The AP has a good piece this morning on the debate over whether D.C.’s regulations are too tough on older drivers who are trying to renew their driver’s licenses. Currently, D.C. law requires drivers over 75 to again pass a road test and a written exam of driving rules.
A year ago, D.C. began imposing what are among the nation’s most stringent requirements on drivers 75 and older. Only two states, Illinois and New Hampshire, also require road tests for all older drivers upon renewal of their licenses. No other jurisdiction besides the district requires written tests. Flooded with complaints from indignant drivers, the D.C. Council is poised to pass a bill that would prohibit the DMV from requiring the tests simply on the basis of age. …
Across the country, states have been tightening rules on older drivers after a series of highly publicized accidents in recent years. In February, an 84-year-old woman plowed through an elementary school lunchroom in Illinois, killing an 8-year-old boy. The most notorious accident came in 2003, when a car driven by an 86-year-old man hurtled through a farmers market in California killing 10 people and injuring more than 70 others.
Last week the AAA and the AARP joined forces to lobby the D.C. Council in favor of a bill introduced in March that would change the current law, saying the DMV is discriminating against the elderly. It looks like it worked: 10 of the 13 council members have said they would suppport the bill. The new law would keep the requirement that drivers age 70 and older appear in person to renew their licenses and submit documentation from a physician that they are able to drive, but do away with the mandatory driving and written test.
The position of the AARP rests largely on the notion that numerical age has little to do with driving ability — the health status and reflexes of any individual senior citizen can range widely, so the law ought to be geared toward measuring specific abilities, not an arbitrary number. That on its face seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. The problem of course will come when, if after this law is revised, a senior citizen in the District of Columbia is involved in a fatal accident. The story is right to point out that strict laws like the current one are the result of outrage over accidents like the one mentioned above in Santa Monica in 2003. Whenever a very old person accidentally kills someone with their car, you can be sure of plenty of shouting about why no one did anything to prevent this person from having a drivers license in the first place.
What do you think? Is it necessary for public safety for all older drivers to submit to regular tests to keep their licenses? Or is legislating against an entire group of people because of a very small number of tragedies more like the all-ages concert debate?
Photo by khvafl
