Should older drivers automatically loose their liscence?

[Ping898]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203...cVgBkmvMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

SHILOH, Ill. - After an 84-year-old driver plowed through an elementary school lunchroom this week, killing an 8-year-old boy, his mother pressed lawmakers to bar the elderly from getting behind the wheel.
....
Among the incidents prompting calls for change:
• In November, an 89-year-old man whose car hurtled through a farmers market in California in 2003, killing 10 people and injuring more than 70 others, received five years of probation because a judge deemed him too ill to go to prison.
• Last August, a sport utility vehicle driven by an 89-year-old man plowed into pedestrians and vendors at an open-air public market in Rochester, N.Y., injuring 10 people.
• In October 2005 in North Dakota, an 87-year-old woman on her way to a doctor appointment smashed her car into the hospital's lobby, injuring five women.
At least two dozen states and the District of Columbia have laws singling out older drivers for special attention, from required road tests to vision examinations
....
Statistics from the Insurance Institute show that older drivers generally are as safe as other age groups until they reach 75, when they tend to have more accidents. Drivers 85 and older are about as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as those ages 16 to 19, but they're more likely to die than others in car crashes because their bodies are frailer, according to the institute.

While I don't think that they should automatically no longer be allowed to drive, I do support further restrictions, like additional and more often testing....

 

[Rich Parsons]

I would have no problem of me today having to go in and get tested, both written and driving each year. It would be an inconvience, but it also would get people off the roads sooner then waiting for them to have an accident. If you have a clean record in many states you can renew by mail.

One can still pass a test (* here in Michigan *) even if they fail the parallel parking, most times the speeds are very controller. But if a person who cannot see (* even the younger ones who cannot see and have their eye sight going *) is tested yearly and then people will have a closer period from testing to possible incident.

 

[morph4me]

I agree, I'd even take it a step further, and say that anybody that has a license should be retested periodically, I'd say every 5 years, both a written and a road test.

 

[Kreth]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203...cVgBkmvMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-



While I don't think that they should automatically no longer be allowed to drive, I do support further restrictions, like additional and more often testing....

I agree with additional testing. Hell, I think drivers in general should be required to retest periodically. Then the rest of the morons on the road might be able to drive up to my standards.

I agree, I'd even take it a step further, and say that anybody that has a license should be retested periodically, I'd say every 5 years, both a written and a road test.

GMTA, or something :lol:

 

[Drac]

I last serious MVA I responded to was an old driver that HAD the restriction of "Daytime Driving Only"..Which he chose to ignore and decided to stop off for a nightcap (or several) before heading home at 1:00AM..
If convicted of a serious accident it should be a MANDATORY re-testing..I hate to see anyone lose their independence, but we gotta get the real hazards off the road...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I agree, I'd even take it a step further, and say that anybody that has a license should be retested periodically, I'd say every 5 years, both a written and a road test.

This would work for me and it would definately get a few drivers off the road who should not be there.

 

[Phoenix44]

I think there should be mandatory re-testing for everyone. The idea that you can pass your drivers test at age 17, and then drive till you die is ridiculous.

 

[kuntawguro]

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/feb/02crash.htm

It shouldn't stop at older aged persons. The laws should be enforced that already exist. This man had lost his license many times and had numerous speeding tickets , yet , he was still driving- look what it cost. Older drivers should be tested for reaction times and ability, too bad that it may limit their freedom or independance, safety should be the main concern.

 

[Drac]

It shouldn't stop at older aged persons. The laws should be enforced that already exist

When I'm duty they are BIG TIME...

This man had lost his license many times and had numerous speeding tickets , yet , he was still driving

It IS sad..They always find someone to loan them a car..We should be allowed to immobilize their vehicle and then if they get caught driving someone elses vehicle impound that one too and punish the owner..









look what it cost. Older drivers should be tested for reaction times and ability, too bad that it may limit their freedom or independance, safety should be the main concern.[/quote]

 

[Kacey]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203...cVgBkmvMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTgWhile I don't think that they should automatically no longer be allowed to drive, I do support further restrictions, like additional and more often testing....

I would have no problem of me today having to go in and get tested, both written and driving each year. It would be an inconvience, but it also would get people off the roads sooner then waiting for them to have an accident. If you have a clean record in many states you can renew by mail.

While I don't support automatic loss of license, I have absolutely no problem with additional testing. Laws change, vehicles change, eyesight changes (for better and worse - I had LASIK, and under state law, I had to have my eye doctor mail a letter to the DMV to get the "must wear corrective lenses" restriction off my license), physical abilities change, etc.

I last serious MVA I responded to was an old driver that HAD the restriction of "Daytime Driving Only"..Which he chose to ignore and decided to stop off for a nightcap (or several) before heading home at 1:00AM..

My problem with the restricted licenses is just what Drac is saying - they don't work; unless you get caught driving at a time you are not allowed, no one will know... and you usually get caught after an accident.

If convicted of a serious accident it should be a MANDATORY re-testing..I hate to see anyone lose their independence, but we gotta get the real hazards off the road...

Sounds good to me!

When my grandmother developed end-stage Parkinson's, my grandfather told her to quit driving - he knew she shouldn't drive, her doctor said she shouldn't drive - everyone but Grandma agreed, and she would sneak out ot run errands when Grampa wasn't home, which is how I ended up driving a 1966 Plymouth Valiant with Tennessee plates to high school when I was 17 and lived in Texas - Grampa figured that was far enough away to keep her from trying to get her car back. Nonetheless, when Grampa's eyesight and reflexes started to go enough to affect his driving (at 90! - I should be so lucky), and he (initially) gave up his car voluntarily, my uncle left the car in the lot at the retirement community Grampa lived in, to have a spare in case something happened to his own car or his wife's... 3 months later, Grampa drove it again, because he didn't like waiting for the retirement community's bus to go a couple of miles to the grocery store. My uncle sold the car the next week, and it was parked in my uncle's driveway in the meantime. Luckily, no one would loan a car to Grampa... Which just goes to show that the person who is no longer able to drive is NOT the person who should decide if s/he should still be driving.

 

[MBuzzy]

I think mandatory re-testing for everyone and harsher punishments for accidents and for driving without a license would improve the safety of our roads a great deal. Especially for the elderly, they shouldn't automatically lose their ability to drive, but there definately needs to be more testing.

 

[Infinite]

I think mandatory re-testing for everyone and harsher punishments for accidents and for driving without a license would improve the safety of our roads a great deal. Especially for the elderly, they shouldn't automatically lose their ability to drive, but there definately needs to be more testing.

You will not control the drivers until you control the cars.

I can tell you living in california the very few times I get into an accident involves one of two phrases. (BTW this is no way meant to be racist it just happens to be where I live in Michigan it was a different group)

"No licensa." Which also mean no insurence.
"No speaka english." Which also means no insurence.

Those happen to be two different ethnic groups that seem to have a small ammount of people that abuse their rights here.

They still manage to be driving and there are so many that my insurence company won't let me drop uninsured motorist coverage. I have to have it which leads me to think that there is many many such cases of this activity.

--Infy.

 

[Drac]

While living in Fla an elderly man drove off the street and onto the sidewalk and almost struck people waiting at a bus stop..They showed his day in court on the local TV..The Judge would ask a question and his wife standing next to him would repeat it to him.."Why are you doing that the Judge finall asked?" Because your Honor, HE CANT HEAR YOU...

 

[MBuzzy]

Maybe stricter punishments for infractions would help....We will never keep people from driving without a license, but when they are caught we can make them feel some pain.

 

[Drac]

Maybe stricter punishments for infractions would help....We will never keep people from driving without a license, but when they are caught we can make them feel some pain.

I am in total agreement Brother..However we need to stop lawyers from defending these scumbags...

 

[Don Roley]

I can tell you living in california the very few times I get into an accident involves one of two phrases. (BTW this is no way meant to be racist it just happens to be where I live in Michigan it was a different group)

"No licensa." Which also mean no insurence.
"No speaka english." Which also means no insurence.

Those happen to be two different ethnic groups that seem to have a small ammount of people that abuse their rights here.

They still manage to be driving and there are so many that my insurence company won't let me drop uninsured motorist coverage. I have to have it which leads me to think that there is many many such cases of this activity.

--Infy.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the law that people in California have insurance? If people can drive, hit you without a means of paying you and yet remain free, why should you bother to pay for insurance? Why not do as they do and drive without paying for insurance?

Oh yeah, and in Japan older drivers are treated differenltly than norrmal drivers. If you have less than a years experience since getting your liscense you have to have a visible symbol that lets people know it. If you get beyond a certain age, you get a similar one. In both cases, it lets people know who they are dealing with. Even though it seems to save a lot of lives every year, I doubt you could get it enacted in America.

 

[MBuzzy]

I am in total agreement Brother..However we need to stop lawyers from defending these scumbags...

Definately - the Ambulance chasers and "we'll get money for you" lawyers of the world simply complicate the problem. I was sued by someone who was driving without a license and with no headlights on....because she had "neck problems" after the accident - despite her being 100% at fault. If I hadn't had my father's company's lawyer (on retainer - i.e. real lawyer for free) represent me I would have had some real trouble.

And she got off without even a slap on the wrist.

 

[jks9199]

I last serious MVA I responded to was an old driver that HAD the restriction of "Daytime Driving Only"..Which he chose to ignore and decided to stop off for a nightcap (or several) before heading home at 1:00AM..
If convicted of a serious accident it should be a MANDATORY re-testing..I hate to see anyone lose their independence, but we gotta get the real hazards off the road...

I don't know about your neck of the woods...

But here in VA, I can and have referred people to DMV for retesting, medical examination or vision tests. And, in one memorable case, all three.

(When I was in patrol, I think I led the department for several years in sending DMV evaluation forms in...)

It's even possible here for people and doctors to anonymously notify DMV about their family members/patients who should be re-evaluated. (It's just a pain, since they barely tell the public about it!)

 

[jks9199]

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/feb/02crash.htm

It shouldn't stop at older aged persons. The laws should be enforced that already exist. This man had lost his license many times and had numerous speeding tickets , yet , he was still driving- look what it cost. Older drivers should be tested for reaction times and ability, too bad that it may limit their freedom or independance, safety should be the main concern.

How, within the bounds of the US Constitution, are you going to keep someone from getting behind the wheel?

When I was barely out of field training, I made a DUI arrest on a guy who came into VA, rented a car, and drove -- all with an ID from Washington state that clearly said it wasn't a driver's license.

I can't tell you how many people I've stopped over the years with no license. I can't tell you how many times someone let them drive, knowing they didn't have a valid license, or simply taking their word that they're licensed. (While there is a statute prohibiting knowingly letting someone drive who isn't licensed, enforcement is difficult because proving such knowledge in our courts is very, very hard.)

Cops can't randomly stop cars, and there are strict limits on checkpoints, as well, just to see if the driver is licensed. Most cops are pretty good about enforcing driving while suspended or without a license...

Do you have a way to stop someone from physically operating a car unless they have a license?

 

[jks9199]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the law that people in California have insurance? If people can drive, hit you without a means of paying you and yet remain free, why should you bother to pay for insurance? Why not do as they do and drive without paying for insurance?

Because most people here are actually fairly responsible & law abiding...

Many of the folks I deal with who don't have insurance would fail on either qualification.

(Oh... and the uninsured motorist insurance? That's often required by the state, and the insurance company can't let you drop it.)

Oh yeah, and in Japan older drivers are treated differenltly than norrmal drivers. If you have less than a years experience since getting your liscense you have to have a visible symbol that lets people know it. If you get beyond a certain age, you get a similar one. In both cases, it lets people know who they are dealing with. Even though it seems to save a lot of lives every year, I doubt you could get it enacted in America.

I actually dislike "NEW DRIVER" signs or "OLDER DRIVER" or anything else... Too many insurance scams around here that would take advantage of them.