I have always bad mouthed rednecks in Pickup trucks. It seems that on every ride we talk about this group. But the group that comes the closest to killing someone on almost evry ride is the older folks. It’s so hard to get mad at them because what they do is not intentional. They won’t cross the middle line to pass. You can tell they are scared they grip the wheel hard and concentrate on staying as wide as possible but won’t make a pass in the other lane??? They don’t see you, can’t understand that bikes can’t stop on a dime, that you treat bike like you would a car etc. Yesterday I was running along a very wide road it is two lane but could drive 5 cars side by side. There were two people walking on the sidewalk so I steped off the curb to pass them. I should have looked but the driving lane is so wide that cars are always 5-6 feet from the curb. Just as I stepped off the curb a older lady passed me and missed me by 2-3 inches. Why she was driving way over ther I’ll never know.
We’ve got an old man in our neighborhood who drives in the gutter. Not 1 foot from the curb, but actually in the gutter, rubbing against the curb. This is not a one time event, but every day. On most streets I run in the street to avoid the zillions of walkers, mountain bikes and people with baby joggers. This guy will not move over and will not stop. The first time I jumped out of his way, after a few times it really started to irk me and I stood my ground until the last second. He never blinked, never moved I just saw him yelling something from inside his car. I just don’t understand it.
I am a big supporter of mandatory driving tests after 60 years of age. Part of that test should involve reaction time. The fact is that reflexes start to go along with eyesight and reaction time goes up. My parents car was totalled by a senior citizen in a restaurant parking lot. Thanfully they were in the restaurant not the car. This old timer drove staight over a curb into the side of their car. when they ran outside he was still deathgripping the wheel with the accelerator on the floor. Their wrecked SUV was the only thing keeping him from continuing forward.
I was in line at the DMV a few years ago in Massachussetts. The old lady(probably 75) in front of me was taking the eye exam(all that is required to renew your license) She started reading the the “letters” aloud. " 4 …7… 5…2 … 6" . The girl behind the counter said “try again. There are only letters, no numbers” Oh O.K. 3 … 5…8…9… The DMV girl interrupted again. Only letters! there are no numbers on the chart. O.K.?
The old lady failed again and when the DMV girl told her she was not getting a license the old woman started crying and told her how miserable her life would be without her car. The girl relented and gave her a license!! when I protested I was told, " I am not going to deprive that poor old woman her right to drive"!!!
I have a distant relative who has actually hit another car, not realized it and continued to drive home with the police in pursuit. Upon getting out of her badly damaged car, she was shocked to learn that she had caused an accident. On another occaision she showed up late to a family get together and came in announcing " whose Mercedes is that in the driveway? I just tapped it" Turned out she had driven halfway through it and totalled both cars. She is still driving!
Some, not all, old people are a menace on the roads and need to have their licenses taken away.
You are absolutely right and I think everyone knows it.
The problem is the political power of the senior demographic.
As a politician you may as well confront the mafia as soon as take on the AARP.
Until the political situation changes we can only come up with some alternatives to alleviate the problem such as free shuttles to and from the Casinos and Bingo Parlors.
And in general just making our cities more accessible to pedestrians and transit systems.
Well thats nice Paul. What else would you like to be in charge of? How much I should pay in taxes? Maybe how many gallons of milk I can buy per year at the supermarket? When you’re in your 60’s, I hope someone takes your license away, even though you can do most everything else, some young punk is afraid of you so you can’t drive your car anymore.
What about the 20 year olds with music so loud they can’t hear the ambulances? Lets get them off of the road, too. Soccer moms paying attention to their kids - yup, off the road for you too Mom. 25 year olds in souped up rice burners? They can’t be safe, eh? Let’s kick them off the road, after all, there’s no proof they’re any safer than old people who can’t see.
How about those damned cyclists? Somebody is bound to think they’re a danger and an impediment to someone else’s right to drive in the gutter. That old man driving in the gutter has as much right to complain about you as you do him. Too bad cyclists, get a mountain bike.
Must be nice to play God.
that’s hardly fair. he said mandatory testing, not automatic age-based banning. and i hate the loud-music/distracted/souped-up-honda crowd as much as you do, but medically speaking, they’re less likely to have poor reaction times than the aarp crew.
i, personally, am in favor of mandatory testing for people of all ages, because i think it’d keep people sharp - like if they had to practice parallel parking to keep their license, then maybe they’d be less likely to dent my car in real life. however, given that there’s a limited supply of time and personnel at the dmv, i agree with paul.
Sounds like someone needs a nap.
Good Lord. Overreact much?
Driving is a privilege, not a right. What’s wrong with requiring a certain minimum of sight and reaction time requirements for drivers? I’ll go Paul one better, such requirements and tests should be administered to all drivers, not just to those over 60.
People who are hyper-sensitive to this issue crack me up. “Discrimination based on age” they cry. Well yes, our society does it all of the time. Adults under 25 cannot rent cars from many car rental companies, or can rent at an increased rate from others because “insurance costs and claims for this group are higher”. I’d be shocked if the same weren’t true for seniors above a certain age.
Everybody ought to be given the opportunity to apply for a license, but that doesn’t mean that everyone should get a license.
I guess I’m playing God too.
I live in Florida where old people come to visit January thru April or commonly called “Snowbirds”. These Snowbirds will run cars off the road let alone someone on a bike. I think re-tests after 60 and then every 5 years thereafter are in order.
If you can’t hear, see, or you have trouble driving in the dark your driving privilege is revoked.
“Driving is a privilege, not a right.”
And you buy that line of crap why? Because someone told you that when you were in driver’s ed, right? Privilege, under who’s privelege? Thats total overbearing governmental BS. If driving is a priv, isn’t everything then, too.? What is the difference between mandatory testing and mandatory banning? If you’re blind, sure, you shouldn’t drive. You couldn’t get insurance for one thing. But if you miss a letter or two, or can’t tell letters from numbers? Please - you don’t need to be able to read to drive safely.
“What is the difference between mandatory testing and mandatory banning? … you don’t need to be able to read to drive safely.”
you’re kidding, right? for one thing, a reduction in eyesight means that there’ll be problems gauging distance, relative velocity, etc → hazard
driving IS a privilege… if it was a right, then it couldn’t be taken away from the uninsured, drunk drivers, etc. i buy this “line of crap” because nowhere in the constitution, the bill of rights, or my own sense of reason does it say that a person is born with the right to drive themselves around even when they’re a hazard. especially when there are other options.
HAHAHA! Rights can’t be taken away? HAHAHA! Try free interstate travel on an airplane in this land of terrorist attack worries. It can be taken away from you just because you fit a profile, not that you’ve done anything wrong.
Try buying a gun in DC or California or NYC?
And you CAN drive safely and not be able to read. I’ve done it in foreign countries. That is why street signs are color and shape coded.
**driving IS a privilege… if it was a right, then it couldn’t be taken away from the uninsured, drunk drivers, etc. **
Uh, nope. Voting is a right, and we take that away from felons. Freedom of movement is a right, and we take that away from petty criminals. Just because something is a right doesn’t mean individuals can’t forfeit it by their behavior.
i buy this “line of crap” because nowhere in the constitution, the bill of rights, or my own sense of reason does it say that a person is born with the right to drive themselves around even when they’re a hazard. especially when there are other options.
So you think if something isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution, it isn’t a right? Bzzzt. Wrong.
free interestate travel is a right. free interstate travel on an airplane is a privilege.
not sure about the gun control bit, you may be right on that one.
i never said that reading was key to driving. however, the ability to pass a vision test IS. if you’re literate but can’t tell letters from numbers because your eyesight is deteriorating, then who cares about street signs; i’m more worried if you can tell how fast the car in front of you is moving, or whether the car up ahead is an SUV far away or a mini-cooper up close.
How about this?
You have the right to drive a car.
You don’t have a right to drive on public roads.
Build your own highway with your own cash and you can do whatever you want.
-k
MachV, at least you’re trying to think about it correctly. But if you pay taxes, they’re YOUR public roads. You are paying for them, shouldn’t you get a say in how you can use them? Or at least your road tax money refunded when your license is revoked? (yeah, that’ll happen)
I’m not advocating free and unfettered access to anyone in any kind of vehicle (though thats what I’d do if I were in charge).
All I’m saying is that you don’t need to be able to distinguish between a letter and a number to drive safely. Apparently New Zealand agrees, they’ve abolished drivers’s license renewals completely and only require a medical check up at age 75.
Here’s an excerpt from an article on same… “Let me share with you one last story: The Department of Transportation came to us one day and said they needed to increase the fees for driver’s licenses. When we asked why, they said that the cost of relicensing wasn’t being fully recovered at the current fee levels. Then we asked why we should be doing this sort of thing at all. The transportation people clearly thought that was a very stupid question: Everybody needs a driver’s license, they said. I then pointed out that I received mine when I was fifteen and asked them: “What is it about relicensing that in any way tests driver competency?” We gave them ten days to think this over. At one point they suggested to us that the police need driver’s licenses for identification purposes. We responded that this was the purpose of an identity card, not a driver’s license. Finally they admitted that they could think of no good reason for what they were doing - so we abolished the whole process! Now a driver’s license is good until a person is 74 years old, after which he must get an annual medical test to ensure he is still competent to drive. So not only did we not need new fees, we abolished a whole department. That’s what I mean by thinking differently.”
i am confused - are you agreeing with me or not? honest, i’m not being sarcastic, i am confused.
“Uh, nope. Voting is a right, and we take that away from felons. Freedom of movement is a right, and we take that away from petty criminals. Just because something is a right doesn’t mean individuals can’t forfeit it by their behavior.”
did you just agree with me? driving is either a privilege or a right, but you’re saying that regarless, it can be taken away. so, regardless of semantics or nomenclature (i love how that word looks), my point still stands.
“So you think if something isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution, it isn’t a right? Bzzzt. Wrong.”
i refer you to my comment “**or my own sense of reason” **so that’s covered. and anyway, that’s not really germane (another fun word) to the whole discussion; if you’re correct, then driving is a right, so please see the previous paragraph.
i’m not trying to be sarcastic, and i’m making an effort to have this not sound rude. do you agree with me or not? or are you arguing about minutae for the sake of arguing? nothing wrong with that, i just want to know where we stand.
finally, we agree! from your article:
“Now a driver’s license is good until a person is 74 years old, after which he must get an annual medical test to ensure he is still competent to drive”
i say retirement age (is it 62?), they say 75. either way, sounds good to me.
“Now a driver’s license is good until a person is 74 years old, after which he must get an annual medical test to ensure he is still competent to drive”
Thats what I said initially but I set the age at 60 and you jumped all over it. So you are O.K. with taking away someones right to drive but not until they are 75? And you are assuming that reflexes and reaction time dont deteriorate until 74 years old? I would like to see some medical evidence to support that.
No, no Paul, thats not what I’m saying. Your original reply was based on a post about someone not being able to tell the difference between a number and a letter, and you suggested mandatory testing. I took the (what I thought) logical step of expecting that you believed reading was required for safe driving, and would remove old folks from the sysem who couldn’t read. If you did that, you’d have to do the same with illegal immigrants, and most high school kids.