Force drivers to retake road test every 20 years

[Thunder]

Im curious as to why drivers in NY dont have to retake their road test every 20 years or so. People can become horribly drivers...especially in their old age. How many of you have been stuck behind an elderly driver?

I propose that all drivers in the USA should have to retake their road test every 20 years.

Being able to drive a car on the publicly owned roads of the USA is NOT a right..it is a previlage. Folks are free to drive all they like..without a license, blindfolded..on their own privately owned land.

[geni]

Im curious as to why drivers in NY dont have to retake their road test every 20 years or so. People can become horribly drivers...especially in their old age. How many of you have been stuck behind an elderly driver?

I propose that all drivers in the USA should have to retake their road test every 20 years.

Being able to drive a car on the publicly owned roads of the USA is NOT a right..it is a previlage. Folks are free to drive all they like..without a license, blindfolded..on their own privately owned land.

1)Everyone impacted by such a measure is able to vote

2)cost of running the system would be significant.

3)Acident statistics don't really support it.

[tyr_13]

Accident statistics don't support it?

[Thunder]

1)Everyone impacted by such a measure is able to vote

2)cost of running the system would be significant.

3)Acident statistics don't really support it.

elderly folks dont get into more accidents then younger people?

i only ask cause i dont know.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I am pretty sure drivers around here would fail after five years, because their bad habits are so deeply ingrained. Apparently, some people who have been driving for thirty years fail road tests taken for class 1A (tractor trailer) licences for foolish reasons like not stopping at stop signs and not signalling.


My experience (anecdotal, I know) is that drivers of all ages are all really bad at driving, but they're bad for different reasons. Younger drivers are purposely bad. They know the rules and are capable of controlling the vehicle safely, but they choose not to, and drive recklessly. Thirty-somethings to sixty-somethings are past the "hold-my-beer-and-watch-this" phase, but they are complacent and lazy, and develop poor driving habits. "Ooozing" through stop signs, turning right on red without stopping first, "loopy" turns (combining a turn and a lane change), and other lazy maneuvers become the norm. Elderly drivers seem to know the rules, and seem to want to follow them, but they can't see, have slow reflexes, and are often physically unable to cope with the minor rigors of controlling a vehicle (like no longer being able to shoulder check). So, they compensate by driving veeery sloooowly, as if this somehow made driving on the wrong side of the street safe (I've seen it).


Of course, these are generalisations. But, if you are a safe and conscientious driver, you have nothing to fear from taking a test every few years. Or, at the very least, get a bloody eye exam once in a while to prove that you can at least see that pedestrian you just ran over. Seriously, some of those old-timers haven't gotten new glasses in twenty years.

[tyr_13]

elderly folks dont get into more accidents then younger people?

i only ask cause i dont know.

I don't know, but I would imagine that they get into accidents for drastically different reasons than younger people, reasons that might get reduced with retesting.

It just seems kind of odd to dismiss the idea on the grounds of low accident rates when there are a lot of accidents.

[Drudgewire]

Making the DMV more crowded is the worst idea of all time.

[Damien Evans]

elderly folks dont get into more accidents then younger people?

i only ask cause i dont know.

Newly licensed drivers have the highest number of serious accidents by a long way, according to our road authorities. Minor bingles I'm not sure.

[Arus808]

the highest accident rates are amongst drivers between the ages of 16 and 23 (funny how if you inquire about insurance rates, that's the age range they give you that pay the highest rates).

In many states, Senior Citizens are required to take a written and driving test far more frequently than those under the age of 65.

[geni]

Accident statistics don't support it?

Check your insurence premiums. Most dangerious drivers are the newly qualified. After that well issues do crop up in later years but a test at 40 is unlikely to be any use. You could probably have at least as much impact by requireing a doctors certificate every 5 years after 70.

[geni]

My experience (anecdotal, I know) is that drivers of all ages are all really bad at driving, but they're bad for different reasons. Younger drivers are purposely bad. They know the rules and are capable of controlling the vehicle safely, but they choose not to, and drive recklessly.

Boy racer syndrome? A problem yes but not the whole story. A lot of it is probably due to lack of experence. A 20 year old will freequently hit situations they haven't encountered before. A 30 year old less so.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Boy racer syndrome? A problem yes but not the whole story. A lot of it is probably due to lack of experence. A 20 year old will freequently hit situations they haven't encountered before. A 30 year old less so.



Experience plays a role, yeah, but when you talk to people that age about their driving it's all about fun. Stop signs slow you down, pedestrians are a hassle. You wouldn't believe how often we get vehicles at work from owners in the 16-25 age range that have one bald tire on the drive axle. I can tell when someone is abusing their vehicle. They can lie, but they're not fooling us. We know how they drive.


Experience comes into play when you're talking about how to handle a vehicle in the snow, or how to react when someone suddenly cuts you off, but when you're not stopping for flashing lights at a pedestrian crossing, that's just being selfish and stupid.

[Bikewer]

Many states do in fact have increasing license requirements as drivers age. It can be more stringent as the driver gets older; some senior citizens must be tested yearly.

That "every 20 years" might not work too well; the difference in ability between say, 60 and 80 can be rather marked.
In addition, police can request testing of drivers they feel may be incompetent. I have referred several of these myself.
In one case I often recount, I stopped an 80-ish fellow who had pulled out in front of my police car. When I asked for his license, I noticed he had an "eyeglass" restriction. He was not wearing glasses. I asked him if he had his glasses. He patted his pocket. "Right here, sonny. Never drive without 'em.".......

[Denver]

Another solution would be to lower all the speed limits. That could help with reaction times, it could help the elderly's relative speed to be less of a problem, it would reduce kinetic energy upon crash and so reduce damages, it would save gas: a win-win-win-win!

But it would also sort of defeat the purpose of driving: getting there fast.

[roger]

Newly licensed drivers have the highest number of serious accidents by a long way, according to our road authorities. Minor bingles I'm not sure.Ya, because of all the old farts on the highway getting in the way!

[Cainkane1]

In Georgia oldsters have to take the test every 5 years. To his credit my stepfather took the test at age 92 and he passed it. He died the next year.

[DavidS]

Im curious as to why drivers in NY dont have to retake their road test every 20 years or so. People can become horribly drivers...especially in their old age. How many of you have been stuck behind an elderly driver?

I propose that all drivers in the USA should have to retake their road test every 20 years.

Being able to drive a car on the publicly owned roads of the USA is NOT a right..it is a previlage. Folks are free to drive all they like..without a license, blindfolded..on their own privately owned land.
Hmmm... I wonder which would be more effective:

a) New regulations inconveniencing everybody to demonstrate an instance of safe driving under controlled circumstances at long intervals, or

b) Consistent enforcement of existing regulations to sanction and inconvenience those demonstrating unsafe driving under actual conditions on public roads.

In my opinion, no feasible amount of (a) can compensate for increasing laxity of (b). At least around here (Houston, TX metroplex), the probability of getting cited for illegal and dangerous traffic maneuvers is so negligibly low that traffic laws are little more than scoring guidelines for estimating accident liability. The only exceptions are the occaisional speed trap -- which I've personally witnessed used as thinly-whitewashed racial discrimination -- and the recent installation of stoplight cameras, and I'm confident public safety is less motivation than revenue for both.

Of course, (a) is meaningless without effective enforcement, which seems problematic from the start. A driver running a signal is an obvious enforcement target, but how does the police cruiser decide which vehicles' drivers are overdue for certification? Random stops? Checkpoints? DWB? Out-of-state plates? Unconventional attire?

Sounds like almost a good idea to me.

[Modified]

By moving from state to state, I have managed to take only one written test in the last 23 years. All the states I have moved to start the count over when you get a license there.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Around here, you need an eye exam to get your licence initially, but that's it. You're good to go for the next seventy years or so. This is ridiculous.