I honestly feel some Senior Citizens should have their license revoked. Once you reached a certain age. Your reflex , vision , and hearing are not what they use to be. But then again , some Senior Citizens are in excellent health. I feel they should take an exam every 6 months to insure their health is still there.
While I agree in principle, I disagree with timing. Every 6 months is invasive and not necessary for most seniors. There is such a disparity in health between people at different ages, it would be impossible to try to regulate it. I've seen seniors who are so weak and ill at 65 that they can barely walk, let alone drive. On the other hand, I see seniors in their 80's who are spry and alert as many much younger than they are. So how does government regulate that? They can't.
My personal hope is that people of advancing age can realize when they are beyond the safe range of driving; but, unfortunately, one of the things that diminishes with age is judgment
In my opinion, of course.
Roz
One of my neighbours in Argentina was like 80 years old, he could not have his liscence back (they removed it from him) but he was still driving around, everytime he used to move his van, and the cars of the neighbors were around, they will actually move their cars because of fear of this guy to hit them, believe me the guy could not see anything and he will not listen even to his own wife to stop driving!!!!!!!
I live in an area that is largley "retirees" and a lot of elderly people. We actually have bumper stickers and T-Shirts that say "Pray for me, I drive in Hemet" and "I survived Florida Ave." It's almost funny, but we do have so many accidents by elderly people... it can be dangerous, sometimes.
I think they should have a bi-yearly and yearly for vision and hearing. If they can't past those then they should have their license revoked. Every time I drive all the elderly people I see they are gong really slow and can barely drive as it is. Mostly I feel sorry for them.
I agree with glyph, I feel sorry for them mostly. I do think that they should be required to take vision tests more often and get evaluated after a certain age. I just don't know what that time limit should be. I think that some people after 65 would still not need bi-annual reviews, but some would need them earlier.
I think a standard needs to be set and doctors and other health care providers required to notify the registry once a person can't meet the standard. This should have nothing to do with a specific age. In fact, if you try to tie it to an age you will be guilty of discriminating against seniors. There are many people under 65 who are not fit to drive either. There may be more above 65, but those under should be subject to the same screenings.
An example of such is epilepsy. I had a room mate who was in her early 30's when she had a seizure. It was the first she had had. She needed to not drive until they could be reasonably sure she wouldn't have another. They put her on meds and wanted to be sure they would control future seizures. Well, she didn't stop driving at all because it was too much of an inconvenience not to drive. In such a case the doctor should have been required to notify the registry so that he right to drive could be revoked temporarily. This was not specific to age. I don't believe in making a law based upon age. It may be true that the older you get the more likely you will suffer from certain ailments, but the laws can address the ailments without setting an age limit.
I agree with FunBikerChick. If you want to require additional tests then everyone needs to be subject to these tests not just senior citizens. I thought that everyone underwent an eye test when they got their license renewed anyway, shouldn't this weed out at least the most severe cases? I don't have any evidence to back me up but my own experiences, but I feel that older drivers are still safer than young drivers. (I live in a college town though and this might be the cause of my opinion)
-Unferth