It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Limit Old Drivers?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:52 AM
Personally I believe everyone should have to re-test yearly after the age of 65. It's not a matter of discrimination, it's just common sense. With age your vision deteriorates, your hearing deteriorates, and your reflexes slow down.

Getting legislation like that passed though, would be neigh impossible. The AARP lobbyists are too powerful, and the majority of your senators and congressmen are elderly or soon will be.

My Father-in-law turned over his keys voluntarily at age 72, because he realized he was a hazard on the road with his poor vision, stiff neck, bad hearing, and slow reflexes. If more elderly people were responsible like that, no legislation would be needed.

Teenagers need their own set of laws. No cell phones that are not setup for speakerphone use (this should apply to everyone as well), no stereos that exceed 85 decibels, and no more than 2 moving violation in a year, or loss of their license for 6 months with mandatory re-testing.

As someone else said, driving is a privilege, not a right.

[edit on 5/4/08 by LLoyd45]

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:48 AM
As an "old" person myself, beyond 50, I agree that it should be based on the person's driving skills and not their age. I am limited in distance only because of a medical deficiency, epilepsy, but I'm still a more competent driver than some of the hot-rodders and 'boomers' I see and hear driving about.

And what age would it be set at? For what reasons?

And remember most of all YOU'RE GETTING OLD TOO!

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:59 AM
Quite a few elderly drivers are widowed or live alone and they have a thin line to be able to still hack everything. If you set an arbitrary age limit and take their cars away you'd likely have an increase in admissions to chronic care facilities and a resulting rise in costs in that economic sector. In addition there would be individuals having their lives disrupted often for no good reason because they are still fit to drive. So an arbitrary age limit would be bad.

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:24 PM
I'm not for an arbitrary age limit to revoke a person's license, but an age requirement at which re-tests are mandated on a yearly basis. If their driving skills are still up to par, they should have no problem getting their license renewed.

If they're Driving skills have degraded to the point that they're dangerous to others on the road, it's immoral to place them behind the wheel of a deadly weapon.

Just because they wish to remain independent, is not sufficient reason to endanger other motorists and pedestrians lives.

[edit on 5/4/08 by LLoyd45]

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:41 PM

I'm wondering how many of the posters here think there is too much government in our lives?
Too many laws taking away our rights, etc.?

While I do think there a many on the road who are a menace, I certainly do not think that age is the big culprit.
How about cell phones, McDonalds, maps, passengers, music, putting on makeup, being too young and/or immature, being on legal pain meds, drinking and beverage, smoking cigarettes, gawking at anything that distracts you from the road.
These things are legal to do when driving, at least in some areas.

So, you want to let government stop people from driving once they reach a certain age?
When you do that, how long before some group decides any or all of the above are grounds to not be driving...and want a new law to prohibit?
(NOT saying that folks should be driving and doing the above

People need to be responsible for their actions and activities.
We don't need government telling us when and how to be responsible.

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

I don't know about the rest of the people who have posted here, but I have come to the conclusion that people need to be tested more often for competency when it comes to driving. I did mention that I have been driving for 36 years, without a ticket, and the only driving tests I have ever had to take were when I got my license at age 16.

Seriously, road signs have changed, and to be honest, I don't know if I would pass knowing what they are on a written test.

Some laws have changed. For instance, in some states, it is illegal to have your windshield wipers on without your headlights being on at the same time.

Do you know many people that stop by the DMV for a rules of the road just because some things might have changed? I don't. The only reason I have looked at one is because my children were enrolled in drivers education. Some things were different than what I recall.

So no, since the discussion has been put out here, I don't think it's just about age, but I do tend to think that older people who have slower reaction times should have to take a road test every 4 years at least, once they are over the age of 65.

As for government having to much control? I don't see it as an issue when it comes to driving. People have to reach a certain age to get a license, so I don't see it as a problem when people become elderly and cannot pass a test, being denied a license.

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

I agree that government is given too much room to control our lives. Should we test teeneagers every year or so until they reach that age that the insurance industry has set for being responsible? Does every person over the age of 70 have to retest every year?

The roads are full of incompetance at all ages. The solution short of having state agencies deciding who drives and who does not is to drive defensivly and family members should keep track of the elderly in their families. My folks told my grandmothers when it was time to hand over the car keys. The only car accident I was involved in was caused by someone whos attention was with the person on the other end of her cell phone.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:01 AM
Please folks... Don't just jump on the anti-government wagon, because it is available. What needs to be done, I think, and this is throwing a "way oooffff" topic spin to this thread, is allow the government to do what it is supposed to do.... Um... That wuld be govern, and do away with all the BS stuff that government does. However, that is, as I said, a whole different spin to this thread's topic.

I don't see any danger in allowing the government (Usually State level here, I think) to do annual testing or bi-annual testing for driving. That's a government decision that I could live with and so could most everyone else.

On the other hand, back to the government over-governing problem. I believe I have a solution. Every time someone has to surrender their license, they get one last drive. That one is 85 mph on a straightaway with a government employee standing on that straightaway with blindfold and ear plugs.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:48 PM
no, i just can't see an arbitrary age cut off for driving priveleges working anywhere. in an increasingly aging population, this will become more of a factor, and I would definitely go with more road, vision and written testing for renewals all around actually. I'm in with the same group here. The only road tests I've ever had has been two.. one for my car license, and one for my motorcycle license, and that's been it. only thing after that has been 1-2 vision tests, but I also have restrictions for mandatory outside mirrors. thats it. 15 years driving.. thats it. you're kidding, right?

at teh same time, I know how crowded the dmv can be, can you imagine how much more they'd be if there were all these test takers? your number is #xxxxx please come back tuesday

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by CoffinFeeder

i completely agree with you about the testing it would be very nice if people would get regularly tested. the only problem with that is it really can't be a written test because that wouldn't prove anything. one thing that might work would be if they could somehow create a real life simulator for tests. i know that there would definitely not be enough instructors out there to take every one out on the street and test them. the simulators would be expensive to purchase but in the end it would get the dmv plenty of money for the tests (because it would be mandatory) and that's what everyone wants now-a-days.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:00 PM
I know when my parents moved from California to Colorado they have a law that after the age of 65 you have to be tested yearly,I think that is a good law,but then on the other hand I've seen my share and had close calls with 16 yr olds in cars capable of doing a quarter mile in 11 secs,I have a 17 yr old,and one almost 16,I got my license when I was 17,that was 37 yrs ago,and only driving test I have ever taken,and knock on wood last ticket I got was 35 yrs ago

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:23 AM
reply to post by azzllin

again, there is that teenage thing. I am 16, I am focused in my school work. I hate to be discrimated against because of the other ignorant teens. but sadly, i agree with you. I can drive rather well, but I am kind of scared to drive. the other girls i go to school with think they are "hot stuff" because they have a piece of plastic that proves they can drive. I hate it, they have changed so much. My mom is all for the law againest teenage drivers. although it really has nothing to do with the elderly people, i just like to share that part of my opinion with people.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:43 AM
Drive by an "assisted-living" apartment complex in your area and just scan the parking lot; you will be shocked at how many people can no longer manage their basic needs, yet they still drive a car. My friend's father-in-law had to move into one after a mild stroke (his wife had passed away earlier), but wouldn't agree to it unless he could keep his car. He drives several times a week.

<< 1   >>

log in