How come people who have several drunk driving convictions aren't tested more rigorously? What about people who have had several accidents? Or people with several citations for speeding or driving through stoplights?
I have absolutely no problem with that....
After a license suspension or revocation, testing is more rigorous and frequent.
Which is as it should be. (Though I suspect it probably varies from state to state.)
Joe Guy wrote:
But you want to have 'rigorous testing' based on the age of a person rather than his or her driving record.
Where's the logic or the fairness in that?
Because it is logical, and a good move, to test people who may not be aware of the extent to which their facilities have declined.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Need I mention that the conservative states have the highest traffic death rates?
Deaths per 100M vehicle miles traveled:
Montana 2.0 RED
Louisiana 1.8RED
South Carolina 1.8 RED
West Virginia 1.8 RED
Arkansas 1.8 RED
Mississippi 1.7 RED
North Dakota 1.7 RED
Kentucky 1.7 RED
Oklahoma 1.6 RED
Alabama 1.5 RED
Idaho 1.5 RED
Tennessee 1.4 RED
Wyoming 1.4 RED
New Mexico 1.4 RED
South Dakota 1.4 RED
Texas 1.3 RED
Arizona 1.3 RED
Florida 1.3 RED
Kansas 1.3 RED
Alaska 1.3 RED
Delaware 1.3
Missouri 1.3
North Carolina 1.3
Pennsylvania 1.2
Iowa 1.2
Nevada 1.2
Georgia 1.2
Nebraska 1.2
United States 1.1
Oregon 1.1
Maine 1.1
Hawaii 1.1
Rhode Island 1.0
Colorado 1.0
Maryland 1.0
Vermont 1.0
Wisconsin 1.0
California 1.0
Virginia 0.9
Utah 0.9
Ohio 0.9
Indiana 0.9
Michigan 0.9
New York 0.9
Washington 0.9
Illinois 0.9
New Hampshire 0.9
District of Columbia 0.8
New Jersey 0.8
Minnesota 0.7
Connecticut 0.7
Massachusetts 0.6
Joe Guy wrote:
But you want to have 'rigorous testing' based on the age of a person rather than his or her driving record.
Where's the logic or the fairness in that?
Because it is logical, and a good move, to test people who may not be aware of the extent to which their facilities have declined.
Not to mention the fact that teen drivers are going through a process of learning and improvement of their skills, while the elderly are going through a process of progressive deterioration of their skills.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
Also, in many jurisdictions new drivers are subject to a graduated licensing system in which they are subjected to restrictions on their driving until they gain more experience, which has demonstrated success in reducing accidents.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
As the graph below indicates, it's young republicans driving fast, not old democrats driving slow that cost this nation the most money. They also cause serious injuries, job loss, unfunded pensions and a lower bee population.
There should be no government mandated age to give up your right to drive a car. Relatives and friends of people who can't drive safely should be the ones who should convince or not allow someone who has lost the ability to drive safely.
Driving is not a RIGHT but rather a privledge.
I expect to go straight to hell...........at least I won't have to spend time making new friends.
Miles wrote:
Driving is not a RIGHT but rather a privledge.
You're correct, Miles (privilege). Driving is not a Constitutionally protected right but we all are allowed to drive. My point is that elderly people should not be automatically considered inept just because they've reached a certain age. There are plenty of young people that are terrible drivers that may never get a ticket or have a serious accident but they won't be scrutinized until they turn 70 yrs old.
Scooter wrote:They aren't "automatically" considered anything. If they pass their routine re-tests, they can drive. Why is that so unfair?
As the graph below clearly indicates, the 'rigorous tests' should be given to everyone, not just one group of our society. And notice how the graph demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that most elderly people who drive are democrats.
Joe Guy wrote: My point is that elderly people should not be automatically considered inept just because they've reached a certain age.
Should we wait for them to prove they are inept first Joe? Say by running someone down?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
There should be no government mandated age to give up your right to drive a car. Relatives and friends of people who can't drive safely should be the ones who should convince or not allow someone who has lost the ability to drive safely.
Driving is not a RIGHT but rather a privledge.
Joe--how could a relative/friend "not allow" someone to drive. If i own a car and have a license, no one (other than a judge or policeman) is going to "not allow" me to drive. Yes, they could try and convince me that I shouldn't, but there is no legal way they could prevent me from driving if I chose to.
Miles wrote:
Joe--how could a relative/friend "not allow" someone to drive. If i own a car and have a license, no one (other than a judge or policeman) is going to "not allow" me to drive. Yes, they could try and convince me that I shouldn't, but there is no legal way they could prevent me from driving if I chose to.
If a friend or relative cannot convince the old fogey to quit driving, he/she could report the dangerous situation to the fogey's doctor and/or the Dept of Motor Vehicles.
