A Dangerous Assumption

This Rand study (pdf at link) suggests that older drivers need not be regulated more strictly as they voluntarily limit their behaviors as they get older, and even though they are far less capable as they get older, they don't present a much bigger risk to the general public to justify an increased regulatory regime aimed at getting those whose skills are inadequate off the roads.

The huge problem I see with this study, is that they make a basic assumption regarding old people that's dangerously false. Their basic assumption is that the people who turn 70 and 80 in the future will act and react to their aging process the same way as past and current 70 and 80 year olds did. I'm here to wave my hands, yell and scream and say, HELL NO.

In ten years the leading edge of the Boomer wave will be hitting 70. At every stop along the way they've trumpeted how 'different' they are from all other generations in their approach to aging. As the oldest of these folks are hitting 60, we're bombarded with articles about how Sixty=Sexy, and all that other nonsense. That's going to continue as long as they're around, and their Boomer narcissism won't recede with age, if anything they've shown a capacity to get increasingly narcissistic with each passing decade, and I don't expect them (as a cohort, individual boomers can be quite nice, but as a whole, they remain the ME generation) to be any different in their 70s, 80s, 90s or beyond.

Boomers will not voluntarily limit their behaviors or accept their diminished skillsets. I predict they will in far larger numbers than today's older elderly (75+) continue to drive, continue to work, and continue to think they aren't worse off than they were then when they were in their 40s.

You can create a set of driving regulations that ignore age all together, but require that all drivers be physically and mentally sharp enough to avoid collisions and react sensibly when an accident occurs.

To acknowledge that people fall apart as they get older isn't to discriminate against the elderly. It's to discriminate against the unfit, and that's the kind of discrimination I can whole heartedly back. Any oldster who wants to drive, should welcome the chance to prove it in a driving test that mixes on the road testing with a simulator that tests their reactions to emergency situations. Increase the licensing fees on driving (it is a privilege, not a right, especially as you get older) to pay for the increased testing, require driving road tests more frequently past the age of 65 (every other year until 75, then every single year once you past the age of 75). Also, require re-testing of driving skills within 6 months of any major emergency hospitalization that involves loss of consciousness, regardless of the person's age. It's about possible impairment and the danger that presents to everyone, not hating on old folks.

Just cause oldsters are acting semi-responsibly now, doesn't mean the next group of oldsters will continue to be so wise. If past performance is any indication of future returns, we can expect that the next wave of oldsters will most definitely not accept the fact of their decline and refuse to self-impose limits on their mobility.

Barring that, force old people into tiny electric vehicles, they mostly drive alone or in pairs, generally don't carry a lot of stuff, and don't travel more than 15 miles from home. So anybody over the age 75 of will be treated like anybody else, except their license will only be good for a GEM or GEM like vehicle (or at least no vehicles with a curb weight over 2000lbs). Do it for the environment's sake, I bet I could get the Goracle behind this if I sell it on that angle.

If a person over the age of 75 wants a license to drive a normal car, than they should be required to pass a more thorough test at their own expense, and agree to go through this process each year. That way, if they momentarily suffer from pedal confusion, they won't wipe out a whole Farmer's Market.

I'm normally against nannyism, but I don't see this as nannyism, I see this as common sense. Cars are too big, too powerful, and too easy to drive, someone not capable of reacting to a difficult situation as it presents itself shouldn't be driving. Old people get frail, that's life, and sometimes they get very frail, very quickly, that's why they need to be tested more often. Those that can handle the stress should be allowed to continue to assume the risk of driving, but as a group, old people should be scrutinized.

That young people drive more dangerously than they should doesn't excuse old people from being regulated more closely in light of their declining abilities. That's the argument the Rand study would seem to make, 'it's OK for the old to suck, cause kids suck worse', that's not an argument I'd make, and I find it strange that Rand would do so.