When is one too old to keep driving?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by lmtada

I personally know of a African Immigrant who drives in -35c, Edmonton winters. No Winter Coat/boots/gloves/winter apparel. I suggested to him the consequences of vehicle issue, road issue could mean death. He stated he has his cell phone, so no issues. This is from highly educated man!

Which proves that educated does not equal intelligent.
No surprise there.

[fargineyesore]

We need to remember, as others have already pointed out, that we will (hopefully make it that long) will be in the same situation soon. I can think of not too many things that would be more difficult for someone getting up in years, than having to give up or rely on others for your mobility. Being cooped up in a place because you cannot get anywhere is not something I'd be real quick to subject someone to.

Safety should be the factor sure, but it had better be clearly demonstrated that this INDIVIDUAL is not safe to drive.

It is hard enough growing older in this country, as we don't have the same attitude towards our elderly as in many other countries, where they bring them in to live with them and take care of them. Far too many of our elderly are confined to homes, etc, so at least being able to drive gives them some kind of a life. As said, be careful what we wish for, because its easy to say "take away their license" but we won't feel the same when it is us.

[fargineyesore]

Another thing, if an elderly person has an accident and it is determined it was because of limitations caused by their age, what about the multitude of drivers that have the SAME accidents caused by just crappy driving, inattention, etc? Should they not have their licenses lifted, because they did not have the advance age effects to blame, what is their excuse?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Cue the 'Best scooter battery?' thread, followed up with 'How to hot-rod your scooter', and the ever popular 'What's the largest boat I can tow with my scooter and do I get an express lane at the boat launch?'.

Or the, how many 100,000 billion candle power lights can I mount on my powered wheel chair, thread. And the what can I use my pool noodles for with my new wheel chair, thread.

[Dead Mule]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Imho.. everyone should be retested every 5yrs prior to renewal. But a real driving test, not the bs written test.
Once over 65, they should be tested every 2 years unless there is any medical condition, then it should be every year.

It sucks and I hate that alot of seniors would loose their "freedom", but about 50% of the people I know over 70 should not be driving, yet they are. Some have serious medical conditions that severely affect their reaction time/motor skills/etc, yet they are still out there. Some of them somehow have passed medically required driving tests, even though if I was to throw a ball at them they wouldn't be able to catch it.

The amusing thing about this is that there are so many young idiots on the road that a good number of them would fail a second driving exam.

They pick up too many bad habits and become overconfident.

Today, being 70 doesn't mean much unless that person has serious medical issues, and a great many do NOT.

In fact, most 70 year olds are safer drivers because they actually concentrate on driving safely, don't speed, and don't tailgate, unlike the many younger morons who do.

I would agree however, that beginning at 75 it would make sense to take a closer look at drivers instead of simply just renewing their license.

A mandatory 2-year medical exam, eye test and a written examination would take most unfit elderly drivers off the road. If that person has cognative issues, then they won't be able to pass any exam.

A written examination to uncover Allsheimers and dementia would uncover much as well.

[Dead Mule]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

Driving is a privilege and not a right.

Too many develop bad habits and keep those habits in place.

Some have bad habits and have been fortunate enough not to be involved in a motor vehicle accident.

Having a retest of some sort every 5 years isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It can help to remind and reinforce good driving habits, rules of the road, plus prove that one is still capable of properly operating a vehicle.

We expect our young drivers to go through a series of steps to get a license, then just pay a fee every 5 years to keep it.

If one wants to keep their license then prove you still deserve it.

I can respect those that are good drivers probably shouldn't be lumped in with the bad.
But there is a lot of bad drivers who definately need this.

And while some over 65 still have outstanding skills, not all do.
So maybe as one reaches a certain age, mandatory testing should be in place.

Perhaps that means that EVERYONE needs to be retested every 5 years, regardless of age.

Perhaps that also means that EVERYONE needs to pass a medical every 5 years.

After all, who really knows, regardless of age, whether any driver is physically and mentally able to continue driving unless it is verified?

I have known younger people who were epileptics, and had various other medical issues who drove anyway.

So if you want to retain that "privilege" to drive safely, then nobody should mind the cost of medicals and driver's tests every 5 years.

Right?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

We need to remember, as others have already pointed out, that we will (hopefully make it that long) will be in the same situation soon. I can think of not too many things that would be more difficult for someone getting up in years, than having to give up or rely on others for your mobility. Being cooped up in a place because you cannot get anywhere is not something I'd be real quick to subject someone to.

Safety should be the factor sure, but it had better be clearly demonstrated that this INDIVIDUAL is not safe to drive.

It is hard enough growing older in this country, as we don't have the same attitude towards our elderly as in many other countries, where they bring them in to live with them and take care of them. Far too many of our elderly are confined to homes, etc, so at least being able to drive gives them some kind of a life. As said, be careful what we wish for, because its easy to say "take away their license" but we won't feel the same when it is us.

Well said Farger. If you take a look at which drivers are causing injury and fatal accidents the elderly are way down at the bottom of the list, it is young drivers under 35 years old, impaired drivers, texting drivers or otherwise distracted. Sure Grandpa might be a pain in the ass to follow because he goes slow or leaves his blinker on. I've never yet seen one texting and driving or talking on the phone. Very few elderly people are driving 140 in the 90 zone, blowing stop signs, passing on double solids, coasting through school zones at 80K. Seniors rarely drive at rush hour, they rarely drive far usually only to the grocery store, seniors center, Doctors office, Church, mall or the coffee shop and they usually do that between rush hours. As far as I'm concerned Senior drivers are the least of our problems when it comes to hazards on the highway.

[JustMe]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Well said Farger. If you take a look at which drivers are causing injury and fatal accidents the elderly are way down at the bottom of the list, it is young drivers under 35 years old, impaired drivers, texting drivers or otherwise distracted. Sure Grandpa might be a pain in the ass to follow because he goes slow or leaves his blinker on. I've never yet seen one texting and driving or talking on the phone. Very few elderly people are driving 140 in the 90 zone, blowing stop signs, passing on double solids, coasting through school zones at 80K. Seniors rarely drive at rush hour, they rarely drive far usually only to the grocery store, seniors center, Doctors office, Church, mall or the coffee shop and they usually do that between rush hours. As far as I'm concerned Senior drivers are the least of our problems when it comes to hazards on the highway.

Lot of merit in this post IMO. I think a lot of frustration posted here about mature drivers maybe because they obey the laws and rules of the road? A lot of the younger drivers may feel they should be able to drive how they want, rules don't or shouldn't apply to them. I was likely the same way when I was 18, but then grew up .....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by Dead Mule

Perhaps that means that EVERYONE needs to be retested every 5 years, regardless of age.

Perhaps that also means that EVERYONE needs to pass a medical every 5 years.

After all, who really knows, regardless of age, whether any driver is physically and mentally able to continue driving unless it is verified?

I have known younger people who were epileptics, and had various other medical issues who drove anyway.

So if you want to retain that "privilege" to drive safely, then nobody should mind the cost of medicals and driver's tests every 5 years.

Right?

I'm all for it.

That was the jest of my previous post, the last lines should have been written differently.

I'm a " good " driver in the sense of nothing against my license.

Doesn't mean if I had to do the test again I wouldn't have to study and practice the required skills to pass.

But realistically every 5 years isn't feasible,

Perhaps by a certain age it can be. ( age TBD but age of retirement seems doable).

As for the rest, well we need less cameras and more traffic enforcement by police.
And if not police (expensive)
Specialty peace officers.

[calgarychef]

When you can't drive with your knee, a glass of coke in one hand, a bottle of rye in the other and searching around for the rifle clip that you just dropped.

Insert legal liability disclaimer here ____________

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Well said Farger. If you take a look at which drivers are causing injury and fatal accidents the elderly are way down at the bottom of the list, it is young drivers under 35 years old, impaired drivers, texting drivers or otherwise distracted. Sure Grandpa might be a pain in the ass to follow because he goes slow or leaves his blinker on. I've never yet seen one texting and driving or talking on the phone. Very few elderly people are driving 140 in the 90 zone, blowing stop signs, passing on double solids, coasting through school zones at 80K. Seniors rarely drive at rush hour, they rarely drive far usually only to the grocery store, seniors center, Doctors office, Church, mall or the coffee shop and they usually do that between rush hours. As far as I'm concerned Senior drivers are the least of our problems when it comes to hazards on the highway.

Maybe you should take a look..

http://www.voanews.com/content/elder...68/162760.html

http://seniordriving.aaa.com/resourc...facts-research

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...vers/index.htm

Shall I go on? What about that 80 year old that just plowed over some people on the sidewalk a couple weeks ago?

under 25yo cause more accidents as there is more of them on the road and driving more often.

Also remember that an occasional driver is actually more dangerous than someone who drives everyday.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I think that both age groups are an issue (in fact I think everyone is an issue), and the system needs to be fixed. But seniors (in general) are not "good" or more "safe" drivers as you are indicating.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

But realistically every 5 years isn't feasible,

Why not? Cost is passed onto the driver.

The system would have to change and actually become a proper driving test, but generally I think it is feasible.

[dodger]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Cue the 'Best scooter battery?' thread, followed up with 'How to hot-rod your scooter', and the ever popular 'What's the largest boat I can tow with my scooter and do I get an express lane at the boat launch?'.

I LIKE IT!! Handicap boat launches !! Power to the "Boomers" !!

Dodger.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Maybe you should take a look..

http://www.voanews.com/content/elder...68/162760.html

http://seniordriving.aaa.com/resourc...facts-research

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...vers/index.htm

Shall I go on? What about that 80 year old that just plowed over some people on the sidewalk a couple weeks ago?

under 25yo cause more accidents as there is more of them on the road and driving more often.

Also remember that an occasional driver is actually more dangerous than someone who drives everyday.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I think that both age groups are an issue (in fact I think everyone is an issue), and the system needs to be fixed. But seniors (in general) are not "good" or more "safe" drivers as you are indicating.

Ok, I didn't say they were safer or good drivers . I should have said of people causing the death of other drivers seniors are less apt to kill someone else than younger drivers. For the exact reason Your links state, they are on the road far less hours and drive far less miles. One of your links says drivers under 42 cause more accidents and cause more deaths. The figures are skewed because as one of your links states drivers over 75 years of age are 17 times more likely to die in an accident they cause because they are more fragile than your average person. Seniors die from tripping on the sidewalk when others just scrape their knee and carry on. Sure they cause deaths (mostly their own death)and media sensationalizes these incidents where a senior ran into a restaurant or hit a kid in a cross walk are involved but if you look at stats of licenced drivers your are more likely to be killed by almost anything but a senior just by sheer force of numbers. Your are more apt to be killed by your own driving than anyone else. If you didn't cause an accident and I didn't cause one and everyone else didn't we wouldn't have much to worry about. When that happens then we can worry about seniors. When I watch the news I see people getting killed in accidents pretty much daily. About 3 times a year I see it was a senior that actually caused an accident that killed someone else beside themselves.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Ok, (snip)

And just like anything, stats are skewed as well.

For example, what is the actual "cause" of an accident?

My wife was in an accident years ago, two cars cut into her lane which was an exit ramp (space for maybe one) two cars ahead of her. both cars ahead of her slammed on their brakes (as in skidded), she plowed into the the truck ahead of her. Yet the cause of the accident was two *******'s who didn't even know they caused a massive accident behind them. (yes, I know.. She should've left more space ahead of her, but that's besides the point).

How many times have you had to make unsafe emergency maneuvers because someone moving slower than the flow of traffice decides to weave into your lane?

I keep saying it, but I don't think one group is more "unsafe" than another, EVERYONE needs proper retesting, I just think once above a certain age, it should be a closer look into whether they should be driving or not.

[riden]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ual_Report.pdf

Page 25 says alot.

My neighbours are in their 90's, and they are gone quite a bit in the 50 foot motorhome. He's 93 and backs that thing up in the back parking lot better than most I've seen.


Half of alberta drivers shouldn't be licensed.

I was about to google the same data. I won't bother now.

Seniors aren't the problem, the problem is we generally see a license as a "right", not a privilege. We are far too soft on bad drivers.

If we want to make the roads safer, p 25 shows where our attention should go.

Frankly, I think half the reason seniors have a bad reputation as drivers is, the really %^%$^ drivers hate being stuck behind them because they drive slow.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

And just like anything, stats are skewed as well.

For example, what is the actual "cause" of an accident?

My wife was in an accident years ago, two cars cut into her lane which was an exit ramp (space for maybe one) two cars ahead of her. both cars ahead of her slammed on their brakes (as in skidded), she plowed into the the truck ahead of her. Yet the cause of the accident was two *******'s who didn't even know they caused a massive accident behind them. (yes, I know.. She should've left more space ahead of her, but that's besides the point).

How many times have you had to make unsafe emergency maneuvers because someone moving slower than the flow of traffice decides to weave into your lane?

I keep saying it, but I don't think one group is more "unsafe" than another, EVERYONE needs proper retesting, I just think once above a certain age, it should be a closer look into whether they should be driving or not.

Enacting mandatory specialized training would be a tremendous waste when the main issue is bad decisions rather than lack of ability. I'm willing to be +90% of accidents are due to poor decisions not lack of ability.

If I were in a position to decide policy. I would start rolling out a mobile dash cam unit that can be moved from vehicle to vehicle and work an agreement with a car rental company to use various cars from their yard throughout the year. A true ghost car system intended to run in all forms of traffic from highways to residential and catch all forms of bad driving not just speeding. Illegal passing, poor lane changes, slow vehicles in left lane, unsafe driving in residential streets etc. I would then turn to the statistics and set the fines based on the risk that said illegal actions will lead to a serious accident. For instance passing on a double yellow (risking a head on) would be a significant fine! Set progressive speeding fines $1000 for every 10kms over the limit no maximum.

People actions/decisions will almost always be heavily influenced by the potential repercussions good and bad. If bad outweighs the good the decision often changes. Pretty easy to figure out. No course is going to change people's human nature.

I should add that I am in favor or retesting for seniors of a certain age (+70) where ability may well be the dominant issue in the safety debate.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

Enacting mandatory specialized training would be a tremendous waste when the main issue is bad decisions rather than lack of ability. I'm willing to be +90% of accidents are due to poor decisions not lack of ability.

You're right. But the only way for people to react the right way instinctively is for training. I believe that the driver's road test right now, is a joke. Put someone in a high stress (but safe) situation and see how they react. ie, have a proper driver's training center where situations happen safely, but realistically. If someone was required to take a course that involved something like that every 5 years, it would become more 2nd nature.

If I were in a position to decide policy. I would start rolling out a mobile dash cam unit that can be moved from vehicle to vehicle and work an agreement with a car rental company to use various cars from their yard throughout the year. A true ghost car system intended to run in all forms of traffic from highways to residential and catch all forms of bad driving not just speeding. Illegal passing, poor lane changes, slow vehicles in left lane, unsafe driving in residential streets etc. I would then turn to the statistics and set the fines based on the risk that said illegal actions will lead to a serious accident. For instance passing on a double yellow (risking a head on) would be a significant fine! Set progressive speeding fines $1000 for every 10kms over the limit no maximum.

you're idea is great in theory, except one problem, can't prove who was driving (registered owner ticket). the majority of tickets would get dropped or reduced(no different than photo radar), as people would fight the ticket.

I do believe there should be more proper ghost cars that are policing traffic, and that fines should increase.

They just need to get off their speeding kills issue, and start enforcing other traffic laws.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Maybe you should take a look..

http://www.voanews.com/content/elder...68/162760.html

http://seniordriving.aaa.com/resourc...facts-research

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...vers/index.htm

Shall I go on? What about that 80 year old that just plowed over some people on the sidewalk a couple weeks ago?

under 25yo cause more accidents as there is more of them on the road and driving more often.

Also remember that an occasional driver is actually more dangerous than someone who drives everyday.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I think that both age groups are an issue (in fact I think everyone is an issue), and the system needs to be fixed. But seniors (in general) are not "good" or more "safe" drivers as you are indicating.

From one of your links, the AAA link to be exact.

Per mile traveled, fatal crash rates increase beginning at age 75 and rise sharply after age 80. This is mainly due to increased risk of injury and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.

It kinda sounds like they are saying that older drivers are in fact safer drivers.

Since older drivers are more fragile, their fatality rates are 17 times higher than those of 25- to 64-year-olds

Whatever one takes from this, it is clear that they are putting the critical age at people over 75. Consumer Reports put it at 80, Voice of America puts it even higher at 85, not 70 or sixty as many here are suggesting.

The most telling information I see is the graph on the consumer reports page that shows, shows mind you, that crashes per million miles traveled for drivers over 80 far lower then for drivers under 20.

When one takes into account the FACT that the majority of elderly drivers actually drive far less miles per year then drivers under 30 an entirely different picture starts to emerge.

Funny thing about statistics, leaving out one fact can totally change the implied meaning.

[KegRiver]

One more thing the statistics don't look at.

Who caused the accident?

Was the cause, a senior traveling too slow or a young driver driving too fast.
Was it a senior not able to react soon enough or a young driver texting.

Are more seniors getting into accidents because they obey the law, or are they causing the accidents by driving carelessly or by breaking the law?

Those are very relevant questions and one can not draw an accurate conclusion about seniors driving without answering them.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

From one of your links, the AAA link to be exact.

It kinda sounds like they are saying that older drivers are in fact safer drivers

That's not the way I would interpret that quote. Basically (IMHO) they are saying they get into accidents because of health reasons not because of bad decisions. That does NOT make them a "safer" driver. That health reason could be old age/slower reaction time/an actual illness/etc.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

One more thing the statistics don't look at.

Who caused the accident?

Was the cause, a senior traveling too slow or a young driver driving too fast.
Was it a senior not able to react soon enough or a young driver texting.

Are more seniors getting into accidents because they obey the law, or are they causing the accidents by driving carelessly or by breaking the law?

Those are very relevant questions and one can not draw an accurate conclusion about seniors driving without answering them.

Agreed. The "cause" of the accident might not even know they just caused an accident.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

you're idea is great in theory, except one problem, can't prove who was driving (registered owner ticket). the majority of tickets would get dropped or reduced(no different than photo radar), as people would fight the ticket.

I do believe there should be more proper ghost cars that are policing traffic, and that fines should increase.

They just need to get off their speeding kills issue, and start enforcing other traffic laws.

Sure you'd be able to prove who's driving as you'd be pulling them over to serve them in person after observing and videoing the action. Camera is just there to provide evidence in court. Most people if presented with the video evidence would likely opt for the fine but if not then the video speaks volumes. No longer do we have to rely solely on radar for a easy conviction so we can and should be focusing on more than just speed.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

One more thing the statistics don't look at.

Who caused the accident?

Was the cause, a senior traveling too slow or a young driver driving too fast.
Was it a senior not able to react soon enough or a young driver texting.

Are more seniors getting into accidents because they obey the law, or are they causing the accidents by driving carelessly or by breaking the law?

Those are very relevant questions and one can not draw an accurate conclusion about seniors driving without answering them.

I think we are trying to choose between two valid arguments. Young drivers can be a problem but it more and issue of reckless non-compliance as a result of lax consequences. For that I say clamp down on enforcement and maybe increasingly link driving infractions to insurance rates and to a greater degree. Make them feel the pain of not following the rules.

For old people it tends to be an issue of competence rather than recklessness. That is better managed through testing to confirm a person capability. Vision, mobility (can they turn properly to look for traffic), coherence, medical history. My uncle owns a dealership and was taking an old guy out for a test drive on a vehicle that was in for repairs. As the old guy was backing out he bumped a car then drove away like nothing happened. Didn't even have a clue. Needless to say he had a talk with the family but that could have just as easily been someone walking...and the intervention too late.

We need to be weeding those people out proactively and there is no real accurate way to do it selectively other than perhaps a snitch line for friends and family to report certain loved one's. Otherwise you have to look at the average health at a certain age and set an optimum age to start testing. I'm thinking 75 is probably a good medium. Certainly lots of people will hit the wall earlier or drive great well past that age but one has to draw the line somewhere. Some will be put out but c'est la vie. They are retired. They have the time

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

As the old guy was backing out he bumped a car then drove away like nothing happened. Didn't even have a clue. Needless to say he had a talk with the family but that could have just as easily been someone walking...and the intervention too late.

Change your words 'old guy' to 'young woman', '42 year old car salesman' or '17 year old teen' nobody thinks anything of it, they see it happen and think "what an a**hole' and carry on with their day. Yet when they see an 'old guy' do it they think call the cops, that guy could have killed someone, he aught to have his licence suspended and should be taken off the road, I better go have a talk with the family.... Point is the 'old guy' didn't do anything worse than the younger people did. Whether they were aware they hit something or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is all of them hit something and none of them were aware they were going to back into the other car or what could have been a pedestrian until they hit it. Yet for some reason its seems its only a serious matter when an old fart does it.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Agreed. The "cause" of the accident might not even know they just caused an accident.

Cute, but deflection is not reasonable debate.

You seek to imply that the older driver is always at fault and that simply is not true, and you know it.

Without knowing what percentage of accidents are caused by drivers older then 70, or whatever age one chooses, the statistics are meaningless.

If it turned out that only ten percent of all accidents involving seniors, were deemed to be the fault of that senior then your arguments would fail totally.

But I think you know that, which is why you tried unsuccessfully to imply that all accidents involving seniors is the fault of that senior.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

That's not the way I would interpret that quote. Basically (IMHO) they are saying they get into accidents because of health reasons not because of bad decisions. That does NOT make them a "safer" driver. That health reason could be old age/slower reaction time/an actual illness/etc.

Really! Wow!

How do you get that from this?

This is mainly due to increased risk of injury and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.

Never mind, I think I know.

Hows life under the bridge?

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Cute, but deflection is not reasonable debate.

You seek to imply that the older driver is always at fault and that simply is not true, and you know it.

Without knowing what percentage of accidents are caused by drivers older then 70, or whatever age one chooses, the statistics are meaningless.

If it turned out that only ten percent of all accidents involving seniors, were deemed to be the fault of that senior then your arguments would fail totally.

But I think you know that, which is why you tried unsuccessfully to imply that all accidents involving seniors is the fault of that senior.

What the hell are you talking about.. I am in NO way implying that seniors are always at fault. I`m the one arguing that EVERYONE NEEDS TESTING But I guess reading is hard... Sigh.. Move along KR.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Really! Wow!

How do you get that from this?




Never mind, I think I know.

Hows life under the bridge?

kettle meet pot..

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

Sure you'd be able to prove who's driving as you'd be pulling them over to serve them in person after observing and videoing the action. Camera is just there to provide evidence in court. Most people if presented with the video evidence would likely opt for the fine but if not then the video speaks volumes. No longer do we have to rely solely on radar for a easy conviction so we can and should be focusing on more than just speed.

ok, I missed that part.