Should Elderly Drivers Have To Retake The Test?

[SCRawl]

After having to go through a physical and a flight review every two years for my pilot's license, my thought has largely been "Why don't we do this for car drivers?"

Personally, I think it has a lot to do with American over-dependence on automobiles - people would be scared shitless they'd lose their license and either be stranded or would have to break the law.

Nor would I limit it solely to old drivers - everyone should get regular re-testing - every five years, perhaps, and whenever you move to a new state and change your license. (In the US driving laws do vary slightly from state to state)

Expense has a lot to do with it as well. Re-testing every automobile driver in the U.S. would be horrendously expensive. As you say, the car as a means of personal transportation is relied upon far too heavily, due to it being so cheap (by objective standards). Just about anyone with two nickels to rub together can operate a car, if they cut corners on things like maintenance, insurance, and licensing. Forcing these kinds of shoestring drivers to pay for testing will only force more of them underground. I've known entirely too many people who have had their licenses suspended, yet continue to drive. I knew one guy who couldn't afford insurance -- which is mandatory in Ontario -- and skirted the system so as to avoid having it. "I can't afford insurance", he said. "Then you bleeding well can't afford to drive," I said.

Sorry, that ended up being a bit of a rant.

(Incidentally, when I mentioned in a previous post that I'd nearly killed three elderly drivers in separate events, I should have clarified, and said that there were no actual accidents. Through skillful and lucky manoeuvres on my part, I managed to avoid collisions that would almost certainly resulted in serious injury, and possibly death, for those involved.)

[RogueIce]

This could simply be that is is very, very used to driving busses. Large vehicles feel slower than smaller, lower to the ground vehicles. I know when I switch from a big pickup (or something similar) to a small car, I regularly do about 10-20mph lower than the limit, simply because I gauge my speed more on the feeling than anything else. After a short period of adjustment, I get back "on track", but an older person may take more time to readjust. Just my $0.02

Miles Teg

True that could very well be it, he drives a school bus every day and has been every day (5 days a week anyway) for like 15 years now. That's probably it. I was probably worried cause there were many jokes lastnight (he just turned 60) about his age and stuff...

I can attest to that. Whenever I drive my sister's Honda Civic (as opposed to my usual GMC Sierra pickup) I tend to accelerate slower and in general go a lot slower because I don't push down too far on the gas. This is because if I did that in my truck, I would a) spin my tires and go nowhere (during acceleration) or b) start really hauling ass (during normal driving). So it usually takes me a couple minutes to switch over to the mentality of driving the small car vs my pickup (incidently, the one time I drove my sister's Civic a lot because she had the truck, when I got my truck back I did the spinning tires bit almost out of the gate; luckily since it's such an obvious tale, as opposed to going slow, I didn't end up hauling ass before I switched over). This would tie into why the problem seems to especially happen when he's talking to people (he's distracted and going back on habit) and probably why he's slower on surface streets as opposed to the highway (there generally aren't many bus stops on the highway so drivers go faster there than they would normally while on their routes).

As to the topic at hand, I'm of the opinion that while retests are a pretty positive thing, retesting every driver out there would be a supreme bitch; the DMV is crowded enough with new drivers as it is, let alone if everyobody had to requalify every five years or whatever.

[Alan Bolte]

While I would like regular retesting for everyone, expanding the infrastructure would take a while and be somewhat costly.

The big difference between teens and the elderly that I see is that, nevermind the number of teens who are just fine after their first year or so of learning, nevermind that you have to learn sometime and you're necessarily going to be a risk, but there seem to be way more elderly drivers on the road than there are teens. Maybe it's just the area in which I live, but the ratio of 16-19 year olds to 75+ seems quite low.

[Broomstick]

You have to be well over 80 in order to be a less safe driver, statistically, than a teenager. That being said, the teen must learn how to drive somehow whereas the elderly person is deteriorating because of age. I would tend to support requiring people to retake drivers tests every decade or so, since there's not THAT much time or money involved.

Teenagers (here, at least) are placed under severe restrictions when driving because of the statistics you mention. Elderly drivers should be placed under similar restrictions; their desire for freedom should not outweigh public safety.

My niece and nephews tell me that the same applies in both Michigan and New York state - unlike when I learned to drive, when a license at 16 granted you full privileges automatically, they started with restrictions that are gradually lifted with time and experience. I believe most of the US is that way now.

[Broomstick]

After having to go through a physical and a flight review every two years for my pilot's license, my thought has largely been "Why don't we do this for car drivers?"

Personally, I think it has a lot to do with American over-dependence on automobiles - people would be scared shitless they'd lose their license and either be stranded or would have to break the law.

Nor would I limit it solely to old drivers - everyone should get regular re-testing - every five years, perhaps, and whenever you move to a new state and change your license. (In the US driving laws do vary slightly from state to state)

Expense has a lot to do with it as well. Re-testing every automobile driver in the U.S. would be horrendously expensive.

But we can afford to re-test seniors after age 80 who are on fixed incomes?

As you say, the car as a means of personal transportation is relied upon far too heavily, due to it being so cheap (by objective standards). Just about anyone with two nickels to rub together can operate a car, if they cut corners on things like maintenance, insurance, and licensing. Forcing these kinds of shoestring drivers to pay for testing will only force more of them underground. I've known entirely too many people who have had their licenses suspended, yet continue to drive. I knew one guy who couldn't afford insurance -- which is mandatory in Ontario -- and skirted the system so as to avoid having it. "I can't afford insurance", he said. "Then you bleeding well can't afford to drive," I said.

Sorry, that ended up being a bit of a rant.

I acknowledge there is an expense and infrastructure problem. However, as you pointed out, legal driving already has costs associated with it.

Last time I had my required flight review it was two and half hours of my time, two hours of time for the guy giving me the review, and one hour of airplane rental. That added up to about $140 US. I would be very shocked if a comparable testing for a car cost that much. For one thing, I already own a car, I don't have to rent one. But here in Indiana renewing your license plates can cost $140 or more each year (the cost is pegged to the value of your vehicle) Anyone with auto insurance in the US is paying lots more than $140 every year, and most people do manage to scrape together money for insurance, repairs, etc.

The bigger obstacle is the infrastructure to administer these auto tests. In aviation, you don't pay the FAA for the testing, you pay the tester directly. Perhaps that would work for the autos, too - instead of these guys being employees of the state DMV they'd be freelancers. Yes, there is the possibility of corruption and bribery on the part of some to retain licenses when they shouldn't -- but we get that now.

Something like 40,000-50,000 people in the US die in road accidents every year. Not to mention the greater numbers injured, some of them permanently. I suspect the vast majority of those accidents are caused by driver error.

So... I guess the question is whether or not the benefit of safer roads outweighs the cost and bother of repetitive testing. Granted, you're going to have some cheaters, but most people will try to adhere to the law. On average you'll have better drivers by eliminating or retraining those with substandard skills.

[SCRawl]

After having to go through a physical and a flight review every two years for my pilot's license, my thought has largely been "Why don't we do this for car drivers?"

Personally, I think it has a lot to do with American over-dependence on automobiles - people would be scared shitless they'd lose their license and either be stranded or would have to break the law.

Nor would I limit it solely to old drivers - everyone should get regular re-testing - every five years, perhaps, and whenever you move to a new state and change your license. (In the US driving laws do vary slightly from state to state)

Expense has a lot to do with it as well. Re-testing every automobile driver in the U.S. would be horrendously expensive.

But we can afford to re-test seniors after age 80 who are on fixed incomes?

Good point, of course. In the case of pilot testing, and with 80+ driver testing, I presume that the skills required to complete the required manoeuvres is non-trivial. In other words, in order to pass these tests both of these groups will have to demonstrate competence which is not common to the general population (in the case of 80-year-olds, not common to that population). For your standard 30-year-old driver, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of them are capable of executing proper driving techniques, and even know what would be expected of them during a test. The problem is that after the test, they continue to drive like assholes.

So... I guess the question is whether or not the benefit of safer roads outweighs the cost and bother of repetitive testing. Granted, you're going to have some cheaters, but most people will try to adhere to the law. On average you'll have better drivers by eliminating or retraining those with substandard skills.

That's what the question usually boils down to, isn't it? In addition to the issue of cost is the issue of effectiveness: would repetitive testing remove bad (i.e. likely to cause accidents) drivers from the road? My belief is that a few, truly incompetent drivers would have their licenses pulled, but since (as I stated) most drivers can "fake it" for a 20-minute test, the bigger problem of "driver stupidity" is too difficult to solve.

[aerius]

That's what the question usually boils down to, isn't it? In addition to the issue of cost is the issue of effectiveness: would repetitive testing remove bad (i.e. likely to cause accidents) drivers from the road? My belief is that a few, truly incompetent drivers would have their licenses pulled, but since (as I stated) most drivers can "fake it" for a 20-minute test, the bigger problem of "driver stupidity" is too difficult to solve.

I'm betting it would if the tests weren't complete jokes like they are now. You are correct in saying that a fair number of people could easily fake it for 20 minutes to pass the current test. If however it was say, a 90 minute test that has everything from highways to busy downtown driving and you need to score 90% or better to pass, you could wash out a lot of the incompetants who shouldn't be driving. And that's why I also want to send in everyone who gets a traffic violation for a mandatory retest.

Story: My dad lived in West Germany for some time before he moved to Canada. When he first moved to Canada he was shocked at how awful people here were at driving, they couldn't merge onto highways properly, they couldn't park well, and the driving was just downright sloppy to him. And when he went do his Canadian driver's test he said it was a complete joke compared to the one he did in West Germany. The one back there took him well over an hour and covered almost everything that could be covered, and the standards were very high and strict. Here it was 15 minutes, spin around the block, done. He said the big difference is people in West Germany took driving as a serious responsibility, and he felt the strict requirements and high standards played a big part in this. Here, everyone just takes it for granted.

[Mrs Kendall]

This would tie into why the problem seems to especially happen when he's talking to people (he's distracted and going back on habit) and probably why he's slower on surface streets as opposed to the highway (there generally aren't many bus stops on the highway so drivers go faster there than they would normally while on their routes).

Exactly, he actually only drives the bus on the highway to transport the kids from one town to the next. There are no stops along that stretch of highway.

Ok thanks this put my mind at ease. I've been kinda nervous riding while he's driving lately. I'm sure he's fine. I keep telling myself he's a professional driver, I have nothing to worry about but it's kinda annoying when he's going 20 below the speed limit for like 10 minutes. He only really notices if someone says something to him or it someone is on his ass.

[Uraniun235]

I distinctly remember people talking about going to some more remote town's DMV office because the driving test there was easier.

[Darth Wong]

I distinctly remember people talking about going to some more remote town's DMV office because the driving test there was easier.

A lot of driving tests don't even involve testing your ability to conduct yourself properly on the highway. And where do most fatal crashes occur? The highway. It's perverse.

[Broomstick]

Good point, of course. In the case of pilot testing, and with 80+ driver testing, I presume that the skills required to complete the required manoeuvres is non-trivial. In other words, in order to pass these tests both of these groups will have to demonstrate competence which is not common to the general population (in the case of 80-year-olds, not common to that population).

Except I would maintain that the skills required for private piloting - the sort I do as contrasted with the sort Wicked Pilot does - IS within the capability of 90% of the general population. So why does the US continue to churn out shitty auto drivers and yet has one of the safest, if not the safest, aviation systems in the world (we also have more private pilots than anyone else, too)

Well, for one thing, you can get away with being a shitty driver easier than you can get away with being a shitty pilot. Never mind the laws and regulations - physics gets in the way. Airplanes go faster, as a general rule, and aside from mountainous areas you just can't drop a car a vertical mile (or kilometer or two) by going off the road. Alcohol and drugs are even more lethal in aircraft than in autos. And so on and so forth. So Darwin effects eliminate the very worst pilots faster than the worst drivers.

But beyond that, most people wouldn't bother with getting a driver's license if the process was as time consuming as that of getting a pilot's license. You have a substanial amount of "book learning", you need to learn to navigate for real, not just by following road signs (although it's gotten a lot easier with cheap civilian GPS), and you have to actually do math in a competant manner. The written test is two hours, and it's considerably more complicated than the multiple-choice and true-false questions I get at the DMV. And you're videotaped during it, so if questions of cheating come up there's a record of your performance. There's an oral exam, which you must pass. Then there's the flight test, which is a couple hours at least. If you fail any part of the flight test you must retake that portion. And, oh yes, you pay the examiner for his time. Which works out to several hundred dollars under even the most efficient circumstances. (Examiners also pay to have their examiner skills examined - in which case the examinee rides for free, but then you have the FAA sitting behind you in the airplane literally looking over your shoulder. Hey, no pressure, right? And if you bust a reg they'll have the paperwork on your penalty completed before you land, how convenient). And, oh yes, that exam not only includes easy stuff like straight and level but an thorough testing of your abiltiy to handle emergencies and your judgement - at certain certain points the examiner tells you to break a reg or do something not wise and you have to have the wit to say "No, I'm not doing that". Failure to do so is a failure to pass, just as much as failing to hold altitude or heading.

(And yes, some people will go to a particular examiner with a reputation of being "easier". However, since the examiner is potentially liable for your screw-ups for several years afterward, there is little incentive for even the "easy" ones to let incompetence slide)

I'm not saying we should make driver's tests equally difficult (though I could probably take that stance in a debate) but I do think that if we treated driving a little more like the serious occupation it is, drivers would respond likewise. A serious driving test of an hour or more duration covering real-world situations and simulated emergencies would do more to promote highway safety than requiring those over 80 to get a note from the eye doctor stating they can still see past the hood ornament.

I was licensed to drive over 25 years ago - and at the time, in Michigan, I wasn't even required to take a road test! Really - because I had completed a driver's ed course succesfully I only had to take a 20 question test at the DMV to be issued a license. Since that time, I have never been required to take a road test in any state I've lived in - the most that has ever been required was another short, laughably easy written test when I changed licenses due to a change in state residency. That's it. And that's pathetic. I mean, really - 25 years and no one has ever tested my competency behind the wheel. I like to think that 25 years of accident-free driving is due, at least in part, to my skill in handling a vehicle and not just luck, but who really knows?

[Chris OFarrell]

You know whats funny? A new (for me) South Part episode just came on while I was looking through this thread...about old people and driving.

Very scary.

Briliant episode though

And yes. Old people should retake the test. Young people are singled out and placed under unholy restrictions because of their inexperence. Old people should be retested because of the simple fact that their reflexes and thus reaction times start to fail. Also, they may well not know the modern road rules.

So yes, they need to be retested. If they fail, they don't get to drive...because duh, they can't perform to the standard they need to.

[Broomstick]

And yes. Old people should retake the test. Young people are singled out and placed under unholy restrictions because of their inexperence. Old people should be retested because of the simple fact that their reflexes and thus reaction times start to fail. Also, they may well not know the modern road rules.

Actully, reflex and reaction times start to deteriorate after age 25. So by that reasoning re-testing should start in the late 20's or early 30's.

Personally, I think it's more likely that the problems arise because of detriorating vision and cognitive decline, which is a highly variable thing. Fact is, there are some folks in their 90's who are safe to drive (for that matter, I know a commercial pilot in her late 90's) but you can't tell them apart from the doddering fools without a test.

While fast reaction times might get you out of trouble, mature judgement and experience can keep you out of trouble in the first place - IF you bother to use it. Teen drivers are problematic not just because of their inexperience, it's also because the brain doesn't fully mature until 20-25. New drivers who get their first license in their 20's, 30's, or later in life don't have the same accident rate as 16-18 year olds although they, too, lack experience.

[Lord Pounder]

I remember my dad telling me that my Grandad did throw away his license when he turned 70 odds. I live right beside a church dominated my older folk and the accidents and near accidents they cause when leaving church on a dark sunday night is awful. My wee sister has been knocked down twice by the same old bat.

[2000AD]

After careful analysis of watching who cut us up the most, didn't signal, drove way too slow for the area, etc, etc. me and my father concluded that young asian men were the worst drivers, followed by old women, with old men in 3rd place.