Senior Citizens Driving

[SavageTaker]

What are your thoughts on senior citizen driving? When I say senior citizen, I mean people who are in their 70’s or 80’s or older people that aren’t very healthy for their ages.

Today I was remembering something that happened last year when I went to a mall nearby. I remember that my family had just got out of the car and we were walking towards the mall entrance. And then this old man fell on the floor. He looked like he was in his mid 70’s. Of course we helped him until someone from the mall came to help him and they took to him to a hospital.

What bothered me was that the man was not in the best physical health but he was driving alone. It got me thinking. What could have happened if this man was driving and something happened to him while he was driving.

Honestly, it doesn’t bother me when I see older people driving because I know that there are some that are capable of doing it, but what bothers me is when I see old people that shouldn’t be driving but still are because they basically have no other option. It bothers me because I get scared that these people that shouldn’t be behind a wheel are going out in the streets and there is a possibility of something happening to them that could cause something else such as a car crash.

It bothers me, but I still see them being allowed to drive even though they shouldn’t be doing so. How do you feel about senior citizens driving even though they really shouldn’t do it because of whatever reason? What do you think could be done so that they don’t have to drive?

I think that if there was some sort of service provided for senior citizens to be driven around by a cap (or something else) without paying or without paying much would be great. They’d still be able to go wherever they wanted but they wouldn’t be a risk on the streets. I know that there will be some stubborn old people that will want to drive, but I think something like that could still work for other people.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Dexter]

This is such a hard situation for me, because it causes a direct conflict between my philosophy of the inalienable right of man to be free, and the knowledge that there is a significant portion of the elderly that threaten the safety of everyone by getting behind a wheel.

I've argued this so much on these forums that you guys have to be getting sick of hearing about it by now, but people should have the right to do as they please as long as their actions don't directly threaten the life, liberty or property of anyone else. The vague possibility of harm isn't enough... it needs to be a clear, direct, and inarguable threat in order to deny anyone anything. Rape, murder, theft... all these things are obvious, inarguable threats to life, liberty and property that we rightly prevent and punish.

Is an elderly person driving a car alone such an obvious, inarguable threat? No. Not in the general sense, as a significant portion - possibly even the majority - of the elderly pose no threat whatsoever. Can we then deny those people their right to drive a car because a few of their peers pose a threat? No, we can't.

So then the conclusion might be to require a mandatory driving test every year or two for everyone above a certain age in order to retain their license. The problem with that is that the right to privacy is another of those inalienable human rights I keep preaching about, and this kind of discriminatory test directly violates that. Is it ok to violate that right for the greater good? No. It's not, as it pertains directly to my favorite quote from Benjamin Franklin (another thing I'm sure you guys are sick hearing from me) - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Thus, the ends do not justify the means.

Essentially this is an insolvable situation for me philosophically. Any solution requires me to compromise my philosophy.

 

[Mustang Sally]

We all live with ourselves day after day, year after year, and it's hard to be objective about the mental/physical deterioration that eventually catches up to everyone. Most senior citizens are perfectly capable of handling themselves behind the wheel of a car, but there are enough who aren't that a mandatory test on an annual basis is a reasonable thing to require.

Another quality that shows itself as we get older is a person growing set in their ways. In the case of my grandfather, his family members tried to tell him (after riding in the car as he drove) that his reflexes were down and his vision didn't seem to be what it had been. His response was to make sure he drove even more than he had before, in order to show all of us that his reflexes and sight had not deteriorated at all. He got into three accidents last year, all of which were "not his fault" before we succeeded in getting his driving privileges revoked.

Dexter, your point about individual freedom is well taken. If a person wants to end his own life, I figure it's his business. However, when he's risking the life of others because of what he can't (or won't) see, a yearly test to determine how he handles himself in a car is a more than reasonable precaution. It may be a restriction on individual freedom, but not doing it constitutes an undue danger to the rest of us.

Yes, I can feel sorry for what happens to people in the natural process of getting old, but I would rather feel sorry for them while they're riding the bus rather than operating a motor vehicle that they're incapable of handling.

 

[Dave]

In a break from tradition and in preparation of the Cigar Lounge Debate League, I have decided to throw my input into this question. As is customary, I have a story for it to illustrate my point. However, I better put my point forward and then give evidence to support it.

Senior citizens/OAP's should be allowed to drive. However, I would only support this view if regular checks are done on the person in question. I believe that a yearly check up on vision, hearing and thought process should be undertaken and if passed, I have no reason to think that they should not be allowed to drive. The reason I say this is because of a old woman who came to my check-out in a grocery store I work in. The woman hobbled up to my checkout and had two crutches to support her weight. Naturally, she was struggling to push her trolley to the edge of the checkout. I got out of my seat and helped the woman put her things from the trolley onto the checkout. After that, I moved her trolley to the other end and then went about packing her bags and putting them into the trolley once more. I took her shopping to her and took the adequate amount of money from her. I put the transaction through and took her receipt back to her. She then asked my manager for some assistance getting the shopping to her car. My manager instructed me to take her outside and wait for her ride to arrive. We all thought that she would be getting the bus outside or would be getting a cab.

I got up once more and went over to her. I was speaking directly to her and she couldn't hear me. I would have understood if I was looking in a different direction and speaking softly. However, I was looking her right in the eye and I have quite a booming voice because I am quite big. Nevertheless, she noticed that I was speaking to her and she told me that she had to turn on her hearing aides in order to hear me. Fair enough I thought as I trundled on with her stuff. We were passing the phone box to call a taxi and I asked her if she wanted me to phone one for her. "No" she said and so I assumed that she was getting the bus. I got to talking to her about why he had the crutches and it turns out that she only has one real leg. The other is wooden. Her actual leg is also in a bad way because she recently fell and hurt it badly. She has had 2 mastectomies and is partially sighted.

Now, this would have been fine if she was getting on the bus and going home but no! She instructed me to get over to her car, which was an Audi A4, and put her stuff in there. I did so and she drove away very slowly.

Now. I am not usually one to pass judgement on anyone but she should not be driving. If you are in too bad of a condition to walk, there is no reason for you to be driving. Also, if she cannot hear me talking to her, whilst I am standing next to her, how is she going to hear a lorry coming up behind her or someone tooting their horn. No, I think if they can pass a medical, then they should be allowed to drive and only then.

 

[Razor]

This is not a "but we're free!!!!?!?!?!" argument. The government isn't overstepping their bounds in limiting who drives because of physical conditions. My brother can't drive because he's had a seizure in the past year. Legally blind people can't drive, and I'm fairly certain (though not completely sure) that legally deaf people can't drive. It's all because drivers are given a certain trust in this society to not run into a crowd of people and kill us all. If you're having seizures/can't see/can't hear your ability to make that promise to society is severely limited, and therefore you can't be expected to keep that promise. Therefore, you aren't allowed your license. Simple as. Even Mill couldn't argue that logic.

The same thing applies to any Senior Citizen who can't see, can't hear, or doesn't show the cognitive ability to keep up with the various stimuli driving provides. If you can't see as well as the average driver, then you're legally blind and you should have your license revoked. Same for cognitive abilities. You're legally found to not be able to handle the changing of stop lights, the lanes full of traffic, and the cross pedestrians/signs? You don't deserve to drive at that point.

Now, before you start yelling about "But their rights!!!!" The Lockean social contract argues that Liberty is only free until it infringes upon a citizen's right to Life. Mill even argues that one cannot be legislated against until there is a demonstrable likelihood of harm to others. Anyone who can't be trusted to drive due to physical or mental impairments fit both Lockean and Millian rules for legislation. If you want, expand the tests to everyone over the age of 18. I don't give a shit. It'll just make our waits at the DMV longer.

 

[KKarvox]

I say if they are unable to function and are consistently dangerous on the road, then maybe, but we do have civil liberties in this country, and the gov't should have NO place in telling citizens when to hang up their drivers license. This would be a slippery slope to head down, and personally i'm more terrified of teenagers on the road then old folks, i go to a community college, and i'm constantly terrified of getting into an accident because assholes don't know what a stop sign means, or that pedestrians have right of way. So in a word, no. it starts as older people shouldn't drive, then another group is targeted, an so on and so forth until bureaucrats are telling you you can't drive you got a speeding ticket. History dictates that giving the feds an inch will cause them to take a whole damn mile.