[Napoleon17]

What is it going to take for there to be mandatory licensing tests for all those who reach a certain age (such as 55, 60, or 70)? Two of the 6 towns I work in here in Florida are basically resorts for snowbirds who have migrated down from up north. The 4 towns that are not snowbird towns are fine to drive in, but every Tuesday and Wednesday I almost die at the hands of senior citizens. Just yesterday 2 people did die at the hand of an 81 year old lady. 3 times today I'm going 55 in a 55, and a senior citizen pulls out right in front of me and proceeds to speed up to 35. If I wasn't paying attention I would've rammed them. On Saturday an elderly man was in a parking lot, parked, waiting for a car to back out of a space, only problem was there was no one in the car that he was waiting on.

I don't have a problem with all senior drivers, and I think most are fine, but there is no reason why we can't eliminate the horrible drivers by making them pass a test. We make people pass a test to originally get the license, why does that test have to infer upon its takers the lifetime right to drive? The opponents of this plan of action probably think it's offensive or infringing, but seriously, if you're a senior and you can drive, then what do you have to worry about?

[mulletman]

I'd be all in favor of driving tests for EVERYONE every time anyone tries to renew a license. And states like Arizona need to just re-think the whole driver's-license-valid-for-50-years idea....

Pilots have to have a "biennial flight review" and pass a medical examination in order to stay legal. In my opinion, anyone operating a motor vehicle should also have to comply with something similar.

[Epaphras]

I agree, tests for everyone upon renewal of your license. Written exam and road test. Pass/fail.

[Six_and_Sax]

We were in the unfortunate position of having to take my 82 year old father-in-law's license away because the state of Maryland wouldn't do it. Praise God that he never injured anyone, but it was close a couple of times.

I believe that driver's tests on renewal should start after age 65. Up until then. most folks still have their faculties, and are part of the work force. I'm 58, and would gladly submit to a driver test now, but I think earlier than 65 (maybe even 70) would be a waste of government resources for a diminishing return vis-a-vis results.

[beanbag]

unless you had to pay a small fee to retest each time. I mean, it would suck to have to pay, but I think driving is a privilege, not a right. then the government wouldn't be wasting as many resources, and having to pay might deter some people from pursuing a license.

if I remember correctly, places like germany charge a TON to allow people to even test for their license in the first place without any guarantee of actually obtaining a license.

[RubberChipmunk]

I'm the sort of person that doesn't think we need drivers licenses at all. I think the desire not to die is a fairly decent incentive to be a good driver. Legally, the very existence of them in America is a violation of federal and state constitutions. That said, I really don't care as long as I can continue to freely operate my property and I don't want to turn this thread into an argument about the legality of licensing practices, so I'm going to move on to the main thing I don't agree with here, which is mandatory testing for license renewal.

Last week, I took my roommate to the DMV and let him borrow my car to take his driving test. His license had been revoked a while back (I forgot exactly why, but it was revoked for a reason that had absolutely no relation to his ability to drive), and he needed to take a driver's test to get a new license. Florida has recently passed legislation that requires you to provide two proofs of address before you can get ANYTHING done at a DMV, in addition to a lot more documentation. We waited over an hour before his number even got called to get assistance, only to find out they wouldn't let him take his driver's test because the insurance card I had provided for my car was dated (my policy is current, the information is the same, and apparently they do not have any way to check that). So, we had to come back the next day after printing a new card, and he finally got to take his test. Three hours spread out over two days.

In Florida, licenses need to be renewed every six years. To require mandatory retesting for renewal would require everyone in Florida to wait at least two hours in the DMV every six years, and likely more by increasing the number of driver's tests that need to be administered, as everyone will have to retake their test. Our DMVs are already packed every day, with at least an hour wait, even if you have an appointment. Mandatory retesting, in Florida, at least, would doom everyone to experiencing something similar to my last paragraph, based on an average lifespan of eighty years, thirteen times throughout their lives, just to be able to continue operating their vehicle. It also costs about $45 for the test, so that is an extra $585 lifetime expense, provided that rate does not change.

Personally, I would prefer driving to not be so necessary to one's daily life. I don't much like driving, to be honest. But the vast majority of people in this country are not self-employed. They work in offices or restaurants or any number of jobs, which, for most people, are not in walking distance, and not within biking distance for some others. Mandatory retesting would cause the most hassle for these people, because if they happen to not pass their retest (you fail it three times in Florida and they won't let you take it again, unless there has been a policy change I am not aware of), they suddenly lose the ability to work because they can't walk two hours to the office every day. Their cars, which are their property, now sit in the garage or driveway collecting dust. Without a license, there's no reason to have insurance, so policies get cancelled, and when they finally can get a license again and have to get insurance, they will be paying a lot more for their policy when they did, as it is less expensive to get insurance (at least in Florida) when you already have it, and considerably more if you don't.

I understand that the elderly drive slowly, and that some people drive like morons, but the truth is that these people have every right to use the road that the rest of us do. When they cause property damage or loss of life, then of course there should be a penalty for it. For every other instance, though, you can (usually very easily) go around old people, and you should be paying attention to what other drivers are doing so that you can avoid the morons.

There has been little to no change in the automotive accident rate since the practice of licensing drivers began. They don't actively do anything to make the roads, or drivers, safer. They can be revoked or suspended for offenses that have nothing to do with driving. Is mandatory retesting honestly necessary?

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

I'm the sort of person that doesn't think we need drivers licenses at all. I think the desire not to die is a fairly decent incentive to be a good driver. Legally, the very existence of them in America is a violation of federal and state constitutions. That said, I really don't care as long as I can continue to freely operate my property and I don't want to turn this thread into an argument about the legality of licensing practices, so I'm going to move on to the main thing I don't agree with here, which is mandatory testing for license renewal.

Last week, I took my roommate to the DMV and let him borrow my car to take his driving test. His license had been revoked a while back (I forgot exactly why, but it was revoked for a reason that had absolutely no relation to his ability to drive), and he needed to take a driver's test to get a new license. Florida has recently passed legislation that requires you to provide two proofs of address before you can get ANYTHING done at a DMV, in addition to a lot more documentation. We waited over an hour before his number even got called to get assistance, only to find out they wouldn't let him take his driver's test because the insurance card I had provided for my car was dated (my policy is current, the information is the same, and apparently they do not have any way to check that). So, we had to come back the next day after printing a new card, and he finally got to take his test. Three hours spread out over two days.

In Florida, licenses need to be renewed every six years. To require mandatory retesting for renewal would require everyone in Florida to wait at least two hours in the DMV every six years, and likely more by increasing the number of driver's tests that need to be administered, as everyone will have to retake their test. Our DMVs are already packed every day, with at least an hour wait, even if you have an appointment. Mandatory retesting, in Florida, at least, would doom everyone to experiencing something similar to my last paragraph, based on an average lifespan of eighty years, thirteen times throughout their lives, just to be able to continue operating their vehicle. It also costs about $45 for the test, so that is an extra $585 lifetime expense, provided that rate does not change.

Personally, I would prefer driving to not be so necessary to one's daily life. I don't much like driving, to be honest. But the vast majority of people in this country are not self-employed. They work in offices or restaurants or any number of jobs, which, for most people, are not in walking distance, and not within biking distance for some others. Mandatory retesting would cause the most hassle for these people, because if they happen to not pass their retest (you fail it three times in Florida and they won't let you take it again, unless there has been a policy change I am not aware of), they suddenly lose the ability to work because they can't walk two hours to the office every day. Their cars, which are their property, now sit in the garage or driveway collecting dust. Without a license, there's no reason to have insurance, so policies get cancelled, and when they finally can get a license again and have to get insurance, they will be paying a lot more for their policy when they did, as it is less expensive to get insurance (at least in Florida) when you already have it, and considerably more if you don't.

I understand that the elderly drive slowly, and that some people drive like morons, but the truth is that these people have every right to use the road that the rest of us do. When they cause property damage or loss of life, then of course there should be a penalty for it. For every other instance, though, you can (usually very easily) go around old people, and you should be paying attention to what other drivers are doing so that you can avoid the morons.

There has been little to no change in the automotive accident rate since the practice of licensing drivers began. They don't actively do anything to make the roads, or drivers, safer. They can be revoked or suspended for offenses that have nothing to do with driving. Is mandatory retesting honestly necessary?

I think that the way the system is set up now, the DMVs are horribly run and seem to be underfunded. When I came to FL my out of state license had been expired for over 4 months, which was supposed to mean that I had to take the test to get my license. The slob at the counter didn't even check my license to care to notice that it had been expired for that long. She just gave me a new card (after a 3 hour wait, with an appointment). So I think it is clear that the DMVs need upgrading... however I don't think that they cannot be upgraded enough to handle the extra volume required to test seniors.

And my license doesn't expire til 2018... the way I understood it I don't have to renew it until then. But I could be wrong. I'm only suggesting that people get tested upon reaching a certain age, not upon every renewal. And I do think it would make the roads safer, no question. Those 3 people that I almost crashed into this week would not be on the roads... how can you say that would not be safer? And as far as the negative impacts of failing the test three times... wouldn't you think it would be much less harmful than causing wrecks and injuries to innocent people who do have the mental and physical capacity to drive?

I'm just curious... what part of the Constitutions do you think licensing violates? I would think it would have plenty to do with the "general welfare"...

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

I think that the way the system is set up now, the DMVs are horribly run and seem to be underfunded. When I came to FL my out of state license had been expired for over 4 months, which was supposed to mean that I had to take the test to get my license. The slob at the counter didn't even check my license to care to notice that it had been expired for that long. She just gave me a new card (after a 3 hour wait, with an appointment). So I think it is clear that the DMVs need upgrading... however I don't think that they cannot be upgraded enough to handle the extra volume required to test seniors.

I think that a government that has proven itself to be ineffective in following the guidelines that were set out for it, and has proven to be ineffective in the areas it is not even supposed to be in, will prove to be ineffective in "upgrading" DMVs to be more effective. When I took my test in 2004 and got my license, the experience wasn't nearly as bad as the experience my roommate and I went through. It has progressively become less effective in handling its load, and as more regulations and guidelines are passed, history has only ever shown that the problem will only be worsened.

And my license doesn't expire til 2018... the way I understood it I don't have to renew it until then. But I could be wrong. I'm only suggesting that people get tested upon reaching a certain age, not upon every renewal. And I do think it would make the roads safer, no question. Those 3 people that I almost crashed into this week would not be on the roads... how can you say that would not be safer? And as far as the negative impacts of failing the test three times... wouldn't you think it would be much less harmful than causing wrecks and injuries to innocent people who do have the mental and physical capacity to drive?

The three people that you almost crashed into, or was it they that almost crashed into you? But you didn't crash into them, did you? No, you were paying attention like a responsible person and you avoided collisions. Your driver's test didn't prepare you for that. That was all experience. Yesterday, I was at the end of the merge lane, needing to merge, when the pickup truck that was behind me sped up and didn't let me merge. If I wasn't paying attention, then I would have hit him. But I was paying attention, so I slowed down, got behind him, and continued. He made an error in judgement, but no harm was done. The issue stems from a sense of arrogance and impatience, not from an inability to drive. If an accident had happened, I would have taken him to court and sued for the damage caused to my car due to his negligence. He would have likely thought twice next time he felt so important as to not let someone over when they are at the end of a merge lane and have no choice BUT to get over. But because our driver's tests are nothing more than basic maneuvers, retesting would not have prevented this. I contest that it is not possible to devise a driving test that a new, inexperienced driver could pass that could prevent these events on the road.

I bring up the issue of retesting on every renewal for two reasons. First, someone else had brought it up. Second, mission creep is something that affects government. Once the government has the power to force the elderly to retest, it may decide its in the public's best interest to retest everyone, and it will not consider the economic implications in its decision to do so. I don't think its a good idea to give any government more power over our everyday lives.

[tlj009]

You can't retest everyone every single time. First, it would cost a great deal more and people don't want higher taxes for this reason. Second, no one wants to (and some can't) take a full day out of their life to renew their license. Third, there is no need to have a written and driving test every single time. I see no benefit in it.

Now mandatory eye exams may be beneficial and can be performed relatively easily. Selective tests such as coordination that can be performed at the request of a DMV employee may be beneficial and easily performed. But there are repercussions to revoking a license. Preventing a person from working is one. Preventing a person from doing their daily errands is another. Even the elderly has to do their shopping. Rarely is there someone to do it for them. These people don't drive because it is fun for them to risk their life or risk killing someone else. They do it because they have to. They do it because they can't walk 5+ miles to the store, doctor, pharmacy, etc. and then walk back with whatever they bought. Not everyone has someone to take care of them.

[JerryLove]

I need some of what you are smoking.

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

I'm the sort of person that doesn't think we need drivers licenses at all. I think the desire not to die is a fairly decent incentive to be a good driver.

That would mean that there are no bad drivers. Would you care to explain the 6.5 million car collisions in the US every year?

Legally, the very existence of them in America is a violation of federal and state constitutions.

Which parts of those 51 constitutions are being violated, exactly?

In Florida, licenses need to be renewed every six years. To require mandatory retesting for renewal would require everyone in Florida to wait at least two hours in the DMV every six years, and likely more by increasing the number of driver's tests that need to be administered, as everyone will have to retake their test. Our DMVs are already packed every day, with at least an hour wait, even if you have an appointment. Mandatory retesting, in Florida, at least, would doom everyone to experiencing something similar to my last paragraph, based on an average lifespan of eighty years, thirteen times throughout their lives, just to be able to continue operating their vehicle. It also costs about $45 for the test, so that is an extra $585 lifetime expense, provided that rate does not change.

I would like to see us move over to a system like Germany, which has far fewer accidents per-capita, and have driver's licences take a week and several hundred dollars to get.

Without a license, there's no reason to have insurance, so policies get cancelled, and when they finally can get a license again and have to get insurance, they will be paying a lot more for their policy when they did, as it is less expensive to get insurance (at least in Florida) when you already have it, and considerably more if you don't.

That sounds like an issue you have with capitalism.

I understand that the elderly drive slowly, and that some people drive like morons, but the truth is that these people have every right to use the road that the rest of us do. When they cause property damage or loss of life, then of course there should be a penalty for it.

A "penalty" for killing a bunch of people?

I'm sorry. Tell me again why some guys "right" to not be inconvinienced with a drivers test trumps my child's right to not be violently killed?

For every other instance, though, you can (usually very easily) go around old people, and you should be paying attention to what other drivers are doing so that you can avoid the morons.

Yes, this guy should have been paying attention:
"AUGUST 16, 2009 - A cook was hospitalized with serious burn injuries after a car driven by an elderly woman crashed into a hamburger restaurant where the victim was working"

So should these 27 people:
"NEW LONDON, Conn., July 9 (UPI) -- Twenty-seven people were injured in New London, Conn., when an elderly driver crashed into a crowd of festival goers, the New London Day reported Sunday."

I'm sorry. Tell me again how I can easily avoid being killed asleep in my bedroom:
car crashed into house elderly - Bing
"A GIRL, 3, was almost killed when an elderly man crashed his car into her Fulham Gardens home and three other houses last night. "

"An elderly Dracut man and his wife were shaken Tuesday afternoon when he accidently drove his car into the side of his house, crashing into the couple's living room. "

"An elderly couple drove their minivan through the garage, the sunroom, on to the back deck of their daughter’s home, and then fell off the deck on its left side, trapping the man’s arm that was out the window"

There has been little to no change in the automotive accident rate since the practice of licensing drivers began. They don't actively do anything to make the roads, or drivers, safer. They can be revoked or suspended for offenses that have nothing to do with driving. Is mandatory retesting honestly necessary?

I call bull-☺☺☺☺. Prove your claim of fact. Not that it's all that relevent given the conditions then. Do you even know when licensing began?

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

Is mandatory retesting honestly necessary?

Yes.

It's not just that elderly people 'drive slowly.' I am not simply suffering from impatience while I wait behind them. That is not the problem here.

We need to do a vastly better job of teaching people to drive, first of all. I think the root of the problem is that most of the people who pass their driving test when they are 16, really don't know how to drive very well, and are a massive hazard. In order to be allowed to operate a small aircraft, I had to know every system that was a part of the machine, and relate that knowledge to an examiner. Explain to me how riding around by myself in a 65-horsepower fabric airplane made in 1946 and weighing 800 pounds requires more responsibility than driving a 5000 pound vehicle filled with 8 or 10 lives.

If the idea of self-preservation were enough, then there would be no car-related fatalities, and there would be no airplane related fatalities.

Seriously. I don't actually care if driver's licenses ever expire. The FAA got this whole thing right. My pilot's license will never expire. But every two years I must pass an exam, and log that I passed an exam. Driving tests that show up on your record would be a good idea. If you haven't had one within a given time period, you get suspended/revoked. Whether or not you get a new license is irrelevant.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by tlj009

You can't retest everyone every single time. First, it would cost a great deal more and people don't want higher taxes for this reason. Second, no one wants to (and some can't) take a full day out of their life to renew their license. Third, there is no need to have a written and driving test every single time. I see no benefit in it.

Now mandatory eye exams may be beneficial and can be performed relatively easily. Selective tests such as coordination that can be performed at the request of a DMV employee may be beneficial and easily performed. But there are repercussions to revoking a license. Preventing a person from working is one. Preventing a person from doing their daily errands is another. Even the elderly has to do their shopping. Rarely is there someone to do it for them. These people don't drive because it is fun for them to risk their life or risk killing someone else. They do it because they have to. They do it because they can't walk 5+ miles to the store, doctor, pharmacy, etc. and then walk back with whatever they bought. Not everyone has someone to take care of them.

I know that it would be inconvenient. I understand that people rely on their vehicles. However, I refuse to subsidize an elderly person's trip to the store with the life of a loved one.

Cost-benefit analysis just says no.

[beanbag]

actually...the government does offer the option of paid companions for elderly people who have medicare and cannot get themselves around. my roommates' grandmother had one such companion who was paid to drive her around for doctor's appointments and take her on errands.

my brother and I do (did, since I moved) that for my grandmother for free, but as a medicare patient she is also eligible for this service.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

I think that the way the system is set up now, the DMVs are horribly run and seem to be underfunded.

Are DMVs funded by the government in the first place?

[Giga Hertz]

My grandma's 84 and can drive better than most people I know.

I reckon that driving tests should have to be retaken for bogans and people with road rage, though.