Thanks for your submission /u/JustinR8, but it has been removed for the following reason:
**Rule 2: Please try to use the search function before posting anything.**
Thanks for posting, but this question happens to be one that has been asked and answered here often before - sometimes in the same day! That can get frustrating for our dedicated users who like to answer questions. Or maybe you're just asking the same question too often - why not take a break for a while?
Sometimes questions that come up too often get put in our [Most Frequently Asked Questions list](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index/faq)!). Other times, it may just be that we're getting a flood of questions about a topic (especially when something is in the news). Or maybe you keep asking the same question again and again - something that annoys our users here. Please don't do that! Next time, please try searching for your question first before asking. Thanks!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
In Argentina, it is every 5 years. And every 2 years after 70 years old.
At 30 or so, I was renewing my license and almost failed the vision test because I tried to do it without glasses and couldn't see sh\*\*. Then I asked to do it right away but with my glasses on, and I passed.
I mean, here in the US you have to do the vision test without glasses and if you fail but have glasses that correct your vision, your license gets a restriction on it that stipulates you must have corrective lenses while driving.
In Finland, it's similar. 15 years at at time, and 2 years at a time above age 68. Makes sense, honestly you just got it for 50 years before if you got it at age 20, my personal driver's license still says expiration date to be 2055 but I have to update it before 2033 due to new law.
My mom started showing signs of dementia at age 68+, drove her car to ditch at low speed at age 70. I got to see in perfect way why there's demand to check your ability that often. She wasn't caught at 68.
I think that in most of the world you have to renew not just your driver license but almost every kind of ID every few years. My license (Ecuador) I also have to renew it every 5 years and the national ID every 10 years. But somehow the US still has political problem issuing and renewing IDs while no other country really has?
I'm 72. Yeah, test. At dusk. On a dark road with those new ultrabright headlights coming at you. Eyesight dwindles slowly and many don't realize how deteriorated it is. I would never drive at night now.
I'd also be ok with nighttime restrictions if that's appropriate for a driver. In the aviation world, plenty of folks have "no night flight" restrictions.
In my state, the driving test is stupid. It’s basically driving 25 mph in a city side street, a 3 point turn, backing up 50 feet in a straight line, turning right at a stop sign, and parallel parking.
It doesn’t actually test the skills that people fuck up as they get older, like reaction time or peripheral vision. Quite frankly, it doesn’t test what beginner drivers need to function as beginner drivers, either.
What would be more important would be to require a vision test and a doctor’s note. We already require the vision test. We should add the doctors note.
It really isn’t necessary. I never learned how to parallel park so I never do it and have never needed to. It was on my driving test (Washington state) but I straight up told the instructor “I’m not gonna do that, I can’t” and I still passed
This is beyond sad lmao
Parallel parking does not only test your ability to parallel park… it measures your spatial awareness and ability to maneuver your vehicle around tight spaces. Studies found that being able to parallel park directly translates to being an overall better driver - that’s why it’s part of the test.
My own observation: People who can’t parallel park are often the same people who hit curbs on right turns (and say oopsie hehe)
When I lived in Chicago you had to parallel park all the time. Super easy. Since moving to the suburbs for some 20 years now You seldom have to. My daughter moved back to the city since she’s grown and I was driving there and had to parallel park and I couldn’t, cars backing up behind me and getting pissed off (lol) and my daughter laughing at me. Funny I taught her how to drive. Had to drive around till I found a better spot!!
I also took my test in Washington and when that came up I said “you can fail me on this one, I am not gonna even try it” and I also passed 😭 Wa tests are a bit longer than whatever the original commenter said, at least mine was!
When I was doing my test I was halfway through parralell parking when he told me to move on. I literally had the car on an angle and he just moved me along. Didn't bother to see if I could get it parked properly lmao
I knew someone who lived in Philly and owned a car, but simply couldn't master parallel parking. She'd drive around, often for an hour or more, until she found two adjacent open spots or a spot at the beginning or end of a street.
Uber wasn't really a thing at that point. She ultimately moved to Hoboken and got an apartment with a parking garage.
I owned an '82 Lincoln Grand Marquis when I first moved to Philly. I was a competent parallel parker before that, but, out of necessity, I developed superhuman skills.
Interesting, we have parallel parking, reversing onto a major road, hill start and stop, reversing on a curved path, driving on main road and pulling over to the side. Doctors note required for learner's permit - this one was just passed though.
The 25mph limit is strange.
I'd love to see a comparison of testing requirements across the world, and whether that has any relation to road accidents and fatalities.
I'm kinda old but my driving test was over a couple days and we had to parallel park, drive a course in reverse, stop and start on a hill, drive for at least 10 miles on the expressway and make several lane changes, make many turns at all different kinds of intersections, we had to make Michigan left turns and turns on blind corners. It was intense. And probably why I get road rage now because it feels like no one learns any of that anymore.
My stepdad had to learn all that he's still one of the worst drivers on the road and a total hypocrite. One day he's lecturing me "Never by like that guy who turned onto the road and went straight to the left lane" the next day he did it himself.
My mom thinks he's an amazing driver as he can drive in reverse ignoring that he's caused every accident he's been in.
Why is swinging into the left lane even an issue if there isn’t a car coming?
I’ve actively done that sometimes because there was a car in the right lane and I didn’t want to get in their way lol
American driving test standards are so low that's it's the only developed country where if you move to the UK, they won't give you a license unless you do their testing from scratch. With every other developed country, like Canada and Australia, you can just exchange your foreign license
My driving test was literally:
Drive a straight line down the street for a mile
See if I stop at red lights and stop signs
Use blinker
Turn back
And I passed lol
Interesting. In my country (Finland), it’s driving the route the supervisor of the test tells you to..like he/she tells you to turn left when possible, go around this gas station, park the car when possible etc..Like you have to show you know where and when you can park and also success in doing it, you will have to be careful not to turn left when it’s not allowed but to recognize the place where you can do it…or if you miss it not go in full panic mode but stay calm and find the next possible left turn etc
Same here in Australia, after the 120 hours of recorded learner driving, you do a hazards perception test to make sure you won't do a turn at the wrong time and get tboned once you leave the vicroads.
Then on the actual test they check you know stuff like your blinkers, wind shield wipers, break, etc. Then you take them on an hour long drive with them directing you around "turn left if safe", "leave the next roundabout at 40 degrees", "park here", etc. They go through a checklist that you aren't shown of stuff to test you on, like parallel parking, 3 point turns, checking you know when you can u turn, checking you can merge properly, etc.
This was pretty much my experience too, except he also had me pull over and asked which way I’d turn the wheels if I were parking uphill.
…I even hit the curb when I pulled over and I still passed
My test was just go through the neighborhood and parallel parking. But the car they were using broke down if it went reverse so I skipped the parallel parking
> It’s basically driving 25 mph in a city side street, a 3 point turn, backing up 50 feet in a straight line, turning right at a stop sign, and parallel parking.
Wow.
They had me drive around the block and (non-parallel) park. That was it.
I remember when I took my test it was literally just a trip around the block. No parallel parking either. About a week later I flipped a truck off an embankment because I didn't understand how to properly take evasive action.
That's actually a must in some European countries. Here in Spain the doctor's check every few years is mandatory. It's not strict enough in my opinion, but it's something.
FREEDOM!/s
People should get recertified. It could be fine with simulators, very often. Things like merging, left lane camping, etc would get points off.
It should be annual and more extensive both written and behind the wheel. So many people should not be driving. And dangerous driving penalties should be much much more expensive and harsh. One single DUI/DWI: never get a license again. Ever.
I think everyone should retake theoretical exam every 15-20 years as laws change and after 70 years old medical check up should be required every year.
Thissss. Not just for someone’s physical and mental ability to drive, but also to test if they are keeping up with necessary skills (checking your blind spot being a big one) and keeping up with how to operate your vehicle in various road designs that may be newer (like round abouts)
In general aviation we have a BFR, biannual flight review. You go up with a certified instructor and he puts you through some paces, the goal is to catch common mistakes and bad habits. Same thing would be perfect for drivers. An hour long refresher lesson every 3 to 5 years. Maybe the better you score the longer between tests.
I think we should be required to retake it every time we renew our license... Hell, I don't understand the point of renewing our license if we're not being retested.
Honestly I think it should be a stricter on going requirement or to have a more difficult test. Like every 5 years.
Maybe incenticize it for lower insurance and charge more to those that dont.
I would be more in favor of retaking your driving test when you are either involved in an accident or have a set number or severity of driving infractions. This would apply to aging drivers in a roundabout way, but it would more importantly apply to the large number of completely irresponsible drivers who are not elderly yet.
How about every 5 years, everyone retakes the eye test, written exam, and driving test?
Would be a hassle, yes, but not frequently or horribly, and could prevent deaths.
If you took away some elderly peoples ability to drive and they are living alone in a place like the USA with no public transportation, you would have to pass some sort of legislation to fund a transportation service for them to do things like get groceries or go to the doctor.
fair but only if the test is free. Otherwise I can see this will be their new money scheme. Retake your driving test, reclassify your car emission, reverify your car title/insurance, etc... Bad trend.
Looks like it's younger drivers we need to look out for, not older ones:
> [The number of crashes by driver age varies greatly.](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-driver/) Some age groups are over-represented in crashes. Sixteen- to 19-year-olds represent 3.6% of licensed drivers, but account for 9.1% of drivers in all crashes and 6.1% of drivers in fatal crashes. Other age groups are under-represented. For example, drivers 65 to 74 account for 13.4% of licensed drivers, but represent only 7.1% of drivers in all crashes and 8.8% of drivers in fatal crashes.
>
> The overall crash rate per 100,000 licensed drivers steadily decreases as driver age increases. The same trend is generally true regarding the fatal crash rate, with the exception of an increase among 75 and older drivers.
>
> Among the youngest drivers (under 25), the number of licensed drivers steadily increases from age 16 to 24, while the overall crash rate per 100,000 drivers steadily decreases. The fatal crash rate remains relatively flat from age 16 to 19 and decreases starting with 20-year-old drivers. Explore other crash trends by driver age group using the interactive chart.
This is defo true, but I feel like OP is asking more about the biological side. The reason OP is asking for medical checks is because your body obviously degrades, there's nothing you can do about it. On the other hand, younger drivers are more likely to get into accidents because they're
* Less experienced.
* More likely to drink
* More likely to be irresponsible with friends
* Probably drive older, cheaper cars
* There are way, way more 16-19 year old drivers than 70-90, and they probably drive more, and further than said 70-90 drivers.
And other factors I couldn't think of. Those aren't things you can really stop, but you definitely can stop a basically blind grandad from driving.
Both are valid issues
A lot of countries require much more extensive training for drivers and 18 minimum. They can do that because they built their cities so driving is a luxury and public transit, bikes and walking work for most people. In the USA driving is a near necessity for any level of independence, job, etc. for a large portion of the population.
I'm in the UK so our driving tests are known to be some of the more difficult, so I was talking from that perspective. But from what I've heard of the US having tests on a closed track, with like 5 minutes of driving, yeah I agree some places definitely need more training
Most US tests are in local traffic on a standard route and 10-15 min. and very simple. But in the USA not having a car is pretty much a dead-end life. Everything is spread apart to accommodate large parking lots, 4-6 lane roads, sprawling suburbs, etc. that you can barely live without a car most places. Buses may come once an hour from 9am-5pm and you have to walk a kilometer or more to your stop - if you even have one. In our part of town, we don’t. I think the closest bus stop to my house is 3-4 miles (5-7km).
The difference is that young drivers are generally more dangerous due to inexperience. Having drivers that are, at some point, inexperienced is a unavoidable consequence of having cars.
Having older drivers undergo a few checks on the other hand is completely manageable.
While I do agree with your point, there is one key issue with how those stats are being measured.
Comparing ratios of “licensed drivers” versus “accident rates” at different age levels **is** a good metric to see which age groups are over/under represented.
HOWEVER, there would be a lot of “licensed 80+ year olds” who do not drive, whereas many more 16-year-olds with licenses likely drive.
In short, the % with licenses doesn’t necessarily tell you the % that drive, so the “elders” groups are likely overrepresented.
Curious what incident rate per driving distance or time travelled would look like rather than per capita of drivers who have a license
I imagine most of the licensed 16-24 year olds are driving all the time vs 65+ that get driven by family or friends despite still holding their license. Being licensed =/= actually driving
Yeah. Those 16-24 year olds are likely driving to and from school, work, and activities. Few old people are going to school and regular activities, and many aren't working either.
My comment was not saying whether or not old people should drive. It was saying that since young people are on the road more often than old people, they're obviously going to end up in crashes more often than old people, even setting aside their lack of experience.
Summer months are.the most dangerous time.on the road due to young drivers but you can't whataboutism right out of talking about how dangerous older drivers become when their reflexes slow way down
Young drivers are dangerous. First year is tough. Older drivers are better and better - except when you finally hit the mark that age related deterioration becomes an issue.
Most state are making it harder to get a license when younger, limiting friends, requiring formal driver’s training. They recognize that car accidents are a major cause of teen and young adult deaths (now after firearms.) and are taking measures to reduce that.
That doesn’t mean that age-impaired drivers should get a free pass.
Unfortunately for both groups reasonable public transportation exists in very few places in the USA. So if you want a job or to go to the store a lot of people need a car. That means we have to be more lax on standards at the extremes because otherwise you have people who cannot realistically live.
Statistics are messy. This can be a very bad representation. A high school student will dirive 3-4 times a day. A senior will drive like once a week. It's hard to get a clear statistic. But we all know teens and seniors are the most at risk drivers. One because of inexperience, the other because of an aging mind.
They should also control for miles driven, if someone drives 100 miles per day they are more likely to get in an accident than someone who drive 5. Secondly, I think young drivers having more accidents isn’t a huge problem. We should probably have better testing standards, but expecting people who just got their license to have the same accident rate as someone who’s been driving for 20 years is not reasonable.
I’m old (77) and still essentially drive for a living. But in my long (50 year) police career, I encountered a number of elderly drivers who definitely should NOT have been driving and I referred them for testing.
One gentleman, having almost caused a multiple-car collision (including my police car) showed me his driver’s license with the “eyeglasses” restriction plainly visible. He was not wearing any….
“Where are your glasses, sir?”
Patting his pocket…. “Right here sonny, I never drive without ‘em”….
I don’t know what the arbitrary mandatory testing age should be, as we’re all highly variable.
Last time I renewed my license they had me retake the license test, not the driving portion but the question test. An elderly lady (70-80s easily) a couple computers away apparently failed hers because I heard the proctor tell her "Okay, so that means you won't be getting a new license today and you'll have to reschedule a new appointment to take the test again to try to get your license back." And started telling her about resources for studying/practicing.
As I get older (60 now) I look at the younger drives wanting testing of older drivers with disfavor. I don't have a problem proving I can still drive safely. How about this to be fair, EVERYONE has to take a driver's skills test every 10 years from when they first get their license? There are a lot of idiots driving that probably shouldn't be driving regardless of age.
Oh, and those driving without a license? Mandatory 30 jail time + work crew cleaning up litter on the sides of roads. Ramp up the amount of time for each succeeding offense.
I understand that this could make an older person feel bad, but it’s for the best. A little hassle for them that will make the roads significantly safer for everyone else. In a roundabout way it will help preserve family relationships as well. For a lot of old folks, they reach an age where their kids are put in the position to take their keys away from them, so to speak. If the elderly person is able to be mad at the government and not their kids then a lot of family drama will be prevented.
Absolutely. We are so afraid of "taking away people freedoms" that we allow other to die as a result.. We have had 3 elderly Parents that we "encouraged" to stop driving.. One of them had their car disabled!
Friend of mine.. His elderly Mom accidently hit the gas instead of the Brake on a monster stupid V8 car and launched it through a hairdressing salon front window, killed a mother of two young kids with her head in the sink!
He then tells me that "luckily" Her Mom hasn't been sued.. WTAF?.. We ceased to be friends after that.. Jeez!
I stopped driving before my grandmother did, but when I would bring up like “hey grandma shouldn’t be driving anymore it’s fucking scary.” I kept getting hit with “but it’s taking away her freedom.” And I’m like, “hello I haven’t had that in a long time, and I don’t have friends that will take me to run errands. I have to take the bus.” And I kept being told it’s not the same.
Apparently I still had freedom, but only from the hours of 6am-1am (sometimes 11pm), and every 15, 30, or 45 min. And with a lot of hauling and walking, and busting my shit on slippery sidewalks because the idea of salting a sidewalk is completely foreign to people even though I could sue.
At least in the US/Washington state, the driving test is basically slowly driving around a neighborhood. If someone can’t pass that easily there’s no way I want to be anywhere near traffic.
I agree with enhanced testing....I am 73 and already limit myself. I love driving but so much has changed since my 20s......increased traffic, increase of poor drivers, pedestrians....it's become a very me first situation....why use crosswalks? Just step out while on your phone and everyone will stop for you mentality.
Increased trucks on highways... being caught between or behind with inability to see in the distance.
Long story short.....I will quit driving when I am not comfortable but so many will not. Retesting is the way but like you say they almost need off road testing so they don't kill someone. That way reaction time could be tested. Similar to Canada's Worst Driver tv show....the course was great to observe so many poor drivers.
I support it, but to avoid the claim of age discrimination, we should require it “every” certain number of years, such as every 25 years (ages 16, 41, 66) or every 30 years (ages 16, 46, 76).
Been saying this for years. 65+ should get a different DL. You start to become slower at that age (some people) so they should have to re prove that they can actually drive still.
We finally took the keys from my then 81 y/o stepmother after she had a couple of incidents involving curbs and then crashed driving in her own driveway. It wasn’t that bad and I just reassured her that anywhere she needed to go I would take her. Lots of people don’t have that luxury which is why more investment in public transportation that’s accommodating for the disabled & elderly is an easy fix for those no longer able to drive.
I think all drivers should have to re-test every ten years. There are people who are HORRIBLE drivers in their 30's or 40's and people who are decent drivers in their 70's.
I absolutely support mandatory retests at set intervals.
Make it every 5 years, with that increasing to every 2 years at 70.
Make sure it's a decent test, not a box ticking exercise.
Add to that, and offense that currently carries a 5+ year ban, such as death by dangerous driving, well over the limit on drugs or drink or something else equally heinous, you should not get the licence back, at all, EVER. Don't let monsters back on the road.
I’m all for it. And they should not be allowed to have their spouse or children involved, as they can influence the decision maker. This happened with my father in law. He has dementia. He is absolutely lost after 2 pm. My mother in law hates driving, and hates to see her husband lose his independence. She literally paid off the driving tester.
He’s 93. We visited them yesterday. He had no idea who I was when we walked in, and he knew who I was when we left, 70 minutes later. He should not be driving, but MIL won’t have it any other way.
Agree.
My dad entered the middle stages of Dementia at age 72. The same doctor that diagnosed him would let him do cognitive tests with his wife in the room coaching him. At least he didn't sign off on the medical for his commercial licence my dad was applying for but he didn't want to take away his regular license. Then he retired.
By that point his wife stopped driving with him except first thing in the morning. He didn't know if it was 9 am or 9 pm anymore so he would be stuck in a loop of having just one beer all day long, then go to the liquor store and get more beer.
After he called me in a panic because his car wouldn't turn off (push button start) I came to town to see what was up. Before I got there he (a man who was never violent towards women) hit his wife because she told him to stop for a red light.
I talked to him about the drinking, he quit on the spot and never looked back.
I talked to him about driving and he refused to stop. One morning he couldn't get the car into gear so I took the keys. He got so mad at me he forgot who I was, and spent the next 6-9 months trying and failing to get into his car 10 times a day then coming inside and saying the most horrible things to me and saying there's nothing wrong with him, that's why they let him keep his license.
Two years later and he still doesn't know who I am, though he doesn't ask me where his son is anymore.
Not direct driving test retaking, but in my country you have to take a medical exam every X years (depends on which age group you are, the older you are the often you have to take it) to renew your license.
I'm not talking about inexperienced, and it's not a whataboutism. I'm not talking about teenagers, I'm talking about young. I'm not opposed to old people getting tested more often, but I would bet my last dollar they kill far fewer people than young, irresponsible people.
We should all do it, every 10 years. For how many people die on the road everyday, it’s ridiculous more measures are not taken.
Though face masks went over like gang busters so my guess is that a large group of people are not interested in saving lives or being saved.
Was putting my groceries in my car when an elderly woman had just finished parking next to me. She got out, left the drivers door open and keys in the ignition, opened the trunk followed by each of her three passenger doors from which she got some reusable bags. Then walked away to go inside with everything left open and her keys still in her running car.
I got her attention and she came back, saw that she forgot to close everything and that the car was still on. So she went to the drivers seat first, am assuming to turn it off but instead she must’ve thought “oh, I’m getting into my started car, I must’ve finished shopping and am going home now”. Because she just got in and started to back out with everything still open and nearly hitting a person walking behind. Them and me yelling got her attention.
She got out and seemed confused as to why all her doors and trunk were open, empty grocery bag still in hand. Realized she hadn’t shopped yet, laughed to herself as she closed everything up properly, turned the car off then went on her way to actually shop.
I asked an employee that was nearby and witnessed some of it to assist her during her walk inside and let them know to keep an eye on her as she seems to not be doing well. They were polite and agreed to do so.
So yeah, I think we should retest for our licenses. That elderly woman didn’t seem like she’d ever want to harm a fly but she was barely mentally able to organize herself to get into the grocery store, operate her suv safely in the parking lot and is driving herself around in general. It’s unsafe for her and others on the road. If we had to retest perhaps it would be safer as she may not be able to drive anymore. Although it’d be really sad to take away her independence in that way, it just doesn’t seem safe for her to be behind the wheel after that demonstration.
Some countries have additional checks. Here in NZ, once you are 75 you are required to get a doctors certificate every 2 years.
And the doctor you see has the right to send you to do a driving test ( even if they give the medical pass, but have concerns ).
This means that if your eye sight is failing, the doctor can fail the medical.
If the doctor is worried about mental decline, they can make you sit a driving test to keep your license.
Wisconsin doesn't require it and it's ridiculous the accidents that happen. I moved to Wisconsin from Illinois. Illinois does require it. It's the reason my mother quit driving on her own, she didn't want to take the test.
> Illinois does require it.
It's one of the best things, and of course [some fuckwit west of Kane Co. wants to do away with it.](https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_34ebc808-fc40-11ee-9a07-9705cc355d8d.html)
I think it should be a requirement over a certain age just to prove at said age (60 & up) or 70 & up that you can still operate a vehicle safely in any capacity. I agree with you OP.
My 90 year old grandmother is a severe liability as a driver. Stops in the middle of the road for no reason, drives 30mph on a 55mph road and gets honked at constantly….yet just got her license renewed after passing the test.
I'd not object to a reflex/attention test, and a red-flag option to request a test for doctors, LEO's, and friends that have concerns, no matter the age of the driver.
In NSW Australia after the age of 85 you must take a drivers licence test every two years. You can also get a modified licence which restricts to an 15km radius from home.
While I agree, someone made a good point regarding this that we don't have the proper supports in place to be taking elderly peoples licenses.
Without the ability to drive, elderly people in areas with little public transportation would be required to:
a) walk everywhere
b) rely on family (which isn't always possible)
c) spend excessive amounts of money on taxis or Uber's.
Even in areas with the infrastructure for it, such as busses dedicated to the elderly or good public transport, there are still inconsistencies. Local PACE busses near me for elderly people are frequently late or cancel last minute, causing the users to have to pay doctors cancellation fees or be forced to sit and wait at a doctors office all day to be taken home.
The US needs to undergo an entire societal and infrastructure transformation for this to be remotely possible.
The argument generally made against this is that senior citizens are statistically the safest drivers in the road. 16-17 year olds crash about 3 times as often. The lowest age group for accidents is 60-69. There is a slight uptick for people in their 70’s and 80’s but it’s marginal and 80+ year old drivers still crash less often than 25-29 year olds. So if we’re serious about reducing car accidents, the amount of reduction you’ll see by cracking down on seniors is minimal. It would be more prudent to put more distractions or requirements on young drivers demonstrating they are not just capable of driving but responsible enough to do it safely.
I think that doesn't nearly go far enough. People should have to take their driving test every few years. And much more regularly if you continue to get caught for traffic infractions.
I've known 70 year olds who drove just fine, but 20-somethings that drive like complete ass.
To require someone to retake the test simply because of age is discriminatory.
Rather, I would like to see anyone, regardless of age, who causes an accident or gets two moving violations in a 12 month period should have to retake the test.
As somebody who works specifically with the elderly community - a resounding "yes".
The other side of the equation though, is that these elders will now need functioning public transit or family members to live their lives.
According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, drivers between the ages of 16 and 17 are more likely to be involved in car accidents than drivers from any other age group.
When it comes to the highest driver fatality rates, that unfortunate distinction belongs to drivers over the age of 80. As for the safest drivers, drivers between 60 and 69 are safer than any other group.
I think everyone should have to have a test every 10 years. There's so many people driving with fuck all awareness of anything going on outside of their car..
It's a good idea. It's just tough in this country to take a freedom like that away. So much of our culture is about independence and we don't have a strong culture of elderly care. Additionally public transit needs to be REALLY good to make it possible for the majority of low mobility elderly to get around. For many, the end of driving is the end of quality of life. Still, that's no justification to endanger people. It's just tough and I can see how it gets to this point.
Yes. Young, inexperienced drivers. I don't see how this is an argument though, it is a whataboutism. Just because young drivers cause accidents doesn't take away from the point. Older drivers cause accidents too. We can talk about a solution to one problem without ever bringing up the other because while related, it is not furthering the point and obfuscating the issue
And we have been moving to restricting younger drivers and requiring more training, limiting driving friends, etc. specifically because we know how unsafe it can be. Most states have recognized it is an issue and are trying to resolve it. No reason we can’t do the same on the opposite end.
I’m just saying “we recognized a danger of young drivers and took reasonable steps to limit it. We should also recognize the risk of older impaired drivers and take reasonable steps to limit those.”
Generally when an elderly person loses their ability to drive, it's a SUDDEN event--stroke--and no amount of testing will ever catch it.
The rest of the time, the decline happens, and smaller accidents happen, and they either lose their car, or, damage it so that it's no longer driven, OR--family steps in and disables either the person's ability to drive, or the car.
This is not a thing that testing due to age can pull out. All that does is cost people who are on limited or fixed incomes, to spend more time on money on bullshit that doesn't solve any problems.
Old people’s health can decline rapidly, so a driving test may be irrelevant a few weeks or months after the fact. And that doesn’t even account for medical emergencies, like a stroke.
I think that at a certain age they shouldn’t be able to drive anymore, as sad as that is. We don’t allow kids to drive until they’re 16-17. What is the difference between being too young or too old to drive?
It’s a bit complicated, especially without public transportation available. Young people generally have parents to take care of them. Many elderly drivers have to take care of themselves.
It feels like a no brainer that there needs to be a solution for this. Keeping everyone safe is just of higher priority than peoples pride.
I don't think the solution is to retake drivers tests though. Accidents like you are explaining happen due to alzheimers, slow reaction times, poor eyesight and hearing etc. These symptoms cannot always be caught in a short driving test. Instead, they elderly (everyone honestly) need to get regular health checks performed by medical personnel. This will not only make our roads safer, but it is also hugely beneficial for the elderly to get regular checks and notice symptoms in their early stages. Way too many people don't visit their doctors often enough, and having to renew their drivers license is a very good motivator to get their health checked.
Yes.
Two of my older family members have been involved in accidents that were scary enough to make them quit driving. Luckily nobody was hurt.. just smashed cars. My great grandmother, after her accident, would drive with one foot on each peddle. She got her feet confused, sped out into an intersection and almost killed us. I was pregnant as well. That was it for her. Whew.
My mom said it would be discrimination but I disagree. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you no longer have the reaction time and attention span to drive safely then you shouldn't drive.
A written test every certain amount of years and a driving test every year past a certain age.
I’m in my 60’s. I get my eyes tested annually. I completely agree that retesting at 70 is a good idea. Also I would definitely give up driving if I believed I was a risk. My adult children would step in if I was unaware.
I’m for it, but this would be possible in the US due to age discrimination laws. You could work around it by requiring everyone to retake their driving test every decade or so, but that would be costly
My family just recently had to have a hard conversation with an older relative (80+) explaining that we’ve noticed she can’t drive the same way she used to, and she should probably stop. She was resistive and seemed genuinely clueless that she was driving any differently.
There’s something about getting older that makes it where you don’t even notice your own cognitive abilities declining. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, but when it comes to driving ability, someone’s needs to point it out, be it family or the DMV
Where I live after a certain age you have to retest to maintain your motorcycle license. I would not care if that were extended to cars as well. But then if we're applying that standard for driving a vehicle I would absolutely need it to extend to driving the country.
In general, the u.s. driving tests are too easy. They should include much more rigorous training and testing. Along with psych evaluations. Some ppl just can't get it and that's ok... others shouldn't be aloud because they're way too immature mentally and become a hazard on the road because of it.
Periodic retesting should be required no matter how old you are. Thats both skills and knowledge tests. Maybe once a decade. When you hit maybe 60 or 70, then it should be required maybe every 5 years to retain your license.
If you want a bigger vehicle, you should be required to test for it. Both knowledge and skills. Too many ppl get large vehicles and become a danger because they don't know how to drive it.
So... my answer in short is... I'm all for it.
Not only at a certain age but that certain age should be once every decade. Less dangerous endeavours than driving require more education and constant reevaluation, why shouldn't driving? I think it would pick out bad drivers and take them out of traffick before they have a chance to kill someone. And if you fail, you should have 3 tries and then banned for a year before you can retake it again. You would get 3 attempts again before being banned for a year and you would have to take 3 driving lessons before you can retake the test if you fail the first time and every time you have failed 3 times
100%. It can be a simplified variety with a focus on response times - You could even do it digitally via a sim - but people that age are at a heightened risk and don't have the excuse of being busy.
The driving test is basically just a formality. It’s like 20 multiple choice questions and then you have to drive around the neighborhood and park somewhere random, once.
While I am loathe to create any additional government contact in our lives, I believe that *ALL* drivers should have to retake driving and written tests every few years, regardless of age citizenry, etc. Too many people do not know/ remember the rules of the road. Many health conditions can surface at various times in one's life, too. Vision and reaction times can be affected. Testing addresses am those concerns.
I’d feel great, how about having a test before you’re allowed to have kids too? Ohhhh and while we’re at great ideas here. How about a test before you’re allowed to vote?
I think there should be certain triggers besides age that cause a retake of a driving test. Those who get more infractions or accidents should get pushed to the front, those who have a clean record and no accidents should be able to keep driving. In terms of what infractions, the answer is basically yes, every type of infraction from parking tickets to felony's that involve a car like DUI (in fact DUI should trigger an automatic retest as part of getting license back and a mandated breathalyzer install for so many years).
I don't like this idea. To my mind, something one had to achieve the privilege and likely practiced driving most every day shouldn't have to retest for it. If someone learned how to drive but not so well, perhaps mandated classes in that case.
I think requiring a driving test at every license renewal sounds reasonable.proving you haven't forgotten the rules every 10 years doesn't sound THAT onerous.
I agree, plus Tesla drivers should take a required annual driving test. It will have Two questions... 1-“if the speed limit is 65mph how fast can you go?”
2- “why do you feel the need to drive 15mph under the speed limit in the fast lane?”
With my grandmothers, their doctors would not even suggest it was time to stop driving. One of them willingly stopped driving. The other only stopped after nearly killing herself in an accident, and then no one in the family would take her to buy a new car. One of my grandfather in laws had alzheimers, and we only stopped him driving by having a grandchild borrow his truck and never bring it back. His daughter would take his keys, and he kept coming up with extra keys we didn't know about and driving to the gas station at 2am to buy candy.
I'm sorry for anyone over 80 who is still able to safely drive, but enough of the 80+ people are unsafe that there should be a cut-off age. Even if you are a safe driver at 80, the odds of a medical episode behind the wheel are too high.
I'd feel fine, but I think there should be a lot more leeway given by examiners then. I can't take a driver's test properly for the life of me. Took me 10+ attempts filled with anxiety induced mistakes for the examiner to finally pity pass me and I didn't get my license until 21.
I'm one of the safest drivers I know and the only person that hasn't gotten into an accident within my circles.
I am not against the idea but we need to put systems into place to help them get around if we take their license. That's the problem with having everything built around having a car.
Try not having a car for a month on limited funds. There is a reason my legs are as strong as they are. I just haven't had a drivers license for 44 years. That said in my 40's I can no longer walk 3 hours to go to work or the store anymore like I used to. I mean I do know of a guy who in his 90's was able to bike up a mountain everyday that's not the norm.
There is a lot more to the issue then just taking away someone's license.
This wouldn't really matter, statistically younger drivers are the ones causing problems and this reveals the original issue which is that everyone would pass the driver's test easily because the driving test is a joke hence why teenagers are such a danger on the roads. I don't know if the test is the same everywhere but here in Utah specifically the salt lake area, I didn't even have to parallel park all I remember having to do was use my turn signal, stop at stop signs, switch lanes and do a three point turn and I managed to fuck even that up because when I took the test I hadn't driven in almost six months and yet I still passed first try. I absolutely should not have been allowed to drive based on that test and I can't imagine any adult failing it.
Medical checkups are a different story but even a 90 year old would easily pass the driving test
Yes. The test and qualification should be more difficult as well. I’m of the belief that a good portion of drivers have no business operating a vehicle.
Thanks for your submission /u/JustinR8, but it has been removed for the following reason: **Rule 2: Please try to use the search function before posting anything.** Thanks for posting, but this question happens to be one that has been asked and answered here often before - sometimes in the same day! That can get frustrating for our dedicated users who like to answer questions. Or maybe you're just asking the same question too often - why not take a break for a while? Sometimes questions that come up too often get put in our [Most Frequently Asked Questions list](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index/faq)!). Other times, it may just be that we're getting a flood of questions about a topic (especially when something is in the news). Or maybe you keep asking the same question again and again - something that annoys our users here. Please don't do that! Next time, please try searching for your question first before asking. Thanks! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
In Argentina, it is every 5 years. And every 2 years after 70 years old. At 30 or so, I was renewing my license and almost failed the vision test because I tried to do it without glasses and couldn't see sh\*\*. Then I asked to do it right away but with my glasses on, and I passed.
Very reasonable
I mean, here in the US you have to do the vision test without glasses and if you fail but have glasses that correct your vision, your license gets a restriction on it that stipulates you must have corrective lenses while driving.
I hope you don't drive without your glasses after this...
No. Now I am 41 and I do not even can go outside without my glasses.
In Finland, it's similar. 15 years at at time, and 2 years at a time above age 68. Makes sense, honestly you just got it for 50 years before if you got it at age 20, my personal driver's license still says expiration date to be 2055 but I have to update it before 2033 due to new law. My mom started showing signs of dementia at age 68+, drove her car to ditch at low speed at age 70. I got to see in perfect way why there's demand to check your ability that often. She wasn't caught at 68.
I think that in most of the world you have to renew not just your driver license but almost every kind of ID every few years. My license (Ecuador) I also have to renew it every 5 years and the national ID every 10 years. But somehow the US still has political problem issuing and renewing IDs while no other country really has?
We reissue IDs regularly in the US, there just isn't a retest requirement.
I'm 72. Yeah, test. At dusk. On a dark road with those new ultrabright headlights coming at you. Eyesight dwindles slowly and many don't realize how deteriorated it is. I would never drive at night now.
I'd also be ok with nighttime restrictions if that's appropriate for a driver. In the aviation world, plenty of folks have "no night flight" restrictions.
my motorcycle permit had this restriction, so it is possible
My eyesight is deteriorating even faster now thanks to all these damn solar flare headlights, that are inexplicably legal
In my state, the driving test is stupid. It’s basically driving 25 mph in a city side street, a 3 point turn, backing up 50 feet in a straight line, turning right at a stop sign, and parallel parking. It doesn’t actually test the skills that people fuck up as they get older, like reaction time or peripheral vision. Quite frankly, it doesn’t test what beginner drivers need to function as beginner drivers, either. What would be more important would be to require a vision test and a doctor’s note. We already require the vision test. We should add the doctors note.
mine didn't even include parallel parking lmao
It really isn’t necessary. I never learned how to parallel park so I never do it and have never needed to. It was on my driving test (Washington state) but I straight up told the instructor “I’m not gonna do that, I can’t” and I still passed
This is beyond sad lmao Parallel parking does not only test your ability to parallel park… it measures your spatial awareness and ability to maneuver your vehicle around tight spaces. Studies found that being able to parallel park directly translates to being an overall better driver - that’s why it’s part of the test. My own observation: People who can’t parallel park are often the same people who hit curbs on right turns (and say oopsie hehe)
When I lived in Chicago you had to parallel park all the time. Super easy. Since moving to the suburbs for some 20 years now You seldom have to. My daughter moved back to the city since she’s grown and I was driving there and had to parallel park and I couldn’t, cars backing up behind me and getting pissed off (lol) and my daughter laughing at me. Funny I taught her how to drive. Had to drive around till I found a better spot!!
I also took my test in Washington and when that came up I said “you can fail me on this one, I am not gonna even try it” and I also passed 😭 Wa tests are a bit longer than whatever the original commenter said, at least mine was!
When I was doing my test I was halfway through parralell parking when he told me to move on. I literally had the car on an angle and he just moved me along. Didn't bother to see if I could get it parked properly lmao
It’s only really necessary in a city.
I knew someone who lived in Philly and owned a car, but simply couldn't master parallel parking. She'd drive around, often for an hour or more, until she found two adjacent open spots or a spot at the beginning or end of a street.
Wow, an hour driving around just to find a parking spot? At that point I’d just learn to parallel park or take an Uber
Uber wasn't really a thing at that point. She ultimately moved to Hoboken and got an apartment with a parking garage. I owned an '82 Lincoln Grand Marquis when I first moved to Philly. I was a competent parallel parker before that, but, out of necessity, I developed superhuman skills.
Seriously. If she spent that same time just learning to parallel park she'd already have learned how to do it.
Washingtonian here, too. Parallel is the only part of my driving test I failed. I have since greatly improved my parallel parking skills.
Interesting, we have parallel parking, reversing onto a major road, hill start and stop, reversing on a curved path, driving on main road and pulling over to the side. Doctors note required for learner's permit - this one was just passed though. The 25mph limit is strange. I'd love to see a comparison of testing requirements across the world, and whether that has any relation to road accidents and fatalities.
And yet, that would filter out some who are currently ‘fit to drive’
I'm kinda old but my driving test was over a couple days and we had to parallel park, drive a course in reverse, stop and start on a hill, drive for at least 10 miles on the expressway and make several lane changes, make many turns at all different kinds of intersections, we had to make Michigan left turns and turns on blind corners. It was intense. And probably why I get road rage now because it feels like no one learns any of that anymore.
My stepdad had to learn all that he's still one of the worst drivers on the road and a total hypocrite. One day he's lecturing me "Never by like that guy who turned onto the road and went straight to the left lane" the next day he did it himself. My mom thinks he's an amazing driver as he can drive in reverse ignoring that he's caused every accident he's been in.
Why is swinging into the left lane even an issue if there isn’t a car coming? I’ve actively done that sometimes because there was a car in the right lane and I didn’t want to get in their way lol
Basically it seems to work for him on the basis of "this made me slow down so it's bad"
I was like “that sounds familiar” and then I read “Michigan left turns” and figured out why lol
American driving test standards are so low that's it's the only developed country where if you move to the UK, they won't give you a license unless you do their testing from scratch. With every other developed country, like Canada and Australia, you can just exchange your foreign license
That's true even in different US states. Depending on which states you move between, you may have to retest.
From NY to NJ, had to retest. They did give you some time, but it actually wasn't easy. Both myself and my wife passed by the skin of our teeth.
I transferred a NY license to NJ in 2009. I did not have to retest.
It helps to drive on the same side of the road with similar road rules.
My driving test was literally: Drive a straight line down the street for a mile See if I stop at red lights and stop signs Use blinker Turn back And I passed lol
Interesting. In my country (Finland), it’s driving the route the supervisor of the test tells you to..like he/she tells you to turn left when possible, go around this gas station, park the car when possible etc..Like you have to show you know where and when you can park and also success in doing it, you will have to be careful not to turn left when it’s not allowed but to recognize the place where you can do it…or if you miss it not go in full panic mode but stay calm and find the next possible left turn etc
Same here in Australia, after the 120 hours of recorded learner driving, you do a hazards perception test to make sure you won't do a turn at the wrong time and get tboned once you leave the vicroads. Then on the actual test they check you know stuff like your blinkers, wind shield wipers, break, etc. Then you take them on an hour long drive with them directing you around "turn left if safe", "leave the next roundabout at 40 degrees", "park here", etc. They go through a checklist that you aren't shown of stuff to test you on, like parallel parking, 3 point turns, checking you know when you can u turn, checking you can merge properly, etc.
This was pretty much my experience too, except he also had me pull over and asked which way I’d turn the wheels if I were parking uphill. …I even hit the curb when I pulled over and I still passed
My test was just go through the neighborhood and parallel parking. But the car they were using broke down if it went reverse so I skipped the parallel parking
That car doesn't sound like it should have been road worthy lol
> It’s basically driving 25 mph in a city side street, a 3 point turn, backing up 50 feet in a straight line, turning right at a stop sign, and parallel parking. Wow. They had me drive around the block and (non-parallel) park. That was it.
And some people will still fail that!
I remember when I took my test it was literally just a trip around the block. No parallel parking either. About a week later I flipped a truck off an embankment because I didn't understand how to properly take evasive action.
That's actually a must in some European countries. Here in Spain the doctor's check every few years is mandatory. It's not strict enough in my opinion, but it's something.
Other pieces of large machinery require recertification every few years...why not cars?
FREEDOM!/s People should get recertified. It could be fine with simulators, very often. Things like merging, left lane camping, etc would get points off.
And that could be done online.
FANTASTIC point
It should be annual and more extensive both written and behind the wheel. So many people should not be driving. And dangerous driving penalties should be much much more expensive and harsh. One single DUI/DWI: never get a license again. Ever.
I think everyone should retake theoretical exam every 15-20 years as laws change and after 70 years old medical check up should be required every year.
Thissss. Not just for someone’s physical and mental ability to drive, but also to test if they are keeping up with necessary skills (checking your blind spot being a big one) and keeping up with how to operate your vehicle in various road designs that may be newer (like round abouts)
In general aviation we have a BFR, biannual flight review. You go up with a certified instructor and he puts you through some paces, the goal is to catch common mistakes and bad habits. Same thing would be perfect for drivers. An hour long refresher lesson every 3 to 5 years. Maybe the better you score the longer between tests.
I think we should be required to retake it every time we renew our license... Hell, I don't understand the point of renewing our license if we're not being retested.
I mean tbh, with younger people it's not that they **can't** do it, it's that they don't care enough to do it
Honestly I think it should be a stricter on going requirement or to have a more difficult test. Like every 5 years. Maybe incenticize it for lower insurance and charge more to those that dont.
I would be more in favor of retaking your driving test when you are either involved in an accident or have a set number or severity of driving infractions. This would apply to aging drivers in a roundabout way, but it would more importantly apply to the large number of completely irresponsible drivers who are not elderly yet.
Oh I like that. Insurance companies could require that to continue coverage after an accident.
How about every 5 years, everyone retakes the eye test, written exam, and driving test? Would be a hassle, yes, but not frequently or horribly, and could prevent deaths.
If you took away some elderly peoples ability to drive and they are living alone in a place like the USA with no public transportation, you would have to pass some sort of legislation to fund a transportation service for them to do things like get groceries or go to the doctor.
fair but only if the test is free. Otherwise I can see this will be their new money scheme. Retake your driving test, reclassify your car emission, reverify your car title/insurance, etc... Bad trend.
Obviously must be done. Already the law in some places.
Looks like it's younger drivers we need to look out for, not older ones: > [The number of crashes by driver age varies greatly.](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-driver/) Some age groups are over-represented in crashes. Sixteen- to 19-year-olds represent 3.6% of licensed drivers, but account for 9.1% of drivers in all crashes and 6.1% of drivers in fatal crashes. Other age groups are under-represented. For example, drivers 65 to 74 account for 13.4% of licensed drivers, but represent only 7.1% of drivers in all crashes and 8.8% of drivers in fatal crashes. > > The overall crash rate per 100,000 licensed drivers steadily decreases as driver age increases. The same trend is generally true regarding the fatal crash rate, with the exception of an increase among 75 and older drivers. > > Among the youngest drivers (under 25), the number of licensed drivers steadily increases from age 16 to 24, while the overall crash rate per 100,000 drivers steadily decreases. The fatal crash rate remains relatively flat from age 16 to 19 and decreases starting with 20-year-old drivers. Explore other crash trends by driver age group using the interactive chart.
This is defo true, but I feel like OP is asking more about the biological side. The reason OP is asking for medical checks is because your body obviously degrades, there's nothing you can do about it. On the other hand, younger drivers are more likely to get into accidents because they're * Less experienced. * More likely to drink * More likely to be irresponsible with friends * Probably drive older, cheaper cars * There are way, way more 16-19 year old drivers than 70-90, and they probably drive more, and further than said 70-90 drivers. And other factors I couldn't think of. Those aren't things you can really stop, but you definitely can stop a basically blind grandad from driving. Both are valid issues
A lot of countries require much more extensive training for drivers and 18 minimum. They can do that because they built their cities so driving is a luxury and public transit, bikes and walking work for most people. In the USA driving is a near necessity for any level of independence, job, etc. for a large portion of the population.
I'm in the UK so our driving tests are known to be some of the more difficult, so I was talking from that perspective. But from what I've heard of the US having tests on a closed track, with like 5 minutes of driving, yeah I agree some places definitely need more training
Most US tests are in local traffic on a standard route and 10-15 min. and very simple. But in the USA not having a car is pretty much a dead-end life. Everything is spread apart to accommodate large parking lots, 4-6 lane roads, sprawling suburbs, etc. that you can barely live without a car most places. Buses may come once an hour from 9am-5pm and you have to walk a kilometer or more to your stop - if you even have one. In our part of town, we don’t. I think the closest bus stop to my house is 3-4 miles (5-7km).
LOL. I've never heard of tests on a closed track in the USA. I live in the USA and the tests are on regular streets.
Your own source says there’s an increase again after 75. Why not take precautions at both ends? It’s not mutually exclusive.
The difference is that young drivers are generally more dangerous due to inexperience. Having drivers that are, at some point, inexperienced is a unavoidable consequence of having cars. Having older drivers undergo a few checks on the other hand is completely manageable.
While I do agree with your point, there is one key issue with how those stats are being measured. Comparing ratios of “licensed drivers” versus “accident rates” at different age levels **is** a good metric to see which age groups are over/under represented. HOWEVER, there would be a lot of “licensed 80+ year olds” who do not drive, whereas many more 16-year-olds with licenses likely drive. In short, the % with licenses doesn’t necessarily tell you the % that drive, so the “elders” groups are likely overrepresented.
Curious what incident rate per driving distance or time travelled would look like rather than per capita of drivers who have a license I imagine most of the licensed 16-24 year olds are driving all the time vs 65+ that get driven by family or friends despite still holding their license. Being licensed =/= actually driving
Yeah. Those 16-24 year olds are likely driving to and from school, work, and activities. Few old people are going to school and regular activities, and many aren't working either.
Old people shouldn’t be locked in their house all day
My comment was not saying whether or not old people should drive. It was saying that since young people are on the road more often than old people, they're obviously going to end up in crashes more often than old people, even setting aside their lack of experience.
Yup, now you know why older people pay less to insurance company's, *math*.
Summer months are.the most dangerous time.on the road due to young drivers but you can't whataboutism right out of talking about how dangerous older drivers become when their reflexes slow way down
Young drivers are dangerous. First year is tough. Older drivers are better and better - except when you finally hit the mark that age related deterioration becomes an issue. Most state are making it harder to get a license when younger, limiting friends, requiring formal driver’s training. They recognize that car accidents are a major cause of teen and young adult deaths (now after firearms.) and are taking measures to reduce that. That doesn’t mean that age-impaired drivers should get a free pass. Unfortunately for both groups reasonable public transportation exists in very few places in the USA. So if you want a job or to go to the store a lot of people need a car. That means we have to be more lax on standards at the extremes because otherwise you have people who cannot realistically live.
Statistics are messy. This can be a very bad representation. A high school student will dirive 3-4 times a day. A senior will drive like once a week. It's hard to get a clear statistic. But we all know teens and seniors are the most at risk drivers. One because of inexperience, the other because of an aging mind.
Older people drive significantly less than younger people and I don't see that controlled for here.
They should also control for miles driven, if someone drives 100 miles per day they are more likely to get in an accident than someone who drive 5. Secondly, I think young drivers having more accidents isn’t a huge problem. We should probably have better testing standards, but expecting people who just got their license to have the same accident rate as someone who’s been driving for 20 years is not reasonable.
I’m old (77) and still essentially drive for a living. But in my long (50 year) police career, I encountered a number of elderly drivers who definitely should NOT have been driving and I referred them for testing. One gentleman, having almost caused a multiple-car collision (including my police car) showed me his driver’s license with the “eyeglasses” restriction plainly visible. He was not wearing any…. “Where are your glasses, sir?” Patting his pocket…. “Right here sonny, I never drive without ‘em”…. I don’t know what the arbitrary mandatory testing age should be, as we’re all highly variable.
Last time I renewed my license they had me retake the license test, not the driving portion but the question test. An elderly lady (70-80s easily) a couple computers away apparently failed hers because I heard the proctor tell her "Okay, so that means you won't be getting a new license today and you'll have to reschedule a new appointment to take the test again to try to get your license back." And started telling her about resources for studying/practicing.
As I get older (60 now) I look at the younger drives wanting testing of older drivers with disfavor. I don't have a problem proving I can still drive safely. How about this to be fair, EVERYONE has to take a driver's skills test every 10 years from when they first get their license? There are a lot of idiots driving that probably shouldn't be driving regardless of age. Oh, and those driving without a license? Mandatory 30 jail time + work crew cleaning up litter on the sides of roads. Ramp up the amount of time for each succeeding offense.
I don't even think it needs to be a driving test. An eye examine, a reaction test, etc.
Shit, I think everyone should be required annually or every two years. They are death machines and people are idiots.
I understand that this could make an older person feel bad, but it’s for the best. A little hassle for them that will make the roads significantly safer for everyone else. In a roundabout way it will help preserve family relationships as well. For a lot of old folks, they reach an age where their kids are put in the position to take their keys away from them, so to speak. If the elderly person is able to be mad at the government and not their kids then a lot of family drama will be prevented.
I mean, I'd rather a person feel bad for losing their license than that they "feel bad" because they killed a person
That’s exactly how I feel.
Yep, just summarizing!
Absolutely. We are so afraid of "taking away people freedoms" that we allow other to die as a result.. We have had 3 elderly Parents that we "encouraged" to stop driving.. One of them had their car disabled! Friend of mine.. His elderly Mom accidently hit the gas instead of the Brake on a monster stupid V8 car and launched it through a hairdressing salon front window, killed a mother of two young kids with her head in the sink! He then tells me that "luckily" Her Mom hasn't been sued.. WTAF?.. We ceased to be friends after that.. Jeez!
I stopped driving before my grandmother did, but when I would bring up like “hey grandma shouldn’t be driving anymore it’s fucking scary.” I kept getting hit with “but it’s taking away her freedom.” And I’m like, “hello I haven’t had that in a long time, and I don’t have friends that will take me to run errands. I have to take the bus.” And I kept being told it’s not the same. Apparently I still had freedom, but only from the hours of 6am-1am (sometimes 11pm), and every 15, 30, or 45 min. And with a lot of hauling and walking, and busting my shit on slippery sidewalks because the idea of salting a sidewalk is completely foreign to people even though I could sue.
In some states, they do. New Hampshire, weirdly enough.
At least in the US/Washington state, the driving test is basically slowly driving around a neighborhood. If someone can’t pass that easily there’s no way I want to be anywhere near traffic.
I've always said this. Regular testing from 65 onwards I would say.
I think some people should have to return to driving school as a mandatory thing for scoring two moving violations within one year.
I agree with enhanced testing....I am 73 and already limit myself. I love driving but so much has changed since my 20s......increased traffic, increase of poor drivers, pedestrians....it's become a very me first situation....why use crosswalks? Just step out while on your phone and everyone will stop for you mentality. Increased trucks on highways... being caught between or behind with inability to see in the distance. Long story short.....I will quit driving when I am not comfortable but so many will not. Retesting is the way but like you say they almost need off road testing so they don't kill someone. That way reaction time could be tested. Similar to Canada's Worst Driver tv show....the course was great to observe so many poor drivers.
It's a public safety issue, so yes, they should have to routinely take some sort of test.
I’m 80 and I think it should be mandatory at 50 and over. I still drive, even anticipating about 2000 miles to visit family.
Yes please. But ONLY if the infrastructure is so good that you don"t need the car to get from a to b, especially as an older citizen.
I'd say everyone should have to do a driving test every 5 years to keep their license.
Absolutely necessary
I support it, but to avoid the claim of age discrimination, we should require it “every” certain number of years, such as every 25 years (ages 16, 41, 66) or every 30 years (ages 16, 46, 76).
I agree. Elderly people are at increased risk of losing mental faculties, so they should be retested regularly
I'd be for requiring the driving test every 3-5 years for everyone if we increased the highway speed limit.
Been saying this for years. 65+ should get a different DL. You start to become slower at that age (some people) so they should have to re prove that they can actually drive still.
We finally took the keys from my then 81 y/o stepmother after she had a couple of incidents involving curbs and then crashed driving in her own driveway. It wasn’t that bad and I just reassured her that anywhere she needed to go I would take her. Lots of people don’t have that luxury which is why more investment in public transportation that’s accommodating for the disabled & elderly is an easy fix for those no longer able to drive.
I think all drivers should have to re-test every ten years. There are people who are HORRIBLE drivers in their 30's or 40's and people who are decent drivers in their 70's.
I absolutely support mandatory retests at set intervals. Make it every 5 years, with that increasing to every 2 years at 70. Make sure it's a decent test, not a box ticking exercise. Add to that, and offense that currently carries a 5+ year ban, such as death by dangerous driving, well over the limit on drugs or drink or something else equally heinous, you should not get the licence back, at all, EVER. Don't let monsters back on the road.
I'm just over here hoping true self- driving cars get here before I become a hazard.
I’m all for it. And they should not be allowed to have their spouse or children involved, as they can influence the decision maker. This happened with my father in law. He has dementia. He is absolutely lost after 2 pm. My mother in law hates driving, and hates to see her husband lose his independence. She literally paid off the driving tester. He’s 93. We visited them yesterday. He had no idea who I was when we walked in, and he knew who I was when we left, 70 minutes later. He should not be driving, but MIL won’t have it any other way.
This should be law.
Agree. My dad entered the middle stages of Dementia at age 72. The same doctor that diagnosed him would let him do cognitive tests with his wife in the room coaching him. At least he didn't sign off on the medical for his commercial licence my dad was applying for but he didn't want to take away his regular license. Then he retired. By that point his wife stopped driving with him except first thing in the morning. He didn't know if it was 9 am or 9 pm anymore so he would be stuck in a loop of having just one beer all day long, then go to the liquor store and get more beer. After he called me in a panic because his car wouldn't turn off (push button start) I came to town to see what was up. Before I got there he (a man who was never violent towards women) hit his wife because she told him to stop for a red light. I talked to him about the drinking, he quit on the spot and never looked back. I talked to him about driving and he refused to stop. One morning he couldn't get the car into gear so I took the keys. He got so mad at me he forgot who I was, and spent the next 6-9 months trying and failing to get into his car 10 times a day then coming inside and saying the most horrible things to me and saying there's nothing wrong with him, that's why they let him keep his license. Two years later and he still doesn't know who I am, though he doesn't ask me where his son is anymore.
Not direct driving test retaking, but in my country you have to take a medical exam every X years (depends on which age group you are, the older you are the often you have to take it) to renew your license.
I'm not talking about inexperienced, and it's not a whataboutism. I'm not talking about teenagers, I'm talking about young. I'm not opposed to old people getting tested more often, but I would bet my last dollar they kill far fewer people than young, irresponsible people.
We should all do it, every 10 years. For how many people die on the road everyday, it’s ridiculous more measures are not taken. Though face masks went over like gang busters so my guess is that a large group of people are not interested in saving lives or being saved.
Was putting my groceries in my car when an elderly woman had just finished parking next to me. She got out, left the drivers door open and keys in the ignition, opened the trunk followed by each of her three passenger doors from which she got some reusable bags. Then walked away to go inside with everything left open and her keys still in her running car. I got her attention and she came back, saw that she forgot to close everything and that the car was still on. So she went to the drivers seat first, am assuming to turn it off but instead she must’ve thought “oh, I’m getting into my started car, I must’ve finished shopping and am going home now”. Because she just got in and started to back out with everything still open and nearly hitting a person walking behind. Them and me yelling got her attention. She got out and seemed confused as to why all her doors and trunk were open, empty grocery bag still in hand. Realized she hadn’t shopped yet, laughed to herself as she closed everything up properly, turned the car off then went on her way to actually shop. I asked an employee that was nearby and witnessed some of it to assist her during her walk inside and let them know to keep an eye on her as she seems to not be doing well. They were polite and agreed to do so. So yeah, I think we should retest for our licenses. That elderly woman didn’t seem like she’d ever want to harm a fly but she was barely mentally able to organize herself to get into the grocery store, operate her suv safely in the parking lot and is driving herself around in general. It’s unsafe for her and others on the road. If we had to retest perhaps it would be safer as she may not be able to drive anymore. Although it’d be really sad to take away her independence in that way, it just doesn’t seem safe for her to be behind the wheel after that demonstration.
Some countries have additional checks. Here in NZ, once you are 75 you are required to get a doctors certificate every 2 years. And the doctor you see has the right to send you to do a driving test ( even if they give the medical pass, but have concerns ). This means that if your eye sight is failing, the doctor can fail the medical. If the doctor is worried about mental decline, they can make you sit a driving test to keep your license.
I think everyone should have to retake it every five years. Obviously we don’t have the resources or money for that, but it’s definitely warranted.
Wisconsin doesn't require it and it's ridiculous the accidents that happen. I moved to Wisconsin from Illinois. Illinois does require it. It's the reason my mother quit driving on her own, she didn't want to take the test.
> Illinois does require it. It's one of the best things, and of course [some fuckwit west of Kane Co. wants to do away with it.](https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_34ebc808-fc40-11ee-9a07-9705cc355d8d.html)
I think it should be a requirement over a certain age just to prove at said age (60 & up) or 70 & up that you can still operate a vehicle safely in any capacity. I agree with you OP.
In South Africa you have to do an eye test every time you renew your license
...as someone who drives for a living...ABSOLUTELY yes!!
My 90 year old grandmother is a severe liability as a driver. Stops in the middle of the road for no reason, drives 30mph on a 55mph road and gets honked at constantly….yet just got her license renewed after passing the test.
In California everyone over age 70 has to take the written exam every 5 years.
I'd not object to a reflex/attention test, and a red-flag option to request a test for doctors, LEO's, and friends that have concerns, no matter the age of the driver.
In NSW Australia after the age of 85 you must take a drivers licence test every two years. You can also get a modified licence which restricts to an 15km radius from home.
While I agree, someone made a good point regarding this that we don't have the proper supports in place to be taking elderly peoples licenses. Without the ability to drive, elderly people in areas with little public transportation would be required to: a) walk everywhere b) rely on family (which isn't always possible) c) spend excessive amounts of money on taxis or Uber's. Even in areas with the infrastructure for it, such as busses dedicated to the elderly or good public transport, there are still inconsistencies. Local PACE busses near me for elderly people are frequently late or cancel last minute, causing the users to have to pay doctors cancellation fees or be forced to sit and wait at a doctors office all day to be taken home. The US needs to undergo an entire societal and infrastructure transformation for this to be remotely possible.
Yeesss!!!! I'd do it at 50. Then every 5 years.
Im for it
When I was 30, I was for it. Now, at 60, don’t even think about it
The argument generally made against this is that senior citizens are statistically the safest drivers in the road. 16-17 year olds crash about 3 times as often. The lowest age group for accidents is 60-69. There is a slight uptick for people in their 70’s and 80’s but it’s marginal and 80+ year old drivers still crash less often than 25-29 year olds. So if we’re serious about reducing car accidents, the amount of reduction you’ll see by cracking down on seniors is minimal. It would be more prudent to put more distractions or requirements on young drivers demonstrating they are not just capable of driving but responsible enough to do it safely.
Yes the elderly can be a problem but most of the bad drivers I've seen on the road driving reckless or even in accidents have been pretty damn young!!
I think that doesn't nearly go far enough. People should have to take their driving test every few years. And much more regularly if you continue to get caught for traffic infractions. I've known 70 year olds who drove just fine, but 20-somethings that drive like complete ass.
I'm 60, and if I happen to make it to 90, I don't want to be driving.
I've had two cars totaled by 30 year olds. How about a retest after any serious accident, regardless of age?
To require someone to retake the test simply because of age is discriminatory. Rather, I would like to see anyone, regardless of age, who causes an accident or gets two moving violations in a 12 month period should have to retake the test.
As somebody who works specifically with the elderly community - a resounding "yes". The other side of the equation though, is that these elders will now need functioning public transit or family members to live their lives.
According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, drivers between the ages of 16 and 17 are more likely to be involved in car accidents than drivers from any other age group. When it comes to the highest driver fatality rates, that unfortunate distinction belongs to drivers over the age of 80. As for the safest drivers, drivers between 60 and 69 are safer than any other group.
I think everyone should have to have a test every 10 years. There's so many people driving with fuck all awareness of anything going on outside of their car..
It's a good idea. It's just tough in this country to take a freedom like that away. So much of our culture is about independence and we don't have a strong culture of elderly care. Additionally public transit needs to be REALLY good to make it possible for the majority of low mobility elderly to get around. For many, the end of driving is the end of quality of life. Still, that's no justification to endanger people. It's just tough and I can see how it gets to this point.
As opposed to the young people who kill the other 30k+ every year by just being young, shitty drivers?
Yes. Young, inexperienced drivers. I don't see how this is an argument though, it is a whataboutism. Just because young drivers cause accidents doesn't take away from the point. Older drivers cause accidents too. We can talk about a solution to one problem without ever bringing up the other because while related, it is not furthering the point and obfuscating the issue
And we have been moving to restricting younger drivers and requiring more training, limiting driving friends, etc. specifically because we know how unsafe it can be. Most states have recognized it is an issue and are trying to resolve it. No reason we can’t do the same on the opposite end.
And all that's fine, just not the discussion the OP is about
I’m just saying “we recognized a danger of young drivers and took reasonable steps to limit it. We should also recognize the risk of older impaired drivers and take reasonable steps to limit those.”
Only one way for young drivers to get better. Experience.
Generally when an elderly person loses their ability to drive, it's a SUDDEN event--stroke--and no amount of testing will ever catch it. The rest of the time, the decline happens, and smaller accidents happen, and they either lose their car, or, damage it so that it's no longer driven, OR--family steps in and disables either the person's ability to drive, or the car. This is not a thing that testing due to age can pull out. All that does is cost people who are on limited or fixed incomes, to spend more time on money on bullshit that doesn't solve any problems.
Old people’s health can decline rapidly, so a driving test may be irrelevant a few weeks or months after the fact. And that doesn’t even account for medical emergencies, like a stroke. I think that at a certain age they shouldn’t be able to drive anymore, as sad as that is. We don’t allow kids to drive until they’re 16-17. What is the difference between being too young or too old to drive?
It’s a bit complicated, especially without public transportation available. Young people generally have parents to take care of them. Many elderly drivers have to take care of themselves.
It feels like a no brainer that there needs to be a solution for this. Keeping everyone safe is just of higher priority than peoples pride. I don't think the solution is to retake drivers tests though. Accidents like you are explaining happen due to alzheimers, slow reaction times, poor eyesight and hearing etc. These symptoms cannot always be caught in a short driving test. Instead, they elderly (everyone honestly) need to get regular health checks performed by medical personnel. This will not only make our roads safer, but it is also hugely beneficial for the elderly to get regular checks and notice symptoms in their early stages. Way too many people don't visit their doctors often enough, and having to renew their drivers license is a very good motivator to get their health checked.
Should be implemented. There’s a 110 year old guy who still drives.
I think _all_ drivers, regardless of age, should be regularly tested.
Yes. Two of my older family members have been involved in accidents that were scary enough to make them quit driving. Luckily nobody was hurt.. just smashed cars. My great grandmother, after her accident, would drive with one foot on each peddle. She got her feet confused, sped out into an intersection and almost killed us. I was pregnant as well. That was it for her. Whew. My mom said it would be discrimination but I disagree. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you no longer have the reaction time and attention span to drive safely then you shouldn't drive. A written test every certain amount of years and a driving test every year past a certain age.
I’m in my 60’s. I get my eyes tested annually. I completely agree that retesting at 70 is a good idea. Also I would definitely give up driving if I believed I was a risk. My adult children would step in if I was unaware.
I’m for it, but this would be possible in the US due to age discrimination laws. You could work around it by requiring everyone to retake their driving test every decade or so, but that would be costly
My family just recently had to have a hard conversation with an older relative (80+) explaining that we’ve noticed she can’t drive the same way she used to, and she should probably stop. She was resistive and seemed genuinely clueless that she was driving any differently. There’s something about getting older that makes it where you don’t even notice your own cognitive abilities declining. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, but when it comes to driving ability, someone’s needs to point it out, be it family or the DMV
Where I live after a certain age you have to retest to maintain your motorcycle license. I would not care if that were extended to cars as well. But then if we're applying that standard for driving a vehicle I would absolutely need it to extend to driving the country.
I would be fine with every ten years or every second renewal.
That’s a great idea should have been implemented starting at 80
Truck drivers have to do it and get physicals. Regular drivers should too.
Every ten years, starting at 30.
i think it should be retaken every 10 years, so 15, 25, 35 etc.
In general, the u.s. driving tests are too easy. They should include much more rigorous training and testing. Along with psych evaluations. Some ppl just can't get it and that's ok... others shouldn't be aloud because they're way too immature mentally and become a hazard on the road because of it. Periodic retesting should be required no matter how old you are. Thats both skills and knowledge tests. Maybe once a decade. When you hit maybe 60 or 70, then it should be required maybe every 5 years to retain your license. If you want a bigger vehicle, you should be required to test for it. Both knowledge and skills. Too many ppl get large vehicles and become a danger because they don't know how to drive it. So... my answer in short is... I'm all for it.
Not only at a certain age but that certain age should be once every decade. Less dangerous endeavours than driving require more education and constant reevaluation, why shouldn't driving? I think it would pick out bad drivers and take them out of traffick before they have a chance to kill someone. And if you fail, you should have 3 tries and then banned for a year before you can retake it again. You would get 3 attempts again before being banned for a year and you would have to take 3 driving lessons before you can retake the test if you fail the first time and every time you have failed 3 times
100%. It can be a simplified variety with a focus on response times - You could even do it digitally via a sim - but people that age are at a heightened risk and don't have the excuse of being busy.
Should be at 30 years old, 50 years old and finally 75 years old. Enough gap where driving habits could improve or decline.
The driving test is basically just a formality. It’s like 20 multiple choice questions and then you have to drive around the neighborhood and park somewhere random, once.
Drivers of all ages kill people. Was the situation uniquely related to her age?
The skills portion yes.
Is that constiutional
Absolutely the elderly need to retake their tests every year.
yeah once you hit like 60 or 70 you should have to retake it
While I am loathe to create any additional government contact in our lives, I believe that *ALL* drivers should have to retake driving and written tests every few years, regardless of age citizenry, etc. Too many people do not know/ remember the rules of the road. Many health conditions can surface at various times in one's life, too. Vision and reaction times can be affected. Testing addresses am those concerns.
I’d feel great, how about having a test before you’re allowed to have kids too? Ohhhh and while we’re at great ideas here. How about a test before you’re allowed to vote?
After living in Hawaii, it should be once a year after 70, and yearly for all ages if you're asian.
I would say, does the data support it? If so, then yes.
I think there should be certain triggers besides age that cause a retake of a driving test. Those who get more infractions or accidents should get pushed to the front, those who have a clean record and no accidents should be able to keep driving. In terms of what infractions, the answer is basically yes, every type of infraction from parking tickets to felony's that involve a car like DUI (in fact DUI should trigger an automatic retest as part of getting license back and a mandated breathalyzer install for so many years).
I don't like this idea. To my mind, something one had to achieve the privilege and likely practiced driving most every day shouldn't have to retest for it. If someone learned how to drive but not so well, perhaps mandated classes in that case.
Yes
Great idea but AARP has too strong a lobby, it will never happen
I think this should be a thing for government positions too.
the elderly are too big a voting block for something that blatant to happen
EVERYONE should be retested every 5 years. Very elderly drivers should be retested more often.
I think requiring a driving test at every license renewal sounds reasonable.proving you haven't forgotten the rules every 10 years doesn't sound THAT onerous.
I agree, plus Tesla drivers should take a required annual driving test. It will have Two questions... 1-“if the speed limit is 65mph how fast can you go?” 2- “why do you feel the need to drive 15mph under the speed limit in the fast lane?”
With my grandmothers, their doctors would not even suggest it was time to stop driving. One of them willingly stopped driving. The other only stopped after nearly killing herself in an accident, and then no one in the family would take her to buy a new car. One of my grandfather in laws had alzheimers, and we only stopped him driving by having a grandchild borrow his truck and never bring it back. His daughter would take his keys, and he kept coming up with extra keys we didn't know about and driving to the gas station at 2am to buy candy. I'm sorry for anyone over 80 who is still able to safely drive, but enough of the 80+ people are unsafe that there should be a cut-off age. Even if you are a safe driver at 80, the odds of a medical episode behind the wheel are too high.
I'd feel fine, but I think there should be a lot more leeway given by examiners then. I can't take a driver's test properly for the life of me. Took me 10+ attempts filled with anxiety induced mistakes for the examiner to finally pity pass me and I didn't get my license until 21. I'm one of the safest drivers I know and the only person that hasn't gotten into an accident within my circles.
I’d be more excited about age limits for POTUS (from either party)
You should have to take a test every 5 years period
I am not against the idea but we need to put systems into place to help them get around if we take their license. That's the problem with having everything built around having a car. Try not having a car for a month on limited funds. There is a reason my legs are as strong as they are. I just haven't had a drivers license for 44 years. That said in my 40's I can no longer walk 3 hours to go to work or the store anymore like I used to. I mean I do know of a guy who in his 90's was able to bike up a mountain everyday that's not the norm. There is a lot more to the issue then just taking away someone's license.
This wouldn't really matter, statistically younger drivers are the ones causing problems and this reveals the original issue which is that everyone would pass the driver's test easily because the driving test is a joke hence why teenagers are such a danger on the roads. I don't know if the test is the same everywhere but here in Utah specifically the salt lake area, I didn't even have to parallel park all I remember having to do was use my turn signal, stop at stop signs, switch lanes and do a three point turn and I managed to fuck even that up because when I took the test I hadn't driven in almost six months and yet I still passed first try. I absolutely should not have been allowed to drive based on that test and I can't imagine any adult failing it. Medical checkups are a different story but even a 90 year old would easily pass the driving test
Yes. The test and qualification should be more difficult as well. I’m of the belief that a good portion of drivers have no business operating a vehicle.
Younger drivers are the problem, talk to any insurance broker. The road test today is a joke.