2006-11-03 01:54:22 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
There should be an extensive testing process after a certain age. I'll go with 65, just because.
2006-11-03 05:27:01 · answer #1 · answered by Diesel Weasel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that after a certain age, there should be more conditions that have to be met before a person can keep their driver's license, such as a doctor's approval. The DMV is not capable of distinguishing whether a person is physically fit to drive. They can test the eyesight to a degree, but that does not tell them about hearing, reflexes, and even the physical strength the driver has.
I know a couple who are in their 80's. The husband has wrecked and totalled his last two cars in the past two years and the wife hit the wall outside the garage while parking with enough force to knock bricks loose. It is amazing that they have not been involved in an accident that could have seriously hurt someone and yet they are both driving today.
It is interesting, a person who drives drunk will be thrown in the slammer in a heartbeat because while they are in that condition, they are not capable of safe driving. However, if a person is not a safe driver because of physical limitations, then that person is given a driver's license and sent on their way.
I understand that a majority of people 80 or over are perfectly safe drivers and that they do not have any physical limitations to prevent them from driving. However, there are definately some who should not be driving. Be it bad eyesight, poor reflexes, or just complete lack of physical ability to drive.
Using the Americans with Disabilities Act as an argument does not really hold here. That act does not give people the right to endanger the public. If that were the case, then blind people could drive cars.
2006-11-03 10:09:24 · answer #2 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, cause my grandmother can drive very well and she's in her seventies. I do think that there should be a test that one would have to take after you reach a certain age, like 60 or 65. Just to make sure that they are aware of things going on on the road. A lot of people just can't drive and some people can, so that would be a good way to get those people off the road.
2006-11-03 10:09:54 · answer #3 · answered by SweetPea 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the tests for competency at regular intervals after 65. Where I live the rush hour traffic is like a zoo. The speed limit is 45 but everyone drives 70. Every once in awhile some little old lady will be out in her big ole town car driving twenty five and can't decide which of the 3 lanes she needs to be in to turn right to go to the hospital.
2006-11-03 10:03:11 · answer #4 · answered by cytopia1 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Neil. I think every ten years until we are a certain age, then every five years after that, a competency test should be given. If a person passes, they can keep thier license. And this is coming from a person who knows her father would fail and he's only 59.
2006-11-03 10:00:27 · answer #5 · answered by munesliver 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope. But they should have to take driving tests periodically, especially after a certain age or if they are involved in accidents.
2006-11-03 10:01:10 · answer #6 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No... but after say, 65, they should require yearly driving tests, both written and behind the wheel, and if they fail, No more license.
2006-11-03 09:59:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES....i believe after the age of 65 you should be only allowed to drive mon-fri 8a.m.-5p.m.....i think that is a very fair thing....
2006-11-03 11:34:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah there should be an age where they have to take a test to keep their licenses every year
2006-11-03 10:00:21 · answer #9 · answered by kruzluver 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes,because they end up having heart attacks at the wheel.
2006-11-03 17:08:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋