Interesting article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that came today. There was a great debate earlier this week about the safety of older drivers and what could be done to keep them from hurting others.
This study suggested that the single greatest factor in reducing the fatality rate of older drivers was making them appear in person to renew their license. Eye exam, road tests, more frequent renewals all did not reduce the elderly fatality rate. Only making them renew in person instead of by mail weeded out the worst drivers.
Now I know this is not exactly what we were discussing. If an older driver wrecks and kills themself it is one thing, but if they hurt another driver or triathlete that is quite another and the article did not address those topics.
There was quite a bit of disagreement among the slowtwitchers about this subject with some more libertarian and others wanting the government to play even more of an oversight role. Maybe that won’t work with the current system.
If we are going to have highways with 70 mph speed limits then we must do a better job of weeding out older drivers. How many 70 year olds have the reflexes necessary to drive safely at 70 mph? I’m 61 and still have fairly fast reflexes, but I’m a mere shadow of my former self, at least in that department. At age 65 all drivers should have to appear in person, pass an eye exam, a REFLEX exam (a video game would probably work), a driving test, and a written test.
Just today coming back from the pool some octogenarian female in her Buick drove right by a long line of cars (we were in the left lane) and almost ran into a telephone poll crew in the right lane. She knocked over the cones in front of the guys and they went running. As I sat there I watched this woman take what seemed like an eternity to get out of her car and inch her way up to the telephone crew to tell them she was sorry. I was leaving as she was inching her way back to her car. The whole thing could have been a scene from a sitcom except it wasn’t too funny for the crew I’m sure.
I cannot tell you how many older folks have damn near killed me here in Florida. Between the octogenarians, the uninsured, the unlicensed, and the too stupid to walk and chew gum let alone drive, this state is a mess. Your mileage may vary.
I live next door to an 84 yr old widow. About two years ago she ran over her daughter while pressing on the accelerator instead of the brake and holding it down continuosly while her daughter was pinned helpless. She gave up driving voluntarily.
My parents will soon be 80 and both are still capable drivers. But for their safety and everybody elses I’m in favor of any effective system that evaluates ederly drivers on an annual basis.
Surprisingly, when I’m riding my bike it’s not the elderly that scare me. It’s the twenty-somethings that I’ve found to be the least courteous.
Well, one of the major fundamental points of libertarianism is that your rights end where mine start, and that anything you do that threatens my safety should be restricted. Therefore, I think that the driver’s license, granted and administered by the government, and being a privilege, not a right, could be restricted by the government for the sake of public safety without a valid libertarian cry of injustice.
Maintaining a driver’s license requires the individual to show that they have the ability to safely operate a motorized vehicle. If you can’t do so, you shouldn’t be driving.
Therefore, I think that the driver’s license, granted and administered by the government, and being a privilege, not a right
I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I think the typical libertarian would not buy the argument that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right.
And since we’re so keen on scientific, statistical evidence here, does anyone have any data that supports the conclusion that elderly drivers are more dangerous than other groups- like, say, young drivers?
I think that people can argue that it is a right, but it isn’t. The government can take it away for any number of reasons, not least of which is the demostrated inability to safely operate the vehicle. Even if we do believe that it is a right, it’s not unreasonable to treat motor vehicle licenses similar to gun permits, where you have to periodically demonstrate your ability to safely operate the equipment.
**I think that people can argue that it is a right, but it isn’t. The government can take it away for any number of reasons **
Which doesn’t mean it isn’t a right, as I argued in the earlier thread. The government can and does take away rights from people for all sorts of reasons- you have a right to raise your own kids, but if you’re deemed incompetent to do so, the state will take them from you. You have a right to vote, but if you commit a felony, you lose it. You have a right to freedom of movement, but if you commit a felony, you can lose it for up to a year. And so on.
The best argument in favor of DLs being a privilege is that the roads are public, and therefore it’s within the authority of the state to regulate who uses them, and how. I’m still undecided on that, myself.
Back in the early part of the 20th century you didn’t need a license to drive. By about 1930 or so, most states required you to be at least 14. After WWII most states were up to 15 or 16 as I recall. Today, we should be up to 18. I have a 16 year old with a learner’s permit. I’ve found every excuse on this planet to deny her getting her permanent license because I’m SCARED TO DEATH she will get seriously injured or worse.
Your mileage may vary.