Heck, I’d support regular testing for everyone. Laws change, best practices change and regular testing is a good way to keep most up to date. It would cost, be a hassle and extremely unpopular. But if it saves lives and/or make traffic softer it is worth it.
Oh I know man, I know
What are they going to do instead. Apparate?
In the Netherlands you are tested every 5 years after the age of 70. So many people lose their licence and end up stuck in the middle of nowhere because there is no public transport and most affordable retirement homes have been shut down. So my dad, who is in his eighties and has passed his tests so far, drives around looking after them.
I thought cities in the Netherlands were required to have public transit?
@starlinguk @veganpizza69 the village I live in has a on-demand shuttle bus for seniors. This is not hard to solve for.
Them not driving is a small inconvenience compared to the risk of killing themselves or someone else. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege with real and dangerous consequences. The ability to do it safely needs to remain the most important factor when distributing licenses.
@Zana @RGB3x3 It’s quite funny how the whole premise of this sub/community is “it’s insane that driving cars is the main option for transportation in many places, we should strive for our cities/countries to build other, better, more sane options” but there’s always a comment in every post reminding us that there “aren’t any other options.”
All too often I think the discussion misses the fact that there is no alternative to driving for the vast majority of US citizens. Busses, trains, walking, biking, etc are not viable options because US infrastructure & city planning overwhelmingly neglects everything but the automobile.
It is supposedly a personal moral failing every time someone drives too old, too tired, or too impaired, but if trains, busses, & walking were the default ways to get around then this chronic societal problem would diminish dramatically. Incompetent driving is rooted in systemic failures, not personal moral ones.
I recently saw some numbers, published by an automobile club, that suggested drivers over the age of 70 are involved in only 13% of crashes. My first thought was, that number is only that low because every other driver is already very cautious around old people in cars. And they usually drive rather slow. Still no reason to defend older people in death machines.
Just put them into relation with factors like “distance driven”, and the picture turns upside down.
Suddenly, the old people who don’t commute daily or drive children around to school and other activities like younger people do, but only drive to the supermarket twice a week and to church on Sunday end up in a different place on the statistics.
also probably they drive less, as they’re likely to no longer be working for a living and so don’t commute?
You are right! I didn’t even thought that far. It just made me kind of mad.
