When are you too old to drive a car?

cars · Post by **cars** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:20 pm

Elderly drivers now account for nearly 20 percent of all motorists, according to the Government Accountability Office. (USA)

And that number will increase, because those who make up the first wave of the huge baby-boom generation turned 65 this year.

Are Older Drivers Putting Themselves (And Others) At Risk?

The data on elder-driver safety is a mixed bag.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that the nation's senior citizens are actually getting into fewer serious car accidents.

However, another study of intersection crashes found that 58 percent of drivers 80 and older failed to yield at intersections, while the number for drivers 70-79 was 37 percent.

By comparison, 26 percent of drivers 35-54 failed to yield.

The increase in the number of elderly drivers, have prompted discussions by government agencies, insurance companies and university researchers about how to address this issue.

Obviously, there is no specific age at which an older person should stop driving – it all depends on the individual, their health, and their driving skills.

Driver's license renewal procedures for older drivers vary from state to state. Twenty-six states have special license-renewal requirements for senior-citizen drivers. Some states require that drivers over a certain age renew their licenses in person rather than electronically or by mail.

Judging if someone is Fit For Driving, and when it's time to hang up the keys!

Warning Signs: 20 Things To Look For In Eldely Drivers

• Decrease in confidence while driving

• Difficulty turning to see when backing up

• Easily distracted while driving

• Other drivers often honk horns

• Hitting curbs

• Scrapes or dents on the car, mailbox or garage

• Increased agitation or irritation when driving

• Failure to notice traffic signs or important activity on the side of the road

• Trouble navigating turns

• Driving at inappropriate speeds

• Uses a "copilot"

• Bad judgment making left turns

• Delayed response to unexpected situations

• Moving into wrong lane or difficulty maintaining lane position

• Confusion at exits

• Ticketed moving violations or warnings

• Getting lost in familiar places

• Car accident

• Failure to stop at stop sign or red light

• Stopping in traffic for no apparent reason

So how would you handle getting elder drivers not wanting to hang up their car keys problem?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:40 pm

How to handle getting elder drivers not wanting to hang up their car keys? Enforce the law impartially, stop the sods and put them in a courtroom as vigorously as any other distinguishable group of citizens. One would hope license suspensions and insurance premiums would do the rest. If they're competent to drive at 80 (as opposed to merely thinking they are) then they've a perfect right to be doing it. If they're not, they don't. If they keep on doing it, bankrupt them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:06 am

In answer to the question in the thread title: Never, never, ever. One can never be said to be too old to drive. Too blind, too deaf, too slow, too forgetful, too senile ... sure. But I agree with spot - no one should not be cut off from driving simply because they've maintained a pulse for too long.

In answer to the question in the OP: It would probably take a near-miss or actual accident (witnessed by a family member or friend) to convince most drivers that they've reached their limit.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:33 am

My husband will see an eldterly person and say, "They shouldn't be driving". Maybe not, but a lot of them have noone to take them where they need to go.

IMO, a lot of elderly people are safer to be on the road with than a lot of the younger ones.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:06 am

"In answer to the question in the OP: It would probably take a near-miss or actual accident (witnessed by a family member or friend) to convince most drivers that they've reached their limit."

I agree with Acc. Unfortunate, but true. It would be a hard thing for an elderly person to do....give up the keys; give up the independence. But this same person would not want to put especially another person in harms way.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:26 am

Peg;1350010 wrote: Maybe not, but a lot of them have noone to take them where they need to go.

Does my Honorable Friend consider this great nation of ours lacks sufficient Funeral Directors and what does she propose to do about it?

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:15 pm

spot;1350019 wrote: Does my Honorable Friend consider this great nation of ours lacks sufficient Funeral Directors and what does she propose to do about it?

Are you saying that just because they are old, they are going to go out and kill someone? I didn't say all elderly people are safer on the roads than younger ones; just some.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:31 pm

HERE ARE THE LAW FOR SENIORS IN CALIFORNIA:

California

Specific rules for older drivers

* No renewal by mail or Internet after age 70.

Standard driver's license renewal

* License renewed: Every 5 years.

* Renewal conditions: In person, but qualified drivers (that is, drivers under 70 who are not on driving probation or suspension) can renew by mail or Internet for no more than 2 license terms in a row.

* Vision test: Yes, at in-person renewal.

* Written test: Yes, at in-person renewal.

* Road test: Only if there are indications of driver impairment, based on a report by a law enforcement officer, a physician, or a family member.

My mother is 82 night blind with vision restrictions on her license. She only drives during the day in her neighborhood. She took the behind the wheel test last year and past with flying colors. The reality is she knows and we know here days are numbered behind the wheel. She will not be driving at all I estimate in the next 2 years. She is just to tentative behind the wheel and that is dangerous for everyone around her. As her family it is up to us to keep her and the people on the road with here as safe as possible. We wouldn't allow our children or grandchildren in the car with her if she was driving, that alone speaks volumes she shouldn't be on the road.

We deal with this issue daily with Alzheimer's patients it is the most discussed issued other then wandering on foot or in their car. Sometimes you have to take action as they won't and disable the car and get their license suspended or taken away. There is an end to the elderly and safe driving and its the family that starts the process in most cases.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:40 pm

Peg wrote: [quote=spot]Does my Honorable Friend consider this great nation of ours lacks sufficient Funeral Directors and what does she propose to do about it?Are you saying that just because they are old, they are going to go out and kill someone?

Quite the reverse, Peg. You said the elderly "have noone to take them where they need to go".

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:46 pm

CARLA;1350102 wrote: My mother is 82 night blind with vision restrictions on her license. That's interesting. I've been night-blind for as long as I can remember. I remember teaching myself how to drive at night, it was scary. If it has a light, I can see it. If it's road-reflective, I can see it. Apart from that everything totally disappears after twilight. My theory is that if it doesn't have a light or it's not road-reflective then it can't be on the road in front of me, therefore it's safe to drive into the black area in front of my headlights. It always held up as a notion, I don't think anyone else does a great deal better regardless of how well they see.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:11 pm

I think most of us have a bit of night blindness. I have a problem with the glare of lights and reflections so for me the darker the better.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:57 pm

I knew an elderly man who went to renew his license. He passed the eye exam. As they were going home, he asked the man driving, "What's that road sign say? I can't see it."

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:38 pm

The controversial part will be trying to convince the elderly drivers to hang up their car keys. They are losing their independence. Here in FL you need eyes in the back of your head, and you need to drive 100% "defensively"! Any type of "offensive" driving puts you at greater risk of mishaps.

Further controversial part in my opinion, is that for safety reasons, not only the elderly drivers should be required to be eye tested & physically tested every couple years, but all drivers S/B equally tested. Just because drivers are young, doesn't mean they can't fall victim to injuries that impair their driving ability. That's why there S/B a law on the books, where doctor's have to report a patient to the DVM, young or old, that has an impairment which makes them unsafe to drive a car.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:50 pm

cars;1350142 wrote: That's why there S/B a law on the books, where doctor's have to report a patient to the DVM, young or old, that has an impairment which makes them unsafe to drive a car.Be careful of unintended consequences. People may avoid going to the doctor just when they need one the most.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:09 pm

Government has no business trying to dissuade anyone. Whether drivers do this or that is their own affair. If what they do is contrary to the law of the land then the law should penalize every last one of them, immediately and without consideration. It should be against the law of the land to drive without valid insurance fully indemnifying anyone you might harm or anything you might damage, for example.

I don't think the law should intrude beyond that. There's no need for age limits high or low, the market rate for insurance would prevent the incompetent young or the incompetent old. There's no need for government-issued driving licenses or government-appointed driving tests or government-mandated speed limits either, the market rate insuring incompetently-taught drivers or convicted crashers would keep people to speeds they could actually and personally drive safely at and enter them for laudably strict driving courses.

The only further restriction I can see as needful is unlimited liability on the part of the insurers - the system collapses if they can get rich quick, distribute the profits and then renege on their debts.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:33 pm

spot;1350145 wrote: Government has no business trying to dissuade anyone. Whether drivers do this or that is their own affair. If what they do is contrary to the law of the land then the law should penalize every last one of them, immediately and without consideration. It should be against the law of the land to drive without valid insurance fully indemnifying anyone you might harm or anything you might damage, for example.

I don't think the law should intrude beyond that. There's no need for age limits high or low, the market rate for insurance would prevent the incompetent young or the incompetent old. There's no need for government-issued driving licenses or government-appointed driving tests or government-mandated speed limits either, the market rate insuring incompetently-taught drivers or convicted crashers would keep people to speeds they could actually and personally drive safely at and enter them for laudably strict driving courses.

The only further restriction I can see as needful is unlimited liability on the part of the insurers - the system collapses if they can get rich quick, distribute the profits and then renege on their debts.

You're assuming all drivers have insurance, they are supposed to, but many here do not have insurance! Many people are selfish, & self centered, & uncaring of others safety, & will not stop driving their cars on their own volition because they are impaired. They must be forced to relinquish their driving privilidge, that's just the way it is.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:39 pm

I think you missed the first paragraph, cars, The second paragraph is dependent on it. Anyone driving without valid insurance must be penalized, every last one of them, immediately and without consideration, if the rest of the post is to be applied. It's a condition after which government can simplify the law and leave market forces to adjust each citizen's behavior.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:57 pm

Mark the calendar. I agree with spot!

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:19 pm

Accountable;1350153 wrote: Mark the calendar. I agree with spot! I think there's a great deal we'd agree on if we discussed from the ground up. Our disagreement about the current state of society might just be because it's so badly constructed.

My first rule for any society must be that justice is blind, that the law applies to everyone impartially, that no distinguishable group of citizens is more or less likely to be investigated or prosecuted or sentenced for a given category of crime than the rate at which that group commits that category of crime. I can't think of anything more important.

My second rule would be that every law should be exercised. None of this nonsense about we invariably apply the law against speeding because it's simple to detect and to prove, but rarely bother investigating bribery of state officials because it's hard to prove and costs a fortune to investigate.

My third rule is that every infraction of every law should result in rapid detection, rapid and accurate investigation, rapid prosecution and rapid sentencing. If society's not prepared to pay to effectively enforce a law then it shouldn't be a law in the first place. If the enforcement agency is inadequate to the task of rapidly discovering the crime's been committed, and rapidly bringing the perpetrator into a courtroom and convincingly demonstrating his guilt then the enforcement agency should be scrapped and replaced with one which can do the job.

No form of social engineering which isn't based on that commitment to the equality of all before the law is worth pursuing.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:55 pm

Driving a car requires a license.

To be licensed one must prove one is qualified.

Once the state finds that one is not qualified to be licensed to drive a car, the license is no longer issued.

Driving tests should be administered at the minimum every five years, and the testing should be adequate to prove the licensee meets minimum requirements.

It should be that simple.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:07 pm

LarsMac;1350163 wrote: Driving tests should be administered at the minimum every five years, and the testing should be adequate to prove the licensee meets minimum requirements.

It should be that simple.
And where's the money coming from to pay for these ten extra tests per driver over the course of his lifetime's driving? The driver pays the cost of the tests on top of the cost of the licensing body reminding and enforcing them, and the value of his own time to apply and take the test each time? Tax money gets set aside for it all? You're inventing a whole new service industry.

Whether a person passes or fails isn't an absolute measure of driving ability, it has statistical variation too, which means you'd need to allow application for retesting for the failed drivers. And presumably they'd need to pay for alternative transport until they passed again, despite never actually driving below the required threshold.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:02 am

All of the stories related to seniors killing folk with their cars that I've heard about in Victoria have not resulted in the senior losing their license. We could start with not allowing seniors to get away with manslaughter just because they're old.

A 78 year old woman killed an 82 year old woman at a crosswalk right outside my workplace. No charges were pressed, no action taken.

A woman in her 70s stepped on the gas without putting her car in reverse and drove through a storefront, crushing a woman right next to the last place I worked. The person is still driving. The receptionist at my dentist's started telling me of many more incidents with the same lack of results in the last ten years.

I just can't figure out how these people could drive again after killing someone with careless driving. I couldn't.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:40 pm

spot;1350164 wrote: And where's the money coming from to pay for these ten extra tests per driver over the course of his lifetime's driving? The driver pays the cost of the tests on top of the cost of the licensing body reminding and enforcing them, and the value of his own time to apply and take the test each time? Tax money gets set aside for it all? You're inventing a whole new service industry.

Whether a person passes or fails isn't an absolute measure of driving ability, it has statistical variation too, which means you'd need to allow application for retesting for the failed drivers. And presumably they'd need to pay for alternative transport until they passed again, despite never actually driving below the required threshold.

From what I see, every day, 50% of the drivers (of all ages) should have their licenses revoked.

It is irrelevant to me who pays for the extra testing, as long as people must prove that they are capable of safely operating a motor vehicle to retain their license.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:07 pm

LarsMac;1350201 wrote: From what I see, every day, 50% of the drivers (of all ages) should have their licenses revoked.

It is irrelevant to me who pays for the extra testing, as long as people must prove that they are capable of safely operating a motor vehicle to retain their license.

You need to ask yourself why people drive despite the risk to life and property which driving intrinsically carries. Driving opens access to financial reward. The state has a choice - revoke x% of licenses and make the roads safer by preventing the worst x% of drivers from driving but the economy poorer by preventing the worst x% of drivers from increasing their wealth by using a car. You live in a capitalist country where money counts for more than social wellbeing. That's why bad drivers are tolerated on your roads.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:14 pm

The problem with the elderly is they have the the midset that driving is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE so no matter what they do until that license is taken from their hands, and their cars removed from their homes they will get in them and drive. Sad when they actually kill others and nothing is done.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:02 pm

spot;1350203 wrote: You need to ask yourself why people drive despite the risk to life and property which driving intrinsically carries. Driving opens access to financial reward. The state has a choice - revoke x% of licenses and make the roads safer by preventing the worst x% of drivers from driving but the economy poorer by preventing the worst x% of drivers from increasing their wealth by using a car. You live in a capitalist country where money counts for more than social wellbeing. That's why bad drivers are tolerated on your roads.

I don't have to ask myself why people in this country drive...

We have created a society where many people believe that a car is a necessity, and millions have created a lifestyle where the car is the center of their lives.

Regardless, "The State" needs to take responsibility for licensing people who are unable to safely and correctly operate a motor vehicle.

Using the current logic, we should license airline pilots regardless of their ability to fly?

Surgeons, regardless of their medical expertise?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:11 pm

LarsMac;1350217 wrote: Using the current logic, we should license airline pilots regardless of their ability to fly?

Surgeons, regardless of their medical expertise?The State should license neither. It's not what the State is for. Civil liability, covered by compulsory insurance, should protect consumers from bad pilots and bad surgeons and bad drivers. Nobody would insure bad drivers or bad surgeons or bad pilots, and the uninsured would be prosecuted if they flew passengers or opened up bodies or drove on the roads.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:18 pm

spot;1350218 wrote: The State should license neither. It's not what the State is for. Civil liability, covered by compulsory insurance, should protect consumers from bad pilots and bad surgeons and bad drivers. Nobody would insure bad drivers or bad surgeons or bad pilots, and the uninsured would be prosecuted if they flew passengers or opened up bodies or drove on the roads.

That idea is not without merit, but then, I must ask, who is going to license the insurers?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:29 pm

LarsMac;1350222 wrote: That idea is not without merit, but then, I must ask, who is going to license the insurers?

Market forces. Accurately predicted risk and efficient operating will allow insurers to set low premiums and attract new business. The only required change to the law is to make the liability of insurers unlimited so they can't duck out by way of bankruptcy, failing has to hurt or anyone can grow by setting lower and lower premiums.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:33 pm

spot;1350225 wrote: Market forces. Accurately predicted risk and efficient operating will allow insurers to set low premiums and attract new business. The only required change to the law is to make the liability of insurers unlimited so they can't duck out by way of bankruptcy, failing has to hurt or anyone can grow by setting lower and lower premiums.

Ah, the self-regulated market.

Yeah, that has proved itself rather admirably in the past.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:35 pm

LarsMac;1350228 wrote: Ah, the self-regulated market.

Yeah, that has proved itself rather admirably in the past.

America doesn't have one, it allows bankruptcy and bailouts.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:46 pm

CARLA;1350204 wrote: The problem with the elderly is they have the the midset that driving is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE so no matter what they do until that license is taken from their hands, and their cars removed from their homes they will get in them and drive. Sad when they actually kill others and nothing is done.

Exactly! When I drive I take the responsibility quite seriously. If I get in a car with someone, I consider them responsible for my safety as I would if I were driving them. If I ever killed someone I'd never drive again. It's not a right.

Sure there are accidents caused by drivers of all ages but it seems that seniors are the only ones who don't get punished for their mistakes on the same standards. Anyone who can afford a car can afford to pay for delivery service, if needed, and sell the car when they are no longer competent drivers.

I suppose the original question of "when are you too old?" can't have a single age put to it. It's a competency issue. If seniors are reminded that they can be charged with manslaughter they might reassess themselves at a more honest level.