Would you support mandatory drivers license (re) testing at ~50

[acemcmac]

I support manditory testing for EVERYONE every 5 years

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Falcon39
Erm, 50? Isn't that a bit young? 50 year olds aren't exactly losing it. Maybe from 65.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Falcon39
Erm, 50? Isn't that a bit young? 50 year olds aren't exactly losing it. Maybe from 65.

yeah, 50 isn't old

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I support manditory testing for EVERYONE every 5 years

You want to pony up the money to support the needless bueaucratic bloating that would be caused by your brilliant suggestion?

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
50 isn't old unless you're in high school.

No kidding, I saw this thread title and figured the OP had to be around 12. :laugh:

 

[lokiju]

I'd say at 65 then retest every two years, 50 is just to young to be a real concern IMO.

 

[theknight571]

We (Michigan) used to have to retake the written portion of the test every 4 years (when the licenses expire), now that's not even required anymore.

The better question...who would pay for such a test. The DMV/Secretary of State can't hire enough people to handle the lines in the offices let alone send some of them out on the road for a test.

Last time I went to the local SoS office, I was 10th in line, and there were 3 people working in the office at the time. A decent ratio (IMO).

However, at any given time, one was outside smoking, one was on the phone, and one was actually helping customers.... and they would rotate...with there never being more than one on the desk... I wrote a letter to SoS that day...never heard anything back though.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
i would. unfortunately, the largest voting block wouldn't.

And this gets to the heart of the matter - seniors don't like it, and they vote (which is why the AARP is arguably the most powerful lobby in America), so it's not going to happen.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

As long as we are throwing taxpayers money around. How about free public transportation for the elderly? Many of the elder that shouldn't be on the road are there out of necessity

 

[imported_weadjust]

Raising the driving age to 21 would reduce more accidents than re-testing at 50.

 

[j00fek]

not at 50, 65 is good

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: weadjust
Raising the driving age to 21 would reduce more accidents than re-testing at 50.

:thumbsup:

For every serious accident involving the elderly, there are many more involving youngsters.
Insurance is based on stats, why do you thing 16-25 pays such high rates?

And you don't see many 70 year olds out on saturday night tanked up on MD2020 and redbull racing for pinks

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: weadjust
Raising the driving age to 21 would reduce more accidents than re-testing at 50.

:thumbsup:

For every serious accident involving the elderly, there are many more involving youngsters.
Insurance is based on stats, why do you thing 16-25 pays such high rates?

Heck, now that I am old enough, I suggest they raise the minimum driving age to 25!

 

[Fenixgoon]

not 50, people are still pretty "young" at that age.. i would put it closer to 60/65

 

[Brutuskend]

would you support some form of license retesting at a certain age?

At a certain age YES!

50 though? :brokenheart:


I'm over 50 and I drive just as well as I ever did.

65 and up HELL YES!

 

[Kelemvor]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

would you support some form of license retesting at a certain age?

At a certain age YES!

50 though? :brokenheart:


I'm over 50 and I drive just as well as I ever did.

65 and up HELL YES!

Same here. 50 is too low. Re-testing needs to be at an age where most people start to lose some of their abilities for depth perception, physical control, etc. I'd say the 65-70 range.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

50 no.

70 yes.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
every 5 years after 70

Ditto.

 

[Fraggable]

the problem with this is that most older people would drive just fine in a driving test. If we were able to give police more liberty to take away licences for observing reckless driving, that would actually help the problem.

But that would raise hell among the general population, saying that it's not fair to take a license away for driving when they don't know they're being observed.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I support manditory testing for EVERYONE every 5 years

And every year when you're under 25.

Unfortunately testing doesn't help when the person KNOWS they're driving poorly and don't care like most young drivers.

Edit: and every year or two after you hit 70

 

[feralkid]

Statistically, the most accident prone drivers are those 25 and under and those 75 and older.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

I'd support retesting every few years for everyone. It's amazing how ridiculously simplistic the whole driving subject is. The state loves to talk about how important driver safety is but what do they do about it? Issue 10 minute driving tests just once, no recurrent training required. What's to keep people knowledgable about being a safe driver? What's in place to pull people off the road who shouldn't be driving? Sadly... it takes a series of accidents and/or violations before a person gets a license pulled. Recurrent training could probably net out these unsafe drivers before they cause that next accident. If you're an unsafe driver... you SHOULD be caught and pulled off the road, preferably before you take out someone else.

 

[amdhunter]

No, because I plan to be an old driver one day.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Mandatory retesting for everybody would be ridiculous at every 5 years, can you imagine how bad the DMV would be? The wait to take a driving test at the DMV is bad enough as it is with a bunch of kids, imagine if EVERYBODY was waiting to retake that test, it'd be complete chaos..

 

[GhostDoggy]

I'm not exactly sure why '50' is the number to be. Why not make it a requirement at every renewal?