We shouldn't have 89-year-old drivers in cars, either. Full stop.
In my city we've had three pedestrian fatalities in less than a year and all the drivers were aged 79 or older.
In my city we've had three pedestrian fatalities in less than a year and all the drivers were aged 79 or older.
A decent traumatic brain injury can happen at any time and most people never go to the doctor for those, too.
There is a reason they don’t work anymore, and that they get frequent doctor’s checkups.
If you think the population from age 25-55 deteriorates as quickly as the population over 70 I don’t know what to tell you.
Heck, I'm in reasonably good health, but if I get hit by a car crossing the road this evening, I could deteriorate quickly overnight due to injuries and be dead tomorrow. It's just less likely for me than it is for an elderly person that has poor vision and moves slowly while crossing the road as I am more likely to be able to spot a hazard and move out of the way.
There are something like 30 million license holders. Retesting just half of them every 10 years (and rescinding the licences if the rest) would require about doubling the testing throughput. And it would be political suicide - the so-called War on Motorists is a powerful media weapon. It's an obvious idea that would be very helpful, but I can't see it happening. Unless it's an online test affair, which at least could educate on some of the rule changes. I have confidence they could handily bungle that implementation, however.
At the very least, however, I think they should run some anti-lane hogging adverts and enforce that law more, and also make it a duty of heavy vehicles to slow down slightly to permit overtakes, since that's probably cheaper than the billions and billions they're evidently willing to spend on adding hundreds of miles of extra lanes to deal with the lower capacity of roads caused by bad driving.
... and perform 3 controls-based actions (ex: climate adjustment, audio).
The testee commonly provides their own car for OTR tests. If they drive a model with physical controls, it could better for everyone.
But now, with Uber/Lyft/Waymo and all the other options, it seems much more reasonable to implement such a thing. Why do we have to wait for someone to cause an accident before we take their license?
You mean taxis?
In the city I grew up in taking a taxi was basically not an option. You can now typically get a ride from Uber or Lyft within 10 minutes.
In the city I moved to for college there were plenty of Taxis but could take 30+ minutes for one to show up, or maybe it would never show up and you’d have to call another company and hope they would eventually send someone to you.
These are anecdotes, but the massive increase in for-hire rides after these companies were introduced does show that they did improve the experience and made for-hire rides more accessible and appealing.
Most octagenarians cannot afford to use these on a daily basis.
Heck, most of the country cannot afford to use these on a daily basis.
And ... you won't?
I am in the middle of watching my own parents age, and it is eye opening. We have checks and balances in various systems exactly because there is a wide range of capabilities in the elderly. Where I live it is mandatory for drivers to be tested regularly once they hit 80, or at even earlier ages in the event of an accident or other precipitating event. This can include recommendation by doctors, social workers or even police. This works without needlessly discriminating against individuals.