I guess because it's a controversial subject. I have a lot of sympathy for the man. He's in a crappy situation. Without knowing how serious the offence was, it's hard to tell if the judge is justified in his decision. The decision shouldn't be based on a heartbreaking story though.
Old drivers normally are fairly safe because they drive at sensible (or often too slow) speeds. A speeding elderly driver is the equivalent of a drunk driver when it comes to reaction times.
I wouldn’t say they’re fairly safe drivers. FAR from it.
I’ve seen way too many times old drivers cluelessly go through a red light, stop on a green light, turn without signaling, one of them even hit a bicyclist while the guy was on his lane. They turned without checking. And on top of that they’re slow, and have zero reaction time. Not to mention the odd medical emergency in the car. They’re distracted without being distracted. Drunk without being drunk. Drowsy without being drowsy.
They’re EXTREMELY dangerous. There should be yearly driving simulator tests for people a certain age. If you can’t prove you can drive, no more license to drive. It would make the decision of family members a whole lot easier. And they should have better transportation alternatives for people like that.
I mean statistically they are responsible for less accidents, especially when compared to under 25s. I wouldn't call them extremely dangerous statistically unless younger car drivers were also labelled the same.
They have a high fatality rate though, this is because they don't survive the crashes themselves due to being more feeble.
I completely agree that old drivers should have to take scheduled tests. Same should probably be said for anyone who has an accident.
96
u/HaveyGoodyear Feb 27 '25
Especially if you have the reactions of a 96 year old...