NationStates Jolt Archive

This old guy in Florida hit a pedestrian and drove for three miles with the corpse hanging through his windshield. We know that dementia has a tendency to develop in some old people, also reaction times and eyesight tend to get worse later in life. Should people beyond a certain age be prohibited from driving?

http://sptimes.com/2005/10/20/Tampabay/Driver_goes_3_miles_w.shtml

After age 65 (maybe 70), they should have to take tests every two or three years to renew their licences.

No age limit but perhaps a drivers test after 65 or so for renewal.

After age 65, they should have to take tests every two or three years to renew their licences.

After age 65, it should be every year. Nobody needs to be hit because some old dork has bad eyesight.

This old guy in Florida hit a pedestrian and drove for three miles with the corpse hanging through his windshield. We know that dementia has a tendency to develop in some old people, also reaction times and eyesight tend to get worse later in life. Should people beyond a certain age be prohibited from driving?

http://sptimes.com/2005/10/20/Tampabay/Driver_goes_3_miles_w.shtml

Actually if there should be a limit on the age one can truthfully say the greater good is better served by limiting the other end of the age scale. By way of contrast, I wonder how many accidents of this nature there are per 100k in population, compared to the number of drive by shootings and incidents of chaining or otherwise towing people via motor vehicle by drivers under the age of say...21. I bet I can sell the argument that hormone poisoning, lack of experience and independent thought in those below this age are the primary cause of preventable death in America. Pushing your argument could backfire badly. When insurance companies get an angle on how to save a nickel on anything we all lose freedom. Unfortunately our youth has yet to figure that out.

If "lack of experience" is a viable excuse to raise the age limit, you can expect to see an increase in "preventable deaths" at that age limit.

After age 65, it should be every year. Nobody needs to be hit because some old dork has bad eyesight.

Read the article, it wasn't eyesight, they think it was dementia. Oh, I resemble that "old dork" thing. :D

Read the article, it wasn't eyesight, they think it was dementia. Oh, I resemble that "old dork" thing. :D

I wasn't talking about the article, though. I was just making a general statement, as many older drivers have relatively poor eyesight.

And :p.

It's my constitutional right to run over children!

I wasn't talking about the article, though. I was just making a general statement, as many older drivers have relatively poor eyesight.

And :p.

It is definately harder for me to see at night even with glasses than it used to be, and I'm only 62. :(

It is definately harder for me to see at night even with glasses than it used to be, and I'm only 62. :(

That's okay. The blood smears on your bonnet and bumper bar are almost impossible to see at night anyway, so you can hose them off when you get home.

Oh come now .... driving would be boring if everyone drove well. (Somehow, that doesn't seem like good grammar ...)

Anyway ... I like to dodge the odd old person here and there. Keeps me awake on long trips.

I think we can all agree that traffic would be a lot more fun if everybody rode motorcycles and mopeds.

I think we can all agree that traffic would be a lot more fun if everybody rode motorcycles and mopeds.

Go to Vietnam. :p

Go to Vietnam. :p

That's where I got the idea, dude! I saw it on a travel show. :p

I think that people should renew there driver's license every few years anyway, because people may forget things or even get into bad habbits.

I have no clue how some people got thier license in the first place, just a few days ago I almost got hit by someone trying to make a left hand turn out of the right hand lane. :eek: I think everyone should have to retake thier driver's test everytime they renew thier license (in my state that would be every 4 years, but in Arizona it is good until you are 65 which I don't get at all)

I have no clue how some people got thier license in the first place, just a few days ago I almost got hit by someone trying to make a left hand turn out of the right hand lane. :eek: I think everyone should have to retake thier driver's test everytime they renew thier license (in my state that would be every 4 years, but in Arizona it is good until you are 65 which I don't get at all)

I haven't bothered to get my licence, after the very first time I was out driving, I had McDonalds rubbish thrown at me by someone frustrated my the lack of speed, smearing the window. (despite the plates displaying that I am a learner). Swerving on the highway after that has happened when you have NO driving experience = not fun. And then on the fourth time I was out, I got verbally abused after taking too long to go through a roundabout (he overtook me while I was on the roundabout)...I figured that if people can get away with doing that...i'll stick to public transport for now.

I haven't bothered to get my licence, after the very first time I was out driving, I had McDonalds rubbish thrown at me by someone frustrated my the lack of speed, smearing the window. (despite the plates displaying that I am a learner). Swerving on the highway after that has happened when you have NO driving experience = not fun. And then on the fourth time I was out, I got verbally abused after taking too long to go through a roundabout (he overtook me while I was on the roundabout)...I figured that if people can get away with doing that...i'll stick to public transport for now.

I haven't gotten my license for much the same reasons... Though rather than people doing things like that here, they're just horrible, aggressive drivers. You're lucky if you don't get hit every time you're out on the road.

I haven't gotten my license for much the same reasons... Though rather than people doing things like that here, they're just horrible, aggressive drivers. You're lucky if you don't get hit every time you're out on the road.

With all the shit everyone else can get away with, i'm amazed i've restrained myself from going out driving on my own with a bottle of jack daniels and a reefer, with music as loud as it can go.

If they fought in WWII or Korea i say no ask me in 20 years about Viet Nam.

With all the shit everyone else can get away with, i'm amazed i've restrained myself from going out driving on my own with a bottle of jack daniels and a reefer, with music as loud as it can go.

And somebody jacked up on acid trying to grab the wheel from you.

That would rock!

And somebody jacked up on acid trying to grab the wheel from you.

That would rock!

The only thing that's missing is me getting a blowjob at the same time.

The only thing that's missing is me getting a blowjob at the same time.

And some naked dude playing bongo drums in the back seat.

I haven't bothered to get my licence, after the very first time I was out driving, I had McDonalds rubbish thrown at me by someone frustrated my the lack of speed, smearing the window. (despite the plates displaying that I am a learner). Swerving on the highway after that has happened when you have NO driving experience = not fun. And then on the fourth time I was out, I got verbally abused after taking too long to go through a roundabout (he overtook me while I was on the roundabout)...I figured that if people can get away with doing that...i'll stick to public transport for now.
Were you on Route 1 near Princeton NJ at the time? If you were it was me, and it was Taco Bell, not Mc Donalds.

This old guy in Florida hit a pedestrian and drove for three miles with the corpse hanging through his windshield. We know that dementia has a tendency to develop in some old people, also reaction times and eyesight tend to get worse later in life. Should people beyond a certain age be prohibited from driving?

http://sptimes.com/2005/10/20/Tampabay/Driver_goes_3_miles_w.shtml

I think there should be a competency test for all ages.

Short-term solution: driving tests every year for oldies.

Long-term solution: replace cars and roads with something more sensible - they were invented in the days when road travel was sparse, and not intended for the massive amounts of traffic that exist today.

This old guy in Florida hit a pedestrian and drove for three miles with the corpse hanging through his windshield. We know that dementia has a tendency to develop in some old people, also reaction times and eyesight tend to get worse later in life. Should people beyond a certain age be prohibited from driving?

http://sptimes.com/2005/10/20/Tampabay/Driver_goes_3_miles_w.shtml
No. To do so would probably violate the due process and equal protection clauses in the Constitution. I for one, would test it in court with great delight. I have seen men and women in their 80s and 90s better able to drive than many 21-year-olds I have known.

There is nothing which prohibits setting performance standards, however, as long as they are applied across the board to all ages, races, sexes. This is something I strongly support ... for everyone! :)

Were you on Route 1 near Princeton NJ at the time? If you were it was me, and it was Taco Bell, not Mc Donalds.

No, I was quite a ways away from there. :p And it was definitely Mcdonalds.

Mhh. Quarter Pounder sauce.

And some naked dude playing bongo drums in the back seat.

Wait, i'm getting deja vu.

Wait, i'm getting deja vu.

A guy wearing nothing but a loincloth, riding on top of the car, weilding a bow. Does that bring back any eerie memories?

A guy wearing nothing but a loincloth, riding on top of the car, weilding a bow. Does that bring back any eerie memories?

It wasn't a car, it was a combine harvester.

It wasn't a car, it was a combine harvester.

Ooooookaaaaay...

*continues listening the The Professionals and talking to Pri*

There is no reason to be against yearly tests after a certain age, perhaps 65 or so. Part of aging is understanding that one declines over time. Your abilities aren't what they used to be, so checking things such as vision regularly helps ensure safety on the road for all.

There should be an age limit. Old people (no offense to them) are veery bad drivers.

There should be an age limit. Old people (no offense to them) are veery bad drivers.
Bet me, you agist! :p

There is no reason to be against yearly tests after a certain age, perhaps 65 or so. Part of aging is understanding that one declines over time. Your abilities aren't what they used to be, so checking things such as vision regularly helps ensure safety on the road for all.
It's a clear violation of several portions of the Constitution. I'll sue, and have enormous fun doing so! If you're going to test everyone for driving abilities, so be it, but discriminate based on age and I will sue!

It's a clear violation of several portions of the Constitution. I'll sue, and have enormous fun doing so! If you're going to test everyone for driving abilities, so be it, but discriminate based on age and I will sue!

You know what? You've got a point. Make renewal tests mandatory for ALL drivers....at least every three years or so.

After age 65, it should be every year. Nobody needs to be hit because some old dork has bad eyesight.
I know it doesn't seem that way, but there are a lot of people over 65 that are plenty alert enough to drive a car well. Georgia does require that after age 65, you have a driving test every 5 years. I suppose that makes the first retest at 70, assuming you renew just before your 65th birthday.

It's a clear violation of several portions of the Constitution. I'll sue, and have enormous fun doing so! If you're going to test everyone for driving abilities, so be it, but discriminate based on age and I will sue!
What part of the Constitution gives driver licensing responsibility to the federal government? What part even touches on any kind of licensing for anything? Licensing is a privilege, not a right. And, by the way, pilots have been discriminated against for years. Sixty-five is the maximum age that a pilot can fly for a scheduled airline.

It's a clear violation of several portions of the Constitution. I'll sue, and have enormous fun doing so! If you're going to test everyone for driving abilities, so be it, but discriminate based on age and I will sue!

I'm trying to remember which part of the Constitution governs state driver's licenses. Could you kindly remind me?

I'm trying to remember which part of the Constitution governs state driver's licenses. Could you kindly remind me?
Heh! Well, how about the equal protection clause? How about the laws pertaining to non-discrimination based on age ( which have been tested constitutionally )?

I'm sure there are quite a number of "Babyboomer" lawyers who would love to further build their reputations by being on the leading edge of lawsuits against discriminatory treatment of those in the age range just ahead of their own. :D

Heh! Well, how about the equal protection clause? How about the laws pertaining to non-discrimination based on age ( which have been tested constitutionally )?

I'm sure there are quite a number of "Babyboomer" lawyers who would love to further build their reputations by being on the leading edge of lawsuits against discriminatory treatment of those in the age range just ahead of their own. :D

Ah. So what you're saying is that driver's licenses are a right, not a privilege. Well, sir, Myrmidonisia has already stated that Georgia requires testing beyond the age of 65. Get suing!

What part of the Constitution gives driver licensing responsibility to the federal government? What part even touches on any kind of licensing for anything? Licensing is a privilege, not a right. And, by the way, pilots have been discriminated against for years. Sixty-five is the maximum age that a pilot can fly for a scheduled airline.
Flying is an occupation. Driving is virtually a survival behavior in modern society.

The federal government obviously has no juisdiction over state-issued driver's licences, but does have an affirmative obligation to insure equal protection under the law to all citizens. It also has the obligation under the Constitution to prevent discriminatory deprivation of life or property without due process of law. Setting an arbitrary age after which a citizen is not allowed to drive ( or work, for that matter ) would, IMHO, be a clear violation of due process.

Flying is an occupation. Driving is virtually a survival behavior in modern society.

The federal government obviously has no juisdiction over state-issued driver's licences, but does have an affirmative obligation to insure equal protection under the law to all citizens. It also has the obligation under the Constitution to prevent discriminatory deprivation of life or property without due process of law. Setting an arbitrary age after which a citizen is not allowed to drive ( or work, for that matter ) would, IMHO, be a clear violation of due process.

Why? They set a lower age limit. Why not an upper age limit?

Ah. So what you're saying is that driver's licenses are a right, not a privilege. Well, sir, Myrmidonisia has already stated that Georgia requires testing beyond the age of 65. Get suing!
I'm saying no such thing. Read my last post above. All I'm saying is that arbitrarily depriving a citizen of something not denied to other citizens, simply because they are older is unconstitutional, particularly where that something can be shown to be a necessary thing.

Change the group: what if it wasn't "older people" you were singling out, but say, "African-Americans?"

"All African-Americans must be tested once every three years to determine if they are still fit to drive." Uh huh. Right.

BTW ... I don't live in GA, so I have no standing to sue. :p

Why? They set a lower age limit. Why not an upper age limit?
There is no valid reason for doing so, other than the prejudices of the very young against the very old.

There is no valid reason for doing so, other than the prejudices of the very young against the very old.

Then what is the valid reason for arbitrarily deciding who is old enough to drive, drink, smoke or vote?

There is no valid reason for doing so, other than the prejudices of the very young against the very old.
Prejudice? Don't tell me you honestly believe that old age does not influence one's driving abilities! If so, then I feel obliged to tell you that this just isn't true (and I know this because I myself was granted the honour to experience just how much one's driving skills ...differ from a certain age on, from what they might have been earlier on).
Old people are, and I don't mean this in an insulting/mean/disrespectful way, but just stating the obvious, slower in executing everyday tasks and thus not fit for driving.
However, putting an age limit on permits is not going to work, simply because first, ageing is a gradual process and because there are great differences between individuals.
I would encourage mandatory 'tests' for drivers older than ...say... 70, starting out every couple of years, then from 80 on annually.

Then what is the valid reason for arbitrarily deciding who is old enough to drive, drink, smoke or vote?
Ask the insurance industry about their statistics on age and driving. As to drinking and smoking, ask your local legislators. As to voting, consult the Constitution.

It's stupid to just ban people above a certain age. Just test them, and let the ones who can drive do so.

Prejudice? Don't tell me you honestly believe that old age does not influence one's driving abilities! If so, then I feel obliged to tell you that this just isn't true (and I know this because I myself was granted the honour to experience just how much one's driving skills ...differ from a certain age on, from what they might have been earlier on).
Old people are, and I don't mean this in an insulting/mean/disrespectful way, but just stating the obvious, slower in executing everyday tasks and thus not fit for driving.
However, putting an age limit on permits is not going to work, simply because first, ageing is a gradual process and because there are great differences between individuals.
I would encourage mandatory 'tests' for drivers older than ...say... 70, starting out every couple of years, then from 80 on annually.
From Older Drivers - Age Page - Health Information: NIA (http://www.cureresearch.com/artic/older_drivers_age_page_health_information_nia.htm)

"In 1983 one out of every 15 licensed drivers in America was over the age of 70. By 1995 this had risen to one out of every 11 drivers. By 2020 one out of every five Americans will be over 65 years of age, and most of them will probably be licensed to drive."

"As a group, older drivers are some of the country’s safest drivers. Fewer speed or drive after drinking alcohol than at any other age. However, compared to young and middle-age adults, people over 70 are more likely to be involved in a crash while driving and more likely to die in that crash. There are many reasons for this – some can be changed, but others cannot."

"There are currently no upper age limits for driving. Because people age at different rates, it is not possible to choose one age as the limit. Setting an age limit would leave some drivers on the road too long, while others would be stopped too soon. Heredity, general health, your way of life, and surroundings all influence how you age."

"The hard question is whether older drivers should be tested differently and more often."

And that "hard question" is where I personally draw my own "line in the sand." :)