Iowa retests already. My father cries that it is discrimination, but it unfortunately is common that older drivers don't pay attention as well as they used to, that they don't necessarily see as well as they used to , and don't have the thought clarity that they used to. My father falls into that category, he is an accident waiting to happen, but heaven help us when they do take his license away. He pulls out in front of traffic regularly, he doesn't slow down in time for curves that require it, even drove with his eyesight so poor he could not tell what color the stop lights were before he had his cataract surgery. Those are the kind of people that make it necessary to get the testing done. He refuses to quit driving. He already had a minor accident because he turned across traffic since he refuses to wear glasses when driving.

 

i agree with people getting checked about the age of 68 and then bi yearly why ? exactly because too many are getting into the samekind of accidents as the original poster.. people lose reflexes and sight and need to prove they can be in control of the car exactly like those who first are seeling licenses

 

retesting and license revocation will not stop an oldster from driving.
last year we had a 95 year old man here in jersey spend 1 month in jail because he was involved in 5 accidents after he had his license, registration, and insurance revoked

his claim in court was that he did nothing wrong and the police and his neighbors were against him due to his age.

the judges hands were tied in the fact that he had to do jail time.

3 days after getting out of jail, the old man bought another car, and almost killed 3 young girls walking down the sidewalk cause he did not see them as he was pulling out of the parking deck and ran them over.

 

I spent many years as a local part-time police officer, and in Pennsylvania any law enforcement officer may submit a form to the state to have someone's driving ability tested. There are many people, young and old, who are inattentive drivers. But the elderly do often pose a real threat. Calling them in for a driving test/review can save both their life and someone else's. I personally have seen drivers in their 80's who are excellent drivers, and some who should not be on the road...........................

 

Not on her car, but I do not know about her head. It seemed as the lights were on, but nobody was home.

 

I think everyone should be road tested every ten years to the age 65, then at 70, and again at 75, then every year after that.

Also, driver training does work. If you continually beat it into peoples heads that they are directly responsible for their actions and the vehicles reactions it does make a difference in the way they drive and number of accidents.

 

I agree with Dennis. Operating a lethal weapon is serious business and a PRIVILEGE, not a right. And for younger or newer drivers, maybe competence in syntax, capitailization and punctuation should be included as well (see quote)

 

BF250,

My comments.
It is about getting people to adopt a mentality to be the BEST Driver they can be .
This has been my mentality since I was 16.

Like others on here,
I started driving things on the farm when I was 10 y/o.

When I was 16 I could split shift a a 5 and 4 in a WHITE concrete truck


My driving mentality is:

Be aware of 2 blocks or more ahead of you
1 block on either side of you (adjacent streets)
and 2 blocks behind you
Mirror check every 8-10 seconds
Be courteous by allowing people to merge
Yielding properly
etc

Lots of People on the road these days DON'T take driving serious enough .
They only consider the vehicle as a means of conveyance without any regard to the serious act of operating a vehicle within the proximity all those other vehicles also on the road.

If people actually drove according to the traffic laws and rules of the road set out in the Driver Training manual that they read to actually GET their license in the first place.....there would hardly be any problems on the roads.

It's the mentality of the person that causes the problems
there wouldn't be

 

I think that after a certain age you should have to re-take the license test. My grandfather has parkinsons and his coordination wasn't good anymore, we had him re-take a drivers test at the dmv simulator because we knew he couldn't drive well anymore, but he would refuse to stop driving otherwise. Well, he failed, and they took his license away. I'm glad it was revoked, we would much rather have him not be a threat to himself or anyone else on the road. He was upset that he couldn't drive anymore, that loosing a big part of your freedom but even he knew it was for the better.

Out here in ct, there are a lot of elderly people. Our state has one of the oldest populations in the country, and there are plenty of people who shouldn't have their license anymore. The worst is an old Asian lady behind the wheel lol. I think I would put the re-evaluation age at 65, then maybe once again every 5 years after that.

 

First off thanks to everyone who voiced their opinion!!!
The only bad part ot studying the drivers manual and taking the test is, well where I live anyways is that they are to lienient when it comes to taking the test. I forgot to renew my liscense a couple years back and I had to take the written and driving part over again. I passed the written test with flying colors but when I took the driving part I passed it but when I asked the drivers examiner how I did his reply was you did allright, some things I did were incorrect but they were common mistakes for someone who has been driving for a long time. Been driving for about 35 years. In my opinion he should have failed me and made me come back and do the correct procedure(s).

 

Costing more will just end up letting a certain class of kids drive. Then you'll only have the spoiled teenagers driving. I don't think these types would be more responsible even with extensive training.

More training is a good idea. I also think a driving instructor should have to get a special endorsement on his/her license. Let the DMV trooper decide if this person is really qualified to teach others how to drive.

As for the age issue. Sure. I propose we start it with anyone 10 years older than me.

 

I'm all for more training. Driver's ed these days is little more than how to turn the car on and aim it. There is exactly ZERO training for getting out of emergency situations. Most (young) people just drive too fast and then panic brake when the situation goes south. Knowing how to get out of a skid and actually doing it are two very different things--you have to train your muscles to perform the right actions at the right times, and the adrenaline that spikes in an emergency only serves as another hurdle to the unpracticed.

I think if more (young, especially) trainees were shown and experienced the limits of vehicles before they're turned loose on the roads, they might be less inclined to test those limits for themselves with potentially disastrous results to them and others.

Jason

 

I have heard both here in Iowa and Nationally and especially from AARP how you can't take away their right to freedom... Someone needs to remind the AARP what was pounded into my head as a kid and a lot of times by the self same people that make the above claim that driving is NOT a right or freedom it's a privilege (don't always agree with that but the point is still the law).
Locally I was talking ot a trooper I know that pulled an older guy over for doing 25 in the interstate, his reason? Well Iowa has restricted DLs that restrict you too 25mph or 35mph, these people think it means that is as fast as you can go, instead of that is the highest speed zone you can be in. This guy screamed and even tried to sue the state patrol for harassment over it. What the guy never did realize is he had cause 3 accidents already people trying to avoid hitting him as they came up on him at 40+mph difference in speed when they weren't expecting it (yes you need to pay attention where other cars are but still he shouldn't have been on the road and verbally abused the officer over it)
So someone else mentioned a schedual of every 5 yrs 65-75 then every year and I like the sounds of it. maybe not have to prove you can parallel park but at least show you have common sense and at least minimal ability to react.

 

yes but who says driver ed teachers are worth the darn? when getting my cert for driving in europe when in the military, the stupid driver instructor said i had to use the parking brake every time i stopped my car if the car is a manual. i say what? it was inconceivable to him that a person can not use the parking brake and still take off, he deducted points because i out right refused to do it.

when taking a re-exam many years ago, the instructor told me that i was suppose to stop right at the stop sign then proceed, the situation was the stop sign was set way back from the actual inersection where you could not see, i stopped right after the intersection (where the sign should be) and then proceeded, he said i should stop, then go, then stop again at the intersection to see if it was cleared.

plus i can not even remember the numerous people i have met that have said they were taught to cruise in the left lane on the highway and the right lane was for passing and for people to get on the highway, thats why to cruise.

plus, experience most likely in many thigns trumps classroom, you have 35 years driving experience, no classroom is going to teach anyone that much. anyone thats been in the military or other type services (firefighting, police) can tell you the same, experience counts, the real world counts.

the written test should not be hard, it was clearly obvious you have driven just fine for 35 years. here in tn, most of the written test is nothing but a quiz over drinking and driving rules and punishment, even asking things about how many drinks it takes for a certain weight, blah blah...as if that has anything to do with a persons driving skill.

 

I think that a question about how many drinks yadda yadda should NOT be on a test, what the heck is that? Teach the kids that take a test see you can have X number of beers and still drive? they should be taught that the amount of beer you can drink and still drive perfectly safely is ZERO, even 1 impedes your motor skills to some extent even if not noticable it is measurable and shows a reduction in reaction time. That is just plain idiotic to have that on a DL test. But then again what government sponsered test isn't just had to retake my hazmat test and almost half the questions were on hauling radioactive materials. Thats dumb less then 5% of all hazmat lic drivers will ever handle radioactive yet that accounts for 50% of the questions and on that test there was zero questions about explosives (triple the amount of hazmat drivers will haul explosives at some point vs radioactive)
But it's already federal law and has been for years that I have to retake my hazmat test every 5 yrs (and show hazmat training by the company every year) so why then is it so hard to do the same thing on driving after a certain age?