exam periodicity. You're not going to be the same driver when you're 80-something that you were when you took the test. Some people remain of sound body and mind into their old age, and some don't."

I agree that people should have to retake the test at certain points. So it's not age discriminatory have it be every 15 years you have to retake your test.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/23/11 03:35 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: Wait wait wait, are you saying we need to make the DMV even more crowded? Aw fuck.

No, I believe she's actually raising a valid point about drivers who may not be competent being allowed on the road. Here in New Jersey the other day an elderly woman drove the WRONG WAY down a major highway for two miles and numerous cars and even tractor trailers had to swerve out of her way. The woman has received no charges and will not suffer any prosecution for this. But yeah, let's make fun and act like this isn't a real issue because the topic starter apparently only sees it as one because it personally effected them.

Also, how do you defining passing?

Oh come on! Every state has a driving test, ever state has a written test. This is not a relative issue. We have clear standards by which to judge this. The OP is clearly saying that we just have the road test retaken periodically and the road test clearly has defined standards for passing.

How would you define safe driving?

Again, where is the relativeness in this issue? Where? Safe driving is defined as those who do not have accidents or violations of the law on their driving record. Even insurance companies have breaks and discounts and defined safe driving standards.

Do you hold a different standard for elderly?

You don't think we should? Are not younger, inexperienced drivers a danger? Now let's look at drivers who may have physical or mental impairments and are on the roadways...aren't THEY a possible danger? The only problem I see here is that you can't catch everybody. Every person is going to be different, and in many cases when an elderly person begins to decline, it can happen rapidly. Someone could turn 70, pass the driving test for that year, and then have a heart attack behind the wheel, or some other malady afflict them and impair them before it would be caught at the next road test. Still, I think doing something to try and correct the problem is better then nothing.

Then you're going to having a giant ACLU lawsuit on your hands, claiming elderly discrimination.

Oh, so we shouldn't do anything here because the ACLU might sue? And surely the ACLU is somehow this perfect organization that will always win and can never be wrong on an issue right? This is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

See where I'm heading with this? Yeah, it may be a good idea to get some people who have disabilities off the road, but you're going to have to defend that idea in court, and let me tell you, there's nobody more hated than the guy who's telling you he's taking away your freedom for the "greater good".

I think it's easily defensible, the needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. But it's more likely nothing will be done simply because the elderly as a voting block are so much more dangerous then the young (who by the way the ACLU has not taken up for on states that require graduated licenses for new drivers...so why exactly are they going to pick and choose here again?). That's why no politician will stand up on this, they'd lose the senior vote immediately and since seniors always turn out in better numbers the young, their votes have to be thought of.

[Atlas]

I have an uncle who can see but when he gets in a car he's blind as a bat and one time almost killed me and my family. I think the elderly should get an eye exam and let the eye doctor and DMV decide if they should be able to drive or not.

[MrHero17]

I don't see a problem with making people retake their full driving test every 5 or 10 years or so, whats the risk, are they going to fail the test? They shouldn't be driving then :p