Should our older citizens be reqired to pass a driving exam?

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii


You're talking about TAKING A PRIVELEGE AWAY from a 75 year old without cause. WITHOUT CAUSE. With underage people, the state is DENYING a privelege until you reach a certain age. Do you see the difference? The 75 year old has been driving for 50 years... if they are still fit to drive, why take that privelege away? Just because they're old?

Of course I would make it up to the states to decide who can drive and who can't. That's their perrogative.

75 is old. By 75 you lose quite a bit of your reflexes and motor skills. I sumit that having someone that old on the road is hazardous, not only to the public, but to the person themselves.

How about this, I'll concede that someone that old can drive, but only during the day and they have to take a new test every 3 months.

 

[kami333]

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

75+: No license

You can't just say that anyone over the age of 75 cannot drive... there are 75+ year-olds who are perfectly capable of driving.

Yeah...and? There are 14 year olds that are capable of driving as well...let's give them keys too.

So what would be your justification for it, just the fact that they are old? As long as they can pass the test, why not let them drive. Take my grandfather for instance, 82 this year, looks 50ish, acts 20ish. My parents agree that he'll outlive both of them, he's in great shape and very sharp (probably cause he spends all his time reading these days). And he can drive very well, he's the one who taught me how to double clutch. He's probably the very rare exception but you get my point, it would be unfair to take his keys away just because he reached an arbituary age where someone thinks he's too old.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii


You're talking about TAKING A PRIVELEGE AWAY from a 75 year old without cause. WITHOUT CAUSE. With underage people, the state is DENYING a privelege until you reach a certain age. Do you see the difference? The 75 year old has been driving for 50 years... if they are still fit to drive, why take that privelege away? Just because they're old?

Of course I would make it up to the states to decide who can drive and who can't. That's their perrogative.

75 is old. By 75 you lose quite a bit of your reflexes and motor skills. I sumit that having someone that old on the road is hazardous, not only to the public, but to the person themselves.

How about this, I'll concede that someone that old can drive, but only during the day and they have to take a new test every 3 months.

My point is that not all people have poor reflexes, motor skills, vision, etc. That's the point of the test - to show that you are capable of driving. Yeah I agree the test should be harder. Yeah I agree that old people who are unsafe drivers should not be allowed to drive. Where I disagree is with the strict age limit. 🙂

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

My point is that not all people have poor reflexes, motor skills, vision, etc. That's the point of the test - to show that you are capable of driving. Yeah I agree the test should be harder. Yeah I agree that old people who are unsafe drivers should not be allowed to drive. Where I disagree is with the strict age limit. 🙂

Yeah, sorry, I have a personal reason that I think driving laws should be harder. It's hard to me to ignore that and think logically about it sometimes. 😉

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

75+: No license

You can't just say that anyone over the age of 75 cannot drive... there are 75+ year-olds who are perfectly capable of driving.

Yeah...and? There are 14 year olds that are capable of driving as well...let's give them keys too.

Edit: MY mistake, I explained more clearly in the post after the one you quoted... you still should have read the whole thread. 🙂
Did you read the rest of my post? Because unless you can refute everything else I said, then what you said is irrelevant. I explained the difference. Would you like me to spell it out for you more simply?

You're talking about TAKING A PRIVELEGE AWAY from a 75 year old without cause. WITHOUT CAUSE. With underage people, the state is DENYING a privelege until you reach a certain age. Do you see the difference? The 75 year old has been driving for 50 years... if they are still fit to drive, why take that privelege away? Just because they're old?

Originally posted by: retard
don't stand at dmv just go to triple aaa unless u need to do driving test, or take a written test

You can renew your driver's license at AAA? I've never had to go to the DMV for anything else. Got my plates and registration through my dealer.

if all you have to do is pay the renewal fee then yes

 

[Red Dawn]

Over 70 and under 21 drivers should be made to take the test every time they have a moving violation. 16-18 year olds who get a ticket for speeding(lets say going 20 MPH over the speed limit) should have their driving privileges revoked until they are 21.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Over 70 and under 21 drivers should be made to take the test every time they have a moving violation. 16-18 year olds who get a ticket for speeding(lets say going 20 MPH over the speed limit) should have their driving privileges revoked until they are 21.

For just a stupid speeding ticket they should lose the licenses? If that would happen the state would lose allot of money, he won't be getting any more speeding ticket and there for will not be paying any more fine. It?s in the state revenue interest to let the person continue driving instead of taking his licenses away

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/sns-ap-market-accident,0,4556876.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3

and yes, about every year and a half.

MIKE

agreed

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: kami333

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

75+: No license

You can't just say that anyone over the age of 75 cannot drive... there are 75+ year-olds who are perfectly capable of driving.

Yeah...and? There are 14 year olds that are capable of driving as well...let's give them keys too.

So what would be your justification for it, just the fact that they are old? As long as they can pass the test, why not let them drive. Take my grandfather for instance, 82 this year, looks 50ish, acts 20ish. My parents agree that he'll outlive both of them, he's in great shape and very sharp (probably cause he spends all his time reading these days). And he can drive very well, he's the one who taught me how to double clutch. He's probably the very rare exception but you get my point, it would be unfair to take his keys away just because he reached an arbituary age where someone thinks he's too old.

And he taught you to double clutch why? Do you drive a car with no synchros? The majority of older people have no business driving. Everyday on my way back from work there's at least 1 accident, and 9 times out of 10 one of the drivers looks like he's pushing 70+. I agree with you that if they can pass the test, they should be able to drive. But, they should definately make the test about 5-10x harder. Way to easy imo.

 

[Red Dawn]

For just a stupid speeding ticket they should lose the licenses?

Damn Sraight. Just think of the lower insurance costs if these little wankers who view their car as a play thing were taken of the road!

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Over 70 and under 21 drivers should be made to take the test every time they have a moving violation. 16-18 year olds who get a ticket for speeding(lets say going 20 MPH over the speed limit) should have their driving privileges revoked until they are 21.

That's one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

For just a stupid speeding ticket they should lose the licenses?

Damn Sraight. Just think of the lower insurance costs if these little wankers who view their car as a play thing were taken of the road!

so you basically just thinking about your self

 

[Regs]

I'm more concerned about the idiot teenagers driving 80 mph down residential zones killing themselves and others while my insurance rates increases.

But you have to admire the ignorance of some elderly to drive a battle tank of a car to keep themselves* safe from other drivers.

*sarcastic

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

For just a stupid speeding ticket they should lose the licenses?

Damn Sraight. Just think of the lower insurance costs if these little wankers who view their car as a play thing were taken of the road!

so you basically just thinking about your self

Anyone going over 20mph on a public road is a moron, and deserves to lose their license. There's sanctioned places to go fast, legally. If you want to floor it, go there. Red Dawn might be thinking of himself, but it's a great idea that would vastly improve the safety of many roads, and the lives of many teenagers. I lost a good friend 2 years ago in October to speeding. No he wasn't racing, he was just driving fast because he liked it. There is no justification to speed that much over. Sure, I go 5-10 mph over sometimes, but never, NEVER, more than that. Anyone going 20mph over deserves to have there license taken away until they can prove they've matured.

 

[Lucky]

Uh, okay buddy...come out to Southern California and stand in line at the DMV. You're looking at a 1 hour line at the minimum unless u camp out to be the first one in line.

Well that's not neccesarily indicative of an overly burdensome number of drivers; it may just be that your DMV's are terribly inefficient and/or there are too few of them. Perhaps, instead of using your newly raised DMV fees to pay for your budget shortfall you should use them to build more DMV's. It's pretty simple.

 

[Ynog]

Ok for the guy that thinks 15000, a day isn't bad. I am not sure if you are joking. But lets see.

I live in Rhode Island. We aren't the biggest state, smallest actually. We have about 700,000 licensed drivers.
But so thats about 2800 per day average. We have 7 DMVs for driving tests. Which are opened only 7 hours a day.
So now seeing how it takes about 30 mins to do a driving test, atleast. Thats at most 14 test per DMV employee per
day. So your saying for our 7 DMVs we need 200 employees working every day just for driving tests. Do you realize
how ridiculous that is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

For just a stupid speeding ticket they should lose the licenses?

Damn Sraight. Just think of the lower insurance costs if these little wankers who view their car as a play thing were taken of the road!

so you basically just thinking about your self

Myself, my neighbor and all others who have to deal with children driving their cars like it's some sort of plaything.Not all teenagers are like and those who aren't don't usually get tickets for speeding (excessive speeding)

 

[waggy]

I feel after 60 or major illness people should have a drivers test every year. Just because you have driven 45+ years does not give you the RIGHT to drive unsafe. Driving is a privilege not a right.

I have been driving since I was 14 (got a license early because my mother had cancer) from 14-17 I had to take a test every year to prove i could drive. I think kids from 16-18 should be tested every year. And I agree with Red dawn if you get a ticket for 20+ over the limit you should lose it until you are 21. There is no reason to be going over 20mph above the speed limit anyway.

My father-in-law was having mini strokes a few years ago. When he would have one he would black out. He was so afraid of having one while driving he stopped driving. While he could have continued driving he chose to let other people take that responsibility. I wish more older people would think of others and not just themselves.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Ynog
Ok for the guy that thinks 15000, a day isn't bad. I am not sure if you are joking. But lets see.

I live in Rhode Island. We aren't the biggest state, smallest actually. We have about 700,000 licensed drivers.
But so thats about 2800 per day average. We have 7 DMVs for driving tests. Which are opened only 7 hours a day.
So now seeing how it takes about 30 mins to do a driving test, atleast. Thats at most 14 test per DMV employee per
day. So your saying for our 7 DMVs we need 200 employees working every day just for driving tests. Do you realize
how ridiculous that is.

That's assuming that every single one would need to be tested on an annual basis. Obviously that is not need and my figures did not account for this nor did I intend for them to. You are also assuming each of those drivers need to have road tests. Not needed, IMO. I think elderly drivers, at least up to a certain age, should only have to pass eye and hearing tests.

FYI, your states website lists 8 locations. However, as some of them have horribly limited hours I'd argue their hours and locations need to be expanded as well.

 

[Ynog]

We have 8 DMVs but only 7 do driving tests. One is for registrations only

 

[Pepsi90919]

where's the poll?

 

[Red Dawn]

Those caught racing or are cited for exhibition of speed should have their licenses revoked for a minimum of 5 years.

 

[308nato]

I can only give observation based on my experience and my location. I have been a volunteer firefighter for over a decade in my rural area. I have responded to a frightening number of auto accidents over the years. Some under funny circumstances and some tragic.

I don't have hard numbers for you but by far the biggest percentage of drivers are between 16 and mid-20's without a doubt. The largest number of fatalities are in this age range as well. The rest are spread out pretty evenly as far as age is concerned. (those observations are based on the driver I would consider to have "caused" the accident).

Over 1/2 of the accidents overall involve impairment of some kind from drugs or alcohol, the other 50% +or- are divided between true accidents and stupidity.

What's the answer?....I don't know. I am all for 18 being the minimum unsupervised driving age. The maximum age will never happen. In Illinois, a law enforcement officer can do paperwork with the Secretary of State for any driver which will require them to retest immediately. This seems like a good way to pick up on the older driver whose driving deteriorates rapidly to the point of being unsafe.

But, someone will always fall through the cracks. Its a tuff call all around.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Those caught racing or are cited for exhibition of speed should have their licenses revoked for a minimum of 5 years.

gl, it will never pass and nothing is wronig with racing if u know what you are doing

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Those caught racing or are cited for exhibition of speed should have their licenses revoked for a minimum of 5 years.

gl, it will never pass and nothing is wronig with racing if u know what you are doing

Yeah right

. If you want to race go to a race track, not publicly funded roads.