Ask Your Question today
Is it normal that I think old people shouldn't drive or atleast they should take a series of tests by the DMV before allowed too drive?
I'm sure a lot of people agree until we're all like 70 and people are taking away our licenses.
This 80-something year old woman here was caught driving without a license, AFTER she ran her PT Cruiser through a bus stop, killing a woman and seriously injuring the woman's child and boyfriend. It was the third time she had her license suspended and it was being suspended because she was not taking proper care of her diabetes and her blood sugar would crash while driving causing her to drive like a complete fool. She has been in two property damage only accidents beforehand, had she followed the rules, that woman would have been spared.
*Yawn* anyway, just a story I felt like sharing. I hope they throw the book at that old bat.
I don't think anyone should drive.
We should all begin riding our bikes, using our feet, utilize horses, camels etc, you name it. Let's de-civilize (is that a word?) and enjoy the good old fashioned life. FUCK CARS.
Why should I abandon an efficient form of transportation for one that is inefficient?
I think some old people shouldn't drive, the same way there are younger people who shouldn't drive, either.
I do think older people should be required to take a standard test to include (at least) vision and basic motor skills.
If they've been driving for 50 or more years and haven't gotten into a lot of accidents or traffic tickets, I don't think it's necessary to administer a written test with questions like, "If you're driving at 62 mph, how far will your car travel when you apply the brakes?"
Cycling is more efficient than using a car. A bicycle uses less energy per transported unit of mass than a car for a given distance.
Also another fun fact: Old people can't judge speeds or distances. The ability to accurately gauge speed and distance is something we acquire as we grow up and loose as we grow older. The effects of this are more severe for some than others.
Let's be honest... do you want someone who can't accurately tell the difference between 40km/h and 80km/h or 100meters and 200meters to be driving?
So whilst a written examination IS pointless, they should still submit to an examination of their physical aptitude.
Cycling may be more efficient than driving, but I don't think efficiency is the only factor. If I cycled to work, it would probably take me two hours and I'd have to take surface streets instead of the freeway, which means I'd have to do a lot of stopping at red lights. I don't think the time inefficiency would outweigh the energy efficiency. And, I think a lot of people would be the same way. Plus, it's more dangerous, and if I need to go somewhere (grocery store, errands, whatever), a bicycle just wouldn't cut it.
People seem to forget that it's perfectly possible to get everything done without a car. It's just that people prefer to be comfortable, having a little more time and polluting the world to having to change their habits and inconveniencing themselves a just a tiny little bit.
2 Hours? Do you live 50+km away from work? Public transportation? ;)
Dangerous? Less cars => less traffic => safer, plus it's not THAT dangerous unless drivers in your area are idiots. It's probably more likely that you'll fall of a chair whilst changing a lightbulb, breaking your neck in the process.
The point: People don't like inconveniences and will keep making up excuses.
Clearly, you have never been to California. There's a big difference in "a little inconvenience" and being completely impossible. Getting to work is one of those. Another is going to the grocery store. There's one within biking distance, but I'd only be able to carry a few things, like a big box of detergent and one bag of grocieries.
Public transportation? Not where I live. In other countries, I know it's a possibility and it makes a lot more sense, but not here. I had a friend who has an hour drive to get to work. He tried public transportation once. It took him four hours to get to work and four hours and 45 minutes to get hime.
None of these are excuses. I think you're looking at it from your own perspective and not looking at reality.
There are bad drivers at any age, and the most dangerous are men from 18-25, so perhaps they shouldn't drive??
In Germany they have levels of driving licenses, and believe me, they don't care at all if you never are allowed to drive. Here in the States we have this thing where we think it's only right that everyone should be able to, but actually that's why there are so many fatalities and texting-induced accidents. I'd feel better off if half the people were off the road, and I don't care what age they are,m be in 21 or 85, if they're bad, get them off.
On the corollary, if they are 65 and a better driver than you then you should give them kudos.
Some of them shouldn't drive. Some older people are fully capable of driving, but some aren't. I'm talking about the seniors that have memory and eyesight problems. Issues with the senses that are needed for driving. Also, driving slow is another problem. I think they should go through tests to see if they should still be allowed to drive. It's like that scene in The Tenant when Polanski gets hit by a car driven by old people.
I think it varies case by case but I agree, some people just should not drive (even those who are younger).