Pretty smart…if your sole aim is to decrease the workload of the people that have to process these tests.
With the imminent Medicare cuts and the resulting drop in life expectancy, raising the age will probably reduce the number of cases to like 2 every year.
It’s not like the road test is particularly rigorous. Worth while to administer and you have to be in super bad shape if the person even notices you doing anything off, so it’s not like the risk is high.
Though that written test, I took a practice one and my driving experience did not keep me in shape to pass those… Of course the questions are stupid like “which of the following violations carries the harshest penalty” or “exactly how many feet away from an intersection must you park when doing street parking on an unmarked street”
Mental and physical health can degrade at any time, driving tests should be every 5 years for everyone.
Also would be good just to keep people up to date in changing road rules too.
We’re subsidizing that cost in increased insurance premiums.
This is the same counter to people claiming universal or state sponsored health care is going to increase taxes. We’re already getting taxed on that by the rising premium costs and less coverage for what we get/higher deductibles. I’m old enough to remember in the 80’s and 90’s that healthcare was basically “free”, as long as you were employed. Almost all procedures were covered and your out of pocket/co-pay was covered under most plans after a small $250/500 deductible.
We pay for it in one form or another. I’d rather pay for it in my taxes, like every other first world country does. Works pretty well for them.
Are there any first world countries that retest drivers regularly? I still think drivers should pay for their retesting. It doesn’t seem fair to put that on the taxpayer.
The bigger thing increasing premiums and health care costs is the dangerous road designs in north america rather than the age of drivers. It also increases municipal spending to maintain borderline highways running through the city.
dangerous road designs in north america rather than the age of drivers.
It can be both things. You are correct, the road designs are dangerous, and the lack of driver education about road safety, and constant retesting, especially in the elderly, contributes to that.
Additionally, the size of our vehicles on the road increase the fatality chances dramatically in collisions/crashes with other vehicles and especially pedestrians.
There are numerous factors that all add up to be the hellscape that is driving in America. We don’t need to fight against one of those to promote another.
69 was a lot funnier before I tried it. It’s really hard to concentrate on giving while receiving, and you end up doing a half assed job.
5/10. Would do, but won’t initiate.
You know, this is a systemic issue, not a “stupid politicians being stupid” issue.
You’ve got a population of seniors, people who are getting older and losing their physical mobility, who are less able to walk or bicycle or take public transit than younger and healthier people are - many of whom live in car-dependent subdivisions or in areas with poor public transit, like, say, rural Illinois.
These are people who rely on their cars for grocery shopping and medical appointments and socializing.
These are people, often on fixed incomes, often close to the poverty line, who struggle to afford the fees for rideshares or grocery deliveries.
And you can say “if they can’t pass the test they’re not safe to be on the road” - but from the article:
According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, in 2023 the crash rate for drivers 75 years and older in Illinois was lower than any other age group of legal drivers.
This bill is not about leaving unsafe drivers on the road - it’s about not adding unwarranted scrutiny and not making it harder for an especially car-dependent group of people to continue driving.
And it adds a provision that lets a senior’s family members report them if they believe the senior is no longer safe to drive.
This bill is a response to seniors who are genuinely frightened of losing their right to drive and becoming unable to meet their basic needs - and they have a right to be frightened of that, because we’ve built a system where a lot of people can’t meet their basic needs without driving.
In other words, if you build a system that makes driving necessary, you can’t really blame people for not wanting to lose the right to drive.
A driver’s ed class is required to get started towards being able to legally drive, usually conducted by or organized by the high school.
Then you have to pass a fairly picky written test and a token practical test and then never get re evaluated in any way for years and years.
nissetingsvall
Zagorath
KraeuterRoy
abcdqfr
Steve
apfelwoiSchoppen