I was visiting my grandmother in Buffalo when we found ourselves
stopped at a major intersection, her behind the wheel, squinting
ahead.
“Tell me when the light turns green,” she said to me
in her sweet, grandmotherly voice.
I laughed and stared at her; surely she had to be joking. Why
would she be driving if she couldn’t see the stoplight? More
importantly, what the hell was I doing in the passenger seat?
“My vision isn’t as good as it used to be,”
she added reassuringly. “I usually just make right turns
until I get where I’m going.”
My grandmother is not an anomaly; she is part of a generation of
elderly people continuing to drive long after their capacity to do
so has greatly diminished.
Last Friday, a jury found 86-year-old George Russell Weller
guilty of vehicular manslaughter for killing 10 people at the Santa
Monica Farmers’ Market three years ago.
He allegedly confused his car’s brake for the accelerator
and plowed into the pedestrian area.
This story highlighted not only what I’ve long seen as the
danger of organic produce, but also the problem with current U.S.
driving laws.
Fatality rates among drivers of all age groups are falling,
except for those 75 and older ““ their rates are on the
rise.
Overall, elderly drivers have higher rates of fatal accidents
than any other group except teenagers.
While teenage drivers must complete a road test before being
licensed, California law only requires that drivers over 70 renew
their license and pass a visual and written test.
Some past proposals for reform have been as extreme as to
require retesting of elderly drivers every two years.
Unfortunately the AARP, a very powerful lobby for elderly
Americans, has worked hard to quash any effort for mandatory
retesting of senior citizens.
If there’s a right to drive in the constitution, I suppose
I missed it in high school civics class.
The 2003 incident in Santa Monica was strikingly similar to
another one there in 1998, when a 96-year-old driver lost control
and killed a 15-year-old girl.
Driving is a privilege and a great responsibility, and history
will continue to repeat itself until we either reform our driving
laws or invent personal jetpacks ““ I’m not holding my
breath for the latter.
In the name of public safety, California should implement some
form of mandatory retesting for senior citizens. Most would likely
pass such a test, but for the few we take off the road, the
difference will be life and death.
At the same time we discuss retesting elderly drivers, we are
obligated to also look at the legal age at which we allow our most
dangerous drivers, teenagers, to get behind the wheel.
How is it that we let 15-year-olds get behind the wheel of a
two-ton killing machine but we make them wait until 18 years old to
buy cigarettes, vote for their representatives, sleep with their
representatives and give their lives serving this nation
abroad?
While we look at mandatory testing for the elderly and the
possibility of revoking thousands of licenses from senior citizens,
we should also consider moving the legal driving age up to 18.
While many may decry this as unfair to teenagers, I firmly
believe that youth is supposed to be as painful and difficult as
possible.
Such a move would simply add to already existing teenage angst
and provide excellent fodder for emo bands and teenage
faux-politicos alike.
I can already hear their battle cry: “If we’re old
enough to page for Foley, we’re old enough to
drive.”
I’ll take a couple more years of teenage angst and a few
more license-less seniors if it means more 15-year-olds will live
to see their 16th birthdays.
Change may be in the air for all California drivers, however, as
Gov. Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill that requires the DMV to
study the possibility of retesting those who need to renew their
licenses for their physical and visual abilities.
While the bill does not address the issue of elderly drivers
whose mental and physical abilities might deteriorate thereafter,
at least it will provide short-term solutions when the results are
released by Dec. 31, 2011.
This will give ample time for more needless and preventable auto
deaths.
Evidently, the state government has more in common with elderly
drivers than previously thought; they both have no idea where
they’re going, but they’ll get there doing 25 miles an
hour in the fast lane with the blinker on.
Are you driving while reading this? Stop! And e-mail Levine
at jlevine@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.