Illinois just did an unusual thing. It ditched a previously-in-force requirement that had been in effect every driver who reaches the age of 79 must re-take a driving test in order to retain their license to drive. Which, to begin with, is more like a permission slip issued by the state that says a person may drive on the state’s roads. It is not quite the same thing as meaningfully demonstrating competence to drive. There is usually very little of the latter involved in these tests. Mostly, it is written test-taking (to show the applicant knows that the law is the law, which is not the same thing as knowing how to drive) and an eye-check.
Anyhow, this is remarkable in that it’s unusual for the state – any state – to dial back the hassles (and attendant fees) it imposes on people.
Some support hassling older drivers with recurrent testing because they are alarmed by the prospect that some older drivers may no longer be competent to drive – as if that weren’t also true of many people, much younger, who possess a driver’s license.
There is statistical truth in the claim that people over 70 have a higher likelihood of suffering from arthritis, dementia and declining vision. It does not follow that every person over 70 has arthritis, dementia or declining vision. Just as it does not follow that because some people drink and drive, everyone who drives must be presumed a “drunk” driver. The problem – the root of the problem – is that everyone who drives is presumed to be a “drunk” driver. This evil doctrine is the basis for every so-called “sobriety checkpoint.” Drivers aren’t forced to stop because their driving has given cops a reason to suspect they might be drunk. They are stopped because they are driving – and must prove to the satisfaction of the cop that they are in fact not drunk.
This upending of what had for a long time – generations – been the presumption of innocence has had consequences. Everyone who wants to board a commercial flight must now prove to the satisfaction of a sort-of cop that they are not a “terrorist.” Your bank presumes you are guilty of financial crimes if you withdraw (or deposit) “too much” of your own money and will alert the feds if you do. It does not matter that there is no more reason to believe you are guilty of financial crimes merely for depositing or withdrawing your own money than there is to believe a driver is “drunk” merely because he is driving.
Similarly, being older does not mean you are a dangerous driver. It means you’re older and driving. The fact that some older drivers might be dangerous ought not to indict them all. Just the same as the fact that someone who isn’t you shot up a school does not mean you shot up a school or will in the future. Do you suppose a point will ever be reached when people will finally have had a enough of being treated as if they had done something because someone has done something – or (worse) because a generic “someone” might do something?
This is the foundational premise of the Safety Cult that has turned what was once a pretty pleasant country into a kind of institution for mildly retarded children run by “parents” who despise their charges.
But what about all those rheumy old coots who can’t see where they’re going – or what’s in front of them? Who drive 20 miles an hour below the speed limit in the left lane, with their blinker on? Who have “senior moments” and fail to notice a stop sign or red light and run into someone?
Well, when they do those things, there is cause to do something about them. Just not before. In the same way and for the same reason that there is no cause to take away a man’s gun or punish him for possessing one until he does something criminal with it.
This is, of course, a doctrine from a bygone time that is not at a popular in our time. There are many reasons why but the primary one is the one H.L. Mencken articulated a century ago when he wrote: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” This is such an obvious truism it is demoralizing to realize how few Americans recognize the truth of it. That is why Americans – not all, but a working majority – are easily manipulated into supporting actions against their fellow Americans based not upon anything their fellows have done but solely on account of the worry that someone among them might do it. At the risk of using politically incorrect terminology, it is an effeminate outlook. No, that is not fair. Not all women are effeminate – just as not every driver is “drunk” and not every person over a certain age is blind and addled. 
Many people – of all ages and both sexes – are, however, hysterics. This is often conflated with the female sex (hysteria derives from the Greek word hystera, meaning uterus and historically referred to a diagnosis applied almost exclusively to women). This is neither fair nor true, which is saying the same thing. Men are very often hysterics, too. We saw a lot of them during “COVID.”
It is also not fair to presume anyone has done anything before they actually do it. But that is a presumption that requires the measured and reasoned maturity of adulthood (not necessarily chronological) to understand and respect.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
I’m 76 and I had to pump up my speed to 100mph on the interstate 80 out west. I had to because some guy driving a Ford Raptor F-150 was in the left lane coming up slowly and there was a big truck in front of me and I was was slowly approaching this rig. I was going to pump it up a little faster to test the speed limit of my car but backed off because I got scared of being caught by the cops.
I passed numerous big trucks by speeding up to 90 or so.
Stay fit, eat like a Spartan and exercise regularly especially with weights.
Most old people probably should park the car and leave it honestly but I don’t believe in licences and don’t have one live free or die trying so let each person decide when they want to stop using their own cars.
“Most old people”
The problem is defining “old people”. Some people are old before their time. We are not born equal no matter what the USSofA manifesto says. Some people are old at 50. But it is too consuming and time intensive to treat people as individuals hence we are all lumped into groups to better facilitate efficiency.
As the populations grows (it is at 350 million) government is forced to become more efficient.
Any (((government))) big or powerful enough to grant you “privileges ” such as driving, voting, owning property, etc….
Is also big and powerful enough to take away those “privileges “, whenever (((they))) want…
YMMV….
Twice this week I was in a bad situation getting on the freeway due to the driver ahead of me on the on ramp only doing 45 and trying to merge. They were both white haired ladies.
Once I get up in age, I will ban myself from the freeways.
Hi Ben,
Yes, but dollars to donuts those white haired old ladies were awful drivers when they were 30, too.
A young woman(under 35) merged in front of me on the interstate 80. I had to move over as it looked like she wasn’t going to speed or slow down. I remember one time a woman gave me the finger because I would not move over into the next lane for her. I can see moving over if a big truck is merging into the hiway but people on the hiway have the right of way. But no one wants a crash or play chicken.
They don’t want you driving, or owning houses, they don’t want you living. They already stole all the $, pumped you with clotshots, so fuck off and die Goyim.
Well, I don’t have a car anymore. I either walk or take the bus everywhere now. Fortunately, at almost 70 I can still walk pretty good. As far as I know I am still able to drive, though admittedly I was never anything too special as a wheelman.
Socialism turns adults into helpless infants.
This is a well-documented fact and it cannot be otherwise. The Big Daddy, the state, makes the rules ‘to keep us safe’, and then ‘spends resources’ on those who disobey and thus set the wrong example.
The result is one-size-fits-all conformity. No need to think – the rules are clear, after all, and it is all for our own good!
Personally like others here, I believe that as one gets older, a sensible person will adapt his/her driving to one’s abilities, just like one would adapt to any other external circumstances (i.e. bad weather). I don’t need the government to introduce ‘variable speed limits’ – yes, these are all the rage in some places! – in order to tell me it’s raining.
It is a fact that eyesight tends to get worse with age, especially at night, so while I’m GenX and so not ‘that old’ yet, I still try to avoid driving at night if I can help it.
Longer term, my intention is to live somewhere where I don’t need to drive at all. I consider this a sensible & logical approach and don’t need any government ‘test’ to tell me so.
I guess I’m an antisocial type.
Last week when I rented a car, the agreement said they don’t rent cars to people under 25 and older then 70. I’ve seen the 25 before, the over 70 was new to me.
I have many years to go but I know a lot of people over 70 and they are perfectly fine drivers.
Complain to the rental car company about their policy, and most importantly…
Take your money and business elsewhere…
Hit ’em where it hurts, right in the pocketbook….
YMMV….
The rental company does not want or need your business. A quick online search suggests that only 10% of car rental customers are 55+ years old; if true, that would make the number of 70+ years old potential customers almost insignificant.
The rental company’s not wanting seniors’ business reminds of my experience trying to get a hamburger at a Steak ‘n Shake restaurant last month. Kiosk ordering only, credit card only (no cash accepted), computer asked if I had “the app” (I don’t and won’t — no stupid smart phone for me!), and no human would help me and my brother (we’re both 65+). So we left, and they obviously didn’t care. I suspect that at least 95% of their customers are happy to play in their dystopian digital commerce hellscape. Losing the other 5% is apparently worth not having to staff and maintain a cash register.
Hi Strait,
If this is the future, the future can keep it. I’m almost glad eating out prices are so high, since it keeps me from having to deal with what you just described.
“H.L. Mencken articulated a century ago when he wrote: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
I’m sure it’s entirely coincidence that the Safety Cult started its run to dominance around the same time as the above quote was written, and I’m equally sure it’s entirely coincidental that the 19th Amendment was passed around then as well. Just don’t mention it in polite company, of course.
Stop requiring a drivers license to drive, and stop requiring everyone to show their internal passports for everything else. Free citizens do not need to be tagged, tracked, & monitored like cattle, and self-respecting free citizens won’t stand for it.
Problem = solved.
You’re welcome.
When I got my German Driving License back in 1992, it cost me the equivalent of $700 which included the extra cost of an eye test and a two week driving theory course. The cost would have been higher but I was able to provide a witness to a notary stating I had been driving in Germany for at least 6 months with a US Driving License. Without this notarized document, I would have been required to pay for a driving course which meant, on-the-road driving with an instructor on city as well as A and B roads. Today, as I understand, the cost for a German Driving License without the notarized document is about $3000.
Thankfully, my License is good in Mexico as well so I never have to go through this again.
I have no trouble driving at 78, though I do try to avoid driving at night. My old eyes don’t do well with the blinding blue headlights most cars seem to have nowadays.
We all know that taken away a government mandated permission slip from the elderly will keep them from driving their cars.
Then there are old coots like me, who realize they are a lesser driver than they used to be, and quit. That’s aside from any law. Besides, the drivers test I took those many years ago was a sick sorry excuse for a useful test. Drive around a few city blocks, and parallel park, and now you are “qualified” to drive on a 6 or 8 lane highway at 70 mph. Eric is right, the state has no business collecting a fee for using public roads, or cutting someone’s hair etc.
It’s true enough that the tests are worthless, but keep in mind that’s also what is “gatekeeping” younger drivers and immigrants. The quality of drivers is atrocious. And because they are, they need stuff like Lane Keep Assist just to keep collisions down to a dull roar.
Every other immigrant is already on the road making chaos, I don’t think its gatekeeping many of them.
Exactly. I would not be averse to limiting access to Federal roads to the top 25% of driver skill. At least until the average driving skill improves.
hmmmm, sounds good to me, except we know how a populated state would destroy any meaningful way of ‘determining’ such, with bloated bureaucracy, etc…. And then the woke crowd would have their say “it’s not fair” BS. haha…….
That is interesting….but I can say from experience enforcement was light on senior drivers for having senior moments that caused no harm.
At the same time, they make 4 lane roads 2 with bike lanes no one uses except the sunday lance armstrong wannabee groups, and drop the speed limit from 30 or 35 to 25. And add double yellow where it used to be dashed.
Drinking is legal for adults in this country, at least the last time I checked. Blood alcohol limit use to be set at 1.0 in most states. Utah is now at .05 with all other states at .08. If age had any factor into anything, for someone over 50 the with no priors should be at least 1.25. By that time in your life, you have driven enough that likely you are one of the best drivers on the road.
So, my dear government…can I have some of my freedom back? As Danny Bonaduci once said, he can perform brain surgery at 1.0.
In some countries in Europe the allowable blood alcohol level for driving is 0.00%.
The locals accept this and I was told while there that it removes any ambiguity about whether one may be ‘above’ or ‘below’ the limit after a drink or two.
Having said that, it is also a fact that many people are worse drivers when stone cold sober than others with 0.1% BAC.
Such is the limitation of these ‘one size fits all’ made up rules.
I’ve crossed the line to being an old fart I know my own limits and drive within those limits
Traveling is a fundamental right. Any interferance with that right is immoral and violates our supreme law, the Constitution, and basic humanity. There is no “balancing of interests”.
Right to Life…that alone is enough to extrapolate some pneumbras and emanations to include practically every human activity within the absolute protections from government interference.
No permits. No license. No permission slips to live, and engage in the activities that support, enhance, and give rise to Life.
Not to mention Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
The elderly have an absolute right to travel, as do we all.
If they cause harm, we have a legal system for redressing that, on an individual basis.
Nothing more is necessary.
“When the chimes end, shoot me, colonel. Just try”- Few Dollars More If only it were so
Well said, sir! I would only reiterate that our servants have no authority or ability to grant us “privileges”.
One other aspect to consider,
It’s not just old people who are incompetent drivers. If you concede to the state choosing who gets to drive, you will never get a meritocracy. The advent of the cell phone has created yet another distraction that renders people of all ages incompetent to drive…..just saying. That said, you have a point and a market solution would be to cancel the contract allowing use of roads for people of any age who cannot demonstrate competence to operate an automobile.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using a phone, or texting, or web surfing, while driving. Neither is there anything wrong with having a couple drinks and driving.
The conditions make all the difference, and it’s still the individual drivers’ decision to make and risk to take.
Looking at your gages is a distraction. Drinking coffee is too. Until it’s a problem, it isnt a problem.
Here’s a fix. Ban automatic transmissions for all but paraplegics. Nature will sort things out.
I always thought the answer was to move the driver’s seat out onto the front bumper. All these SAAAAAAFETY devices like crumple zones and roll cages and seat belts reduce the focus on what’s important.
I have long thought that all public meetings, as well as public speeches by government “officials” should be conducted/delivered in the nude.
It would certainly do wonders as far as counteracting government pomposity, at least in IMO.