Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    Yes, absolutely. 
    
    Any person over the age of 65 should have license renewal on an
    annual basis.
    
    Eyes should be tested each year.
    
    Road tests should be conducted every two years.
    
    Any person under age 65 should be road tested upon renewal if
    moving violations since last renewal.
    
    Let's get all bad drivers off the road!!!
    
    BTW there was a piece on TV (the show escapes me but i think it
    was 20/20) about the state of Florida and their enforcement policies.
    
    I don't remember how often they did renewals but older drivers do
    get road tests for renewals.
    

    Retesting for a drivers licence at ceratin ages should be
    mandatory,there was a strory on 20-20 about that very topic about
    two weeks ago.My own father was an elderly driver...I never trusted
    him past the age of 70 when it came to reaction time and other fine
    motor skills required for driving I knew he no longer had them.My
    sister and I tried to tell him to back off the driving...he wouldn't
    listen...I also refused to let him drive my kids around whenever
    they visited...I insisted on that!!!
    When he was 75 he ran a police officer off the road because he was
    in the wrong lane...they made him rewrite and redo his drivers test..
    I would have put money on it that he would never ever pass that...
    I'll be damned if he didn't pass!!!!!
    We finally convinced him to stop driving...so I guess re-testing
    is not always the answer...this man passed it...I would not have
    wanted to be on the same road with him I'm sorry to say...he was
    my father...but also a menace on the roads!!
    
    Les.
    

    	Given the dangers associated with an inept driver, I suggest
    that all licensed drivers be tested at license renewal time, regardless
    of age. Yes - it is true that certain faculties degrade with age,
    but there are also many people below 65 yrs. of age who should not
    be allowed to drive.
    
    	If the testing were qpplied uniformly, to all, there would be
    less discontent on the part of elderly people. By singling them
    out, they are being discriminated against.
    
    	Guy B.
    

    Good point,a dozen people at the age of lets say 70 years old no
    doubt would not posses all the same faculties..some more degraded..
    some less..some bang on the money yet at 70.
    

    Holly,

    You might want to take a look in PEAR::SOAPBOX.  There was a note
    on this subject not too long ago.  20/20 had a segment on this
    topic within the past month or so; you may wish to contact ABC
    and see if a transcript is available.

    Before I answer your questions I think one statistic presented in the
    20/20 segment is worth mentioning: when fatal accidents are broken down
    by age group, the elderly rank second; teenagers are at the top of the
    list!  Thus, any proposed solution which applies only to the elderly is
    not only insufficient to solve the problem, but is also blatantly
    unfair.

    My opinion is that drivers above a certain age should be required
    to take annual or biannual eye, written, and road tests.  An eye test
    is not sufficient as it will not catch those who can still see but
    whose reaction time is too slow to safely drive an automobile under
    certain conditions.  I also feel that anyone applying for a license
    should, at a minimum be required to take a written test.  I have
    held drivers licenses in four states during the past 14 years, yet
    I haven't been required to take more than an eye test since my
    Driver's Ed final in high school!

    Simply revoking the license of everyone who doesn't prove
    capable of driving under the most demanding conditions isn't fair
    and will most certainly deny many elderly something they value
    highly -- their independence.  One solution is to institute additional
    restrictions on driving privileges.  Some prohibitions which might
    be appropriate are: driving on certain classes of roads (interstate
    highways, expressways, those with speed limits above a certain limit),
    driving in inclement weather (rain, snow, fog), or possibly even
    restricting driving privileges to a certain town or towns or between
    certain points (doctor, grocery store, pharmacy, etc.)  These types
    of restrictions would allow those who are capable of driving safely
    under some, but not all, conditions to maintain their independence
    when they might not otherwise be able to do so.

    In addition to identifying and restricting those people not capable of
    driving safely, there ought to be means for people to improve their
    driving skills.  Inexpensive classes, including road instruction, at
    various levels would be a good start.  Driving simulators accessible
    to the public are a very safe way for people to determine their
    deficiencies and improve their driving skills.
    

	 Yes...teenagers are number one on the list....BUT what are
	 the percent of teenage drivers to drivers over 65?!?!  Most
	 of the elderly I know don't drive.  Based on percent of
	 accidents to percentage of age group on the road, I think
	 those statistics might change.

	 A good friend of mine killed a little old lady who's husband
	 turned in front of him at an intersection.  He couldn't
	 stop...the man never saw him....his wife was killed instantly
	 in the passenger's seat.  My friend said the man was totally
	 deaf as well as almost blind.

	 Mandatory driving tests, sight and hearing tests as
	 well--every year for people over the age of 65.  Mandatory
	 drivers training for teenagers (I totalled a car at the age
	 of 16...a tire blew on a mountain road....I did not have the
	 experience to bring the car back under control and slammed it
	 into the mountain....good thing i didn't end up over the
	 1500' drop off on the side).

	 This will get most of the drivers that are hazardous on our
	 roads.  Unfortunately it doesn't get menaces like my mother
	 who's 45 and a very scary driver....I keep telling her, being
	 overcautious can kill.  I'd like to see a mandatory driving
	 test every 10 years for those inbetween 20 and 65.

	 kath

    Some of the vision problems that you get as you age are not detectable
    in an eyetest.  I have always had a lot of difficulty at night with
    a lot of lights.  I get confused.  
    
    I am getting real paranoid about driving.  I am in the process of
    buying a new car and I am using my son's car.  It has tinted glass
    which seems to help.
    
    I think we need additional research on driving and driving conditions.
    
    The other thing that everyone can do is use public transportation
    whenever possible.  If we all used it, it would be cost effective
    and more available for those people who don't drive well.
    
    Some people need to drive to buy groceries, go to the doctors etc.
    It is not as simple as it sounds.
    

    re: .6
    
>	                                     Based on percent of
>	 accidents to percentage of age group on the road, I think
>	 those statistics might change.
    
    While you're probably right, I don't think it's relevant unless
    you're evaluating the cost/benefit ratio rather than the overall
    benefit.
    

    I think a reflex test should be given....and also a persons medical
    history evaluated.
    
    Both of my parents are in their early 70's.  Mom is in perfect 
    health...vision, reflexes, etc........    Dad has diabetes. 
    His reflexes are slower....he has lost a lot of feeling in his legs
    and in his feet.  They are a very close couple, and travel constantly
    by car..meaning that Dad does a lot of driving.   I worry a lot
    when they  are away (at least one week out of every month..average).
    
    I've approached Dad a few times about his ability to drive the car
    safely.....No one wants to admit that they cannot perform as well
    as they used to.   
    
    There should be tests.......possibly starting at age 55 or so.....
                                                                      
    
    kath

    One problem for older people out of the cities is that to give
    up their license means that they are confined to their house.
    Where there is no public transportation driving is the only way
    to get around. If we are going to get older drivers off the
    road, we can help the process by establishing some sort of
    transportation service in the local communities.
    
    Bonnie

    I used to work as a liability adjuster for an insurance company.
    
    My two "oldest" accidents were:
    
    1) A 90 year-old gentleman who blew a red light on the way to his
    driving test, and hit someone; fortunately, no serious injuries.
    He hadn't driven since his previous driver's test, but didn't
    want to give up his right to drive.        
    
    2) A 96 year-old gentleman who was still actively driving. He pulled
    out from a stop sign and struck someone; again there were no serious
    injuries. I took a statement from him over the phone, and our
    conversation went approximately like this;
    
    ME: Could you please read me your driver's license number?
    
    HIM: Wait a minute, Roger, while I get my magnifying glass.
    
    (About five minutes later...)
    
    HIM: I can't read the numbers. My license is so old that the numbers
    have worn off.
    
    ME: Do you believe you were at fault in this accident?
    
    HIM: Roger, how could I be at fault? I didn't see him!
    
    True stories.
    
    -roger
    
    

    Thank you everyone who have replied so far.
    
    The way I see things.  Yes, taking away their licinse is depriving them
    of their independence.  But look at it this way, not taking away that
    old man's licinse deprived Tommy of his life.  Which is more important
    here?  I can understand why they wouldn't want to give up their
    freedom, but don't they realize what they're risking by driving when
    they clearly don't have the capabilities they used to have?  
    
    Granted, some people over 65 are as sharp as a tack.  They're just as
    healthy as can be and they know exactly what they are doing.  But there
    are some people who are over 60 that can't see worth beans and they
    don't have good enough reflexes to drive.  
    
    I think the best thing to do would be to require that anyone before
    they get their licinse must go through driver's ed.  Whether it be
    provided by the state or what, they must go through driver's ed.  That
    somewhat covers the problems with the teenager's driving.  You must
    have a driver's test every 10 years.  Then once you hit 65 you must
    have your eyes examined every year and your driver's test every 2
    years.   Older people have got to realize that their reflexes are not
    as good as they used to be.  I have the feeling that once I am over 65,
    if my driving or my sight isn't what it should be, I'd give up my
    licinse.  I can always get one of my kids to bring me places and if
    they can't, I'll call a cab.  I know a lot of older people who have
    given up their licinses just for that reason and they're getting along
    just fine.
    
    Aside a little bit.  I was talking to Len Segel (sp) today.  He was
    saying that his mother lives in Florida.  She went to have her licinse
    renewed and she failed the eye test.  The person said to her, "All you
    have to do is get a note from your doctor and you can have your
    licinse".  Now there's a scary thought!
    
    Holly
    

    
    This is why we need safe efficient light rail...
    
    Santa Clara County is getting it now...

    Safe you say...
    
    I've lost track of how many accidents there have been with the new
    light rail because automobile drivers turned in front of it.  They
    thought the "T" (for Train or whatever it stands for) meant "Turn".
    ;^)  Must be all those folks that flunked their tests and got their
    license anyway. :^)
    
    Jan
    also in Santa Clara County

    Holly,
    
    I don't think that anyone's independance should be balanced
    against a person's life. What I meant by mentioning that was
    that there should be more types of public transportation for
    the elderly in all our towns so that they would not feel that
    they had to hang on to their license because of their desire
    for independance.
    
    i.e. rather than deal with the symptoms, older people driving
    when they aren't able to , let us deal with the problem, i.e.
    allowing older people to remain independant (not needing to
    rely on children, friends, neighbors, expensive taxis, just
    to go to the store, the movies, visit a friend, or out to eat.
    
    Bonnie

I think it's very easy for a person in their twenties to solve all
traffic problems by taking away senior citizens' licenses. The issue
is a bit more complex than that. 

In many neighborhoods, taking away a person's license means total
confinement to the house. For elderly people that do not have family
nearby, or refuse to be dependent, this is the same as a death
sentence. Not all elderly people can afford to move.

I am sure that mass revocation of driving licenses of elderly people
will be followed by suicides. Think about it. What would YOU do if
your car was taken away from you? 

On the other hand, UNSAFE drivers should be taken off the road,
regardless of the consequences to them. To be fair, tests should be
conducted (both physical and road tests) for all dangerous age
groups, at frequencies commensurate with the accident record of
either each age group or the individual's. Unsafe (not elderly)
people should lose their license. 

-- Ron 

    
    	I hear a lot of what we can do "to get these people off the
    roads" but not much is said of what we can do to make it any easier
    for *them*. Somehow, I'm sure that any sense of respect is the last
    thing on people's minds. How come it's that way?
    
    	Arguably, it is quite sensable to retest a person's driving
    ability if the situation warrants it or if their age is past a known
    point where some kind of physiological deterioriation is common.
    If it's determined that the person is handicapped beyond the point
    of being able to drive, this certainly should be detected and dealt
    with.
    
    	If they can drive in some capacity, however, I think they should
    have some corresponding amount of privledge to drive. A good suggestion
    was made earlier, to issue restrictive licences with perhaps distance
    and highway limitations. In fact, I think this is a good idea in
    general - to have different "classes" of licence with different
    corresponding privies. (Watch out for credit_card cars that know
    where they are!)
    
    	Come to think of it, there's really no incentive or motivation
    to even be a good driver, except in terms of all the bad things that
    can happen otherwise. You start out with a "clean slate" and a
    corresponding price, and it can only go up - unless they "never hear
    about you"! And if they do, it can only be bad to begin with and
    bad as a result.
    
    	You would think that they'd have a program for people with the
    time and need to be able to work off the high cost of insurance
    via training. Say, when you hit 150 hours of hands-on in_car
    instruction, you dont need insurance, or the whole premium is $50
    a year or something. Right now in the way things are set up, there's
    no incentive at all to become _that_ good a driver.
    
    	In fact, the whole mindset in approaching driving is in terms
    of "Oh, if I can avoid anything bad happening, I'll be OK". Nobody
    even thinks in terms of what's good or would be a good thing to
    do when they drive! No wonder accidents happen.
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    As one ages, the eyes undergo changes which, if not corrected
    and checked on a regular basis, can create problems.  Peripheral
    vision generally changes and the peripheral range shortens.  Oncoming
    lights appear brighter [the new type are *blinders*].  If certain
    eye diseases are not detected early [glaucoma and cataracts] the
    driver has adapted to the vision changes in such a way that although
    they believe they are in control, it is often not sufficient in
    case of an emergency or poor road conditions.
    
    Everyone who has some minor physical change over a period of time
    generally makes adaptations in such a manner that although it can
    be obvious to the observer, the adapter does not recognize the change.
    Therefore, I do believe that for the general public's safety, eye
    and driving tests should be administered every 2 years to those
    60 and older, and every year to 70 and beyond. 
    
    Curtailment of driving, or having one's liscense taken away, can
    create depression in a person who has tied their independence in
    large part to the ability to travel. [I, for one, would be desperate]
    
    
    
    *However*...*Big* however...I have a new car [6th Jan.] and already
    have 8400 miles on it.  I drive a l_o_t.  And I have found that
    the worst drivers, the most frightening in terms of speeding, light
    flashing while coming at one about 80 miles an hr, dangerous chance
    taking and in general, deplorable driving habits and manners, are
    the sole territory of those who--when I can catch a glimpse of them
    as they rip by--are under 40.  
    
    It makes one stop and think about what these drivers will be like
    when they reach their 60s.  They will have poor driving styles/habits
    so set that when their physiological and psychological aging changes
    begin, they will be hell on the roads.
    
    I am all for requiring a complete road test + written exam every
    and any time any one gets stopped for *anything*.  [And I have been
    stopped, and I know I deserved it] and no driving until that is
    accomplished regardless of the hardship plea.  
    
   M
    

I have to agree with Guy in .3. All drivers, regardless of age, should be
comprehensively tested (sight, hearing, reflexes, ability, etc.) on a regular
basis - possibly more frequently than current renewals (I think in NH a license
is good for five years - too long in my opinion). Certainly there would be some
cost associated with this overhead, but then drivers licenses are dirt cheap
anyway and could stand to cost more to defray the expense ($20 for 5 years in
NH is $4/yr - why not $10? It's not an order of magnitude greater, and that
could probably cover the cost.) As Guy pointed out, testing everyone would
remove the discriminatory stigma and be more likely to get ALL the unsafe
drivers recognized rather than just the older ones.

As far as the mandatory driver ed goes, I think that statistically most
teenagers have, in fact, taken it. I also think that the types of accidents
they are involved in don't have a lot to do with anything that might have
been tought in DE - more likely poor judgement and lack of experience are
the causes.

I don't think anyone is condoning arbitrarily restricting the independence
of the elderly, but I do think everyone agrees that unsafe drivers don't
belong behind the steering wheel. Simply crying mass transit won't help
either, though. My parents are both over seventy. Thank God they are both
still healthy and alert enough to be able to drive safely. They live in
an extremely rural area in upstate NY. They love their home and would not
under any circumstances consider living elsewhere - why should they? They
are also over 20 miles away from anything even remotely resembling a city
and at least 18 miles away from anything possibly considered a "suburb".
Let's face it - mass transit isn't going to be an option in that area
in _MY_ great garndchildren's lifetime, even!

I'm afraid that restricted or limited driving privileges for some aren't a
solution. I don't know the details of Tommy's death, but I'm sure the
old man could have just as well pulled out in front of him when driving
home from the store or the doctor's. People that can't drive under some
circumstances probably shouldn't drive under _ANY_ circumstances. That's
why DWI's have their licenses revoked - they're not told to "only drive
when they're unimpaired". Right? And there is nothing unfair about expecting
people to possess good driving skills under trying circumstances - that's
what they'll have to face on the road, isn't it?

So why not test us all, all the time. I'm confident enough of my driving
abilities to put up with it. Shouldn't we all be? And if we're not, then
what the hell are we doing on the road anyway?

-Jack

    I say treat everyone equally.  If your going to require testing then
    its for everyone.  Let the tests/criteria "weed out" those who aren't
    capable.  Don't generalize.
    
    There are probably a higher ration of dangerous drivers in others
    categories who go along their merry ways.  Teens who have little
    experience and hot rod around, drunk drivers with multiple violations
    who are still out there, just plain bad drivers, you name it there are
    plenty of them.  I'd guess there are inept or limited skill drivers in 
    every age grouping.  And I'd guess that more older citizens are
    voluntarily giving up driving recognizing their limitations than any
    other group.  Does that make them a safer group or just prone to have
    more bad examples for people to focus on?
    
    How many of us pull up behind an older person doing the speed limit and
    get impatient saying, Damn little ol' lady drivers.......
    
    So in brief ......focus on bad drivers overall not a subgroup because
    of a particular incident.  Put some effort behind enforcing laws, 
    raising the renewal criteria for all.  
    
    I wonder how many of us could pass the written test today without any
    preparation never mind a road test with a registry inspector.  I'd 
    be alittle nervous.
    
    I'm all my years of driving I've had one big accident.  I was parked in 
    traffic.  Who crashed into me?  A police car.....Take away their
    licenses...yea thats the ticket.
    
     
    
    
    

    RE: .18
    
    Details of Tommy's accident.  The man was driving home from a friend's
    house which was just down the street.  
    
    Holly

    Perhaps a simple reflex test at renewel time. Something like three
    lights, each with a button under it. They all start green, and when
    one goes red, pust the corresponding button. If you fail the test, then
    you have to retake the road test. That way, everybody goes through
    initial screening (no discrimination), and those who need it are
    retested.
    
    As a past police officer (11 years) and author of the basenote in
    Pear::Soapbox on this topic, I feel that when its a question of public
    safety vs the independence of an elderly person, the public MUST come
    first.
    
    Eric

    Just a possibility, not that drivers are like pilots, but both
    pilot vehicles that can kill.  For a pilot to fly although
    his ticket is good for life every two years he/she must have a
    physical by an FAA designated flight surgeon.  Maybe we should have
    this for drivers and pilots.
    
    Jim

    It is very hard for our senior citizens to give up their license as
    they do look at it as their independence and a way of not burdening
    their children or friends.  As my mother aged and her eyesight
    deterioated she drove only to places she was very familiar with.  I had
    wanted to talk to her about giving up her license but knew how she felt
    about it.  One day she announced that she was selling the car and did
    not want to drive anymore.  As she put it, "It would be bad enough if I
    got into an accident and hurt or killed myself, but God forbid I hurt
    or kill anyone else".  I'm not sure what had prompted this, but my
    insticnts tell me she had a very close call. The town she lived in did
    not have public transportation...not even cab service.  She relied on
    me and her friends, which bothered her no end.
    
    I agree with testing every driver periodically and not limiting it to
    senior citizens.  I also think we should look into more public
    transportation to the outlying areas of the big cities.  It may help
    cut down on accidents, traffic, pollution and who knows what else.
    
    P.
    

    First of all, Holly--
    
    Bless you for wanting to take part in this after what you have been
    through yourself!  It shows a lot of courage and also concern for
    others to do this.
    
    Many good points have been brought up by other noters.  I agree
    with all drivers being tested periodically.  That way we *all* stay
    on our toes.
    
    I would like to see additional questions put on drivers' tests like:
    
    "Upon entering a major interstate highway, should you come to a
    dead stop at the exit, or simply slow down?"
    
    "On a 4-lane interstate highway, what is the correct way to change
    over from the passing lane to the first lane?" 
    
    "When should you use your directional signals?"  
    
    "When is driving in the breakdown lane permitted?"
    
    "What is the MINIMUM speed you should maintain on a major highway?"
    
    And so on.  Maybe some of these questions are pertinent to each
    state;  I'm basing these on some of the dumba** things I see every
    day in Mass.
    
    Case in point:  My uncle and aunt in Maine were driving me back to
    their house;  uncle was driving.  He made a quick lefthand turn
    onto his street without signalling, and was surprised that the car
    behind him honked at him.  He turned to me and said, "I don't know
    what he's so upset about--I make this same turn each day!" 
                                                              
    Let us know how this all turns out,
    
    Jane

    somoene in another notes file just brought up something I really liked.
    
    He said that people should be tested according to their record.  If
    someone has been convicted or DWI, someone who has caused X number of
    accidents in X number of years, or if someone is an inexperienced
    driver, then they should be tested more frequently.  This way, nobody
    is really discriminated against.  What do you think?
    
    Oh, and I wanted to clarify something.  I am not discriminating against
    elderly drivers.  I have a lot of respect for the elderly.  They have
    been around a lot longer than i have and they know a lot more than I
    do.  I just want to make sure that the roads are safe.  What happened
    to Tommy was an auful tragedy, but I'm not blaming all little old man
    for what happened.  I'm more sensible than that.
    
    Holly
     

    I think .25 hit on something. 
    
    He mentions other questions he'ld like to see on the driver's test.
    
    Well I think maybe states ought to take a long hard look every year
    at what types of violations and accident trends are happening and
    adjust testing.
    
    I also think that if the registry didn't give standard tests the
    driver education folks would teach people how to drive instead of
    how to pass the test.
    

    My grandfather had cataracts removed a few years ago.  He sees fine
    now.  He can read with glasses (farsighted).  He passes his eye
    exam for his license.  He has pretty decent reflexes.  I think his
    depth of vision is going a bit, though.
    
    I almost got hit by an oldster crossing a street at dusk.  I was
    wearing not-too-colorful clothes and he didn't see me in front of
    his car.  Fortunately I shouted loud enough and he was going slow
    enough so I didn't get too hurt.  He apologized profusely, offered
    to take me to a hospital, pleaded with me not to get his license
    taken away....
    
    I agree we need more transportation for the elderly, we need to
    pay more attention PERIOD to the elderly.  They are often treated
    like defunct, second-class citizens.  In early cultures they were
    revered, now they sit idly by, their experiences and wisdom unused...
    But that's a different story, I guess...
    
    FWIW, I'd be willing to have classes of elderly licenses.  Some
    could only drive KNOWN routes (i.e. routes they've driven since
    they were young, or which other people show them and check them
    on - although I'm not sure how this could be verified...I know my
    grandfather doesn't go any new places these days, though).  Some
    could drive only during the day (my grandfather has enough sense
    not to drive at night anymore).  Some could drive only on clear,
    sunny days (no rain or fog or clouds).  Some could drive only with
    a chaperone.  Some could drive less than a half hour from home.
    Let the license fit their capabilities, but don't make them housebound.
     That would be VERY painful for them.
    
    Oh, my grandfather?  He's 93.  A little hard of hearing, but his
    mind's still sharper than many people I know.
    
    -Jody
    

    I live in an area of Los Angeles that has a large senior population,
    and there are streets and shopping centers I avoid in that area
    because of the "adventures in driving" that can occur. Of course,
    just driving here is an adventure.
    
    I believe that one problem that may not be solved by the driving
    tests themselves are seniors that are taking some type of medication,
    as many do for various physical problems related to aging, that
    impairs their ability to drive. Do we have some type of declaration
    made at the time of the test, by the seniors? This would not take
    care of any medication that is used only on a temporary basis.
    
    
    -roger
    
    

    re: .22
    
    Reflex test ? How about a full road test, instead ? This is what .. hmm
    .. Florida? does,as do .. what .. 35 states, as mentioned in the 20/20
    program ? 
    
    But, as others have suggested, have the relicensing keyed to certian
    types of violations, accidents, age, medical, time, etc. 

    Great stuff here. My Mom is 80 yrs old, and has reduced her time
    driving; realizing the diffculties encounterd with driving.
    
    Bob
        
    

I have a lot of thoughts on driving:

Speed Limits:  The speed limits (in MA) are rediculously low.  Speeding tickets
are a form of governement income, and not a basis for how good or poor a driver
you are.  I habitually go faster then the speed limit, but never faster then is
safe.  Since I have driven 15 years and 300,000 miles, and haven't been involved
in any accident over 5 miles an hour, I would say that proves my judgement.

If someone has an accident then convict them of wrong; they have done something
wrong.  Driving faster then an arbitrary rediculous limit is not in itself
wrong. 

People have to have a better grasp of what they are capable of, and better
judgement, rather then relying on arbitrary limits.  Obeying arbitrary limits
only rots your brain and corrodes your sense of judgement.

Training:  Sure, people should be tested.  How much testing depends on whether
or not you want to pay for it.  I took a written drivers test last month. The
test material was in a little drivers manual.  I read the manual in an hour,
walked into the DMV and said 'are you sure the test is on this manual? there's
nothing in it that can be tested on!' There was literally nothing in the test
that anyone couldn't pass with an hours reading, or a years driving experience,
and it certainly was not a measure of competancy.

Sure, we could use better eye tests.  Reaction tests.  Those will help, and they
wouldn't cost too much.  But what we *really* need is *driving* tests, and not
just a 'putter around the block' test.  Anyone can pretend to be a good driver
for 15 minutes.  We need a test that tests your judgement, your reactions and
your driving habits.  Maybe a defensive driving course, maybe a gocart race test
:-). 

Roads:  In my option all the NE road departments should be rounded up and be
made to cross 128 during *rush* hour, and then shot!  The planning and design
and construction of NE roads are hazardous undser normal situations.  Half the
roads in NE are under a perpetual state of construction, but they are never
finished. The state disavows any responsibility.  

The intersections are never square, and the lights are confusing, and they put
idiot islands and signs in the middle of the road for people to run into, for
God's sake! Half the drainage grates in the state are six inches above the
pavement or a foot below; is that quality control?  The highway ramps are non
circular, nor do they use straight ramps where it would make more sense and save
space.

Seniors:  If people had better sense of what they were capable of they would
quit if they were not capable of driving safely.  But because they can pass 'the
test' they think they are doing fine!  Obvious corrsion of judgement from
obeying too many arbitrary limits. 

Insurance:  There is no incentive to be a safe driver.  You are paying for
accidents all the time, so why worry about having an accident, you've already
paid for it! When there's an accident, make people pay for it, in money and
punishment; don't make'm pay before hand!

Transportation:  Sure, more public transportation would be better.  But how many
of you people calling for public transportation would use it???  Darn few, I'll
bet.  The are also other modes of transport other then driving a car.  There's
feet, bicycles, horses, carriages, hitchhiking, trains, planes, boats... Can't
any of these be used sometimes?  Let's take a good look at how much mobility
does an elderly *need*? 

Jody, I really don't understand what you were trying to get at when you said it
might be alright for someone who couldn't drive normally to drive with someone
else.  If there's someone else with them, have that someone else drive, and be
done with! 

Jim.

    
    
    	Well Jim, you sure did give your two cents worth... Only problem
    	is I can't figure out what you mean should be. For an example,
    	take the spped limit issue, you state that here in Mass they
    	are way too low. Yet, in the next paragraph you state the road
    	conditions in Mass are so bad. The logic escapes me here Jim,
    	if the roads are in such poor shape as you say (and I agree,
    	I also live in Mass), then how can you justify increasing the
    	speed limit??? Then, what would be your speed limit? It almost
    	sounds like you think they should done away with and everyone
    	allowed to drive as fast as they think the can handle it. This
    	is stupid, period!!! Ask anyone about their driving and you'll
    	always get the answer their driving is fine, it's always the
    	other guys fault.  So would you and your great ability feel
    	you could safely drive I495 going say 90?? how about 120?
    
    	 You also brought up anopther point that I think is false,
    	where you said most people would give up driving if they felt
    	they couldn't drive safely. I disagree, I know this one guy
    	(age 87) that had 15 crashes within a six month period, and
    	he still felt when they did take his license it wasn't right.
    	He felt every accident was the other guys fault, even the
    	darn parked car with no one in it he hit. So much for that theory.
    
    G

               
    	Reading -.1 and all the replies, I sense an overwhelming feeling
    that "testing" is part of the solution to the problem -.1 brings
    up. I can extend this conceptually to all other "problems of society"
    for the sake of looking at what that could possibly say.
    
    	What I see is that our society could be at the dawn of "the age
    of testing" where there'll be tests for this 'n tests for that which
    an individual will be subjected to - apparently all their lives.
    It's because it's become too expensive for society not to detect
    certain conditions in it's population's individuals.
    
    	Realize that this kind of solution is definately an obtrusive
    one. There's been all kinds of debate I'm sure in other places about
    the appropriateness of doing this in very certain contexts, which
    I wont mention. My point is that there are people who will not
    surrender their right to personal autonomy (NO! You cannot have
    that information...) and therefore any testing system will have
    it's corruptions and therefore only be a limited solution.
    
    	This ties in neatly with the upcoming age of information, where
    it'll be the information that has value - "your" file can be bought
    and sold by any service connected to the "wire".
    
    	Personally, I dont want to even have a file. My interests, my
    spending habits, when I make my phone calls, the chemistry of my
    blood, the frequency at which I incurr a citation, where I've lived
    and when, how much I make, the number of bank accounts in which
    I hold over $500, the principle place of garage for my car, the
    cars I've owned and the results of my testing or "grade" if you
    will, etc, etc, etc are confidential, thank-you. No, you cant even
    peak!
    
    	"But it's best for society that you're known for what you are!"
    
    	Is it?
    
    	Joe Jas
    
    	

    I know a guy who had totalled 8 cars in 3 years.  Not only did he
    think they were someone elses fault, he sued General Motors for a
    design flaw in tow of them.  He is still on the road.  At the time
    he was 24.  No he is in his 40's.  If we let young people wreak
    havok on the highways, should we be any less forgiving of the older
    people?  
    
    Am I such a good driver that I can judge others?  I got pulled over
    a few weeks ago and was given a WARNING for going 80 in a 55 zone.
    A guy in the local office here, in his 30's, was followed to work
    by an irate motorist who told us he drive blindly through a school
    crossing zone with children in it!  Are we so much better?
    
    It is sad.  My father is 79 this year and he remembers where the
    highways used to be.  They aren't there anymore.  Got these gig
    green signs that he can't see until he's right up on them.  Yes,
    his capacity is diminnished.  You put a bunch of fast-driving whackoes
    like myself on the same road with a bunch of disoriented octagenarians
    and something is gonna happen.  Whos fault is it?

I moved replies .34 and .35 here from the separate topic where they had
been accidentally entered.  (Hence the reference to ".0" in .35 which
should be read as ".34")

				Steve

"I can't figure out what you mean should be. For an example, take the speed
limit issue, you state that here in Mass they are way too low. Yet, in the next
paragraph you state the road conditions in Mass are so bad."

For instance, interstate highways are designed to be driven at 75 MPH, yet the
speed limit is 55 MPH.  (yes I know it's supposed to save gas & accidents blah,
blah, blah, but I'm not impressed).  Rural roads have speed limits every where
from 35-45 when they for the most part could be 55 (the default rural speed
limit in MI is 55).  These are places where the road conditions are not bad. In
the places where the road conditions are bad, I slow down.

"Then, what would be your speed limit? It almost sounds like you think they
should done away with and everyone allowed to drive as fast as they think the
can handle it. This is stupid, period!!!"

I've given an example of my speed limits.  I would post speed signs, but
speeding tickets for the most part (except for 90 in a 25) serve no purpose,
certainly not safety.  I've gotten plenty of tickets, but no accidents. When
there is an accident, give an appropriate ticket for that. 

Yes, I think that people should be allowed to drive as fast as they think they
can.  But they should also be trained to know how fast it is safe to drive. 

"So would you and your great ability feel you could safely drive I495 going say
90?? how about 120?" 

Now you are being insulting. 

"You also brought up another point that I think is false, where you said most
people would give up driving if they felt they couldn't drive safely."

Hmmm   Am I the exception to the rule, then?  There will always be Bozos, but
why punish me for some other person's problem? The people who are at fault
accident after accident *should* have their licenses taken away from them. But
these are not the people that I was refering to; I was more refering to the
octogenarians. 

'safety of fast drivers & octogenarians on the same road'

I've run into :-) a number of these people.  These people are at least as much a
menace as the flagrant speeders:  stoppping at the end of a highway entrance
ramp, sitting in the middle of intersections.  Yet I've managed to avoid having
any accidents with these bozos, so how can you say that I'm not a safe driver.
I may drive faster then average, but I drive defensively.

"What I see is that our society could be at the dawn of "the age of testing"
where there'll be tests for this 'n tests for that which an individual will be
subjected to - apparently all their lives."

I personally do not believe in testing as a default condition. Test if there is
an accident to determine the cause.  Test for things which are a physical
requirement for safety like eye tests for driving.  Don't dare try to test me
for drugs as a matter of course.

What people don't realize is that trying to prevent all mishaps takes away a
*lot* of your freedom.  Freedom which I for one am not willing to give up. 
Sure, some precautions can be taken, but you can't prevent everything.

Jim.

    Re: .37 and several before that.
    
    Jim,
    
    It's all well and good to say that the limits are "ridiculously
    low" and that IF offenders were punished more and better trained etc.,
    then it would be OK to drive faster.  This all sounds good in theory,
    but the average U.S. driver is NOT well-trained and is NOT made
    to pay a serious consequence for a serious violation.  The speed
    limits are NOT ridiculously low considering the competence of the
    average driver.  Is 55mph "ridiculously low" for a newly-licensed,
    16 year-old on I495?  Not in my opinion.  If we were to have better
    training and stiffer penalties, then you might have an argument,
    but what "should be" does not justify blasting along on the highway
    now.
    
        
    > I've gotten plenty of tickets, but no accidents. When
    > there is an accident, give an appropriate ticket for that. 
    
    This is ridiculous.   Someone might be dead by that time!
        
    > Yes, I think that people should be allowed to drive as fast as
    > they think they can.  But they should also be trained to know how
    > fast it is safe to drive. 

    Again, great theory, but the reality is that there is no such training
    generally available.
    
    > I may drive faster then average, but I drive defensively.

    Maybe you do and maybe you don't.  Would you bet your safety on my
    saying I regularly drive 80+ mph on roads where you frequently drive,
    but "I drive defensively"?  Why should I trust my safety to your
    judgement of your abilities?  "300K accident free miles in 15 years"
    may just be good luck on your part!  Fast drivers are not infrequently
    the "cause" of an accident, but not actually involved in it themselves.
    Witness the high-speed lane weavers who create confusion and near panic
    among other drivers as an example. 
    
    You're quite right in saying that you can't prevent everything,
    but letting any Tom, Dick and Harry choose for themselves how fast
    they will drive makes no sense at all.  You can't make a case for
    this that will stand up.  Believe me, I am NO advocate of censorship
    or surrendering freedom but in the case of our highways, your actions
    stand to affect the well being of many people besides yourself.
    
    Steve
          

"Is 55mph "ridiculously low" for a newly-licensed, 16 year-old on I495?"

No...  I drove 55 when I first got my license, even though the speed limit was
75 at the time.  As I got more experience my control and judgement increased. 

"This is ridiculous.   Someone might be dead by that time!"

That might be so.  But I don't think that there would be any more then the
present system where people can have a dozen accidents before losing their
license.

"Again, great theory, but the reality is that there is no such training
generally available."

The training is there for anyone who cares to use it.  Try motocross or dirt
bike riding.  Try sliding around an empty parking lot.  See how it's *really*
like in an accident. It will do wonders for your reaction, judgement and
control. 

"Would you bet your safety on my saying I regularly drive 80+ mph on roads where
you frequently drive, but "I drive defensively"?  Why should I trust my safety
to your judgement of your abilities?  "300K accident free miles in 15 years" may
just be good luck on your part!"

300K is a loooong string of good luck... you want the odds?  In any case 80+
*is* too fast for me.  Would I trust you if you said you drive defensively?
Probably not.  Would I trust you if said 300K?  Probably.  That's a quantitative
measurement.

Witness the high-speed lane weavers who create confusion and near panic among
other drivers as an example." 

Agreed... lane weaving is dangerous.

"You can't make a case for this that will stand up."

I've made a case.  It would work at least as well as the current system, be a
lot fairer, and be simpler. Maybe I can't convince you, but you haven't
convinced me.

Jim. 
    

 

    
    	RE: the last few.
    
    I am one that drives fast, providing I'm the only one that can get
    hurt.  By that I prefer empty roads to speed on when I do.
    
    My experience:
    	By age 20 I had raced late model stocks, motocross, sprint karts,
    	and minibikes.  Along the way I had such odditied as a sprint
    	kart with a Honda 160 engine gearbox and all. Speeds ranged
    	from 15mph to over 160 depending...  You learn what its like
    	slide in the dirt at 60 from bikes, and wack the wall at 80
    	in late models. How many have tried to control a car at 100+
    	after blowing a front tire?
    
    Yes there are real driving schools the use performance cars,
    race tracks, and skid pads to train the driver to get the most out
    of a car under adverse conditions.
    
    Yes I liked to drive fast, I used to do boston to LI,ny at 4 am
    at speed up to 120.  Of course I was the only thing on the road
    and damm yes for SV rated radials that were checked carefully each
    time so a curb cut didn't kill me. Yes there was extra lighting
    so I could see.  I don't drive like that any more, the roads are
    getting poorer, traffic worse and the other drivers scare the hell
    outa me.
    
    After all that I will insist don't ban high perfomance cars, ban
    LOW performance drivers.  Those crazy lane changers are amoung the
    worst, and second are the idiots that cant seem to drive at night
    without HIGH beam light on in traffic.
    
    Hope I haven't yelled too much.
    
	john

    Getting back to the original topic...I mentioned that there
    was a need to provide some sort of public transportation
    for the elderly so that they would not feel cut off or dependant
    by giving up their licsense. Another noter mentioned that he
    lived in rural area where there would never be public transportation
    in his life time.
    
    There is actually a type of public transportation that is workable
    for rural areas (where I also live) this is the independantly
    scheduled bus. There is a version of this available in the town
    next to me, and it has been tried in various communities for
    well over 20 years. A person who is included in the area served
    by the bus makes a call and tells the central dispactcher where
    they want to go and when. The dispatcher, using a computer develops
    a bus schedule for that day, depending on who wants to be picked
    up and where they want to go. The subscribers pay a base fee, depending
    on how often they use the service and the local community picks
    up the balance. It can and does work, even in quite rural communities.
    
    
    Bonnie

    The problem with the 55 MPH speed limit (or most limits these days) is
    that they are being mandated by POLITICIANS rather than traffic
    engineers! Politicians know about as much about road design as an
    earth worm, but they are determined to mandate speed limits which
    benefit either political goals or revenue enhancement.
    
    I was up in Maine this past weekend on 65 MPH roads, with my cruise set
    to about 67. There were cars going faster and some going slower (and
    an elderly driver on the Maine Turnpike not knowing where he was going,
    or what lane he was in-nometimes right, somethmes left, sometimes
    both), but traffic was flowing smoothly. Make speed limits artifically
    low and this flow gets messed up.
    
    A test was done a few years ago (I forget what magazine had the
    results), where drivers were put on an Interstate with the speedometer
    covered and told to drive at the most comfortable speed. The results
    were found on the average to be:
    
    About 65 MPH!
    
    Eric

RE: .41

>    There is actually a type of public transportation that is workable
>    for rural areas (where I also live) this is the independantly
>    scheduled bus.

This looks pretty good on paper (er... screen), but is not very
useful in practice. This type of 'scheduled bus' operated (perhaps
still does) in Bedford, MA, where I lived until last year. Once, I
even tried to use it...

The problem is that in order to properly develop the bus schedule,
the service operator needs to know all the requirements by the
previous day.

As a result, this kind of service is next to useless. They want to
know exactly when you will need it the next day, but can only
guaranty a 30 minute window for bus arrival. Then, the bus will not
pick one up at one's home, but at the closest intersection with a
main artery. 

Who can preplan a trip to the supermarket or post office or library
a day in advance and set an exact time (for the person, not for the
bus) beforehand, walk a good distance to the pick up point and then
wait up to half an hour in the snow or rain?

I agree it's better than nothing (not much better, but still,
better). However, I doubt it is viable as a permanent solution.

-- Ron

Yes, Bonnie, I must agree with Ron in .43. I was the one that stated that
my folks, in a rural area, were not likely to see any public transportation
in my grandchildren's lifetime. They live about 1 mile from any major
highway, and even that is only a lightly used section of a federal highway.
The closest city with any mass transport (buses) is over 20 miles. The only
bus in their area is a Greyhound that comes through twice a week - once
in each direction - and it only connects with one terminal in each direction
(90 miles one way, 40 the other). The surrounding towns (less than 20 miles
distant) are so small that they don't even have taxi cabs. There is no
business need to encourage anyone to establish any transportation system
now, hence none exists, hence none is likely to be formed. A demand bus
wouldn't work here, I'm afraid.

-Jack

This discussion is digressing to another round of 'bash the 55 MPH
limit', which I vaguely remember seeing a couple of thousand times. 

I'd like to side (at least, partially) with the people claiming that
the law is designed to increase revenues and has nothing to do with
safety.

The 55 MPH limit was set well over 15 years ago, as the way to
reduce gas consumption. At the time, it was generally accepted that
a speed of 55 MPH was safe.

In the past 15 years, the average car has gone through a
transformation. Oversized 4 wheel disc brakes with low profile
tires, using improved rubber formulations, are common. Steering and
suspension systems have improved dramatically. Belts are commonly
used and airbags are appearing.

Too bad drivers are angrier and the roads are crowdeder. Even so, if
55 MPH were safe for the average early seventies cars, then current
cars are just as safe or safer, at 75 MPH. 

-- Ron 

    re: .45
    
 > Too bad drivers are angrier and the roads are crowdeder. Even so, if
 > 55 MPH were safe for the average early seventies cars, then current
 > cars are just as safe or safer, at 75 MPH. 
 
    Interesting theory, Ron, and I'm tempted to buy in at least part
    way (like maybe a 5 m.p.h. increase in safe speed).  But it seems
    to me that the most important safety device is the driver and this
    makes me doubt that 75 m.p.h. is "safe" today.  For one thing, you
    mentioned the increase in the number of drivers and I agree that
    this has contributed to the anger factor.  More importantly though,
    I doubt things like driver reaction speed have increased 36%.
    Situations develop much more quickly at 75 than 55 and I doubt it's
    mere coincidence that as soon as the speed limit was set down to
    55, highway deaths decreased.
    
    
    re: the question of testing driver competency
    
    *Theoretically* I like the idea of somehow allowing drivers to travel
    at their individual levels of competence.  In practice, however,
    I can't see a way to make it work:  consider the difficulty of
    designing an extremely fair, extremely comprehensive test including
    all variables like regional weather conditions and traffic anomalies
    (e.g. rotaries), make and model of the car, age, etc. etc.  Then 
    think of the cost of such an animal, especially if it were to be 
    administered on any regular basis.  
    
    So, I guess I grudgingly favor a middle ground (e.g. some sort of
    regular eye testing like kath mentioned and, at least for most
    populated regions, low speed limits).
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  btw, for the record, neither I nor my RX7 *like* to trudge
    along at 55; it's alleged that, from time to time in days gone by
    I've nudged that limit a tad. . .as James Taylor once sang,
    "Hurts my motor to go so slow;  Damn this traffic jam!"
    

RE: .46

>    ... and I'm tempted to buy in at least part way (like maybe a 5
>    m.p.h. increase in safe speed).

Well, if you consult braking distance charts, you will discover that 
a bit less than half the distance is due to driver response lag and 
slightly over half, to the car's braking distance. The latter is 
significantly shorter in newer cars.

While I cannot claim a scientific basis for my figure of 75 MPH (it
was more or less a 'fer instance'), I find your 60 MPH ludicrous. No
one goes **that** slow, except the lady with the thick glasses and
bluish hair, sitting on the passing lane.

Personally, I also agree 75 MPH is a bad speed. I only use it as I
accelerate to my normal cruising speed and again, just before I
stop. 


>    ... and I doubt it's mere coincidence that as soon as the speed
>    limit was set down to 55, highway deaths decreased.

Care to divulge the source for that statistic? My understanding was, 
death rate in Maine DECREASED when they INCREASED the speed limit to 
65 MPH.

-- Ron

    This is all very interesting, folks, but it seems to me to be diverging
    quite a distance from the theme of human relations.  A lot of this
    appears to have already been covered elsewhere, and I'd rather not
    see a prolonged debate on the pros and cons of certain speed limits
    here.
    
    Is there more that can be added that is pertinent to Holly's
    original inquiry?
    
    				Steve

    I would point out that many of the traffic laws (including the speed
    laws, as originally formulated) were put in place to determine fault in
    case of an accident, not to be routinely enforced.  Since then, it has
    been determined that these laws can be used to generate revenue for
    state, county, and local governments, as they are now used.  This has
    little to do with safety, and a lot to do with politics. 
    
    As for driving, I have an aunt who totals a car every 3 years. It's
    always "the other guy's fault", she hasn't gotten a ticket yet, so her
    insurance rates are low, and no question on whether or not she should
    keep her licence.  The few times I've ridden in a car with her it was
    obvious to me that she had no idea where on the road it was, nor how to
    control the car.  Get drivers like this off the road, and leave the
    statistically "safe" speeders alone.
    
    Elizabeth (who, incidentally, hasn't had an accident nor a ticket
    in about 250K miles) 

"*Theoretically* I like the idea of somehow allowing drivers to travel at their
individual levels of competence.  In practice, however, I can't see a way to
make it work:  consider the difficulty of designing an extremely fair, extremely
comprehensive test including all variables like regional weather conditions and
traffic anomalies (e.g. rotaries), make and model of the car, age, etc. etc.
Then think of the cost of such an animal, especially if it were to be
administered on any regular basis."

I don't believe that it is necessary to have a *comprehensive* driver competency
test.  What we *really* what to test is the driver's judgement and reactions.
Several such tests could be administered easily.

'back to the topic'

This topic is basically about the dangers of inept drivers, and 'poor anyone who
doesn't have a drivers license'.  I don't think the issues should be discussed
in the same room.  If someone is not competent to drive, they shouldn't drive
regardless of the personal consequences, period, end of sentence. 

*Then* the question can be addressed, what are the effects of not having a
drivers license, what *needs* to be done, and what *can* be done.  

Someone said that elderly who have their licenses taken away will committ
suicide because of their loss of mobility and independance.  BS, I say. This
handicap is no different from any of the other dozen common handicaps that limit
people physically.  And the elderly had best learn to deal with it, just like
the other handicapped.  Secondly, this is a 'percieved' problem, in that
elderly, and in fact the whole human race managed just fine before there were
cars for every individual to zoom around in when they felt like it. 

What about people who are too young to drive?  Aren't they as important as
the elderly who can't drive?  Why aren't we falling over ourselves to say
'poor you' and provide them with transportation?

Someone said that they couldn't imagine scheduling a grocery or library trip a
day in advance.  I couldn't believe that someone couldn't imagine it! Again,
this is a human condition that people had to deal with before cars became
commonplace, and it certainly is possible to schedule any trip that isn't a life
threatening emergency. 
    
I asked before what sort of transport elderly (or *anyone*) ***needed***. Do
they need emergency transport such as ambulances?  Do they need regular service
such as busses?  Do they need demand service such as taxies?  Do they *need* to
go grocery shopping?  Do they *need* to go out to restaurants?  To movies? What
do they really *need* transportation to? What trip purposes can each of these
types of services fullfill, and what can't they fullfill? Can't people carpool
more? 

No one answered.  How can you hope to find a solution to a problem when you
won't bother defining the problem?  It sounds to me like people want to follow
the common course of just throwing money at the problem and hoping that it will
go away.  Fine with me, but not with my money.  And don't expect the problem to
go away, even if you feel better because you 'did all you could'. 

Jim, only slightly tongue in cheek

    In most countries it is mandatory to have a test before renewal
    of driving license and of course, if they have an eye problem...there
    is no license! In Spain, renewal comes every 10 years for average
    person, and more often for cicizen over 60 (eye exams are mandatory
    with every renewal). I believe that due to accidents the rule was
    changed to 5 years instead of 10 and it did help a great deal in
    preventing accidents...it is crucial to use blinkers (something
    that is easily forgotten here).  I vote for safer drivers!

    	I do believe that elderly drivers should be tested. My grandfather
    is stubborn beyond belief and insisted on driving every where, anywhere
    he wanted to go. He has memory problems(who wouldn't at 85 yrs young)
    He wont let any of his seven children or thier mates or his
    grandchildren(of which thier are over 60 not counting the great
    grandchildren)tell him what he can or cant do." I can drive, Ive
    been driving longer than you have been alive" Well his additude
    and stuborness has put him in the hospital with a broken hip(the
    accident was three weeks ago). He was the cause of the accident
    fortunatly no one else was hurt. He sure is giving every body a
    hard time about this. I hope his license is removed permentally
    I do believe that he will obey the law. If they say he cant drive
    he will make a stink but comply anyway. From what I hear he will
    recover as well as any one his age can from his injuries. 
    He certainly wont be able to blame any of us for his problem. 
    He does prety well on his own. Losing his independce will
    be a blow for him. The uncle that lives with him also cant drive
    as he has been diagnosed with Huntingtons Disease. 
    I am not sure about the assistance in that area but I have a hard
    time seeing my Grandfather getting along with silver key or 
    the people who deliver "meals on wheels".
    
    janet
    

Reply .50 has concluded that testing drivers is too expensive and 
draws the logical conclusion that elderly drivers should be taken 
off the road. I find this argument to be somewhat flawed.


>	This topic is basically about the dangers of inept drivers

True. So why does this whole reply sound as an attack against the 
elderly, rather than against unsafe drivers? You didn't use the word
'safe' or 'unsafe' even once. You used the word 'elderly' five
times.


>	If someone is not competent to drive, they shouldn't drive
>	regardless of the personal consequences, period, end of
>	sentence.

No one, as far as I recall, said otherwise. What I object to is 
equating 'elderly' to 'unsafe driver'.


>	Someone said that elderly who have their licenses taken away
>	will committ suicide because of their loss of mobility and
>	independance. BS, I say.

Before you freely discard opposing opinions as BS, why don't you
test your own argument? Try to give up the use of your car(s) for,
say, one month. Rely on Parents/SO/siblings/children/friends to cart
you around to work/supermarket/library/shopping/movies/restaurant.
See how/if you survive. 


>	This handicap is no different from any of the other dozen
>	common handicaps that limit people physically.

Not quite. This is a handicap you advocate society inflict on
people because they are elderly, not because they are unsafe
drivers. 

Because, if it's safety you are so worried about, by all means take 
the licenses away from ALL young people. Statistically, they, as a
group, are responsible for FAR more accidents than elderly people.
See auto insurance rates for verification. 


>	And the elderly had best learn to deal with it, just like
>	the other handicapped.

Learn to deal with starvation and depravation? Just like the maimed,
the crippled, the retarded, the epileptic? For no reason except that 
they are now elderly? 


>	... elderly, and in fact the whole human race managed just
>	fine before there were cars for every individual to zoom
>	around in when they felt like it.

True, but society and life styles have changed since them olden
days. We didn't have Penicillin, radio, airplanes and a host of
other conveniences. Are you suggesting we push the elderly back
a hundred years?


>	What about people who are too young to drive?  Aren't they
>	as important as the elderly who can't drive?  Why aren't we
>	falling over ourselves to say 'poor you' and provide them
>	with transportation?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting we 
deprive the elderly of their license because there are children
around, who are too young to drive? 


>	No one answered.  How can you hope to find a solution to a
>	problem when you won't bother defining the problem?

You are attacking the wrong problem. The problem is not the elderly.
It is safe driving.

Just because someone's grandfather is not a safe driver or had an
accident, does not make it an 'elderly' problem. Just as, if
someone's daughter has totaled three cars in that many months, it
does not make it a 'young people' problem. 


>	It sounds to me like people want to follow the common course
>	of just throwing money at the problem

I don't see anyone throw money at the problem. Can you supply some 
details here?

-- Ron

"Reply .50 has concluded that testing drivers is too expensive and draws the
logical conclusion that elderly drivers should be taken off the road. I find
this argument to be somewhat flawed."

That was not my coclusion at all.  I said that comprehensive testing of driving
skills was not necessary (someone else said it was too expensive), and that all
we needed to test was their judgement and reactions, and that sort of testing
was feasible costwise. 

'why "elderly" instead of unsafe'

Because that's the topic.  Because it's the elderly drivers that get the 'poor
you, we can't take away your license' treatment.

"Before you freely discard opposing opinions as BS, why don't you test your own
argument? Try to give up the use of your car(s) for, say, one month. Rely on
Parents/SO/siblings/children/friends to cart you around to work/supermarket/
library/shopping/movies/restaurant. See how/if you survive." 

Easily.  And I don't even have Parents/SO/siblings/children in the area to
drive me around.
 
"This is a handicap you advocate society inflict on people because they are
elderly, not because they are unsafe drivers."

No, this is a handicap I advocate because they are unsafe.  I do not advocate
taking away *all* elderly licenses, only those who are *proven* to be unsafe.

"Because, if it's safety you are so worried about, by all means take the
licenses away from ALL young people."

I'm more worried about people's rights then their safety.  Personally, I think
it is a crime that young people with no bad driving record have to pay
1500-2000$ a year for insurance.  I only advocate taking action against those
people who have proven themselves unsafe by being at fault in an accident. 

"Learn to deal with starvation and depravation? Just like the maimed, the
crippled, the retarded, the epileptic? For no reason except that they are now
elderly?"

Give me a break before I die laughing!  People are going to starve because they
can't drive?  That's worse then the previous BS.  Get serious.  None of these
are necessary consequences of having no license because they can't drive safely.

"We didn't have Penicillin, radio, airplanes and a host of other conveniences.
Are you suggesting we push the elderly back a hundred years?"

Again, no.  I only suggest that elderly people who are not safe to drive, not
drive. 

"What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting we deprive the
elderly of their license because there are children around, who are too young to
drive?"

I am pointing out that the elderly *if* they cannot drive are no worse off then
*all* the children who cannot drive *now*.  I am pointing out that it is no big
fat hairy deal.

"You are attacking the wrong problem. The problem is not the elderly."

The topic is elderly people driving who are not safe.

Jim. 
 

    re: .54
    
    At the moment, I haven't a lot of time to reply, but I wanted to
    at least say that your replies feel kind of cold and smug to 
    me, Jim.
    
    � I am pointing out that the elderly *if* they cannot drive are no 
    � worse off then *all* the children who cannot drive *now*.  I am 
    � pointing out that it is no big fat hairy deal.
    
    How is it you reach this conclusion?  One thing I know - it's *not*
    from being elderly yourself, and I wonder how an elderly person
    would take your words; I suspect it would be with a good deal of
    offense.  Are you suggesting that mobility is as easy for a person
    of 80 as it is for a 15 year old?  For one thing, we don't *expect*
    children to get themselves around from place to place as we do
    adults and we therefore make provisions for ferrying them.
    
    Furthermore, an increasingly common form of depression is that that 
    does indeed strike older people who suddenly lose their licenses.  
    Mobility means a great deal in this country and when taken away, it 
    can be traumatic to people.  To reduce those people's feelings to "BS" 
    strikes me as remarkably callous.
    
    I think we all agree that people who can't drive safely shouldn't be
    allowed to.  But to say suggest that the elderly face no greater
    problems because of a loss of license than young people strikes
    me as way off the mark.
    
    Steve

    Re .-1
    
    >For one thing, we don't *expect*
    >children to get themselves around from place to place as we do
    >adults and we therefore make provisions for ferrying them.
    
    Perhaps we shouldn't really *expect* anyone to get around place to
    place by themselves anymore.  Perhaps we should have better means to
    ferry everyone from place to place that they need to go.  Inability to
    drive is not the sole domain of any particular group.  There are people
    who don't have licenses or cars who are old, young, handicapped, blind,
    "can't learn to drive", can't afford a car/insurance.
    
    Unfortunately, this is a complex question, and I don't have a simple
    answer.
    
    Elizabeth

"your replies feel kind of cold and smug to me, Jim"

Perhaps...  I would have thought they were more hot and disgusted.  Sorry, but
that's my reaction when someone tells me that it's impossible to survive without
a drivers license.

"Are you suggesting that mobility is as easy for a person of 80 as it is for a
15 year old?  For one thing, we don't *expect* children to get themselves around
from place to place as we do adults and we therefore make provisions for
ferrying them." 

I suspect that the majority of children are not chauffered around whenever they
wish, nor do I think that they should. Why should the elderly deserve any more
any more consideration? 

"To reduce those people's feelings to "BS" strikes me as remarkably callous."

I didn't say that I reduced their feelings to "BS"  The BS was directed more
toward the response of 'poor you, we *have* to do something about this
*dreadfull* situation'.  It may be that there is no solution to the problem, and
people will just have to face the reality of growing old.

Jim. 

    To compare the elderly to teenagers and/or children is to do them
    a great disservice.   Almost all children have caregivers.  The
    elderly are not as fortunate!
    
    The elderly have to seek services outside the home.  They require
    mobility to obtain the necessities of life.  
    
    The only way we will have safer highways is if we increase public
    transportation and in so doing allow unsafe drivers mobility.  
    
    Public transportation and the accepted use of it by all groups of
    people will resolve many problems.  To me it is quite callous to
    sit in front of our terminals, give lip service to ideas and concepts
    and/or condemn a group of people and then go out and get in the
    car by ourselves and travel home.
    
    Death on the highway is a major epidemic...it is my feeling that
    under the present circumstances (lack of public transportation)
    that a license is a right....and it should be a privilege!
    
    

Jim, I'd like to say that I'm somewhat disappointed (although not complete-
ly surprised) by what I condider your rather callous and casual attitude.

You see, my friend, someday your parents, your aunts and uncles, your
friends - even you - will be "old".

And what you are proposing as black and white solutions for others won't seem 
so simple then; issues never are when they involve ourselves and those whom
we love.    

What has been bothering me, in general, about some of the replies in this
string is the attitude taken by some of the "younger" participants. 

Do you people (generically) think that you're never going to get old? That 
you're going to remain 25 forever? That Life's more difficult questions are
going to be resolved by flippant answers?  

Hell, I know what I would do if I were 80, able to drive, and somebody told
me I couldn't have a license anymore because my reflexes were slower, or I
needed thick glasses to see, or I couldn't hear quite so well.

I'd continue to drive! What are "they" going to do to me, throw me in jail?

Because - along with the aging process and its concomitant wrinkles, aches
and pains, and liver spots - comes something very valuable: Freedom.

Remember the line from the song "Me And Bobby McGee" that went:

   Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose.........

Well, when one is old, there really ain't nothing left to lose.

  Alan  
                                         

RE: .59

"Jim, I'd like to say that I'm somewhat disappointed (although not complete-
ly surprised) by what I condider your rather callous and casual attitude."

Again, I will say that my bad attitude is toward the response to the topic, not
to the topic itself.  I doubt anyone who knows me personally on either the
subject of elderly, or transportation would call me callous or casual. Well,
maybe casual, but I'm just a casual type person.  I think that you don't know
what you are talking about when you judge me callous on a couple of notes.

'some day you are going to be old too'

Perhaps.  But I hope that I drop dead before I assume transportation as a right
to be demanded by me from other people.  And I don't mean that I would commit
suicide.  I simply mean that I would make the best of my situation with or
without help from anyone else.  And if I can't make it on what I've got, then I
won't make it.  I won't say I *need* transportation therefore I have a *right*
to transportation. Again, my past life experiences show that I practice my
philosphy now, so don't tell me that I don't now how I will act in the future.
No one can know for certain, but I certainly know better then you.

"I'd continue to drive! What are "they" going to do to me, throw me in jail?"

Quite likely if you have an accident, or even if a cop stops you.

"Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose........."

That may be one conception of Freedom.  But this is a Freedom which doesn't care
if your Freedom harms other people.  It has no respect for the rights of other
people.  Because of this, I don't consider it a very good expression of the
concept of Freedom.  Desperation, maybe...

Jim. 

RE: .58 by MARCIE::JLAMOTTE 


I think everything you have said makes good sense. However, I have
one comment on your: 
    
>    Public transportation and the accepted use of it by all groups
>    of people will resolve many problems. 

I would have liked to believe, as you do, that public transportation
can/should solve the problems of highway accidents by reducing
traffic congestion. However, my observations do not confirm this. 

In Israel, public transportation is very prevalent. At very low cost
(a fraction of the cost in the USA), one can go from one point to
another in and between cities. It is quite possible to live there,
quite well, without a car. 

At the same time, anyone who can afford a car owns one, because, as
good and developed as public transportation can be, it cannot match
the convenience of a personal car. As a result, the roads there are
just as congested (at places, much more so) then in this country. 

The bottom line is that, in spite of the prevalence of public
transportation, the accident rate in Israel is very high. I am not
sure about current figures, but several years ago it was higher that
any state here (since 1948, Israel has lost more lives in traffic
accidents then in its five wars, combined!!!). The main reason stems
from the mindset of the people and the culture: people drive
extremely aggressively, with little regard or consideration for
others. 

I am not presenting an argument against public transportation. On the
contrary - I am all for it. But please do not assume it is a panacea
which will solve all (or even many) problems on the road. It's not!
Any solution is going to be multi-facetted and intricate; simply,
because the problems themselves are quite intricate. 

One final comment: while there are people whose driving has become
unsafe due to age-induced deficiencies, it is still true that age
has no **direct** bearing on people's ability to drive safely, in
that there are many retirees who drive better than many 25 year
olds. In fact, most people perish before they lose their ability to 
drive safely. After all, people in their late seventies and eighties 
are in a small minority.

The idea that taking all senior citizens off the road will solve (or
even have the slightest impact on) our traffic problems is... er...
very simplistic. Typically, it is voiced by extremely young people. 

-- Ron 

    It would interesting to redo this discussion when all the participants
    were over 75... starting from the same premises, otherwise....
    
    I think that any blanket rule regarding deprivation of licenses
    because of old age would be about as smart as any other rigid
    bureaucratic solution to a complax problem.
    
    Testing would seem to make the most sense... and for those who think
    the expense is too high consider this.  The expense of testing would
    be a visible one... but it might be far less expensive than the
    hidden costs we all bear right now.  Don't kid yourself... someone
    else's accidents cost you money... and lots of it... in your automobile
    and health insurance rates and your taxes for starters.
    
    Testing could be profitabley applied to the whole driving population,
    especially if there were a competency component... perhaps done
    with simulators to present real driving problems.  The technology
    is available... its probably already a money making video game.
    
    In my experience the problem on the highway is less with speed than
    with the very poor lane discipline exhibited by many drivers.  Few
    drivers in Massachusetts follow a practice of staying to the right
    when they are moving slower than traffic -- they get in a lane and
    proceed to act as if they own it... then they wonder why some people
    weave around them.
    
    I recently lerned that the reason some elderly drivers may tend
    to occupy the left lanes at a speed slower than traffic is because
    of something that was taught as a safety practice in the years before
    limited access highways.  Many were taught to stay out of the right
    lane to avoid problems with drivers pulling out of side roads.
    
    A testing/training simulator, required every few years for license
    renewal, with perhaps a coin operated training option to practice
    for the test, could go a long way toward retraining people taught
    outmoded practices as well as those who acquired bad habits over
    the years.
    
    It would be interesting if problems like this could be actively
    solved instead of trying to legislate them out of existence.  Such
    actions usually just create more problems.                
    
    R.
    

    My father turned 78 yesterday.  He has allways been a good safe
    driver.  Never had an accident, even to this day.  He can't see
    at night so he doesn't drive at night.  He now doesn't drive very
    fast and he does tend to get disoriented when he gets to those
    complicated intersections that have been built in the last 10 years.
    
    My mother is 75.  She learned to drive when she was about 40.  I
    remember our standard transmission 52 Plymouth bucking its way up
    the hills.  She is and allways was a terribly slow driver.  She
    has had one accident.
    
    Neither drives very far.  They drive just about every day.  I think
    they have the right.  They are much better 'drivers' than I am,
    though I am much faster, can see better, have better reaction time.
    Last year I took them home from my house after Thanksgiving dinner
    and when we got to their house my mother asked me if I allways drove
    'no hands'?  I wasn't even aware that I had done that, I do sometimes.
    
    When I see someone doing something dumb on the highways I check
    for grey hair and out-of-state tags.  Those I can deal with.  I
    assume that all other people who do dumb looking things are drunk.
    We would be far better off if we got all the drunks off the road
    than functional senior citizens.
    

"The idea that taking all senior citizens off the road will solve (or even have
the slightest impact on) our traffic problems is... er... very simplistic.
Typically, it is voiced by extremely young people."

Perhaps you are the one being simplistic.  I have yet to hear anyone voice
such a solution here.

Jim.

    FWIW.....
    In this sunday's colorado springs gazette there was an article about
    a man in his late 70's that accedently killed his wife when he backed
    over her in his pick-up as she attended the mail box. The story
    was more about his inability to accept the fact she was gone but
    did touch on the 'too old to drive' issue.
                    
             
    -j
    

    Someday, we're all, hopefully, going to be old. I find elderly drivers
    more aggravating because they tend to drive slowly. They do it to
    maintain their level of control and awareness. They seem to drive
    within their own ability. Rarely are the elderly cited for speeding
    or drunk-driving. They are rarely careless. 
    
    A 58 year old drunk cop killed a man on 93 yesterday while driving
    his Bronco south in the northbound lane.
    
    A month ago an 18 year old boy was killed in Derry, NH when his
    best friend lost control of his car at high speed. They had all
    been drinking.
    
    Monday morning 2 kids (17 and 20) were killed in Manchester while
    speeding. They hit a pole, severing the car in half.
    
    Speed, drugs, and alcohol are the big problems, not old folks. We
    just have to remember that they may slow us down enough to save
    our own lives.
    
    Ken

.67>.66>        -< Slow Down, Life's Too Short to Rush >-

.67>    	Is this humor or a typo?

	 Is something wrong wit me today?  typo?  where?  I must be
	 dense today.

	 k

    I totally agree with Ken.  I'd rather get there ten minutes late
    that not at all.  Too many people are in too much of a hurry to
    get nowhere.
    
    I'm always grateful when I see a reckless driver (you know the lane
    bouncers) get stopped by the Police.  I just wish there were more
    officers available to get these menances/death threats off the road.
    
    Susan

    	This note has reminded me of someone I once knew -- my great-
    grandmother.  She absolutely *loved* to drive; she was never so happy
    as when she was behind the wheel, going anywhere.  On top of this, she
    once won an award for driving:  I forget what agency, but they followed
    her for a number of miles, unbeknownst to her, and sometime later (I
    don't remember if it was on the spot, or later after they'd reviewed
    other candidates) they contacted her and told her she'd won this award
    for being such a safe driver.  She was very proud of that achievement.


    	And yet, there came a time when she felt she shouldn't drive
    anymore.  She took the onus on herself to *give up* her license,
    without any prodding or coercion from anyone else.  I'm quite sure she
    could have driven for a number of years more, but she didn't.  Isn't
    that the way it should be?  I think so.  I think each of us should be
    responsible enough to know when to give up our licenses.  Frankly, I'd
    say that when you don't feel comfortable driving the speed limit
    (barring lousy weather or something like that), it's time.  I just hope
    that I'm as big a person as she was when my time comes.


    	She loved everyone around her, never saw the bad in people (or at
    least never dwelled on it).  We miss her still; I think she was the
    best human being I've ever known.


    Brian

    They are too busy doing "revenue enhancement" with speeders doing 10
    over. That is consistant income to the municipality as opposed to the
    reckless driver, who will probably COST money to prosecute! And I don't
    generally blame the patrol officer either, these decisions are made
    very high up in the bureauracy-performance is often judged on how many
    tickets they can write, so whatever is quick and easy gets the
    attention.
    
    Unfortunately, there are just as many lane hogs (left lane lemmings) as
    there are lane bouncers, and are just as dangerous to the "smooth flow"
    of traffic, so why not go after them?
    
    Eric

    
.69>    	If life is really too short, why would you want to slow down?
    
.69>    	Doing that would mean more time going places, and less time
.69>    	there.


	I think that the idea here is that if you spend all your time
	going places as fast as you can, you don't get the chance to enjoy 
	wherever it is that you are.  (I hope that's not too garbled)

	>>AL<<

re .66

Yes, drunks are a major problem.  But they're not the only problem.

>>    or drunk-driving. They are rarely careless. 

It is most certainly careless to drive when you can't see well enough.
For example, my PA drivers license stated that I could drive without
glasses.  And when I was 16 I could.  But by the time I was 18 I couldn't
see well enough to drive without them, so even though legally I could, 
it would have been careless for me to drive without.   My eyesight is
considerably worse than it was when I left Pennsylvania, but if I still
lived there I would have a drivers license with no restrictions.

I have had about as many near misses with incapable people (not necessarily
elderly, as I have an acquaintance who is in her 40's who is probably
legally blind but drives anyway) as I have with other kinds of reckless
drivers. But there are two kinds of characterisations -

  1.  Reckless people who intentionally do what they do.  They drive fast
      and when they do something stupid frequently look right at you
      for a split second before or when they do it.

  2.  Reckless people who just can't see or react well enough.  These
      tend to be very slow drivers, both in terms of taking 5 miles
      to go from 0 to 40 and in terms of driving 30 mph under the speed
      limit.  These people seem to do a scan of their surroundings before
      doing something stupid but never seem to focus on you.