Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can’t we trust them to drive? /s
Hmm
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias alongside AARP Illinois
Guess the old regulations might have been eating into profits
Still out of 55,000 administered tests only 97 failed. Imho they should keep the restriction because it did remove 97 unsafe drivers.
However, This also creates a path for immediate family members to report unsafe elderly family members.
So is it midlyinfurating? I suppose in that it may allow unsafe drivers to stay on the roads but with immediate family reporting it could also be a wash. I very much doubt these changes will pull more unsafe drivers than the regulations from before since family members will probably be hesitant to report elderly family members
Should be every 2 years past age 60 if you want to keep your license.
Sorry, for every 20 year old doing 90, there’s ten seniors wobbling between 2 lanes in a giant SUV intentionally purchased to protect them from the accidents their diminished capacity will cause, about to do a double lane change in the opposite direction of their blinker that’s been on since they left their driveway.
Ive always found it bonkers that young drivers with the sharpest reflexes are punished to the maximum from insurance to rental car rates, as they should, while no one dares punitive action against people who literally lack the faculties to drive safely if they wanted to and incur the wrath of AARP and the like. But those necrotic seniors make the rules, sadly. They can cause accidents with abandon, but some thing’s gotta be done about those young maniacs on the road driving 10 over the speed Limit as you drive 30 under it with white, arthritic knuckles on the steering wheel for dear life, calling your impromptu roadblock “safe.”
This is… really specific…
Spent 10 years driving around in a city with a lot of retirement communities setting up home medical equipment. Was a daily blight for me.
My nanna drove until 80. My Nana shouldn’t have driven until 80. He hit something once a week
personally i think everyone should be required to retake a driving test every 10 years it’s absurd you only take it once at 16ish
I think driving tests should be abolished, 30h of driving lessons will not teach you how to drive, it will at best teach you how to pass the test. You only actually learn how to drive properly after passing the test by driving by yourself, so the driving test proves nothing, it only gives you a false impression of your own abilities.
And to the people who disagree; how many idiots with licenses are on the road? How many idiots with suspended licenses are on the road? How many idiots without licenses are on the road? Did the law stop them? No. Because it’s a classic example of a law that only affects the people who didn’t need to be told to behave in the first place; and all of those who it should apply to the most will just ignore it. As it stands this law only further disenfranchises low income families by adding extra cost to their children’s path to adulthood and provides minimal to negative safety benefit.
I failed my first drivers test because my car had stickers for democrat candidates on it.
It’s kinda amazing how much leeway they have.
so the driving test proves nothing
The driving test proves you can competently drive to a safe standard. I agree that you learn more through experience, but first you need to be able to drive to a particular standard before being allowed to drive on your own.
What’s the alternative if there’s no test? You just allow anyone who reaches the driving age to get in a car and drive on their own?
Yes, the smart ones will start by learning the rules and training with friends/family in an empty parking lot, then once they grasp the basics they’ll move on to driving short distances to home/school/work under the guidance of an experienced driver. Once they memorize the road they’ll be able to drive by themselves until they feel comfortable enough to try a different route… Basically do the same things they would to train for the test, just without the cost and the time limit.
The dumb ones will do dumb shit no matter how many guardrails you put in front of them, especially if they’re legal and not physical. If someone won’t think twice before getting into a 2 ton bullet they have no idea how to safely operate because the prospect of pulling out in front of a semi or ending up in a ditch or wrapped around a tree don’t scare them then tickets, jail or other legal trouble certainly won’t either.
And not just as a refresher/competency test! It should also be a chance to educate on updates like legislation that get passed, safety information and tips as research improves, and new traffic controls like double diamonds or roundabouts that weren’t in use when people learned to drive in their youth.
But at a minimum you should have to re-validate that you are a competent and safe driver every decade or so, agreed.
I don’t know what makes roundabouts so hard that 90% of people stop in my town when nothing is in it instead of yield like the sign they had seen in their drivers test.
I like your ideas.
As someone who learned to drive in 2 weeks and then passed the test 20+ years ago it’s kind of bonkers that I can get into a car and start driving rn. I haven’t driven since passing the test. I have no idea what many of the signs mean.
You guys are retaking driver’s tests?
Seriously, I haven’t taken one since getting my license in the 90s.
that’s what i mean. i think they should be required to retake it. it’s wild that you only do it once as a teenager.
Agreed!
We also don’t have emissions tests. Pretty sure both are the result of being a mostly agricultural state as in the past both requirements would disproportionately impact farmer’s time and ability to work if they failed either one. We really should start requiring both.
In PA emissions are required in populated areas, in the boonies they don’t have get emissions.
What’s the frequency for forklift/crane certificates or similar? Driving a car should be regulated similarly (with the proviso that it is accepted that many blameless people will be found unfit to drive, and society should accommodate them by means other than lowering safety standards).
Forklift certs last for 3 years, but the test isn’t much. You take a quiz (can be all done online), and then someone at your workplace who is a certified instructor gives you some pointers.
I wouldn’t base car licensing around that. It’s almost nothing.
My work just had the warehouse driver show me the controls and move a couple of pallets. Now i’m forklift certified.
Still more than some of the covid era driver exams had… (Cousin in a small town spent less than 15 mins with the proctor)
I know a couple of people who just had to pass a written test (basic multiple choices test on sign recognition and road laws) and no behind the wheel test. Heck my wife’s best friend lived somewhere where one person out of every class could get their license without any behind the wheel test. They’d draw names out of a hat and the lucky individual just had to pass the written test
With how dangerous cars are, retesting and recertification should be required with every renewal. An hour or two of class time to cover “here’s what’s new this decade” plus a 20 minute behind the wheel test would filter a lot of people who really shouldn’t be driving away from their licenses
On the other hand, there’s a ton of people who drive without a valid license regularly due to barriers to getting one and infrastructure that prevents any alternative method of getting around, so this would probably just exacerbate this issue
This is your regular reminder that it’s generally not older people who are high-risk drivers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628ce5c7e90e071f68b19dfa/02-image-2.svg
Drivers get safer until about 70, and only get less safe than your average young driver when over 86.
There is a perception that older drivers are an absolute liability on the roads, which I can only assume stems from impatient people who get frustrated when stuck behind an older driver going more slowly than they’d like.
That’s from the UK? I don’t think you can extrapolate UK driving data to the US. Roads and car use don’t compare at all.
In the absence of forthcoming data (hint hint), what factors do you think differ between the UK and USA which affect the ability of very old/very young drivers?
Not every 70 YO is the same health. Some can barely see at that age, or at night. There are also plenty of health issues or medications taken at this age which could affect reactions or alertness. Not saying it can’t happen to the young, but it’s far more prevalent.
Fact is that if you want to spend some money, time or political capital on improving road safety, targeting older drivers is not where you should focus your efforts. The fact that it frequently is, is due to ageism.
You’re arguing against factual stats with some kind of generic “old people have old people problems sometimes” ?
Yes. The young are reckless causing most of their accidents. We do what we can to prevent those accidents, seems like we could do a lot more. The old have accidents from downsides of aging/slowing reaction times/health issues. We can definitely do more than just hoping their kids take the keys away before it’s too late. One idea is regular driver’s tests starting at a certain age.
I wonder if raising the licencing age to 25 would reduce the curve or just shift it to the right
in case anyone’s wondering, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021, the life expectancy in Illinois was 77.1
Life expectancy is a useless metric for this purpose. Maybe it would be more useful if you used “life expectancy at age 10” (so after any childhood illnesses), but even then it doesn’t really say anything about what the process senescence looks like.
Maybe it’ll save money. Illinois is broke and we’re one of the last good states
Arent the drivers required to pay the fee?
I would say 79 is way too high, seniors should be tested every 5 years after 65. Another commentor points out we should be doing every 10 years which is a decent idea as well.
frankly there should at least be an online refresher and test that people have to take every year, traffic laws change and people forget things.
But changing traffic laws isn’t what makes people bad drivers.
Everyone should have to take the written AND driving portion of the test every 10 years or so.
What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?
People choose to ignore speed limits, roll through stop signs, pass illegally, use their mobile devices etc. but they’d follow the rules for the duration of a test for the same reason they slow down when they see a cop on the side of the road.
To be clear, I don’t really have a preference one way or the other but I’m struggling to understand the purpose of both a written and practical portion for renewal.
It’s true that it would do nothing for someone who deliberately breaks the law but, especially when it comes to the elderly, poor vision and reaction time is a big factor in driving ability - both would be obvious during a practical exam.
Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?
In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it’s on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don’t get to renew.
Because things change? People get worse at different ages? I dunno man, I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
Legally using a 2-ton murder machine. The requirement itself doesn’t actually stop anyone from driving.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I don’t even know how you’d prove it prevents deaths. The increased fatal crash risk among older drivers is largely due to their increased susceptibility to injuries, particularly to the chest, and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.
I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I’m thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?
I’m all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it’s always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn’t create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.
Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don’t forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven’t been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.
The only reason this would need to be a bill is if people are upset that they are failing the exam. Which means they qre failing the exams, to the surprise of no one.
What we should be doing instead is making our neighborhoods more accessible to those without cars. I’m sure they feel like their mobility is gone if they lose their license, but that shouldn’t be the case to begin with.
Really, you can’t think of any reason to be upset that you’re required to take an exam that you then pass?
I mean the general logic of it isn’t totally off the wall, any more so than say why we’re annoyed that ID laws make it harder to vote.
But I could still 100% say, obviously if you need/want a drivers license, it’s fair to say you have reliable transportation. At 79 you are almost certainly either not working, or so well established wherever you are that you aren’t at risk of getting fired for needing to schedule a 3 hour trip to the DMV.
I expected the main writers of the bill to be about 78, but they look younger. (I’m not digging into it more)
No one over the age of 70 should drive. It’s simply not safe. Like putting a 7 year old in front of the wheel.
Hard disagree. People age very differently, depending on how well they take care of themselves. I know plenty of people I their 70s who are still fully capable of driving.
Implementint a driving test at 70 does make sense.
