Announcement

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|5870|Northern California
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … 001S33.DTL

In this article, we see the sentencing that was given to a 89 year old man who killed 10 and injured 70 as he plowed through a farmer's market in Southern California.  The judge was to give him a 18 year sentence but because he was so old and too much of a liability for the prison system, he will walk...albeit with a walker.

My point of discussion is not this man's case but rather the issuance of licenses to drivers in general.  To be issued a license, there is a written test and a drivers test (in California and probably most states in the US) where you must perform a handful of vehicular movements and observations as you drive...then that's it for life.  From my understanding, one can get their licnese at 16, and drive until they die doing remedial written tests every few years to renew your license.  But does that really qualify you to drive safely?  Is experience in driving always good experience making the roads safe?  Is it enough to memorize braking distances, curb colors, and blood alcohol content?  I say NAY!

I'm of the opinion that EVERY motorist should undergo vigorous driving training at least every decade, and after 60, every 5 years.  Having been a FEDEX courier and marvelling at their driver training course, I'd drastically change the way our DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) tests by implementing the FEDEX computer based course followed by FEDEX style road tests.

Can you imagine traffic being easier to navigate in?  Can you imagine courteous, defensive drivers?  Can you imagine farmer's markets not being plowed by crazy old drivers who should not be on the roads?

How would you rate the driving in your country/region/state and what would you do to improve it?
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6029

Old people should be required to take a test every two years, and have regular eye and hearing tests.

Or we just kill them once they hit 50.
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6033
Ban all cars.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|5961|SE London

ghettoperson wrote:

Old people should be required to take a test every two years, and have regular eye and hearing tests.
That's exactly what I was going to say. I don't know about the hearing tests though. Aren't deaf people allowed to drive?

Tests every 2 years for those over 60.

If any of those tests get failled then they lose their license permanently.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-20 13:13:00)

Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6042|USA
SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|5961|SE London

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
Yes.

I don't think ear tests are necessary though, I don't know about the US but in the UK the deaf can get driving licenses.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|5870|Northern California
Seriously, ANY amount of in-vehicle testing would be good for safety reasons..and it would also stimulate the DMV (or whatever your drivers license government office is called) with new funds possibly relaxing registration cost raping.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6042|USA
I agree. Just checking.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|5870|Northern California

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
ABSOLUTELY!  I've often asked myself this question before being all uppity and demanding stiffer drivers license criteria for elderly.  I'm the kind of guy that thinks drunk driving is NO DIFFERENT than attempted manslaughter, so naturally, putting an unfit driver behind the wheel is asking for death.  And as long as I share the road and my wife and children are at risk because of something as simple as testing...hell yes I'd be giving it up if I were unfit....which would hopefully help improve public transportation!
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6116|Salt Lake City

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
Exactly, driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  When some one is no longer able to handle a vehicle safely, for whatever reason, then their license needs to be pulled.
Goven
/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
+125|5860|Purdue

IRONCHEF wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
ABSOLUTELY!  I've often asked myself this question before being all uppity and demanding stiffer drivers license criteria for elderly.  I'm the kind of guy that thinks drunk driving is NO DIFFERENT than attempted manslaughter, so naturally, putting an unfit driver behind the wheel is asking for death.  And as long as I share the road and my wife and children are at risk because of something as simple as testing...hell yes I'd be giving it up if I were unfit....which would hopefully help improve public transportation!
Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this way, although I'm only 15 and don't forsee driving in my near future :p
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|5870|Northern California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
Exactly, driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  When some one is no longer able to handle a vehicle safely, for whatever reason, then their license needs to be pulled.
Speaking of....I fear for you man.  I see that you're a Utah motorist!  Having lived there twice totalling about 4 years, I've never been more scared driving than I have there..and I've driven in San Jose, CA and SF, CA! lol

When driving in CA here, we always scream "UTAH DRIVER!!!" and swerve like mad when we see Utah plates on a car!  hehe
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6042|USA

IRONCHEF wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
Exactly, driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  When some one is no longer able to handle a vehicle safely, for whatever reason, then their license needs to be pulled.
Speaking of....I fear for you man.  I see that you're a Utah motorist!  Having lived there twice totalling about 4 years, I've never been more scared driving than I have there..and I've driven in San Jose, CA and SF, CA! lol

When driving in CA here, we always scream "UTAH DRIVER!!!" and swerve like mad when we see Utah plates on a car!  hehe
Here in VA we do that with Jersey drivers. When in Vermont, its the "Massholes".
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|5922|Texas - Bigger than France
Chef - just curious.  Who's at fault?

The gov't for not instituting stricter standards, or the geezer driving the General Lee?
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|5870|Northern California

Pug wrote:

Chef - just curious.  Who's at fault?

The gov't for not instituting stricter standards, or the geezer driving the General Lee?
The motorist is at fault.  But the question you're asking would best be answered by not assigning blame but rather improving things -- taking an opportunity.  And on that note, the government bears the burden to improve the quality of driving or at least the testing requirements.  Implementation of the FEDEX driving training and certification would be easy and it would immediately improve driving quality.  It would also fail dangerous drivers (those who can't read or understand the testing) which is ok..and would help legislation for better public transportation. 
*wow!  i said all that without once mentioning asian drivers! *

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-20 13:38:36)

silo1180
The Farewell Tour
+79|5802|San Antonio, TX
The eye/hearing testing would be a nice idea... except now you are asking your state to discrminate people based on age which is a violtion of federal laws.  These tests would have to apply to all ages.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|5961|SE London

IRONCHEF wrote:

Seriously, ANY amount of in-vehicle testing would be good for safety reasons..and it would also stimulate the DMV (or whatever your drivers license government office is called) with new funds possibly relaxing registration cost raping.
It'd probably reduce insurance costs too.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|5922|Texas - Bigger than France
TMI Chef.  Just wanted to know.

DMV is attrocious BTW.

In the vein of what you're talking about - have you ever see the Chelsea Handler show?

She had an episode dedicated to trying to figure out the worst driver, with participants from each group:
-The Eldery
-Women
-Asian
-A blind guy

Absolutely hilarity, and not PC...awesome.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|5961|SE London

silo1180 wrote:

The eye/hearing testing would be a nice idea... except now you are asking your state to discrminate people based on age which is a violtion of federal laws.  These tests would have to apply to all ages.
That can't be true. If that were the case then you wouldn't be able to ban under 21s from buying alcohol.
Sgt_Bob05
Nade Spammers Must Die
+49|6081|Australia
People over 70 should NOT be able to drive. I've had my license for 3 months and they've almost cause me to almost crash a few times already. They drive like they're the only car on the road.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|5961|SE London

Sgt_Bob05 wrote:

People over 70 should NOT be able to drive. I've had my license for 3 months and they've almost cause me to almost crash a few times already. They drive like they're the only car on the road.
Not all of them, but the majority. You get the occasional old person who can drive perfectly ok, they're just rare. Testing would be a fairer system for the minority that can still drive safely.
jarhedch
Member
+12|6049|Aberdeen, Uk, SF Bay Area 1st

IRONCHEF wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/11/20/state/n111001S33.DTL

In this article, we see the sentencing that was given to a 89 year old man who killed 10 and injured 70 as he plowed through a farmer's market in Southern California.  The judge was to give him a 18 year sentence but because he was so old and too much of a liability for the prison system, he will walk...albeit with a walker.

My point of discussion is not this man's case but rather the issuance of licenses to drivers in general.  To be issued a license, there is a written test and a drivers test (in California and probably most states in the US) where you must perform a handful of vehicular movements and observations as you drive...then that's it for life.  From my understanding, one can get their licnese at 16, and drive until they die doing remedial written tests every few years to renew your license.  But does that really qualify you to drive safely?  Is experience in driving always good experience making the roads safe?  Is it enough to memorize braking distances, curb colors, and blood alcohol content?  I say NAY!

I'm of the opinion that EVERY motorist should undergo vigorous driving training at least every decade, and after 60, every 5 years.  Having been a FEDEX courier and marvelling at their driver training course, I'd drastically change the way our DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) tests by implementing the FEDEX computer based course followed by FEDEX style road tests.

Can you imagine traffic being easier to navigate in?  Can you imagine courteous, defensive drivers?  Can you imagine farmer's markets not being plowed by crazy old drivers who should not be on the roads?

How would you rate the driving in your country/region/state and what would you do to improve it?
umm dude, Ca requires a driver's licence renewal after 5 years, and if you've got points or a record, you gotta retake either the written or the driving test. Living in the UK that has a much harder test there aren't any more courteous or better drivers, in fact basically the opposite.  Yeah, CA has some really bad drivers, my personal fave is the "oh crap there's my exit going past i gotta cross 5 lanes to exit maneuver". Britain simply has a hard test, that simply costs more money to pass. All the driving instructors do is train you to pass the test.

There is no actual proof (and driving in both US and UK, and also having held a licence in 2 different states, I haev seen some seirous driving) that harder etsts will do anything you are saying. In terms of having courteous, defensive drivers, the only way to make that happen is to prosecute and criticize poor driving. It's got nothing to do with harder tests.
d4rkst4r
biggie smalls
+72|5833|Ontario, Canada
anyone over age of 80 should take test every year
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6116|Salt Lake City

IRONCHEF wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SAy a test for eye/ear check was implemented for people over 60 to be administered more often. One day you turn 60 and fail it. WOuld you be ok with giving up your driving privilege for the greater good?
Exactly, driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  When some one is no longer able to handle a vehicle safely, for whatever reason, then their license needs to be pulled.
Speaking of....I fear for you man.  I see that you're a Utah motorist!  Having lived there twice totalling about 4 years, I've never been more scared driving than I have there..and I've driven in San Jose, CA and SF, CA! lol

When driving in CA here, we always scream "UTAH DRIVER!!!" and swerve like mad when we see Utah plates on a car!  hehe
Yeah, it can get pretty scary.  Around here they follow these rules.

1. Stop sign = just a suggestion

2. Signal lights = Red means stop (only after a minimum of two cars have run it red), green means go, and yellow means go faster.

3. Lane markings = I'll take my half out of the middle.

4. Seatbelts = Only when there are enough for all the kids.  When there aren't, hold a lottery to see which child gets to ride without one.

5. 4-wheel drive = I can go faster than anyone else in the snow, so get out of my way.

6. Speed limit = You would think it's the Boneville salt flats.

There's more, but I'm kind of in the middle of rebuilding a server and need to pay attention to RAID that is building.
Ender2309
has joined the GOP
+470|5951|USA

Sgt_Bob05 wrote:

People over 70 should NOT be able to drive. I've had my license for 3 months and they've almost cause me to almost crash a few times already. They drive like they're the only car on the road.
i'll assume you're new to DST. why? because you're ignorant.

you see, in DST, the goal is to look the best. its good to see that you type in real english, but, unfortunately, you fail to use logical thinking and evidence to back up your post. you don't simply throw down an opinion and leave it at that; you back it up.

to combat your post, i'll use examples from my personal experience. my grandfather, soon to be 78, happens to be the best driver i've ever seen, so, therefore, you are wrong.

now you try.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard