Would it be discriminatory to the elderly to require more frequent driving tests from them?

Question

I'm sure AARP would be up in arms over civil liberties violations, but facts are facts... as the human body wears out, both physically and mentally, driving becomes more difficult and more hazardous.

I think more frequent tests should be required in order for the elderly to stay on the road, for their safety as well as everyone else's. I am more than willing to let the numbers speak for themselves, and as a result, to also require more frequent testing for the young... say, anyone under 25... since they also have a statistically poor track record.

Does that sound like discrimination or good public policy?

Answer 1

Good public policy for sure! I have always held the belief that once past a certain age, one should be required to take not only the written test, but the actual driving test as well. It's not denying civil liberties to ensure the safety of others. Personally, I think anyone renewing their license should have to take the written test. Too often, accidents that could have been avoided occur because of negligence or pure selfishness on the part of the person who wants to get to their destination. Older persons who drive too slowly or have difficulty with directions or vision can cause accidents without breaking speed laws. Accidents caused by the impatient people who try to edge, speed or go around the slower elderly driver. Every state should adopt new DMV laws that require retesting on different levels at different ages. That way it doesn't target certain groups, but makes it safe for everyone. Let's reduce the number of deaths caused behind the wheel!

Answer 2

I am very much in favor or more frequent testing after a certain age. The main issue is the aging process can advance quickly in some cases. Eyesight failing. Reaction time diminished. Confusion due to Dementia or Alzheimer's. I think it should be a special license that needs to be signed off on every year by a doctor specializing in geriatrics. The elderly should be seeing a doctor at least once a year anyway. It could possibly even be limited if only some skills have diminished. Like no freeway travel or distance over a certain amount from home. Mainly, just to cover necessities.

I see no civil liberties issue. You can't get a license before a certain age for a reason. Should be the same on the other end.

Answer 3

I'm all for more frequent driving tests, but why not spread them out? Say, you have to take one every five or ten years, no matter what age bracket you fall into. That way, since individual brains and bodies age at different rates, and mental diseases can strike anybody at any age, we can cover everybody, and we can avoid charges of age discrimination (unless the AARP argues that the longer you've had a license, the more good driving you've done and the more experience you have, therefore the elderly should have to have less frequent driving tests than the young!)

Answer 4

I wouldn't do driving tests for them, they would be idiotic and offensive to someone that has maybe driven trouble free for 50 years. I mean look at their record on the real road in the last 5 years, isn't that a 5 years test? Logics anyone?
Instead I'd do some tests more in line with the specific problems that can arise in the old age and it isn't up to me to decide what they are but they surely have nothing to do with turning an engine on, and setting off keeping on the right hand side of the road looking ahead.

Answer 5

I agree that it's a very sticky issue, and there's good and bad things about it. You would have to find hard proof that the elderly are worse drivers. It's easy to find statistics (ex. how many car accidents involve elderly people), but then you also have to prove not only that those accidents were their fault, but also that they were caused because of their age (physical problems, etc...)

But if someone (or a group of people) were to collect really thorough information, I'm sure they could convince a member of the government to push a bill in Congress, or even statewide. Statewide may be easier to start at. People often underestimate the impact they can have.

If someone had GOOD evidence, then it would be viewed as more of a good public policy. If it is a weak attempt, then it will be viewed as discrimination. It's a very fine line...

Answer 6

I think driving tests are a great idea for the elderly.

There are different levels of ability among elderly people of the same age; some are healthy, some are not. Testing would keep elderly who have bad eyesight, arthritis, and other things that would impair their driving off the roads. And elderly people who are perfectly healthy can stay on the roads. It works out for everybody and saves lives.

I'm a teenager, and I've been old enough to get my license, so I don't want to say that getting a license should be made harder...because I want mine! :P But really, teens can be very irresponsible drivers, but I'm not one of them. I don't party, race cars or drink.

Answer 7

There are assessments what makes you imagine there is not ? you may want to take a watch exam each and every 2 years and also you may want to connect for on line assessments to get additional money taken off your coverage charges. My mom gave up utilising 2 a lengthy time period earlier she died yet my Dad remains doing nicely. Its all about your wellbeing. elderly people get hit by using youthful those who're in a huge hurry to get places prevalent. maximum elderly do not force that many times and they force locally not lengthy distances. i got here upon this on the information superhighway: The coverage Institute for street protection released a document exhibiting that older drivers now have the bottom crash price of the different age team. Why? They accomplish that a lot less utilising than the different team. And, to their credit, older drivers are taking refresher utilising classes in record numbers. The AARP comments that the fashion of people taking senior motive force's Ed is up 60 p.c. in very last 10 years.

Answer 8

In Indiana driving is a privilege, not a right, and therefore the State can make laws governing the operation of motor vehicles. So if any particular group is more prone to accidents, then I think the State has the responsibility (public policy) to make laws that reflect that statistic. But in a sense this is already regulated. If a particular group is more prone to accidents, then insurance companies charge more for that group's insurance rates to reflect the risk. If the cost is too great, they don't drive (insurance is required in Indiana...).

Answer 9

No way would it be discriminate!! I was thrilled the day my father voluntarily surrendered his license. He was a threat to life and limb, and thank God, he had the sense to know it.

I actually think everyone over 50 and under 25 should have more frequent driving tests. It would be good for all concerned. Might even lower insurance rates. LOL

Answer 10

It sounds reasonable. My grandfather was allowed to drive when he was almost blind and only had peripherial vision. He lived in a small town, and everyone just got off the road when they saw him coming.

On the other hand I think seniors would be upset because thier independance is being taken away. Some towns and cities have better public transportation than others, but good public transportation should be a human right.