Should elderly drivers be retested?

[curiousnathan]

The title is pretty much self explanatory. Do you think drivers should be retested? If so why? If not why?

Discuss! :D

 

[Kanzler]

I think it's very important. People tend to lose cognitive function as they age, but I don't think at a consistent rate. Therefore, one cannot just select a blanket age at which people should stop driving. Of course you could always honour-rule it, but safe is better than sorry. I don't anybody should be dishonoured by the fact that they're taken off the road. It's just the result of coming to terms with the consequences of age and those aren't shameful. Age with grace, they say.

 

[BadPokemon]

I think they should have mandatory tests every 1 year. It's for the safety of everyone. Some are able to drive like they did in their forties while others...well, you know. There are many that shouldn't be driving, but do.

 

[xall]

I think they should have mandatory tests every 1 year. It's for the safety of everyone. Some are able to drive like they did in their forties while others...well, you know. There are many that shouldn't be driving, but do.

Yes I think you are right there should be some test. But when does they have to start with the test?
I think there should be limit like "if you have your drivers licence for x years you have to make a test. the next test after x years and so on" even when it is anoying to make these tests I think it would help :)

 

[Dakotah]

I hear far more instances of young drivers "joyriding" than I hear about senior citizens accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake. I personally think all drivers, regardless of age, should be retested when it comes time to re-new their drivers license. Those drivers who have had points deducted from their licences, or who have gotten into an accident that was deemed their fault, should be made to re-take their test after between a 1 or 2 year probationary period.

 

[BadPokemon]

16- drivers test (first one)
21- drivers test. (Drinking age)
25- drivers test (brain stops growing)
30-60: drivers test every five years
61- 70: every 2 years
71- death: every year

 

[Ezelsklap]

I actually kinda like the setup you got there badpokemon. sorta. I kinda feel like if you are over like 65 you shouldnt have a license period or be tested every 6 months or something because ive seen some stuff and just nope.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Shouldn't people be retested every few years anyways? I always found it was weird that people can just waltz in and get a renewed driver's license.

Those drivers who have had points deducted from their licences, or who have gotten into an accident that was deemed their fault, should be made to re-take their test after between a 1 or 2 year probationary period.

Yo, I think this should be based on the offense. Rear ending someone at 5 mph and running over a daycare full of 5 year olds probably requires a different punishment.

 

[Dakotah]

Yo, I think this should be based on the offense. Rear ending someone at 5 mph and running over a daycare full of 5 year olds probably requires a different punishment.

Well, I actually think that's already done. One offense is covered under the traffic act, while the other is covered under both the traffic act and the criminal code.

 

[Sydian]

Yo I think young drivers are the ones needing retesting. tbh everyone should get retested every few years, regardless of age. I know some terrible drivers young and old, so driving like an idiot isn't restricted to age groups.

 

[Astinus]

My state, Connecticut, is thinking of doing this. Starting in 2016, they want to retest drivers who wish to renew their drivers license. The reason for this is because they see a lot of drivers not following even the most basic of driving rules. Parking rules, when to use turn signals, when to pass, what signs mean... These are all things that drivers need to know before getting their license, but after they pass the tests, they forget everything.

I'm quite sure that if the bill goes through the senate, there will be fewer licensed drivers in Connecticut. (Not like that would stop anyone from driving.)

 

[Eevee3]

I think everyone should be retested every few years, no matter what your age is.

There's no doubt that there are really awful and slow elderly drivers out there but there are also terrible 30 year old drivers too.

 

[Nick]

I think drivers should be retested every time they renew their license.

 

[JustAnotherIllusion]

I think so. There is no shame in admitting that your reactions and eyesight aren't what the were but I don't think they should be held to the same rigorous testing as new drivers and driving methods were different when they passed. For example my mum would never pass a driving test now because she holds the wheel at different points, looks over her shoulder periodically when reversing instead of relying on the mirror etc things like that. But all that was right when she took her test 30 years ago. Yet they are failing things now and she is the safest driver I know. Never had a point on her licence, never had an accident.

So I think the test should be different for them, based on safety and reactions, not form but I do think they should be retested regularly.

 

[Oryx]

I think so. There is no shame in admitting that your reactions and eyesight aren't what the were but I don't think they should be held to the same rigorous testing as new drivers and driving methods were different when they passed. For example my mum would never pass a driving test now because she holds the wheel at different points, looks over her shoulder periodically when reversing instead of relying on the mirror etc things like that. But all that was right when she took her test 30 years ago. Yet they are failing things now and she is the safest driver I know. Never had a point on her licence, never had an accident.

So I think the test should be different for them, based on safety and reactions, not form but I do think they should be retested regularly.

When I took the driving test just a year or so ago there was no mention of where to hold the wheel; I really don't think that's a pass-or-fail factor on a driving exam. I don't think it's appropriate to "grandfather in" people that grew up with different driving rules, because the reason the rules were changed were because the new way is better and safer and refusing to learn the new way because you're used to the old way is part of the reason we have accidents among older people.

Also, everything I read recommended using both the mirror and your eyes when backing up, so I'm not sure where your argument stems from. This site meant to teach you to drive, the official California driver's manual, the official New Jersey driver's manual, and the official Texas driver's manual all agree that you should look backwards when backing up. I would do more research but, you know, 50 states and I think 3 at random parts of the country is good enough.

If the rule doesn't significantly increase safety, then it should be less important for everyone, not just older drivers.

 

[JustAnotherIllusion]

When I took the driving test just a year or so ago there was no mention of where to hold the wheel; I really don't think that's a pass-or-fail factor on a driving exam. I don't think it's appropriate to "grandfather in" people that grew up with different driving rules, because the reason the rules were changed were because the new way is better and safer and refusing to learn the new way because you're used to the old way is part of the reason we have accidents among older people.

Also, everything I read recommended using both the mirror and your eyes when backing up, so I'm not sure where your argument stems from. This site meant to teach you to drive, the official California driver's manual, the official New Jersey driver's manual, and the official Texas driver's manual all agree that you should look backwards when backing up. I would do more research but, you know, 50 states and I think 3 at random parts of the country is good enough.

If the rule doesn't significantly increase safety, then it should be less important for everyone, not just older drivers.

Ah that's it then! You're in Texas! I'm English, there must be different methods here. Here there is a thing where you have to hold the wheel at either 3 and 9 o clock or 10 and 2 o clock. And we are supposed to be able to reverse using just the mirrors because apparently you shouldn't be twisting in your seat to see. They aren't pass or fail things on their own, its kinda like negative points thing from how my instructor explained it. Though the wheel thing is iffy. A quick glance over your shoulder won't fail you but if you are doing that, holding the wheel wrong or only in once hand (except for changing gear) and your seat belt is twisted then you could fail.

You would think something like driving tests would be universal but I guess we are the weirdos who drive on the wrong side of the road after all! :)

I agree that it should be for everyone and not just older drivers but my point is that if it is just something small like a different way of doing something that does not significantly affect safety then perhaps older drivers should be shown some leniency as it was not that way when they were learning and if it does not affect their ability to drive safely (record should be taken into account) then it is unreasonable to expect someone of that age to relearn something in a different method when the outcome is exactly the same i.e. they are a perfectly safe driver. Although it is not the same thing I kind of want to compare it to the maths methods they teach in schools now. If you ask your parents how they were taught math I bet it will be different from the way you learnt it and your children will probably learn differently from you. Yet the answers never change.

But then that is just my opinion, you might disagree with me. But then neither of us is in charge of this so really its a bit of a moot point whether we agree on it.

 

[Oryx]

I don't live in Texas - I picked various states from different areas, thus why there were three as well as a generic "learn to drive" website. Even so, in England it's the same thing:

Look carefully before you start reversing. You should

• use all your mirrors
• check the 'blind spot' behind you (the part of the road you cannot see easily in the mirrors)
• check there are no pedestrians (particularly children), cyclists, other road users or obstructions in the road behind you.

Reverse slowly while

• checking all around
• looking mainly through the rear window
• being aware that the front of your vehicle will swing out as you turn.

So, the idea your mother would be knocked off points for looking behind her is false, unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be). You claim that you think it should be true for everyone, but then reiterate that leniency should specifically be applied to "older drivers". Put it this way - say the norm when a driver was growing up was merely to use their sideview mirrors to switch lanes. They've never gotten in an accident. However, research comes out proving what we already know, that blind spots exist and that the only way to be sure is to turn your head and check the blind spot. Should that driver be exempt from learning that?

Nothing is put in a driver's test for no reason, and in fact they are often much less than the minimum required for basic driving. When you choose to let something slide that would otherwise fail a person, you are actively reducing the safety of the road by letting a worse driver that can't handle the most basic driving skills get on the road.

As far as talking about it being a moot point...you do realize we're in a forum dedicated to debating and discussing points, yes? Debating is valuable for its own sake, whether or not we are capable of changing a law ourselves - but that's really a topic for another thread.

 

[Wishwar]

Honestly I agree people over 60 and under 25 should be tested every couple of years. Only for the reason that the people over 60 lose their reaction skills and the people under 25 are still part of the "I'm invincible" crowd. Insurance companies have it mostly have it right with the way they have those groups with higher rates

 

[JustAnotherIllusion]

I don't live in Texas - I picked various states from different areas, thus why there were three as well as a generic "learn to drive" website. Even so, in England it's the same thing:



So, the idea your mother would be knocked off points for looking behind her is false, unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be). You claim that you think it should be true for everyone, but then reiterate that leniency should specifically be applied to "older drivers". Put it this way - say the norm when a driver was growing up was merely to use their sideview mirrors to switch lanes. They've never gotten in an accident. However, research comes out proving what we already know, that blind spots exist and that the only way to be sure is to turn your head and check the blind spot. Should that driver be exempt from learning that?

Nothing is put in a driver's test for no reason, and in fact they are often much less than the minimum required for basic driving. When you choose to let something slide that would otherwise fail a person, you are actively reducing the safety of the road by letting a worse driver that can't handle the most basic driving skills get on the road.

As far as talking about it being a moot point...you do realize we're in a forum dedicated to debating and discussing points, yes? Debating is valuable for its own sake, whether or not we are capable of changing a law ourselves - but that's really a topic for another thread.

I've obviously been taught differently from the standard then and I do agree. Perhaps leniency is the wrong word. I think they should be retaught the "new way" for want of a better phrase, of doing it but not failed because of it. Perhaps not testing every year but a regular assessment and refresher course? Then just a retest every 5 years instead?
Should they be exempt from learning it? No. Should they be penalised for not having done it previously and not knowing? Also no, IMO.

The fact is things DO change over the years and I just don't think people should be penalised quite so harshly for things that simply didn't exist back then. But I can't see us agreeing on that, which I suppose is the point of a debate.

As for the steering wheel thing, we are both wrong. You won't fail on it alone but they DO look for it and it does count against you in your final test. And apparently so does crossing your hands on the wheel, never knew that. Source: https://www.burystedmundsdrivingschool.net/driving-test-steering-wheel.html

Yeah that was kind of a dumb thing to say really wasn't it :P Forgot where I was for a minute.

 

[Oryx]

I've obviously been taught differently from the standard then and I do agree. Perhaps leniency is the wrong word. I think they should be retaught the "new way" for want of a better phrase, of doing it but not failed because of it. Perhaps not testing every year but a regular assessment and refresher course? Then just a retest every 5 years instead?
Should they be exempt from learning it? No. Should they be penalised for not having done it previously and not knowing? Also no, IMO.

The fact is things DO change over the years and I just don't think people should be penalised quite so harshly for things that simply didn't exist back then. But I can't see us agreeing on that, which I suppose is the point of a debate.

As for the steering wheel thing, we are both wrong. You won't fail on it alone but they DO look for it and it does count against you in your final test. And apparently so does crossing your hands on the wheel, never knew that. Source: https://www.burystedmundsdrivingschool.net/driving-test-steering-wheel.html

Yeah that was kind of a dumb thing to say really wasn't it :P Forgot where I was for a minute.

I agree with your assessment/refresher and retesting idea completely, actually, except I feel like it should be one refresher at 2.5-3 years, then a retest at 5, then rinse and repeat. Every year is far too often and something like a refresher at 5 and test at 10 isn't often enough, so that would be a good compromise for everyone.