maybe something will be done about elderly drivers

So long as you're aware that any costs incurred by implementing extensive periodic testing will come from your pocket, I don't have a problem with it.

It's an economic decision. How much per year on average are you willing to pay to reduce the chance that the person in the lane next to you is an incompetent driver?
 
I haven't renewed in a while but I think it's something like $35.00 each time, every 7 years? I don't remember. But the price is up there.

I really liked when the powers that be decided to change the NY license plate from the white with red letters and the Statue of Liberty to white with blue letters & banner, no statue. They forced you to change to the new plate when you renew your registration and made you pay for it-something like $30-$40. Then they gave you a whole new license plate number on top of it. If you wanted to keep your old plate number, you had to pay extra.

Why they had to change the plate in the first place, I'll never know. I liked Ms. Liberty. :(
 
Here in Missouri it's 15 for a 6 year license. If I knew that everyone renewing was having their reflexes checked before they could renew, I'd pay quite a bit more for it.
 
In California, it's $12 for a four-year license renewal, or if your driving record is good enough they'll let you re-up for five years for $15.

Gato's idea of forbidding vehicle ownership to unlicensed drivers wouldn't do too much to eliminate the problem. Here's one reason why:

In California's San Joaquin Valley, farm workers often get to their jobs in farm labor vans, which are vans that have had their back seats removed and benches installed to haul more workers. The vans are owned by the companies, not the drivers. In a particularly horrific accident in August 1999, a farm-labor van slammed into a tractor-trailer doing a U-turn in the middle of the road, killing 13 tomato workers and injuring two more. The bare benches in the van didn't have seat belts, which prompted a change in federal law and some loophole closures to keep body counts low in the future. But the driver was unlicensed... and he probably didn't own his own vehicle.
 
Over here you have to reapply for your licence when you reach 70 and at regular intervals after that. Applicants are asked to say whether they suffer from a list of medical conditions but no supporting evidence is required from your doctor. I think this is wrong.

I think that beyond a certain age you should have to prove yourself both physically and mentally fit to drive with an independent doctor before you are allowed to carry on driving. I say that because there is a high proportion of older drivers in the Clacton area where I drive on a regular basis and some of them are a serious hazard on the road... they just haven't got a clue what they're doing.
 
Driving Miss Daisy

The incident in Santa Monica was very, very unfortunate. But please consider that old age does not cause driving accidents. I would rather share the road with a dozen drivers 70 + who can barely see over the steering wheel of their Buick Roadmasters than 1 low-riding, neon-shining, Spreewells-spinning, spoiler-pointless, bass-booming, trunk-vibrating, seat-reclining, armrest-leaning, homeboy-ricer who either drives 15 mph under so's he doesn't scrape off the bottom of his Honda or 40 mph over so's all his boyz know he's furious 2. Yes, I mean to say drivers under 25 are more of a public threat then older ones; yet it's the oldsters who get the publicity when something terrible happens. The age card is drawn: "He was old, I tell you. Old."

Like the commercial said: "It's not just your car, it's your freedom." What's going to become of all the geezers once you take their wheels away? How are they going to get their groceries, medical supplies, errands, and their bingo games taken care of? Are their adult children going to leave work early to take them out for an airing? Are they supposed to rely on public transportation? Maybe they should all be housed in retirement colonies, and an able-bodied, capable, youthful driver can chauffer them in a bus to all their collective appointments. Then the day comes when the bus makes a stop at the Soylent Green factory.... I would like to end my maniacle ravings by pointing out that the time may come when everyone here will wonder which pedal is the brake.... :grim:
 
Re: Driving Miss Daisy

My mother will be 70 in September... I won't get in the car with her, I don't think she is medically fit to drive but she doesn't have any of the listed medical conditions which would automatically exclude her from doing so. Fortunately she only drove her car about 300 miles last year.

Many things deteriorate with age eg eyesight and hearing. Reflexes and reaction times also slow down. Circulatory disease can affect your ability to think clearly before you ever suffer a heart attack or stroke. The early stages of alzheimers may not be recognised but again can affect your ability to function normally. That's why I say medicals should be compulsory over a certain age because they can pick up these conditions and those that can be corrected can be treated effectively allowing the person to continue driving safely. Often elderly people just don't recognise that there is a problem until it's too late, and unfortunately the emphasis is on the elderly person in this country to own up to being unfit to drive. Naturally, 9 times out of 10 they won't.
 
Re: Driving Miss Daisy

its the older drivers on the motorways that scare the shite out of me - all too many of them pootling along at 40 as the lorries go rumbling past. its nigh on impossible to properly judge their speed when they are doing nearly half yours, all too easy to wind up racing into the back of them.
 
Re: Driving Miss Daisy

The last time my mother drove her car she went to Ipswich with my niece... she drove through a red light without seeing it, almost hit another motorist, did 50 in 30mph limit and shot down the A12 "like a bat out of hell" in Rachel's words... and then tells me she's a good driver... :eh:
 
Re: Driving Miss Daisy

sounds like my driving... she's not been an instructor in the mid-suffolk area has she? :eek: ;)
 
Re: Driving Miss Daisy

The trouble is my mum spends so much time talking in the car she doesn't pay attention to what's happening on the other side of the windscreen. she scares the 'kin shit out of me and that's saying something! Cos I don't scare easily on the road.
 
I heard on the news that TN's law is at 60 or 65 the license doesn't expire (from then on, no renewals needed).
 
didn't mean to start this thread and walk away...had internet access problems....

The Other One - you are right. younger drivers are more of a threat on the road. my problem with younger drivers is that it is way too easy to get a license. i still believe people should have to qualify for different weather conditions and for night driving. you should have to prove you are capable of more than parallel parking and 3 point turns (which was part of my driving test, way back when)

as far as older/elderly drivers, i'm in the retest camp. should be every 5 years after the age of 50.
 
I didn't even have to parallel park during my driver's test. I know how, though, because my mom made sure I knew how before she'd take me to the the DMV to take my test. It comes in handy now being able to parallel park a car that's 41 years old. :D
 
as far as older/elderly drivers, i'm in the retest camp. should be every 5 years after the age of 50.
Click to expand...
50 is not old (said the 47 year old). Seriously, Spot, age doesn't start taking your reflexes until you're past sixty, but it should be every 3 years, not five.
 
outside looking in said:
Gato, are you going to require people to get a fishing license before they can buy a fishing rod? Does every gun owner first have to get a hunting license (better watch that one... Constitutional problems there)?

More importantly though, you also lumped in insurance. Now someone has to insure a car that will never be driven?

Gonz is right - that's a restriction in the operation of a free market that isn't warranted. There are other ways to tackle the problem, like what we're doing now - tie the legality to the act of driving, not the ownership of the vehicle.

Your argument is similar to the gun control advocates - arrest someone not for committing a murder, but for owning a gun.
Click to expand...

Too funny, chcr. How many folks do you know of who die as a result of bad fishing? As for your reference on firearms, read the Constitution. Gun ownership is a right. Driving is not. As for what I stated, I stand by it 100%. Insurance means you have some responsibility. Owning a car, whether you drive it or not, does not show responsibility. Your arguments on this one are not very strong, and niether is Gonz's free-market shpiel. As for the 'somebody will break the law' reference, I'm sure there are lots of felons out there who'll agree with you. Point is...they're already felons.

One more thing...as long as you've broached the topic of insurance...One good way to do insurance in the US is to insure the driver, not the car. I've been in quite a few foreign countries where this is the case, and it usually tends to reduce bad driving. ;)
 
I wouldn't bitch too bad about requiring someone to have a license to buy a car. The few cases where it might be a real pain could probably be handled by a special permit or similar. However, requiring a car to be insured when purchased just isn't going to work. Despite what you and many others may think, there are legitimate things to do with cars other than drive them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top