StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Some particularly bad experience with our vehicularly inclined elderly I've been wondering if we should have a maximum age to drive and if so when? I mean there's no denying that the elderly have piss poor reflexes, dimished eyesight, and diminished awarness of their situation. Not to mention most are either recklessly cluesless or terrified. So at what point should they be cut off?

I'm thinking 60-65. I'm not a doctor but it gets so bad that they can't drive. It's that point at which next to no elderly are really able to drive well. I'd also say regular vision and practical tests as well.

After age 60, people should have to renew their license yearly.

I agree. I have had a few close calls with older people either not paying attention, or just driving so slow they make all of the cars behind them bunch up so close that if they slammed on their brakes there would be a major pile up. I really think that if I see an elderly person in an SUV I would pull over untill they were out of my way.

Defiant wrote:After age 60, people should have to renew their license yearly.

Do you realize just how over-loaded the lisence registration places would be if we did that? As is it's already usually packed full of people.

Captain_Cyran wrote:

Defiant wrote:After age 60, people should have to renew their license yearly.

Do you realize just how over-loaded the lisence registration places would be if we did that? As is it's already usually packed full of people.

I dunno...may actually force the DMV to become efficent....LMAO...eh, nothing will

I would like a more stringent test though on the elderly for driving.

I would like it if they were regularly tested after 65 and totally revoked at 75. I'm sure there are a lot of 65 year olds perfectly fine behind the wheel but after another decade it starts getting scarey.

In NC, anyone over 60, I believe, has to take the test every year they renew their license. I think they should have to take a driving test as well as the written. I'm not sure they do now.

Captain_Cyran wrote:

Defiant wrote:After age 60, people should have to renew their license yearly.

Do you realize just how over-loaded the lisence registration places would be if we did that? As is it's already usually packed full of people.

So fucking what? Going to the DMV sucks, 5 or 10 extra minutes makes that much of a difference to you?

Frank Hipper wrote:

Captain_Cyran wrote:

Defiant wrote:After age 60, people should have to renew their license yearly.

Do you realize just how over-loaded the lisence registration places would be if we did that? As is it's already usually packed full of people.

So fucking what? Going to the DMV sucks, 5 or 10 extra minutes makes that much of a difference to you?

5 or 10 minutes? We're talking at least 20 OLD people. This could at least add 30 minutes to a waiting line, more likely 50 minutes to an hour.

My Great-Great-Uncle was driving till he was 101, then the Florida government revoked it.

He was mighty pissed off, so he moved to a different state, got a new liscense, and he drove until he died at the age of 108.

Don't have an automatic revokation at a certain age.

Hell, most 20-25 year olds are the worst drivers on the road.

Have mandatory testing every year.

Ted wrote:My Great-Great-Uncle was driving till he was 101, then the Florida government revoked it.

He was mighty pissed off, so he moved to a different state, got a new liscense, and he drove until he died at the age of 108.

Then he's lucky that he didn't kill someone. The elderly have horribly diminished reflexes and that's dangerous on the road. It happens even to the best of them and it's not their fault. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to endanger others on the road. No 108 has the reflexes needed for driving.

I agree with the driver re-testing idea. Every year for the first five years after a driver gets his license, every 5 years after that, and then back to once a year after the driver exceeds a certain age. There are a lot of fuckers out there who would not pass a driver's test if they had to re-take it.

Many countries have periodic driver re-testing. The fear that we will overload our licensing centres assumes that there is no corresponding increase in funding for that department, which would be silly.

Would it cost more? Yes. Would it be worth it to try and put a dent in the tens of thousands who die every year as a result of idiot drivers, both young and old? Absolutely.

I don't think revoking licenses after a certain age would be the thing to do. Sure most people over say...80 are probably not fit to drive, but taking away all licenses after that age is an indiscriminant and unfair solution. Rather, regular testing after say, 65 or so would be used to judge whether or not a person is fit to drive. Some people will probably be too blind or slow after turning 67, others may be just fine till they're 100.

I believe Florida is passing a law where over the age of 60 you mest retest for a license every two years (any Floridians here know more than I do? I don't pay much attention to laws about the elderly). As long as a person is competent to drive, I don't mind how old they are. Crazy teenagers worry me more than elderly folk.

Just deal with the ones in the fast lane going 30 in a 50 mph zone like they do all over Orchard Park.

I don't think that their license should simply be revoked at a certain age. I think that after about 65 they should have to go renew their license every 2-4 years though.

There's no need to revoke a license if you test the driver and he/she passes. After 60, a renewal should be mandatory every year or so. No more people who drive half the speed limit down the express way, and no more people who hit cars that they should've seen for ten seconds before they smashed into them.

Aside, it has been my observation that the slowest drivers are old men who wear HATS. I shit you not, everytime I have ever seen an old man driving down the road at painfully slow speeds, he has always donned a hat. Its truly a peculiar phenomenon, but most certainly not fictional.

Airline pilots have to do their re-tests every year... so why not old people. I'd go with Normal liscence requirements till 65, then a retest every single year, with a full knowledge and practical at age 70 onwards. IE, Knowledge test as ORAL test with the person, if accuracy is 70% or better on oral test, then they can do their prac, if prac is 80% or better, then they get to stay on the road for another year.

Hey if I have to do it every 4 years just to be able to fly a Cessna 172, I think that even all people should do it for driving Cars. Make the road a safer place IMO

I agree with the notion of yearly testing after a certain age.

I would also like to add that I think there should be a mandatory intelligence/skills/critical thinking test before anyone gets their license, plus a mandatory defensive-driving course, for the following reasons: there are some real dumb fuckers on the road these days. The vast, vast majority of 'em are people between the ages of 18-25 who own either a car their daddy bought them or some pimped-out ricemobile, but yesterday I got to witness the awesome force that is the New York City Driver. Red light? That means three more...or pull the pass-right cut-em-off trick. Funeral procession? Fuck 'em! Honk at them and try to ram the hearse! (Yes that actually happened)

I'm pretty sure Arizona requires some additional testing after you turn 60. Whether it is an eye test every year or a driving test every 5 I'm not sure. I do know that I got my current license in 1994 and I don't have to renew it until 2029 (when I'll be 60 ). Extended licensing is the norm so the DMV won't be so busy. It's still busy but not like it could be. I think were supposed to get the photo updated every so often but I think it's more of a recomendation.



Of course, Arizona drivers suck. We have a mixture of people from all over the place all jammed mostly into a few cities. It's not just the retirees/snowbirds who can't drive though.

I think that once someone reaches a certain age (I'd say 60, perhaps younger for people with certain health problems), they have to take at least one driving test per year to keep their liscence. It will get revoked once they have demonstrated the complete inability to drive.

I made similar suggestions in the Venting HOS thread. My granda was a great driver, he drove Long Distance trucks for a living but when he hit a certain age he got rid of his car and burned his license. Older people just don't have the Hand Eye coordination for drivogn anymore.

/agree.

After a certain age testing should be manditory, definatly never universally revoke liscences. My Gran'pappy's over 70 and he's a pretty decent snowboarder.
As for the frequency of the tests, I'd say every three years unless the person in question has some sort of disability or debilitating disease, in which case it would need to be more frequent. Don't know enough about such things to say how frequent though.

I believe there should be a test at about 65-70 followed up by additional tests every few years. However as the elderly are also the most active voting block it wont happen.