When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I got a question for all of you: I was in a accident yesterday and it is very strange how it happened. I was driving down our main street when a vehicle came out of a side street in reverse veered across the intersection down the wrong side of the street (still going in reverse) for about 100 yards and hit me basically head on his rear hit the front of mine). I could not back up to avoid the wreck or there would have been more vehicles involved. I just slammed on the brakes and waited for him to hit me, and guess what he did. Totaled my 1995 f-150 4x4. Only ticket that was issued was interferring with traffic while backing. My question is: this individual was 90 years old and had no idea what was going on or had happend, should a person be required to take a revaluation drivers test after reaching a certain age? I hope if I get that bad I'll throw the keys away. He drove across two intersections before hitting me. What if someone had been in the cross walk? Just curious.
I also think Initial driver's Licenses should Cost More and they should take 2 years to get through comprehensive training program like they have in Germany
I was told ...In Germany, a Driver's License cost about $800.00 USD and takes 2 years to receive.
This would create better and more responsible drivers on our roads
i don't think the problem is the lack of knowledge or driving skills, just irresponsible people. no training or program in the world will alleviate that problem.
i for one am not ever going to advoctate some driving program, if i can pass the test, i should get my license, it is taking me less than 2 years to get a college degree, it should not be longer to get a drivers license.
plus the cost should be as low as needed, it is not and should not be a for profit industry by the gov.
the uk has a driver program also and they have just as many sucky drivers as here, when in london seems much more.
as far as the old people thing, yes they should be evaluated as everyone should every few years or so, maybe create some system in which if you get no infractions you do not need to take a test, etc... just a simple pratical test would be fine.
When I took Driver's Ed back in 2000 I found it to be rather incomplete. There were many things such as trailer towing that were not taught. I simply had to learn it on my own and build up my experience, or research it. They don't even teach you how to drive a manual here anymore either.
The quarter I took Driver's Ed there were 90 students enrolled. Only 3 actually graduated. I was one of them.
it is incomplete because driving is experienced based learning.
there are things that can be taught, but people are either good drivers or they are not no matter how much training they get.
many accidents with young people is not because of lack of driving skills or inexperience, it is from being irresponsible, again...something that no class can teach.
i don't see why someone would need to be taught how to tow a trailer, it is more along the lines of common sense to me, along with don't do 70mph on the snowy road.
I was working at Pike Family nursery back in 1999. This old guy "forgot" which was the brake and which was the gas, and gunned it, driving through the wall of the green house. Knocked the wall down almost on top of me. Pretty funny.
Many people either fail to see or refuse to see the degeneration of their motor skills with time. Some will willingly hand over the keys, some won't.An annual review to retain your driving privledge after 65yrs is not unreasonable in my opinion.
I have to agree although not everyone loses their edge with age. But enough do and do not know it. It affords them "freedom" and after so many years, are not about to give it up easily.
When I took the required Driver's Ed in California in the 60s, it was all about defensive driving. In Arizona, it is not required but my son took it while in high school. (lower insurance rates if you did and I thought it was required) I do believe it has kept him safer.
He tells me of some of the dangest bad driving by all ages, sometimes, after driving to and from his work as a ranger. But while in town he really has to watch the retirees in their small cars or RVs. Right now, the snowbirds have flocked in our area driving huge RV "buses" and towing "gods knows what" behind. They forget to signal, backout suddenly or cross in front of you. While driving the highway, their driving slow does not bother him that much. However, it causes my husband to cuss a blue streak when caught behind a slow mover going well below the speed limit on the highway.
should a person be required to take a revaluation drivers test after reaching a certain age?.
in IL you get retested every 5 years (written/vision) and a road test after so maqny more years.....
DRivers Ed is also a requirement if you want a DL before 18, and a requirement to graduate HS in many towns..
if that accident happened here, he'd get "improper lane useage" going to fast for conditions" as well. 3 moving violations here and your DL gets revoked...
Coming from the land of the snow birds, yes, YES YES
BUT we will never see it as the AARP is a very strong lobbying group and they will never let it happen. It seems to people think driving is a right and not a privilege. Here it seems that they feel they can do anything they want. On Friday, I was driving home from work on a freeway in the left lane and almost ran over someone doing 45mph in a 65mph zone. It was a little old lady just in her own world and people were going everywhere to aviod her.
I say yes,they just had a 80 something yr old here picking up his towncar from a val'et run over a bunch of people because he hit the gas pedel instead of the brake and almost drove into the front doors of a casino WTF and it happens alot somethings wrong if you have been driving for more than 60yrs and all of the sudden you don't no what pedel is what you should not be driving!
There should be testing. But operating a vehicle while not in a panic situation can be done by most. They need to be tested in a simulator for problem situations. It would also be a good idea to test young people the same way. I think to get the license to start with and after 65. No matter what you think your driving ability starts to fade over time. I don't think anybody should be driving at 90.
I'm soon to be 64 years old. I for one am aware of my slightly declined driving performance. I'd have no problem being checked every two years so I don't hurt myself or others. Although it's tough to admit, AGING DOES CHANGE REACTION TIME.