|
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Theoretically it can be, though usually not, so the question is what should be the law to cover the general case. It wouldn’t be such a problem if it were easy for them to get around without driving. Either self driving cars, subsidized Ubers, public transit, walkable cities, home delivery, etc. My opinion is that in the general case people over 70 shouldn’t be driving and I say this as someone who has 4 spritly grandparents in their 90s. I really don’t like how dangerous roads are, a fact that we accept because we did not really have good alternatives, now that we do we should implement them. |
| |
| ▲ | Wistar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Paul Newman won his last race at Lime Rock in Sept. 2007 driving a 900-horsepower Corvette when he was 82. | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh an hour ago | parent [-] | | Is your point that we should be governed by the exceptions? I think that would be a bad idea. Does he even need a license for a racetrack? I’m sure he could easily afford Uber rides, and just maybe he would like to lower his odds of getting T-boned at an intersection by a geriatric. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | guerrilla 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's not a temporary condition You have no way of knowing that. There's no reason it should be written into law. If they can pass the test, then they can drive. Testing already takes care of what you want. If it truly isn't a temporary condition, then you have nothing to worry about. |
|
| ▲ | gus_massa 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It can be for "3 months" (with a low expectation that after 3 months they improve enough to get the licence again). |
|
| ▲ | the_real_cher 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's a vague definition though. All cognitive decline is not equal. If they're able to drive they should be allowed to |
