Treating senior drivers as if they were still in their 40s and
50s — even when they’re well into their 70s and 80s — arguably
makes about as much sense as treating teenage drivers as if they
were in their 30s or 40s.
Both age groups require closer monitoring for their own safety
as well as the safety of other drivers — but we currently don’t do
nearly as much to protect the public from the consequences of
“senior driving” as we do to limit the potential damage caused by
inexperienced teens.
And yet, drivers over the age of 65 are the most likely to be
involved in an accident after drivers aged 16-20, according to
insurance industry data. The reasons may be different (youthful
exuberance and inexperience vs. declining reflexes/vision/focus in
older drivers) but the end results are often the same.
It’s a fact of life that as we age, the more likely we are to
suffer from vision problems (especially diminished peripheral and
“night” vision), increased reaction times, stiff limbs (making it
harder to turn the wheel quickly, for example) and a host of major
and minor medical problems that can affect our ability to drive
safely. It’s also a fact that we’re living longer than previous
generations — and that in the coming years, there will be
unprecedented numbers of drivers in their 70s, 80s and even 90s on
the road.
No one is demanding that older drivers surrender their licenses
— or that being older necessarily means “unsafe.” However, given
the medical realities about aging — and the very real problem of
growing numbers of older drivers doing things like driving a Buick
through a plate glass window into a shopping mall or not noticing a
small child in the road — more effective screening of older
drivers after a certain age seems a not-unreasonable thing to
do.
For example, who could argue with more frequent vision tests
after, say, the age of 70? Once every five years (or more) is just
not adequate — and doesn’t take into account the major changes
that can often take place in an older person’s eyes over that
period of time.
Testing of peripheral and “night” vision should be part of the
screening as well (and for drivers of all ages).
Another small reform that could do a great deal of good would be
to decrease the interval between driver’s licenses renewal for
drivers over the age of 70 to no less than once every 2-3 years. In
some states, the time between renewal can be as much as once every
8-10 years. This is fine for younger drivers; in most cases, there
is no appreciable physical decline that could affect one’s ability
to drive between, for example, the ages of 35 and 45 (or 45 and
55). But it’s beyond debate (if the debate is to be rational and
fact-based, at any rate) that major physical and mental decline can
and often does occur after the age of 70. And the changes can be
sudden, too.
As with vision screening, more frequent driver’s license
renewals after the age of 70 or so could identify drivers who’ve
become senescent and should leave the driving to others. And
“automatic renewals” (which are common practice in several states)
should be done away with entirely. At renewal time, a driver should
be required to pass at least a minimal road test of proficiency
behind the wheel — as opposed to signing a piece of paper and
sending the DMV the $25 renewal fee.
As a final precautionary step, any driver (of any age — not
just seniors) involved in an at-fault accident would be required to
come in for a vision screening, written test of knowledge and a
road test — to assure they know the rules of the road and can
operate a vehicle with a minimal level of competence. Any driver
involved in more than one at-fault accident in a five-year period
should be required (at the very least) to attend a remedial
driver’s education school and re-pass both the written and road
test before his driving privileges are restored.
None of these proposals is onerous or unreasonable; the ones
relating to more frequent “checks” after the age of 70 or so are
derived from the incontestable facts about the aging process. The
same logic used to defend more intensive monitoring/testing of
inexperienced teen drivers applies just as much to older drivers.
And seniors are no more “entitled” to drive than sixteen-year-olds.
Or anyone else, for that matter.
Driving is — or ought to be — a privilege based on
demonstrated competence. And of demonstrating competence more than
just once. The fact that a person passed his test in 1960 doesn’t
mean he’s still got what it takes today. Or will tomorrow.
