Tests for Driving Competency

[Elphaba]

This topic is derived from Infinite Loser's topic of the 89yo man sentenced for multiple counts of manslaughter:
Link There is another opinion topic that suggests senior citizens are the worst drivers.

I believe that it would be useful to require older drivers to renew their driver's license with the same testing that any new driver is required to pass. I recently renewed my license that expired in 1995, and I needed to pass the written and driving exam, along with the eye test with and without my glasses.

But...why hasn't this already been done everywhere for senior drivers? It seems quite logical to me, but is there some sort of "age discrimation" aspect that may be in play?

My mother is fully competent to drive, but my father was not. That didn't stop him though, as long as he could get his hands on the car keys. Hubster has always been a good driver, but early signs of Az has him driving off without exactly knowing the why and where of it. Those are my issues.

What do the members here think would be a fair and legal answer to driver's licensing of seniors?

[ngdawg]

I think re-taking both an in-house test and road test would be in everyone's best interest, starting at 65.
The in-house testing wouldn't have to be a written one, although it might not be a bad idea; but it's more important to test eyes and field of vision/reflexes.
I figured I'd Google first, to see if there were any current laws, but apparently there aren't any. I did, however find a transcript that was pretty interesting:
transcript
Night vision, reflexes, ease of mobility, comprehension and ability to concentrate all factor into driving well. Of course, many younger drivers aren't optimum at all of those, but whatever level one is at at 30, it stands to reason that declines after 30 or 40 years naturally. Add in certain illnesses and the declination would be more; a friend of mine, only 60, has had 5 strokes. He can drive well and has to because of his line of work. He will no longer make left turns unless there is a traffic light and lane strictly for that.

[flstf]

If the goal of additional testing based on age is to weed out those who cause the most accidents and highway fatalities then it would make sense to concentrate on the age groups doing the most damage.

[raeanna74]

I remember Grandma, Grandpa and Uncle David ALL having to go through the written and driving tests once they got to certain ages or started having issues. Uncle David's lisence was pulled after he plowed through a mailbox. It could have been pulled sooner. Grandma studied the rule book again and discovered that some things had changed and she hadn't realized it. I think perhaps they could require tests based on how long you've had your lisence. Everyone could use a refresher once in a while regardless of their age. It was good for Grandma and she was a accident free driver until she was bedridden. Grandpa was in danger of loosing his lisence last year because of cataracts. After he had them removed he went through the tests again passed.

I think also that a Dr's evaluation, if someone is stuggling with demetia, alzheimers, narcolepsy (This is already required reporting) and many other health issues that could cause dangerous driver mistakes should be made required reporting. As well, there should be some way that family can make a complaint to the DMV that they can go off of to check up on someone. The people that ride WITH the elderly or teenage or anyone for that matter, can see best what kind of danger they are/could be on the road.

[ratbastid]

They pulled my grandfather's license after he hit a bicyclist (who walked away okay). It was pretty scary riding with him for even five years before that.

My grandmother, on the other hand, kept driving until nearly the day she died. She wasn't fast, but she was pretty safe. She hate the freeways, and had figured out ways to get pretty much everywhere on surface streets.

[Terminal Frost]

Originally Posted by flstf

If the goal of additional testing based on age is to weed out those who cause the most accidents and highway fatalities then it would make sense to concentrate on the age groups doing the most damage.

I couldn't agree more. The interesting this is that young drivers are just as bad as the old ones! I'm 20 now, but I'll never forget what an absolute joke the "driving test" was. I can only speak for New Jersey, but I am assuming that it is somewhat similar in other states. The government has completely privatized the whole DRIVING aspect of learning to drive. The result is that high school children do not learn to drive at their public school; all they get is one marking period of Driver's Ed, which includes lectures from your gym teacher and grainy films from the 1970's. The 6 hours of required practice driving are given by private companies. This of course results in one paying $200 to get in an old beat up Ford sedan and driving around with some 21 year old person making $6.50/hr who is more concerned with talking on their cell phone than anything else.

What we need are actual test tracks at every high school and a legitimate driver's education program for all our children. These same facilities could be used on the weekends and after school hours to re-test senior citizens or adults. Putting education (of any kind, in my opinion) in the hands of private companies only results in disaster. Driver education is a perfect example of this. Americans, for the most part, can not drive. We need better education all around.

[Infinite_Loser]

Before we go crucifying the elderly, I say we start with the age group most responsible for the total number of fatal car accidents a year (aka, teenagers).

[raeanna74]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Before we go crucifying the elderly, I say we start with the age group most responsible for the total number of fatal car accidents a year (aka, teenagers).

My impression based on the incidents I've heard of are the ones involving young people and alcohol or drugs and/or the ones in which the drivers themselves are killed.

Plus with the younger age groups there is such a thing as a probationary licence and then a 2 yr or 4 year licence (at least in Wisconsin) after which the licence is changed to an 8 yr one when the driver has improved and matured to the point at which they are no longer as much of a threat. When it comes to the elderly we don't have that phasing out type of thing - they should go to a shorter term licence as people get older too - to keep up with the deteriorating eyesight and such. Plus the elderly are NOT improving but deteriorating in their driving skills. We're not picking on them - they just need to be monitored a little more closely as the young group is monitored too.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Before we go crucifying the elderly, I say we start with the age group most responsible for the total number of fatal car accidents a year (aka, teenagers).

Agreed. Washington state has placed additional restrictions on teen driving for that reason. I imagine other states have done so as well. I addressed the case of elderly drivers because it appears there must be an accident before a license is pulled.

[JumpinJesus]

Is this part of a campaign to get a tilted driving forum started?



sorry, I couldn't resist.
/end threadjack.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

Is this part of a campaign to get a tilted driving forum started?



sorry, I couldn't resist.
/end threadjack.

I have used up my campaign allotment.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

Is this part of a campaign to get a tilted driving forum started?

Hmmm...Tilted...Motors?

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I have used up my campaign allotment.

And then some.

[analog]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Before we go crucifying the elderly, I say we start with the age group most responsible for the total number of fatal car accidents a year (aka, teenagers).

Teens are responsible for the most fatal car accidents because of drug and alcohol use, and inappropriate driving choices like racing. This has absolutely nothing to do with competency driving, and everything to do with their choices BEFORE they get behind the wheel.

All the DRIVING education in the world won't help a high or drunk teen, or a teen who is pressured into racing his buddies, from getting in the car. You can be the best driver there is, and still make inappropriate choices like drinking and driving, or getting pressured into racing someone.

To reduce the fatality rate of teens in auto accidents, the source is alcohol and drug prevention education, not driving education.

The elderly, on the other hand, are not a danger on the road because they're drunk or high. They are a danger because they have high likelihood of reduced response times, slow reaction/coordination of movement, often poor muscle control or weakness, and many other things. Their issue is purely with being able to perform the task of driving safely within the limits of necessary psychological and motor skills to do so.

I have a customer who always drive up to the pharmacy to pick up her medication. The woman is very frail, has terrible tremors, and can't pick up much anything more than a few pounds. In addition to her weakness, she moves very slowly due to her arthritis, among other ailments. But she still drives. There is no way that woman has the appropriate, necessary physical capability to pilot that car safely. It takes her a solid minute to reach out and pick something up from the drawer, and you can tell she struggles to do even that.

[frogza]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Before we go crucifying the elderly, I say we start with the age group most responsible for the total number of fatal car accidents a year (aka, teenagers).

In other threads I've argued this before. I think the stats comparing age and number of accidents are a little misleading. The next time you take a drive look around you. What is the ratio of the 16-24 age bracket, 24-40 and 40 and up. You'll find that usually the youngest bracket has the most drivers on the road. So of course the group with the most drivers on the road will also have the most accidents.

I would be interested to see a more official count of drivers borken down by age instead of my own observations.

I have to agree with other posters though, that drug and alcohol use may also contribute to the higher number of accidents in young drivers.

Personaly I think insurance companies have perpetuated the "fact" that the 16-24 age group are the most dangerous simply because they can then charge more for auto insurance.

[JumpinJesus]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Hmmm...Tilted...Motors?

You just had to go and ruin my buzz, didn't you?


To actually participate and answer the question: I think road tests for renewal shouldn't be limited to any particular age group.

I believe that, like the point system, the same should be done for license renewal. I believe all drivers with 2 or more at-fault accidents in a 4 year period should be required to take a road test before license renewal. Anyone with a certain number of moving violations within a certain time period should also be required to take a road test before renewal.

There are plenty of shitty drivers of every age group. There are also plenty of safe teenage and elderly drivers who shouldn't be penalized if they have shown responsible driving habits.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by Terminal Frost

I couldn't agree more. The interesting this is that young drivers are just as bad as the old ones! I'm 20 now, but I'll never forget what an absolute joke the "driving test" was. I can only speak for New Jersey, but I am assuming that it is somewhat similar in other states. The government has completely privatized the whole DRIVING aspect of learning to drive. The result is that high school children do not learn to drive at their public school; all they get is one marking period of Driver's Ed, which includes lectures from your gym teacher and grainy films from the 1970's. The 6 hours of required practice driving are given by private companies. This of course results in one paying $200 to get in an old beat up Ford sedan and driving around with some 21 year old person making $6.50/hr who is more concerned with talking on their cell phone than anything else.

What we need are actual test tracks at every high school and a legitimate driver's education program for all our children. These same facilities could be used on the weekends and after school hours to re-test senior citizens or adults. Putting education (of any kind, in my opinion) in the hands of private companies only results in disaster. Driver education is a perfect example of this. Americans, for the most part, can not drive. We need better education all around.

And where do you propose we get the money for this?

The public school system has no obligation whatsoever to teach people to drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such, they should be expected to pay for driver's education themselves.

In this case, people are responsible for taking care of themselves, and the system is responsible for testing them on what they've learned. Better and more extensive tests should be used, and more frequently. Better laws should be passed that dictate how many passengers under the age of 25 can be in a car with a teen, and how often a senior should be retested (every year in my opinion). We should be more willing to suspend licenses for moving violations, and people should have to be retested before having their license returned.

Overall, I think this all leads to a good point--Americans need to be less car-dependent.