By Jordan Morris
Perspectives Editor
Securing a driver’s license is considered a milestone in life. It marks a breakthrough in teenage independence, responsibility and expectations of maturity.
But once behind the wheel, these young drivers assume a social reputation that totters between careless and utterly clueless. To the chagrin of these novice drivers, statistics support this stigma.
According to a November 2002 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, drivers 20 years of age and younger are responsible for the highest rate of fatal crashes on the roadways.
But surprisingly, the talk of the media at present actually surrounds the demographic that came in a close second – drivers over 65.
For decades there has been increased scrutiny regarding the road’s eldest motorists, boiling down to a central question: might the road’s most mature drivers be just as careless, and even as clueless as its most inexperienced?
This debate emerged in the public eye in July when Russell Weller, 86, sped through a crowded farmers market in nearby Santa Monica, killing 10 and injuring dozens. Weller was not driving under the influence of medication, illegal drugs or alcohol, according to a police report. His excuse? For almost three blocks, he thought he was stepping on the brake pedal, not the accelerator.
Three blocks.
This tragedy was met with a lot of confusion, anger and sadness across the nation, culminating in a potentially society-altering question: Is there such thing as too old to drive?
This question is hardly new. Serious talk of limiting elderly driving surfaced just five years ago when a 96-year-old man struck and killed a 15-year-old girl with his car in Santa Monica. The California Senior Driver Bill was introduced almost immediately, requiring road tests for all motorists over the age of 75 when renewing their driver’s license. Before its passage, the bill was faced with worlds of opposition from elderly rights groups, and in its final form, it focused on only “at-risk” drivers. The word “elderly” was never referenced.
This bill is a prime example of lawmakers’ complete evasion of the problem – the unwillingness to target the more at-risk drivers, which, as studies show, are the youngest and eldest drivers on the road. Just as drivers under 21 are faced with a plethora of regulations on their driving, elderly drivers should be monitored closely without singling them out or wasting tax dollars on counter-productive methods such as mandatory, comprehensive annual testing.
The dilemma is that the issue of elderly driving has a wide scope of implications, especially with an estimated 33 million drivers over the age of 65 in the U.S., according to the National Safety Board.
However, the aftermath of this summer’s Santa Monica incident resulted in the passage of several laws limiting the elderly around the country. In Illinois and New Hampshire, for example, all drivers over the age of 75 are now required to take a driving test upon renewal of their license. In Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill in July requiring those over 80 renewing their license to take a vision test.
While all sides in this issue presumably have the same humanitarian concern – ensuring the safety of the nation’s roads – every solution seems to step on another group’s toes. Activists for the elderly argue that mandating driving tests or denying driving privileges would inconvenience and single out elderly drivers, many of whom are completely capable of driving safely.
Others feel that focusing on the Santa Monica tragedy as a single event without examining a general scope would ignore the fact that many elderly drivers suffer from memory loss, a decline in thinking skills and diminished eyesight, resulting in less-safe driving practices. While limiting or denying driving privileges can be burdensome or even devastating to one’s lifestyle, especially in Southern California, the fact of the matter is that unsafe drivers should not be allowed on the road.
There is no question that age and driving ability are not mutually exclusive. Just as there are undoubtedly a handful of 13-year-olds who could manage sufficiently behind the wheel with proper training, there are many 93-year-olds who are perfectly responsible drivers.
Jim Baxter, the president of the National Motorists Association, agrees.
“We feel that (the nation) should be targeting the impairment and not the age, and should be identifying the specific individuals in the population who are more inclined to have this kind of accident,” he told the Cybercast News Service.
Increasing roadway safety starts here. A wide range of regulations already exists for drivers under 21, and their habits should continue to be monitored. Drivers over 65 should not be allowed to renew their licenses through the mail, which is the standard practice in many states. At the very least, mandatory vision testing should be implemented.
The most effective solution, however, includes drivers of all ages. Under current California state law, it is unlawful for a member of the public to report a suspicious driver to the DMV unless he or she is a member of the police force, a physician or an immediate family member. If an individual is reported, he or she should undergo a mandatory driving test upon the next renewal or his or her license.
It is highly important for family members and physicians to be proactive in ensuring the safety of their loved ones on the road, especially if they are afflicted or impaired with a condition that may hinder driving abilities. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration suggests that friends also be permitted to flag a friend who might be driving unsafely, regardless of the situation.
But just as in the case of Russell Weller, sometimes such incidents are not preventable. According to a statement by a DMV official to the Los Angeles Daily News, Weller had an excellent driving record and had passed vision and written tests upon the last renewal of his license. On paper, Weller was not at high risk until after the fact, when he realized he was stepping on the wrong pedal three blocks and 10 lives later.
Tragedies like these may drive us to jump to conclusions and unknowingly discriminate against certain groups. The fact is that some tragedies just aren’t preventable.
But instead of simply accepting this maxim or alienating certain groups, lawmakers should seek a logical median between the two extremes – enforcing practical, preventative tactics to curb vehicular accidents and focusing on fortifying the safety of our roadways.
September 11, 2003