In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1537
Online now 1991 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I would be in favor of 18 - until I have kids 16 yrs that play sports & are in other extra circulars - then I reverse my previous opinion
Only in Michigan cause they are a no fault state
Without a doubt... I don't know what age would be appropriate but I will say 75
I had the same thought pattern. I'm ok with 16 but they should up the test some. I answered 20 questions, drove around the block and BOOM, approved for the open road. Scary thought for a parent.
"Nobody makes me bleed my own blood, nobody!"
I live in Virginia bro
Can't believe it took this long for somebody to say that. Agreed.
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
My family is good friends with a family from Cleveland, TN. I spent some time there growing up. Nice family. Nice city too, from what I can recall.
For the question, yes, and I think 65 sounds about right. Make them retest every other year.
Huddles are for rookies.
Can't believe no one else is agreeing with us.
Addendum - if you fail a road test at 16, you're not allowed to retake for at least 6 months. Fail a 2nd time, no retaking for a year. I knew a girl who failed 3 times within 2 months, and then drove out to a DMV way in the country that had more lax standards so she could finally pass on her 4th try. The girl totalled two cars before her 18th birthday.
Thanks to my AZ driver license, I don't have to even look at a DMV, MVD, etc until I'm 65.
Long way to go before that happens.
Who's a what now?
"As far as the downvotes. It's a gnat biting an lion"
-- A member of tRCMB Justice League, taking the internet WAY WAY too seriously.
I don't agree or disagree. I was actually more wondering if it was even a realistic possibility to pull off. Out of 307,006,550 citizens, 209,618,386 of those are licensed drivers. My only question is, how much money would have to be invested to set that up vs the fee you'd pay as the driver? I would think that's a very tall order to lay on any existing gov't body so one would assume a new branch would have to be created for this purpose only. If done properly it would create millions of new jobs, but do we have the funds to support that or do we just print more money?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Red Goodman 17 months ago
On the one hand, I don't want to pay more money than I already do in taxes and I know some people need their cars for work and might not be able to afford the money it would cost on a recurring basis to renew their license. On the other hand, driving is not a privilege and in the wrong hands a car is very, very dangerous. Honestly, I tend to err on the side of caution and safety rather than money.
You mean they don't have to already?
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
I think there's a much easier solution that covers everyone across the board regardless of age. Let the driver decide how often they take their test. Set a strict law that all insurance companies have to adhere to based on traffic violations. One violation every two years is your window of immunity, nothing changes. Receive a 2nd and you have 30 days to retake your driving test (you pay for it out of pocket on top of your ticket). Receive a third and license suspension comes into effect. Any driver who can't afford the test can be billed through their private insurance. If you do not have private insurance you will be paying a state fine as well as have your licensed revoked until insurance is purchased. Once you get insurance the insurance company can notify the governing body that your acct is in good standing and they will mail your license back to you.
No violations, no re-testing. JMO
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Red Goodman 17 months ago
But think about how many drivers that speed or just drive poorly and don't get caught. They may go 2 years before causing a 30 car pile up. Better safe than sorry, but that's just my opinion.
True which is why I like Progressive's snapshot driving idea. Slightly big brotherish but has potential to be the new standard. That concept has potential. I think there's a way to tweek it but the idea as a whole is a viable option if some properly.
yes after age 65 yearly, its retirement time they dont have anything else to do so once a year wont hurt em.
Problems seeing at night
Drifting across the center lines or no look lane changing
Sleeping at red lights
Forgetting why you left the house
Driving speeds 20-30 mph slower than the posted limit
Trouble judging distances
on and on, the only difference between an elderly driver and a drunk driver is the drunk eventually sobers up.
Red the best part of these age bashing threads is before you all know it you will be 65.
As far as my reading comprehension I think even you realize that the five years between 60 and 65 aren't going to make you suddenly feeble and unable to drive. These mass generalizations by posters here are pretty funny to anyone who has more than three brain cells.
Looks like another perfect day.
Mass generalizations? Isn't that how our entire country is set up to function? How else would a number be set for anything if not for mass generalizations? Just saying for example, the age for getting a license, being considered a senior, drinking age, eligible for aarp, etc etc etc. I mean you have to set a number on everything we do.
Now if you're talking about mass generalizations like every bama fan is a trailer park redneck or every USCw fan is bi-secksual then yes, I completely agree with you wholeheartedly.
This post was edited by Red Goodman 17 months ago
No because half of the people who make our laws are either 65 or are within 10 or so years of it.
95% of the people I know over 65 have slow reactions and are unsafe drivers. I'm sure theres some 14 or 15 year olds that are mature enough to drive, but not many. I'm sorry bro but its just the truth.
If you're an exception, fine. You get to prove yourself at the test.
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. I'd say 65 or so. I can speak from personal experience when my grandpa started to get dementia. It was tough but we had to take his car away from him. He had a hard time with it and resented my mom and I for a while.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports