from the NYTIMES:

[DDH]

First let me say to you how sorry I am this happened to you. I am so glad that you are slowly recovering. This must be a very hard thing to have to go through.
I don't mean to open a can of worms here but I have to say, I agree to an extent with what you say, however there are always exceptions.
New drivers, teenagers cause more accidents than any group, however we do not intend or even suggest that we take away their priveledge to drive.
I agree with your statment that all should be recertified or some kind of re-testing every 10 years or so.
I wonder if we will all feel the same way as we get older though. A lot of time that is the last of the independance that the elderly have and when we take that away from them, they sit in their houses with nothing to do.
It's really a very touchy thing and should be looked at on an individual basis and not just a broad range of age be given the boot on when they have to stop driving. I know that is not what you had said, but a lot of the times when this gets brought up, that is the general consenses, "just take it away from all, say, 65 year olds" and I just don't think that is the answer.

I think the main thing I see these days is that people in general seem to think that they have some right to drive. The fact of the matter is, is that driving is a priviledge not a right. People seem to think that they own the rode when they are on it and by God everyone else better get out of their way.
I live in an overcrowded military town, and we don't have the big city traffic so to speak, but we have a problem with the roads not being able to handle the amount of traffic we have and it is causing major impatience problems and people being discourtious, rude and just plain taking way to many chances. No one knows what speed limits signs are for, or at least it doesn't pertain to them. Everytime I go to town, I see people do the rolling stops at stop signs, run red ligths because they just aren't going to wait through one more light cycle. I mean it is just down right scarry to drive. I try always to do all my running during non peak hours, and rarely go into town after dark, and I am only 42.
Okay, sorry, I didn't mean to get on a tangent. I'm done. I apologize really. I don't want to offend anyone or get any dander up it's just a sensetive subject with me. I have a mother and MIL that I have to do all running for because neither can or will drive and it takes a tole on me at times. I guess the good side is at least we didn't have to fight for the keys from them before they did hurt someone.

[Deborajen]

Regarding the article - well said!

But yes, as DDH says, there's more to it than just the elderly. I just went through getting my teenage son started driving. Personally, I'm really not in favor of unrestricted driving until at least age 18. Teach them, supervise them, and give them priviledges gradually - don't make it about convenience. Unfortunately, that seems to be the main concern about driving priviledges - at any age. It should be about getting there, but safely.

Driving is a huge responsibility. Cycling carries responsibility, too. The laws need to be enforced and everyone needs to take responsibility for the damage they can do, period.

Deb

[xeney]

New drivers, teenagers cause more accidents than any group, however we do not intend or even suggest that we take away their priveledge to drive.

Sure we do. Well, it depends on the state, but California keeps imposing more and more restrictions on teenage driving in response to the number of traffic fatalities in that age group. These days there are limitations on when kids can drive, how many other kids can be in the car, when they can drive without an adult present ... it's a long way from when I was 16 and suddenly had all the rights and privileges of someone who'd been driving for thirty years.

But laws won't do everything. Even if states restricted licenses for seniors, it might not help, because the same factors that make some people unsafe to drive could also make them unwilling to respect the fact that they no longer were legally permitted to do so. Families have to take responsibility, and that is much easier said than done. Elderly people have been known to actually steal cars. (Not that anyone I'm related to ever did that, ahem.)

I think the answer is probably for people to be aware of this issue when they are younger. Talk about it with your spouse, with your kids, with your doctor, so that you have more objective people around to let you know when it's time to give up the keys. And, from an advocacy standpoint, it is much easier for seniors to stop driving if they have other options ... which means public transportation.

[mimitabby]

Yes, in washington too; teenagers have restricted licenses. It's great.
lets them drive, but without 10 kids in the car.. by the time they
have matured, they have some experience driving and then are permitted to drive at night and with multiple passengers.

[Tuckervill]

In Arkansas, kids can get their learner's permit when they are 14.

Some people are shocked by that and some people in Arkansas want to change it. But I think it's wonderful just like I did when I was 14 and got my permit (I started driving on the back roads when I was 13, in my own car, a red '67 Beetle that I had to park on a hill and pop the clutch to get going--we also turned in pop bottles to get 50 cents worth of gas. Man, those were the days.)

Back to my point...my two adult sons, aged two years apart, got their learner's permits at the same time. One was 14, one was 16. The 16 year old had his permit for 60 days, then he got his license and could drive everywhere (I trusted him and didn't worry about him). But the 14 year old had TWO WHOLE YEARS of practice with a licensed adult before he could drive. That's why I tihnk driver's permits at 14 are still a wonderful idea.

(Both of them are safe drivers and neither have ever had an accident, although they both had their share of speeding tickets. Now they both drive slow because they are cheapskates and don't want to waste gas or pay the "stupid tax".)

And if my kids had grown up in the same kind of tiny town like I did, with no local law enforcement to speak of, I probably would have let them drive as early as I did (I first drove the Beetle with my Dad when I was 10). I can imagine lots of rural farm kids learn to drive all kinds of farm vehicles, including the pick-up truck, early ages. It's not that kids can't be safe driving--it's that most kids are learning to drive in very, very heavy traffic, with thousands of possibilities for bad happenings.

Life gets so much easier when you have a kid in the house who can drive!!!

Karen

[Imperfectstorm]

Most accidents are caused by the 18-33 yr old group, I learned that in a community policing class.

If you want justice, hire an attorney. Don't lump everyone into one narrow category.

[Deborajen]

Ageism? Sorry, I don't sympathize. With age comes experience and maturity to handle big stuff like driving. Eventually, these abilities deteriorate, too. And under age 18 (that's the age in my state, anyway) parents end up being held responsible for the under-age-18 kids' actions. If that means I'm a "bigot" for using "ageism" as an excuse for not wanting my son, or other people his age, to drive because their age is 17, so be it!

It's perfectly reasonable to have age-specific guidelines in this instance. And by the way, even attorneys can't get justice if the person being sued is legally too young to be held responsible. Better to have some common sense and statistically valid rules in the first place.

Deb