You must log in or # to comment.
I would say 79 is way too high, seniors should be tested every 5 years after 65. Another commentor points out we should be doing every 10 years which is a decent idea as well.
Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can’t we trust them to drive? /s
personally i think everyone should be required to retake a driving test every 10 years it’s absurd you only take it once at 16ish
And not just as a refresher/competency test! It should also be a chance to educate on updates like legislation that get passed, safety information and tips as research improves, and new traffic controls like double diamonds or roundabouts that weren’t in use when people learned to drive in their youth.
But at a minimum you should have to re-validate that you are a competent and safe driver every decade or so, agreed.
I don’t know what makes roundabouts so hard that 90% of people stop in my town when nothing is in it instead of yield like the sign they had seen in their drivers test.
I like your ideas.
Other drivers are assholes.
Asshole drivers are terrifying.
“Nothing in it” usually means one car on the other side to most people.
The car on the other side is an asshole, and there’s no way to tell which exit is theirs.
Nobody uses their blinkers in a roundabout like they’re supposed to in order to indicate this (blink towards the center to indicate staying in, blink towards the outside to indicate leaving).
Other drivers are assholes.
What’s the frequency for forklift/crane certificates or similar? Driving a car should be regulated similarly (with the proviso that it is accepted that many blameless people will be found unfit to drive, and society should accommodate them by means other than lowering safety standards).
I think driving tests should be abolished, 30h of driving lessons will not teach you how to drive, it will at best teach you how to pass the test. You only actually learn how to drive properly after passing the test by driving by yourself, so the driving test proves nothing, it only gives you a false impression of your own abilities.
And to the people who disagree; how many idiots with licenses are on the road? How many idiots with suspended licenses are on the road? How many idiots without licenses are on the road? Did the law stop them? No. Because it’s a classic example of a law that only affects the people who didn’t need to be told to behave in the first place; and all of those who it should apply to the most will just ignore it. As it stands this law only further disenfranchises low income families by adding extra cost to their children’s path to adulthood and provides minimal to negative safety benefit.
so the driving test proves nothing
The driving test proves you can competently drive to a safe standard. I agree that you learn more through experience, but first you need to be able to drive to a particular standard before being allowed to drive on your own.
What’s the alternative if there’s no test? You just allow anyone who reaches the driving age to get in a car and drive on their own?
Yes, the smart ones will start by learning the rules and training with friends/family in an empty parking lot, then once they grasp the basics they’ll move on to driving short distances to home/school/work under the guidance of an experienced driver. Once they memorize the road they’ll be able to drive by themselves until they feel comfortable enough to try a different route… Basically do the same things they would to train for the test, just without the cost and the time limit.
The dumb ones will do dumb shit no matter how many guardrails you put in front of them, especially if they’re legal and not physical. If someone won’t think twice before getting into a 2 ton bullet they have no idea how to safely operate because the prospect of pulling out in front of a semi or ending up in a ditch or wrapped around a tree don’t scare them then tickets, jail or other legal trouble certainly won’t either.
I’m not convinced. There’s probably a chunk of people who don’t drive because they kept showing that they weren’t safe enough to drive by failing their test. If the aim is to reduce the barrier to entry for driving because tests are expensive (they’re £62 in the UK, really not that expensive) then those costs will only be countered by way higher insurance premiums as there will be more drivers who can just jump in a car and drive on their own and crash. Also as a driver and pedestrian, I really don’t want to be on the same road as those people.
Should be every 2 years past age 60 if you want to keep your license.
Sorry, for every 20 year old doing 90, there’s ten seniors wobbling between 2 lanes in a giant SUV intentionally purchased to protect them from the accidents their diminished capacity will cause, about to do a double lane change in the opposite direction of their blinker that’s been on since they left their driveway.
Ive always found it bonkers that young drivers with the sharpest reflexes are punished to the maximum from insurance to rental car rates, as they should, while no one dares punitive action against people who literally lack the faculties to drive safely if they wanted to and incur the wrath of AARP and the like. But those necrotic seniors make the rules, sadly. They can cause accidents with abandon, but some thing’s gotta be done about those young maniacs on the road driving 10 over the speed Limit as you drive 30 under it with white, arthritic knuckles on the steering wheel for dear life, calling your impromptu roadblock “safe.”
Part of that is a legal issue. People over 40 are a protected class, you can’t discriminate against old people for being old. Young people can get fucked though.
I say this as a now old person at 40, that’s hypocritical bullshit as far as policy goes, but that’s humans for you.
