Yesterday, on my way to the store, I nearly drove straight into the side of a late model BMW sedan with deep tinted windows because the driver didn't even slow down at a stop sign at an intersection for vehicles entering the parking lot. Because I was reeeeeaaaallllyyy upset about this because I had to SLAM on the brakes to avoid the car by less than 3 feet or so, I followed the car to a parking spot. The driver took about 2 minutes to park the car because they just either couldn't get it right, or just weren't happy with where they were lined up. I parked my truck and got out to confront the driver……. I was expecting some young punk to get out. To my surprise, it was an elderly lady that had a hard enough time getting out of the car and walking, let alone driving. I actually question why she didn't have a handicap tag and park in the handicap spot because as she was walking towards the store, she was obviously not the most nimble person in the world.
I approached her and asked her why she didn't stop at the stop sign a few minutes before. ( Yes, I did this calmly with respect. I may have been mad but I'm not a jerk) She looked at me and said, "what stop sign?" When I pointed it out to her, she said, "Oh, they must have just put that in." When I asked her if she saw me almost hit her car she told me that she would have remembered nearly getting hit like that.
I wished her a good day and went about my business.
Although not all "elderly" persons have reduced reflexes and situational awareness, shouldn't there be an age where your skills are tested again to ensure you can still safely operate a vehicle? We have banned drinking and driving, driving under the influence, and in most states you can't talk on a hand held cellphone. Why can we not put a control in place to ensure that a driver with reduced motor skills because of their age doesn't cause an accident or get injured themselves because they were unable to avoid an accident?
Chime in….
For those of you who think I'm "PICKING" on any specific age. That's what I want to understand. We have laws about what age a person MUST be in order to drive. We also have laws about the things that distract all drivers. But when the same research that we use to determine what is a good age to allow people to drive determines that there is a good age to start retesting because of the natural deterioration of our abilities, how is that age discrimination? I learned to drive when I was 13 on farm but could not get a license to drive on streets in the city limits. Is that age descrimination too? I was capable of driving, but was I not too inexperienced? When I get older, I will be experienced, but will I be capable?
I have seen some interesting points in here, so I need to add the following:
If testing motorskills at an older age is discriminitory is it not the same to set the legal drinking age to 21?
At 18 we are considered adults and responsible for our actions. However, the reason most have given me for the magic age of 21 is because they don't want persons that may still be in high school contributing to the delinquency of a minor. A preventative measure to say that the majority of 18 year olds would do this. We prevent it by moving the age to 21.
So if we say, set the retest for licensing at age 65, is it age descrimination because not everyone of that age has deteriated motor skills? Not everyone that is 18 would buy alcohol for a minor. But we still have that law in place.
Can anyone explain why one is descrimination, yet the other is not?
Chime in…
uh…in most states there is.
Nothing to do with discrimination. It's a skills test.
I totally think there should be. Whenever I see an very elderly person driving, I get so nervous for them and the people around them. One time I was driving behind an elderly man who was side swiping an entire street of cars and didn't realize it… SCARY!
It is technically discrimination because the elderly are being specifically targeted for extra or different standards.
And if you think its only old people who don't pay attention, watch all the 17 year kids smash into stationary objects with cars because they're texting.
Australia and the UK have tests for people 70 and over. I think it's yearly. It's a good idea, a necessary idea in order to maintain road safety.
It's age discrimination because you are applying it to people of a certain age. If we are to be fair and safe, we should require driving exams every couple of years throughout our lives. After all, medical conditions that impair driving can develop at any age.
Well, it so happens, that people of all ages (especially young males) make many risky mistakes. Why single out one age group to complain about!!!!!!
It's age discrimination because not all elderly people have impairments. What age would you set the new rules at? How about 65? That's around the retirement age for most people so should we start checking them then?
Where I live (Maine) most accidents involve white males. Granted I live in Maine where there are almost no minorities. Should we test every white male every few years to make sure they're safe on the roads? The statistics say we certainly should.
Yes numerous older drivers can be dangerous. So can younger drivers (you assumed the person was a "punk" teenager, originally). Should we test younger and older drivers every year to make sure they're safe on the roads?
i have found that most states do give seniors a test at a certain age.they check their eye sight and take them out for a driving test to see how well they do.if they don't do well on the driving test the the person giving them the test make a decision on whether they get a new drivers permit or not.like you said they check for their reflexes and the way they drive and if the tester feels they are unsafe the decision is made.
Has nothing to do with discrimination. Simple fact of the matter is that as people age, they lose a lot of hand-eye coordination, as well as a lot of their reaction time. It's unsafe to have them on the road.
Well, define elderly? Age is relative and there are plenty of young people on the roads who are incompetent drivers. Most of the close calls I've had have been teeny-boppers sending text messages. You and I both will be old one day. Those old people were not born into those bodies, they grew into them, just like you and I will. It's discrimination in the same sense that you would be targeting a specific group of individuals based on a stereotype of a relatively small number of people. If you graduated high school, how would like to have to be tested every year to see if you still posses the knowledge of a high school graduate? In scope, very, very few people die at the hands of elderly on the roads. Most people who complain about the elderly usually have a few DUI's under their belts, or ride around sending text messages, under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I think instead of testing the elderly we should make every driver take a piss test once a week.This would really get the dangerous people off the roads.
I agree with you. The accident statistics are shaped like a bath. The teenage drivers, who are a little risky and still trying to learn, have high accident rates. Then the accident rate drops for middle-aged people. Finally, we get into the elderly. Because our bodies naturally start to deteriorate, the accident rate for this age group rises. It is not age discrimination because we are not forbidding them to drive, just making sure they are still physically capable.