View Full Version : should we retest the elderly as a requirement for a drivers license?
jims69camaro
06-07-2007, 01:03 PM
i've been wrestling with this question in my head for days, now. since i posted up about the guy who was killed on his harley by an 84 year old woman who lost consciousness while driving, i haven't been able to get it out of my mind.
so what do you guys think? please elaborate on your answers. let's discuss this one, because no matter which side of the argument you fall on, one day (if it is made law) it will affect you.
i'm feeling that testing should be done, like every five years after reaching age 50, or after having an accident (regardless of age), and then every two years thereafter.
every year. why do we have to wait for them to get into an accident and kill someone? after all driving is NOT a right, so they should deal with it or not drive at all.
every year. why do we have to wait for them to get into an accident and kill someone? after all driving is NOT a right, so they should deal with it or not drive at all.
Agreed 110% pretty much exactly what i was going to say
79T/A
06-07-2007, 01:17 PM
Not only that, they should also only be allowed to drive small Mr. Bean type cars made entirely of Nerf.
BonzoHansen
06-07-2007, 01:18 PM
every year. why do we have to wait for them to get into an accident and kill someone? after all driving is NOT a right, so they should deal with it or not drive at all.
I agree, except the logistics and cost of annual testing would make it impossible. Plus the AARP would fight it to the death. How long is a license renewal period – 5 years, 4 years?? Retest them every renewal.
I’m not sure if it needs to be a standard test like new drivers get. I’d be more concerned with vision & reaction time/reflexes.
iamsickofitall
06-07-2007, 01:21 PM
with all the terrible drivers on the road, i wouldn't mind EVERYONE being tested again every time they bring their car in for inspection. i know this would be a huge inconvenience and would result in a gianormous tax increase, but it should weed out those that "squeaked by" on their first test and never improved or went really far downhill with their driving "skill".
but yes, old people should be tested annually
procamaroz28
06-07-2007, 01:34 PM
Not only that, they should also only be allowed to drive small Mr. Bean type cars made entirely of Nerf.
lol hell yea
qwikz28
06-07-2007, 01:37 PM
instead of annually, how about every 3-5 years? including vision, stimulus response and so forth....
NJSPEEDER
06-07-2007, 01:41 PM
i personally believe everyone should be retested every so any years. it isn't just the elderly that are bad drivers, there are pennsylvanians, people from south jersey, and teeny boppers in daddy's beemer to watch out for too.
bokey
06-07-2007, 01:43 PM
I think the best solution for this is to get tested every 3-5 years from the first day you get your license ... the fact remains that there are some 80 year olds that drive better then some 20 year olds
[edit] damnit speeder, as soon as I posted, your post came up... haha
I agree, except the logistics and cost of annual testing would make it impossible. Plus the AARP would fight it to the death. How long is a license renewal period – 5 years, 4 years?? Retest them every renewal.
I’m not sure if it needs to be a standard test like new drivers get. I’d be more concerned with vision & reaction time/reflexes.
I think standard test sucks ass. I think it should be made more strict not just for old people but for everyone. When i was getting my license all i had to do is drive around a parking lot, back up, make a K turn and parallel park. How is this a test? it's laughable at best... FAA flight test was way harder :lol:
Back on the subject of old people; 5 years is too long. I work at a rehab/nursing home, and old people go down the crapper REALLY quick, so by the time 5 years has passed it might be too late. Not saying that everyone is like that but a lot of them are. And yes it would cost a lot, however the financial issue was not introduced at the beginning of the discussion. I just think they should be tested more often and a their standards be higher.
BonzoHansen
06-07-2007, 02:04 PM
...5 years is too long. I work at a rehab/nursing home, and old people go down the crapper REALLY quick, so by the time 5 years has passed it might be too late. Not saying that everyone is like that but a lot of them are. And yes it would cost a lot, however the financial issue was not introduced at the beginning of the discussion. I just think they should be tested more often and a their standards be higher.I agree totally. It is just financially and politically infeasible. Too bad, too.
Savage_Messiah
06-07-2007, 02:05 PM
I voted for certain age then annually... but then again, look what happened when South Park took away all the old people's licenses :lol:
NJSPEEDER
06-07-2007, 04:32 PM
tsar, doesn't the FAA require a paper test recert every few years or something like that? regardless of age/hours/flight record?
i seem to remember reading somewhere that they require some sort of training/cert hours every 2 or 3 years or something like that. i jsut don't feel like looking for the info right now.
deadtrend1
06-07-2007, 04:53 PM
it isn't just the elderly that are bad drivers, there are pennsylvanians, people from south jersey, and teeny boppers in daddy's beemer to watch out for too.
Define "south jersey"!
I used to think that the state issued crown victorias and caprice classics to everyone over 65 yrs old
NJSPEEDER
06-07-2007, 05:26 PM
well, i have seen you drive. so i am guessing south jersey starts somewhere near where you live and goes to the bottom of the map :p
johnjzjz
06-07-2007, 06:56 PM
to fly you need a doctor to clear you no matter how old you are -- its always an issue for some to want things some dont untill they shair the same reason -- old is around the corner carefull what you wish for -- jz
The only 2 downsides I can see to yearly testing is more people at the DMV and hurt egos. The upsides are saved lives, less accidents, and less people on the road.
EDIT: Also the elderly who fail would have to find some other means of transportation. Too bad senior citizens rock the vote.
Blacdout96
06-07-2007, 08:20 PM
well if we got our youthfull asses to the voting booths that wouldnt be a problem. Its funny to think that kids that havea big life ahead of them, that dont get the privalege of owning a f body, drive like an acura RSX or a honda or Hyundai, small, light cars that would crumble like tin foil,and zip around as if they are invinsible, and yet old peopel, who are gonna be pickign up their get out of life free card sometime soon drive these big ass crown vics and lincolns, which got some power behind them wiht those 4.6's n such, and cruise ever so slowly in them, but would be able to survive a damn crash thru a wall.
foff667
06-07-2007, 08:23 PM
I definitly think so. I have not a clue how they would get around but my grandfather took off his side view mirror pulling into his garage 3 times in 2 years :lol:
WildBillyT
06-07-2007, 08:27 PM
I think they should retest everyone at license renewal. With a real road test.
Testing the elderly seems like a good idea but what about the people that have no other way to get around? How are they supposed to get to the doctor, supermarket/food store and places like that?
Blacdout96
06-07-2007, 08:31 PM
I think they should retest everyone at license renewal. With a real road test.
Testing the elderly seems like a good idea but what about the people that have no other way to get around? How are they supposed to get to the doctor, supermarket/food store and places like that?
yeah that testthey give you is ass, they should take you on the highway, and into a parking lot, not jsut around the corner. I think the elderly would push it as being biast, or racist to age, and would fight it tooth and nail, so its better off we do test about every 5 years or so, money should never be an issue when it comes to safety, but its sad to see our government would rather savea penny then a life.
WildBillyT
06-07-2007, 08:34 PM
yeah that testthey give you is ass, they should take you on the highway, and into a parking lot, not jsut around the corner. I think the elderly would push it as being biast, or racist to age, and would fight it tooth and nail, so its better off we do test about every 5 years or so, money should never be an issue when it comes to safety, but its sad to see our government would rather savea penny then a life.
Racist to age? I believe you mean age discrimination? :mrgreen:
And that really is what it is. When you are young and reliant on your parents you don't need transportation as badly as you do when you are older. I think retesting for everyone and maybe a restricted license if you are elderly might be a good solution.
NJSPEEDER
06-07-2007, 08:58 PM
old is around the corner carefull what you wish for -- jz
i would wish for it jsut for the sake of my insurance. think about it, if you force people to prove they still know how to drive every few years, you are eliminating one fo the billion excuses the insurance companies use to jack up all of our rates.
the drivers test is garbage. it teaches you more about what to do to not get a ticket than how to actually drive.
Teds89IROC
06-07-2007, 09:28 PM
I can't stand old people doing 25 in a 40, backing up into parked cars, sideswiping parked cars/people...so my vote is to be retested at a certain age then tested every 5 years...but now that I think about it more, I wish to change my vote to option #1 lol
tsar, doesn't the FAA require a paper test recert every few years or something like that? regardless of age/hours/flight record?
i seem to remember reading somewhere that they require some sort of training/cert hours every 2 or 3 years or something like that. i jsut don't feel like looking for the info right now.
Yes, you are required to participate in the bi-annual review, regardless of hours or experience. It's mandatory UNLESS you upgrade your certificate to the higher one, then your time is extended for another 24 calendar months. Also every time you switch an aircraft you're due for training in that particular type of the aircraft, but that's mostly airlines thing. In addition to the flight tests there are also 3 medicals, 1st, 2nd and 3rd class. First class medical is only valid for 6 months but that's what's required of you to fly for the airlines (typically ATP certificate), so you have to go back for a new one every 6 months regardless of your coolness or experience. Second class is just for commercial pilots and its valid 12 cal. months. The third one is just for civil aviation, 36 months. Medicals also downgrade, after 6 months first class medical becomes 2nd class, then 3rd, and that pilot can not exercise the privileges of it.
i think i covered most of it :scratch:
shane27
06-07-2007, 09:49 PM
i say after every 5 years
seems more reasonable
DrachenFire
06-07-2007, 09:51 PM
there are so many old people that drive literally 20 under the limit around here... i've almost gotten into an accident because some old hag couldn't see over the wheel and decided to pull into my lane last second... they need testing every 6 months...
Blacdout96
06-08-2007, 09:50 AM
there are so many old people that drive literally 20 under the limit around here... i've almost gotten into an accident because some old hag couldn't see over the wheel and decided to pull into my lane last second... they need testing every 6 months...
Well thats the townships fault cause they allowed them to build those 2600 old people homes, it frigging ruined this area man, I was born and raised in this house, and when they put those homes up the traffic is more congested, and slower too.
Savage_Messiah
06-08-2007, 01:08 PM
Well thats the townships fault cause they allowed them to build those 2600 old people homes, it frigging ruined this area man, I was born and raised in this house, and when they put those homes up the traffic is more congested, and slower too.
... your mom couldn't make it to the hospital or what??? :lol:
Blacdout96
06-08-2007, 01:48 PM
... your mom couldn't make it to the hospital or what??? :lol:
Knowing how lazy my parents are, i wouldnt of been suprised if she did :lol: J/K, but you know we all talk bout how bad traffic and old people are around here, but you gotta remember, were one of the, if not the worst driving states, and the worst insurance rates as well.
jims69camaro
06-08-2007, 05:03 PM
with all the terrible drivers on the road, i wouldn't mind EVERYONE being tested again every time they bring their car in for inspection. i know this would be a huge inconvenience and would result in a gianormous tax increase, but it should weed out those that "squeaked by" on their first test and never improved or went really far downhill with their driving "skill".
man, do i like the sound of that. it would keep all marginal drivers up to speed on the laws. then people couldn't say "is that a law?" or "i didn't know that was illegal" or something similar.
but every year is too much. every five, until they reach a certain age or have an accident - then, as punishment, every year until they get the points removed or stop driving altogether.
the only thing i would disagree with is the raise in tax. the MVC is a private company, now, and all permits/licenses/registrations are handled by them. i think the state gets a cut, but i am not sure. it might be in the original contract of the sale to not only sell the DMV to that company but that they have to fork over a vig every year for a certain percentage.
so you handle it like the MVC handles everything: you make the people renewing their licenses pay for the additional testing. problem solved.
DrachenFire
06-08-2007, 09:48 PM
Well thats the townships fault cause they allowed them to build those 2600 old people homes, it frigging ruined this area man, I was born and raised in this house, and when they put those homes up the traffic is more congested, and slower too.
and it also inflated the real estate market so now the value of all the homes in this township (possibly the entire county) have had their value cut in half... you have no idea how pissed i get when i'm late and stuck behind some hag that's going 10 under... i swear that whoever is running this township actually wants to send it (and all it's inhabitants) to hell...
Blacdout96
06-08-2007, 10:48 PM
and it also inflated the real estate market so now the value of all the homes in this township (possibly the entire county) have had their value cut in half... you have no idea how pissed i get when i'm late and stuck behind some hag that's going 10 under... i swear that whoever is running this township actually wants to send it (and all it's inhabitants) to hell...
Well its the board members. Im friends with a member ( not gonna say which one) But she is out ranked by republicans on the board so most of the time her vote never works, like just recently they passed a plan to use...get this, $3,000,000 of our tax dollars on......soccor fields, yes soccor fields, not that great creek and pitney roads could be fixed with that money, god forbid our kids dont have enough fields to play on as it is, i mean they already have 13 i believe, and its not even to build new ones, its just to repair them... WHATS THERE TO REPAIR< ITS F***ING GRASS!!!, even tho they'll never be on any team past high school or college. But she voted against it, and so did one other guy, but to no avail, now our money that i worked hard as hell for, is goign for somethign ill never use, thanks Galloway Township...
DrachenFire
06-09-2007, 12:06 AM
Yeh well when they see more car accidents and deaths from crappy roads and too many old people maybe they'll see the light... Or, unlike your friend, they'll be lost in the dark forever... The day I turn 18 is going to be horrible... $3000 a year for car insurance, having to pay taxes and almost everything else... This sucks so much... Hopefully when I go to college in Florida the insurance will be cheaper... Although taxes down there will probably even that out to up here o.0
Brando56894
06-09-2007, 07:14 PM
i think we should retest them but i dont know at what rate. yearly seems like it would be too much of a PITA and five years seems like a long time, a lot of stuff could happen in five years. so i voted for once theyve had an accident and then yearly, but by that time it could be too late :?
jims69camaro
06-10-2007, 01:56 PM
i voted for once theyve had an accident and then yearly, but by that time it could be too late :?
i hear people saying this a lot. when do we realize there is a problem, with reactionary thinking? after something has happened. that's why i am for retesting using a timeframe, not after an accident, but using the accident as an added deterrent, like this: retest everyone, regardless of driving record, every two years, like your inspection. if someone gets into an accident and it is found to be that person's fault, then send them to get retested every year until their points are removed or they stop driving.
retesting using a timeframe, and including everyone - not just the elderly - is proactive and it shuts up all of the would-be-crybabies that would scream age discrimination or some such ********.
the bottom line is to make the streets safer, which the seatbelt laws were meant to do but really are just a way for local cops to grap some more of your hard-earned greenbacks.
98tadriver
06-10-2007, 04:19 PM
we should test them by kicking them in the hip. if their hip breaks and they fall down, then they cannot drive anymore. if they remain standing, theyre ok
Savage_Messiah
06-10-2007, 05:08 PM
we should test them by kicking them in the hip. if their hip breaks and they fall down, then they cannot drive anymore. if they remain standing, theyre ok
Well, it looks like Genie is James' chauffeur from here on out!
98tadriver
06-10-2007, 07:10 PM
heheheh
slasherbarb
06-10-2007, 07:16 PM
i like the retesting idea...but notice it's mostly little old ladies that cause accidents...i was driving behind one on valley rd in wayne and she could barely see over the dash a la Kasey style, and she ended up hopping the curb for two feet and driving on...i passed her a got the hell out of there...
but why can't all families be like old school italian families...neither of my grandmas drive and my grandpa can out-drive most of the people in our family...i vote for the yearly test...but most of the old people are our best Grand Marquis buyers...
98tadriver
06-10-2007, 07:43 PM
we need more hans moleman people driving around! and getting hit in groin with football
Blacdout96
06-11-2007, 08:02 PM
we need more hans moleman people driving around! and getting hit in groin with football
YES!!! Hans Moleman FTW, but Ron it's drivers like you that would make people get tested monthly
I think they should retest everyone at license renewal. With a real road test.
Testing the elderly seems like a good idea but what about the people that have no other way to get around? How are they supposed to get to the doctor, supermarket/food store and places like that?
That's a problem, but I'd rather have an old woman taking a bus or bumming rides then crashing into someone. Though the saying usually applies to young guys who street race and lose their licenses: driving is a privelage, not a right.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.