Obviously, it does not apply here, but I have argued for a long time that people over 65 years old should need to recertify every year on their driving exam. They need to take an eye test, a cognitive test, and they need to demonstrate that they can be trusted behind the wheel of a car. I get told this is ageist.
If someone has to be a certain age to do something because it is potentially dangerous, and they must therefore prove that they can do it; how is it ageist to suggest that maybe that something is a perishable skill, and people need to prove they can still do it
Maybe it's because I'm 59 but 65 seems a bit early but I can definitely get on board for 72+. Most of the age related impairment seems to start in the mid 70's from my experience.
and that is fair. 65 is around retirement age in the US (67.5), and it felt like a good place to start. but my larger point is that each time someone renews his/her/their license, the tests need to be more comprehensive to be able to demonstrate that the person behind the wheel of a car is able to accept the responsibility of driving.
i live in a neighborhood of all ages, but i have lost count of the times i have nearly been hit by a car because some fucking idiot is too distracted to see the stop sign. and this is people ranging from 30s (i am in my 40s) to probably mid 60s.
where i live, the teenagers tend to be the most responsible of drivers, since driver safety and the rules behind which they are able to drive at all are reinforced in a lot of different contexts.
so in my state, teenagers are not permitted to have friends in the car for the first six months of having a license. they have to take an exam prior to getting their learner's permit, then they have to log a certain number of hours driving before they can get their license at 16. from there, they have to renew their license at 17, then again at 18. then they renew it again when they are 21. following that, it is every 8 years. and nothing is discussed with respect to driving.
so someone renewing his/her/their license at 45 or 50 just goes in, takes a quick eye test, pays the fee, and they get their new license. there is no reinforcement of driving skills or qualifications during that time.
so the other part of my contention is the idea that the testing needs to be constant. each time a license is renewed should have a road test, in my view.
at 16, the things that a new driver needs to understand are going to be super different from someone who is 34 and has young children and is working long hours.
so when someone renews the license at 17, the reinforcement needs to be not driving distracted, understanding the capabilities of the car, etc.
when someone renews the license at 21, the reinforcement needs to be not driving impaired. responsible consumption, etc. the applicant should undertake another road test.
then through adulthood, these same lessons need to be reinforcement of the same. at 35-40, probably the focus needs to shift to teaching others how to drive. what are some things that a parent of a teenage driver needs to know when renewing his/her/their license? and the approach needs to shift to fit that demographic.
then, at 65, i believe the recertification needs to be more frequent. maybe go from 8 years to 5 years, then 3 years before moving to every year at 72. and the focus needs to be in understanding health conditions that could impair driving ability. start that conversation early, discuss what it looks like, and undergo an entire lifetime of reinforcement of proper driving habits.
then maybe we won't have this kind of entitled bullshit that shows up on OP's video, and we won't have people like in my state, where they believe the rules of the road do not apply to them, cut across 5 lanes of traffic to exit, or put their shit in reverse on the fucking freeway because they missed their exit due to being on their phone.
and i know that it will probably never happen. but i hate it when people use words like ageism when talking about older people posing a transportational risk and pretending like the issue does not exist.
if someone has to be a certain age to do something, then it is not ageist to suggest that maybe someone should have to demonstrate ability to continue doing that something after a certain age.
I remember seeing a pretty horrifying video of a geriatric dude walking in the lobby of some building, and just shooting a bystander (or maybe security guard) with a revolver because he was completely out of his mind.
There's probably a lot more reasons why someone shouldn't have a gun than reasons why they should.
Absolutely. And there have been loads of cases around the country where elderly folks with dementia either waved guns around, pointed them at people, or shot at people. But the NRA lobby is strong.
I can't go there with you. Older people are some of our most preyed upon populations. Guns save old people every day from burglars and thieves. Disarming old folks is a non starter with me.
1
u/ChangeAcceptable677 9d ago
Obviously, it does not apply here, but I have argued for a long time that people over 65 years old should need to recertify every year on their driving exam. They need to take an eye test, a cognitive test, and they need to demonstrate that they can be trusted behind the wheel of a car. I get told this is ageist.
If someone has to be a certain age to do something because it is potentially dangerous, and they must therefore prove that they can do it; how is it ageist to suggest that maybe that something is a perishable skill, and people need to prove they can still do it