It appears that only elderly drivers make the front pages. The State should compare all the accidents caused by drivers who are not elderly. For example: The driver of the green line car that crashed and the driver of the train that crashed at South Station. etc. It appears that some of the State reps. do not follow the news.
Babs - 15 years ago
John is absolutely on target. Driving is a ‘Privilege’ not a right.
The younger ones talking and texting on their Cell Phones are as dangerous if not more as the Seniors.
Anyone with two or more ‘Moving violations’ in any 12 month period should be re-evaluated, and/or Road tested again, regardless of age. Additional moving violations or sur-chargeable incidents should flag that individual for further retraining and retesting.
This is only a first step but we need to go further.
John - 15 years ago
I do not think that the state is going far enough!
We should implement more, stringent tests and not just at age 75.
Start the tests at 16 1/2 when eligible, 20 or 21 when legal drinking age, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 85, etc.
We need to monitor who is driving on our roads a little more carefully regardless of age and/or ability.
If we start to see someone who is in decline at age 40, we can monitor that person more closely and remove or limit their driving privileges before they become a hazard to the public.
It is a step in the right direction but we need to do more!!!
It appears that only elderly drivers make the front pages. The State should compare all the accidents caused by drivers who are not elderly. For example: The driver of the green line car that crashed and the driver of the train that crashed at South Station. etc. It appears that some of the State reps. do not follow the news.
John is absolutely on target. Driving is a ‘Privilege’ not a right.
The younger ones talking and texting on their Cell Phones are as dangerous if not more as the Seniors.
Anyone with two or more ‘Moving violations’ in any 12 month period should be re-evaluated, and/or Road tested again, regardless of age. Additional moving violations or sur-chargeable incidents should flag that individual for further retraining and retesting.
This is only a first step but we need to go further.
I do not think that the state is going far enough!
We should implement more, stringent tests and not just at age 75.
Start the tests at 16 1/2 when eligible, 20 or 21 when legal drinking age, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 85, etc.
We need to monitor who is driving on our roads a little more carefully regardless of age and/or ability.
If we start to see someone who is in decline at age 40, we can monitor that person more closely and remove or limit their driving privileges before they become a hazard to the public.
It is a step in the right direction but we need to do more!!!