Should The Elderly Be Allowed To Drive?

[Miggz]

Ok so I am trying really hard to keep the Proving Ground full of new ideas.

In your opinion should the elderly be allowed to drive? I think most people would consider someone between 60 years and up as elderly. But to be honest, I don't think all adults at the age of 60-65 show a major decline in their reflexes. Sure they may start to show signs of a decrease in their senses, but I feel its more evident towards the early 70s.

Anyway, let me get to the point. As one ages their senses becoming weakened. Vision, reflexes, hearing, touch, smell, taste...all of these incredible senses will eventually abandon us all. With this in mind I feel that its unsafe for the elderly to drive. To be a "solid" driver one needs to rely on all of these senses. If one is missing, driving would me a lot more difficult. I think its obvious how the loss of our vision would be a major disadvantage. But some of these senses we take for granted. I bet a lot of people forget how important the sense of smell is, even when driving. What if your car was giving of some sort of scent, from a as gas leak. Random example. Obviously, leaking gas in dangerous. But not being able to smell it or any other fume our car might be giving of is putting the driver and others at risk.

Here's another example. Do you feel an elderly person with deteriorating senses have the ability to avoid a cat or chicken running across the road? What if they actual hit the cat...what is the chance of them actually being aware of what they have done? Now I'm not trying to make the elderly sound ignorant, but we have to realize how serious our senses are. Its hard for us to imagine what its like, but we have to accept that we will someday go through the same thing.

Those are my basic views on the issue. How do you feel about allowing the elderly to drive?

Is this like my 7th post? I am so proud! XD

 

[Nysyarc]

I think it really varies. You can't classify all elderly people the same way. Once a person hits 70 years old, they aren't guaranteed to have significantly reduced senses. My grandmother is 79 and she still drives very well, better than many other drivers I know. I think the obvious solution is that once you reach a certain age, say, 60 years old, and you want to keep your driver's license, you have to take mandatory tests, maybe annually, to see if you are still 'sensible' (for lack of a better word) enough to drive.

That way, if an elderly person still has the awareness and reflexes of youth, they can continue to drive, but their license can be revoked if they fail one of the tests.

 

[BluePeachy100]

I think it depends. There are young people who are less qualified to drive then some elders. (Not because of disability, they just can't drive... At all. That's right, I'm looking at you, SpongeBob) Someone doesn't have to drive badly because they are old. It depends on the person. I say, if a person is over 70, and still perfectly qualified to drive, let them. There's no reason to punish eveyrone for the shortcomings of a few.

 

[Miggz]

My grandmother is 79 and she still drives very well, better than many other drivers I know.

That is so awesome! I wish I was around when my grandmother was alive. But yeah out of curiosity, despite your grandmother's driving skills does she nonetheless have a particular sense that is clearly weak? Does she wear a hearing aid of some sort? Just curious, is all dude. XD

I think it depends. There are young people who are less qualified to drive then some elders. (Not because of disability, they just can't drive... At all. That's right, I'm looking at you, SpongeBob) Someone doesn't have to drive badly because they are old. It depends on the person. I say, if a person is over 70, and still perfectly qualified to drive, let them. There's no reason to punish eveyrone for the shortcomings of a few.

I'll admit that I know a few younger people who can't drive because one of their senses is handicapped. I picked elderly because I feel its far more likely to find a sense(s) weakness in them. I don't agree with your claim about allowing someone to drive simply because they are still "qualified." Let's assume a man (regardless of age) has a gym membership. He gets into a car accident, which leaves him incapacitated for several months. Technically, he is still qualifies as a member, but it wouldn't be a good idea to work out at the gym soon after his accident.

We as human need to accept or limits and be considerate of the people around us.

 

[BluePeachy100]

I'll admit that I know a few younger people who can't drive because one of their senses is handicapped. I picked elderly because I feel its far more likely to find a sense(s) weakness in them. I don't agree with your claim about allowing someone to drive simply because they are still "qualified." Let's assume a man (regardless of age) has a gym membership. He gets into a car accident, which leaves him incapacitated for several months. Technically, he is still qualifies as a member, but it wouldn't be a good idea to work out at the gym soon after his accident.

We as human need to accept or limits and be considerate of the people around us.

That's completely situational, though. There's of course not a 100% chance that everyone will get into an accident and have to consider these things, but still. If you are able to do something, and do something effectively at that, you have the right, and if you wish to, should be able to do that if you want, without having to deal with any trouble from anyone else. Besides, driving, and gym traing are completely different. An accident that may limit you from exercising, wouldn't necessarily stop someone completely from driving.

And even so, that point isn't even valid considering that aren't connected directly. If he got into a car accident, he may not be qualified to drive, which is understandable. Trying to link that to a gym membership doesn't work, nor is it a good point to make. Finally, if someone were to get into a car accident, they have proven that they are not qualified to drive. But if someone does not, they should be allowed on the road, regaurdless of age, or anything else. As long as they can drive safely and efficiently.

 

[Miggz]

If you are able to do something, and do something effectively at that, you have the right, and if you wish to, should be able to do that if you want, without having to deal with any trouble from anyone else.

Well through my eyes, the reason someone is able to do something "effectively" is because their senses are good. Someone who clearly has a problem seeing, or hearing, ect, shouldn't be qualified. They are putting themselves and others in danger. Someone who can't drive because of some sort of crippled sense(s) shouldn't consider themselves as weak. In fact, if they accept their flaws...then that is a sign of strength.

Finally, if someone were to get into a car accident, they have proven that they are not qualified to drive.

Just because someone gets into an accident doesn't make them a horrible driver. The man I used in my example...all I said was to picture him in an accident. What if someone hit him while simply waiting for a light to change green? Would you still consider him not qualified to drive?

 

[Nysyarc]

I wish I was around when my grandmother was alive.

Sorry to hear that

As for my grandmother, the only aid she needs is reading glasses; even my mom and dad, who are thirty-some years younger than her need reading glasses.

Well through my eyes, the reason someone is able to do something "effectively" is because their senses are good. Someone who clearly has a problem seeing, or hearing, ect, shouldn't be qualified. They are putting themselves and others in danger. Someone who can't drive because of some sort of crippled sense(s) shouldn't consider themselves as weak. In fact, if they accept their flaws...then that is a sign of strength.

I agree, but I think part of the problem with the topic, is that it is too extreme. I think most of us can agree that this is not a matter where we can deal in extremes (either no elderly people can drive at all, or all elderly people can drive without being tested). So unless we want to assume false positions and argue them, this isn't really a debatable topic.

If we were to pick an extreme and argue it's case, I would say that no elderly people should be allowed to drive, not only because some of them have impaired senses and reflexes, but because the fewer people driving on the streets, the safer the streets are. It only makes sense then, to disallow the elderly from driving, as apposed to younger generations who are more aware and have more acute senses.

This is not really my opinion, but it presents a debatable standpoint, if you want to argue against it.

 

[Miggz]

Sorry to hear that. :-(

As for my grandmother, the only aid she needs is reading glasses; even my mom and dad, who are thirty-some years younger than her need reading glasses.

Its ok. I'm still thankful I have both my parents. ^^

I see. Yeah she sounds very healthy. Thanks for answering.

I agree, but I think part of the problem with the topic, is that it is too extreme. I think most of us can agree that this is not a matter where we can deal in extremes (either no elderly people can drive at all, or all elderly people can drive without being tested). So unless we want to assume false positions and argue them, this isn't really a debatable topic.

If we were to pick an extreme and argue it's case, I would say that no elderly people should be allowed to drive, not only because some of them have impaired senses and reflexes, but because the fewer people driving on the streets, the safer the streets are. It only makes sense then, to disallow the elderly from driving, as apposed to younger generations who are more aware and have more acute senses.

This is not really my opinion, but it presents a debatable standpoint, if you want to argue against it.

Hm. Good point. Yeah I wouldn't mind debating those two extremes. I'd actually be on your side on this topic as well. I too would support the"no elderly people are allowed to drive" law. Hopefully we can get this topic really going like the others.

 

[BluePeachy100]

Well through my eyes, the reason someone is able to do something "effectively" is because their senses are good. Someone who clearly has a problem seeing, or hearing, ect, shouldn't be qualified. They are putting themselves and others in danger. Someone who can't drive because of some sort of crippled sense(s) shouldn't consider themselves as weak. In fact, if they accept their flaws...then that is a sign of strength.

I'm sad, the point I was going to made was already made by Nysyarc.

Just because someone gets into an accident doesn't make them a horrible driver. The man I used in my example...all I said was to picture him in an accident. What if someone hit him while simply waiting for a light to change green? Would you still consider him not qualified to drive?

Bad wording on my part, I meant to say, caused a car accident.

 

[Pez55]

When people think of the elderly, they automatically assume that they have trouble hearing or can't see well etc. These assumptions aren't always true, otherwise you wouldn't see elderly people on highways. Also, as Miggz said, people who are disabled in some way shouldn't be driving, I think if they are disabled someone should drive for them or they should take a bus.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I think that some elderly people shouldn't be able to drive, but it would be hard to say "OK anyone over X age can't drive anymore," because of the fact that not all elderly people are bad drivers because of bad reflexes and deteriorating senses.

I think that if certain elderly drivers are caught driving unsafely, etc. then they should be able to have their license revoked.

But to classify all drivers together is too big of a generalization and would be unfair.

 

[xLeafybug =D]

It would be wrong to say that "You're too old to drive". But if your senses deteriorate to the point that you're compromising the lives of yourself and others, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I personally think that using your cell phones while driving is far more dangerous then the elderly driving.
I've been in 4 cell phone-related car accidents in the past 2 years, one of which put me in the hospital for two days. Driving while using your cell phone is as bad as drunk driving in my opinion.

 

[Purple]

Miggz you're a posting demon

I don't even think being elderly should be a reason to take away someone's license. Being a certain age can be a time period for where a mandatory test would be asked for. But nothing else. Like a lot of you have probably already asserted, some people's sense deteriorate earlier or later than others. Perhaps just have a new driving class made for the elderly. They have to take the test at 50 that showed their overall reflexes and whether they will be able to drive, upon passing it chances their class from type C to maybe type F or just something different. If they don't take this test after the age of 50 they get fined. After taking the test they have to take it every five years.

 

[Disfunkshunal]

I think the obvious solution is that once you reach a certain age, say, 60 years old, and you want to keep your driver's license, you have to take mandatory tests, maybe annually, to see if you are still 'sensible' (for lack of a better word) enough to drive.

I agree with this except i think 60 may be a bit young.

Who are we to tell someone they are too old to drive? I dont think it is fair to discriminate against a whole demographic because like others were saying not everyone is alike. Its like when back when black people couldn't vote simply because they were black. Was it fair then that a demographic was denied a right? No, and you can see that today. An annual test like Nysyarc suggested would reveal those who really don't qualify to drive and let the rest of the group that do qualify continue to drive.

 

[Purple]

I agree with this except i think 60 may be a bit young.

Who are we to tell someone they are too old to drive? I dont think it is fair to discriminate against a whole demographic because like others were saying not everyone is alike. Its like when back when black people couldn't vote simply because they were black. Was it fair then that a demographic was denied a right? No, and you can see that today. An annual test like Nysyarc suggested would reveal those who really don't qualify to drive and let the rest of the group that do qualify continue to drive.

To say someone can't vote because they're black is different, they did it because they felt they weren't citizens of america. While saying someone's too old to drive is for the safety of others.

50-60 seems like a fine age for me. Not many people live that long.

 

[Disfunkshunal]

actually they were 3/5 of a citizen. =P. i get your point though. Stil i think this example can still be applyed. For example why weren't they considered citizens? It's because they were viewed as inferior and not worthy. Even though this may have been true for some if definately wasn't true for the whole group. By saying all people over 60 have inferior senses and therefore aren't worthy or suited to drive, is the same basic concept.
I probably could have used a better example but i was recently talking about it and it was on my mine.

 

[Purple]

actually they were 3/5 of a citizen. =P. i get your point though. Stil i think this example can still be applyed. For example why weren't they considered citizens? It's because they were viewed as inferior and not worthy. Even though this may have been true for some if definately wasn't true for the whole group. By saying all people over 60 have inferior senses and therefore aren't worthy or suited to drive, is the same basic concept.
I probably could have used a better example but i was recently talking about it and it was on my mine.

I still have the same view that i had before XD. (although you are right about the 3/5th's thing)

While they felt blacks were inferior, they had no valid reason. All humans are equal.

However with old people, their senses do begin to deteriorate at older ages. That's a fact. While not all people do at the same time, we can ball park it.