What do you think of the idea of requiring knowledge of and demonstrating skill in the energy efficient operation of a motor vehicle as a condition of initial license and at periodic intervals (e.g., every 8 years)? :?:
Unfortunaly safety of the driver isn't what the insurance companies are really looking at.An04Prius said:Because their databases show, as a group, they are safer drivers.
I imagine that exposure would be a problem for more than just seniors, at least 9 months of the year. They charge more for that? Seems like just wearing a warm coat and mittens would help.FarNorth said:...Another factor in reduced or discounted rates for "us" seniors is amount of exposure since we do tend to drive less and not in rush hour traffic.
"Older drivers are not causing more accidents" said Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "They are more likely to be killed or injured in a crash, but that's because they are more fragile". 10-18-01.melgish said:Unfortunaly safety of the driver isn't what the insurance companies are really looking at.An04Prius said:Because their databases show, as a group, they are safer drivers.
The real determination is that as a group, the premium vs. claim ratio is higher. This can be caused by many factors besides safety. Ingorance of benefits, not getting damage fixed, death of the driver. They're all worked in.
Hey, just get one of these bear suits. They're washable (with the whites, no bleach) & not that expensive. Be sure to clean the filter each time !!Sanny said:I imagine that exposure would be a problem for more than just seniors, at least 9 months of the year. They charge more for that? Seems like just wearing a warm coat and mittens would help.FarNorth said:...Another factor in reduced or discounted rates for "us" seniors is amount of exposure since we do tend to drive less and not in rush hour traffic.
If I were to guess, it sounds like all those former New Yorkers, NJs, who now live in Fla., or snow-bird there. They never got over being NY/NJers (hard to do, I was one for 35 yrs). They just like the climate but kept the old habits.DanMan32 said:Not around here they don't! They have to rush to the bank or store as soon as it opens, which is the same time many of us are heading to work.
In Minnesota you need to have 20/40 corrected vision in one or both eyes, and a certain range of perpheral vision to have an unrestricted license. At vision levels lower than that you can get a license with increasing degrees of restrictions such as no night driving, no freeway driving, less than 45 mph, within 10 miles of home, etc.mrv said:I KNOW that I couldn't really read the eye chart, but I thought I'd try without my distance-glasses, and I passed. That's about all they ask for for renewal. Online, all they ask for is if you have 20/40 vision (mine is better than this, maybe that's how I passed without my glasses?), if you're taking any medication or have a medical condition that prevents you from driving, and if your license has been suspended. Not that you couldn't just lie...
It's like how people every so often get into an outcry that seniors should have to take driving tests or give up their licenses after a certain age. I don't think it's age-dependent, based on the idiots I see driving around here. I think everyone should be retested for at least the rules of the road every so often, not just a vision test (or a checkbox that you think you have good vision)... However, that would require the hiring of a lot more state police traffic cops to do testing (if road tests), or more registry time if taking a written test, and with state budgets squeezed as it is I don't see it happening.
It is an outrage to require stricter testing by age. And re-testing everyone, as has been pointed out, is not economically practical. But there is a way to direct stricter re-testing that makes sense.
Do it by driving skill: points/seriousness of moving violations, and seriousness of at-fault accidents, regardless of age. By the way, there will be few seniors in that category.
This really is the answer. Re-tests should be based on objective behaviours. It should also be more strict. i.e. after your 2nd at fault crash, you should be re-tested. In Ohio, the tests are for 5 minutes in residential neighborhoods. HEY BMV, wake up, that is not where the serious crashes occur.