Why Do We Let the Elderly on Our Roads?

Post Reply New Topic

Hold your breath long enough and you will become one of them zombies.

ruveyn

Old people should still have rights and all that, but come on, have you uber-liberals SEEN some of them driving?! They complain about the younger generation, but some of those old-timers are a danger to the public!

This one time, I was in the minibus back from music club, and this old guy was doing what I presume was supposed to be a three-point-turn in the middle of the busy street, and nearly knocking over a tree that was outside the pub, so the bus driver opened the window and shouted, "Effing idiot!" which was pretty funny.

They really should have to retake the driving test every two years after the age of 65. That's not unreasonable, it could help save lives.

Ask yourself the same question when you are elderly.

Actually, even when I was young, I suggested that no male under the age of 25 should be allowed on the roads, even though I was one of them.

Re; the original post:

Hurtling a giant hunk of steel at high speed in a school zone or a neighborhood or anywhere that there are other lives in peril from being hit by your giant hunk of steel, is a privilege for the responsible, not a god-given right for the loonytunes. When I am Elected Empress of everything, everyone - regardless of age - will pass a driver's test which will include medical concerns, to be allowed to continue that privilege. Driving under the influence will get you banned for life. Instantly.

@timeisdead:
I can't decide if you're a parody like Stephen Colbert or if people with your worldview still exist.

More likely to get assaulted on public transit than inside one's car? Yes. I'm sure that's true. But I'm willing to bet - without having seen the statistics - that there are way more deaths and injuries per capita due to car accidents than due to assault-on-public-transit-systems. This without even taking into account that our person now doomed to ride the bus is not medically fit to operate said giant hunk of steel in a school zone.

But I like watching the leaps of (non)logic where every single thing to hate/fear in this world comes down to being the fault of liberals trying to raise your taxes. But that's a whole other thread.

I agree. Hand eye-coordination goes to hell with age along with eyesight, hearing and reflex time. As long as a person meets minimal standards for public safety he should be permitted to drive on the public roads.

ruveyn

True common sense involves considering consequences for all parties. This taken into account, it's only logical that the elderly themselves will be safer as a result. Being in a car accident isn't exactly all fun and games for the driver either. So it shouldn't be a "right" to drive dangerously, as it really doesn't benefit anyone!

I believe taking a dangerous machine out on the public roads is a privilege. Legally it should be a privilege that is granted in a non-discriminatory manner based only on the ability to operate a vehicle safely and the financial wherewithall to afford either insurance or post a liability bond.

We have a right to walk on public land, and a privilege to drive on public roads.

ruveyn

why do we let the young?

You are aware that many of the young are equally unfit to drive safely on the public roads? The question who is and who is not allowed to operate a vehicle on the public roads should be a matter of demonstrated skill and competence rather than a matter of age, per se.

ruveyn

That's actually a pretty decent question, given the fact that the death rate and property damage among young drivers is really very high (the average death rate among teenage drivers is comparable to the murder rates of very dangerous American cities; y'know, the ones that are burnt out warzones like Newark).

To some extent it wouldn't surprise me if you don't get people driving young, they'll just be dangerous when they finally do get their licenses. I didn't get my license till near twenty, and I still crashed my first car in my first year once. Or twice. But who's keeping score. Anyway. Another good example: middle aged SUV driving housewives who clearly didn't drive much when they were young. Not necessarily dangerous but dumb. as. bricks. when it comes to driving.

Car insurance shouldn't be mandatory under any circumstances. It's a massive swindle forced through government law. Your suggestion is inherently biased towards the wealthy; an impoverished man unfortunate to experience a couple accidents would have no way of sustaining himself if his means of transportation were diminished. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that all cities have excellent transportation systems. In essence, the government would be depriving him of his adulthood. Now what would sustain him when he can't make it to work? Government services and unemployment benefits. Who would have to pay for this? The American taxpayers! Making barely enough to survive due to unemployment, he would be unable to afford insurance for years. It's a potential vicious cycle that would ravage the working poor.

Conversely, a wealthy man could have atrocious driving skills and the rising insurance costs would simply be a drop in the bucket when it comes to his budget.

Actullly studies show the brain is still deveolping in to the twenties, so people should be denighed to drive till their brain is fully functional.