I've long felt that the elderly should be required to take a driving test after a certain age. A couple of years ago, an elderly woman hit the gas instead of the brakes in a supermarket parking lot near my home and slammed a young man into the wall, killing him.
My elderly father-in-law died in a fiery crash on Cape Cod, and my father was becoming a danger on the road himself.
The following story is sad and only reinforces what I've believed for years.


Car Plows Into Farmers Market

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (July 17) - Authorities were investigating why an 86-year-old man's car plowed through a crowded farmers market, killing nine and injuring up to 45 others - and whether the driver was competent to be behind the wheel in the first place.

Police said Russell Weller told them he may have hit the gas pedal instead of the brake Wednesday, hurling victims into the air as his car careened down a street closed to traffic.

''Mr. Weller and his family want to express their deepest sympathies to the victims and their families of the tragic accident earlier today,'' Weller family attorney Jim Bianco said in a statement Wednesday. ''This was an unintentional and unfortunate accident.''

Eight victims were pronounced dead at the scene and a ninth, a 50-year-old man, died later at a St. John's Hospital, spokeswoman Barbara Bishop said. Fourteen others were critically injured.

Weller was not arrested, but authorities were considering whether the case was ''manslaughter of some type'' and investigating whether he was qualified to drive, said Police Chief James T. Butts Jr.

''There may be some negligence as to his capacity to drive safely,'' Butts said, although he added that Weller, of Santa Monica, has a valid driver's license.

Weller was taken to a hospital for a blood test and initial results found no traces of alcohol or psychoactive drugs such as antidepressants and hallucinogens.

Mary Roney, who has lived two doors down from Weller and his wife for 30 years, said he has never had any trouble driving and she did not know of any health problems.

''A more careful, gentle, loving person you'll never find,'' said Roney, who described him as active in the community, including serving on a library board and tutoring students at Santa Monica High School.

Butts said he did not have an estimate of the car's speed. Witnesses said Weller's 1992 Buick was moving very fast down the three downtown blocks of Arizona Avenue that were closed for the street market.

''Sixty miles per hour and it wasn't slowing down. It was flying. And then people down, dead and everything,'' said David Lang, manager of a shoe store along the market route.

''I heard a car just hit, bang, bang, bang,'' said Mojgan Pour, 38. ''I heard people screaming. By the time I looked, I never even saw the car. I tried to help a man and he died while I was helping him.''

Weller left police headquarters by late afternoon. Walking unsteadily with a cane, he hugged and smiled at people who picked him up from the police station. He declined to comment to a reporter.

The market, which takes place Wednesdays and Saturdays, bisects oceanside Santa Monica's popular Third Street pedestrian promenade and is near the famous Santa Monica Pier. It draws thousands of shoppers and was slated to close just as the incident occurred at 2 p.m.

The nine dead - five women, three men and a 3-year-old girl - were not identified. Police said 20 to 30 people had moderate or light injuries. They were taken to four hospitals by a fleet of ambulances and rescue helicopters.

A witness, Bahram Manahedgi, 50, said one person was on the hood of the car when it finally came to rest after the incident. A woman's body was crushed beneath the vehicle.

Manahedgi said that when he went to pull the driver out, ''His eyes were open and he was alive. I said, 'Do you know what the hell you did?' He said, 'No.' I just opened the door, I pulled him out.''

A crowd gathered around the car and ''wanted to beat him up,'' Manahedgi said. ''I said, 'He's an old man, leave him alone.'''

AP-NY-07-17-03 0533EDT

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

*double post*

I guess people should have to take a driving test every year once they reach a certain age. I just feel sorry for the living victims, the families of the victims, and the old man who had the accident. My Mom is 83, and is having more accidents than she used to, but I don't know how she'd get around if she had no license. I'm a thousand miles away and can't help.

The latest that I have heard is that they found evidence at the man's home that the wall of his garage had been hit by a car twice in the past. Now... whether or not this man was the driver is still to be determined. It could have been his wife, or someone else.

I work less than a block from where that accident happened. Several of my co-workers witnessed it, but none were hurt. I heard the car tires screeching as I sat at my desk. :eek:

Not a fun day.

:(

Originally posted by Janice
I've long felt that the elderly should be required to take a driving test after a certain age. A couple of years ago, an elderly woman hit the gas instead of the brakes in a supermarket parking lot near my home and slammed a young man into the wall, killing him.
My mother has always felt that way about ederly people, and now, being a driver myself I feel that way too.

I also feel that senior citizens should have to take driving tests every year or so and have their license revoked and keys taken away if they can't pass a driving test and a physical examination. I don't know how people can say that teenagers are the worst drivers. Personally, I feel a lot safer in a car with a teenage driver than I would with an elderly driver.

Driving is NOT a right, it is a priviledge.

The thing that gets me is that because they are old, the elderly are hardly held accountable for anything.

Is this guy going to jail?
Is his life changing in anyway now that this has happened?

On the other side 9 people are dead, 9 families are devastaed and dozens of friends are are heartbroken.

He might as well have walked down the street with an uzi - I think that is the only way they would hold him accountable.

And even then they might say, "oh he's old, he didn't know what he was doing."

You should have to pay for your mistakes when people die- accident or not.

Young or old.

Originally posted by dlemond


You should have to pay for your mistakes when people die- accident or not.

Young or old.

I agree. I hope this guy gets punished somehow. He took nine lives, including that of a three year-old child. He should be held accountable.

Originally posted by Snoopy
I agree. I hope this guy gets punished somehow. He took nine lives, including that of a three year-old child. He should be held accountable.
From what I've heard, his entire life has been exemplary, including charity work. If this is all because of advanced age and failing powers, and there was no intent, and no negligence (at least on his part), how much should he be punished? It seems to me he shouldn't have had a license.

Originally posted by BrandonS
From what I've heard, his entire life has been exemplary, including charity work. If this is all because of advanced age and failing powers, and there was no intent, and no negligence (at least on his part), how much should he be punished? It seems to me he shouldn't have had a license.

No negligence? What are you talking about?
Try using the brakes. He forgot how to do that?
For f---s sake, a monkey could do that!

And boo-hoo on the exemplary life.
Nine people are dead.
Nine.
His life is almost over and he took nine.

If the Pope shot up a supermarket I think he should go to jail too.
(or in some way be accountable)

Make an example in some way in telling old people they can't just do as they please.
Something has to come out of this.

10/26/02 - When Should the Elderly Stop Driving?
By State Representative Cele Hahn

Sometime in her late eighties, my mother-in-law announced that she would no longer drive her car.
She explained simply that she’d been driving for decades without an accident and she didn’t want to break her safe driving record. So, she just quit.

My mother, on the other hand, terrified the officer who took her out for a driving test after she had inadvertently let her license expire when she was about 80. My mother said that the official yelled at her so often and so loudly that she was mortified. The official said that she’d never been on the road with such a bad driver.

Needless to say, my mother did not get a new license.

The first way is the best way, I think.

But many elders don’t want to give up their licenses, even when family and friends know they should. Who should decide? It’s often an emotionally charged issue for the drivers, who fear loss of mobility or don’t realize their shortcomings. But, it’s a safety issue for the rest of us.

"Driving in Massachusetts: When to Stop and Who Should Decide," a study by the U Mass Boston Gerontology Institute and Center, reports that older drivers are likely to experience an increased accident rate per mile (though they drive fewer miles) and are at a greater risk of dying in that automobile accident.

Moreover, the report continued, "Data also suggest that older drivers are at fault a disproportionately high percentage of the time when they are involved in accidents."

About three years ago, the American Medical Association suggested that doctors notify their state department of motor vehicles if patients have medical conditions that could adversely affect their driving abilities. And the Academy of Neurology suggested that doctors assess their Alzheimer’s patients every six months.

Surveying doctors, law enforcement officers, and people over 50, the Gerontology Institute found that all three groups agreed there should be periodic tests of skills as people age, that there should be driving reassessment in Massachusetts and that an age for that reassessment should be determined.

That was the easy part. When it got down to details about how often reassessments should take place and in what form, or at what age they should begin, there was less agreement.

Vision tests, road tests, and mental health assessments were most often suggested. Other criteria noted as being important included alertness, flexibility, hearing, memory, history of moving violations, and medications taken.
But, different groups placed the bulk of the responsibility on others.

For example, everyone agreed the drivers, their families, the Registry, physicians and law enforcement officers should share the responsibility for deciding when the elderly should stop driving.

The general public and law enforcement groups rated physicians as more responsible for the decision than did the physicians. Law enforcement officers and physicians rated adult children significantly higher in responsibility than did the general public.

Right now, only 11 states have age-based license renewal requirements and Massachusetts isn’t among them. Age alone, of course, isn’t the sole way to determine competence behind the wheel.

Consider vision. (Massachusetts does mandate a vision test when renewing a license.) Driving record. Medical history.
Someone has to take responsibility.

The driver? Many do take responsibility by driving less, not driving at night or in bad weather, not driving on highways.
Law officers? Many are reluctant to issue tickets or warnings to older drivers. The Institute suggested that they receive more training about complications that can arise because of failure to ticket, thus inadvertently condoning unsafe driving.
Doctors? Many are not aware that the AMA allows them to put public safety over confidentiality.

The Registry? With which tests, at what age, and how often? The study suggested vision, alertness, reaction time, number of moving violations and hearing.

Respondents to the study had several answers to the question about who should take responsibility. The consensus, in this order: self, Registry, spouse, physician, law officers, adult children.

Remember: one out of every three drivers today is over 55, some 7,000 older drivers are killed in automobiles accidents each year. There’s been a 39 percent increase in the number of drivers 70 and older killed in crashes in the past 10 years.

Originally posted by Mysty Eyes
The latest that I have heard is that they found evidence at the man's home that the wall of his garage had been hit by a car twice in the past. Now... whether or not this man was the driver is still to be determined. It could have been his wife, or someone else.

I work less than a block from where that accident happened. Several of my co-workers witnessed it, but none were hurt. I heard the car tires screeching as I sat at my desk. :eek:

Not a fun day.

:(

You are that close? I'm glad you're okay!

While I agree that there does seem to be alot of accidents in older people, the same can be said for young drivgers as well.

My grandmother is 96 years old and is still driving. Now granted she doesn't drive at night or on the highway anymore. She lives across the street from Walmart and that is where most of her shopping is done at, that and HEB. The point is, as long as we feel safe driving with her, she will continue to drive.

The last accident she was in was a guy running into HER.

One of the last times she renewed her license she had to take the written test again as well as the driving test b/c they felt she was too old to drive after getting a ticket for running a stop sign. (They just convieniently forgot that they keep changing that stop sign back and forth ro a yield sign and it had just been changed to a stop sign but it is back to a yield now)

She took the written test and passed with flying colors. They kept putting her off to take the driving test and finally sent a letter to the judge saying that she had never come in to take the test so they were going to revoke her licence. When my grandmother got the letter stating that, she went a couple towns over and took her driving test. That test was with a state trooper and she passed THAT with flying colors.

To say the least she got her license and filed a complaint against the office here.

My point is, is that just because a person is old, it doesn't make them anymore or less dangerous then other drivers. I know some young people that have accidentately hit the gas instead of the break.

I do agree that something needs to happen to this guy. The least of which should be to have his licence revoked, but you have to admit...it WAS an accident. I don't think he was sitting there saying, "Hey, I think I'm going to kill some people with my car today."

What about the lady who hit a homeless man in the street. He was lodged in her windshield. SHe drove home kept saying how sorry she was, parked in the garage and left him to die...NEVER getting any help to try to save the man. The ovly person she called was some friends to help her dump the body.

To me, THAT crime was worse then the old man's.

D

Originally posted by dlemond
No negligence? What are you talking about?
Try using the brakes. He forgot how to do that?
For f---s sake, a monkey could do that!

And you've spent how much time being 86? The fact that people have been killed and hurt does not imply that someone is at fault. If anyone is, it seems to me it's the system that allowed him to retain his license, not some elderly guy because his powers are failing.

Originally posted by dlemond
Is this guy going to jail?
Is his life changing in anyway now that this has happened?



I'm not sure if he went to jail or just to the police station, but he went and they released him. They decided not to press charges against him because they believe that it was unintentional.

Originally posted by BrandonS
And you've spent how much time being 86? The fact that people have been killed and hurt does not imply that someone is at fault. If anyone is, it seems to me it's the system that allowed him to retain his license, not some elderly guy because his powers are failing.

Sure the system is part of it, but you are saying because he is 86 he is not responsible at all for not finding the brakes or killing these people.

Like this guy never noticed his sight and hearing and reflexes were failing? Like he never noticed his driving was erratic and that he had made many mistakes.

Oh, because he is old and he had a license he figured that it was all ok, and not his fault if he ever hurt anyone.

If someone who was an epeleptic didnt take their medicine and killed these people like this would they be responsible? The state gave them a license.

As a human being you are ultimately accountable and don't tell me that it never crossed this guy's mind that he was a risk.

Originally posted by dlemond
As a human being you are ultimately accountable and don't tell me that it never crossed this guy's mind that he was a risk.
As a human being, you are ultimately accountable, but not necessarily for everything that results from your actions, regardless of your intent or degree of negligence. Okay, so maybe it crossed the 86 year old guys mind that he was having a hard time driving lately, but many old people have driver's licenses. How much negligence did it show to not voluntarily relinquish his license? Is it on a par with holding up a liquor store deliberately, and shooting the proprietor and his wife because they didn't hand you the money fast enough? Most people do things that could, under the very worst circumstances, place someone at risk. Usually nothing happens. What is an appropriate sentence for this level of negligence, and would you, yourself, like to be held to this standard for the rest of your life? Have you considered the possibility that someone's actions may result in many deaths, with no one being particularly responsible? Does a whole lifetime of good acts say anything about a person's probable intent?

Brandon

Okay, to begin with we cannot be prejudging the situation. It may very well have been an honest-to-goodness accident. It might have happened whether the driver was 16, 26, 36, on up to 86 or older.

From what I have heard on the news: He was at the post office. This is located at 5th and Arizona. He turned down Arizona, heading west… toward the Farmers Market. The market is about one block west of the post office, with an intersection that he would need to cross. This is the intersection that was seen the most frequently on the news. This intersection IS OPEN to traffic during Market hours. The market begins one half-block west of the intersection.

He apparently started down Arizona, and then realized it was Market day. He went to put his foot on the brake, and hit the gas pedal instead. The rest can possibly be attributed to panic. And panic is not exclusive to the elderly. Anyone can panic.

The man may have his license revoked. I’m no legal expert, so I don’t know what might constitute manslaughter charges. The police are investigating the matter. If they do feel that he is at fault in some way, they will proceed with pressing charges.

Originally posted by BrandonS
As a human being, you are ultimately accountable, but not necessarily for everything that results from your actions, regardless of your intent or degree of negligence. Okay, so maybe it crossed the 86 year old guys mind that he was having a hard time driving lately, but many old people have driver's licenses. How much negligence did it show to not voluntarily relinquish his license? Is it on a par with holding up a liquor store deliberately, and shooting the proprietor and his wife because they didn't hand you the money fast enough? Most people do things that could, under the very worst circumstances, place someone at risk. Usually nothing happens. What is an appropriate sentence for this level of negligence, and would you, yourself, like to be held to this standard for the rest of your life? Have you considered the possibility that someone's actions may result in many deaths, with no one being particularly responsible? Does a whole lifetime of good acts say anything about a person's probable intent?

Brandon

Of course it is not on par with the liquor store and such, but ultimately you are chocking it up to it being just an accident, when I feel that he should have know better and in that holds some responsibility.

And even if he cured cancer, if he ran over my child - old man or not- I would certainly have wished he was dead too.

Originally posted by dlemond
Of course it is not on par with the liquor store and such, but ultimately you are chocking it up to it being just an accident, when I feel that he should have know better and in that holds some responsibility.

And even if he cured cancer, if he ran over my child - old man or not- I would certainly have wished he was dead too.
Yes, you would have wished he was dead, and so would I in the circumstances, but that is not a legal criterion. The question is, how responsible was he for what he caused to happen. Who has responsibility for each link in the chain of events that led to this tragedy?

Originally posted by BrandonS
Yes, you would have wished he was dead, and so would I in the circumstances, but that is not a legal criterion. The question is, how responsible was he for what he caused to happen. Who has responsibility for each link in the chain of events that led to this tragedy?

I understand, but is ridiculous to think he has no accountability, that it's only the state's fault.

Like I said, is it the state's responsibility to make sure people take their medication?

If a paroled rapist rapes again does he not hold accountability for his actions?

Then a person who knows he can't drive well- in a hard to drive city as it is - must take some responsibility.

Originally posted by dlemond
I understand, but is ridiculous to think he has no accountability, that it's only the state's fault.

Like I said, is it the state's responsibility to make sure people take their medication?

If a paroled rapist rapes again does he not hold accountability for his actions?

Then a person who knows he can't drive well- in a hard to drive city as it is - must take some responsibility.
Maybe, but the earlier parts of this thread sounded like he should be sent up the river as though he'd blown somebody's head off with a shotgun, and that kind of intent just wasn't present in this act. As fars as level of negligence goes, I doubt that he ever imagined this kind of outcome. There are, after all, many, many elderly people driving, and things like this do not usually happen. I do not think it's comparable to the act of a paroled rapist, because there is intent to commit a crime in that case, and there wasn't here.

I heard about that. You know, my grandmother is 78 years old, and sadly, she's not all there anymore. But she refuses to see it. She still drives her Lincoln all around Indiana at 80mph - and I'm so afraid something awful is gonna happen. She lapses out every now and then, completely unaware of where she is. What will happen if that happens while she's at a stoplight? Or on a highway? I don't think she should be allowed to drive anymore, but nobody listens to me :(

This is why I DESPISE driving. I feel really bad for the old guy. I couldnt live with myself after something like that.

Personally, yes i think that people, when they reach a certain age, should not be allowed to drive anymore.
I remember a family friend in my old neighborhood had to finally sell his father's car because the old man, who was in his eighties and couldn't hear a thing and could barely see kept insisting on driving!
I have been doing a remodellng job at a mall in Yonkers, and every day I see a lot of seniors driving around, and I gotta tell ya, some of these poor men and women really look like they have no idea what is going on around them.
Last month I saw an elderly woman drive over a pair of concrete curbs as she cut across the parking lot, blowing out a front tire and nearly ripping off her front fender. She never saw them, she said.

the number of dead has reached 10, a seven month old baby has died.

I live about 5 minutes from there, what a tragedy.

Here's my thoughts: I live with my grandmother she is 77 and very much in control of her faculties. If she wasn't None of us would let her drive, heck she's a better driver than my brother, father and cousins are.

I have known teenagers that just don't care, and will make up their own speed laws, I don't know how many stories over the years I have read where some teenager hits a kid in a rural neighborhood simply because he didn't obey the speed laws.

I do agree to an extent, but IMO everybody should be given extensive tests, because as we all know there are people out there who just don't give a darn.

My grandfather was in the service and never even had to take a drivers test, they just automatically gave you a license back then. I don't remember my grandfather ever having to take a test, he just renewed his license when the time came. He was a good driver, there were times he scared me, but heck my 29 year old cousin is a lead foot, and I refuse to ride with her because she's reckless. My dad is a talegatter, which I don't ride with him, unless I had no other choice.

I think that once people reach around the age of 60 or 65 they should be required to take a drivers test every year to see if they can keep their license. At my bank there has been cases of elderly people putting their cars in drive instead of reverse and ran in to the building. Only one time did the lady go all the way into the lobby of the bank! It is very dangerous!

Originally posted by Liza
I heard about that. You know, my grandmother is 78 years old, and sadly, she's not all there anymore. But she refuses to see it. She still drives her Lincoln all around Indiana at 80mph - and I'm so afraid something awful is gonna happen. She lapses out every now and then, completely unaware of where she is. What will happen if that happens while she's at a stoplight? Or on a highway? I don't think she should be allowed to drive anymore, but nobody listens to me :(


80 mph!!?? I've always thought that the elderly were known for driving slow! But seriously, somebody like that should not be driving! Do you know if she has Alzheimers? I hope someone will eventually listen to you.

Originally posted by TheHappyBurgerMeister
I think that once people reach around the age of 60 or 65 they should be required to take a drivers test every year to see if they can keep their license. At my bank there has been cases of elderly people putting their cars in drive instead of reverse and ran in to the building. Only one time did the lady go all the way into the lobby of the bank! It is very dangerous!

Why does it have to just be elderly? Why not young adults and teenagers, etc.? I have seen lots of teenagers and young adults get into wrecks because they were fiddling with their stereos, or putting on makeup, or other things.

I think if it applies to one age group, it should apply to all.

If I had to pass a test every year theres no way I'd have my license. I could barely pass the first one. Those just make me waaaaaay too nervous.

Originally posted by TheHappyBurgerMeister
80 mph!!?? I've always thought that the elderly were known for driving slow! But seriously, somebody like that should not be driving! Do you know if she has Alzheimers? I hope someone will eventually listen to you.

I've even seen her once go up to 90 (I swear to God) but that was years ago. My parents, my brother, my sister, and I all suspect that she has it. There have been much worse symptoms - she keeps missing things, and insisting that someone is breaking into her house and stealing them. These aren't valubles, mind you. She once told me that the reason she hadn't called me in Germany was because someone had climbed through a window, walked right past the bigscreen TV, DVD player, computer, and china cabinent (not to mention her two dogs) and had stolen the piece of paper she'd written it on. :rolleyes: She's just not there anymore, but we don't know what to do about it. My grandfather's a doctor - but he refuses to see it. We're gonna do something about it - it's just a very hard situation :(

Originally posted by YearbookLoser
This is why I DESPISE driving. I feel really bad for the old guy. I couldnt live with myself after something like that.
DRIVING SUCKS!! I need a chauffer.

Originally posted by Miss Karly
You are that close? I'm glad you're okay!



that close to what?

Originally posted by YearbookLoser
If I had to pass a test every year theres no way I'd have my license. I could barely pass the first one. Those just make me waaaaaay too nervous.

A very good point! :) Me and that parallel parking... yikes! And I'm a very good driver - see, I found the solution - I just don't parallel park ;)

About bad teenage driving, I have to disagree. I've only ever come across very safe teenage-drivers. I know when I first got my liscense I was so paranoid about every single law - I don't think I'll ever be as good a driver as I was at 17. :D

Originally posted by littleputz114
that close to what?
She was talking to me. (Thanks for the concern Karly. :) )

The accident happened less than a block away from where I was sitting in my office, working.

No one from my company was physically hurt though two of them came very, very close to being hit. Several other co-workers witnessed the event.

Never in the 21st century have I heard a more blatantly discriminatory policy than requiring higher standards for senior citizen drivers. Individuals need to be held accountable, not groups of people. Before we make laws discriminating against particular age groups, maybe we should make laws banning even bringing cell phones into cars, eliminate all drink holders, ash trays, radios, or anything else that could be the slightest distraction. Or how about this idea? Since everyone is so convinced that the elderly are the problem, why not simply require ALL drivers to be tested every year and see how well these younger expert drivers do. Just for the record, I'm 35.

Originally posted by TJL
Personally, yes i think that people, when they reach a certain age, should not be allowed to drive anymore.
I remember a family friend in my old neighborhood had to finally sell his father's car because the old man, who was in his eighties and couldn't hear a thing and could barely see kept insisting on driving!
I have been doing a remodellng job at a mall in Yonkers, and every day I see a lot of seniors driving around, and I gotta tell ya, some of these poor men and women really look like they have no idea what is going on around them.
Last month I saw an elderly woman drive over a pair of concrete curbs as she cut across the parking lot, blowing out a front tire and nearly ripping off her front fender. She never saw them, she said.


I have to wonder if you'll still feel that way when YOU reach that "certain age". I know we live in a society that believes in throwing the elderly away, but we fail to remember that we (God willing) will be that age some day. I wonder how we will feel when others point their young, judgmental fingers at us as if the world belongs only to them. And since you think the state should take licenses away from all elderly people across the board, I have to wonder if you'd be in favor of the state providing transportation on demand for seniors who live in areas with poor bus service and expensive cabs. Yes, there are some standards for driving such as good vision, coordination, and a general ability. But, to prejudge individuals on the basis of age is SHAMEFUL! That goes for extra testing too. Let EVERYONE get tested every year and we'll see how many young drivers make the grade.

These are the views of a healthy 35 year old man who has enough sensibilities to care about other groups of people and enough sense to realize that when it comes to the elderly, I WILL be in that group some day. Frankly, I don't like some of the plans I'm hearing for my future. :mad:

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not that heartless.

I just don't think it's wise for a 90 year old to be behind the wheel of a car.

I think requiring a driving test every year is a little harsh - maybe every ten? Or maybe just make it a requirement that they need to take a refresher course after a certain age. Nobody can remember EVERYTHING they learned in a class they took when they were sixteen, by the time they're eighty. Sixty years of driving, I don't think it's a bad idea to make sure they remember it all. :wave:

Originally posted by Liza
I think requiring a driving test every year is a little harsh - maybe every ten? Or maybe just make it a requirement that they need to take a refresher course after a certain age. Nobody can remember EVERYTHING they learned in a class they took when they were sixteen, by the time they're eighty. Sixty years of driving, I don't think it's a bad idea to make sure they remember it all. :wave:


Then why not just require ALL drivers to take a refresher course? The only reason not to raise the standards for drivers of all ages is if there's a fear that younger drivers couldn't pass it.

Originally posted by TJL
Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not that heartless.

I just don't think it's wise for a 90 year old to be behind the wheel of a car.


ALL 90 year olds? Don't you think everyone has a right to be judged on their individual merits instead of automatically dismissed because of a number? If you live to be a healthy 90 year old with a good mind and good vision, will you still feel this way?

Originally posted by GeeBee
Then why not just require ALL drivers to take a refresher course? The only reason not to raise the standards for drivers of all ages is if there's a fear that younger drivers couldn't pass it.

What? That's not what I said at all. I do think all drivers should take a refresher course - I'm not opposed to taking one myself. I just think that it should absolutely be necessary for people that haven't taken a driving class in fifty years to have one. I'm not saying they're the worst drivers in the world, but after fifty years, how much can it hurt? You're totally missing my point. I'm not trying to get the elderly kicked off the road - and I certainly feel that there are young drivers who could benifit from a refresher course too. You seem to be awfully prejudiced against teenage drivers, who I've noticed are among the most careful drivers out there.

It amazes me that a society that allows drivers to have a "legal amount" of alcohol behind the wheel could even consider making tougher laws for elderly drivers. In alcohol we have a mind altering substance used solely for recreational purposes and people are allowed to drive under the influence as long as it's a "small" amount. Why any amount? I occasionally drink alcohol, but I NEVER get behind the wheel with a drop of it in my system. My pleasure and convenience is not worth putting everyone's safety at risk. No matter how small the amount of alcohol, it interferes with one's reflexes and makes a driver ultimately care less about what happens. But, do we consider a law that would mandate ZERO alcohol behind the wheel? No, we talk about discriminating against the elderly. Typical double standards made by the groups who are in power.

Originally posted by GeeBee
ALL 90 year olds? Don't you think everyone has a right to be judged on their individual merits instead of automatically dismissed because of a number? If you live to be a healthy 90 year old with a good mind and good vision, will you still feel this way?

Yeah, all 90 year olds. What is wrong with having yearly tests for drivers when they reach a certain age?

Did you read in the paper that this man had an accident ten years ago where he might have mistook the gas for the break? How about the Police report that his man may have been leaving the scene of an accident when he plowed into the street market?

If that makes me insensitive to the elderly, then so be it. I'm sure the parents of the seven month old who was run over by this 86 year old driver in California would agree that some folks shouldn't be driving.

Originally posted by Liza
What? That's not what I said at all. I do think all drivers should take a refresher course - I'm not opposed to taking one myself. I just think that it should absolutely be necessary for people that haven't taken a driving class in fifty years to have one. I'm not saying they're the worst drivers in the world, but after fifty years, how much can it hurt? You're totally missing my point. I'm not trying to get the elderly kicked off the road - and I certainly feel that there are young drivers who could benifit from a refresher course too. You seem to be awfully prejudiced against teenage drivers, who I've noticed are among the most careful drivers out there.


I never said anything about teenage drivers, although the story about their being the most careful drivers out there is not the story I've heard. I'm talking about holding ALL drivers of ANY age to the SAME standards. I don't see why drivers over 50 have more of an obligation to prove themselves than anyone else. If you're worried about safety and want higher standards, raise them across the board. Period. Anything less is discrimination and one more attempt to take away the dignity of senior ADULTS! Again, will you feel this way when you are 50?

Originally posted by GeeBee
It amazes me that a society that allows drivers to have a "legal amount" of alcohol behind the wheel could even consider making tougher laws for elderly drivers. In alcohol we have a mind altering substance used solely for recreational purposes and people are allowed to drive under the influence as long as it's a "small" amount. Why any amount? I occasionally drink alcohol, but I NEVER get behind the wheel with a drop of it in my system. My pleasure and convenience is not worth putting everyone's safety at risk. No matter how small the amount of alcohol, it interferes with one's reflexes and makes a driver ultimately care less about what happens. But, do we consider a law that would mandate ZERO alcohol behind the wheel? No, we talk about discriminating against the elderly. Typical double standards made by the groups who are in power.

Rather off-topic, don't you think? Actually I think there should be a ZERO tolerance as well, but honestly - the acceptable level of alcohol consumption while driving is so low (in my home state anyway) I really don't know if it would change much. I think it's something like two drinks. No, I agree though - if I've had ANYTHING to drink I won't drive.

Now what does this prove about a double standard? I fail to see it. They're two different topics up for debate. How is it discrimination to ask that people who haven't taken a class in something in over sixty years should have a refresher course? How is that being discriminatory? I know that I won't be able to remember all of the road rules an laws in sixty years, and apart from that, laws change in the course of fifty years. There are probably some that they never heard of. I'm not saying they have to pass a test or lose their liscense - which you seem to be very anxious to accuse me of.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Again, will you feel this way when you are 50?

YES I WILL!!!!!

If I haven't taken a driving class in three decades, I'd like to be sure I'm still aware of all the driving rules and any new ones that may have come up over the last thirty years that I'd never heard of before.

Originally posted by TJL
Yeah, all 90 year olds. What is wrong with having yearly tests for drivers when they reach a certain age?

Did you read in the paper that this man had an accident ten years ago where he might have mistook the gas for the break? How about the Police report that his man may have been leaving the scene of an accident when he plowed into the street market?

If that makes me insensitive to the elderly, then so be it. I'm sure the parents of the seven month old who was run over by this 86 year old driver in California would agree that some folks shouldn't be driving.

AND I'M SURE THAT THE PARENTS OF EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A DRUNKEN DRIVER WOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF ZERO ALCOHOL WHEN PEOPLE DRIVE, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE THAT, CAN WE? IF YOU WANT 90 YEAR OLDS TO BE TESTED, EVERYONE ELSE MUST BE TESTED. PERIOD. THE ONLY REASON NOT TO RAISE THE STANDARDS FOR EVERYONE IS A FEAR THAT THE NON-ELDERLY WOULDN'T MEASURE UP TO THESE HIGHER STANDARDS.

Originally posted by GeeBee
AND I'M SURE THAT THE PARENTS OF EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A DRUNKEN DRIVER WOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF ZERO ALCOHOL WHEN PEOPLE DRIVE, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE THAT, CAN WE? IF YOU WANT 90 YEAR OLDS TO BE TESTED, EVERYONE ELSE MUST BE TESTED. PERIOD. THE ONLY REASON NOT TO RAISE THE STANDARDS FOR EVERYONE IS A FEAR THAT THE NON-ELDERLY WOULDN'T MEASURE UP TO THESE HIGHER STANDARDS.

Will you chill out? You know you do have some valid points but there's no need to yell at us. We all have our opinions - would you mind calming down and respecting what other people are saying instead of screaming?

Originally posted by Liza
Rather off-topic, don't you think? Actually I think there should be a ZERO tolerance as well, but honestly - the acceptable level of alcohol consumption while driving is so low (in my home state anyway) I really don't know if it would change much. I think it's something like two drinks. No, I agree though - if I've had ANYTHING to drink I won't drive.

Now what does this prove about a double standard? I fail to see it. They're two different topics up for debate. How is it discrimination to ask that people who haven't taken a class in something in over sixty years should have a refresher course? How is that being discriminatory? I know that I won't be able to remember all of the road rules an laws in sixty years, and apart from that, laws change in the course of fifty years. There are probably some that they never heard of. I'm not saying they have to pass a test or lose their liscense - which you seem to be very anxious to accuse me of.


It shows how we are quick to condemn drivers simply for their age, but very reluctant to interfere with the all American pastime of drinking alcohol and driving. If it's anything that interferes with the convenience and everyday life of the young and healthy, it can never happen, but the elderly are fair game.

Again, I ask, why not simply raise the standards for drivers of all ages across the board? Since, according to you, young and middle age drivers have no difficulty remembering the rules, surely they wouldn't object to taking these tests too. Or would they?

It's not a matter of just remembering or forgetting what they've learned. It's about being able to perform the task of driving; being able to concentrate well enough behind the wheel. It's a fact that faculties diminsh with age; more so with some than with others. For the elderly to be required to take a test after a certain age seems like a reasonable and logical idea to me. My grandfather became a very poor driver after a certain age. My mom worried about him a lot because of it.

I was riding with an elderly neighbor of mine one day and he drove off the road for no reason at all. We weren't hurt but we sure coud have been. He had just simply lost his ability to concentrate well enough to negotiate the task of driving. He voluntarily gave up driving after that because he feared that he might someday hurt of kill someone. I think his daughter had some input into his decision. She didn't want her kids (his grandkids) riding with him anymore.

Originally posted by Liza
Will you chill out? You know you do have some valid points but there's no need to yell at us. We all have our opinions - would you mind calming down and respecting what other people are saying instead of screaming?


Well, you shouldn't act like you're the only one who cares about children getting killed by motorists. Every time I make the choice to drive alcohol-free, the main thing in my mind is the possible danger to children in the street.

Actually, it's been said that a society can be judged on how it treats its very young and very old. Sadly, our society fails both tests.

Originally posted by Kitt


faculties diminsh with age; more so with some than with others. For the elderly to be required to take a test after a certain age seems like a reasonable and logical idea to me.


"More so with some than with others" are the key words. It's also a fact that the young and middle-age can have nervous breakdowns, abuse drugs and alcohol, become ill, and have a whole set of issues of their own that could make them a danger on the road. Raise the standards for drivers of all ages and let it all come out in the wash. We're a free society and no ADULT should be labeled simply by a number.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Well, you shouldn't act like you're the only one who cares about children getting killed by motorists. Every time I make the choice to drive alcohol-free, the main thing in my mind is the possible danger to children in the street.

Actually, it's been said that a society can be judged on how it treats its very young and very old. Sadly, our society fails both tests. If you so well understand the danger in driving under any degree of influence, why are you having trouble understanding the dangers of driving with diminished capacity brought on by old age? To test elderly drivers capacity to drive would be for their own protection as well as everyone elses. Wouldn't you agree? So how would that be being unkind or disrespectful of the elderly in our society?

Originally posted by GeeBee
"More so with some than with others" are the key words. It's also a fact that the young and middle-age can have nervous breakdowns, abuse drugs and alcohol, become ill, and have a whole set of issues of their own that could make them a danger on the road. Raise the standards for drivers of all ages and let it all come out in the wash. We're a free society and no ADULT should be labeled simply by a number. All people in our society are labeled by a certain use of statistics. It would be impossible and illogical to ty to run a society in any other way. How are we going to see which elderly drivers are loosing their abilities if we don't test them? Testing everyone, often, would be grossly expensive and counter productive.

If people abuse drugs/alcolol they'll be cited sooner or later and eventually loose their drivers license. If one has a nervous breakdown they might well be taking prescibed drugs that are illiegal to drive under the influence of. These things are all covered to some degee or another. Frankly, I don't understand why you think you are protecting or standing up for the elderly by not having them show that they are maintaining their ability to drive safely.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Well, you shouldn't act like you're the only one who cares about children getting killed by motorists. Every time I make the choice to drive alcohol-free, the main thing in my mind is the possible danger to children in the street.

Actually, it's been said that a society can be judged on how it treats its very young and very old. Sadly, our society fails both tests.

Ummm... right. You still yelled at us for no reason. :rolleyes: How and where did I act like I'm "the only one who cares about children getting killed my motorists"???? It seems to me you just completely made that up.

Now, the reason I don't think everyone should have to take a driving test at this moment is simple: it's not pracitcal. Are you saying that everyone - now - at this moment should go out and take a test? For one thing there are no where near enough facilities to test all of America. That's why I think we should all agree on one age - say, 70 - where all Americans are required to take a refresher course on driving. Just to make sure that after fifty years of driving they're still alright. It's not prejudice. And everyone WILL be taking this test when they reach that age. I'll be first in line. :wave:

Kitt, Liza and TJL have covered my feelings on the elderly and driving, so I'll make it brief. I believe, after a certain age, probably 65, a road test should be mandatory to protect the elderly and the public.
My husband will be 65 in two years, so it would affect my life. I know he would pass a test, but if he didn't, I wouldn't want him on the road.
I don't think it should be a complicated process involving written tests--just a simple half hour road test.
To make sure that the instructor or the driver wasn't having a bad day, a second test should be allowed.


By: Scott Bowles
USA Today, May 1, 2001

Elderly die at a record pace behind the wheel

ARCADIA, Calif. — They drive the speed limit, wear their seat belts and rarely take risks behind the wheel. But elderly drivers are dying at a record pace. Though they don't drive often, seniors account for a disproportionate number of crashes on the nation's roads. And as the numbers surge, officials say, elderly driving deaths will rival drunken driving as the nation's top road threat. The problem has begun to change the driving experience for all Americans. State and federal agencies are scrambling to make roads safer for seniors by increasing licensing scrutiny, making streets signs larger and erecting more traffic lights, which are easier to see than stop signs. But even the federal agency charged with safeguarding motorists concedes that it's ill-prepared for the coming surge in senior drivers. The number of drivers over the age of 65 will more than double to 60 million during the next three decades, as baby boomers move into retirement.

"Frankly, I'm concerned whether it's possible to protect them," says John Eberhard, a senior researcher with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). "We don't have a car or safety device that's truly compatible with a frail, elderly body."

That isn't discouraging seniors, who are driving more often and farther than ever before. In a nation where the auto reigns supreme, getting anyone from behind the wheel will be difficult.

"I have to have my car," says Bill Tsuchiya, 80, a Los Angeles resident. "I need it to get to the hospital, or see my family, or take my wife to a nice dinner. It's not a luxury. It's a big part of my life."

With cities sprawling, driving is critical to seniors, traffic engineer Bill Hairston says. "As much as we like to fool ourselves, grandma doesn't take the car out (just) for a Sunday drive," he says. "She's starting to use it as much as we do, and she is not about to give up that freedom."

A new NHTSA report released to USA TODAY suggests the scope of the problem. Improvements in highway engineering and traffic enforcement have meant good news for virtually all drivers — except seniors.

Highway deaths for motorists under 65 have dropped 3% since 1995, to 33,659 last year. Among seniors, however, deaths jumped 15% over the same period, to 8,141 last year. During the past two decades, only the fatality rate of senior drivers has risen.

Fatalities among elderly drivers will increase faster than their population, to more than 23,000 annually — 63 deaths a day — by 2030, NHTSA estimates.

Analysts expect some increase in crashes among seniors because the nation is aging quickly. From 2010 to 2020, the elderly population is expected to increase by 35%. The overall population will increase 8% over the same time, the Census Bureau says.

But the NHTSA study finds that elderly drivers account for more than their share of deaths on the road. They make up about than 12% of the population, but they account for 18% of those killed on highways. And as seniors become a larger segment of the driving population, their fatality rates could soar.

When seniors crash, Eberhard says, "they suffer the most harm. They don't kill other drivers in accidents. They get killed."

Intersections pose a particular danger. An analysis of accidents by USA TODAY and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety finds that elderly drivers — defined by NHTSA as those 65 and older — account for a third of all driver deaths at intersections.

States are struggling for an answer. Florida is enlarging some highway street signs from 12 inches to 36 to accommodate the withering vision of its 2.9 million elderly drivers. Nine states are considering legislation that requires doctors to report serious medical conditions afflicting seniors, such as failing eyesight and heart disease, to motor-vehicle authorities. Officials could then order new driving tests and revoke licenses. Eleven states, including California and Florida, already have such measures.

But taking away licenses isn't a cure-all. Seniors are more likely to be killed as pedestrians than as drivers or occupants in cars.

"If you take them out of their cars and make them walk everywhere, you're going to drive up pedestrian deaths," Eberhard says. "And that's assuming they are physically healthy enough to walk a couple miles to the store."

The left turn

"C'mon, someone let me in," Caroline Bolton pleads, stranded halfway through a left turn on the busiest street here in Arcadia, 20 miles east of Los Angeles. Nervous and peeking over the steering wheel of her Toyota Corolla, Bolton, 81, has been driving since the Truman administration. She's been in one wreck in the past decade. If she hits the speed limit, she usually lets off the gas.

However, to transportation engineers, safety officials and insurers, Bolton's half-mile drive to Kelly's Coffee and Fudge shop embodies their biggest fear. Bolton begins to make her left turn across Huntington Drive, then realizes she won't beat oncoming traffic. She hits the brakes, allowing a car to pass. She starts, stops, then inches forward as oncoming cars brake. She finishes the turn, oblivious to a chorus of horns.

"Two decades ago, people over 70 typically didn't even keep the car, let alone drive it regularly," says Nancy Warren, a Dallas-based auto industry consultant. "The roads were never designed with seniors in mind."

As visual skills deteriorate, older drivers have increasing difficulty gauging the speed of oncoming cars. "That poses the biggest problem at intersections," says Frank Moretti, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

According to federal data, there were 5,394 deaths because of crashes at intersections in 1999, the most recent year statistics are available. Of those, 1,730, or 32%, were seniors. Nearly half of those seniors died attempting left turns, traffic engineer Hairston says.

That's because in a collision, the elderly motorist is typically the one being struck.

"In a left-hand turn, the person getting T-boned is in a lot more danger than the one ramming him," Hairston says. "Even in a head-on collision, the car moving slower is in more danger. And that's nearly always the elderly driver."

When a crash does occur, an older motorist is more than 25% more likely to die in the crash than those 55 and younger. Seat belts, air bags and other improvements to cars have proved ineffective in protecting older drivers, particularly those with ailments such as osteoporosis, a weakening of bone density.

"An elderly, frail body is like a house with termites," Eberhard says. "It might look good on the outside, but it might be weak and hollowed inside. Even a slight knock can break the structure. We haven't found a way to protect against that yet."

Physicians blame most intersection crashes on poor depth perception. "If you knew how bad the eyesight of the person driving next to you probably is, you'd be afraid to get on the road," Los Angeles ophthalmologist Robert Maloney says. "Particularly older drivers. I've had patients drive to my office who should be walking with a white cane."

Skeptical that seniors will voluntarily take themselves off the road, lawmakers are requiring others to keep an eye on them. Thirteen states now require seniors to renew their licenses more frequently than other drivers. New Mexico requires drivers older than 75 to renew licenses annually; Illinois imposes the requirement on motorists 86 and older.

"There's little argument that the older you get, the worse your vision gets, the slower your reflexes get," says Steven Bell, president of Safer Streets Now, a Dallas-based organization that lobbies for stricter licensing regulations of teen and elderly drivers. "What is the problem with taking a driver's test? If you are a safe driver, you keep your license. If you're not, then you shouldn't have one."

Opponents say such laws constitute age discrimination. "Why should we be punished for growing old?" says Mitchell Franklin, 81, of Evanston, Ill. "I drive better than my grandson, but I'm the one who has to go keep proving myself."

Indeed, some seniors drive into their 90s without any physical or cognitive impairments. Others should be off the road before 65.

"It's a thorny issue," says Nancy Thompson, a spokeswoman for AARP, which works with state legislatures to develop elderly driving and licensing programs. "There really isn't one test that can determine if a senior citizen is going to get into a crash." The group is formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.

Back to school

The dangers of the road are not lost on the elderly. And many, such as Jay Chenault, are addressing the issue themselves.

The 81-year-old resident of Los Angeles is one of a legion of drivers attending AAA's "Mature Driving Class," a course on everything from mixing medications to remembering to turn the high beams off.

It has been more than half a century since Chenault took driver's education. He started driving when he was 10, in his father's Model T. "You ever been in one?" the former baker asks. "They got three gas pedals: forward, reverse, and neutral. That was a car."

Today he drives a pickup, albeit nervously. "I see these young guys, zipping in and out of the lanes so fast. It's crazy."

A component of AAA's course is to infuse seniors with a little contemporary attitude behind the wheel. "One thing we try to teach them is to speed up every once in a while," instructor Frank Stewart says. "You've got to hit the gas when you're merging onto a freeway, or maneuver out of the way if someone is tailgating."

By some measures, seniors are safe drivers. More than 70% of older drivers wear seat belts, the highest percentage among all driving categories. They receive the fewest moving violations.

But that conservative behavior isn't always a positive. Stewart says a disproportionate number of elderly driving accidents involve rear-end collisions because seniors refuse to exceed the speed limit. "We're trying to teach them to change their ways, which isn't easy," he says.

Changing roads

The Federal Highway Administration plans to accommodate him. The agency recently released its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a guidebook cities use to design everything from street signs to crosswalks.

It contains recommendations geared to protecting the elderly. They include:

Enlarging letters on street signs from 4 inches tall to 6 inches.
Installing more traffic lights so the elderly can better manage turns at busy intersections. Engineers estimate that during the next five years, sections of Phoenix, Las Vegas and Dallas will see a 10% increase in the number of signals.
Building "rescue islands" in the middle of wide streets so elderly pedestrians don't have to cross in one signal cycle.
"We don't want to impede traffic flow too much," NHTSA's Eberhard says. "But safety has to be the top priority. Until we build communities where the elderly are close to everything they need, education and engineering are our best options."

Caroline Bolton appreciates the concern, but she says it's not necessary. "I drive fine," she harrumphs, noting that until 1990, when she was 70, she held a pilot's license and flew a single-engine Piper Cub. Today she shuttles her husband, who uses a wheelchair, to and from the hospital.

Because of his condition, Bolton received a blue handicapped placard. But she rarely whips out "bluey" unless there's no parking at the mall or the bakery, where she is now headed for lunch.

"We don't need special treatment," she says, grabbing her coat and purse. "They should watch out for those kids driving. They're the dangerous ones. As long as I'm careful and feel good, no one is going to stop me from driving."

http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/us/elderlydie.htm

I think all people over a certain age should be required to take a driving test. Yes, I'll feel the same way when I'm 50. I was talking with my grandmother and great aunt yesterday (who, of course, are both over 50) and they agree that there should be a driving test for those who get to a certain age. I don't think at all that's it's being a bit discriminatory. If that's being disciminatory, then maybe senior citizen discounts should be taken away, seeing as that's being discriminatory to anyone under a certain age.

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
I think all people over a certain age should be required to take a driving test. Yes, I'll feel the same way when I'm 50. 50?:confused:Are You saying that 50 is the age when you think that requirement should kick in?

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
If that's being disciminatory, then maybe senior citizen discounts should be taken away, seeing as that's being discriminatory to anyone under a certain age.
:yeahthat Great point Lacey!

Originally posted by Kitt
50?:confused:Are You saying that 50 is the age when you think that requirement should kick in?
I do, so get cracking on that road test Kitt. Kidding ;).
I think it should be 65 or whatever age that statistics establish when seniors begin having the most age-related accidents.

Originally posted by Kitt
50?:confused:Are You saying that 50 is the age when you think that requirement should kick in?

No, I was talking about where GeeBee was asking if Liza would feel the same way when she was 50.

Originally posted by Janice
I think it should be 65 or whatever age that statistics establish when seniors begin having the most age-related accidents.

Agreed.

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
No, I was talking about where GeeBee was asking if Liza would feel the same way when she was 50. Oh, allrightythen. :cool:

Originally posted by Kitt
If you so well understand the danger in driving under any degree of influence, why are you having trouble understanding the dangers of driving with diminished capacity brought on by old age? To test elderly drivers capacity to drive would be for their own protection as well as everyone elses. Wouldn't you agree? So how would that be being unkind or disrespectful of the elderly in our society?


Why is testing the elderly on the table, but not zero alcohol influence? Because people who drink alcohol wouldn't stand for it?

Why can't everyone be tested along with the elderly? I've yet to hear any reason why these more frequent tests should not apply to ALL drivers (Except maybe others don't feel they could live up to the standards they've set for the elderly).

Originally posted by Janice
Kitt, Liza and TJL have covered my feelings on the elderly and driving, so I'll make it brief. I believe, after a certain age, probably 65, a road test should be mandatory to protect the elderly and the public.
My husband will be 65 in two years, so it would affect my life. I know he would pass a test, but if he didn't, I wouldn't want him on the road.
I don't think it should be a complicated process involving written tests--just a simple half hour road test.
To make sure that the instructor or the driver wasn't having a bad day, a second test should be allowed.





Why shouldn't all drivers of all ages have that same road test?

Originally posted by GeeBee
Why is testing the elderly on the table, but not zero alcohol influence? Because people who drink alcohol wouldn't stand for it?

Why can't everyone be tested along with the elderly? I've yet to hear any reason why these more frequent tests should not apply to ALL drivers (Except maybe others don't feel they could live up to the standards they've set for the elderly).
Because the elderly are a high risk category for accidents. Generally, the government should stay out of people's faces to the extent feasible, except where there is a strong reason not to, such as public safety issues.

Originally posted by Janice
I do, so get cracking on that road test Kitt. Kidding ;).
I think it should be 65 or whatever age that statistics establish when seniors begin having the most age-related accidents.


People are INDIVIDUALS, not statistics. Every individual driver should be tested individually and EQUALLY on their own merit. There's a rush to punish the innocent for the good.

Originally posted by BrandonS
Because the elderly are a high risk category for accidents. Generally, the government should stay out of people's faces to the extent feasible, except where there is a strong reason not to, such as public safety issues.


Generally the government should stay out of people's faces except when YOU say so. Funny how many others have this same idea.

Even if what you were saying was right and the elderly needed more driving tests, why not just apply these additional tests to younger and middle age drivers as well? If safety is your main concern, why would you be opposed to raising the standards across the board?

Originally posted by GeeBee
Why shouldn't all drivers of all ages have that same road test?
Refer to the USA Today article that I posted on the previous page. Statistics prove that a lot of eldery people pose a threat on the road.
I speak from experience. My husband's father died in a car crash six years ago. He was 78, and we were concerned about his terrible driving, but he wouldn't listen to anyone.
Before he crashed into a pole at an intersection, he sideswiped another vehicle. Fortunately, the occupants of that vehicle were not hurt, but my father-in-law's car burst into flames. He was burned beyond recognition.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Why shouldn't all drivers of all ages have that same road test? We already posted the answers to that. Did you read them? People bewteen the ages of 16 and 64, or so, don't experience the diminshing faculties that people over 65, or so, do experience. Those numbers are general but they are backed up by most any studies on the matter; not just or only in regards to driving skills.

Why would you want people of all ages to take the road test if it would cost billions of dollars and huge amounts of man-hours to implement, when it has been proven to be unecessary?

Originally posted by Liza
Ummm... right. You still yelled at us for no reason. :rolleyes: How and where did I act like I'm "the only one who cares about children getting killed my motorists"???? It seems to me you just completely made that up.

Now, the reason I don't think everyone should have to take a driving test at this moment is simple: it's not pracitcal. Are you saying that everyone - now - at this moment should go out and take a test? For one thing there are no where near enough facilities to test all of America. That's why I think we should all agree on one age - say, 70 - where all Americans are required to take a refresher course on driving. Just to make sure that after fifty years of driving they're still alright. It's not prejudice. And everyone WILL be taking this test when they reach that age. I'll be first in line. :wave:


I'm saying that whatever policies are created for elderly motorists should apply to ALL motorists of ANY age. It can only increase safety to have more tests for everyone. That's equality and fair play and if you were truly a proud Democrat, you would understand this.

Originally posted by Kitt
We already posted the answers to that. Did you read them? People bewteen the ages of 16 and 64, or so, don't experience the diminshing faculties that people over 65, or so, do experience. Those numbers are general but they are backed up by most any studies on the matter; not just or only in regards to driving skills.

Why would you want people of all ages to take the road test if it would cost billions of dollars and huge amounts of man-hours to implement, when it has been proven to be unecessary?


Because it would weed SOME dangerous drivers out who are not elderly. If safety is your number one goal, and you're willing to compromise the rights of the elderly, you should be willing to spare no expense for it too.

Originally posted by laceyinthesky


I don't think at all that's it's being a bit discriminatory. If that's being disciminatory, then maybe senior citizen discounts should be taken away, seeing as that's being discriminatory to anyone under a certain age.


That's an idea, but you miss the point. The whole idea of senior citizen discounts was that people of a certain age have put their time into society and now deserve to get something back. The idea was never to reduce the elderly to children that need to be told what's good for them and given fewer rights.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Because it would weed SOME dangerous drivers out who are not elderly. If safety is your number one goal, and you're willing to compromise the rights of the elderly, you should be willing to spare no expense for it too. In a society you have to make compromises. If you don't then the society folds under the weight. By your standard -- which seems to me at this point to be an argument for the sake of argument -- everythng in a society should be all or nothing, disregarding anything and everything that we learn through experience. By your standard no one should be allowed to drive at all because someone might get hurt. Who is going to pay for this unecessary mlti-billion dollar fairzeys test of yours? If you honestly believe that that is how it should be applied then we could come up with lots of other virtually if not entirely unecessary expenses for the sake of "fairness" that we can all collapse under the weight of.

Originally posted by GeeBee
People are INDIVIDUALS, not statistics.
I hate to break the news to you, but in the grand scheme of things, people are statistics. It's not a dirty word. Statistics are used to determine society's needs and to establish policies.
If statistics showed that drivers in their 40s posed the biggest threat on the road, I would want that age group tested, and I'm in my 40s, and I'm not just saying that.

Originally posted by GeeBee
if you were truly a proud Democrat, you would understand this.

You SO do NOT want to pick on me. I am warning you. I've gotten through enough trash about me being a democrat and what not, don't you even start on me. It's not my fault that your arguments are unrealistic and you fail to read or understand what we say.

Originally posted by Kitt
In a society you have to make compromises. If you don't then the society folds under the weight. By your standard -- which seems to me at this point to be an argument for the sake of argument -- everythng in a society should be all or nothing, disregarding anything and everything that we learn through experience. By your standard no one should be allowed to drive at all because someone might get hurt. Who is going to pay for this unecessary mlti-billion dollar fairzeys test of yours? If you honestly believe that that is how it should be applied then we could come up with lots of other virtually if not entirely unecessary expenses for the sake of "fairness" that we can all collapse under the weight of.

No, what gets me is that the"compromises" are always made by the people in power and the people who have to give something up are always the "others". You're more than willing to impose all of these higher restrictions on the elderly, but I've heard very little about anything YOU are willing to give up to make the roads safer, my friend.

Originally posted by Janice
I hate to break the news to you, but in the grand scheme of things, people are statistics. It's not a dirty word. Statistics are used to determine society's needs and to establish policies.
If statistics showed that drivers in their 40s posed the biggest threat on the road, I would want that age group tested, and I'm in my 40s, and I'm not just saying that.


And you know what they say,

"There are truth, lies, and then there are statistics." They can be manipulated and twisted. Always remember that. I believe an individual is what really matters.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Generally the government should stay out of people's faces except when YOU say so.
GeeBee,

Point out where in my post I suggested that I should be the judge, or admit that you simply put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Liza
You SO do NOT want to pick on me. I am warning you. I've gotten through enough trash about me being a democrat and what not, don't you even start on me. It's not my fault that your arguments are unrealistic and you fail to read or understand what we say.


I am a Democrat too. A big reason I'm a Democrat is because I believe it is the party that stands for the rights of others including the elderly.

Originally posted by Kitt
In a society you have to make compromises. If you don't then the society folds under the weight. By your standard -- which seems to me at this point to be an argument for the sake of argument -- everythng in a society should be all or nothing, disregarding anything and everything that we learn through experience. By your standard no one should be allowed to drive at all because someone might get hurt. Who is going to pay for this unecessary mlti-billion dollar fairzeys test of yours? If you honestly believe that that is how it should be applied then we could come up with lots of other virtually if not entirely unecessary expenses for the sake of "fairness" that we can all collapse under the weight of.

BRAVO!!!

Well said, Kitt :wave:

Originally posted by GeeBee
No, what gets me is that the"compromises" are always made by the people in power and the people who have to give something up are always the "others". You're more than willing to impose all of these higher restrictions on the elderly, but I've heard very little about anything YOU are willing to give up to make the roads safer, my friend. You aren't paying attention to the discussion. You don't seem to have read the USA Today article or much of what he rest of us have written. We, some of us, have had first hand experience with the dangers that elderly drivers pose to themselves and others. All of the rules of the road are legislated rules. Some of them I no doubt disagree with, but I have to follow them anyway. What else is it that I should "give up" and why? Is this just a game of wills, or are we talking common sense here? I can't tell if you are serious or just going on for the heck of it.

The people in power are supposed to be the people. If you believe that all drivers of all ages should be road tested, then write your congressman and your Senators. Speaking of peope in power: the AARP, or whatever it is called nowadays, is one of the largest and most powerful lobbying organizations in America. Elderly people weild a geat deal of power, and they vote in large numbers.

Originally posted by GeeBee
I am a Democrat too. A big reason I'm a Democrat is because I believe it is the party that stands for the rights of others including the elderly.

Well that's just grand, but saying that if I were truly a proud democrat I'd agree with you is pretty low.

Originally posted by GeeBee
And you know what they say,
"There are truth, lies, and then there are statistics." They can be manipulated and twisted. Always remember that. I believe an individual is what really matters.
I believe an individual matters too, and that's why I want safe roads for everyone, including the elderly.
I don't think the NSB is manipulating stats about the dangers of many elderly drivers posing a risk on our roads.
Most everything can be broken down into statistics. TJ can average the ratio of female to male members here, age groups, busiest posting times, etc. He determines what boards to create based on demographics and that sort of thing.
Statistics play a crucial role in many areas of our lives--from minor to major issues-medicine, education, and public safety issues.
Statistics prove unequivocally that elderly drivers are at a HIGHER risk for accidents; consequently, I think mandatory testing should be implemented.

Originally posted by Kitt
You aren't paying attention to the discussion. You don't seem to have read the USA Today article or much of what he rest of us have written. We, some of us, have had first hand experience with the dangers that elderly drivers pose to themselves and others. All of the rules of the road are legislated rules. Some of them I no doubt disagree with, but I have to follow them anyway. What else is it that I should "give up" and why? Is this just a game of wills, or are we talking common sense here? I can't tell if you are serious or just going on for the heck of it.

The people in power are supposed to be the people. If you believe that all drivers of all ages should be road tested, then write your congressman and your Senators. Speaking of peope in power: the AARP, or whatever it is called nowadays, is one of the largest and most powerful lobbying organizations in America. Elderly people weild a geat deal of power, and they vote in large numbers.


There are numerous horror stories about driving (and other every day activities) that involve people of ALL ages for MANY different reasons. I have had my experience with dangerous drivers of all types.

What I've heard around here is a bunch of elderly-bashing, but very little talk about giving up your radio, your cell phone, your right to drink a "legal amount" of alcohol, your right to drive through fast food, etc. It seems like if you were really concerned about road safety, you would be arguing for a "package" pf safety measures on the road, not just picking on the elderly.

Yes, thank God for the AARP because it gives the elderly SOME leverage in the ageist society. I think every law maker should take them into serious consideration before trying to pass any sweeping laws to compromise on their rights.

Originally posted by Kitt
You aren't paying attention to the discussion. You don't seem to have read the USA Today article or much of what he rest of us have written. We, some of us, have had first hand experience with the dangers that elderly drivers pose to themselves and others. All of the rules of the road are legislated rules. Some of them I no doubt disagree with, but I have to follow them anyway. What else is it that I should "give up" and why? Is this just a game of wills, or are we talking common sense here? I can't tell if you are serious or just going on for the heck of it.

The people in power are supposed to be the people. If you believe that all drivers of all ages should be road tested, then write your congressman and your Senators. Speaking of peope in power: the AARP, or whatever it is called nowadays, is one of the largest and most powerful lobbying organizations in America. Elderly people weild a geat deal of power, and they vote in large numbers.
Yeah, and that too :clap

Originally posted by GeeBee
There are numerous horror stories about driving (and other every day activities) that involve people of ALL ages for MANY different reasons. I have had my experience with dangerous drivers of all types.

What I've heard around here is a bunch of elderly-bashing, but very little talk about giving up your radio, your cell phone, your right to drink a "legal amount" of alcohol, your right to drive through fast food, etc. It seems like if you were really concerned about road safety, you would be arguing for a "package" pf safety measures on the road, not just picking on the elderly.

Yes, thank God for the AARP because it gives the elderly SOME leverage in the ageist society. I think every law maker should take them into serious consideration before trying to pass any sweeping laws to compromise on their rights.

What I've heard from you is someone who's determined to be offended. No one here is trying to pick on the elderly, but the plain fact is that statistics show that they are the most dangerous age set of drivers. Go ahead and find a statistic that says otherwise. I dare you. You're just so anxious to yell at us that you're not even presenting any real arguments to defend your point. How undemocratic! :lol:

Originally posted by GeeBee
There are numerous horror stories about driving (and other every day activities) that involve people of ALL ages for MANY different reasons.
That's anecdotal, not scientific. Next you'll be telling us that your mother's hairdresser knew someone who knew someone.... Everyone's statistics show that the elderly are a high risk group for traffic accidents. Therefore, there is a motivation to have them take a periodic test. We don't give everyone an annual test for the same reason we don't give everyone a test ten times a year - because there's no rational reason to inconvenience them in this way.

Originally posted by Liza
Well that's just grand, but saying that if I were truly a proud democrat I'd agree with you is pretty low.

Well, I'm sorry if I crossed the line on that one. I didn't mean for it to be that hurtful. The rights of the elderly is just something that I (obviously) feel strongly about and I don't think that they have much chance from the political Right so I think the Left needs to stick together. But, I am sorry if I hurt you.

Originally posted by GeeBee
There are numerous horror stories about driving (and other every day activities) that involve people of ALL ages for MANY different reasons. I have had my experience with dangerous drivers of all types.

What I've heard around here is a bunch of elderly-bashing, but very little talk about giving up your radio, your cell phone, your right to drink a "legal amount" of alcohol, your right to drive through fast food, etc. It seems like if you were really concerned about road safety, you would be arguing for a "package" pf safety measures on the road, not just picking on the elderly.

Yes, thank God for the AARP because it gives the elderly SOME leverage in the ageist society. I think every law maker should take them into serious consideration before trying to pass any sweeping laws to compromise on their rights. I have't seen any of this old people bashing non-sense you keep applying to us all. You aren't discussing, you're making the rules as we go along. You're wearing earplugs and a blindfold for everything that goes against your goal of being the Robinhood of your version of what elderly people's needs and wants are. Put your slings and arrows away, Robin, your tips are dull and your aim is poor.

Originally posted by Janice


TJ can average the ratio of female to male members here, age groups, busiest posting times, etc.

So, do you think there should be discrimination on the basis of gender too? Because I guarantee you, as we go down this slippery slope, that's where it's going to wind up.

Originally posted by Liza
What I've heard from you is someone who's determined to be offended. No one here is trying to pick on the elderly, but the plain fact is that statistics show that they are the most dangerous age set of drivers. Go ahead and find a statistic that says otherwise. I dare you. You're just so anxious to yell at us that you're not even presenting any real arguments to defend your point. How undemocratic! :lol:


The bottom line is that EVERY individual elderly driver is not to blame and to single them out just because they're in a particular age group is just as evil as racial profiling as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Well, I'm sorry if I crossed the line on that one. I didn't mean for it to be that hurtful. The rights of the elderly is just something that I (obviously) feel strongly about and I don't think that they have much chance from the political Right so I think the Left needs to stick together. But, I am sorry if I hurt you.

Apology accepted, thank you :) And I'm sorry but it's something I am a little touchy about. I support rights for the elderly too, honestly, I'm just trying to be realistic about it. I have my own experiences of why I think there should be something done to protect motorists. :wave:

Originally posted by BrandonS
That's anecdotal, not scientific. Next you'll be telling us that your mother's hairdresser knew someone who knew someone.... Everyone's statistics show that the elderly are a high risk group for traffic accidents. Therefore, there is a motivation to have them take a periodic test. We don't give everyone an annual test for the same reason we don't give everyone a test ten times a year - because there's no rational reason to inconvenience them in this way.


Ah, for everyone else it's an inconvenience. It's obvious that others are reluctant to live up to the driving standards that are prescribed for the elderly.

Originally posted by Liza
Apology accepted, thank you :) And I'm sorry but it's something I am a little touchy about. I support rights for the elderly too, honestly, I'm just trying to be realistic about it. I have my own experiences of why I think there should be something done to protect motorists. :wave:

It's okay. Things get wild in the heat of the moment. I just hate for any American citizen to lose even a portion of their dignity.:wave:

Originally posted by GeeBee
The bottom line is that EVERY individual elderly driver is not to blame and to single them out just because they're in a particular age group is just as evil as racial profiling as far as I'm concerned.

You honestly can't see how the one might be related to the other? How an 89-year-old man might not be as good a driver as a 30 year old man? The 89 year old man has to take some things very slow, and can't always react very quickly. He also hasn't had a driving test in 70 years. It's not the same thing at all as racial profiling. Race is something that would have no effect at all on a person's driving ability. Age does. That's not being prejudiced or discriminatory, it's the truth.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Ah, for everyone else it's an inconvenience. It's obvious that others are reluctant to live up to the driving standards that are prescribed for the elderly.
Alright, I'll go slower. It's an inconvenience for everybody, but in the case of people in "at risk" groups, there's a reason to do it.

Originally posted by GeeBee
So, do you think there should be discrimination on the basis of gender too?
I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant twisting of words than what you posted here.
Read my post again. This time, don't pretend you don't know what I was conveying and don't put words in my mouth.
Nice try, not.

Originally posted by GeeBee
That's an idea, but you miss the point. The whole idea of senior citizen discounts was that people of a certain age have put their time into society and now deserve to get something back. The idea was never to reduce the elderly to children that need to be told what's good for them and given fewer rights.

I never said anything about reducing the elderly to children. How come middle aged people don't get rewarded for the time they put into work, then?

Are you sure you're not Fleet masquerading as a democrat?

Nobody ever said anything about taking all elderly people's license away, just testing to see if they're still capable of driving. If they pass, great! If they don't, they shouldn't be driving. It's already proven and been stated on this board that people's abilities start to diminish as they grow old.

If you're still so adamant about everyone of all ages being treated the same, then how come people have to be a certain age to get social security? ..Because they're losing their ability to perform tasks at work? Who's to say that they're not losing their ability to perform other tasks unless we test them?

Originally posted by BrandonS
Alright, I'll go slower.
:rotflmao:

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
Are you sure you're not Fleet masquerading as a democrat?


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lol: :rotflmao:

(I was actually thinkin the same thing!) :happyface

Originally posted by Liza
You honestly can't see how the one might be related to the other? How an 89-year-old man might not be as good a driver as a 30 year old man? The 89 year old man has to take some things very slow, and can't always react very quickly. He also hasn't had a driving test in 70 years. It's not the same thing at all as racial profiling. Race is something that would have no effect at all on a person's driving ability. Age does. That's not being prejudiced or discriminatory, it's the truth.

Not exactly, but I've there are people who argue that statistics show more crime is committed by people of certain races and therefore must be stopped and questioned more. I've always argued that the main issue was the individual and everyone deserved an individual benefit of the doubt. Quite often, discriminatory practices are motivated by fear. When we put Japanese Americans in detainment camps during WW2, that was about fear. When we talk about profiling people of Middle Eastern dissent, that too is motivated by fear. And yes, I think when we suggest that the standards should be higher for the elderly, that too is motivated by fear. I'm all for safety, but whatever we're trying to insure, be it less crime, less terrorism, or safer roads, we need policies that raise the standards for everyone and treat every individual fairly.

Originally posted by GeeBee
I just hate for any American citizen to lose even a portion of their dignity.:wave:
...and I hate for anyone to lose their life because someone who is driving, should not be doing so.

Originally posted by Liza
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lol: :rotflmao:

(I was actually thinkin the same thing!) :happyface

There are an amazing amount of similarities between them lol..

Originally posted by laceyinthesky



If you're still so adamant about everyone of all ages being treated the same, then how come people have to be a certain age to get social security? ..Because they're losing their ability to perform tasks at work? Who's to say that they're not losing their ability to perform other tasks unless we test them?


Not necessarily. I am very much opposed to mandatory retirement. The idea of voluntary retirement and social security is the idea that people of a certain age are entitled to take it easy after working most of their lives. Social Security by the way is simply the collection of one's own money that has been put into the system.

The problem is that social security and many retirement plans don't pay a living wage and so they give the elderly "senior discounts" as an attempt to compensate and everyone calls this a great privilege.

Originally posted by Janice
...and I hate for anyone to lose their life because someone who is driving, should not be doing so.

So do I. Let's make ANY amount of alcohol consumption illegal when someone is behind the wheel. THEN let's talk about the elderly.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Not necessarily. I am very much opposed to mandatory retirement. The idea of voluntary retirement and social security is the idea that people of a certain age are entitled to take it easy after working most of their lives. Social Security by the way is simply the collection of one's own money that has been put into the system.

The problem is that social security and many retirement plans don't pay a living wage and so they give the elderly "senior discounts" as an attempt to compensate and everyone calls this a great privilege.

I know what SS is. People can still work or make money if they want to. What you said was not even what I was meaning. Why is there mandatory retirement?

Originally posted by GeeBee
The problem is that social security and many retirement plans don't pay a living wage and so they give the elderly "senior discounts" as an attempt to compensate and everyone calls this a great privilege.
So you're saying that, statistically, elderly people tend to have less money, and that that statistic should be acted on, right?

Originally posted by GeeBee
So do I. Let's make ANY amount of alcohol consumption illegal when someone is behind the wheel. THEN let's talk about the elderly.

How many people have been killed by someone who's under or at the legal alcohol level?

Originally posted by Janice
I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant twisting of words than what you posted here.
Read my post again. This time, don't pretend you don't know what I was conveying and don't put words in my mouth.
Nice try, not.


I know that many of the negative stereotypes applied to elderly drivers have also been applied to women drivers.

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
How many people have been killed by someone who's under or at the legal alcohol level?


I don't know offhand, but I think it would be well worth investigating. Common sense should tell everyone that no amount of a recreational mind altering substance should be consumed when someone is behind the wheel.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Quite often, discriminatory practices are motivated by fear. When we put Japanese Americans in detainment camps during WW2, that was about fear. When we talk about profiling people of Middle Eastern dissent, that too is motivated by fear. And yes, I think when we suggest that the standards should be higher for the elderly, that too is motivated by fear. I'm all for safety, but whatever we're trying to insure, be it less crime, less terrorism, or safer roads, we need policies that raise the standards for everyone and treat every individual fairly. The idea of testing the elderly isn't motivated by the irrational fears that you are using to make your case. All statistics aren't garbage in, garbage out. The stats that this discussion has been about, the statls that you choose to ignore, are for real. They aren't racially or elderly-bashing motivated. You're using a comparison with the Japanese concentration camps of WWII, to having the elderly take road tests? Ohhh, brrrrother!
At what age do you think we should allow kids to drink and smoke legally? 2, 5, 9? What would be fair in your fairness and equal application of the law in your world?

Originally posted by GeeBee
I know that many of the negative stereotypes applied to elderly drivers have also been applied to women drivers.

I haven't seen any negative stereotypes about anything.

Ok then, if all drivers should be treated the same, how come insurance is more expensive for teenage drivers? Because statistically teenagers drivers aren't as capable as say, a driver who's 30?

Originally posted by GeeBee
I don't know offhand, but I think it would be well worth investigating. Common sense should tell everyone that no amount of a recreational mind altering substance should be consumed when someone is behind the wheel.

So do you never drive when you take allergy medicine?

Originally posted by GeeBee
THEN let's talk about the elderly. We have been talking about the elderly. Hard to tell what you've been talking about.

Originally posted by Kitt
The idea of testing the elderly isn't motivated by the irrational fears that you are using to make your case. All statistics aren't garbage in, garbage out. The stats that this discussion has been about, the statls that you choose to ignore, are for real. They aren't racially or elderly-bashing motivated. You're using a comparison with the Japanese concentration camps of WWII, to having the elderly take road tests? Ohhh, brrrrother!
At what age do you think we should allow kids to drink and smoke legally? 2, 5, 9? What would be fair in your fairness and equal application of the law in your world?

I'm talking about treating all ADULTS equally. Children and teen-agers sometimes need to be protected so they will be ready for the adult world. What everyone seems to forget is that the elderly are ADULTS, not CHILDREN.

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
So do you never drive when you take allergy medicine?

Actually, I don't. But, for some, there could be a rationale for taking such medicine if the allergies themselves would interfere with their ability to drive more than the meds.

But, I was talking about alcohol as a totally recreational drug and serving no purpose besides our own enjoyment. I fail to see how that justifies putting everyone else in danger.

Originally posted by GeeBee
What everyone seems to forget is that the elderly are ADULTS, not CHILDREN. Everyone who? What is it with you that all you can do is put words in people's mouths. If you are incapable of answering people's posts in a way that actually relates to what they say then give it up. Please!?

Originally posted by GeeBee
I'm talking about treating all ADULTS equally.
But all adults are not actually equal in driving ability. It is almost certain that someone who's 86 is not as capable a driver as when he was 30. To ignore scientific facts is more prejudiced than being objective and taking them into account.

Originally posted by GeeBee
I don't know offhand, but I think it would be well worth investigating. Common sense should tell everyone that no amount of a recreational mind altering substance should be consumed when someone is behind the wheel.

offtopic:

But I honestly don't see how my having one glass of wine with dinner and then driving home is the same thing as my 78 year old grandmother who can't always remember what a stop sign means.

Originally posted by GeeBee
But, I was talking about alcohol as a totally recreational drug and serving no purpose besides our own enjoyment. I fail to see how that justifies putting everyone else in danger.

You've still failed to show me how being under the legal alcohol level is putting everyone else in danger.

Most everyone else here has already concluded by statistics that some elderly people aren't as capable of driving as they should be, and that there would be no harm in simply testing them to make sure of their abilities.

Originally posted by BrandonS
But all adults are not actually equal in driving ability. It is almost certain that someone who's 86 is not as capable a driver as when he was 30. To ignore scientific facts is more prejudiced than being objective and taking them into account.


No, all adults are definitely not equal in driving ability. And if you look at individual cases, you will find SOME individual seniors who drive better than SOME young and middle aged motorists. If we raised the testing standards for ALL drivers, we could insure exactly which drivers should be behind the wheel and which shouldn't. If it turns out that most of the people who fail such tests are elderly, so be it, but let's give everyone the same benefit of the doubt and a fair opportunity to prove themselves.

Originally posted by GeeBee
....And if you look at individual cases, you will find SOME individual seniors who drive better than SOME young and middle aged motorists....
And some monkeys are smarter than some humans, but mostly they're not.

Originally posted by BrandonS
And some monkeys are smarter than some humans, but mostly they're not.


Well, I knew the elderly were being regarded as children, but I didn't think they were considered to be animals.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Well, I knew the elderly were being regarded as children, but I didn't think they were considered to be animals.
Who is considering them to be animals? I certainly didn't compare the elderly to animals. By what reasoning do you arrive at this?

Originally posted by BrandonS
Who is considering them to be animals? I certainly didn't compare the elderly to animals. By what reasoning do you arrive at this?


I know that humans and monkeys are a very poor choice to use as an analogy for the young and old.

Originally posted by GeeBee
I know that humans and monkeys are a very poor choice to use as an analogy for the young and old.
If it conveys the intended point clearly, and in no way implies that the elderly are similar to monkeys, then it seems to me that it's a good choice.

Originally posted by BrandonS
And some monkeys are smarter than some humans, but mostly they're not.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Brandon, that's great! The only thing that made me laugh harder was his reply! :rotflmao:

Originally posted by GeeBee
Well, I knew the elderly were being regarded as children, but I didn't think they were considered to be animals.

GeeBee, that is the best example I've ever seen of twisting words and completely managing to miss the point. :lol:

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
You've still failed to show me how being under the legal alcohol level is putting everyone else in danger.




The main danger is that people can start off intending to stick with the legal limit and then unwittingly go over. Some people think they're within the legal limit when they've actually gone beyond it. Most people do not have ways to precisely measure it. If all alcohol consumption behind the wheel was illegal, then there could be no confusion. But, we know that's not going to happen because people like the convenience of stopping at that local bar on their way home from work. Instead we focus on taking rights away from the elderly because such policies won't effect us (at least not for some years).

Originally posted by GeeBee
Instead we focus on taking rights away from the elderly....
What rights? The right to drive a car if they're unable to? Your way will get people killed.

Originally posted by GeeBee
The main danger is that people can start off intending to stick with the legal limit and then unwittingly go over. Some people think they're within the legal limit when they've actually gone beyond it. Most people do not have ways to precisely measure it. If all alcohol consumption behind the wheel was illegal, then there could be no confusion. But, we know that's not going to happen because people like the convenience of stopping at that local bar on their way home from work. Instead we focus on taking rights away from the elderly because such policies won't effect us (at least not for some years).

Are you SURE you're not Fleet? Come on, is it asking too much to have you stick to the topic?

Originally posted by BrandonS
What rights? The right to drive a car if they're unable to? Your way will get people killed.


No, the right to have the same testing standards of any age group. Whoever fails, fails, but let them all be tested the same.

Originally posted by Liza
Are you SURE you're not Fleet? Come on, is it asking too much to have you stick to the topic?


I thought the overall topic was motor safety. Why should such a discussion only be about the elderly? The ultimate goal is saving lives, right?

Originally posted by GeeBee
No, the right to have the same testing standards of any age group. Whoever fails, fails, but let them all be tested the same.

So you think everyone in the US should drop everything and run out and take a driving test? The drivers' ed facilities will love that. Whats wrong with having it a law that says everyone must take two tests: one when they're 16 and one when they're 70?

Originally posted by GeeBee
No, the right to have the same testing standards of any age group. Whoever fails, fails, but let them all be tested the same.
So you propose dragging millions of people into driving agencies for testing when the odds of them being impaired is small? Or perhaps you propose not testing people who are quite likely to be experiencing problems, and letting them go out and have accidents.

Originally posted by GeeBee
I thought the overall topic was motor safety. Why should such a discussion only be about the elderly? The ultimate goal is saving lives, right?

Okay, so not only are you not reading what we say - you haven't even read he topic of this thread????

In case you've forgotten, the title is "The Elderly and Driving" no where does it mention alcohol except in your messages.

Originally posted by Liza
So you think everyone in the US should drop everything and run out and take a driving test? The drivers' ed facilities will love that. Whats wrong with having it a law that says everyone must take two tests: one when they're 16 and one when they're 70?


Whatever the safety standards that are decided upon should apply to all motorists. If the elderly must take annual tests, everyone else should too. If they take 10 year tests, everyone else should too. I see no harm in raising the standards for everyone. People who aren't elderly are such expert drivers, they'll whiz right though it.

Originally posted by Liza
Okay, so not only are you not reading what we say - you haven't even read he topic of this thread????

In case you've forgotten, the title is "The Elderly and Driving" no where does it mention alcohol except in your messages.


You can't talk about the elderly and driving without discussing other aspects of driving as well. If safety is the main concern, we should put it all on the table.

Originally posted by GeeBee
The main danger is that people can start off intending to stick with the legal limit and then unwittingly go over. Some people think they're within the legal limit when they've actually gone beyond it. Most people do not have ways to precisely measure it. If all alcohol consumption behind the wheel was illegal, then there could be no confusion. Anyone can read the amount of alcohol that they can consume and stay under the limit of blood alcohol level. The graphs are available on the internet, in bars, probably even in drug stores and liquor stores. The amount you consume over a certain amount of time, and depending on your body weight is what it is based on. So now you're saying we should all be treated like children who either can't or won't read? You're saying that we are incapable of taking the initiative to gain this knowledge for ourselves so the law must be zero %. "Then there will be no confusion". You've contradicted yourself enough times to give us all a headache.:wallbang :grr: :groucho

Originally posted by GeeBee
Whatever the safety standards that are decided upon should apply to all motorists. If the elderly must take annual tests, everyone else should too. If they take 10 year tests, everyone else should too. I see no harm in raising the standards for everyone. People who aren't elderly are such expert drivers, they'll whiz right though it.

And everyone WILL take the extra test: when they reach that certain age :lol: You simply can't have everyone in the United States take a driving test at the same time - there is no where near the resources for that. Everyone should have a certain age where they're required by law to take a refresher course. I don't think they should have t take annual tests, that's not fair. But everyone should have at least one extra class at some point.

Originally posted by BrandonS
So you propose dragging millions of people into driving agencies for testing when the odds of them being impaired is small? Or perhaps you propose not testing people who are quite likely to be experiencing problems, and letting them go out and have accidents.


Maybe you need to take a good look at how people who are young and middle aged drive on that road before you say that the odds of their being impaired is small.

Originally posted by Liza
And everyone WILL take the extra test: when they reach that certain age :lol: You simply can't have everyone in the United States take a driving test at the same time - there is no where near the resources for that. Everyone should have a certain age where they're required by law to take a refresher course. I don't think they should have t take annual tests, that's not fair. But everyone should have at least one extra class at some point.


Everyone won't take it at the same time. Everyone will have a designated date a year from the time they got their license. All motorists should have higher standards.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Maybe you need to take a good look at how people who are young and middle aged drive on that road before you say that the odds of their being impaired is small.

Maybe YOU should actually read through all the statistics before you contradict it.

Originally posted by Kitt
Anyone can read the amount of alcohol that they can consume and stay under the limit of blood alcohol level. The graphs are available on the internet, in bars, probably even in drug stores and liquor stores. The amount you consume over a certain amount of time, and depending on your body weight is what it is based on. So now you're saying we should all be treated like children who either can't or won't read? You're saying that we are incapable of taking the initiative to gain this knowledge for ourselves so the law must be zero %. "Then there will be no confusion". You've contradicted yourself enough times to give us all a headache.:wallbang :grr: :groucho


If you're going to discriminate against the elderly, I think zero percent alcohol consumption is fair game too. You're the one that wanted to go down this slippery slope.

Originally posted by Liza
Maybe YOU should actually read through all the statistics before you contradict it.


I'm more worried about individuals.

Originally posted by GeeBee
If you're going to discriminate against the elderly, I think zero percent alcohol consumption is fair game too. You're the one that wanted to go down this slippery slope.

Why do I feel that talking to you is like pounding my head against a wall?

*Sighs* Yet again,

Where do you see any evidence of ANYONE on this board discriminating against the elderly? Where? Where? Where? All we've said is that the statistics show that they're not that good of drivers. So far you yourself haven't contradicted that.

Originally posted by GeeBee
If you're going to discriminate against the elderly, I think zero percent alcohol consumption is fair game too. You're the one that wanted to go down this slippery slope. Following the obvious statistics that we've sighted is not a slippery slope nor is it discrimniation. Why don't you quit misstating everything. You don't answer the questions you just say stuff like you just said to me. "You're the one...slippery slope". You labeled it a slippery slope, not me, and I'm not buying it, so it's your baby.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Maybe you need to take a good look at how people who are young and middle aged drive on that road before you say that the odds of their being impaired is small.
Not sure what you mean. The accident rates in various demographic groups are known and in the public domain. I don't have to do a personal evaluation by getting in my car. I just have to look up the statistics, which I have. You seem to be unaware of the existence of science.

Originally posted by Liza
Why do I feel that talking to you is like pounding my head against a wall?

*Sighs* Yet again,

Where do you see any evidence of ANYONE on this board discriminating against the elderly? Where? Where? Where? All we've said is that the statistics show that they're not that good of drivers. So far you yourself haven't contradicted that.


This whole thread is about scapegoating the elderly. An individual elderly man does something terrible on the road and all of a sudden every elderly driver is a problem.

As I've said before, I'm concerned about individuals. No elderly person should have to go through extra testing because he belongs to a group that's supposedly high risk by statistics. All drivers should be tested individually on their own merits.

Again, when you get into issues about one group outnumbering the other in accidents, crime, etc. you can wind up with a police state that holds whole groups accountable for the actions of individuals. We've seen it happen before.

Originally posted by GeeBee
This whole thread is about scapegoating the elderly. An individual elderly man does something terrible on the road and all of a sudden every elderly driver is a problem.
What a mammoth distortion! The correct version of what you said above is that statistically elderly drivers have a bad record, and therefore statistically elderly drivers have a bad record.

Originally posted by GeeBee
This whole thread is about scapegoating the elderly. An individual elderly man does something terrible on the road and all of a sudden every elderly driver is a problem.

As I've said before, I'm concerned about individuals. No elderly person should have to go through extra testing because he belongs to a group that's supposedly high risk by statistics. All drivers should be tested individually on their own merits.

Again, when you get into issues about one group outnumbering the other in accidents, crime, etc. you can wind up with a police state that holds whole groups accountable for the actions of individuals. We've seen it happen before. Quit using your 'police state' and 'stastistics count for nothing' non-sense. Do you not believe that the capacity to concentrate diminishes as people get older? You hide behind your incorrect belief that we are incapable of learning anything from experience. All statistics in your view are pulled out of thin air. They are only discrimantory lies made up by evil people. Answer real questions. We arent' talkng about blacks and crime we're talking about a proven fact that no one who is willing to be honest will disagree with. Elderly people have a substantially higher accident rate than younger people do.

Some people are required to wear glasses or contacts when they drive. It says so on their drivers license. Should everyone be required to take yearly tests of there eyesight at the DMV just to be fair? :confused: :crazy:

Since you don't believe in statistics, which way do you want to win your argument? Do you want everyone tested once a year and spend mulitbilliions of dollars that no one actually has? Or, do you want no one tested, including elderly 65 to 95 year old drivers after the age of 16?

Wow, you folks have been quite busy since I last checked in...

Quite an interesting discussion.

;)

I don't drive because i can't handle the respobilitily. I see so many people of all ages failing to follow basic traffic laws by not using turn signals and failing to yield to pedestrians. I read something about a 86 year old person who did not want to keep driving but there was no public transportaion in their area. For the elderly who does not want to drive they need make it easier for them to get around without a car. I believe shoud have take through eye exam and refreshar test everytime they renew their license.

Originally posted by Kitt
Quit using your 'police state' and 'stastistics count for nothing' non-sense. Do you not believe that the capacity to concentrate diminishes as people get older? You hide behind your incorrect belief that we are incapable of learning anything from experience. All statistics in your view are pulled out of thin air. They are only discrimantory lies made up by evil people. Answer real questions. We arent' talkng about blacks and crime we're talking about a proven fact that no one who is willing to be honest will disagree with. Elderly people have a substantially higher accident rate than younger people do.

Some people are required to wear glasses or contacts when they drive. It says so on their drivers license. Should everyone be required to take yearly tests of there eyesight at the DMV just to be fair? :confused: :crazy:

Since you don't believe in statistics, which way do you want to win your argument? Do you want everyone tested once a year and spend mulitbilliions of dollars that no one actually has? Or, do you want no one tested, including elderly 65 to 95 year old drivers after the age of 16?



My point is that it doesn't matter if statistically the elderly have more accidents (if this is even true); all that matters is that ALL elderly people are not bad drivers and ALL young and middle age people are not good drivers. Therefore, if any higher standards are going to be implemented, they should be implemented across the board. Your analogy to wearing glasses when driving is to silly to even comment on.

Age licence tests an 'unfair burden'
By Larissa Dubecki
June 18 2002


Compulsory licence testing for elderly drivers would impose an unfair burden on them and possibly be counterproductive, a parliamentary committee was told yesterday.

The Victorian Parliament's road safety committee was told that in states that retested elderly drivers, nervous drivers tended to give up their licences but aggressive drivers did not.

"Paradoxically, this may increase the rate of crashes," said National Ageing Research Institute's director of education, Peteris Darzins.

Victoria and the Northern Territory are the only places that do not have retesting.

Dr Darzins also rejected a suggestion that doctors be compelled to report elderly drivers with potentially dangerous medical conditions.


"It's very difficult to compel doctors to report and difficult to police the situation," he said.

"People could choose to avoid contact with the medical profession."

The inquiry into improving road safety for older road-users was told that the number of elderly driver crashes would increase with Victoria's ageing population.

Eighty-four per cent of older men and 44 per cent of older women hold a licence, but this percentage is expected to rise.

The State Government expects that in the next 15 years the number of licence holders older than 65 years will increase sixfold.

Road crash statistics show that relatively few older drivers are involved in fatal crashes, although based on the risk of a fatal crash by distance travelled, older drivers face a greater risk than other drivers.

But Dr Darzins said older people were far more likely to drive in high-risk areas such as urban streets rather than on divided highways. If this was taken into account, it would show older drivers were safer than young drivers.

The Human Services Department and the Ministerial Advisory Council of Senior Victorians also opposed compulsory licence retesting.

Holden engineering manager Laurie Sparke said elderly drivers were overrepresented in statistics of side-impact crashes, which were more likely to cause death or serious injury.

Elderly people were also more fragile and more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash.

But he dismissed the proposal that older drivers be compulsorily tested, saying various physical, cognitive and sensory capabilities began to deteriorate at age 20.

Originally posted by GeeBee
My point is that it doesn't matter if statistically the elderly have more accidents (if this is even true); all that matters is that ALL elderly people are not bad drivers and ALL young and middle age people are not good drivers. Therefore, if any higher standards are going to be implemented, they should be implemented across the board. Your analogy to wearing glasses when driving is to silly to even comment on. Your analogy to everything you've said is too silly to even comment on. If your grandpa is bald, and your other granpa is bald, .... good luck wearing your hair for the rest of your life. But then, statistics don''t matter. Do they?:mrt: :bonk: :stooges: :roller:

PERSPECTIVE NAPLES DAILY NEWS


Local guest commentary: The fact is, senior drivers are not more dangerous

Monday, June 2, 2003

By LLOYD DIXON, Naples


Senior drivers are getting a bad rap.

Yes, we're all frustrated by drivers who poke along in the passing lane, seemingly oblivious to all round them. But these are more often a younger person than a senior driver.

A recent letter to the editor from a young lady described the tragedy of her boyfriend's father killed in an accident involving a senior driver, and her own father injured earlier in a similar accident.

In a news story in the Daily News of May 25 regarding testing older drivers, staff writer Alan Zagier reports "elderly drivers statistically are among the most likely to be involved in car accidents." This statement is factually incorrect. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics available on the Internet ("Traffic Safety Facts 2000") do show that fatality rates per mile traveled rise sharply after age 70. (Indeed, the fatality rate in the 80 to 84 age category is almost as bad as with 16-year-old drivers!)

But the fatality rate per mile driven, often referred to by advocates of driver testing for seniors, is not very relevant. Driver licenses are not issued on the basis of miles driven, but on the basis of individual persons.

On this basis, the NHTSA statistics reveal that the driver involvement rate in fatal crashes diminishes steadily with age. The lowest rate is with drivers in the 65 to 69 age category. Drivers over age 70 have a slightly increased rate, but are still safer than all drivers under age 55.

The reason for this apparent discrepancy is simply due to the fact that seniors don't drive as many miles. They're usually retired and don't commute to work. They are also aware of their physical deficiencies and compensate for that.

We all have elderly friends and relatives who don't drive at night because they have trouble dealing with headlight glare. On average, seniors exhibit much better judgment than younger drivers. For example, a much higher percentage of seniors use seat belts.

Most elderly people have a strong desire to maintain some degree of independence. Taking their license away is the equivalent of a jail sentence. Even if the car mostly sits in the garage, the fact that it is available has a great psychological benefit. Rigorous testing of elderly drivers would result in little improvement in traffic safety, but much harm to the individuals denied a license.

Male drivers under age 35 certainly have much better physical capabilities, but their poor judgment results in fatal accident involvement more than twice that of drivers over age 70.

It is difficult to test for poor judgment. If we're really serious about improving traffic safety, it would be much more effective to raise the minimum age for all male drivers to age 35. (Just to make a point.)



Mr. Dixon, 75, is a semi-retired electronics engineer who still lectures at seminars for Texas Instruments.

Defensive driving
Elderly: Stereotypes driving license laws
By Aaron Deslatte
Globe Staff Writer

Dick Onley's van wasn't the only thing sent spinning after wrecking into another car in his college days.

Onley's approach to driving has shifted as well.

"My attitude since has taken a 180-degree turn," says Onley, 72, of the accident he had over 50 years ago.

"At that time, I had the attitude it could happen to other people but not to me. As you get older, your attitude changes. You get a little smarter."

As evidence, Onley hasn't been at fault in an accident since then.

Older drivers, Onley says, are typically safer drivers.

And according to the most recent Missouri Highway Patrol statistics, he's got room to talk.

Drivers 65-and-over made up 16.2 percent of total licensed Missouri drivers in 1997, but were involved in only about 7 percent of total automobile accidents that year.

By comparison, teen-agers accounted for 6 percent of total drivers that year, but 20 percent of total accidents.

"I'm a better driver now than I've ever been," says the Joplin man. "I've found out that you learn to drive defensively."

They also learn to speak that way.

Elderly drivers have long endured the berating and puns.

And like the commercials and movies where senior drivers are portrayed as senile old birds at the helm of monster Cadillacs, government efforts to regulate or restrict their driving are nothing new.


Proposals target elderly
As the baby-boomers generation sets the cruise control for the golden years, many legislators feel its only a matter of time until tighter laws leave some seniors in the back seat.

Proposed legislation to better regulate elderly drivers has appeared every year this decade in Missouri.

Just last week, a bill before the House chamber of the General Assembly, which would require drivers to renew their licenses every six years instead of three, was the latest instance.

Some legislators sought to add an amendment that would keep drivers over the age of 65 renewing their licenses every three years.

While the amendment failed, many say cases like Bena Martisus keep the issue in public view.

The 78-year-old Weir, Kan., woman was charged last month with involuntary manslaughter in the March 17 death of kindergartner Christopher Reece. She allegedly struck the boy with her car while he crossed Kansas Highway 103 to board a school bus.

Critics of regulating senior drivers say the example is rare and any attempt to single out seniors as poor drivers is misguided.

"It irritates me when people clump senior drivers together like they're some weird species," says Beverly Scroggins, director of community services for the Area Agency on Aging.

"I think it's wrong to pick out any segment and say we're going to put restrictions on them because of their age."

While many legislators favor the general idea, they say the discriminating nature of previous bills kept them from passing.

"We hear some version of this bill every year," says state Rep. Carson Ross, R-Blue Springs, who sits on the House motor vehicle and traffic regulations committee. "The problem that we have to be conscious of is that you don't discriminate based on age."

The way the problem is usually dealt with, Ross says, "is to back door it," meaning the state applies regulations to all drivers rather than just one age group.

This year, Missouri began allowing license offices, law enforcement officers, doctors and family members to ask that the state require a driver to test again for a license if the driver is thought to be a danger.

In the first three months of this year, 293 retest requests have been made to the state Department of Revenue.

The agency does not require the ages of the retested drivers, but listed loss of consciousness and dementia as the main provocations of the retests.


A family decision?
Missouri is by no means alone in attempting to regulate senior drivers.

Last year, the Minnesota legislature tried to pass a bill which would have required seniors to renew licenses after two years instead of the normal four years for all other drivers.

In Texas, state lawmakers withdrew a bill that would have required seniors to pass a driving test in order to renew their licenses after the measure drew widescale criticism.

In previous years, Oklahoma and Kansas have both seen similar legislation creep up also with similar results.

While some see the failure of legislation in addressing the issue as an opportunity for the family to step in.

"How do you take the vehicles away from those who really want to drive but aren't safe to drive?" says Missouri Rep. Ken Legan, R-Halfway. "I really think it's a family responsibility."

Legan, who took the keys away from his mother-in-law last year, says passing laws to regulate senior drivers is probably some time away from becoming reality.

"I haven't seen a bill anywhere that I'm comfortable with."


Knowing the limits
When Hazel Morris-Pool lived in Arkansas, she used to get a letter every year from her insurance company thanking her for being such a good driver.

The praise sunk in.

Now Morris-Pool, 81, Carthage, says she has no intention of turning in her car keys.

"It just infuriates me that these middle-aged people think we don't know what we're doing," she says.

"Let them (legislators) do whatever they want to," she says. "It won't stop me from driving."

But she admits that some drivers her age shouldn't be on the road.

"If I can't drive and read the signs, I shouldn't be on the road," she says.

For the most part, experts say elderly drivers are aware of their limitations.

Mon, 30 Jun 2003 :


Elderly drivers safer than teenagers

Defying conventional wisdom, a study by the General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren, Michigan, reports elderly drivers may actually be less likely to cause an accident than a teenager or middle aged person.

The study reported in the International Journal of Epidemiology, claims that a 70-year-old male driver is 40% less likely to cause an accident than a 40-year-old male. However, the same cannot be said of elderly females. A 70-year-old female and 40-year-old male have virtually the same risk of collision. Teenagers represent the greatest collision risk.

When drivers in their teens have an accident, the odds are about 20 percent that it will be a serious one. One the other hand a 65-year-old driver has about a one percent chance of causing a serious accident. The odds drop even further for drivers in their eighties, less than one percent.

Apparently, deteriorating vision and slower reaction time are offset by the fact that elderly drivers tend to drive slower and are more cautious than younger drivers.





Source: Health Day News
Source: DrKoop.com

I'll stick with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

By: Scott Bowles
USA Today, May 1, 2001

Elderly die at a record pace behind the wheel

ARCADIA, Calif. — They drive the speed limit, wear their seat belts and rarely take risks behind the wheel. But elderly drivers are dying at a record pace. Though they don't drive often, seniors account for a disproportionate number of crashes on the nation's roads. And as the numbers surge, officials say, elderly driving deaths will rival drunken driving as the nation's top road threat. The problem has begun to change the driving experience for all Americans. State and federal agencies are scrambling to make roads safer for seniors by increasing licensing scrutiny, making streets signs larger and erecting more traffic lights, which are easier to see than stop signs. But even the federal agency charged with safeguarding motorists concedes that it's ill-prepared for the coming surge in senior drivers. The number of drivers over the age of 65 will more than double to 60 million during the next three decades, as baby boomers move into retirement.

"Frankly, I'm concerned whether it's possible to protect them," says John Eberhard, a senior researcher with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). "We don't have a car or safety device that's truly compatible with a frail, elderly body."

That isn't discouraging seniors, who are driving more often and farther than ever before. In a nation where the auto reigns supreme, getting anyone from behind the wheel will be difficult.

"I have to have my car," says Bill Tsuchiya, 80, a Los Angeles resident. "I need it to get to the hospital, or see my family, or take my wife to a nice dinner. It's not a luxury. It's a big part of my life."

With cities sprawling, driving is critical to seniors, traffic engineer Bill Hairston says. "As much as we like to fool ourselves, grandma doesn't take the car out (just) for a Sunday drive," he says. "She's starting to use it as much as we do, and she is not about to give up that freedom."

A new NHTSA report released to USA TODAY suggests the scope of the problem. Improvements in highway engineering and traffic enforcement have meant good news for virtually all drivers — except seniors.

Highway deaths for motorists under 65 have dropped 3% since 1995, to 33,659 last year. Among seniors, however, deaths jumped 15% over the same period, to 8,141 last year. During the past two decades, only the fatality rate of senior drivers has risen.

Fatalities among elderly drivers will increase faster than their population, to more than 23,000 annually — 63 deaths a day — by 2030, NHTSA estimates.

Analysts expect some increase in crashes among seniors because the nation is aging quickly. From 2010 to 2020, the elderly population is expected to increase by 35%. The overall population will increase 8% over the same time, the Census Bureau says.

But the NHTSA study finds that elderly drivers account for more than their share of deaths on the road. They make up about than 12% of the population, but they account for 18% of those killed on highways. And as seniors become a larger segment of the driving population, their fatality rates could soar.

When seniors crash, Eberhard says, "they suffer the most harm. They don't kill other drivers in accidents. They get killed."

Intersections pose a particular danger. An analysis of accidents by USA TODAY and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety finds that elderly drivers — defined by NHTSA as those 65 and older — account for a third of all driver deaths at intersections.

States are struggling for an answer. Florida is enlarging some highway street signs from 12 inches to 36 to accommodate the withering vision of its 2.9 million elderly drivers. Nine states are considering legislation that requires doctors to report serious medical conditions afflicting seniors, such as failing eyesight and heart disease, to motor-vehicle authorities. Officials could then order new driving tests and revoke licenses. Eleven states, including California and Florida, already have such measures.

But taking away licenses isn't a cure-all. Seniors are more likely to be killed as pedestrians than as drivers or occupants in cars.

"If you take them out of their cars and make them walk everywhere, you're going to drive up pedestrian deaths," Eberhard says. "And that's assuming they are physically healthy enough to walk a couple miles to the store."

The left turn

"C'mon, someone let me in," Caroline Bolton pleads, stranded halfway through a left turn on the busiest street here in Arcadia, 20 miles east of Los Angeles. Nervous and peeking over the steering wheel of her Toyota Corolla, Bolton, 81, has been driving since the Truman administration. She's been in one wreck in the past decade. If she hits the speed limit, she usually lets off the gas.

However, to transportation engineers, safety officials and insurers, Bolton's half-mile drive to Kelly's Coffee and Fudge shop embodies their biggest fear. Bolton begins to make her left turn across Huntington Drive, then realizes she won't beat oncoming traffic. She hits the brakes, allowing a car to pass. She starts, stops, then inches forward as oncoming cars brake. She finishes the turn, oblivious to a chorus of horns.

"Two decades ago, people over 70 typically didn't even keep the car, let alone drive it regularly," says Nancy Warren, a Dallas-based auto industry consultant. "The roads were never designed with seniors in mind."

As visual skills deteriorate, older drivers have increasing difficulty gauging the speed of oncoming cars. "That poses the biggest problem at intersections," says Frank Moretti, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

According to federal data, there were 5,394 deaths because of crashes at intersections in 1999, the most recent year statistics are available. Of those, 1,730, or 32%, were seniors. Nearly half of those seniors died attempting left turns, traffic engineer Hairston says.

That's because in a collision, the elderly motorist is typically the one being struck.

"In a left-hand turn, the person getting T-boned is in a lot more danger than the one ramming him," Hairston says. "Even in a head-on collision, the car moving slower is in more danger. And that's nearly always the elderly driver."

When a crash does occur, an older motorist is more than 25% more likely to die in the crash than those 55 and younger. Seat belts, air bags and other improvements to cars have proved ineffective in protecting older drivers, particularly those with ailments such as osteoporosis, a weakening of bone density.

"An elderly, frail body is like a house with termites," Eberhard says. "It might look good on the outside, but it might be weak and hollowed inside. Even a slight knock can break the structure. We haven't found a way to protect against that yet."

Physicians blame most intersection crashes on poor depth perception. "If you knew how bad the eyesight of the person driving next to you probably is, you'd be afraid to get on the road," Los Angeles ophthalmologist Robert Maloney says. "Particularly older drivers. I've had patients drive to my office who should be walking with a white cane."

Skeptical that seniors will voluntarily take themselves off the road, lawmakers are requiring others to keep an eye on them. Thirteen states now require seniors to renew their licenses more frequently than other drivers. New Mexico requires drivers older than 75 to renew licenses annually; Illinois imposes the requirement on motorists 86 and older.

"There's little argument that the older you get, the worse your vision gets, the slower your reflexes get," says Steven Bell, president of Safer Streets Now, a Dallas-based organization that lobbies for stricter licensing regulations of teen and elderly drivers. "What is the problem with taking a driver's test? If you are a safe driver, you keep your license. If you're not, then you shouldn't have one."

Opponents say such laws constitute age discrimination. "Why should we be punished for growing old?" says Mitchell Franklin, 81, of Evanston, Ill. "I drive better than my grandson, but I'm the one who has to go keep proving myself."

Indeed, some seniors drive into their 90s without any physical or cognitive impairments. Others should be off the road before 65.

"It's a thorny issue," says Nancy Thompson, a spokeswoman for AARP, which works with state legislatures to develop elderly driving and licensing programs. "There really isn't one test that can determine if a senior citizen is going to get into a crash." The group is formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.

Back to school

The dangers of the road are not lost on the elderly. And many, such as Jay Chenault, are addressing the issue themselves.

The 81-year-old resident of Los Angeles is one of a legion of drivers attending AAA's "Mature Driving Class," a course on everything from mixing medications to remembering to turn the high beams off.

It has been more than half a century since Chenault took driver's education. He started driving when he was 10, in his father's Model T. "You ever been in one?" the former baker asks. "They got three gas pedals: forward, reverse, and neutral. That was a car."

Today he drives a pickup, albeit nervously. "I see these young guys, zipping in and out of the lanes so fast. It's crazy."

A component of AAA's course is to infuse seniors with a little contemporary attitude behind the wheel. "One thing we try to teach them is to speed up every once in a while," instructor Frank Stewart says. "You've got to hit the gas when you're merging onto a freeway, or maneuver out of the way if someone is tailgating."

By some measures, seniors are safe drivers. More than 70% of older drivers wear seat belts, the highest percentage among all driving categories. They receive the fewest moving violations.

But that conservative behavior isn't always a positive. Stewart says a disproportionate number of elderly driving accidents involve rear-end collisions because seniors refuse to exceed the speed limit. "We're trying to teach them to change their ways, which isn't easy," he says.

Changing roads

The Federal Highway Administration plans to accommodate him. The agency recently released its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a guidebook cities use to design everything from street signs to crosswalks.

It contains recommendations geared to protecting the elderly. They include:

Enlarging letters on street signs from 4 inches tall to 6 inches.
Installing more traffic lights so the elderly can better manage turns at busy intersections. Engineers estimate that during the next five years, sections of Phoenix, Las Vegas and Dallas will see a 10% increase in the number of signals.
Building "rescue islands" in the middle of wide streets so elderly pedestrians don't have to cross in one signal cycle.
"We don't want to impede traffic flow too much," NHTSA's Eberhard says. "But safety has to be the top priority. Until we build communities where the elderly are close to everything they need, education and engineering are our best options."

Caroline Bolton appreciates the concern, but she says it's not necessary. "I drive fine," she harrumphs, noting that until 1990, when she was 70, she held a pilot's license and flew a single-engine Piper Cub. Today she shuttles her husband, who uses a wheelchair, to and from the hospital.

Because of his condition, Bolton received a blue handicapped placard. But she rarely whips out "bluey" unless there's no parking at the mall or the bakery, where she is now headed for lunch.

"We don't need special treatment," she says, grabbing her coat and purse. "They should watch out for those kids driving. They're the dangerous ones. As long as I'm careful and feel good, no one is going to stop me from driving."

http://www.globalaging.org/elderrig.../elderlydie.htm

Originally posted by GeeBee
Age licence tests an 'unfair burden'
By Larissa Dubecki
June 18 2002

The Victorian Parliament's road safety committee was told that in states that retested elderly drivers, nervous drivers tended to give up their licences but aggressive drivers did not......

Victoria and the Northern Territory are the only places that do not have retesting........

This is an Australian study.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Mon, 30 Jun 2003 :
Defying conventional wisdom, a study by the General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren, Michigan, reports elderly drivers may actually be less likely to cause an accident than a teenager or middle aged person.

General Motors. Now there's a company without an agenda. :lol:

Originally posted by GeeBee
Defensive driving
Elderly: Stereotypes driving license laws
By Aaron Deslatte
Globe Staff Writer

And according to the most recent Missouri Highway Patrol statistics...

Drivers 65-and-over made up 16.2 percent of total licensed Missouri drivers in 1997, but were involved in only about 7 percent of total automobile accidents that year.

By comparison, teen-agers accounted for 6 percent of total drivers that year, but 20 percent of total accidents.......

Apparently, the seniors in Missouri are good drivers--hardly representative of all the states.
Statistics are averaged out. Another state may have a higher rate of elderly accidents.
Again, the statistics nationwide.

Excerpt from USA Today with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stats:

A new NHTSA report released ......
Highway deaths for motorists under 65 have dropped 3% since 1995, to 33,659 last year. Among seniors, however, deaths jumped 15% over the same period, to 8,141 last year. During the past two decades, only the fatality rate of senior drivers has risen.
Fatalities among elderly drivers will increase faster than their population, to more than 23,000 annually — 63 deaths a day — by 2030, NHTSA estimates.

Originally posted by Janice
This is an Australian study.


So what?

Originally posted by Janice
Apparently, the seniors in Missouri are good drivers--hardly representative of all the states.
Statistics are averaged out. Another state may have a higher rate of elderly accidents.
Again, the statistics nationwide.

Excerpt from USA Today with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stats:

A new NHTSA report released ......
Highway deaths for motorists under 65 have dropped 3% since 1995, to 33,659 last year. Among seniors, however, deaths jumped 15% over the same period, to 8,141 last year. During the past two decades, only the fatality rate of senior drivers has risen.
Fatalities among elderly drivers will increase faster than their population, to more than 23,000 annually — 63 deaths a day — by 2030, NHTSA estimates.


Strange that the driving skills of elderly motorists would differ from state to state. Do they become younger at the state line? :lol: Or could it be that statistics are not quite as precise as you think and are more open to interpretation than you were originally letting on. I can produce statistics that show that the elderly are not particularly high risk drivers and you can produce statistics that show that they are. Which ones are right? Still, the ultimate point is that it doesn't matter if the elderly are a higher risk as a group; every driver should be tested on his or her ability equally regardless of age. Careless driving is a complex problem that happens for numerous reasons and factors. You're just scapegoating the elderly.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Strange that the driving skills of elderly motorists would differ from state to state. Do they become younger at the state line? :lol: Or could it be that statistics are not quite as precise as you think and are more open to interpretation than you were originally letting on. I can produce statistics that show that the elderly are not particularly high risk drivers and you can produce statistics that show that they are. Which ones are right? Still, the ultimate point is that it doesn't matter if the elderly are a higher risk as a group; every driver should be tested on his or her ability equally regardless of age. Careless driving is a complex problem that happens for numerous reasons and factors. You're just scapegoating the elderly. In one sentence you bank on your GM and Australian stats to stomp the NHS stats. Then you say that none of it matters and you go back to your multi-billion dollar policy of testing everyone, often. Which way do you want it? Both? Where statistics derive from matters as much as the results that they proclaim.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Strange that the driving skills of elderly motorists would differ from state to state. Do they become younger at the state line? :lol: Or could it be that statistics are not quite as precise as you think and are more open to interpretation than you were originally letting on. I can produce statistics that show that the elderly are not particularly high risk drivers and you can produce statistics that show that they are. Which ones are right? Still, the ultimate point is that it doesn't matter if the elderly are a higher risk as a group; every driver should be tested on his or her ability equally regardless of age. Careless driving is a complex problem that happens for numerous reasons and factors. You're just scapegoating the elderly.
I'm doing no such thing, and it does matter if the elderly are a higher risk rate.
To suggest testing across the board is ridiculous. It would be a logistical and fiscal nightmare.
There are certainly factors that contribute to the low incidence of elderly crashes in Missouri. It could be better road conditions, more public awareness....I don't know, but in other states, there are more crashes involving the elderly.
Each state's statistics are averaged out, and like magic, there's your NATIONWIDE statistic. I'm not a statistician, but it's a simple formula. And no, you cannot produce statistics that show that the elderly are not particulary high risk drivers. You only came up with Missouri.
Again, here are the NATIONWIDE statistics (all 50 US States average out) compiled by NHTSA.

A new NHTSA report released ......
Highway deaths for motorists under 65 have dropped 3% since 1995, to 33,659 last year. Among seniors, however, deaths jumped 15% over the same period, to 8,141 last year. During the past two decades, only the fatality rate of senior drivers has risen.
Fatalities among elderly drivers will increase faster than their population, to more than 23,000 annually — 63 deaths a day — by 2030, NHTSA estimates.

Originally posted by GeeBee
So what?
With all due respect to those Down Under, we've been discussing the US. I know nothing of the culture or road conditions in Australia. What's up next, China?
Even so, your Aussie article doesn't make a compelling case for your argument anyway. It supports both views.

Originally posted by Janice


>I'm doing no such thing, and it does matter if the elderly are a >higher risk rate.


Yes, you are, You obviously have something against the elderly as a group or you wouldn't be arguing so strongly for an obviously flawed viewpoint.

Originally posted by Janice


>To suggest testing across the board is ridiculous. It would be a >logistical and fiscal nightmare.


Considering that the there's such a large population of elderly drivers I would think that it would be somewhat of a fiscal nightmare to test even them. Still, if we are going to take on those expenses we should apply to everyone because bad and good drivers come in all ages.

Originally posted by Janice



>There are certainly factors that contribute to the low incidence >of elderly crashes in Missouri. It could be better road conditions, >more public awareness....I don't know, but in other states, >there are more crashes involving the elderly.





Then the problem is not the elderly, it's the other factors. If the elderly were naturally bad drivers, the statistics would show them to be bad drivers everywhere. Again, unless the fountain of youth is pouring over at a state line, geography would make no difference if the inherent problem was old age.


Originally posted by Janice



>Each state's statistics are averaged out, and like magic, there's >your NATIONWIDE statistic. I'm not a statistician,




I'll say you're not.


Originally posted by Janice


>but it's a simple formula. And no, you cannot produce statistics >that show that the elderly are not particularly high risk drivers. >You only came up with Missouri.
>Again, here are the NATIONWIDE statistics (all 50 US States >average out) compiled by NHTSA.



I can probably find statistics to say anything. A lot depends on who does the studies, how much margin of error is involved, where the emphasis is put, and may other outside influences that could interfere with its validity. I took a statistics course in college and there it can be a VERY gray area and tests often need to be done again and again to account for mistakes and unforeseen factors that can influence the study's accuracy. It's not like chemistry where an exact combination of formulas always produces an exact result if it is mixed just right. Wake up, realize that it's not all black and white, and stop picking on the elderly. Some day we will be elderly too, you know.

Originally posted by Janice
With all due respect to those Down Under, we've been discussing the US. I know nothing of the culture or road conditions in Australia. What's up next, China?
Even so, your Aussie article doesn't make a compelling case for your argument anyway. It supports both views.


If the problem is a physiological flaw in all elderly people, states and countries would not matter. The obvious discrepancies in these area of geography show that there is more to the story than just being elderly.

Hey, before you know it, you folks are going to have a new crime on the books: D.W.E. (Driving While Elderly).
:lol: :crazy:

Originally posted by GeeBee
Yes, you are, You obviously have something against the elderly as a group or you wouldn't be arguing so strongly for an obviously flawed viewpoint.. There is nothing "obviously flawed" about her or my viewpoint. She and I are making this case because the elderly are killing themselves and others on the roads. Why in the heck would we be bigoted against the elderly? You said that you could produce stats to prove your point. I see that argument used often in these boards. Go ahead. Give us the stats to prove your point.

Originally posted by Kitt
In one sentence you bank on your GM and Australian stats to stomp the NHS stats. Then you say that none of it matters and you go back to your multi-billion dollar policy of testing everyone, often. Which way do you want it? Both? Where statistics derive from matters as much as the results that they proclaim.


No, the statistics I found are not the final word in the debate, but I did what to show you that there is ANOTHER word to be heard out there. They are derived from statistics. Which ones are right? The ones that bash the elderly, of course?

Originally posted by Kitt
Then you say that none of it matters and you go back to your multi-billion dollar policy of testing everyone, often.


Whether it's a multi-billion dollar policy of testing everyone often (where did you get those figures?) or a possible multi-million or multi-thousand dollar idea of testing every elderly person often, the young and the old both make their fair share of mistakes on the road. Both should be held to the same standards of proving themselves. When many people complain that the elderly "drive too slow", they're often really complaining that they drive the speed limit.


Originally posted by Kitt
Where statistics derive from matters as much as the results that they proclaim.


Thank you. Now that you've concede that statistics in themselves are not gospel, maybe you will concede that they all deserve further study. As with any science, new information can contradict what has already been learned. If the people making your statistics have the same anti-elderly mind set as some of the people I've heard on here, then they definitely deserve a second look and further study.

Originally posted by Kitt
There is nothing "obviously flawed" about her or my viewpoint. She and I are making this case because the elderly are killing themselves and others on the roads. Why in the heck would we be bigoted against the elderly? You said that you could produce stats to prove your point. I see that argument used often in these boards. Go ahead. Give us the stats to prove your point.


There's a lot of ageism in our society for numerous reasons. Some people resent the elderly because they see them as a burden, because they remind them that they are going to get old too, etc.


As for statistics, I've already given you some. They were dicounted because they were from GM, Australia, and Missouri. However, I've yet to hear an argument about why the elderly suddenly become good drives at state or country lines. They drive through a fountain of youth before they enter? :rolleyes: If the problem was in them, location would not matter at all. Thus, further study needs to be done.

Originally posted by GeeBee
There's a lot of ageism in our society for numerous reasons. Some people resent the elderly because they see them as a burden, because they remind them that they are going to get old too, etc.


As for statistics, I've already given you some. They were dicounted because they were from GM, Australia, and Missouri. However, I've yet to hear an argument about why the elderly suddenly become good drives at state or country lines. They drive through a fountain of youth before they enter? :rolleyes: If the problem was just in the elderly, location would not matter at all. Thus, further study needs to be done.

Originally posted by GeeBee
No, the statistics I found are not the final word in the debate, but I did what to show you that there is ANOTHER word to be heard out there. They are derived from statistics. Which ones are right? The ones that bash the elderly, of course?




Whether it's a multi-billion dollar policy of testing everyone often (where did you get those figures?) or a possible multi-million or multi-thousand dollar idea of testing every elderly person often the young and the old both make their fair share of mistakes on the road and both should be held to the same standards of proving themselves. When many people complain that the elderly "drive too slow", they're often really complaining that they drive the speed limit.





Thank you. Now that you've concede that statistics in themselves are not gospel, maybe you will concede that they all deserve further study. As with any science, new information can contradict what has already been learned. If the people making your statistics have the same anti-elderly mind set as some of the people I've heard on here, then they definitely deserve a second look and further study. Why don't you knock it off with the bash crap? Can't take you seriously with that tossed in everytime you reply.
I "concede" nothing of the sort. Your habit of taking what someone says and twisting it into what you want it to say didn't work the first time and still doesn't. So, don't claim stupidity and thank me. You have nothing to thank me for since I didn't say what your lying eyes have concluded.
Could you explain to us why it is that you insist that we who believe that humans lose a step or two as they age are just a bunch of KKK type bigots against old people? :crazy:

Originally posted by GeeBee
However, I've yet to hear an argument about why the elderly suddenly become good drives at state or country lines.
There are variables that create different individual statistics for each state. I won't pretend to know why the elderly in Missouri have less crashes, but I'm sure there are valid and logical reasons for this.
It's the same with everything. Hypothetically speaking, suppose there are 200,000 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed annually nationwide--that doesn't mean you divide 50 into 200,000 to arrive at a figure for each state. There may be a higher incidence of the disease in coal mining states or where more cigarette smokers reside.
Kitt's right, stop accusing us of bashing the elderly. On the contrary, if it was left up to you, you would have the elderly drive off a cliff--got to protect their rights, you know.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Mon, 30 Jun 2003 :


Elderly drivers safer than teenagers

Defying conventional wisdom, a study by the General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren, Michigan, reports elderly drivers may actually be less likely to cause an accident than a teenager or middle aged person.

The study reported in the International Journal of Epidemiology, claims that a 70-year-old male driver is 40% less likely to cause an accident than a 40-year-old male. However, the same cannot be said of elderly females. A 70-year-old female and 40-year-old male have virtually the same risk of collision. Teenagers represent the greatest collision risk.

When drivers in their teens have an accident, the odds are about 20 percent that it will be a serious one. One the other hand a 65-year-old driver has about a one percent chance of causing a serious accident. The odds drop even further for drivers in their eighties, less than one percent.

Apparently, deteriorating vision and slower reaction time are offset by the fact that elderly drivers tend to drive slower and are more cautious than younger drivers.





Source: Health Day News
Source: DrKoop.com

Yeah, and why do teenagers cause accidents? Lack of experience maybe? If you raised the driving age, you'd only be raising the age of the unexperienced from 16 to 18.

I asked my daughter something about this subject last night. Her grandpa, on her moms side, lived to a ripe old age. Lou was his name. He was quite a character. I remembered that he gave his old Caddie to my daughter when he could no longer drive it. So I asked her if she remembered when and why he gave up his license. She told me that she about "peed her pants while riding in the back seat when he was driving because he was always all over the road". :lol: I hope she doesn't ever find out that I told y'all that.

My uncle has a rare disease that will, ultimately, turn him into a vegetable. Once a brilliant architect, he has had to leave the job he loved because his focus is not what it used to be...missing deadlines, not being able to follow participants at firm meetings and even standing up and wandering for no reason while everyone else is seated. He still has some really good days where he seems his usual self, but more and more frequently he's forgetting the names of his own children. He still wants to drive but my aunt won't let him for fear he'll hurt himself or somebody else. It has nothing to do with age, if a person does not possess safe motor vehicle skills - including sight, concentration, hand-eye coordination or quick reflexes, they do not belong on the road. Sorry, but sometimes that does include the elderly.

Unfortunately, we still have to contend with the morons who choose to exercise poor judgment by drinking, drugging, speeding, talking on the phone, putting on mascara, or eating while they drive despite the obvious potential for disastrous consequences.

Originally posted by Janice
There are variables that create different individual statistics for each state. I won't pretend to know why the elderly in Missouri have less crashes, but I'm sure there are valid and logical reasons for this.
It's the same with everything. Hypothetically speaking, suppose there are 200,000 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed annually nationwide--that doesn't mean you divide 50 into 200,000 to arrive at a figure for each state. There may be a higher incidence of the disease in coal mining states or where more cigarette smokers reside.
Kitt's right, stop accusing us of bashing the elderly. On the contrary, if it was left up to you, you would have the elderly drive off a cliff--got to protect their rights, you know.


Yes and the fact that the elderly are NOT bad drivers across the board shows that the whole thing is not about being elderly. I'm sorry, but anyone will tell you that if there are inconsistent results from national to state, more work has to be done in this research. It cannot be all about the elderly with results like that.


And yes, I do think there is an element of elderly bashing in what's being said here. At worst, you're saying that they're all horrible drivers ready to take our lives any minute. (I winder how I've survived driving on the same road with them this long?) At best, you're saying that the elderly are too stupid to know not to even drive off of a cliff and they must be protected like pets. I'm not saying anyone here consciously hates the elderly, but there is a lot of negative stereotyping and assumptions about them on here. Sometimes it's the unconscious stripping of human dignity that can be the most damaging.

Originally posted by GrapeJelly


It has nothing to do with age, if a person does not possess safe motor vehicle skills - including sight, concentration, hand-eye coordination or quick reflexes, they do not belong on the road. Sorry, but sometimes that does include the elderly.

Unfortunately, we still have to contend with the morons who choose to exercise poor judgment by drinking, drugging, speeding, talking on the phone, putting on mascara, or eating while they drive despite the obvious potential for disastrous consequences.


That's why higher standards should be raised to ALL drivers, not just the elderly. Every type of driver brings their own set of risks to the road as a group.

Originally posted by laceyinthesky
Yeah, and why do teenagers cause accidents? Lack of experience maybe? If you raised the driving age, you'd only be raising the age of the unexperienced from 16 to 18.


It could be lack of experience, it could be lack of maturity, it could be both, or it could be an unknown factor. Do you know of any research done to find out why?

Originally posted by GeeBee
Yes and the fact that the elderly are NOT bad drivers across the board shows that the whole thing is not about being elderly. I'm sorry, but anyone will tell you that if there are inconsistent results from national to state, more work has to be done in this research. It cannot be all about the elderly with results like that.

....At worst, you're saying that they're all horrible drivers ready to take our lives any minute. (I winder how I've survived driving on the same road with them this long?)

Look, I don't mean to be rude about this, but everything you've just said shows an inability to understand the concept of statistics. What we are saying is that the accident rates above the age of 80 start to become higher than the acccident rates for all other ages above 20. We understand that elderly people are not all bad drivers, we're saying that as a group, they have more accidents, and also that a given individual will deteriorate as he ages. To dispassionately and objectively take the odds into account is simply not prejudiced. Persons below the age of 20, a group which also has a high accident rate, should have to pass a more stringent qualification for a license, and people above 80 should be periodically checked to see if they're still able to drive.

Originally posted by GeeBee
At worst, you're saying that they're all horrible drivers ready to take our lives any minute. (I winder how I've survived driving on the same road with them this long?) At best, you're saying that the elderly are too stupid to know not to even drive off of a cliff and they must be protected like pets.
There you go, inserting your words in my mouth again. You're too obtuse to deal with, so I'm throwing in the towel.
Hey TJ, we need a smilie throwing in the towel. For now, this will have to suffice.
:wallbang :explode:

The ironic thing is that I'm not saying that elderly drivers (or anyone else) should be left on the road if they have poor driving skills. I'm just saying that you can't single out any groups of adult drivers to be tested more than others. If an annual driving test is what's wanted for the elderly, schedule every driver for an annual test from the time that they got their license. If the majority of people who don't pass are the elderly, I say so be it. But, give drivers of every age an equal chance and benefit of the doubt.

I don't buy this argument about how expensive tests for everyone would be. I think young and middle aged drivers don't want tests across the board because they're afraid that they won't be able to meet the standards that they want from the elderly. It's okay if it disrupts the lives of THEM, but it had better not come close to even slightly inconveniencing US. You're cool.

Originally posted by BrandonS


Look, I don't mean to be rude about this, but everything you've just said shows an inability to understand the concept of statistics. What we are saying is that the accident rates above the age of 80 start to become higher than the acccident rates for all other ages above 20. We understand that elderly people are not all bad drivers, we're saying that as a group, they have more accidents, and also that a given individual will deteriorate as he ages. To dispassionately and objectively take the odds into account is simply not prejudiced. Persons below the age of 20, a group which also has a high accident rate, should have to pass a more stringent qualification for a license, and people above 80 should be periodically checked to see if they're still able to drive.


Again, if the problem was just the elderly, there's no reasons that they should be better drivers in some states or countries. Any given population of the elderly should be the worst drivers in any part of the world if it was as simple as you were saying.

Test everyone and let's see.

Still with the bashiing garbage.:confused: Stop being so damed perfect would you please?
I told you about my daugter's experiece. She wasn't elderly bashing. She was a little kid in the back seat of an old mans car who should not have been driving. I told you about my experience with my eldely neighbor running off the road for no reason. I wasn't elderly bashing and niether was he when he cried by the side of the road realizing that he almost killed us and would need to stop driving due to his inability to concentrate. Janice was not elderly bashing when she told us about her father-in-law dying in a fiery crash that could have been avoided if the state DMV had taken his license away. Is there some reason why you want to allow elderly drivers to kill themselves and others, besides for the purpose of winning your argument, that you are saying they should never be questioned as to their driving capablities? Don't anwer with the same junk. Move it along. Answer why my, as well as Janice's, input about father-in-laws who used to be a good drivers, but ceased to be so due entirely to their age! Is that just a coincedence and not worth caring about?

Originally posted by GeeBee
It could be lack of experience, it could be lack of maturity, it could be both, or it could be an unknown factor. Do you know of any research done to find out why?

Wait, wait - I must be misunderstanding. That sounds to me like you're asking for STATISTICS! No, I KNOW that can't be right. :lol:

What BrandonS said is quite true. It's not being prejudiced to conclude that based on statistics elderly have more accidents. It's a fact - sorry if the truth hurts.

Teenagers do get into many accidents - but - hello, that's why they have to take all the tests. In my state at least, we have 3 different levels of driving, and you don't obtain a full liscense until you're seventeen years old. For all the junk that I had to go through to get my liscense I'm a VERY careful driver, as are everyone I know who were subjected to Michigan's pain-in-the-butt law.

What I'm saying is that since seniors (ACCORDING TO STATISTICS) get into even more accidents than teenagers, they should be tested as well. And I'm not even suggesting that they should be subjected to the same rigerous testing we make teenagers go through - cuz that's cruel! :crazy: Just a refresher course to make sure they're all still doin okay.

Now it's your turn to take all of what I've said, twist my words around and call me an old-person-hater. *sighs* it's gonna be a long night...

Originally posted by Kitt
Still with the bashiing garbage.:confused: Stop being so damed perfect would you please?
I told you about my daugter's experiece. She wasn't elderly bashing. She was a little kid in the back seat of an old mans car who should not have been driving. I told you about my experience with my eldely neighbor running off the road for no reason. I wasn't elderly bashing and niether was he when he cried by the side of the road realizing that he almost killed us and would need to stop driving due to his inability to concentrate. Janice was not elderly bashing when she told us about her father-in-law dying in a fiery crash that could have been avoided if the state DMV had taken his license away. Is there some reason why you want to allow elderly drivers to kill themselves and others, besides for the purpose of winning your argument, that you are saying they should never be questioned as to their driving capablities? Don't anwer with the same junk. Move it along. Answer why my, as well as Janice's, input about father-in-laws who used to be a good drivers, but ceased to be so due entirely to their age! Is that just a coincedence and not worth caring about?


From what you've told me, all of the individuals mentioned should not be driving anymore. The trouble comes in when you want to round up every elderly driver, many of whom did NOTHING wrong, and force them all to be tested for the sins of those individuals. Sorry, but that's not the way it's supposed to be, my friend.


We can all tell horror stories about individual elderly drivers (you ONLY seem to tell horror stories about them), young and middle aged drivers, statistics that many elderly drivers are a risk, statistics that say they're not a particular risk more than any other driver.


The bottom line is that driving is a big responsibility and if we want to increase safety from drivers, both young and old, we'd have to increase the standards across the board for all ages. Singling out the elderly for more tests is not going to solve this very complex problem of road safety.

Originally posted by GeeBee
From what you've told me, all of the individuals mentioned should not be driving anymore. The trouble comes in when you want to round up every elderly driver, many of whom did NOTHING wrong, and force them all to be tested for the sins of those individuals. Sorry, but that's not the way it's supposed to be, my friend.


We can all tell horror stories about individual elderly drivers (you ONLY seem to tell horror stories about them), young and middle aged drivers, statistics that many elderly drivers are a risk, statistics that say they're not a particular risk more than any other driver.


The bottom line is that driving is a big responsibility and if we want to increase safety from drivers, both young and old, we'd have to increase the standards across the board for all ages. Singling out the elderly for more tests is not going to solve this very complex problem of road safety. You don't have an answer to anything. You are obtuse. You're wierd man. Blather on. You lose, I win, I'm outa here!

Originally posted by Liza
Wait, wait - I must be misunderstanding. That sounds to me like you're asking for STATISTICS! No, I KNOW that can't be right. :lol:

What BrandonS said is quite true. It's not being prejudiced to conclude that based on statistics elderly have more accidents. It's a fact - sorry if the truth hurts.




Of course the truth hurts. That's why my talk about elderly bashing gets such negative reactions on here. No matter what the statistics say, no one has been able to tell me why the elderly appear to be safer drivers in some areas and not others. Sorryu, but those are statistics that need more work.



Originally posted by Liza



What I'm saying is that since seniors (ACCORDING TO STATISTICS) get into even more accidents than teenagers, they should be tested as well. And I'm not even suggesting that they should be subjected to the same rigerous testing we make teenagers go through - cuz that's cruel! :crazy: Just a refresher course to make sure they're all still doin okay.


But, the statistics do not always say that in every area about elderly drivers. So where does that leave us?




Originally posted by Liza



Now it's your turn to take all of what I've said, twist my words around and call me an old-person-hater. *sighs* it's gonna be a long night...


Hey, I don't have to say anything to twist words. Someone could just look at all of the negativity directed against the elderly on here (as well as twisted of facts, statistics, and half truths), to see that the elderly is being scapegoated.

Originally posted by Kitt
You don't have an answer to anything. You are obtuse. You're wierd man. Blather on. You lose, I win, I'm outa here!


Okay, Sitcom Analyzer. You keep your scoreboard and I'll keep mine.

I'm back out of retirement. Sorry to knock the smoking gun out of your hand GeeBee, but here's why the rate of elderly crashes is lower in Missouri.
This chart also explains the state to state difference in statistics. No fountain of youth, as you said--simply more stringent laws in various states.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dwhat%2bstates%2bhave%2blaws%2bto%2btest%2belderly%2bdriving%253f%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=what+states+have+laws+to+test+elderly+driving%3f&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0753CF738F5C0B1F3%26sid%3d1B0B40838F5C0B1F3%26qid%3dFBF410A44F02AB4D8AAB80CC793D663F%26io%3d1%26sv%3dza5cb0def%26ask%3dwhat%2bstates%2bhave%2blaws%2bto%2btest%2belderly%2bdriving%253f%26uip%3d98a3fc24%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dIIHS-HLDI%2b%257c%2bLicensing%2bRenewal%252c%2bOlder%2bDrivers%26ac%3d1%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.hwysafety.org%2fsafety_facts%2fstate_laws%2folder_drivers.htm&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hwysafety.org%2fsafety_facts%2fstate_laws%2folder_drivers.htm

Originally posted by Janice
I'm back out of retirement. Sorry to knock the smoking gun out of your hand GeeBee, but here's why the rate of elderly crashes is lower in Missouri.
This chart also explains the state to state difference in statistics. No fountain of youth, as you said--simply more stringent laws in various states.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dwhat%2bstates%2bhave%2blaws%2bto%2btest%2belderly%2bdriving%253f%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=what+states+have+laws+to+test+elderly+driving%3f&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0753CF738F5C0B1F3%26sid%3d1B0B40838F5C0B1F3%26qid%3dFBF410A44F02AB4D8AAB80CC793D663F%26io%3d1%26sv%3dza5cb0def%26ask%3dwhat%2bstates%2bhave%2blaws%2bto%2btest%2belderly%2bdriving%253f%26uip%3d98a3fc24%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dIIHS-HLDI%2b%257c%2bLicensing%2bRenewal%252c%2bOlder%2bDrivers%26ac%3d1%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.hwysafety.org%2fsafety_facts%2fstate_laws%2folder_drivers.htm&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hwysafety.org%2fsafety_facts%2fstate_laws%2folder_drivers.htm



Sorry to hear that you can't keep your word.


I don't doubt that stringent laws make a difference. My only argument is that laws should not be stricter for any particular group of adults. Let everyone live up to the standards we insist on from the elderly.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Okay, Sitcom Analyzer. You keep your scoreboard and I'll keep mine. I don't know WTF you meant by "sitcomanalyser" but your score tally is 0.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Sorry to hear that you can't keep your word.


I don't doubt that stringent laws make a difference. My only argument is that laws should not be stricter for any particular group of adults. Let everyone live up to the standards we insist on from the elderly.

Can't keep her word? Now where in the HELL did you get that? Out of the sky? Must be.

You're arguments aren't even arguments. You complain about how we can't explain that there's a lower rate in Missouri. We explain it and you ignore it. There is no getting through to you.

BTW, by my count: GeeBee score: nichts, nada, nuttin, el zippo.

Kitt, Liza, Janice, BrandonS, and just about everyone else on this board are against you. I have yet to see you make one valid point AND back it up.

Elderly Drivers
Not necessarily more dangerous


(HealthDay is the new name for HealthScoutNews.)

(HealthDayNews) -- As drivers get older, their reflexes slow and their vision may blur.

But, the General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren, Mich., says, that doesn't mean they're a danger on the road.

As reported in the International Journal of Epidemiology , a 70-year-old male driver is actually less of a threat to other drivers than a 40-year-old male -- by 40 percent. On the other hand, that 40-year-old man represents almost the same risk as a 70-year-old woman.

At greatest risk for a major accident are drivers in their late teens and early 20s. If they have an accident, there's a 20 percent chance that it will be a serious one. By the time a driver is 65, the risk of a major accident drops to less than 1 percent.

And by age 80, the likelihood of a serious accident is only one-half of 1 percent.


Copyright © 2003 ScoutNews, LLC . All rights reserved.

You see, folks. I have a computer, you have a computer. We can both find statistics that support our opposing views.


However, you have failed to miss the even bigger point that I originally made:

Even if the elderly ARE a higher risk group statistically (which is not at all clear given all of the contradictory data), it STILL does not justify lowering a whole group of people to second class citizens. Individual elderly drivers are not answerable for the sins of an 86 year old driver who kills someone. Again, raise standards across the board. Weed out ALL of the individual drivers that are a problem.

Originally posted by Liza


Kitt, Liza, Janice, BrandonS, and just about everyone else on this board are against you.


OH NO...(sob)...From this blow I may NEVER recover...

From Debate Over Elderly Drivers Creates Controversy in Orlando, Florida:

...Reggie Clark counters, "If we start taking tests at 80 we should start at 40, because there are as many bad drivers at 40 as 80."

Reggie is right. Statewide, for every 10,000 drivers his age, about 2.5 are involved in crashes. That statistic is exactly the same for a 35-year-old driver.

Originally posted by GeeBee
Sorry to hear that you can't keep your word.

I don't doubt that stringent laws make a difference. My only argument is that laws should not be stricter for any particular group of adults. Let everyone live up to the standards we insist on from the elderly.
Yeah, I can't keep my word. I'm not trustworthy at all. :rolleyes2
You are one piece of work. You droned on ad nauseum how states with different statistics prove your case that elderly drivers don't pose a threat and that the those statistics "need more work".
I finally show you why the statistics vary, and it suddenly becomes a non-issue to you. You dropped that argument like a hot potato.
According to the chart, many states have laws on the books which mandate that the elderly renew their licenses more often, and some states even require road tests after a certain age.
I think, in time, all states will require mandatory road tests for elderly drivers. If they are a danger on the roads, it's best that they don't drive.
This will be like smoking in certain places. Years ago, few could imagine that laws would pass which prohibit smoking in restaurants and other buildings.
Now, few can imagine it any other way.
Years from now, many people will be saying mandatory testing for elderly drivers should have been a given considering the fact that many of them are a menace on the roads.

Originally posted by Janice
Yeah, I can't keep my word. I'm not trustworthy at all. :rolleyes2
You are one piece of work. You droned on ad nauseum how states with different statistics prove your case that elderly drivers don't pose a threat and that the those statistics "need more work".
I finally show you why the statistics vary, and it suddenly becomes a non-issue to you. You dropped that argument like a hot potato.
According to the chart, many states have laws on the books which mandate that the elderly renew their licenses more often, and some states even require road tests after a certain age.
I think, in time, all states will require mandatory road tests for elderly drivers. If they are a danger on the roads, it's best that they don't drive.
This will be like smoking in certain places. Years ago, few could imagine that laws would pass which prohibit smoking in restaurants and other buildings.
Now, few can imagine it any other way.
Years from now, many people will be saying mandatory testing for elderly drivers should have been a given considering the fact that many of them are a menace on the roads.


I have no intention of dropping that issue or any other. I agree with stricter driving requirements, I simply disagree that the elderly should be singled out for them. If states find that they have safer driving by testing the elderly more often, imagine how much safer it will be if they increase the testing to everyone.

THE TELEGRAPH ONLINE

(regarding regulating elderly drivers)

Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2000
Singling out elderly drivers is completely unfair
An open letter to Gov. Jeanne Shaheen:

...This plan is arbitrary, discriminatory, intrusive and probably illegal. For you to consider this my reward for being able to live to an older age is not only a disgraceful act, but also an affront to everyone who falls into this category. Do you really believe that this capricious plan is workable?

Personally, when I feel I can no longer drive without danger to family, others and myself I would happily give up the keys. If my family tells me the same thing I would comply with their wishes. Age is not the problem and I refuse to be singled out with yearly confirmation of my ability to continue this process because some bureaucrat or technocrat decides this is what they want done.

Now let me ask you, Governor, if you could implement this, what public transportation would I use for shopping, drugstore, doctor, gasoline for my generator in the middle of a storm, or any other item in the food, clothing and shelter basic needs?

Your own records state that 141 people died last year in motor vehicle accidents from a high of 190 in 1989. This is almost a 26 percent decline. How many of these deaths were caused by people over 75 years of age or involved people of that age group? No answer on this question from the experts on your task force.

Even with retired families a wage earner’s income is necessary to help pay the burdensome taxes this country enjoys that are the highest since World War II, and in most cases eat up 50 percent of your earnings. The wage earner is not available to assist with daily transportation needs. The family member at home does the tasks necessary to complete the family responsibilities, and usually with a vehicle that they drive. Are you ready to ask the wage earner to add more tasks to their workday? What if you live alone with no family? Thomas Jefferson must be turning over in his grave.

Who do you think pulled the wagon of Democracy through two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf so that you could sit in your ivory tower and propose to legislate hardship on your citizens?

You are not going to ride in that wagon of Democracy much longer if we have anything to say about it. If necessary we will organize every group available from AARP, American Legion, VFW, DAR, Lions, Elks, and any citizen that wants to join, including members of your own Legislature...

Joe Chromy
Center Ossipee

Originally posted by GeeBee
if they increase the testing to everyone.
You can have your pipedreams. It'll never happen. :lol:

Originally posted by GeeBee
Even if the elderly ARE a higher risk group statistically (which is not at all clear given all of the contradictory data), it STILL does not justify lowering a whole group of people to second class citizens.

Yet again, sweetie pie: WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THAT IDEA? You are making things up right and left and putting words into all of our mouths. Give it up already. Nobody here considers them second class citizens - admit it - you made that up cuz you didn't have anything else to say in response to our arguments.

God, if I'd said even half of the things you accuse me of saying, it's a wonder any person over the age of 60 even speaks to me! :rolleyes:

I'm getting so tired of trying to reason with you. You only see what you want to and refuse to even consider that someone besides yourself may have a point to make. Well, take care then, I'm following Kitt out the door :wave:

Originally posted by Janice
You can have your pipedreams. It'll never happen. :lol:

Then it shouldn't happen to anyone.

http://www.ohioinsurancefactbook.org/chapterone/chapter_one4.htm


1998 US elderly driver statistics

* Per mile driven, drivers 75 years and older have higher fatal crash rates than drivers in other age group except teens.
* Per licensed driver, fatal crash rates rise sharply at age 70 and older.
* Those 80 years and older have the highest pedestrian death rates per 100,000 people.
* People 65 years and older represented about 13% of the population and about 18% of all motor vehicle deaths in 1998. By 2030, the elderly are expected to represent 20% of the population.

Originally posted by BrandonS
http://www.ohioinsurancefactbook.org/chapterone/chapter_one4.htm


1998 US elderly driver statistics

* Per mile driven, drivers 75 years and older have higher fatal crash rates than drivers in other age group except teens.
* Per licensed driver, fatal crash rates rise sharply at age 70 and older.
* Those 80 years and older have the highest pedestrian death rates per 100,000 people.
* People 65 years and older represented about 13% of the population and about 18% of all motor vehicle deaths in 1998. By 2030, the elderly are expected to represent 20% of the population.


What does that have to do with singling out the elderly as a group and forcing every invidual elderly driver to prove themselves over others?


Increase the standards for all drivers and you'll see safer driving across the board. Don't blame it all on the elderly.

Originally posted by GeeBee
What does that have to do with singling out the elderly as a group and forcing every invidual elderly driver to prove themselves over others?




Every adult is responsible for his or her own actions and should not be held to a higher standard simply because they are in a certain age group. It's called age discrimination.


Increase the standards for all drivers and you'll see safer driving across the board. Don't blame it all on the elderly.

Elderly Drivers - What you need to know about your driving skills as you grow older

Tuesday, January 07, 2003 By Autoworld


By the time we reach our 60s and 70s, most of us would have acquired a wealth of motoring experience that should help us drive safely on any roads. In fact, statistics show that elderly drivers are less likely to have an accident than young and inexperienced drivers. This is because elderly drivers tend to drive more safely and slowly, and take less risk than younger drivers...

The Merck Manual of Geriatrics

Chapter 23. The Elderly Driver
Contributor: Sheldon M. Retchin
For most community-dwelling elderly persons, being able to drive is essential for maintaining autonomy in daily activities (eg, shopping, medical appointments, social visits, church functions). For elderly persons who cannot drive, alternative transportation should be arranged, although such arrangements often involve dependence on family members and friends. The use of public transportation, even if available, is often unacceptable because of inconvenience, cost, or concerns about safety.

Safe driving requires the integration of complex motor, visual, and cognitive tasks, although many drivers with moderate motor, visual, and cognitive deficits can continue to drive safely, probably because these tasks have been consolidated into a learned, instinctive pattern of driving. Performance is usually affected only after considerable loss of function.

To compensate for moderate functional deficits, most elderly persons avoid rush hour and drive fewer miles, shorter distances, and less at night. For instance, average mileage is 64% less for 85-year-old male drivers than for 65-year-old male drivers. Elderly drivers are also more cautious than younger drivers, drive more slowly, and take fewer risks in traffic. Because elderly persons drive less than younger persons and because they are more cautious, they have fewer collisions. Collision rates (per 1000 licensed drivers) decrease steadily with age (see Figure 23-1). Thus, it is a myth that elderly drivers are responsible for a disproportionate number of motor vehicle collisions...

Sunday, June 1, 2003




The Naples Daily News


Letter of the Day — Really?

Editor, Naples Daily News:

In the June 25 Naples Daily News article on vision testing of older drivers, Collier County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Sheri Mausen is quoted as saying "... Elderly drivers statistically are among the most likely to be involved in car accidents ... ."

Statistics compiled by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, however, indicate that elderly drivers are among the least likely to be involved in car accidents. For example, during 2001, Florida resident drivers in the 80 to 84 age group were involved in 114 crashes per 10,000 licensed drivers, while drivers in the 20 to 24 age group were involved in 412 crashes per 10,000 licensed drivers and drivers in the 25 to 29 age group were involved in 308 crashes per 10,000 licensed drivers.

If you plotted the data for all age groups, the graph would show that crash rates steadily decrease with age. You can check it out at http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us

Vision-testing older drivers may make the roads safer, but obviously much work needs to be done to reduce the high crash rates of younger drivers.


— Ralph Brautigam/Naples

THE AGE

Editorial:


Cracking down on the speed limit

Monday 3 December 2001

Mr. Magoo is not on television any more but the stereotype of the bumbling, old duffer - a myopic car crash waiting to happen - is still with us. In the popular imagination, slow, elderly drivers are dangerous. In reality, however, it is the young, fast drivers who are doing the damage. Last month, John Eberhard, a research psychologist from the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, launched an OECD report that found drivers over 65 had only a third to a quarter of the number of crashes that younger drivers had. "It's not the oldies who cause accidents, it's the young ones impatient at their slow speed who run into them," he said.

The faster the better is an unspoken rule of the road. In a study on attitudes to speeding by Sweeney Research, more than half of the 750 Victorian drivers surveyed admitted to speeding sometimes, a quarter admitted to speeding "most or all of the time", while a third believed driving 10kmh over the speed limit was "perfectly safe". However, the evidence of the rising road toll suggests otherwise. On November 20, the state's road toll reached 400 - the highest figure in five years, and it has been reached before the Christmas holiday season. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the protracted police industrial action may have contributed to the rising road toll, because the usual restraints on speeding drivers were not in place. The higher toll has come despite a 10kmh drop in the speed limit on residential streets. In a weekend traffic blitz in November, 656 drivers were caught exceeding the speed limit. The Transport Accident Commission and the police are right to tackle speeding by a greater use of speed cameras and a law-enforcement campaign, rather than the usual dramatised television advertisements. If people are speeding because they have been getting away with it, and because they believe it to be safe, fear of punishment may, at least in the short term, be the best way of modifying their behaviour.

In the longer term, a change of attitude is needed. A great deal of aggression on the roads comes from faster drivers frustrated that they are not able to hurtle along unimpeded. While slower drivers should mind their manners by not hogging right-hand lanes, speedier drivers need to examine why they believe they have the right to harass slower drivers. Other measures designed to cut the road toll by 20 per cent over five years include tougher drink-driving laws and a scheme to fit "interlock" devices to cars belonging to drink-driving offenders. The devices will prevent a car from being started if the driver has alcohol on his or her breath. Repeat drink-driving offenders are responsible for about 22 road deaths a year and about 560 injuries. The devices may appear invasive, but their introduction will be merited if they lessen irresponsible behaviour at the wheel.


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/2001/12/03/FFX9TLWOPUC.html

SENIORS SECRETARIAT--SAFE DRIVING REPORT SUBMITTED
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Seniors' Safe Driving Committee today presented its report to
Business and Consumer Services Minister Don Downe and other
members of the Provincial Cabinet.

The report, containing seven recommendations, stresses that
seniors, as a group, should not be singled out for special and
unusual consideration. The report says that, with few exceptions,
no condition or restriction must be imposed upon the elderly
which is not equally applicable to all other driving licence
holders.

In its recommendations the report calls for strict application of
highway discipline, periodic skill upgrading for all drivers as a
condition of licence renewal and annual retesting of a percentage
of all licence holders.

"I wish to thank the committee for its report," said Mr. Downe,
"and I will be forwarding it to staff for their assessment and
analysis."

Rex Guy, committee spokesman, said: "It is our hope that the
report will contribute to making driving safer in Nova Scotia."

The Seniors' Safe Driving Committee was established through the
Senior Citizens' Secretariat, in May 1995, as a result of
consultation with Transportation and Public Works Minister Richie
Mann. The committee began its work following several high profile
motor vehicle accidents which involved seniors, resulting in
increased scrutiny and public debate of seniors' driving
privileges.

Dr. MacKinnon said that more than a year ago it became obvious to
the secretariat that "there was a widely held notion that seniors
were responsible for a disproportionate number of highway
accidents..however, research, analysis and consultation within
Nova Scotia, as well as other parts of Canada and the United
States have revealed that notion to be incorrect."

Tasked with concerns surrounding the issuance of driving licences
to the elderly, the committee comprises 12 representatives of the
senior population, seniors' associations and councils.

Extensive consultation took place with numerous authorities
including the province's director of highway safety, the Nova
Scotia Safety Council, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the
medical profession.

Through the Seniors' Secretariat and seniors' organizations the
committee consulted with seniors throughout the province.
Opportunities for direct input and public representation were
made available during Seniors' Expo in Halifax and at hearings at
Province House.

Additionally, questionnaires were widely distributed through
seniors' organizations, associations and clubs throughout the
province. More than 300 completed questionnaires were returned
and results were incorporated by the committee.
Statistical information was obtained from the provincial
government, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
Arlington, Va.; the Accident Reconstruction Journal and
Saskatchewan Government Insurance reports.

The committee's report says it was found that elderly drivers
are, in the main, self policing and modify driving habits
according to capability. Avoiding night and bad weather driving,
the report states, "they are not inclined to break the speed
limit and do not have an overwhelming urge to overtake everything
on the highway."

Community Services Minister Jim Smith, minister responsible for
the Seniors' Secretariat, said he is pleased with the efforts of
the committee, "the extensiveness of their research and strength
of their recommendations."

Apr. 18, 1996 - 9:25 a.m.

From Pennsylvania Driver and Vehicle Services

Chantal's Quiz
1. True or False, elderly drivers are more dangerous than teenage drivers.

a. True

b. False (correct)



Answer: False
You're right! I guess it makes sense when you think about it, especially on the highway. I mean, my mom has been driving since, like, before there were cars!

When I was first learning to drive on the highway I was so nervous! Merging was the worst! I mean, people drive so fast. It's kinda exciting, but a little scary too. See if you know this one.