This letter follows up on a discussion about whether older drivers should undergo additional testing to renew their licenses. The writer who originally included the proposal, among other suggestions for improving traffic and safety, sent in this additional observation.
Dear Dr. Gridlock:
Taking the keys away from seniors is meant to be a last resort. It is specifically meant for those folks who absolutely shouldn’t be behind the steering wheel.
Usually, either the family or friends have failed to intervene. Some older drivers might look at this as a doomsday scenario, but they need to remember that they can take as many lessons as they need, and even if they fail the first road test, they can take their time and take more lessons before taking the final test. The drivers who fail the second time are protected from doing harm to themselves and their fellow drivers. I would say that is pretty fair to the rest of us.
You might know that in the Netherlands, society as a whole always has been tolerant toward individual liberties. But the Dutch clearly drew the line when they saw some elderly drivers had become a danger on the road.
I fully understand the problems this new rule might cause for rural drivers. The local municipalities will have to look into what they can provide for these folks as far as public transportation.
A. Maarten Singelenberg, Rockville
DG: Pity the politician who proposes testing older drivers. That age group tends to turn out at election time. But politics aside, is extra testing the right thing to do?
The many responses to Singelenberg’s first letter — many of them from older drivers — did not argue that we should allow them to get away with bad driving. Rather, they tended to focus on our need to maintain mobility as we age. If we start additional testing, what transportation options can our communities offer to people who might have failed the test but still need to get around?
We’ve made no such commitment to preserving mobility. Families can do their part, but the transportation needs of aging baby boomers will eventually overwhelm their families. The kids have lives, too. And parents don’t necessarily want to live where it’s convenient for their children to help them out.
We can use the tools of government, including tax breaks, to encourage private groups to provide transportation services for older people within their own communities. It’s unrealistic to expect that our governments will directly provide transit services that will meet the upcoming demand. That’s a greater expense than the public is willing to bear.
Metro, for example, has spent the past few years trying to limit the growth of the MetroAccess paratransit program after the escalating expense stunned the jurisdictions that subsidize regional transit.
What else can be done to meet this need for mobility without a massive increase in public spending?
MORE INFO, please
Okay, enough of the big talk. Now let’s get back to the little things that really annoy travelers. Letter writers and I launched a round of rebukes and recriminations aimed at drivers who don’t use their signal lights to indicate turns or lane changes.
Loading...
Comments