What do you think about retesting of drivers once ever several years after a certain age?

What do you think about the retesting of drivers after a certain age, let me suggest 65? I think it would be a very good idea and I'll tell you what prompts me to tell you so. I watched an old fart (appeared to be in his 70's or 80's) run over a guy on a bicycle earlier today. The old guy was oblivious to the bike, just ran up behind it and ran over it. Never slowed down, never trued to avoid the bike, didn't hit the brakes until after he hit the bike. He stopped of course and the biker wasn't hurt awfully bad, broken leg, maybe his arm too, not much left of the bike - the guy should consider himself lucky he didn't find himself looking up at shock-absorbers.

I'm not trying to knock old farts, I'm in my 60's and I have to admit, my powers are fading fast. Still, I think the states should have mandatory retesting at least once ever 5 years after the age of 65 and maybe even require some sort of medical certification, similar to that we require of private pilots.

What do you think?

twice test with renewal at 60. I'm in my late 50s.

Florida is a good example of a crying need blocked by those who put themselves first in all matters.

I've got to take a flight review every two years to keep my flying privileges, though in this case I would add an either/or: driving test or completion of an approved driver education course within the previous six months or so.

Putting some on the road is dangerous, and they know it - but they have no other choice. I'd hate to see an elderly person unable to leave their home because of a restriction, without offering them alternatives.

Instead of being punitive, why don't we try to be proactive first, and offer them some affordable alternatives to driving.

The problem is that, in general, Americans like to spread out.

Once you get a certain distance from a city's core, individual vehicles are more efficient and better for the environment than trains or buses.

Maybe we should just educate people. If you want to live far away from the stuff you need: fine.

But a consequence is that you won't be near the stuff you need.

Our transportation system consists of a lift van, and disabled and elderly have to call for a ride a day in advance. It would be nice to offer them more freedom and mobility.

I hate to sound harsh but that's just a simple matter of geography.

Of course the non-disabled elderly could call a cab, if they wanted to pay the rates for a cab to come get them where they lived.

Lift van or the goodwill of friends, family, or neighbors.

Which is often difficult during certain times of the year. Like winter and mud season.

We can't even get newspaper delivery out here... :+

You can't single out the older drivers without also doing something on the younger ones.

And not just elderly drivers, either. I've seen plenty of young drivers who lack the necessary motor skills to drive safely, and even more whose judgment and common sense are inadequate to the task.

With all the recent advances in video games, flight simulators, and the like, why can't a driving assessment test be devised that uses computer-generated scenarios to test everyone's knowledge of the road along with their judgment abilities and reaction times?

It wouldn't have to very elaborate or costly at all -- just a simple simulator that will give an indication of someone's physical and mental capacity to operate a motor vehicle. These could be set up either at the department of motor vehicles, or in commercial establishments. The costs for the driver would be minimal -- how much does it cost to play computer games at an electronics arcade? The simulator could both test for knowledge of the rules of the road, as well as physical ability to drive. If someone didn't pass, or problems were detected, a driving test with a human observer would then be required.

Seems to me, everyone could then get a periodic refresher course on the rules and conditions of the road, the physically incapable (of all ages) could be more readily identified, and all at a reasonably low cost. If the simulators were good enough, they could be used as well to teach new drivers before they were taken on the road.

more often


or if you get a lot of tickets... etc

The license itself is good forever since you never actually forget how, but you would have to maintain currency. A physical would be good too. But that might require (GASP!) socialized medicine.

It would take a lot of pressure off of us "kids" as our parents age.:eyes:

Every year for drivers 87 and older.

Road tests at every renewal after age 75, which is already every four years in IL.

I think its pretty reasonable.

There are many reasons why even those "younger" drivers could fail a test.

I am also a proponent of mandatory drug testing at the time of renewal.

I think we're way too cavalier about driving a car.

And that includes me and some the REALLY dumb-ass shit I have done while driving.

for obvious reasons.

Of course if you are dumb enough to show up for a driving test under the influence of anything, you are probably to stupid to live let alone drive.

No heroin addict can stay clean until it is out of the system. The far long time for TCP would catch most stoners.

Under the influence is under the influence. Impaired is impaired.

to another, good idea but maybe a slippery slope to legislate based solely on age? I realize that we already legislate some things based on minimum ages, and some professions' retirement rules are based on maximum ages; but, why not have everyone tested periodically?

I'm both a licensed commercial pilot, and a licensed driver, and I am already medically tested every year to comply with FAA regs. Having said that, I don't like to drive, or fly VFR, at night due to my reduced uncorrected vision, and a basic desire to get older...;-)

months because of poor health. I am 86 years of age and have never had an accident or have been given a traffic ticket. It was time to quit while I was ahead.

elderly drivers don't know when to quit driving until its too late. Bless you.






edit: spelling

Testing would be too expensive and less useful overall than a really good public education campaign. WHY do motor vehicle departments and police/public safety departments NOT put money into "getting the word out" and reinforcing information that we already knew - at one time - like when we crammed to take the test at an early age? I mean, everyone could use a refresher course given to us from time to time.

One thing that drives me crazy in NJ where I live is the law that says if your windshield wipers are on, your lights should be on. Hardly ANYONE seems to know this is a law. And why not? (I mean, it IS common sense, but as we all know... that's not enough for some people.) Why? Because it's neither promoted nor enforced. I learned of it by noticing the fine print on a vehicle registration insert. How can you expect drivers to know that's a law if you don't promote it? Things like that are just ridiculous.

How about some real "Better Driving" campaigns? Educate drivers, remind them, highlight safety tips. It's like a lawless frontier out there sometimes. Police hardly ever stop speeders on our highways so drivers show little respect for many rules of the road. How many times lately have you seen someone roll through a "right on red" when they're supposed to come to a full stop before proceeding? (A full stop?! Are you kidding??)

It's always bugged me that, once you pass your driver's test, that's it -- good for the rest of your life. Bad habits develop; people need reminders. Why wait for an accident or a traffic ticket to correct bad behaviors? Public service announcements / education campaigns could be implemented with little cost compared to mandatory testing.

A huge part of the revenue stream for any municipality is traffic ticket revenue. Better educated drivers get fewer tickets.

ALL drivers need to be retested every few years. From what I see every day on the SoCal Freeways, a lot of under 30's think they drive way better than everyone else, and that we are all just objects in their video screens.

with shitty young drivers, but it patently isn't.

With old folks, my concern is their *ability* to drive decently. With young folks my concern is about their *willingness* to drive decently. No test in the world can test willingness, unfortunately.

The issues are in no wise the same.

physicals every year and I'm a safe driver - never had an accident in 50+ years of driving except for 2 where someone ran into me...but that seems a little much for car driving. Retesting the driving itself would be a lot more useful than medical checkups, IMO

I am glad the cyclist survived the encounter, very lucky to only have broken limbs. Testing every few years is a great idea for all ages. I am probably in the minority, but I also think the age for a license should be 18 instead of 16 and/or with more training than is currently required. It is not all people on cell phones or whatever else they do, some people just can't drive. Sigh.

Every five years we can renew via computer.

In any event, I'm not so sure that vision itself is the problem, although perhaps for many elderly it is...

What worries me is loss of cognitive functioning. Loss of reflex. And along with those conditions, the problem of older people not adjusting their driving habits to their changing physical/mental conditions.

Like with Mr Pip, who is 70. I can see a definite change there. But he is proud and unwilling to admit that he drives way too fast for someone his age. His reflexes are not what they used to be...he sometimes weaves all over the road...he makes me want to hit him when he doesn't pay attention to his driving, but is busy doing things like biting or picking his cuticles, fussing with his baseball cap, fussing with the heat/AC controls, looking at the scenery, etc.

In the past six months we've come close to being involved in at least ten accidents because he wasn't paying attention.

His driving scares me.


sigh...

the bad thing is, if he can't drive anymore, then we're up Shits Creek, because I'm disabled and can't drive any great distance. I really don't know what we'd do, living out here in the woods like we do.

I have been saying this for several years. You hit 65 you retest every other year.

because AARP will fight it - never mess with old folks that vote..

Private pilots have to get a flight physical at least every 3 years up to age 40 or 2 years after 40. Commercial pilots once a year and airline transport pilots every six months.

Private pilots have to get a biennial flight review (biennial means "every 2 years"), instrument pilots have to maintain proficiency or get checkrides and airlines impose their own rules on top of FAA rules.

If only driving required 10% of the testing that flying does, we'd sure get rid of a lot of skills incompetent and medically questionable drivers that are putting the rest of us at risk.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

we would have a much higher over all skill level. Additionally we don't really have any way to teach emergency maneuvers to drivers. Everybody knows "turn into the skid" but unless you've actually done it until it is instinctive, most people will simply freeze when the situation arises in real life.

you want to steal my father's freedom, may yours be taken away also

ffs, what's the matter w. people?

old people, hell most young working people, can't afford to live in manhattan

there is no safe public transport in most of this country in neighborhoods that people on fixed incomes can afford

fix THAT, then come back and tell me about taking away people's licenses

i'm sick of the fucking cruelty

apparently old people should not be allowed any freedom or to be able to go anywhere w/out begging unless they're rich enough to afford a limo service, we're too busy worrying about michael vick fighting some fucking dogs

If the NYC subway isn't 'safe' then you're talking to the wrong people. Talk to your mayor! My state is famous for it's sub par transport system but our seniors manage to get around by senior transport services that are FREE, car pooling and relatives.

Taking away an eighty year old's license should not be viewed as punitive, imo, but for the safety of all concerned.

Re-testing drivers in general is a good idea, but especially as you get older.

While what you witnessed was tragic, statistically the age group 25-34 have more accidents by far than those over 74.
http://www.car-accidents.com/teen-car-accidents.html

I thought I had read someplace that, while younger drivers have more accidents, older drivers cause more accidents.

Like when they're driving slower than the speed limit and someone behind them gets pissed off and passes and ends up hitting someone else.

If anyone has ever seen the old "Mr Magoo" cartoons, that's what this makes me think of...he's driving all over creation not even knowing that people are having accidents because they're trying to get out of his way.

The slower driver isn't responsible for the asshole behind him getting pissed off and driving recklessly. Unless it's an emergency it wouldn't hurt for people to slow down and cut the older drive some damn slack.

I don't know that older drivers do cause more accidents - I haven't seen that statistic anywhere. Not saying it isn't so but don't know that it is.

when it was pointed out in the bad old days that women had better driving records, then male drivers would say, "yeah, women don't get in accidents, they CAUSE them"

fuck that shit

and it isn't any prettier when the bigotry is on the basis of age

retest everyone, fix public transportation, or let it die since stats don't bear out your argument

i'll give you a clue train, if someone CAUSES an accident, they're in that accident and they'll be in the statistics

mr magoo was a fictional character and i believe he was blind, not old, i'll freely admit the blind shouldn't be driving

not always true.

Like I pointed out above, some elderly drivers cause accidents by driving slower than the posted speed limits. I guess we could argue 'cause' all day seeing as the person behind him has the option NOT to pass, but I'm using 'cause' very loosely here....as in one of the precipitating factors...

One time a few months ago while riding with Mr Pip through a city he had lived in for many years, he got in the left lane where there's an arrow for going round the rotary. You are ONLY allowed to bear to the left when in the left lane. There's another lane on the right where drivers have the option of either going round that same rotary or going straight.

So this day Mr P is in the left lane and I assume he's going to go round the rotary but he goes straight. Unfortunately, there's a car on the right side wanting to bear left into the rotary. The driver didn't hit us, but hit the brake and swerved to the right to avoid the hit. We would have sailed through the whole thing while a big pile up during rush hour occurred within feet of us, but for the fact that traffic was moving slowly that day. Only one example of causing an accident without being in it.

And yes, I am aware that Mr Magoo was blind, but he was NOT a young man. I would say he was probably in his mid 60s...although I'm certainly not going to sit here and debate over the possible age of a cartoon character. I cited him because that's exactly what this particular incident around the rotary reminded me of. Mr Magoo.

My ex FIL was the same way. Riding with him (in his early 70s) was similar to being on a suicide mission.

There are also old people who can't even see over the steering wheels

And it seems there isn't a week that goes by that I don't hear of some elderly person who accidentally hit the gas pedal instead of the brake.


I'm not against old people. I'm actually more scared of younger drivers who think they're the only ones on the road, or that they have full and total control of a 2 ton piece of hurtling metal and glass.

I find the numbers suspect because of that statistic. Also, I'd much prefer to see the deaths per miles driven, but in fact I don't argue your point that teenagers are probably a worse threat on the road than old farts. Howver the reasons are, I suspect, quite different - as would be the solutions.

So I'll stick to the side of the argument that I was interested in (old farts) and let you forge ahead on the problem with the young people and maybe between us all the roads will somehow become safter.

It just might be that periodic retesting might have the effect of instilling in everyone a sense of how serious it is to be out there on the roads.

It's the attentiveness to driving that is the major culprit. And it's not age-specific.

The first point, and I don't dispute your word, is that I would like to see verification that attention doesn't fade with age. You may very well be right and I do not claim to have researched the question even for a moment.

The second point then becomes periodic retesting from the beginning that has been suggested by a number of people above. How does that one sound to you? I thought it made good sense for a number of reasons, not the least of which is it might impart a stronger sense of the importance of safe driving if the state seemed to take it a bit more seriously.

By the way, just as a side note. I started driving at 14 and reflecting on it now I think that was insanely young, particularly when you consider the unwieldy vehicles GM (what else was there back then?) was turning out in the late 50's. A competent driver was lucky to keep those old pigs on the road, a 14-year-old car-crazy boy certainly had no business on the controlling end of one.

in driving under test conditions (excluding, of course, mental disorders).

Nah, I'm kinda going with you on this one.

(You can tell from my posts I was half-stepping. It's just an opinion of mine to which I'm not married.)

Testing periodically might ferret out the debilitated who were ok a couple of years ago.

After age 75, to be honest I think ALL drivers should be retested every 5 years...everyone. It is important to test older drivers where there is a higher likelihood of diminished reaction time and cognitive functioning, but the rate occurs differently for everyone so testing should help determine who is still able to function behind the wheel. My grandfather lives in NH and wasn't too pleased to have to re-test but he passed.

With that said, I think if everyone tested once every 5 years, it would make roads safer. Those who fail should be required to attend a refresher driving class and retain their ability to drive until a retest 30 days later. It would probably create a huge bureaucracy to do this though, but hey, more jobs right? And if you are a good driver (or think you are) you shouldn't be too worried about passing a basic driving test. We all need to stay sharp.

Come on, hardware is forever and I should always have up to date drivers for whatever operating system I choose to use with my old video board.

What's that?

Different Drivers?

Never mind.

and I am a senior. I have neighbors that can't hear anymore but they drive anyway. funny to hear people
complain about old people driving too slow. i got a speeding ticket last March.

but she is extremely hard of hearing and won't get a hearing aid. Also, she is getting forgetful and I know the day is coming soon when we will have to convince her to give up her keys. Perhaps a mandatory testing program could spare families the heartbreak of having to stop their elders from driving when it's clear they could harm themselves or others.

The first question that popped into my mind was how does the family or doctor convey to the state that they believe retesting is appropriate? Then I thought how I'd feel if I got a notice in the mail from the State telling me to show up at the testing office within a time certain to see if I was still competent to drive.

Think about how many of those letters would go out due to nasty divorces more than any concern for driving ability.

But if your state is doing it then they must have found ways around any problems that might pop up. Can you tell me which state it is and maybe a bit more about the program? I'm interested and would like to read a bit about how it works in practice.

Looking at a number of the arguments above for continious retesting from your first issue on into the future I'm inclined to agree with them. I also have no argument agains raising the age and improving public transportation but those suggestions were a bit beyond what I was thinking about at the time.

but get yourself a Smart Car...you can pick them up and place them in a parking spot...

:7

People who buy, and drive, vehicles that tax their driving abilities.

Like the lady in the bank parking lot the other day who's driving a big-ass SUV and can't maneuver it around the corner of the lot and through the lane between cars parked on the side and the bank itself.

these people scare me.

IMO, they need to demonstrate the ability to adequately handle these vehicles before they're allowed out on the roads. It's not enough to just know the rules of the road...a person should also be able to handle whatever vehicle he's driving around on a daily basis whatever his/her age.