Poll: How Old Is Too Old To Drive? (100 year old man runs over 14 people, mostly school kids)

[RJ 17]

As the story mentioned in the topic implies, we can apparently start the bidding at 100.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/100-year-old-driver-car-examined.html

Edit: Since that article is an "update" about how the investigation is going, here's the original article about the story:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/100-year-old-driver-hits-9-children-while-backing-up-his-car.html

Granted, the man in the story claims that it was a vehicular malfunction, that his breaks went out. But still, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think that at 100 it's officially about time to hang up your car keys.

How about you, my fellow Escapists? Do you think old people should have to give up their keys? If so, at what age should this start? I've heard some people (the news anchor that was talking about the above-linked story, for one) suggest that old people starting at 60 should have to take a driving exam every year in order to keep their license. Or do you think they should never have to give up their driver's licenses?

And before anyone else bothers, here's a clip from the South Park episode dealing with old people driving.

 

[RJ 17]

Wow, really? "Your bacon is trapped in a rhino's ass and your cat just coughed up a furball, which one do you decapitate?" topics get at least 30 comments......but a news story about a ONE HUNDRED year old driver wiping out FOURTEEN people gets nothing?

Le sigh....... u.u

 

[Lilani]

Granted, the man in the story claims that it was a vehicular malfunction, that his breaks went out. But still, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think that at 100 it's officially about time to hang up your car keys.

And it hasn't been proven either way just yet it seems, so the way you've presented the topic is very misleading and possibly totally fraudulent. Bad form.

Anyway, the DMV already requires drivers over 70 to re-take the vision and written parts of the driver's tests every five years. I feel like that's enough.

 

[Goofguy]

They do get re-tested frequently enough for a reason. Personally, I think it depends on the physical and mental faculties of the person as opposed to their age. I'm sure there are better 90 year old drivers than 60 year old drivers, so should the former be penalized due to their age?

 

[RJ 17]

Granted, the man in the story claims that it was a vehicular malfunction, that his breaks went out. But still, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think that at 100 it's officially about time to hang up your car keys.

And it hasn't been proven either way just yet it seems, so the way you've presented the topic is very misleading and possibly totally fraudulent. Bad form.

Ummmm...I presented the story as it was presented in the article...how is that misleading people or, at worst, totally fraudulent? Did I just make up a story about a 100 year old man running over 14 people? The statement you quoted was me stating my opinion on the matter.

Edit: That opinion being that I don't think his breaks went out.

 

[Lilani]

Granted, the man in the story claims that it was a vehicular malfunction, that his breaks went out. But still, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think that at 100 it's officially about time to hang up your car keys.

And it hasn't been proven either way just yet it seems, so the way you've presented the topic is very misleading and possibly totally fraudulent. Bad form.

Ummmm...I presented the story as it was presented in the article...how is that misleading people or, at worst, totally fraudulent? Did I just make up a story about a 100 year old man running over 14 people? The statement you quoted was me stating my opinion on the matter.

Edit: That opinion being that I don't think his breaks went out.

You presented the topic as "How old is too old to drive--100 year old man runs over 14 people mostly school kids." Then when in the body of the OP you finally bother to mention it could have been a mechanical failure, you downplay and doubt it.

You don't know one way or the other, so stop acting like you do. "How old is too old to drive" is a valid discussion to have (if a bit of an ignorant way of going about it--it's not about age, but competence) but don't sit here and judge this specific case just because you think you know more than the police who are handling the case do. It doesn't make you clever for making the assertion that he's old so it must be his fault. It just means you are quick to jump to conclusions when you have no evidence to back it up.

 

[RJ 17]

Granted, the man in the story claims that it was a vehicular malfunction, that his breaks went out. But still, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think that at 100 it's officially about time to hang up your car keys.

And it hasn't been proven either way just yet it seems, so the way you've presented the topic is very misleading and possibly totally fraudulent. Bad form.

Ummmm...I presented the story as it was presented in the article...how is that misleading people or, at worst, totally fraudulent? Did I just make up a story about a 100 year old man running over 14 people? The statement you quoted was me stating my opinion on the matter.

Edit: That opinion being that I don't think his breaks went out.

You presented the topic as "How old is too old to drive--100 year old man runs over 14 people mostly school kids." Then when in the body of the OP you finally bother to mention it could have been a mechanical failure, you downplay and doubt it.

You don't know one way or the other, so stop acting like you do. "How old is too old to drive" is a valid discussion to have (if a bit of an ignorant way of going about it--it's not about age, but competence) but don't sit here and judge this specific case just because you think you know more than the police who are handling the case do.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that having an OPINION on matters made me a horrible person. I made a topic with a title that described what was inside: a discussion about old people driving and a story about a 100 year old man running over 14 people. In the body of this topic, I gave my opinion: 100 year olds shouldn't be allowed to drive. You clearly disagree with this opinion, and that's fine, but I don't recall ever saying once that I knew for a fact that his breaks didn't go out, what I said had the implication that I doubted the man's story.

Don't get all holier-than-thou on me just because you disagree with my opinion. If anything, YOU'RE the one misleading people by trying to make it seem like I was stating my opinion as a definite fact that implies I know better than everyone else. I submit to you that there's nothing wrong with how I wrote my OP, but rather there's clearly something wrong with how you read it. Oh, but wait, that's my opinion again, so clearly I'm a horrible person for thinking that when I don't know exactly what's going in your mind. Sorry, my lesson has been learned: having an oppinion is bad.

Edit: And for the record, the evidence to back up my opinion is the fact that a 100 year old man just ran over 14 people.

 

[Lilani]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that having an OPINION on matters made me a horrible person. I made a topic with a title that described what was inside: a discussion about old people driving and a story about a 100 year old man running over 14 people. In the body of this topic, I gave my opinion: 100 year olds shouldn't be allowed to drive. You clearly disagree with this opinion, and that's fine, but I don't recall ever saying once that I knew for a fact that his breaks didn't go out, what I said had the implication that I doubted the man's story.

Don't get all holier-than-thou on me just because you disagree with my opinion. If anything, YOU'RE the one misleading people by trying to make it seem like I was stating my opinion as a definite fact that implies I know better than everyone else. I submit to you that there's nothing wrong with how I wrote my OP, but rather there's clearly something wrong with how you read it. Oh, but wait, that's my opinion again, so clearly I'm a horrible person for thinking that when I don't know exactly what's going in your mind. Sorry, my lesson has been learned: having an oppinion is bad.

Edit: And for the record, the evidence to back up my opinion is the fact that a 100 year old man just ran over 14 people.

Yes, you've formed an opinion, based on a stereotype. Congratulations--you've formed the most simplistic and the second most ignorant kind of opinion a person can have, right above an outright lie. But I guess knowing it is the first step.

And no, you don't have evidence. What you have is a situation. Unless you can prove mechanical failures become impossible after a driver reaches a certain age, you have no evidence this case fits your stereotype. You don't know what happened, and no amount of huffing and puffing at my forcing you to acknowledge you've simply decided it must be his fault because of his age is going to change that.

Frankly, I don't care if it was his fault or not. It could be, or it could not be. I just wanted to make sure you didn't go this whole thread without getting called out on your totally unfounded bias, and the FACT that your conclusion is totally unproven.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Personally, (and this is with someone without a driver's license, if it matters) I don't think they should hang up their keys at a set age. I think you should be repeatedly be re-tested after X amount of time to prove that you can still drive capably. The time between these tests may get shorter and shorter as you grow older, but so long as you can past the test, you're allowed to drive.

And any fail may not mean that you have to give up the license straight away but if you can't sort out the problems in a certain time period then you would have to give it up.

In terms of the news story, I must admit that I was shocked that a 100 year old man was still driving, though.

 

[RJ 17]

Yes, you've formed an opinion, based on a stereotype. Congratulations--you've formed the most simplistic and the second most ignorant kind of opinion a person can have, right above an outright lie. But I guess knowing it is the first step.

And no, you don't have evidence. What you have is a situation. Unless you can prove mechanical failures become impossible after a driver reaches a certain age, you have no evidence this case fits your stereotype. You don't know what happened, and no amount of huffing and puffing at my forcing you to acknowledge you've simply decided it must be his fault because of his age is going to change that.

Frankly, I don't care if it was his fault or not. It could be, or it could not be. I just wanted to make sure you didn't go this whole thread without getting called out on your totally unfounded bias, and the FACT that your conclusion is totally unproven.

Actually, my opinion was based on the fact that this isn't the first time such a situation has happened. In July of 2003 in Santa Monica, an 86 year old man drove through a farmer's market, killing 9 people.

Again, I respect the fact that you disagree with my opinion that older people shouldn't be allowed to drive. But it's not based on a stereotype that "old people are bad drivers", it's based on the fact that if you do some digging around, you'll find numerous stories just like this one. You say "I just wanted to make sure you didn't go this entire thread without getting called out on yyour totally unfound-"Well not totally unfounded, seeing as how this is not the first case of an elderly driver causing chaos, break malfuntions or not "-bias, and the FACT that your conclusion is totally unproven." Apparently you don't understand what an opinion is. So to irritate you even further, allow me to explain:

An opinion is an opinion because it cannot be proven at the current time. If it could be proven, then it would no longer be an opinion. It would be what's known as a fact.

For the third time, I'll remind you that I'm speaking of my opinion, I'm not - nor did I ever - present my opinion as a proven fact. But you wanna know what the REALLY fun thing about opinions is? They can be changed! People can admit they were wrong! *gasp!* I know, someone admitting they were wrong on the internet is as hard to find as the unicorn in Oblivion, but such people are out there. Your entire argument is based upon the notion that I'm firmly set in my belief that this man was at fault, that my mind could never be changed. If the facts come out that it was a break malfunction, I will personally send you a PM with a link to the updated article and say "I was wrong."

But until then, guess what? I get to keep my opinion that the man was too old to be driving, and that people should hand over their car keys at a certain age as a matter of public safty.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Hahaha... oh the images I'm having in my head.

Ha.

Well anyways, on topic, I'd say around the 70 mark would be a good time to hang it up. 70-80 seems very reasonable.

 

[prophecy2514]

as long as they're deemed medically fit to drive, taking regular tests into old age, then there should be no reason at all to take away someones right to drive. How often these tests should be is the issue, not a set "age"

 

[Arakasi]

It shouldn't be judged by age it should be judged by ability.

That's about it really.

 

[Rednog]

Honestly, over 65 I think you should be forced to take a yearly test.
I'm sorry but there are way too many elderly people who are behind the wheel who have absolutely no business being there. We're talking about a dangerous piece of machinery that really requires your full capability to drive, and somehow we let older people, some who can't every walk, get behind the wheel. It blows my mind every god damn time I see grandma or grandpa barreling down the road hunched over in their seat with their face on the steering wheel because they need to squint to see the road.
Let's be honest here, getting old sucks, your vision, hearing, and reflexes go out the window, and you pretty much need the full trifecta to drive.

 

[dangoball]

Where I live, old people are retested once every five years and if they manage to live long enough and still want to drive, it goes down to once every two years. I think that's reasonable.
I also think that drivers in their prime cause much more deaths on the road than elderly, statistics and all that. However I'm too lazy to check up on that, so feel free to call me out on that one (with some links to stats, if you please ).

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't think age has as much to do with it as the over-all mental state of the driver. Hell, I'd rather have a 100-year-old ass kicker behind the wheel than an overly emotional 18 year old. I think the best thing to do would be to decrease the amount of time older people take between license renewal. As in having them take a vision and, reaction test of some kind every 2 to 3 years once they hit a certain age and decrease that to every year once they hit another milestone.

We really don't want to restrict the 100 year olds from driving quite yet. You never know after all; we could be among the first generation to have 100+ year olds as a normal thing and I don't want to be written out of my right to drive if I'm more or less sane and capable at my centennial.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

No set age.

1. The possibility of a mechanical failure is nothing to scoff at. You don't simply dismiss it for any other age bracket, old people's cars malfunction too.
2. They are retested regularly after 70.
3. As people live longer and longer, we will be retaining functions at that age that we have now at 60, and they'll have to keep upping the maximum age as general competency goes up.
4. If they're driving at 20kmph, they're holding up traffic like anyone else, report them, don't ban every old person.

My 4 cents.

 

[DustyDrB]

Age absolutely has something to do with it. Vision (especially in motion and at night), reaction time, spatial awareness...these things get worse as you age. You can do things to slow down this regression, but aging will get to us all eventually (assuming we live long enough). I don't know what the laws are in California, but I think there should be retesting every three or so years after you get to, say, age 65.

On a somewhat tangential note...

There should also be some way to make damn sure that people who leave clinics/hospitals and shouldn't be driving after whatever they there for are actually not just immediately getting in their cars and driving themselves anyway. Seriously, some old man almost killed me recently when he pulled out in front of me, forcing me to immediately swerve into the next lane (thankfully, there were no cars in that lane). I looked at him as I passed, and he had clearly just been to an optometrist. He was holding a patch over one eye while looking up to make keeping it in place easier, so he was driving while only using his peripheral vision. What the fuck, man? I will haunt the shit out of you if you get me killed over something like that.

 

[Indecipherable]

If common sense evades you:

I worked in insurance for 5 years and I can assure you there's a good reason why they are charged a higher premium.