Humble request of older drivers

hschuck,
those figures relate to deaths not necessarily drivers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hschuck\";p=\"88050)</div>

...but I think would be much more accurate reflection of age related driving ability issues if the age brackets were adjusted on a "per-capita" basis.[/b][/quote]
Seems like the DOT agrees. Chart title is "MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS PER 100,000 PERSONS BY AGE, 2003". It does not appear to support your illogical logic, however.[/b][/quote]
I was referring to the same bar chart as you, which is all I had really looked at when I made my comments. There is no adjustment made in that table for the population of each age bracket. Now check the table directly above the bar chart. You will see that my "illogical logic" is quite logical after all, as the population of drivers 75+ (unfortunately no higher age brackets as in the bar charts) is only one-third the size of the 25-29 driving population.

The point I am making is that it is important to know how likely, on a percent basis, a given aged driver is to have an accident, particularly a fatal accident. The bar chart does not take numbers of total drivers of that age bracket into account, only how many accidents a give age group experienced.

The lack of a pro-rated "per-capita" information in the bar chart is exactly the kind of incomplete statistical reporting that can be used to improperly manipulate an issue.

 

I do agree with you that stats can be adjusted to prove that the moon is made of green cheese but we know it isn't. Anyway I'll never be convinced that a specific age suddenly necessitates taking an annual drivers test. I would support a system be in place such that a driver of any age who demonstrates being an incompetent driver be required to be tested. That a whole different ball game.
Enjoyed the discussion and others points of view. Now I must go find my rules of the road and study up.
It was mentioned in a previous post that the test score requirement for a vehicle licence be around 95%. When I took my rule of the road test to drive a navy destroyer we were required to achieve 100%. :wink:

 

All human bodies do not age uniformly, so don't place too much faith in conclusions based on statistics.
I am nearly 79 and drive with constant awareness of my response capabilities. My vision (with lens implants replacing cataracts 12 years ago ) is now as good as it was when I was 20. I can still find my way home or anywhere else in the tri-state area.

Sure, I prabably don't have the response time I had when I was 30, so my driving style is less "agressive", that is to say I'm more patient with the slow guy/gal ahead of me, I won't pass till I can see way ahead and I slow down enough at intersections to make sure the cross-street guy is really gonna stop. Entering the freeway, I will make sure that I reach highway speed on the ramp before merging. I watch the mirrors more than I used to before changing lanes and do so only when I'm sure the next driver knows my intent.

My Dad was able to drive safely till he was 90. That doesn't guarantee anything for me, my point being that aging is an individual thing, whereas statistical data is an average of events.

Yes to individual periodic testing at all ages.
No to generalized determinations based on stats.

 

I agree with you completely, genalex. Skill-based testing will help, but bad drivers are everywhere.

If we want to use "generalized determinations", we can eliminate (I've seen all of these) women who put on makup, men who read the paper as they drive to work, anybody who has a cell phone, everybody under 35 because almost all criminals start before then...

In fact, I think I'm probably the only qualified driver on the road... Everybody else, get off the road! :lol:

 

I find it amusingly ironic that some folks are coming down on older drivers. Yes, it seems to make the local and sometimes the national news when an older driver causes a crash or fender-bender.

Yet we pointedly ignore the carnage caused by younger drivers, especially those bubbling over with youthful male hormones, who are always trying to "prove" something. Or those bubbling over with intoxicants to the point they can't walk, but sure as h*** can "drive."

Maybe for the 16-26 crowd, instead of airbags and seatbelts, the car should have sharp, barbed spikes sticking out of the dash and steering wheel. Also another sharp barbed spike on the lower kick panel at crotch level.

It would tend to reinforce just how dangerous driving really is. And if not, it would tend to instantly remove from the gene pool the more dangerous ones.

I see nothing wrong with frequent testing of *all* drivers. More importantly, I would like to see better enforcement, especially of those punks who think it's cute to go racing down a residential street.

 

:roll: For the record: I'm one of those "ancient" drivers... HOWEVER, what tweaked my interest were the comments on statistics... I am also a licensed pilot (current) and very safe driver. It's the young "macho" drivers (both genders) who make me fear for my safety.

George Jessel said: "There are three kinds of lies: White Lies, Black Lies, and STATISTICS."

Another quote (not sure of the originator): "Statistics are like a Bikini bathing suit... What they reveal is fascinating but what they conceal is VITAL !"

 

Charles:

Guess what politicians and statistics have in common?

They lie ALL THE TIME!

I find it revealing that you can't access the raw data to perform remedial diagnostics on the dataset in question. Forget about it, whoever prepares the studentized data (Data that has been subject to mathematical manipulation and creative interpretation) will claim the raw data is "confidential."

If you study statistics, you quickly learn about such migraine inducing concepts like: ANOVA, F&T, DFFITS, Weibull, linear regression, nonlinear regression, heteroscedasticity, homoscedasticity, etc etc.

The problem with any claim of any "statistic" is that one *must* assume the result is the "intended" result. If you apply enough calculus to the dataset to "match" the curve to one you "expect" then you WILL get the result you "expect."

Everything else is "obviously" an outlier.

Long story short: "Statistics," fah.

Jay

 

I agree there are some people out there who absolutely suck at driving, and it's not necessarily due to age. For instance: As I was turning to leave a parking lot I was hit by someone going 45 mph in a 15 zone going around a tight curve. Had they been doing the speed limit I would have safely made the turn. I couldn't see them coming around the bend, hence the 15 mph speed limit. My fault of course because I was only 17. I admit I should have been more careful but how careful can you be when they drop the speed limit for safety and it's ignored?

I was also hit by a trophy wife in a huge SUV in a snowstorm. Even though she ran a red light and hit me, it was my fault because I had fishtailed. Would have been no trouble if little miss important hadn't run that red light. But, again, my fault because I was 16. Had I hit someone while fishtailing I would fully agree it was my fault. But if noone ran that light I would have been alone on that road and had time to recover traction.

Those were my only 2 accidents ever. Yes, there was some dumb action on my part and I recognize that and learned from it. I attribute that to learning how to drive and having a very unreliable car. And trusting that people will obey the law. Now I trust noone on the road and it's probably for the better.

Now my Grandfather is 71 and the only trouble he has with driving is that long distance trips make his knee ache. Sure he gets lost in the city, but it's beacuse he's lived in the country all his life.

Don't blame all older folks for bad driving. Blame the fact that most people have spontaneous ADD associated with vehicles. (no offense to anyone who really has ADD) I know someone who I refuse to ride with because he doesn't pay attention and does things like run red lights or swerve into other lanes and not notice in his truck. No thanks. And it's obviously not tied to 'intelligence' because this person is well educated.

That's my somewhat disorganized two cents. Brain fried after final exams...

 

It's a lame argument that seniors employ when trying comparing their accident rate to young drivers. It's just an attempt at deflection of the issue. The fact is, that people age and aging means deterioration, whether any of us like to admit that or not. Yes, that deterioration varies greatly in both its progression and effect on an individual. Waiting for an "incident" to happen first before pulling someone's license is just a preventable accident or death waiting to happen.

Another part of the equation the statistics do not reveal is just how likely a driver of a given age bracket would have an accident or cause death based on the number of miles they drive. How many folks 65+ have a daily commute?

I know several seniors who couldn't handle today's rush hour traffic and/or driving at night. Granted, they do tend to self-limit by simply avoiding these situations altogether.

In any case, I favor periodic medical/physical examination requirements for license renewal for ALL drivers of ALL ages with emphasis on eyesight, hearing, and reflexes. My driver license was issued 30 years ago when I did not need glasses or contacts. I'm so nearsighted now that I couldn't possibly drive without them, but my license type still does not actually require that I use them.

 

How much difference will all this testing make regardless of age? One only needs to watch the local news for a few days or weeks to see the problem of those who drive with a suspended license or even without any license.

 

Suspended or unlicensed drivers should be facing significant jail time, plain and simple. That is a different issue entirely, and certainly is no excuse not to have retesting..

How many accidents or deaths would be prevented if there were proper retesting and medical/physical examinations required for license renewals?

 

Must be written into the vehicle code of almost every state:


501.126-12: Trophy Wives/Husbands

(a) Individuals in the foregoing classification are prohibited from operating motor vehicles other than huge SUVs (as defined in section 501.11) and sports cars capable of attaining speeds in excess of 150 miles per hour and costing in excess of $85,000. Further, such individuals are prohibited from operating more than one of said vehicles simultaneously;

(B) Individuals in the foregoing classification must operate a motor vehicle at least once during each snowstorm or similar low-visibility weather event.

 

my dad is now 76 and has failing vision in one eye (must wear glasses when he drives but doesnt) has a 50% disability from the Army for hearing loss, has sleep apnea (although he has never had a problem staying alert while driving and does make cross country trips twice a year) and doesnt have to do anything but take an eye test when renewing every 4 years.

he says he will stop driving when he feels he no longer can do it safely and that remains to be seen. he drives the speed limit except when he has a long trip (he says he averaged 75 mph in the barren stretches of his most recent trip in April)

cant say how is driving is now since when we go anywhere we always take my car (now that i think of it...true for everyone i know since i got my Prius)

 

David:

I'm not sure how things are done where you live, but here in Manitoba you must renew your license yearly, no exceptions. There usually isn't a full test required, but there is a full review of your driving record.

You're also legally obligated to report any changes to your medical condition (Vision, diabetes, epilepsy, etc) and if you "forget" to report such changes, there is a 1 year suspension and a hefty fine.

So I'm a bit puzzled that although you stated you're very nearsighted and require corrective lenses, that you haven't reported such fact to your DMV.

Jay

 

Oh, you mean something like a full vision test?

 

In Wisconsin you renew much less frequently...

I renewed at age 18 when I moved to college. So that was fall 2001. My renewal is up on my birthday in 2009. So that's 8 years. They are also lax on restriction updates.

I think NC is changing over to a 5-year system.

Yearly would be a real pain. Considering I live about 1700 miles from the nearest Wisconsin DMV...

 

Here's a statistic: I personally know of 4 elderly drivers who have voluntarily given up their licenses before being involved in an accident. But I know of exactly zero young drivers with multiple accidents under their belt who have done the same.