Agreed, but regular driving tests should be required for older drivers that haven’t had accidents. The risk is too high and cognitive decline is too common to ignore.
Above 70 it should be maybe every 5, and above 80 every 2. And shucks, if you’re driving at age 90, it should be annually.
(Obviously, the real problem is that cars in America are required to live, work, eat, etc. I hope to find a way to not need to drive when I’m that age, it’s why I fight for changes to my city to make it liveable without a car.)
I wish I didn’t need a car. I don’t really like driving, and cars are big and expensive, but my lifestyle wouldn’t be possible without one, at least in my area. I’d much rather bike and use transit everywhere, but that’s unfortunately impractical unless I accept a 1.5-2 hour commute each way to work.
That said, if I was retired, I could probably get away with it. Most things can be delivered, and I wouldn’t be pressed for time so I could use the slower modes of transportation to get around. Even paying for taxis or Ubers or whatever would be fine for doctors appointments and whatnot. That’s impractical now, but it’s feasible for a retiree.
Just an FYI, but statistically speaking, younger drivers are far more likely than those over 50, to get into accidents.
I came across the stat after our government proposed mandatory testing over a certain age, something like every few years. And to me, it just seemed like age discrimination after looking at the numbers.
In fact, the number of accidents caused by older drivers seemed so low that they lumped everyone over 50 into one group, while they had to split up other ages into much smaller groups as not to make the numbers seem crazy high for their demographic.
If those 18 to 25 are causing more accidents, why not retest them every few years? Older drivers, while the potential for cognitive and motor impairment is higher, don’t seem to be the problem.
Most will be told by their doctor to stop driving, or there will be other signs of driving impairment (small things like hitting a curb while trying to park) that would set off red flags long before a major accident.
Now… turn it around to ebikes, and there is absolutely a trend of older riders getting into crashes vs younger ones.
For the record, I think the data support more rigorous training and testing for young drivers too.
It’s pretty ridiculous that a written test and a 10 minute drive with a teat administrator give Americans the right to pilot multi-ton death machines just inches from people and children.
If those 18 to 25 are causing more accidents, why not retest them every few years?
You certainly could but driving tests are often about knowledge. They’re used to determine if you understand how to operate a vehicle legally in your jurisdiction. Younger people get into more accidents because they’re more reckless and inexperienced on average, it’s not that they don’t know how to drive legally.
If where you live requires a government license to operate a motor vehicle then it’s up to the government to ensure you’re still capable, not you or your doctor.
Less car dependent culture would go a lot further, particularly for older individuals with cognitive and mobility issues.
Yes, don’t get me wrong. I want to see fewer cars and less car dependency, with harsh penalties for those who drive negligently.
I think that drivers of all ages are dangerous, but mostly younger people who tend to be more distracted, less skilled, and over confident of their driving abilities.
I think that any driving infraction, even something as “minor” as speeding, should require a retest at the driver’s expense.
With accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, it seems that drivers are always let off the hook too easily. We need to do better and reform all aspects of motor vehicle transportation.
Nah, hitting 8 cyclists is a straight license revocation in my book. At 77, there’s no chance they’re getting it back.
Agreed, but regular driving tests should be required for older drivers that haven’t had accidents. The risk is too high and cognitive decline is too common to ignore.
Agreed. Make it every 10, and more frequent once you’re over 70 or so.
Above 70 it should be maybe every 5, and above 80 every 2. And shucks, if you’re driving at age 90, it should be annually.
(Obviously, the real problem is that cars in America are required to live, work, eat, etc. I hope to find a way to not need to drive when I’m that age, it’s why I fight for changes to my city to make it liveable without a car.)
Agreed on all accounts.
I wish I didn’t need a car. I don’t really like driving, and cars are big and expensive, but my lifestyle wouldn’t be possible without one, at least in my area. I’d much rather bike and use transit everywhere, but that’s unfortunately impractical unless I accept a 1.5-2 hour commute each way to work.
That said, if I was retired, I could probably get away with it. Most things can be delivered, and I wouldn’t be pressed for time so I could use the slower modes of transportation to get around. Even paying for taxis or Ubers or whatever would be fine for doctors appointments and whatnot. That’s impractical now, but it’s feasible for a retiree.
Just an FYI, but statistically speaking, younger drivers are far more likely than those over 50, to get into accidents.
I came across the stat after our government proposed mandatory testing over a certain age, something like every few years. And to me, it just seemed like age discrimination after looking at the numbers.
In fact, the number of accidents caused by older drivers seemed so low that they lumped everyone over 50 into one group, while they had to split up other ages into much smaller groups as not to make the numbers seem crazy high for their demographic.
If those 18 to 25 are causing more accidents, why not retest them every few years? Older drivers, while the potential for cognitive and motor impairment is higher, don’t seem to be the problem.
Most will be told by their doctor to stop driving, or there will be other signs of driving impairment (small things like hitting a curb while trying to park) that would set off red flags long before a major accident.
Now… turn it around to ebikes, and there is absolutely a trend of older riders getting into crashes vs younger ones.
Its why male 18-25 insurance is so high. stats.
For the record, I think the data support more rigorous training and testing for young drivers too.
It’s pretty ridiculous that a written test and a 10 minute drive with a teat administrator give Americans the right to pilot multi-ton death machines just inches from people and children.
You certainly could but driving tests are often about knowledge. They’re used to determine if you understand how to operate a vehicle legally in your jurisdiction. Younger people get into more accidents because they’re more reckless and inexperienced on average, it’s not that they don’t know how to drive legally.
If where you live requires a government license to operate a motor vehicle then it’s up to the government to ensure you’re still capable, not you or your doctor.
Less car dependent culture would go a lot further, particularly for older individuals with cognitive and mobility issues.
Yes, don’t get me wrong. I want to see fewer cars and less car dependency, with harsh penalties for those who drive negligently.
I think that drivers of all ages are dangerous, but mostly younger people who tend to be more distracted, less skilled, and over confident of their driving abilities.
I think that any driving infraction, even something as “minor” as speeding, should require a retest at the driver’s expense.
With accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, it seems that drivers are always let off the hook too easily. We need to do better and reform all aspects of motor vehicle transportation.
LOL. I do agree!
110% 👍
100% is the limit.
Only if one’s imagination is limited 🤭
Well, there are imaginary numbers, so you have point!