Japan plans new driver's license system for elderly as accidents surge
japantimes.co.jp
japantimes.co.jp
My grandfather doesn't let her drive, but legally there is nothing stopping her. It terrifies me when I go to visit their retirement village because any car I pass could be a similar story.
Unfortunately there is no solution because no politician in Florida is ever going to propose legislation that limits the elderly in any way.
So, for example, they will fail you if your eyesight is slightly poor and you will need to come back with a prescription and new glasses.
But in other EU countries, I am aware it is like in Florida. Licenses for life or many years.
And also because in many places in the US driving is pretty much the only way to get around. Most elderly aren't living in busy city centers with functioning public transportation systems, most of them are living in suburban communities that have no public transportation by design.
This seems like a feel good story for the papers and a way to further penalize drivers who don't have the proper car for their license, but I wonder how this works in practice to actually prevent accidents, given the parameters of what's being reported. On your 75th birthday, do they repossess your current car and make you buy a new one?
Otherwise, there are still going to be a lot of dangerous autos on the road.
Repossession doesn't come into the equation - the same way I can buy a truck, they can buy/own a car that they aren't allowed to drive. It makes sense that they would sell it and buy one they are licensed to drive, but nobody's making them if they want to sit in it and make car noises while not moving.
(Note: I don't think this is a great system, and it's pretty obviously a hidden subsidy for the Japanese auto industry, but it does have the helpful side effect of ensuring that almost all cars on the road in Japan are fairly new and have the newest features)
I dunno, I live in a province in Canada with no auto industry. We have an inspection every two years, license plate renewals every two years, mandatory insurance at all times. The costs end up being almost identical (I've owned a car in both places). The people I know who have had issues are mostly due to emissions and lack of maintenance - failing to fix a rusted out exhaust line, alignment out, rusted out body, etc. My car in Japan was 16 years old and passed with the minimum fees.
I do know lots of people in Japan who replaced their car just because it got a bit old, but it wasn't because it didn't pass inspection. It was because they thought it wouldn't pass.
Important to check if there have been recalls that have not been applied to the car you are interested in and to make sure that you have a good idea of the tax and registration fees in your intended country of destination before pulling the trigger.
Luxury European cars (MB, BMW, Audi) in Japan are typically LHD so no problem there, but beware of buying Japanese vehicles there, there is a good chance they are RHD.
The outcome is usually the elderly voluntarily returning their license under severe social pressure, or getting their license next renewal refused (it's to be done every few years).
As Japan's population is aging more and more, it's a pretty serious issue in the media, also repossession is not needed, just voiding the driving license at 75 if they don't prove they changed cars will do.
No. That is either a translation error or an overly-polite way of putting it. They did not "mistake" one for the other. Loss of coordination in the legs is a normal symptom of old age. It is why old people shuffle, why they use walkers. They did not make the mental mistake of forgetting which pedal is which. They suffer from a physical condition, one unrelated to cognition, that limits their ability to quickly and accurately move their feet.
Automatic brakes might help, but won't necessarily protect every kid walking through a parking lot from being trampled by someone accidental slamming on the accelerator. What might be needed is a combination of automatic brakes and throttle limiters, devices that interpret someone slamming on an accelerator as a mistaken attempt to stop.
Similarly, rapid acceleration in reverse should be disabled. That has killed in many parking lots. So too rapid acceleration with the parking brake applied.
If there's a perceived need to install that sort of device the driver in question simply shouldn't be driving.
Installing this sort of thing is just a recipe for disaster, now they'll cause some horrible accident on a highway instead as they legitimately slam the accelerator on an on-ramp, which the car will then auto-translate to slamming on the brakes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehic...
Maybe your point is that people shouldn't be driving in general?
I'm pointing out that what might sound like a sensible mitigation for that can backfire. The control mechanisms of cars should not be messed with lightly.
Driving is inherently dangerous, complete safety isn't possible.
The article is based around this:
> there were 460 fatal traffic accidents in Japan last year caused by drivers aged 75 or over. The proportion of such accidents among all fatal accidents increased from 8.7 percent in 2008 to 14.8 percent in 2018.
But what it doesn’t say is how many fatal accidents there were overall in 2008 (what if the total number of accidents for the age group has gone down, and the number of accidents in other age groups has just gone down by more), nor does it talk about the number of accidents in any other year (what if 2008 was an anomaly). There’s no way of knowing if this % change is statistically significant.
It also doesn’t say whether the apparent rise in this age group is caused by the age group being older, or if there are other factors at play (eg are older people more likely to drive older cars?)
I don’t understand how anyone can form an opinion with articles like this, there’s no fact base to start from and any discussion is moot.
Basically, play by the author's rules so you can benefit from the article, but follow up with your own bit of research to ensure the author's premise was sound. If it is, keep the information. If it's not, move on with your life.
I'd venture to suggest retaking the standard driving test at 65, 70, and 75, and then every two years if an elder wishes to retain his license. You can only figure out if someone is fit for driving by observing how he drives. A doctor can't do it from his office, and relatives are too close. An independent, objective driving test examiner would fail or pass elder people by the same criteria he fails or passes young new drivers straight from the driving school.
Basically, anyone on the public roads should be fit for passing a driving test at any time, the elderly people included.
Here's some data on the subject matter: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
65+ drive roughly the same amount as 16-19 year olds. Driving peaks in the 35-54 cohort and drops sharply from there. I imagine drivers who are pushing 80 are driving significantly less than their cohort overall.
Secondly the liability rate is only going to be loosely correlated with the insurance liability rate. If you cause 10x more accidents than the next guy, but you mainly do so by crashing into pedestrians at low speeds you're not going to damage the car a lot, whereas someone with 1/10 of that accident rate that's more likely to total the car is a larger liability in terms of auto insurance.