"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


My opinion is that all drivers should take a mandatory retest every
three years - teenagers once a year until they are twenty one.

Betcha the majority of people over 40 who have been driving since being a
teenager would flunk a legitimate driving test. I know some of the basic
rules of the road have changed in MA since I was 16 years old.

I don't mind taking the vision test every 5 years. I just need someone to
guide me up to the test machine.

RCE

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:24:59 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


My opinion is that all drivers should take a mandatory retest every three
years - teenagers once a year until they are twenty one.

It may be a myth that senior drivers are a hazard. Drivers over *80* have
fewer fatalities than drivers under 25. They also tend to be
self-limiting, driving on familiar roads, during daylight hours, and,
avoiding bad weather.

http://www.northeasttimes.com/2003/0...ordrivers.html

About 10 years ago my then 95 year old grandfather lived alone in a nearby
senior retirement park. Although we used to visit him regularly, he would
still fire up his old Dodge Dart once or twice a month to visit us at our
house. He should not have been driving but, being the independent old man
that he was, he would not give it up and the state just kept renewing his
license. It got to the point where, when we knew he was coming, I would
drive over to the retirement place before he left and wait until I saw his
car leaving the parking lot. I'd then lead the way over to our house. When
he returned, I'd do the same thing. He never asked why ... and we never
discussed it. But he was a danger to himself and anyone else around. He
thought he drove just fine.

RCE

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:16:42 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


One of the hardest things we had to do was take my in-laws licenses when
they hit 90 - it seriously was getting dangerous for them to drive.

On the other hand, one of my wife's aunts is 95 and drives everyday -
sharp as a tack, only goes where she has to and keeps herself safe by
limiting her mileage - she needs to go somewhere at a distance, she asks
for help.

I don't know what the answer is.

I'd say you do know. You intervened to take the licenses of those that
were incompetent drivers, and left the competent driver alone. I'd agree
it is a difficult decision, but age alone isn't the qualifier. We all
hope to be there someday, hopefully we will know when to stop driving,
although, butthead that I am, I doubt it. ;-)

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On the other hand, one of my wife's aunts is 95 and drives everyday -
sharp as a tack, only goes where she has to and keeps herself safe by
limiting her mileage - she needs to go somewhere at a distance, she
asks for help.

I don't know what the answer is.


Another story on this subject:

My mother has a rare form of MS that is very slow in it's progression, but
over the last 15 years has slowly confined her to a wheelchair. She can get
out of it and move very carefully and slowly to get in a car or bed or
whatever but has very little strength or control of her legs. Like your
wife's aunt, she is mentally sharp as a tack.

Anyway, when my father died 6 years ago, she insisted that she was going to
drive her car (which had been my dad's job) and wanted me to go with her so
she could practice. We did one practice in a parking lot and that was it.
I had to forcefully tell her, through her tears, that her driving days were
over.

A week later she announced that she found a company that would install hand
controls in the car.
Oh -boy ... I thought... here we go again. I called the company and was
very impressed with their process. The representative explained that they
dealt with aging drivers with disabilities all the time and with the aging
driver's families. For a reasonable fee, they send a certified instructor
to her house in a hand control equipped car. He would take my mother out in
it and evaluate her skills and ability to learn and adapt to hand controls.
He said most did not qualify, which surprised me. He also pointed out that
in fairness to the candidate for hand controls, family members are not
always objective in determining if the older person is skilled or physically
qualified.

So, we made a deal with my mother. We would arrange for the test drive and
whatever the instructor's findings were would be binding and final.

She flunked.

So, we found a mini-van equipped with an electric scooter and hoist setup.
When she wants to go out, someone else drives and drops her off at whatever
store she wants to go to. She has several able-bodied friends that drive
it, plus my sister takes her out on a regular basis so she's not lacking in
the ability to get get out of the house.

RCE

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.

That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data. Gut reactions
are almost always wrong. Look at how many people get all worked up over
West Nile Virus, when only a handful of people die from it each year. In
contrast, the flu kills around 40,000 people every year. I'm an avid
kayaker and when I discuss it with people many express concern about it
being dangerous. The average number of deaths in all forms of kayaking
in the US is 12 per year. Millions of people are afraid of flying, which
is the safest mode of transport in existence. When it comes to risk, the
perception of the average person isn't even close to the reality.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things we
do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.

About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to spew:
Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things we
do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to spew:
Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:54:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:mrkUf.5496$8G2.2313@trndny01...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:1OiUf.5483$8G2.4700@trndny01...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...



I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make
it safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory
annual driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years
back, an old lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE
SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were garbage cans. As much as I
love biking, there aren't many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative
of the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much
safer riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of
the exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another
car, you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to
you on a bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if"
factor isn't so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the
drivers on our roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that
list are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data.


About that last line, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. :-)
Why do you suppose there are less cycling deaths? Hint: It's not because
it's safer. That statistic is as silly as the one the airlines used to
spew: Less accidents per mile flown, blah blah blah.

Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Brian! On any given day, there are less people on bikes than in cars. If
there are less people doing something risky, do you suppose they'd be less
likely to be affected by the risks?


Are you guys talking about bicycles or motorcycles or both?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************