I would say 79 is way too high, seniors should be tested every 5 years after 65. Another commentor points out we should be doing every 10 years which is a decent idea as well.
What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?
People choose to ignore speed limits, roll through stop signs, pass illegally, use their mobile devices etc. but they’d follow the rules for the duration of a test for the same reason they slow down when they see a cop on the side of the road.
To be clear, I don’t really have a preference one way or the other but I’m struggling to understand the purpose of both a written and practical portion for renewal.
It’s true that it would do nothing for someone who deliberately breaks the law but, especially when it comes to the elderly, poor vision and reaction time is a big factor in driving ability - both would be obvious during a practical exam.
Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?
In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it’s on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don’t get to renew.
Because things change? People get worse at different ages? I dunno man, I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I’m thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?
I’m all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it’s always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn’t create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.
Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don’t forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven’t been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.
I would say 79 is way too high, seniors should be tested every 5 years after 65. Another commentor points out we should be doing every 10 years which is a decent idea as well.
frankly there should at least be an online refresher and test that people have to take every year, traffic laws change and people forget things.
But changing traffic laws isn’t what makes people bad drivers.
Everyone should have to take the written AND driving portion of the test every 10 years or so.
What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?
People choose to ignore speed limits, roll through stop signs, pass illegally, use their mobile devices etc. but they’d follow the rules for the duration of a test for the same reason they slow down when they see a cop on the side of the road.
To be clear, I don’t really have a preference one way or the other but I’m struggling to understand the purpose of both a written and practical portion for renewal.
It’s true that it would do nothing for someone who deliberately breaks the law but, especially when it comes to the elderly, poor vision and reaction time is a big factor in driving ability - both would be obvious during a practical exam.
Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?
In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it’s on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don’t get to renew.
Because things change? People get worse at different ages? I dunno man, I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
Legally using a 2-ton murder machine. The requirement itself doesn’t actually stop anyone from driving.
I don’t even know how you’d prove it prevents deaths. The increased fatal crash risk among older drivers is largely due to their increased susceptibility to injuries, particularly to the chest, and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.
I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I’m thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?
I’m all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it’s always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn’t create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.
You asked me why I liked Idea A more than Idea B and I told you.
Now you’ve just written me a lengthy reply about why Idea B is actually bad and expecting me to defend it.
You are being weirdly aggressive about a strawman and it’s extremely offputting. Please don’t do that.
Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don’t forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven’t been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.