Should elderly people have their licenses revoked? - Page 2

December 12, 2007, 5:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VengefulRonin

Well...let's look at it another way: we have experience in driving and you don't. You would probably change your mind if you'd been driving for as long as some of us have, but to stand by an opinion when the evidence and experience others bring forth is what kills your credibility in the matter, i.e. makes your opinion look very silly, to say the least.

IMO, it makes little difference to me whether I have no experience driving and you guys do, that's just the way I see things and I don't I'll change views on that at all. But whatever, I see what you're saying.

But...

[/quote]

Quote:

Plus, all we are saying is we want old people tested to see whether they are fit to drive. It's not encroaching on anyone's rights anymore than wearing a seatbelt is. It's to make the road a safer place. I don't see why you think it's so unfair. Can you honestly say it's a smart idea to not determine who is safe and who's dangerous? Those who are still capable of driving will pass, therefore have no reason to be concerned. Those who fail are risks to themselves and other drivers, therefore it is safer with them off the road.

All right, you got me there. But there are still those variables that such a test that you are proposing might not cover. How is the state or whoever is put in charge of this process supposed to determine the 'danger level' of the elderly accurately? As far as I'm concerned, it's the mental level that you should be looking at and not the physical, because 9 times out of 10 accidents are caused by pure mental mistakes.
So the mention of eye exams and stuff like that I consider irrelevant.

EDIT: And besides lol, the title was revoking licenses completely, and I was responding to that question and not to any other posts made before my first.

December 12, 2007, 5:59 AM

My stance on Elderly Drivers is this: Automatic test required at age 60. Eye and driving test required every 5 years until 80. Eye and driving test required each year thereafter....

December 12, 2007, 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warbourne

All right, you got me there. But there are still those variables that such a test that you are proposing might not cover. How is the state or whoever is put in charge of this process supposed to determine the 'danger level' of the elderly accurately? As far as I'm concerned, it's the mental level that you should be looking at and not the physical, because 9 times out of 10 accidents are caused by pure mental mistakes.
So the mention of eye exams and stuff like that I consider irrelevant.

EDIT: And besides lol, the title was revoking licenses completely, and I was responding to that question and not to any other posts made before my first.

Oh come on man, you can't be serious. It IS about physical level, don't you understand what happens when you get old and the processes that occur when you drive? Eye exams would determine loss of vision or color. That means you would have trouble even determining what color the light was, or reading road signs. Testing would determine just how much or how little your body had worn down and whether or not you were fit to drive. Licenses would be revoked for the ones who performed badly.

Nerves and reflexes degrade. Now, for the hell of it, lets assume you can see fine. It won't matter, because if you can't react quickly enough, you'll cause an accident (or in the very least, back up traffic which leads me back to one of my original points on how they make people late). When driving, you have to be able to react quickly, whether you're looking for a street sign (because half the time they put them so far back you can't see till you're nearly beside the street) to find someone's house, or if you suddenly have to break because a dog runs across the road. It doesn't matter if you can see fine, if you're reflexes aren't working you will be slower. It is COMPLETELY physical ability that matters in elderly drivers.

To put it in very simple terms:

Teenage testing = mental capacity
Elderly testing = physical capacity

December 12, 2007, 6:15 AM

Even still, they could be issued glasses before that drastic an action should be taken. If they fail in that aspect, then you're right, the license should be revoked, but as long as there's a way to amend their faults...

As for the reflexes part, they drive slower. But unless we're talking about completely debilitated people who can't stand under their own power...

December 12, 2007, 6:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warbourne

Even still, they could be issued glasses before that drastic an action should be taken. If they fail in that aspect, then you're right, the license should be revoked, but as long as there's a way to amend their faults...

Which brings mental condition into the issue. What happens if they forget their glasses? If kids in highschool can forget to bring their glasses, I'm fairly certain it would happen alot more to the elderly, because memory tends to decay when you get old.

Quote:

As for the reflexes part, they drive slower. But unless we're talking about completely debilitated people who can't stand under their own power...

You don't get it do you? It's NOT just about driving slower. Lets say the color changes at a traffic light. They know what it's changed to, but their body takes longer to react. Depending on the color of the light, this could either lead to traffic being backed up OR a wreck. Going by my last post's example, lets say a dog crosses the road. They see the dog, but can't react fast enough, so now the dog is dead and they're possibly in the ditch because of jerky reactions. It's not that hard to understand.

December 12, 2007, 6:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warbourne

Even still, they could be issued glasses before that drastic an action should be taken. If they fail in that aspect, then you're right, the license should be revoked, but as long as there's a way to amend their faults...

As for the reflexes part, they drive slower. But unless we're talking about completely debilitated people who can't stand under their own power...

There is a speed limit for a reason. No excuse to go -10 or more under. A police can give you a ticket for that by the way, and holding up traffic. =P

Edit: That's why some highways have a minimal speed limit to avoid such accidents. As I said before, going slow isn't necessarily always safe. I have dealt with rush hour very often, as well as bumper to bumper traffic. It's SAFER to go to same speed as everyone else on the lane your traveling on. Going slower than everyone else can cause rear-end collisions.

Umm it's not just they drive slow they're prone to do dangerous things. As I said before, they have bad reflexes because they're old. I've seen old people make left turns when there are five signs pointing: NO LEFT TURN. I've nearly got merged into because some old person didn't see me. I had to quickly drive over to the side and pass them. It's not only their eyesight and reflexes and what not...It's that they're simply old. An old person can suddenly have a heart attack, faint, whatever. Sure, healthy people can suddenly pass out but it's more likely to happen to old people.

My dad does work for a condominium community where old people retire there. Erythritol and I are scared to drive around there. I hear so many damn stories of old people going through stop signs, nearly hitting other drivers, driving in the middle of the road, accidents etc. It's not just old people driving slow it's old people who have bad reflexes, and are not aware of their surroundings.

Teenagers tend to be bad drivers. They speed, and have a large risk in getting into a car accident. That's because they believe they're invincible and speeding is awesome! Yes, I was one of those teenagers who speed and cut in front of people. I have nearly got into a car accident but I, a young person, have a good reflex and I quickly got out of the situation. You can't really blame them because they're new drivers and they don't know better.

As for old drivers, yes they're old, but they should know better about the surroundings around them. You're driving a LETHAL weapon, you should ALWAYS be aware. Old people are and will continue to be a hazard on the road. Not all, but accident and insurance rates have increased for them. The US is aware of this issue which is why some states already are testing old people to see if they're still capable of driving.

December 12, 2007, 6:55 AM

I agree with most here who suggest that elderly people should start getting tested after a certain age, and that should definitely include a road test. I do know a few elderly people who are very good drivers; my grandfather is one of them. Still, I've been driving for around 8 years now and I can honestly say that most elderly people I've seen are absolutely horrid drivers.

For one, they tend to drive far below the speed limit. Like others have mentioned here, it's not just an annoyance, it's also very dangerous. I've been on the freeway many times and seen elderly drivers merrily driving along at 45 miles per hour. People get on the freeway to avoid things like this. It causes frustration and usually ends up with people making a lot of dangerous maneuvers just to get around them.

And, like VR stated, eyesight and reflexes are very important to driving. As people get older, their vision deteriorates and their reflexes tend to be slower. I do think it's a good idea that their capability in these areas be tested on a regular basis.

I also think that they should be tested on their knowledge of road rules as well; truthfully, I think this should go for just about everyone but we're talking about the elderly here. No, you cannot make a right hand turn from the left lane. No, you cannot merge if there is someone in the lane right beside you. No, you cannot drive 35mph in a 55mph zone. And for fuck's sake, No you can't park in the middle of the street. Of course, this doesn't cover everything I see elderly people do on a regular basis but it's a good example.

So yeah, I do think they should regularly be tested and if they fail, their licenses should be revoked. I know the DMV in NC is very lenient on elderly drivers. In fact, my grandfather has been driving without a license since 1978, yet he's never had any trouble purchasing a car or registering it at the DMV. He's a very capable driver but it is still a huge failure on the DMV's part, IMO.

December 12, 2007, 7:00 AM

I know how you feel, I've been behind plenty of them day in and day out. >.<

I fully agree that all people who are driving over the age of 65 should be fully retested every year... eyesight, hearing as well as reflexes.

I myself have seen way too many accidents caused by the elderly with a condition that in my opinion, could have been avoided had they been tested instead of just being handed a drivers license. I know the argument can be made that young drivers aren't any better or cause more accidents, but in the case with the elderly, I feel it can be easily eliminated through proper testing.

On the flip side of the argument, it's really hard to revoke them of that privilege given this country fails miserably when it comes to public transportation. Most elderly, like my 85 year old grandmother have no one to transport them to and from everyday things that we take for granted and her driving is getting bad. If she lost her drivers license, she would be forced to sell her home and move in with my parents or assisted living.

I don't know, I'm all for yanking the license when the driving abilities start to go, but then that creates a whole new set of problems in its own.

December 16, 2007, 2:52 AM

Not all of them should lose the ability to drive. I think that there should be an extensive test though to see if they should keep it or not.

There have been quite a few times when I had the right of way or the green light and an old person flew around the corner still driving like they are 18 years old. Or some that run the red light and think that they are doing the right thing.

So yes an extensive test should be created.