 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / February 2008Age Limit for Drivers
There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers (65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. Those big RV's are no different than buses. I think there should be some type of mandatory annual testing for drivers above a certain age and maybe even an age limit imposed. It's in the best interest of everyone to get unsafe drivers off of the road and ancient RVers are an unecessary risk. Few, if any, ever surrender their drivers license. They'll drive right into the grave and not care how many they take along with them. So I pose these questions to the group: If you sensed your driving was becoming dangerous, would you surrender your license? Have you ever driven drunk? Are you in favor of increased frequency of driver testing for seniors? Many states do test seniors more often. Should this become universal? Should the handicapped be tested more frequently? Should cell phone use be banned for drivers? Can you see completely around your vehicle? Do you ever maneuver with "blind spots" Should camera systems be mandatory? Thank you everyone for the input to my informal survey. I'm a marketing director for a safety products company and we are looking to expand our line into recreational products. > There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers > (65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. Those big RV's are > no different than buses. I think there should be some type of > mandatory annual testing for drivers above a certain age and maybe > even an age limit imposed. I agree that there should be an age limit imposed: a MINIMUM age, annually adjusted, and set to be 6 months older than you are. > It's in the best interest of everyone to > get unsafe drivers off of the road and ancient RVers are an unecessary [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you sensed your driving was becoming dangerous, would you surrender > your license? You must have Dementia: the individual who's aware that his/her/its driving was becoming dangerous hasn't, yet, been born! Otherwise, there would be noone even accused of DUI! > Have you ever driven drunk? I've driven many drunks home. > Are you in favor of increased frequency of driver testing for seniors? No - it's a waste their time which, for Seniors, may be quite limited. > Many states do test seniors more often. Should this become universal? Ask the people on Normalin, Demeathorn, and Harmony. > Should the handicapped be tested more frequently? That would be considered Discrimination by the Courts. > Should cell phone use be banned for drivers? Only for those who cannot avoid gesturing with their hands while talking on their cell phones when toodling along a crowded freeway at 95 MPH. > Can you see completely around your vehicle? Do you ever maneuver with > "blind spots" Should camera systems be mandatory? The only "blind spot" with my rig is within 8 feet of the back bumper and this area is kept empty by periodic - but unscheduled - brake tests. > Thank you everyone for the input to my informal survey. I'm a > marketing director for a safety products company and we are looking to > expand our line into recreational products. A suggestion, TROLL: do NOT expect any further responses to your BS. > There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers > (65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. 1st you make too many false statements!! Most states have no age limits on bus drivers as long as they pass the driving & eye test. The same goes for over the road long haul truck drivers (cargo haulers). I know bus drivers and truck drivers that are in their 80's & 90's that are still working with accident free driving records. I'm 78 and my CDL license has just been renewed!! You want me to stop driving?? Go take a leap!! Tom J > You want me to stop driving?? Go > take a leap!! There are many states looking into periodic testing of seniors. The two highest age categories in accident faults are teens and seniors. I don't think an age limit is right but I do think some sort of testing, vision etc. would be a good thing on a periodic basis. The idea that you get a license at age 16 and no further testing for life is flawed. Pilots (even civilian, not commercial) must go up with an instructor every 2 years and be approved. Thats a bit extreme for drivers but I have no problem with at least a vision test every 5-10 years. >> You want me to stop driving?? Go >> take a leap!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think an age limit is right but I do think some sort of > testing, vision etc. would be a good thing on a periodic basis. You did notice that I said I got a vision test - required with CDL, but also required by the State of Georgia. There are also extensive written test for the CDL - now on computer. Tom J > You did notice that I said I got a vision test - required with CDL, > but also required by the State of Georgia. There are also extensive > written test for the CDL - now on computer. CDL is different and should be tougher than a general purpose drivers license. Here in AZ I believe one must pass a vision test every 2 years for a CDL. Not sure if they are subject to any other periodic test. I think such periodic testing of everyone (not just CDL) is a good idea although 2 years is overkill for standard drivers licenses. Maybe 5-10 years. > I'm 78 and my CDL license has just been renewed!! You want me to stop driving?? Go >take a leap!! Way to go TOM!!!! Dunno what's with these nitwit yelping pups advocating age-related discrimination against older drivers, regardless of competence. Many older drivers could drive circles around lots of younger drivers! > Dunno what's with these nitwit yelping pups advocating age-related > discrimination against older drivers, regardless of competence. Many > older drivers could drive circles around lots of younger drivers! I see nothing wrong with shortening the renewal period with age and periodic retesting behind the wheel. If a person passes then they should be allowed to drive no matter what the age. >> Dunno what's with these nitwit yelping pups advocating age-related >> discrimination against older drivers, regardless of competence. Many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > periodic retesting behind the wheel. If a person passes then HE > should be allowed to drive no matter what the age. Amen. kh, 71.33 >> Dunno what's with these nitwit yelping pups advocating age-related >> discrimination against older drivers, regardless of competence. Many >> older drivers could drive circles around lots of younger drivers! >I see nothing wrong with shortening the renewal period with age and >periodic retesting behind the wheel. If a person passes then they >should be allowed to drive no matter what the age. They tried that nonsense for a while in Ontario: annual drivers' tests for anyone over 80. Studies revealed that it was a horrendous waste of $$$ which failed to demonstrate any useful results; so they canned the entire effort in favour of a written test every two years. Only those with *strange* written tests have to do a behind-the-wheel test. I know people in their late 80s who have to take these tests; and I can assure you, the examiners are EXTREMELY tolerant. Basically, if you don't kill someone, or run into a building located further than 500' from the road, you will pass the test! :-) I heavily favour the idea of dimmwit politicians staying out of our lives whenever possible. Because they are stooopid! Penalizing millions of motor vehicle owners, forcing them to undergo regular mechanical or pollution testing just because are still a few dilapidated old oil-burners out there, is absolute insanity. > Ontario: annual drivers' tests > for anyone over 80. Studies revealed that it was a horrendous waste of > $$$ which failed to demonstrate any useful results; so they canned the > entire effort A failed government program was discontinued? I'm feeling even better about Canada. Such sanity seemingly NEVER happens here. > in favour of a written test every two years. Only those > with *strange* written tests have to do a behind-the-wheel test. That doesn't sound too intrusive or burdensome, even to those at, or above, the threshold age. > I know people in their late 80s who have to take these tests; and I > can assure you, the examiners are EXTREMELY tolerant. Basically, if > you don't kill someone, or run into a building located further than > 500' from the road, you will pass the test! :-) I believe that a simple, "reaction time" test would reveal much. My 83-year-old father-in-law is barely ambulatory. Yet he rides his scooter out to his pickup truck, loads the scooter into the back with the crane, shuffles (VERY SLOWLY) his way to the cab, and eventually drives off. I suspect his reaction time in an emergency situation would be dangerously long. Then again, I know even older drivers for whom I would have NO concern in that regard. To me, it is seriously impaired reaction time that is the biggest threat to motoring safety caused by drunk and, to a disproportionate degree, old drivers. > I heavily favour the idea of dimmwit politicians staying out of our > lives whenever possible. Because they are stooopid! Agreed. I wish we could keep 'em HOME for half their term. > Penalizing millions of motor vehicle owners, forcing them to undergo > regular mechanical or pollution testing just because are still a few > dilapidated old oil-burners out there, is absolute insanity. More common sense. Nebraska did away with its vehicle inspection law some years ago. The influx of junkers on the road and causing accidents did NOT occur.  Signature:) JR >> Ontario: annual drivers' tests >> for anyone over 80. Studies revealed that it was a horrendous waste of [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > NOT > occur. If you are going to test anyone, I think you should test the younger drivers. For example, a written and driving test each year for the first five years, then every other year for the next five years. Couple that with the reverse starting at age 80 (every other year for five years), then every year after 85. This system might provide some positive results. Dave D > If you are going to test anyone, I think you should test the younger > drivers. For example, a written and driving test It would be a bogus test unless done under "real world" conditions: Stereo blaring, four friends along for the ride, talking on their cell phones, hanging out the windows and creating other mayhem. > Couple that with the reverse starting at age 80 (every other year > for five years), then every year after 85. More "real world" conditions would have to be created in order for such a test to be valid: It could only be done between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday, dry and clear weather conditions, no other occupants in the car and nowhere NEAR any roadway that even LOOKS like a freeway. > This system might provide some positive results. Reverse the "real world" conditions I specified, letting the octogenarian pilot the car-full of screaming teenagers, and one might see a change in results. The reverse for the young kid would never work: They would immediately drive to wherever there were friends and immediately load 'em up for the drive/test. In my day, horsepower was under the hood. Today, it's either in the dashboard or in the trunk. (Loud, "thumping" stereo) Signature:) JR > I heavily favour the idea of dimmwit politicians staying out of our > lives whenever possible. Because they are stooopid! Penalizing > millions of motor vehicle owners, forcing them to undergo regular > mechanical or pollution testing just because are still a few > dilapidated old oil-burners out there, is absolute insanity. Theres a reason why there is a minimum age for a drivers license. There are some kids much younger that are responsible and knowledgeable to drive. Why do we penalize them? The two highest accident rates come from the younger generation and the older. Insurance rates are generally higher for these groups. Are insurance companies incorrectly penalizing these groups? Whats wrong with emission testing? I don't have a problem with the concept. I do have issues with certain methods that are ineffective in weeding out the polluters. An intelligent, unemotional reply. A breath of fresh air (so to speak). kh > Theres a reason why there is a minimum age for a drivers license. There > are some kids much younger that are responsible and knowledgeable to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > concept. I do have issues with certain methods that are ineffective in > weeding out the polluters. > > I heavily favour the idea of dimmwit politicians staying out of our > > lives whenever possible. Because they are stooopid! Penalizing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > generally higher for these groups. Are insurance companies incorrectly > penalizing these groups? Exactly, I've seen the raw insurance numbers, the accident rate for those in their late 80's is about the same for a 16 to 17 year-old. Not that every driver in their late 80's (or 90's) is bad, just some. And, unlike the young drivers, they don't get better (assuming both live)... My MIL we took her keys away when she totaled her car (one car wreck), Dad was getting quite bad when he decided to stop driving, Mom is getting to the point were soonish, we will have to have the talk with her... Signature-------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv >Whats wrong with emission testing? I don't have a problem with the >concept. I do have issues with certain methods that are ineffective in >weeding out the polluters. In have a major problem with penalizing an entire population, just because of a few violators. In Ontario, less than 1% of vehicles up to ten years old, fail emissions tests; and the failure rates for vehicles less than 5 years old runs around .02% (2/10 of a percent). Emissions testing in Ontario has been acknowledged as a somewhat less than wonderful idea. It would probably already be abandoned in it's entirety, if the Government hadn't conned so many automotive facilities into spending $100,000 per, for the equipment necessary for doing the testing!! With major improvements in automotive technology over the past decade, auto emissions are no longer a significant issue. Nevertheless, millions upon millions of innocent motorists are subjected to this annual plucking by automotive repair facilities. > In have a major problem with penalizing an entire population, just > because of a few violators. You're getting more "real" all the time. I'm liking it. > With major improvements in automotive technology over the past decade, > auto emissions are no longer a significant issue. Ohhhhh, you're gonna hear from Greenpeace and The Sierra Club for sure. Watch your front porch for a 50-ish "man" sporting a ponytail. Signature:) JR >Ohhhh, you're gonna hear from Greenpeace and The Sierra Club for sure. Watch >your front porch for a 50-ish "man" sporting a ponytail. Ohhhh, maybe they'll blow up my motorhome; and I can use the insurance settlement for a downpayment on a new one!! Yeah! >> In have a major problem with penalizing an entire population, just >> because of a few violators. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Watch > your front porch for a 50-ish "man" sporting a ponytail. That wud be the one with the purse over his shoulder, right? DaveD > In have a major problem with penalizing an entire population, just > because of a few violators. Who is being penalized? Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right. You want to drive? Then prove you have a safe vehicle. That includes mechanically safe as well as environmentally safe. Why should I be penalized because you wish to drive a polluting vehicle? I'd like to breath too! > In Ontario, less than 1% of vehicles up to ten years old, fail > emissions tests In the USA in most states emission testing is only required for vehicles older than 5 years. Again, if you want to drive then you need to prove your vehicle is working properly. > With major improvements in automotive technology over the past decade, > auto emissions are no longer a significant issue. For newer vehicles thats true. Thats why the 5 year policy in most US states. >> In have a major problem with penalizing an entire population, >> just because of a few violators. > Who is being penalized? The vast number of owners of conforming vehicles. > Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right. > You want to drive? Then prove you have a safe vehicle. I have a better idea, based on the tenet of innocent until proven guilty: Prove that my vehicle is UNsafe. Put the onus on the otherwise intrusive government. If one is stopped for a moving violation, include vehicle inspection as part of the penalty. If one is involved in an accident, require that the vehicle pass inspection before being allowed back on the road. > That includes mechanically safe as well as environmentally safe. > Why should I be penalized because you wish to drive a polluting vehicle? You wouldn't be for any number of reasons. The "polluting" exhaust of the relatively few vehicles that would fail emissions testing would be lost in the overall output of vehicles in your area. If your life is shortened at all by vehicle emissions, it would be caused by the accumulation of emissions and long term exposure to COMPLIANT vehicles. > I'd like to breath too! Move to rural Wyoming. >> In Ontario, less than 1% of vehicles up to ten years old, fail >> emissions tests > In the USA in most states emission testing is only required for vehicles > older than 5 years. One of the few, saving graces of Nebraska is that we did away with all the silly vehicle testing. The mechanical inspection "sticker" went away well before anyone even THOUGHT about emissions testing. No one would have the nerve to bring it up again in our Unicameral. > Again, if you want to drive then you need to prove > your vehicle is working properly. Nope. The State needs to PROVE my vehicle, which complied with ALL Federal and State requirements when it was built, is non-compliant. Otherwise, they should butt out. >> With major improvements in automotive technology over the past decade, >> auto emissions are no longer a significant issue. > For newer vehicles thats true. Thats why the 5 year policy in most US > states. The dreaded "Check Engine" idiot light has been around since before my (bought new) 1982 Chevy. Long ago, the feds mandated that emission components on all new vehicles sold in the United States have a 50k mile warranty, regardless and separate from the manufacturer warranty. That still applies today. Emission and mechanical inspection laws are draconian, ineffective and a boondoggle. Their only value, and even that is debatable, is allowing the hapless testing facility to recover some of the up-front cost of the equipment they bought to do the inspections and providing a few union jobs in the local, civic motor vehicle bureaucracy. SignatureNuke the whales, spotted owls, Pallid sturgeon and Snail Darter! :) JR -- :) JR > I have a better idea, based on the tenet of innocent until proven guilty: > Prove that my vehicle is UNsafe. Put the onus on the otherwise intrusive > government. I see. So nobody needs to be tested for a license either right? Gov. should have to prove you can't drive. Sorry, but driving is a privileged and not an automatic right. You have to earn that right. It's not just handed to you. When I am out driving I want to know others were able to show they deserve that right as well. > You wouldn't be for any number of reasons. The "polluting" exhaust of the > relatively few vehicles that would fail emissions testing would be lost in the > overall output of vehicles in your area. Bull. If no testing or emissions standards existed then people would be free to mod their vehicles or not bother keeping them up. You really need to look at cities such as Los Angeles and note how much the pollution has dropped there. Emissions laws certainly have played a large role. > Nope. The State needs to PROVE my vehicle, which complied with ALL Federal > and State requirements when it was built, is non-compliant. Otherwise, they > should butt out. When it was built!! The law states it only needs to pass for 5 years. Thats why many states do not require tests until a vehicle is older than 5 years. >>> In have a major problem with penalizing an entire population, >>> just because of a few violators. [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > local, > civic motor vehicle bureaucracy. Omigod! A kindred spirit! Add to that list polar bears, walruses, and about 1000 of the 10,000 plus wolves here in Alaska. DaveD >> I'm 78 and my CDL license has just been renewed!! You want me to stop >> driving?? Go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > discrimination against older drivers, regardless of competence. Many > older drivers could drive circles around lots of younger drivers! Stan and Tom I agree wholeheartedly. I am 65 and just renewed my CDL. What we elders loose in reaction time we more than make up in experience, expertise, and wisdom. Some of my fellow drivers and I have concluded that the second most dangerous thing on the road is a 19-26 year old female driving a sport sedan. The most dangerous???? ----- a 19-26 year old female driving a sport sedan with a cell phone stuck in her head!!!!!!!!!! DaveD I suspect there's lots of geezers who think they can drive just fine, when the truth is an entirely different matter! The reason lots of "seniors" get by driving, is because everyone else on the road watches them like a hawk, and stays out of their way! It gives me a feeling of hope that others will do the same for me, when I get to that stage of life! Just today, I watched an old man in the drug store who could barely get around! He shuffled out to his car, backed out without looking to see what was behind him, and took off.... He stopped at a green light, and slowly made a left turn into the far lane, then cut in front of me (without looking) to make another left turn! I'll bet he'd say he was a careful driver, if anyone asked him! Very, very few people will surrender their independence, without being forced to do so! Once a driver hits 80 years old, I think they should be given a driving test every two years! Don PS My MIL is 86, and we're just waiting for her to get into a fender bender! Of course, she'd say she was an excellent driver! HawHawHaw! http://www.donlampson.com DonLampson@webtv.net (Don Lampson) wrote in news:3481-47B29E9E-1@storefull- 3132.bay.webtv.net: > The reason lots of "seniors" get by driving, is because everyone else > on the road watches them like a hawk, and stays out of their way! I challenge you to tell the age of the driver of a MH, an OTR tractor/trailer, or the tow vehicle of a FW when approaching the rig from the rear. The truth is that you can't see enough of the driver's head/face to tell. Even the drivers of what the Auto Industry laughingly calls "Family Sedans" and "Luxury-size" cars - once referred to as "Compact" and "Intermediate" cars - can't see the driver's face when they drive past or, even, when the rig is approaching them from the rear. Of course, in the Peoples' Republik of Kalipornia, you have an additional handicap: thanks to the Cosmetic Surgeons, et. al., the average driver tries to look from 10 to 30 years younger than his/her/its actual age. This would mean that the individual who looks 50 would actually be over 80. <G> >The most dangerous???? ----- a 19-26 year old female > driving a sport sedan with a cell phone stuck in her head!!!!!!!!!! Ergo the reason for what some foolishly call "unreasonable government intrusion." As of July 1, 2008, such conduct in California will constitute a moving offense. Damn straight! kh > Ergo the reason for what some foolishly call "unreasonable government > intrusion." As of July 1, 2008, such conduct in California will > constitute a moving offense. Damn straight! In most states there is no need for new laws banning use of cell phones while driving (except hands free). They already have laws against driving with a distraction which includes far more than just a cell phone. > In most states there is no need for new laws banning use of cell phones > while driving (except hands free). They already have laws against > driving with a distraction which includes far more than just a cell phone. I have never seen empirical evidence that the simple ACTION of holding a cell phone to one's ear is the cause of accidents. It is the DISTRACTION of the conversation. I have occasionally driven with a "hands free" earbud. After ending the call, and after many miles, I will look around and have little memory of HOW I got there. To me, therein lies the safety implication. Banning handheld phones will do little to mitigate the already miniscule proportion of accidents directly attributable to phone usage. More laws: Just what we "need". Signature<sigh> JR > I have never seen empirical evidence that the simple ACTION of holding a cell > phone to one's ear is the cause of accidents. > > It is the DISTRACTION of the conversation. Thats partly true. The distraction becomes far greater when one hand is on the phone and one is one the wheel. I have hands free in my car through the stereo rather than an ear piece. I can easily concentrate on driving while talking. However, there are times when I tell the caller to hold a second because I'm involved in traffic in such a way I don't feel comfortable talking at the same time. > Banning handheld phones > will do little to mitigate the already miniscule proportion of accidents > directly attributable to phone usage. I feel there are way too many cellphone related accidents. I have had some near misses by people with phones stuck to their ears. I do feel that there are already laws on the books that can be used in such cases and no new laws specific to phones are needed. >> Ergo the reason for what some foolishly call "unreasonable government >> intrusion." As of July 1, 2008, such conduct in California will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > while driving (except hands free). They already have laws against > driving with a distraction which includes far more than just a cell phone. But on the other hand, people who create these disturbing incidents will, when called to task for them, attack the law cited as being "unreasonably vague" or some such other prather, rather than accepting responsibility for their own actions. Oftentimes, these new laws are designed to delineate more clearly the intent of the original law. I submit that it the propensity of Americans to challenge the law (regardless of its merit, in order to escape its consequences) is what motivates the desire to clarify existing law with newer laws. If we could only agree to say, "I was wrong. I made a mistake." Were that it were possible. kh > There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers > (65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. Those big RV's are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you sensed your driving was becoming dangerous, would you surrender > your license? Yes > Have you ever driven drunk? No > Are you in favor of increased frequency of driver testing for seniors? Absolutely! > Many states do test seniors more often. Should this become universal? Yes. Not only for seniors, I think everyone should be tested more often. > Should the handicapped be tested more frequently? That depends upon what their handicap is, doesn't it? > Should cell phone use be banned for drivers? Yes > Can you see completely around your vehicle? Yes, except when my little Honda Civic finds itself parked between two SUVs >Do you ever maneuver with "blind spots" If I didn't back my little car out from between the big ones, I'd never get home. >Should camera systems be mandatory? I don't believe so. A camera wouldn't help me when I'm parked between two hulking vehicles. A periscope might. > Thank you everyone for the input to my informal survey. I'm a > marketing director for a safety products company and we are looking to > expand our line into recreational products. I lost my youngest daughter, a beautiful bright 21 year-old who was between her Junior and Senior year in college to an 86 year-old driver with a heart condition who, after mowing his lawn on a hot July day, decided to drive his 82 year-old sister to the doctor. He had a heart attack or a stroke. He killed himself, his sister and my daughter in a head-on collision on a narrow country road. I would be the last person to drive beyond my ability to do so. I would never want the responsibility of killing some one else's child. SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >> There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers >> (65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. Those big RV's are [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > to drive beyond my ability to do so. I would never want the > responsibility of killing some one else's child. People die of heart attacks, strokes and other things regardless of age. More testing won't stop the grim reaper from his appointed rounds. There is no way to know where you when they are about to die. if they feel so sick they are going to die, I don't think they are going to get behind.I am indeed sorry for your loss. It is terrible but the 86 year old driver might have only been 20 and still had a heart attack, but not as likely. If you ae playing a probabilities game then 98% of all drivers should not have a licensce. What should the re-test or frequent testing consist of. Memorization? Subjective. Testing a farmer who drives the dirt road into town to get mail and test him down the 'beltway' loop around DC? >> There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers >> (65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. Those big RV's are [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >to drive beyond my ability to do so. I would never want the >responsibility of killing some one else's child. > What should the re-test or frequent testing consist of. Memorization? > Subjective. Testing a farmer who drives the dirt road into town to > get mail and test him down the 'beltway' loop around DC? Drivers licenses do not have restrictions as to where one might drive. We do not have a backroads only or a DC beltway only license. However, where one goes for the test often dictates the conditions to which they must pass. On the whole, very poorly formed questions. "Should the handicapped be tested more frequently?"????? There are a number of "handicaps". Yours or mine? What are you trying to prove? Seems very "troll" to me. bye-bye >There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers >(65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. Those big RV's are [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >marketing director for a safety products company and we are looking to >expand our line into recreational products. > On the whole, very poorly formed questions. "Should the handicapped > be tested more frequently?"????? There are a number of "handicaps". > Yours or mine? ...snip... >> Are you in favor of increased frequency of driver testing for seniors? ...snip... Now if only the testing could test the drivers as they really drive. Having a person along to monitor the driver would only inhibit the driver from making all the stupid mistakes that he would normally do. Like: Following too close; Talking on the cell phone; Futzing with the GPS/radio/MP3/CD; Speeding or sometimes worse going too slow; Making improper lane changes with or without signaling; and of course, doing all those things in an overloaded RV towing a too heavy toad without a supplementary braking device. I am, of course, not guilty of any of these actions...ever...mostly... There are more that would not be caught in a test. Please add you own. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > There are age limits for airline pilots (65), school bus drivers > (65/70), bus drivers, cargo haulers and the like. There are no age limits on cargo truck or bus drivers hat I know of, Maybe some companies have age limits for drivers but none that I know of. >Those big RV's are > no different than buses. I think there should be some type of > mandatory annual testing for drivers above a certain age and maybe > even an age limit imposed. It's in the best interest of everyone to > get unsafe drivers off of the road and ancient RVers are an unecessary > risk. How old is too old? Who decides? >Few, if any, ever surrender their drivers license. They'll drive > right into the grave and not care how many they take along with them. > So I pose these questions to the group: > > If you sensed your driving was becoming dangerous, would you surrender > your license? I don't know, Maybe, maybe not. At 62 years old my reflexes aren't what they were at 18 but my judgment and experience is much better. It is a real dilemma for some old people, If they surrender their license how do they get to the store or the Doctor? > Have you ever driven drunk? No! > Are you in favor of increased frequency of driver testing for seniors? Not unless they re-test everybody, Not just seniors. > Many states do test seniors more often. Should this become universal? No. > Should the handicapped be tested more frequently? Only if the handicap is blindness. <G> > Should cell phone use be banned for drivers? I think cell phones should be hands free. > Can you see completely around your vehicle? Do you ever maneuver with > "blind spots" Should camera systems be mandatory? Almost every vehicle I've ever driven had blind spots, some are worse than others. The tractor trailer I drive at work has many blind spots, yet I have not had a chargeable accident and I have been driving big trucks since 1965. When backing up, if not sure, get out and look. Works for me. > Thank you everyone for the input to my informal survey. I'm a > marketing director for a safety products company and we are looking to > expand our line into recreational products. Some people aren't safe behind the wheel at any age, others maintain good driving skills well into old age. I remember a story in the newspaper here in Florida about a driver on his way to renew his drivers license having a minor accident, They still renewed his license for seven more years even though he was 101 years old. I think he was a bit of a optimist. Jack Cassidy > How old is too old? Who decides? How young is too young? Who decided? To say no limits should be set on either end is wrong. >> How old is too old? Who decides? > > How young is too young? Who decided? To say no limits should be set on > either end is wrong. My mother had her license at 13. I learned to drive at 12. Throughout the '50s, the minimum age in Texas was 14 and Drivers' Education was a Mandatory Freshman Subject in High School with the "passing grade" being the receipt of a Driver's License. I know many people who - in their 80's - are far better drivers than their middle-aged children. The "limit" should be set by the Driver's License Examiner by either passing or failing a particular applicant as a result of an on-road examination. <G> i agree. only i would extend your last sentence with "every year for drivers over 55 years old." s > The "limit" should be set by the Driver's License Examiner by either > passing or failing a particular applicant as a result of an on-road > examination. <G> >i agree. only i would extend your last sentence with "every year for >drivers over 55 years old." While *I* would set annual testing for any age below 60. <G> After all, it takes many that long to learn how to handle "The American National Weapon" responsibly. <VBG> > While *I* would set annual testing for any age below 60. <G> > > After all, it takes many that long to learn how to handle "The > American National Weapon" responsibly. <VBG> It's no big grin!! That weapon kills an average of 135 people every day of the year. That's 49, 245 people a year, just in the USA. Anyone that thinks "old People" are killing a large percentage of them are misinformed!! Tom J Tom J >> While *I* would set annual testing for any age below 60. <G> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tom J ABSODAMLUTELY!!! FWIW, I've been referring to the Motor Vehicle as "The American National Weapon" for over 40 years for that precise reason. As I said, Tom, it takes many until age 60 to learn how to handle one responsibly. The <VBG> was for that point since the idiot seems to be on a "youth culture kick". BTW, even during the Tet Offensive, it was safer to be Point Man in the Iron Triangle than it was to be on the streets/roads of the US. > I know many people who - in their 80's - are far better drivers than their > middle-aged children. Yes but not on average. Seniors have the highest risk of accidents second only to teens. There are a few teens that are probably better drivers than their parents. > The "limit" should be set by the Driver's License Examiner by either > passing or failing a particular applicant as a result of an on-road > examination. Well true but how often should there be a reexamination? Get a license at age 16 then no further for life? > Well true but how often should there be a reexamination? Get a license at > age 16 then no further for life? Why not? After all, the License to Vote requires no testing at all! In some areas, voters have continued to vote for over a century after their death!! >> Well true but how often should there be a reexamination? Get a license >> at age 16 then no further for life? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In some areas, voters have continued to vote for over a century after > their death!! Aha! I can see that you have been to Philadelphia, New York and Chicago. <G> My Mother died in 1962 and I believe she is still voting in every election. Jack Cassidy The librul POV: there oughta be more federal laws The conservative POV: States should have laws their citizens like. Will's POV: It doesn't matter what we think. Will Sill The self-appointed Curmudgeon of Sill Hill >My mother had her license at 13. >I learned to drive at 12. > >Throughout the '50s, the minimum age in Texas was 14 and Drivers' Education >was a Mandatory Freshman Subject in High School with the "passing grade" >being the receipt of a Driver's License. Oh, for the good 'ole Days!! Before idiot politicians got into the act and messed everything up!! In my day . . . I got my first motorcycle at age 14, when you were really supposed to be 16; and do silly stuff, like obtaining a license! My teenage driving habits, not to mention the noise pollution associated with having straight-through pipes, soon became common knowledge amongst the local constabulary, thanx to malcontented neighbours! In our town, they didn't just send local-yokel cops after me. I was somewhat honoured that they actually sent the Chief of Detectives after me!! <giggle> It was almost like just yesterday, when that ominous black car started following behind me, up the road. Eventually they pulled me over: Awesome Detective: May I see your license? Me: Sure! Like no big deal, as I handed him the ownership papers! Awesome Detective: That's not exactly what we want to see! We were thinking more in terms of seeing your *DRIVER'S LICENCE!* Oh! What fun!! Instead of arresting me; they slapped dear 'ole dad with a $12.50 fine for allowing an underage juvenile to operate a motor vehicle!! Dad was a rather strict sort of guy: pillar of the community 'nd all that kind of crap etal. As a result, I was forbidden to take my motorcyle out on the road until I had reimbursed him for the $12.50 my indescretion had cost him! <giggle> >> How old is too old? Who decides? > > How young is too young? Who decided? To say no limits should be set on > either end is wrong. Why is that wrong? Lots of farm kids drive farm equipment long before they are of "legal" driving age. On the other end, many older drivers have good driving skills well into old age. For many older people driving is their independence, to take that away simply because of a number is really wrong. I'm all for getting bad drivers of any age off the road, but not simply because of age. Jack Cassidy > Why is that wrong? Lots of farm kids drive farm equipment long before they > are of "legal" driving age. So? Driving farm equipment on a farm is not the same as a car in traffic. > On the other end, many older drivers have good driving skills well into old > age. And many do not and is proven by their accident rates. > For many older people driving is their independence, to take that away > simply because of a number is really wrong. No, it's taken away because they can't drive safely. To allow someone on the roads who is not capable of doing so safely is wrong. > I'm all for getting bad drivers > of any age off the road, but not simply because of age. Never said anything about it being simply because of age. I said at some age I feel periodic reevaluation is needed. >> Why is that wrong? Lots of farm kids drive farm equipment long before >> they are of "legal" driving age. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And many do not and is proven by their accident rates. What statistics do you have to support that claim? And why do my insurance rates go down as I get older? How many is many? What percentage of older drivers have higher accident rates? Why is RV insurance so inexpensive if all those old farts are such bad drivers? >> For many older people driving is their independence, to take that away >> simply because of a number is really wrong. > > No, it's taken away because they can't drive safely. To allow someone on > the roads who is not capable of doing so safely is wrong. At any age! >> I'm all for getting bad drivers of any age off the road, but not simply >> because of age. > > Never said anything about it being simply because of age. I said at some > age I feel periodic reevaluation is needed. The OP was about getting those "ancient RVers" off the road because they are an "unnecessary risk." Sounds to me it was about age, not skill level. I am all for periodic re-evaluation as long as it includes everyone. Jack Cassidy > What statistics do you have to support that claim? Theres stats all over the place. All say the same thing. Seniors have a high accident rate. Most stats I have seen show the increase to be substantial after age 70. http://www.qualityplanning.com/qpc_resources_public/news/030929-Older%20drivers.htm "The data compiled by QPC reveal that the most accident-prone age group is 16-24, after which accidents drop from 28 to 16 for 21 to 30 year olds and continue to decrease until the 61-70 age bracket, at which point the accident rate starts to climb back up to about the same rate as that of the youngest drivers" > And why do my insurance > rates go down as I get older? They don't generally keep dropping after age 60-65. > Why is RV insurance so inexpensive if all those old farts are such > bad drivers? Comparing RV insurance to auto insurance is a poor analogy. It's inexpensive for everyone regardless of age. RV's aren't driven nearly the same mileage as an auto and not as much in city traffic either. > At any age! Correct. Periodic reevaluation is needed and I feel the rate of reevaluation should increase with age past 60 based on insurance company stats. > The OP was about getting those "ancient RVers" off the road because they are > an "unnecessary risk." Yep, I didn't agree with the OP except that I agree about reevaluations past age 60-70 or so. > Sounds to me it was about age, not skill level. I am all for periodic > re-evaluation as long as it includes everyone. I disagree there. Insurance stats clearly show an increase in accident rate for drivers over age 60 and the rate keeps increasing from there. >> And why do my insurance >> rates go down as I get older? > > They don't generally keep dropping after age 60-65. You may be using the wrong insurance, or you are one of those having the accidents!! I am 78 and my rates keep dropping every year. My insurance policy says rates will continue to drop as long as I don't have a claim against the policy. That comes from many years of accident free driving!! Tom J >>> And why do my insurance >>> rates go down as I get older? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have a claim against the policy. That comes from many years of > accident free driving!! Allstate has their Good Driver program where the rates drop each year with no accidents and its good for any age. However, that program has higher rates than the standard program. None the less Tom, there are numerous insurance studies out as well as independent stats that clearly show sharp increases in accidents for drivers over age 60. Second only to teens but not by much. It seems you dispute that stat. The majority of drivers at all ages are generally good. A high % does not mean the majority have trouble. Just higher than average. >>>> And why do my insurance >>>> rates go down as I get older? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > has > higher rates than the standard program. Geico has considerably lower rates in Georgia than Allstate even before the safe driving discounts kick in. Tom J who never got a good quote from Allstate in 60 years of driving > who never got a good quote from Allstate in 60 years of driving I change insurance every so often. I was with Allstate 25 years ago but they started rapidly raising my rates so I changed to Farmers. Then they started with the rate increases. Went back to Allstate as they were much cheaper. At last glance they are still cheaper than anyone else I've looked into. Each insurance company tends to favor certain drivers and certain regions. I do like Allstates quick settlements in the few times I've filed claims. Never any hassles. How is Geico when it comes to claims? All of my claims have been from theft, rocks, storm damage etc. and not accidents. Along with good driving, as Tom J. clearly demonstrates, is good judgement. Tom's reaction times and driving skills may have diminished with age but his judgement has kept him accident free. He deserves to have his rates lowered. Insurance should be based upon individual merit rather than solely weighted on aggragate. Good for you Tom J! > Along with good driving, as Tom J. clearly demonstrates, is good > judgement. Tom's reaction times and driving skills may have > diminished with age but his judgement has kept him accident free. He > deserves to have his rates lowered. Insurance should be based upon > individual merit rather than solely weighted on aggragate. Good for > you Tom J! I know my reaction times have diminished and I have adjusted my driving accordinly. I still drive and average of 10,000 miles a year, but it takes me more hours to do it than it did when I was younger. I also have Janis in the passenger seat watching for me instead of sleeping like she did in the past!! ;-) Tom J >> Along with good driving, as Tom J. clearly demonstrates, is good >> judgement. Tom's reaction times and driving skills may have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Tom J I know my eyesight, reaction times, and hearing have diminished in the last few years. In addition, I often get drowsy (OK, can I drop off) if I eat large at lunch and drive in the afternoon. SWMBO keeps a watch and pokes me with an aluminum tube if I show signs of killing both of us. I then stop and rest a while. I don't drive the RV at night and won't except in emergency condx. I used to drive 30-40K/year and still (after retirement) drive 20K+. But slower, more cautiously and certainly saner. dean > Along with good driving, as Tom J. clearly demonstrates, is good judgement. > Tom's reaction times and driving skills may have diminished with age but his > judgement has kept him accident free. He deserves to have his rates lowered. > Insurance should be based upon individual merit rather than solely weighted > on aggragate. Good for you Tom J! It's based on both. The standard rates are for good drivers with no points on their license. The standard rates vary by statistical group. Points cause an increase to those rates. > filed claims. Never any hassles. How is Geico when it comes to > claims? I don't knw personally. :-) I have friend that insures with Geico that did have an accident in Alaska. Geico paid for temperary fixes up there and for the full repair as soon as they got home. So you see, my information about claims is limited and I hope it stays that way!! Tom J and from what i've seen, it's the females from 16 to 30 that seem the most out of control. Behind the wheel and otherwise. s >>> How old is too old? Who decides? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jack Cassidy > and from what i've seen, it's the females from 16 to 30 that seem the most > out of control. Behind the wheel and otherwise. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Jack Cassidy My Uncle drove starting at about age 9, in the 20's. He died in the mines, in the 60's. Never had a license. Only wrecks he had was bad brakes and coal truck run off the mountain. Sheriff didn't care. Neither did anyone else. Probably some meddlers moved into the area by now, so they care. "There ought to be a Law" you know? How long before they require a license to walk. Hell, you can't even walk to some places. There's no walks, on the bridges, or room on the road shoulders. > and from what i've seen, it's the females from 16 to 30 that seem the most > out of control. Behind the wheel and otherwise. I couldn't agree more. The professional drivers with whom I work here in the interior of Alaska say that the second most dangerous thing on the road is a 18-26 year old female driving a newer model sport sedan. The most dangerous thing on the road? A 18-26 year old female, driving a newer model sport sedan with a cell phone stuck in her head..... DaveD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.