Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 07-11-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhaedas
I agree it's not age, but ability that's the factor.

Testing frequency should be increased, as well as what is tested. I don't think a simple vision and written test is enough, a driving test should be required as well. Maybe not every year, as the vision should be, but an elderly person could understand the rules and have adequete vision, and yet not have the coordination to drive safely.

The families and the drivers themselves should make those decision way before any testing determines them a threat, but simply handing someone a license without knowing if they are capable of the necessary reaction times is dangerous.

Are driving simulators used at all these days for driving tests? That would take the load off of personnel and the time needed for actual driving tests, while pinpointing who may need further testing.

I don't see much need for written tests for the elderly--I'm sure they know the rules of the road. I doubt even driving tests are going to show much.

What I would like to see is the use of simulators (they don't need to be the ultra-realistic things used for airline pilots, something a bit better than I've seen in the arcades years ago would be good enough) that present emergency situations.

I saw the same thing others mentioned in my father. Nothing beyond a fender bender ever resulted but for many years I would not ride with him. The last trip I rode with him I witnessed several minor traffic violations in the course of a 10 mile trip. All were a failure to note the details of what was around (such as turning left from a traffic lane when there was a turn lane available).

What it seems to me with the elderly is what goes first is the ability to process as much data as is needed--they overload and some things simply don't register. That's why I think they need to be tested in simulated emergencies--that's where it's going to show up first.

I've known too many old people who won't drive on the freeways or other congested situations but think they are ok under light traffic. Sorry--an emergency is heavier traffic than the worst of regular traffic.

Misso · 07-11-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by donaldkilroy
Pedestrians Hit By Car Off Highway 99

91 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the hell was this freakin old woman even doing behind the wheel of a car!!!!!

NINETY-ONE YEARS OLD!!!

Some people say young people behind the wheel are a hazard, I say maybe but I find older people to be a far greater concerned.

In my lifetime I have either seen or been a victim of an older person behind the wheel of a car one time too many. More so than a younger person.

With younger people it's the "it can never happen to me" syndrome and they merely act stupid. With older people they are simply are in denial about the fact that they are just too old, too damn slow (e.g., driving slow, reaction time, etc.), and entirely too obnoxious (e.g., making lane changes without looking, without using a signal, coming to complete stops when making turns, running red lights, hitting people walking alongside the road, falling asleep at the wheel and veering across the center line and hitting another car head-on, etc.).

When are we going to wake up and start making it tougher for people to keep their license the older they get!?!?!?! :banghead:

I say increase the number of times they need to take a written and/or driving exam each year and anytime an accident such as in this article happens their license needs to be suspended indefinately!

donaldkilroy

Good idea, lets base a whole policy on one incident. Granted, there are more of these incidents, but not everyone over 80 drives like a madman. I have an uncle that killed someone in traffic, he was about 40 at the time. This doesn't mean that anyone over 35 should lose their licenses. Maybe someone knows of some statistics of the age/accident correlation, but even if that correlation is high I think that a capability-test will work better than denying everyone over a certain age their driverslicense.

The Other Michael · 07-11-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
. . . the ability to process as much data as is needed--they overload and some things simply don't register.

Just like all the young(er) people driving around with their phone glued to their ear (and probably a cup of coffee in the other hand, at least here in the Bay Area).

Once a reasonable age is reached (at which that most people can be presumed to have some minimum level of maturity/judgement) the driving privilege should depend on ability.

A reasonable age seems to be somewhere in the mid-teens, though that will vary with the individual driver (some are never going to meet the requirements).

I've driven with "elderly" drivers that were way less scary/dangerous than some people half (or a third) their age.

cheers,
Michael

Majestyk · 07-11-2003, 02:00 PM

There ought to be some statistical data that would be easily obtainable by, anyone who proposes setting an age limit on driving privileges, that would either demonstrate their case or refute it.

Otherwise, the mentality of declaring such a thing necessary is no different from stereotyping drivers by their sex or race.

Jimmy Higgins · 07-11-2003, 02:09 PM

I really like the idea of the simulator. This way, you can test all people with it, without the need of a real car and a bunch of officiers to be in the car to witness you driving. The computer can monitor your abliity to drive. But the test can't be short. It needs to be about an hour. That way, the test becomes a pain, and the driver must concentrate on the driving without getting frustrated. The computer would be able to gage a person's performance degrading in such circumstances. Include sims for normal driving, highway driving, rain, severe storm, snow, etc...

I've had two incidents occur to me in snow, both because of other cars spinning around me. The first time, the car hit my rear bumper at about a perpendicular angle on the highway and started me spinning at 50 mph, I was able to not only save the car from hitting any concrete or other vehicles, but I didn't even spin around more than say 50 degrees and finished virtually looking straight up the road. The second time, I was driving on a highway from Pittsburgh. The snow was worse in some parts. Where I was had completely covered the left lane, there were no tread marks. There were just tread marks in my lane. I was going about 50 mph (my snow storm speed), and this wasn't fast enough for the jackass behind me, who decides to pass me. When he gets passed about one car length, he starts to change lanes, but the kinetic coefficient of friction had other ideas, and he spun right in front of me, we're talking less than 10 feet. I kept cool, foot off gas almost immediately, foot slowly on brake as much as I can then a little minor fish tailing, I'm under control and he's off the road. I start slowing down to stop because I figure he's going to need help, but the lucky bastard was able to drive off of the side and back on the road. I had to stop at the Rest Area just to get my nerves back under control. I drive very well, but I don't like having to in those conditions.

I think inclemant weather needs to be tested. The sim will use your car's model, the air pressure in your actual tires, etc.. A short interview with an instruction afterwards to allow the driver to explain why maybe something bad happened. Such as the time I purposely spun the car out, driving about 10 mph down a slope that is covered with snow, atleast 1/2 an inch on the road, no treadmarks. I was slowing down as slowly as I could, but based on the distance to the cars in front of me, I didn't want to risk it, so I pushed in the brakes to slideout to the right. Then your ability to drive will be rated. Most importantly, your insurance bill will be adjusted accordingly based on the apparent risk of the person driving on the road.

I know it sounds extravagent, but one thing that pisses me off the most is seeing bad driving, period. I don't care how old a person is, if its bad its still dangerous. And in bad weather, I'm tired of getting my nerves shocked because I have to drive like a F1 driver just to avoid your stupid mistake. And damnit, I want to pay lower insurance premiums. I'm not nearly the same type of risk.

Jimmy Higgins · 07-11-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Majestyk
Otherwise, the mentality of declaring such a thing necessary is no different from stereotyping drivers by their sex or race.

I like stereotyping. But this is more statistical than anything.
By sex:

If there is a slower moving Caravan up ahead, it will be driven by a woman.

If there is an SUV tilting on its side, probably being driven by a man,

By race:
Van moving 55 mph on 65 mph highway, is being driven by an hispanic.

By race and sex:

A black car (usualy a Civic or Integra) ahead is being driven by an Asian female.

By Religion:

If there is a Jesus fish on the car, its being driven by a christian.

By Age:

A car up ahead that has just driven through the front of the Dairy Mart is being driven by a 85 year old.

meritocrat · 07-11-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

91 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the hell was this freakin old woman even doing behind the wheel of a car!!!!!

NINETY-ONE YEARS OLD!!!

I feel if someone is able to drive carefully, why is there age of any relevance?

If this 91 year old was not capable of driving then fine stop her from driving.

Loren Pechtel · 07-11-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Majestyk
There ought to be some statistical data that would be easily obtainable by, anyone who proposes setting an age limit on driving privileges, that would either demonstrate their case or refute it.

Otherwise, the mentality of declaring such a thing necessary is no different from stereotyping drivers by their sex or race.

The data exists. 75+ is as dangerous as 16 on a per-mile basis. The number of accidents don't reflect this as the 75+ people don't drive all that many miles.

Loren Pechtel · 07-11-2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
I really like the idea of the simulator. This way, you can test all people with it, without the need of a real car and a bunch of officiers to be in the car to witness you driving. The computer can monitor your abliity to drive. But the test can't be short. It needs to be about an hour. That way, the test becomes a pain, and the driver must concentrate on the driving without getting frustrated. The computer would be able to gage a person's performance degrading in such circumstances. Include sims for normal driving, highway driving, rain, severe storm, snow, etc...

Agreed. The test should be at least an hour. However, all the humans need to do is make sure the person in the simulator is the person that's supposed to be taking the test. Put doors on it that will fail the test if opened and you don't even need to have an observer.
I would have them do a trip through various situations and with semi-random emergencies. (Over the course of the test they would face a certain list of things going wrong, but the timing of them would be random.)

I think inclemant weather needs to be tested. The sim will use your car's model, the air pressure in your actual tires, etc..

No need to get that complex. Give them a reasonable car.

The one thing I see about modelling one's car--if I'm driving a car that's not similar to mine I have a terrible sense of speed. I've had the experience of looking at the speedometer and finding myself 15mph from where I thought I was.

A short interview with an instruction afterwards to allow the driver to explain why maybe something bad happened. Such as the time I purposely spun the car out, driving about 10 mph down a slope that is covered with snow, atleast 1/2 an inch on the road, no treadmarks. I was slowing down as slowly as I could, but based on the distance to the cars in front of me, I didn't want to risk it, so I pushed in the brakes to slideout to the right.

Agreed. Sometimes one deliberately chooses something that might not be obvious at first glance. Ages ago on my bicycle I chose an accident that probably could have avoided. The driveway opened into a bus stop. The guy in the car didn't even pause as he pulled out. Approaching on my bike I saw him doing this. Now, the likely course of action would be that he would stop somewhere in the bus stop cutout, if so I could avoid him. However, if he didn't stop and I tried to avoid I was dead. (While being hit by him wouldn't have been that big a deal it would have thrown me into 50mph traffic.) Thus I chose to shed as much speed as possible but go straight in. Dented quarterpanel, no injuries.

Hot Karl · 07-11-2003, 08:19 PM

i think the simplest solution would be to make it mandatory for a re-testing every 3-4 years after the age of 65. Simply because that's the accepted senior citizen/retirement age.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2003, 02:00 PM	#14
Majestyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 2,846	There ought to be some statistical data that would be easily obtainable by, anyone who proposes setting an age limit on driving privileges, that would either demonstrate their case or refute it. Otherwise, the mentality of declaring such a thing necessary is no different from stereotyping drivers by their sex or race.

07-11-2003, 02:09 PM	#15
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	I really like the idea of the simulator. This way, you can test all people with it, without the need of a real car and a bunch of officiers to be in the car to witness you driving. The computer can monitor your abliity to drive. But the test can't be short. It needs to be about an hour. That way, the test becomes a pain, and the driver must concentrate on the driving without getting frustrated. The computer would be able to gage a person's performance degrading in such circumstances. Include sims for normal driving, highway driving, rain, severe storm, snow, etc... I've had two incidents occur to me in snow, both because of other cars spinning around me. The first time, the car hit my rear bumper at about a perpendicular angle on the highway and started me spinning at 50 mph, I was able to not only save the car from hitting any concrete or other vehicles, but I didn't even spin around more than say 50 degrees and finished virtually looking straight up the road. The second time, I was driving on a highway from Pittsburgh. The snow was worse in some parts. Where I was had completely covered the left lane, there were no tread marks. There were just tread marks in my lane. I was going about 50 mph (my snow storm speed), and this wasn't fast enough for the jackass behind me, who decides to pass me. When he gets passed about one car length, he starts to change lanes, but the kinetic coefficient of friction had other ideas, and he spun right in front of me, we're talking less than 10 feet. I kept cool, foot off gas almost immediately, foot slowly on brake as much as I can then a little minor fish tailing, I'm under control and he's off the road. I start slowing down to stop because I figure he's going to need help, but the lucky bastard was able to drive off of the side and back on the road. I had to stop at the Rest Area just to get my nerves back under control. I drive very well, but I don't like having to in those conditions. I think inclemant weather needs to be tested. The sim will use your car's model, the air pressure in your actual tires, etc.. A short interview with an instruction afterwards to allow the driver to explain why maybe something bad happened. Such as the time I purposely spun the car out, driving about 10 mph down a slope that is covered with snow, atleast 1/2 an inch on the road, no treadmarks. I was slowing down as slowly as I could, but based on the distance to the cars in front of me, I didn't want to risk it, so I pushed in the brakes to slideout to the right. Then your ability to drive will be rated. Most importantly, your insurance bill will be adjusted accordingly based on the apparent risk of the person driving on the road. I know it sounds extravagent, but one thing that pisses me off the most is seeing bad driving, period. I don't care how old a person is, if its bad its still dangerous. And in bad weather, I'm tired of getting my nerves shocked because I have to drive like a F1 driver just to avoid your stupid mistake. And damnit, I want to pay lower insurance premiums. I'm not nearly the same type of risk.

07-11-2003, 08:15 PM	#19
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins I really like the idea of the simulator. This way, you can test all people with it, without the need of a real car and a bunch of officiers to be in the car to witness you driving. The computer can monitor your abliity to drive. But the test can't be short. It needs to be about an hour. That way, the test becomes a pain, and the driver must concentrate on the driving without getting frustrated. The computer would be able to gage a person's performance degrading in such circumstances. Include sims for normal driving, highway driving, rain, severe storm, snow, etc... Agreed. The test should be at least an hour. However, all the humans need to do is make sure the person in the simulator is the person that's supposed to be taking the test. Put doors on it that will fail the test if opened and you don't even need to have an observer. I would have them do a trip through various situations and with semi-random emergencies. (Over the course of the test they would face a certain list of things going wrong, but the timing of them would be random.) I think inclemant weather needs to be tested. The sim will use your car's model, the air pressure in your actual tires, etc.. No need to get that complex. Give them a reasonable car. The one thing I see about modelling one's car--if I'm driving a car that's not similar to mine I have a terrible sense of speed. I've had the experience of looking at the speedometer and finding myself 15mph from where I thought I was. A short interview with an instruction afterwards to allow the driver to explain why maybe something bad happened. Such as the time I purposely spun the car out, driving about 10 mph down a slope that is covered with snow, atleast 1/2 an inch on the road, no treadmarks. I was slowing down as slowly as I could, but based on the distance to the cars in front of me, I didn't want to risk it, so I pushed in the brakes to slideout to the right. Agreed. Sometimes one deliberately chooses something that might not be obvious at first glance. Ages ago on my bicycle I chose an accident that probably could have avoided. The driveway opened into a bus stop. The guy in the car didn't even pause as he pulled out. Approaching on my bike I saw him doing this. Now, the likely course of action would be that he would stop somewhere in the bus stop cutout, if so I could avoid him. However, if he didn't stop and I tried to avoid I was dead. (While being hit by him wouldn't have been that big a deal it would have thrown me into 50mph traffic.) Thus I chose to shed as much speed as possible but go straight in. Dented quarterpanel, no injuries.

07-11-2003, 08:19 PM	#20
Hot Karl Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 842	i think the simplest solution would be to make it mandatory for a re-testing every 3-4 years after the age of 65. Simply because that's the accepted senior citizen/retirement age.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.