You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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?
You guys are retaking driver’s tests?
Seriously, I haven’t taken one since getting my license in the 90s.
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.”
This is… really specific…
Spent 10 years driving around in a city with a lot of retirement communities setting up home medical equipment. Was a daily blight for me.
Hmm
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias alongside AARP Illinois
Guess the old regulations might have been eating into profits
Still out of 55,000 administered tests only 97 failed. Imho they should keep the restriction because it did remove 97 unsafe drivers.
However, This also creates a path for immediate family members to report unsafe elderly family members. There was no way to report anyone before this was created.
So is it midlyinfurating? I suppose in that it may allow unsafe drivers to stay on the roads but with immediate family reporting it could also be a wash. I very much doubt these changes will pull more unsafe drivers than the regulations from before since family members will probably be hesitant to report elderly family members
My nanna drove until 80. My Nana shouldn’t have driven until 80. He hit something once a week
This is your regular reminder that it’s generally not older people who are high-risk drivers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628ce5c7e90e071f68b19dfa/02-image-2.svg
Drivers get safer until about 70, and only get less safe than your average young driver when over 86.
There is a perception that older drivers are an absolute liability on the roads, which I can only assume stems from impatient people who get frustrated when stuck behind an older driver going more slowly than they’d like.
That’s from the UK? I don’t think you can extrapolate UK driving data to the US. Roads and car use don’t compare at all.
In the absence of forthcoming data (hint hint), what factors do you think differ between the UK and USA which affect the ability of very old/very young drivers?
Not every 70 YO is the same health. Some can barely see at that age, or at night. There are also plenty of health issues or medications taken at this age which could affect reactions or alertness. Not saying it can’t happen to the young, but it’s far more prevalent.
You’re arguing against factual stats with some kind of generic “old people have old people problems sometimes” ?
Yes. The young are reckless causing most of their accidents. We do what we can to prevent those accidents, seems like we could do a lot more. The old have accidents from downsides of aging/slowing reaction times/health issues. We can definitely do more than just hoping their kids take the keys away before it’s too late. One idea is regular driver’s tests starting at a certain age.
Fact is that if you want to spend some money, time or political capital on improving road safety, targeting older drivers is not where you should focus your efforts. The fact that it frequently is, is due to ageism.
No one over the age of 70 should drive. It’s simply not safe. Like putting a 7 year old in front of the wheel.
Hard disagree. People age very differently, depending on how well they take care of themselves. I know plenty of people I their 70s who are still fully capable of driving.
Implementint a driving test at 70 does make sense.
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.
frankly there should at least be an online refresher and test that people have to take every year, traffic laws change and people forget things.
Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can’t we trust them to drive? /s
The only reason this would need to be a bill is if people are upset that they are failing the exam. Which means they qre failing the exams, to the surprise of no one.
What we should be doing instead is making our neighborhoods more accessible to those without cars. I’m sure they feel like their mobility is gone if they lose their license, but that shouldn’t be the case to begin with.
Really, you can’t think of any reason to be upset that you’re required to take an exam that you then pass?
I mean the general logic of it isn’t totally off the wall, any more so than say why we’re annoyed that ID laws make it harder to vote.
But I could still 100% say, obviously if you need/want a drivers license, it’s fair to say you have reliable transportation. At 79 you are almost certainly either not working, or so well established wherever you are that you aren’t at risk of getting fired for needing to schedule a 3 hour trip to the DMV.
in case anyone’s wondering, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021, the life expectancy in Illinois was 77.1
Life expectancy is a useless metric for this purpose. Maybe it would be more useful if you used “life expectancy at age 10” (so after any childhood illnesses), but even then it doesn’t really say anything about what the process senescence looks like.
Maybe it’ll save money. Illinois is broke and we’re one of the last good states
Arent the drivers required to pay the fee?
