[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

Yesterday I was on Buena vista traveling north in the right lane Biking.
Her comes a car going south in the left lane of the North bound two lanes going the wrong way.
I start screaming at this person your going the wrong way. The best I could tell, it was a older lady in her 80's plus barely able to look over the dash. I pulled over, looked back as she was going the wrong way in to the round about, OMG!!!
Thank God the person in the Blue SUV slammed on his brakes as she turned left into one of the villages. Also a state body utility truck almost broad sided her as well and slammed on the brakes as everyone else coming into the round about did. I think she was oblivious to what was happening.
HMMMMM no one wants there freedom taken away but this lady almost cause injury to 4 vehicle and there passengers UGGHHHHHH

I can understand how frightening that must have been. How could you tell her age from your vantage point inside your car unless you did in fact see her for a second or two rather close?

Let me also say that about two years ago when I had an out of the blue episode of an extremely low heart rate, (corrected by a pacemaker) I decided not to drive. I am 81. My husband who is one year younger does the driving in our family, and plays golf four days a week and trims the large bushes and trees all around the property and keeps up with his doctor checks at LEAST twice a year as do we all at our house. I still drive the cart to Laurel Manor from our home to paint. I still feel completely safe doing so and driving our precious daughter with me. That may change. If someone tells me I am not capable, I will listen.

It is very difficult, this issue, because aging affects us all differently. Almost impossible to make a one size fits all decision based on age.

Age is one factor in driving. As we all know there are many people who probably should not be at the wheel of a motor vehicle. Some still drive with their licenses revoked. We cannot seem to be able to legislate and enforce moral decisions. It is a worry to be sure.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Windguy

For all those suggesting regular testing, please keep in mind that lack of a driver’s license won’t stop people from driving. My mom had a heart attack while driving at the age of 90. The cop who investigated the accident told me that her license had expired many years earlier. I had no idea.

Self driving cars are the only solution to this problem.

I agree with you completely. However, the fact that laws don't work, doesn't mean we should not have any. It is illegal to rob a bank - people still do.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

We cannot seem to be able to legislate and enforce moral decisions.

This is one of the truest statements I have ever read on TOTV!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

The question is, do you have patience with your patients, or are they patient with you?

Sometimes...

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that all RIGHTS can be limited by the Government.

The supreme court has determined that there are "Fundamental rights", which have a higher bar of requirements for the government to limit them. These include the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, etc.

You have a right to do anything you want to do as long as it is not limited or restricted by the government. The limits to those rights are call laws.

Laws are what limit or restrict rights. Laws are more limited when they restrict fundamental rights.

Driving is not on the list of fundamental rights. So, driving is a "right" you can do only as long as there is no law against it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you have a fundamental right to travel on public roads. They have not ruled you have a right to drive on public roads. Therefore your "right" to drive extends only as far as state law permits.

So, you are right to the point that it is true you have the right to do anything you want to do - you are wrong in that does not mean it can not be regulated. Since driving has not been determined to be a fundamental right, there are virtually no limits on how the state can restrict or regulate driving.

That is why it is called a privilege because you can do it with permission. An illegal driver is someone that violates the rules/laws concerning driving. Driving without a license is illegal. Driving while intoxicated is illegal.

So, yes, you can drive without a license, but, the States can pass virtually ANY law restricting that "right", up to and including putting you in jail when you drive without a license. Many states have laws about driving without a license that limits the punishment to fines.

Well, there you go -- our "Living Constitution" (9 un-elected representatives from the lawyer's union) have told us "Shall not be infringed" really means "infringe all you want"!

Waitaminute... can someone point to the article or amendment that says the Supremes get to "interpret" the Constitution? Oh, I remember! It's not in the contract, it's in that Supreme Court ruling, Marbury vs. Madison, where the Supremes declared themselves the sole arbiters of what our contract with the gooberment actually says.

You can declare the moon made of green cheese and unicorn poop the source of all energy in the known universe. Doesn't make it so, even with a Harvard Law degree.

Regulation? I never said Congress is forbidden from putting some ground rules on our rights -- in fact I specifically supported it. It's legal when the regulations EXPAND the right for the majority, and don't specifically discriminate against the minority. A law saying we have to stop at stop signs is an example of that -- it makes vehicle transportation possible for all of us. A law saying old people must prove they are still competent is an example of age discrimination, and it is already specifically forbidden by the law.

Sentence everybody to a day at the DMV every year if you think you can get your fellow citizens to go along with it. At least it would be constitutional. But making an old man prove he's still competent, just because he has half a century of driving experience is not only un-Consitutional, it's downright stupid.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

It is possible to work on two problems at the same time.

For the MVA? Not hardly...

[BCBword]

I recently visited TV. There's much to like, but it seems that a car is essential. What do residents do if they live alone and have to quit driving? Can you survive with a golf cart?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by BCBword

I recently visited TV. There's much to like, but it seems that a car is essential. What do residents do if they live alone and have to quit driving? Can you survive with a golf cart?

Many do... They either borrow a neighbor's car in a pinch or bum a ride when necessary...

Personally, I'll keep a car (or two), along with a golf cart...

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by 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).

It sounds like a great idea until you ask who's going to pay for it. I bet half the reason you retired to Florida was for the low taxes. Even New York has to run their public transportation system at a loss, to keep it "affordable". Who pays the difference? New York City tax payers -- which is why nobody can afford to retire in New York City.

Frankly, I didn't move to Florida to spend my retirement savings on taxes for empty buses running around my neighborhood.

We already have a solution -- golf carts. We live in a community designed for old people that has special roads where you can drive a cheap little car that doesn't go over 20 mph and doesn't require a drivers license, for when you get too feeble to manage 3 tons of metal at 70 mph. And the beauty of it is, you don't have to hobble down to the street corner and wait for a bus to pick you up on their schedule.

And when you get even too feeble to handle a golf cart, you will discover that your house has appreciated so much that you can sell it and move into an assisted living center and quit driving altogether.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Shadywood

Well, there you go -- our "Living Constitution" (9 un-elected representatives from the lawyer's union) have told us "Shall not be infringed" really means "infringe all you want"!

Waitaminute... can someone point to the article or amendment that says the Supremes get to "interpret" the Constitution? Oh, I remember! It's not in the contract, it's in that Supreme Court ruling, Marbury vs. Madison, where the Supremes declared themselves the sole arbiters of what our contract with the gooberment actually says.

You can declare the moon made of green cheese and unicorn poop the source of all energy in the known universe. Doesn't make it so, even with a Harvard Law degree.

Regulation? I never said Congress is forbidden from putting some ground rules on our rights -- in fact I specifically supported it. It's legal when the regulations EXPAND the right for the majority, and don't specifically discriminate against the minority. A law saying we have to stop at stop signs is an example of that -- it makes vehicle transportation possible for all of us. A law saying old people must prove they are still competent is an example of age discrimination, and it is already specifically forbidden by the law.

Sentence everybody to a day at the DMV every year if you think you can get your fellow citizens to go along with it. At least it would be constitutional. But making an old man prove he's still competent, just because he has half a century of driving experience is not only un-Constitutional, it's downright stupid.

That is all interpretation. I will go with that Conservative hero's thoughts on rights:

Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by Shadywood

Well, there you go -- our "Living Constitution" (9 un-elected representatives from the lawyer's union) have told us "Shall not be infringed" really means "infringe all you want"!

Waitaminute... can someone point to the article or amendment that says the Supremes get to "interpret" the Constitution? Oh, I remember! It's not in the contract, it's in that Supreme Court ruling, Marbury vs. Madison, where the Supremes declared themselves the sole arbiters of what our contract with the gooberment actually says.

You can declare the moon made of green cheese and unicorn poop the source of all energy in the known universe. Doesn't make it so, even with a Harvard Law degree.

Regulation? I never said Congress is forbidden from putting some ground rules on our rights -- in fact I specifically supported it. It's legal when the regulations EXPAND the right for the majority, and don't specifically discriminate against the minority. A law saying we have to stop at stop signs is an example of that -- it makes vehicle transportation possible for all of us. A law saying old people must prove they are still competent is an example of age discrimination, and it is already specifically forbidden by the law.

Sentence everybody to a day at the DMV every year if you think you can get your fellow citizens to go along with it. At least it would be constitutional. But making an old man prove he's still competent, just because he has half a century of driving experience is not only un-Consitutional, it's downright stupid.

Article 3 Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...

Constitution also states in Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don't recall driving as one of the freedoms delegated to the US by the Constitution. I also don't recall any state making driving a right. If you don't like it, then you can try to get an Amendment passed. Good luck.

There are times, however, when the Supremes overstep their authority by legislating from the bench. One such court case was Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886, we saw the Supreme Court make a judgement without any discussion or debate. The court clerk simply penned in to the summary, that corporations had personhood, and that act by the clerk is still considered law today, because corruption is in every branch of gov't.

[airstreamingypsy]

I've seen an old lady is a big older 4 door sedan going the wrong way on Powell Road, don't know what she did when she got to the circle. At least she was going slow. Lets talk about the Black Dodge Charger....... I've heard about it, but didn't actually see it, until I almost got run down, the other night. It was going north on Morse, turned right at Odell. It was flying, weaving around cars..... loud pipes. When it went by my at first I thought I was hearing a Harley. This guy is literally racing through The Villages....... I tried to get his plate # but couldn't and what good would it do, if the cops don't see him. Over 100 comments about him on Nextdoor, and no one can do anything. He is going to cause a terrible wreck, it's just a matter of time.

[La lamy]

Where I live half the year, at 80 years of age all drivers have to be retested every 2 years. There's also a stipulation that doctors need to inform the permit renewal agency if they see a patient that has a condition that would make their driving hazardous. I think this is a good system.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by La lamy

Where I live half the year, at 80 years of age all drivers have to be retested every 2 years. There's also a stipulation that doctors need to inform the permit renewal agency if they see a patient that has a condition that would make their driving hazardous. I think this is a good system.

Excellent.

[butlerism]

Boooyahhh

I am 56, I can barely drive.

Help!!!!!