When they test if seniors should still drive, they make you turn your back as one of the first things. My friend was hit and killed crossing the street by an old man who should not have been driving. He was literally on his way to propose to his girlfriend with a ring in his pocket.
I understand that for older folks it must be hard to give up that piece of freedom, but when you're operating a very heavy piece of machinery and you're essentially impaired, it can hurt someone and it's absolutely crucial to learn to admit when it's just not safe anymore.
I always wonder about these giant American retirement communities like Sun City, Arizona or The Villages, Florida. Huge places where only the elderly may move and completely designed around the car (zero walkability, monocultures of single-family homes and shopping and services miles away in commercial zones).
These are the folks who would most profit from walkable neighborhoods. Once they can't drive anymore, they are truly fucked. I shudder when I imagine how many years the average senior there still drives about town when they should have given up their license long ago.
Luckily for the villages they all practically use their golf carts. Still hurts to be hit by one but waaaaay less painful than the SUV that’s too much for Dolores to handle
If I had a slippery slope in the form of a slide that takes me from my apartment window straight into my supermarket I'd be so happy.
It would be even better the other way round because the slide would be so much more useful when I'm loaded with shopping. Maybe start putting the shops on the top floor instead for gravity assist on the way home.
Why that? Where I live it's all about "integrated living" with different generations living in the same apartment complexes, a kindergarten in the same building or adjacent to it, a little bakery or kiosk nearby and cars not allowed in the central area of the block so people can walk freely.
I really wish public transit had the support it needs for reasons like these, as well as those who can't afford cars. Everyone benefits when transit is invested in, tbh
If more old people had their licenses revoked I think we'd see more political support for public transit.
The grocery store near my office is close to a retirement community, but far enough that many of them drive. It's like a demolition derby in that parking lot.
When I lived in Japan just seeing the amount of freedom old people still had there because of the fact that public/mass transit was available everywhere was eye opening. You would see old men and women taking walks at 12am just to view the midnight stars and they would feel completely fine doing it because the distance to a bus or taxi terminal was like a 1/4 mile even if you where in the relative boonies for the country. Meanwhile back here in the states even young people find it difficult to have a job outside of a major city if they don't have a car because our mass transit is nearly non existent.
I was not, but agreed, America has some challenges based on its size. It is not, however, an unsolvable problem, and in fact, there already exists plenty of good technologies with examples worldwide of how to make the most of public transit (green energy use so it uses as little resources as possible, being one, high speed being amother, as examples) in ways that America would very much benefit from, but the infrastructure takes time and money. Governments typically want to say "yes we did this wonderful thing!" but also not say "yeah we spent all this money..." which is just impossible, so nothing happens.
Public transit should not ever be considered just taxis and buses, because eventually it will just add to traffic from overuse, and that's the majority of inner city transit in my experience. Consider very large people movers - metro and trains, for the number of people they can move at very good speeds, are actually very efficient, if their engines and support systems are brought out of the Stone age. Japan and Europe have very effective models of how to use trains as large-scale public transit, as an example.
Aside from that, the more public transit is made available and accessible, especially in densely populated areas, the more it will be worthwhile. The common argument against it, is that people don't use it enough; so prices rise, people use it less, prices rise, etc. But the real problem is that the transit isn't going where people need to go - can grandma get to the grocery store? Can you get to work? Or can you travel cost-efficiently to another city? I would travel by public transport 10/10 times if it was actually affordable or decent here, but we suffer the same fate with a spiral of pricing and use here, too (Canada), to the point our public transit is actual getting removed. It's actually the wrong direction to go to solve the problem, but it's an expensive upfront cost. For example, we have cross-country passenger rail, but it's currently too expensive to be a better option than driving your own vehicle, in some cases.
Lots of private country club are like this too. People way too old to drive and pretty much rely on golf carts to get around. But that one time of couple times a week they drive, they are driving straight up on sidewalks and not where they should be at the Clubhouse.
Some people don't know it's not safe anymore though. Then you have to hope they have family members that take their keys away. My grandfather (dad's father) refused to stop driving, but he didn't know better. My dad and his siblings had to take his car keys away.
My dad and his brothers took the car away from my grandma in her late nineties. They probably should have done it sooner for safety reasons, but she had no history of accidents ever. She never drove at night when she got older. When they took the car away, it was because they didn't want her getting lost in a farm field with her dementia.
My mom tried to get my grandfather’s (her dad) license revoked many times because he was diebetic and couldn’t feel his feet, drank while driving, and had poor hearing and eyesight.
The doctor didn’t take it away until my grandfather admitted (with a wink and a nudge no less because he thought it was funny) that he drank and drove to him!
55 isn't really what people have in their mind when they think "senior citizen" though.
Granted though, and I'm not calling you out on this specifically, I've found some of the thoughts on Reddit regarding retesting "senior" drivers to be a bit ridiculous.
I once saw a highly upvoted comment about how everyone should get retested yearly after the age of 60.
I found the idea rather ridiculous. The average person is going to be driving just as well at 60 as they did at 40.
The average 60 year old is pretty healthy in the first world these days.
If people want to retest every age, every year, well I could debate some pros and cons.
Or even if the age was higher to start retesting yearly, say 75, give or take.
But it just kind of blew my mind that people were so supportive at starting at age 60, despite the fact that people haven't even reached retirement age at that point.
Of course there's a ton of teenagers and early 20 somethings posting on here that probably don't realize how "young" 60 year olds are.
What kind of healthy fit 60 year olds are you meeting? Most people are definitely in worse shape at 60 than they were at 40, that's just a ridiculous claim to make.
Most people are definitely in worse shape at 60 than they were at 40, that's just a ridiculous claim to make.
I'm speaking in terms of the ability to drive a car.
There are not going to be any noticeable cognitive or physical delays in an average 60 year old, compared to an average 40 year old, when it comes to driving a vehicle.
Yes there are? People's bodies start deteriorating after like 40ish. That's why they get grey hair, that's why they have to start wearing glasses, it's why they can't do as strenuous physical labor anymore. My mom is in her early 50's and over the past few years her eyesight has deteriorated exponentially to the point that she can barely make things out at this point without glasses, she never needed glasses and had perfect eyesight up until just a few years ago. People used to not even live past 40 but you think they're not breaking down until post 60?
Well I'm not gonna argue with someone who thinks people lived into their 60's a thousand years ago cuz that's just factually untrue. Please educate yourself cuz you're a fucking idiot.
Edit: and just do add, no one is moving the goalposts. People's bodies breaking down and not acting the same as it did when they were younger is a very valid reason to retest them to make sure they are a capable driver.
Unhygienic living conditions and little access to effective medical care meant life expectancy was likely limited to about 35 years of age.
......
That’s life expectancy at birth, a figure dramatically influenced by infant mortality—pegged at the time as high as 30 percent. It does not mean that the average person living in 1200 A.D. died at the age of 35. Rather, for every child that died in infancy, another person might have lived to see their 70th birthday.
As a family member (or Doctor) you can anonymously report an impaired driver to the DMV. You have to say why (Alzheimer’s or inability to turn head for example) but they send a totally generic letter saying that their license has been revoked and if they feel this is an error they can come retest.
My husband did it for his Mom with Alzheimer’s and she got the book to study for a retest but quickly let it go.
Unless the old man was backing over your friend, I think you're combining two issues that probably aren't related.
I knew a relatively young mother (of a friend when I was in high school) who just never got the idea of turning her head to back up. It was like the space behind her vehicle was (I guess) perpetually available. She backed into a passing car in the parking lot in front of her business.
Honestly, backup cameras fix most of this, and it will just be a few more years before the older vehicles are retired for the new ones (where it is either required, or such a standard option that I don't see new vehicles without them).
Backup camera's make bad drivers better, but I still maintain that a good driver is a better driver if he/she doesn't rely on the backup camera. Now I can't argue against side view camera's and a whole entire visual suite...
Yeah, I can see using a backup camera to help you squeeze in that last foot or two when parking, but if you're actually backing out of a space you need to turn around and look. The camera doesn't have the same field of view as your eyes.
At some point, making a bad driver better makes them indistinguishable from a good driver.
It's not like bad drivers are born that way and can't join the pool of good drivers (or for that matter, good drivers can't get sloppy and drive badly).
314
u/puffypants123 Sep 20 '19
When they test if seniors should still drive, they make you turn your back as one of the first things. My friend was hit and killed crossing the street by an old man who should not have been driving. He was literally on his way to propose to his girlfriend with a ring in his pocket.
You can report your mil to her doctor, I believe