[tsmall22204]

In the Villages community, is there lift and uber easily available for seniors so they can stop driving?

[Donegalkid]

“Full Self Driving cars are going to be a godsend for people that can no longer drive safely, or at all. Allowing them to get out safely.”

That may be the case for the future but the current self-driving technology is not a substitute for the mental and physical decline of the human driver e.g. the decrease of fine motor skills, decision making ability, dexterity, etc. I’ve ridden in my daughter’s Tesla with auto pilot “on” and the driver has to be very clued in to what is going on with the car, and the driving conditions. For example, if there are no white lines on the sides of the driving lane, auto driving features do not work so good. Another: blinking yellow lights at intersections and auto drive turns off. Woops. And, of course, the driver needs to be able to navigate through the rather complicated systems in place e.g. the video control screen to operate the car, and to engage and disengage the auto drive features. Auto drive is pretty good for highway driving but not a substitute for a human operated car in local traffic conditions (like in TV). Self-driving cars may evolve into more intuitive driving machines but that’s a ways off. We will see.

[donfey]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Sorry, it is NOT a right. Seriously people today LOVE to throw around the "I have a right". Well, you don't. Right are clearly enumerated, there is "everything you want and we forgot to list" clause in the constitution. If you have a RIGHT to drive, and it can be taken away for drunk driving, can they take away your RIGHT to own guns for drunk shooting if you don't kill anyone? Nope,. See owning a gun IS a right, driving is NOT a right.

And complain all you want about the DMV here, try it is CA where you make an appointment in order to get in line and waiit 4 hours. Seriously, if you don't have an appointment to get in line you are not allowed in the line.

I grew up here and I am very familiar with the DMV.

It's not RIGHTS that are "clearly enumerated" but powers/functions of the federal government. We DO NOT get our rights from the government. The Bill of Rights do not grant anything. Rather, they RESTRICT the government from limiting, or infringing against what the framers saw as unalienable rights. They are meant to PROTECT us from an overreaching government. Sadly, they have not been as effective as hoped since the government has worked diligently to "get around them."

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by donfey

It's not RIGHTS that are "clearly enumerated" but powers/functions of the federal government. We DO NOT get our rights from the government. The Bill of Rights do not grant anything. Rather, they RESTRICT the government from limiting, or infringing against what the framers saw as unalienable rights. They are meant to PROTECT us from an overreaching government. Sadly, they have not been as effective as hoped since the government has worked diligently to "get around them."

I misspoke, and apologize.

But, the use of the term Rights does not mean you can do anything you want to do.

Laws restrict or regulate what you can do. Even fundamental rights can be limited. There is no limit to the regulation or restriction of "rights" that have not been determined to be fundamental.

So, I guess my point is, that a right that is not guaranteed to be allowed is a right in name only - ie., not really a right.

My use of the term rights is referring to fundamental rights, which I am allowed to do unless the government has a very good reason (that the Supreme Court agrees with) to limit or restrict.

For example, I have a right to own guns, but there can be restrictions to that right. Those restrictions however are very limited, and the Supreme Court will often rule against state-imposed limits.

Your right to punch me in the face is not a fundamental right, no matter how much some people on here may want to. So there are very few limits to the government's ability to prohibit punching each other in the face.

[Babubhat]

You have this option to get Tesla like technology if your car is compatible.

comma.ai – Introducing openpilot

[Girlcopper]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

The license number of the car should have been given to the police so they can check to see if she is capable of driving safely. When my mother turned 85 she felt that her reflexes were not good enough to be driving so she decided to give up her license and sell her car.

Again the answer is “call the police”. Unless the police witness something , they can do nothing. They dont randomly check peoples driving skills. Thats why there is a DMV which is responsible for checking capabilities of drivers before issuing a driver license. They are a flawed govt agency with no help in sight. They give licenses to everyone.
Example: A friends dad, age 88, was due to renew his license and needed to pass a eye test. He knew he couldnt pass it and also had hearing issues so he figured his license wouldnt get renewed. Just on a hunch, he renewed it on line, it was accepted and he got a license for another 7 years. Scarey!!

[1948JDG]

I definitely agree!!!!!!! Closer scrutiny as we get older. Nobody wants to lose their license and their independence, but that day will come for all of us.

[Bay Kid]

Dad hasn't driven in over 1 1/2 years, but the VA. DMV mailed Dad a new license I requested for $8. No test not even questions. He is 88, can't hear, hardly walk and doesn't see very well.

At least he can ride with my grandson later this year when he gets his learner's permit.

[Girlcopper]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Just because most traffic violations are by teenage boys, that is mainly because there are a lot more teen drivers than 80-year-old drivers.

At some point, we become unable to safely drive on public roads. That age is different for everyone. But, it is coming to everyone - someday.

Full Self Driving cars are going to be a godsend for people that can no longer drive safely, or at all. Allowing them to get out safely.

Until then is a very difficult thing to lose your ability to get around independently. But, it is for their own safety and the safety of everyone around them. And driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege.

To answer OPs question, when? When one is no longer able to drive safely and that needs to be determined by someone else. I disagree with Florida issuing driver's licenses for (I think it is) 10 years. I think that once you reach 65 testings should be every year.

65 and a yearly test? The DMV doesnt have enough employees to test that many people in TV yearly. And 65 isnt old regardless of the number. Many people are still working full time and carrying on with their careers. Maybe a written test to show they know laws but a physical driving test is impossible to administer to that many people annually

[KRMACK55]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

I was shocked when we went to get our Florida drivers licenses that they were good for ten years. I think it would be a good idea to shorten up that interval as your age goes up. Maybe when you hit 60 drop it down to five years. At 65 drop it to three years. At 80 you should be checked every year. At 90, weekly. lol

When was it changed to 10 yrs? I got my license in 2019 and it was 8 years.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

But, testing is not punishment. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Validating you still qualify for that privilege is NOT punishment, it is protecting you as much as it is protecting the people around you - oh. , wait, are we talking about driving or vaccinations... hmmm

I admit I'm of two minds on this issue. Would testing on the basis of age be discriminatory? Yes--but we discriminate when it comes to driving all the time. People with various physical handicaps cannot drive legally unless their vehicle has the adaptive aids necessary for them to operate it safely. There are probably some 12-year-olds out there who would make better drivers than people 5, 10, or 20 years older than they, but we have set the arguably discriminatory age of 16 as the age when you can LEGALLY drive on our highways, regardless of skill level.

And speaking of skill level, we discriminate there too. No one is born with the right to crawl behind the wheel and herd the ol' Family Truckster down the highway. We have to prove, via written and practical testing, that we know the laws, understand how to operate our vehicle and can demonstrate the skill level to drive safely. With age being a process, it is illogical to assume that skills DON'T diminish over time, because on average they most certainly do.

I no longer drive after dark or in bad weather unless there is absolutely no other choice, nor do I travel on unfamiliar roads, recognizing that my wife is a far better driver in all three of the situations mentioned here than I am. Sure, that male pride thing was an issue when, about five years ago now, I first began to suspect that my skills were eroding. But I'd rather sacrifice pride than a life, or lives.

And periodic testing after a certain age would most certainly save lives.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Girlcopper

65 and a yearly test? The DMV doesnt have enough employees to test that many people in TV yearly. And 65 isnt old regardless of the number. Many people are still working full time and carrying on with their careers. Maybe a written test to show they know laws but a physical driving test is impossible to administer to that many people annually

Many people are very active at 65. And many are not, and are not capable of driving safely. It only takes one to kill someone.

And you are right, there is no simple solution. I don't know if it would be impossible to administer that many tests, but it certainly would be expensive.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I admit I'm of two minds on this issue. Would testing on the basis of age be discriminatory? Yes--but we discriminate when it comes to driving all the time. People with various physical handicaps cannot drive legally unless their vehicle has the adaptive aids necessary for them to operate it safely. There are probably some 12-year-olds out there who would make better drivers than people 5, 10, or 20 years older than they, but we have set the arguably discriminatory age of 16 as the age when you can LEGALLY drive on our highways, regardless of skill level.

And speaking of skill level, we discriminate there too. No one is born with the right to crawl behind the wheel and herd the ol' Family Truckster down the highway. We have to prove, via written and practical testing, that we know the laws, understand how to operate our vehicle and can demonstrate the skill level to drive safely. With age being a process, it is illogical to assume that skills DON'T diminish over time, because on average they most certainly do.

I no longer drive after dark or in bad weather unless there is absolutely no other choice, nor do I travel on unfamiliar roads, recognizing that my wife is a far better driver in all three of the situations mentioned here than I am. Sure, that male pride thing was an issue when, about five years ago now, I first began to suspect that my skills were eroding. But I'd rather sacrifice pride than a life, or lives.

And periodic testing after a certain age would most certainly save lives.

I completely agree with you and thank you for the mature handling of your situation. And the point is the age where we begin to have diminished capacity to drive varies from person to person. I hope we can all agree that someone with diminished capacity to drive should not be allowed to drive. If we can agree on that, then the question becomes, how do we determine someone is able or not able to drive. Testing is certainly one way. As someone pointed out, that might be hard to do, considering the number of older people driving.

[Mistymom]

Concerning expiration dates, we recently moved here. My husband is over 80 and his is 6 years. I'm under 70 and mine is 9 years. I don't know if this is the norm, or just for new residents in Lake County.
The problem is, there was only an eye test. No proficiency test at all.
Unfortunately, the proficiency of many seniors gradually deteriorates, without them noticing all that much. Unless a law enforcement sees this or an accident occurs, this continues because many seniors live alone without someone advising them that it's time to stop driving.
Maybe the best thing to do would be what was mentioned earlier, get their tag number and report them. Hopefully then someone from the Sherriff's Department would follow up in a compassionate way.

[newgirl]

It is a shame that this is the largest retirement community yet have no public transportation for folks that shouldn't drive. I am sure 95% would stop if they had a affordable option( and no, not everyone is wealthy here).