I actually did read the “fucking article”, and others besides. Also, if you’re going to be condescending to people on Lemmy, at least stop talking like you’re narrating the next 2am chili. It is the judgment of this court (me) that you have posted cringe.
While New Mexico allows you to renew your license every 4 or 8 years as a personal option, drivers 71–79 have to renew every 4 years
Drivers 75 and older must prove adequate vision every renewal and must renew in person
Drivers over 79 must renew every single year
NM is rated as the 10th most difficult state to get a license
New Mexico was one of only four states to post a decrease in road fatalities from 2019 to 2020
Example 2, Ohio:
While Ohio allows you to renew your license every 4 or 8 years as a personal option, drivers over 65 have to renew every 4 years
Drivers over 65 and older must prove adequate vision every renewal and must renew in person
There are no additional restrictions past 65
Ohio is rated as the 2nd-easiest state to get a license, eclipsed only by SD
Ohio posted a 6.7% increase in road fatalities from 2019 to 2020
Conclusion? Being too old to drive has even more of an impact on road unsafety than giving out drivers’ licenses in cereal boxes does.
I feel sorry for old people who have no other way to get around, I really do. Letting blind people with dementia unsafely operate motor vehicles so they can run people over while trying to get to grocery stores and medical appointments isn’t a solution, nor is it an acceptable stopgap till public transportation can pick up the slack. It’s gotta stop right now.
I feel sorry for old people who have no other way to get around, I really do.
This is a problem POV however. It’s like - I don’t care about old people. Just like the pandemic in fact - those olds should count for less than anyone else. I could make a similar stupid comment like “I feel sorry for these people who choose to walk near roads where it’s dangerous, I really do.”
Do you see how insane that sounds?
I don’t have a solution, but saying as soon as you retire (turn 65) you should be locked in a house and out of cars because now you’re dangerous is wrong too. I personally think the most likely solution politically and realistically is going to be self driving cars. Cause I don’t see you forcing elderly out of driving in the US.
I do see how insane that sounds. Stuff usually sounds pretty insane when you jump to conclusions and make shit up. For example:
Clearly you don’t like it when old people get their keys taken away. After all, when you retest driving aptitude more frequently and catch more unsafe drivers, it’s exactly like when we were testing for COVID too frequently and finding more cases, just like President Trump said. Really all you’re doing is viciously and violently trampling on the elderly individual’s God-given right to drive their car—possibly through a farmer’s market—for the lame-ass reason of “protecting public safety” or some liberal bullshit like that. Just like how the deaths of the immune-compromised and elderly were a necessary sacrifice, collateral damage to ensure I had the FREEDOM to go see Transformers 14 in theaters in 2020. Fucking with the rights of the individual to protect public safety? What’s next? Telling people they can’t go up in Target without a vaccine card or at least a mask on their face—a muzzle, really—or even worse, telling me I’m not allowed to take a dump on the sidewalk? Those fucking Commies. Thanks for agreeing with me on this, we’re anti-vax bros for life!
Do you see how insane that sounds?
This is why we don’t jump to conclusions. I never said that the “olds should count for less than anyone else”. Wanna know what I did? I spent the pandemic yelling at people to be safe and unselfish so that my immune-compromised spouse doesn’t die, and listening to them scream at me that her death is a price they’re willing to pay. I lost my job over it. At no point did I put words in their mouths or deliberately misinterpret their words in order to try to “gotcha” them on a forum, those monkeyshines were beneath me.
Consider the following:
I don’t have a solution, but saying as soon as you retire (turn 65) you should be locked in a house and out of cars because now you’re dangerous is wrong too.
I agree, which is why I didn’t say it, or imply it, or even leave that open to interpretation. I write carefully. If you got at least Bs and Cs in the Language Arts classes where they taught context and context clues, you are well-equipped to read what I write, reading it as it’s written, and taking it at face value. To put it more directly: the right interpretation for what I say is the one I’m writing for you.
Now that we have that straightened out, here’s the spoon-feeding version of my point, just like how you feed the people you apparently believe are cool to drive 15-foot Buicks at highway speeds (hope you don’t mind my jumping to conclusions again, you did it like 20 times).
When people can’t drive safely, we don’t let ‘em. Because it’s not safe. When people age, their eyesight goes. They can’t react as fast. They can’t brake hard enough, or in time. They can’t check their blind spot because they can’t turn their head. Not all of them, but many. Which is why I propose we at least just take that test we use, with the eye chart down at the DMV, and make it so that you have to do that more often when you get older. Once you hit your 60s or 70s, every year. People who are still capable of driving safely would be allowed to. People who can no longer safely drive wouldn’t be allowed to. Is that such a bad thing? Is it prejudicial to deprive those who cannot drive safely of the privilege of unsafe driving? In the interest of public safety, you have to infringe on individuals’ liberty at times, because your rights end where another person’s rights begin. That’s why we have compulsory vaccination to attend school, that’s why we don’t let people with untreated epilepsy fly airliners, and it’s why we make people take a test to make sure they can see with their eyeballs before we issue or renew their drivers’ license. There is one alternative: knowingly allowing people to stay on the road whom we know wouldn’t be if we checked to make sure it was safe. And that’s it. There’s no other way around it.
I meant it when I said I feel bad for them. I have empathy, I’m not a monster. I hate it, it sucks, but objectively it’s better to make sure unsafe drivers are off the road than to inflict false mercy.
I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m anti-vax. I’m pro-vax. I’m also pro proving you can drive to drive, but we don’t do that in the US and the reason is in large swaths of the land, if you can’t drive you’re going to die alone in your house due to lack of food, medicine or other needed things. Because the only way to get them is to drive to the darn store.
But the other thing that isn’t teased out that I can see is how that riskier driving interacts with cities. That is, NY data is by population overwhelmed by the NYC area, and maybe Buffalo. But that’s by land area - you know, places people might drive - like 1% of the state. So when you’re likely to be the only car on the road, or one of a few - how does the risk change there from a public policy perspective?
So - we should compare fatalities from potentially poor driving to expected fatalities from being unable to get necessities where they’re living because they can’t drive. I’d argue if the latter is higher, then they should keep driving from a safety perspective across a state population.
Now, because I like arguing on the internet, I’ll pick apart your reply to me.
Letting blind people with dementia unsafely operate motor vehicles so they can run people over while trying to get to grocery stores and medical
You talk like most elderly drivers ought to be in an assisted care home - that they probably can’t manage to put on pants in the morning. Or would forget that they’re actually driving. Sure, for that extreme I agree, they’re a danger to themselves just living alone, forget about driving.
nor is it an acceptable stopgap till public transportation can pick up the slack. It’s gotta stop right now.
Ok, so if you read that - we’re going to take away the only form of transportation for these people and worry about fixing it later - that’s what lead to my initial reply. Do you dispute this? Am I making an unfounded leap of logic that many people need a car to get to a store and bring back food? And these people tend to not be in heavily populated areas.
I feel sorry for old people who have no other way to get around, I really do.
I think this part is way too broad a statement. To me, it reads like you mean anyone that could be designated as old. You certainly were not as clear in the first post. I’d argue your problem is you’ve been focusing on age rather than driving ability in all your replies. There are plenty of younger unsafe drivers. And instead of acting ageist, you could have focused on tested driving ability. But you didn’t initially, and are now pivoting in the second post like I should have read this out of the first post, though also berating me from reading into your posts.
Note too that there’s a lot of waffling between your stats on being 65+ and your various characterizations as dangerous. I imagine if you actually defined your terms there I might agree more with you. I really thought your characterizations
Letting blind people with dementia
was hyperbole because if that is what you mean exactly - I don’t think we actually let blind people drive. By policy anyway, IDK about enforcement - and in any case that’s so anodyne a point as to make me wonder why you even posted. So I was left inferring from the stats you posted, which again all seemed to be completely about age and not at all about ability.
I firmly believe the reason the US makes it so easy to get and keep a drivers license is because the states don’t think there’s an alternative for enough people that trying to change that would get them voted out. So not having a solution to offer is also just saying you want to complain into the internet that the world isn’t perfect according to you. Again, no shit.
I have a quick question before I rip your comment to shreds: are you intentionally misinterpreting me, or are your reading comprehension skills just super, super bad? Because I read your entire comment and it’s abundantly clear that you missed the point completely. Like, you’re not even close. If English isn’t your first language, that would probably explain it; is it?
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension and English is my first language. Given the other posts below you, have you considered you are really bad at writing clearly?
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension
I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m anti-vax. I’m pro-vax.
Dude, seriously? Give me a break.
You have also said the following:
Ok, so if you read that - we’re going to take away the only form of transportation for these people and worry about fixing it later - that’s what lead to my initial reply.
Already wrong. But let’s continue.
Do you dispute this? Am I making an unfounded leap of logic that many people need a car to get to a store and bring back food?
Yes, you are genuinely making an unfound leap of logic, it’s called begging the question. That’s your entire problem, really.
And these people tend to not be in heavily populated areas.
Yeah you mentioned this a few times.
But the other thing that isn’t teased out that I can see is how that riskier driving interacts with cities. That is, NY data is by population overwhelmed by the NYC area, and maybe Buffalo. But that’s by land area - you know, places people might drive - like 1% of the state. So when you’re likely to be the only car on the road, or one of a few - how does the risk change there from a public policy perspective?
People don’t drive on the land per se, they drive on roads—you know, the places people might drive. Where the fuck do you think all the roads are? I’ll give you hint, it’s where the people are, as evidenced by every road atlas ever printed.
And let’s not forget these gems:
I’m also pro proving you can drive to drive, but we don’t do that in the US
Actually we do do that. It’s the aptitude test they have at the DMV when you get your license. The one you also have to get re-tested on when your license expires. The one I’ve been talking about this entire time.
I really thought your characterizations
>Letting blind people with dementia
was hyperbole because if that is what you mean exactly - I don’t think we actually let blind people drive.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
And my point this entire time has sailed right over your head. I don’t disagree that more stringent testing for driving would seem on its face to lead to more skilled drivers, which may lead to lower road deaths. I’m complaining about your apparent ageism, lack of concern for solutions that amount to more than “olds or disabled people get rekt for driving” and seemingly complete denial that large swaths of the US that are rural both exist and have old or disabled people living in them who need transport and the only option is cars.
You keep ignoring my actual point and continue to use basic sophistry to hammer a point I’ve accepted and granted in I think my first response. I admit, I like to play devils advocate, so I humor you with responding to your later points. You have yet to respond to my actual issue - accomplishing your desired end should be done in a way that is both realistic in our political environment and doesn’t make a large voting block widely worse off.
You also assert that lower road deaths is the greatest good, accomplished best by taking older drivers off the road, and do not compare to what deaths there would be if these same drivers could not travel at all, and were basically trapped in their houses. I’ve poked at that, but perhaps not directly enough to get you to substantiate this sets of assertions.
You are making a lot if assumptions there, and a lot of factors go into those numbers outside if age and easy of getting a license. Not saying you are wrong, and it certainly is something we should be addressing, but this doesn’t prove your point.
It probably isn’t good enough for an official NTSB report, but it is good enough for a reasonable person—i.e. someone who isn’t trying to emotionally argue backwards from their pet conclusion—to draw a conclusion from it as long as their scope is conservative.
I actually did read the “fucking article”, and others besides. Also, if you’re going to be condescending to people on Lemmy, at least stop talking like you’re narrating the next 2am chili. It is the judgment of this court (me) that you have posted cringe.
Anyway:
https://siegfriedandjensen.com/passing-the-test/
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266
https://www.iihs.org/topics/older-drivers/license-renewal-laws-table
Example 1, New Mexico:
Example 2, Ohio:
Conclusion? Being too old to drive has even more of an impact on road unsafety than giving out drivers’ licenses in cereal boxes does.
I feel sorry for old people who have no other way to get around, I really do. Letting blind people with dementia unsafely operate motor vehicles so they can run people over while trying to get to grocery stores and medical appointments isn’t a solution, nor is it an acceptable stopgap till public transportation can pick up the slack. It’s gotta stop right now.
This is a problem POV however. It’s like - I don’t care about old people. Just like the pandemic in fact - those olds should count for less than anyone else. I could make a similar stupid comment like “I feel sorry for these people who choose to walk near roads where it’s dangerous, I really do.”
Do you see how insane that sounds?
I don’t have a solution, but saying as soon as you retire (turn 65) you should be locked in a house and out of cars because now you’re dangerous is wrong too. I personally think the most likely solution politically and realistically is going to be self driving cars. Cause I don’t see you forcing elderly out of driving in the US.
I do see how insane that sounds. Stuff usually sounds pretty insane when you jump to conclusions and make shit up. For example:
Clearly you don’t like it when old people get their keys taken away. After all, when you retest driving aptitude more frequently and catch more unsafe drivers, it’s exactly like when we were testing for COVID too frequently and finding more cases, just like President Trump said. Really all you’re doing is viciously and violently trampling on the elderly individual’s God-given right to drive their car—possibly through a farmer’s market—for the lame-ass reason of “protecting public safety” or some liberal bullshit like that. Just like how the deaths of the immune-compromised and elderly were a necessary sacrifice, collateral damage to ensure I had the FREEDOM to go see Transformers 14 in theaters in 2020. Fucking with the rights of the individual to protect public safety? What’s next? Telling people they can’t go up in Target without a vaccine card or at least a mask on their face—a muzzle, really—or even worse, telling me I’m not allowed to take a dump on the sidewalk? Those fucking Commies. Thanks for agreeing with me on this, we’re anti-vax bros for life!
Do you see how insane that sounds?
This is why we don’t jump to conclusions. I never said that the “olds should count for less than anyone else”. Wanna know what I did? I spent the pandemic yelling at people to be safe and unselfish so that my immune-compromised spouse doesn’t die, and listening to them scream at me that her death is a price they’re willing to pay. I lost my job over it. At no point did I put words in their mouths or deliberately misinterpret their words in order to try to “gotcha” them on a forum, those monkeyshines were beneath me.
Consider the following:
I agree, which is why I didn’t say it, or imply it, or even leave that open to interpretation. I write carefully. If you got at least Bs and Cs in the Language Arts classes where they taught context and context clues, you are well-equipped to read what I write, reading it as it’s written, and taking it at face value. To put it more directly: the right interpretation for what I say is the one I’m writing for you.
Now that we have that straightened out, here’s the spoon-feeding version of my point, just like how you feed the people you apparently believe are cool to drive 15-foot Buicks at highway speeds (hope you don’t mind my jumping to conclusions again, you did it like 20 times).
When people can’t drive safely, we don’t let ‘em. Because it’s not safe. When people age, their eyesight goes. They can’t react as fast. They can’t brake hard enough, or in time. They can’t check their blind spot because they can’t turn their head. Not all of them, but many. Which is why I propose we at least just take that test we use, with the eye chart down at the DMV, and make it so that you have to do that more often when you get older. Once you hit your 60s or 70s, every year. People who are still capable of driving safely would be allowed to. People who can no longer safely drive wouldn’t be allowed to. Is that such a bad thing? Is it prejudicial to deprive those who cannot drive safely of the privilege of unsafe driving? In the interest of public safety, you have to infringe on individuals’ liberty at times, because your rights end where another person’s rights begin. That’s why we have compulsory vaccination to attend school, that’s why we don’t let people with untreated epilepsy fly airliners, and it’s why we make people take a test to make sure they can see with their eyeballs before we issue or renew their drivers’ license. There is one alternative: knowingly allowing people to stay on the road whom we know wouldn’t be if we checked to make sure it was safe. And that’s it. There’s no other way around it.
I meant it when I said I feel bad for them. I have empathy, I’m not a monster. I hate it, it sucks, but objectively it’s better to make sure unsafe drivers are off the road than to inflict false mercy.
Now youre the one being condescending. How about you reevaluate your hypocrisy
I really don’t know if “no u” is a very compelling argument.
??? I was pointing your behaviour. I’m not the guy you were arguing with.
I’m aware of that, I can read user names. I’m really not sure how you got there from what I said.
I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m anti-vax. I’m pro-vax. I’m also pro proving you can drive to drive, but we don’t do that in the US and the reason is in large swaths of the land, if you can’t drive you’re going to die alone in your house due to lack of food, medicine or other needed things. Because the only way to get them is to drive to the darn store.
But the other thing that isn’t teased out that I can see is how that riskier driving interacts with cities. That is, NY data is by population overwhelmed by the NYC area, and maybe Buffalo. But that’s by land area - you know, places people might drive - like 1% of the state. So when you’re likely to be the only car on the road, or one of a few - how does the risk change there from a public policy perspective?
So - we should compare fatalities from potentially poor driving to expected fatalities from being unable to get necessities where they’re living because they can’t drive. I’d argue if the latter is higher, then they should keep driving from a safety perspective across a state population.
Now, because I like arguing on the internet, I’ll pick apart your reply to me.
You talk like most elderly drivers ought to be in an assisted care home - that they probably can’t manage to put on pants in the morning. Or would forget that they’re actually driving. Sure, for that extreme I agree, they’re a danger to themselves just living alone, forget about driving.
Ok, so if you read that - we’re going to take away the only form of transportation for these people and worry about fixing it later - that’s what lead to my initial reply. Do you dispute this? Am I making an unfounded leap of logic that many people need a car to get to a store and bring back food? And these people tend to not be in heavily populated areas.
I think this part is way too broad a statement. To me, it reads like you mean anyone that could be designated as old. You certainly were not as clear in the first post. I’d argue your problem is you’ve been focusing on age rather than driving ability in all your replies. There are plenty of younger unsafe drivers. And instead of acting ageist, you could have focused on tested driving ability. But you didn’t initially, and are now pivoting in the second post like I should have read this out of the first post, though also berating me from reading into your posts.
Note too that there’s a lot of waffling between your stats on being 65+ and your various characterizations as dangerous. I imagine if you actually defined your terms there I might agree more with you. I really thought your characterizations
I firmly believe the reason the US makes it so easy to get and keep a drivers license is because the states don’t think there’s an alternative for enough people that trying to change that would get them voted out. So not having a solution to offer is also just saying you want to complain into the internet that the world isn’t perfect according to you. Again, no shit.
I have a quick question before I rip your comment to shreds: are you intentionally misinterpreting me, or are your reading comprehension skills just super, super bad? Because I read your entire comment and it’s abundantly clear that you missed the point completely. Like, you’re not even close. If English isn’t your first language, that would probably explain it; is it?
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension and English is my first language. Given the other posts below you, have you considered you are really bad at writing clearly?
Dude, seriously? Give me a break.
You have also said the following:
Already wrong. But let’s continue.
Yes, you are genuinely making an unfound leap of logic, it’s called begging the question. That’s your entire problem, really.
Yeah you mentioned this a few times.
People don’t drive on the land per se, they drive on roads—you know, the places people might drive. Where the fuck do you think all the roads are? I’ll give you hint, it’s where the people are, as evidenced by every road atlas ever printed.
And let’s not forget these gems:
Actually we do do that. It’s the aptitude test they have at the DMV when you get your license. The one you also have to get re-tested on when your license expires. The one I’ve been talking about this entire time.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
And my point this entire time has sailed right over your head. I don’t disagree that more stringent testing for driving would seem on its face to lead to more skilled drivers, which may lead to lower road deaths. I’m complaining about your apparent ageism, lack of concern for solutions that amount to more than “olds or disabled people get rekt for driving” and seemingly complete denial that large swaths of the US that are rural both exist and have old or disabled people living in them who need transport and the only option is cars.
You keep ignoring my actual point and continue to use basic sophistry to hammer a point I’ve accepted and granted in I think my first response. I admit, I like to play devils advocate, so I humor you with responding to your later points. You have yet to respond to my actual issue - accomplishing your desired end should be done in a way that is both realistic in our political environment and doesn’t make a large voting block widely worse off.
You also assert that lower road deaths is the greatest good, accomplished best by taking older drivers off the road, and do not compare to what deaths there would be if these same drivers could not travel at all, and were basically trapped in their houses. I’ve poked at that, but perhaps not directly enough to get you to substantiate this sets of assertions.
Damn, I think you might just be dumb. Listen, I can explain this for you, but I can’t inderstasd it for you. I’m done with you.
You are making a lot if assumptions there, and a lot of factors go into those numbers outside if age and easy of getting a license. Not saying you are wrong, and it certainly is something we should be addressing, but this doesn’t prove your point.
It probably isn’t good enough for an official NTSB report, but it is good enough for a reasonable person—i.e. someone who isn’t trying to emotionally argue backwards from their pet conclusion—to draw a conclusion from it as long as their scope is conservative.