This is an issue that will only get more critical as baby boomers (like me) get older. If we have a cohort of people in their 80s living in suburbs with poor mass transit , there will be repeated accidents like the one Marc cites in Miami, or that truly terrifying event in California a few years back where the old man drove straight into a crowd of people at a farmer's market.

My own mom gradually winnowed down her driving until she literally was only going to the grocery store and church, but she eventually quit altogether. A good friend of hers, however, stubbornly kept driving even as her vision drastically declined. In the end, she made a left turn directly into the path of another car and was killed.

This is so true. My 90 year old landlord was driving everyday from Capitol Hill to Costco in Pentagon City weekly. One day he got in a wreck and that was it in terms of him driving. I always wondered how did he manage to drive in the most challenging of environments of the Southeast Southwest Freeway at that age. Washington is not a place for one to drive the moment they get their license nor is it a place after you loose all your mental faculties eiter

Exceptional testing for older drivers would also help people who are trying to get their parents and grandparents to stop driving; the threat of having to take a test might make them more amenable to giving up the keys to avoid the ignominy of failing the test. Plus it might stress them out so they stroke out or something and we get our inheiritance while we can use it.

Old folks? Pray tell, Marc, when was the last time you used the phrase young folks? Do you say black folks? White folks? Methinks you have a bias. God willing, you'll someday become a victim of it. I'm thinking you won't turn down any Metro discounts available for older citizens. And BTW, obviously a driver test is not a measure of driving skills -- just look around at the conduct of many people who managed to pass one. Psychological profiling would help.

This is a huge mistake. I think that the only flaw in this policy was limiting it to drivers over 75. Everyone should be retested, both road course and the paper driving law test, at regular intervals. There are way too many drivers out there who don't seem to have any notion of the rules of the road or the ability to control their vehicles.

Testing does not seem unreasonable (though many may take issue with the definition of "very old"), but I would also look at why conditions have become so hazardous for the elderly. Perhaps a stricter enforcement of safe driving standards would improve the outcome for the majority of drivers of any age, especially our young.

Didn't that South Park episode already resolve this?

Why not test everyone? Lots of people in "midddle years" stay drunk or stoned. Or angry or otherwise impared. I bet they could work up a good test one could take on the computer or at a workstation in the office. At least it couls screen people for the driving test.

Why not test everyone? Lots of people in "middle years" stay drunk or stoned. Or angry or otherwise impaired. I bet they could work up a good test one could take on the computer or at a workstation in the office. At least it could screen people for the driving test.

Why not test everyone? Lots of people in "middle years" stay drunk or stoned. Or angry or otherwise impaired. I bet they could work up a good test one could take on the computer or at a workstation in the office. At least it could screen people for the driving test.

Raw Fisher's own opinion piece links to a article stating:

"Both Fenty's temporary fix and the council bill leave in place the requirement that drivers age 70 and older appear in person to renew their licenses in order to take a reflex test and eye exam. They also must submit documentation from a physician that they are able to drive."

So why doesn't he mention it now? These provisions sound both fair and adequate.

This message is not in relation to the topic of older drivers. Several months ago I wrote to you, Marc, regarding your article about the Duke lacrosse players who were being charged with raping an exotic dancer. You were pointed about how these children of privilege -- white, upper middle class, and attending Ivy League colleges -- felt they could get away with anything. Tell me, did you ever write a follow-up article after they were totally found not guilty and the poor unfortunate victim was found to be lying. Perhaps your article should address how these poor underprivileged exotic dancers feel they can get away with lying to police and damaging young lives -- and, I might add, completely get away with it as she did.

I've been in favor of more testing the older you get for quite some time after spending some summers with my grandmother a few years back. She was one of those doing 35 or 40 in the right lane of the 55mph highway, taking a long time to turn, etc. Her last day of driving was when she totaled her car in an accident police believe she was running a red light caused by the on-set of dimentia. Thankfully, nobody died but there were injuries.

I love my grandmother and miss her dearly, but this accident could have been prevented had there been tests every one or two years after a certain point.

I played baseball as a kid and hadn't played in over 10 years when I made a barehanded grab of a hard line drive coming into my working area, saving at least two of my coworkers from getting nailed. It was a quick reaction to a familiar situation. However, the next day, someone "tested" me on a reaction scale and found that there is no way I should have caught that ball. The only real way to test people is on the road or through a really nice simulator.

There are a lot of younger drivers who shouldn't be behind the wheel, either. I normally take a commuter bus to work. Today, however, I have to stay in town for a dinner meeting and drove to the Largo Metro. I drove to the south garage to the top level (filled up by 7:30 a.m.) and, finding no parking spaces, started to go back down to the lower level. I was also hit broadside TWICE on the way down by younger women in quite a hurry. Neither stopped at the STOP signs on the pavement and both were way over the center line. Fortunately I made my way to the north garage and found a parking space, a bit shaken.

Way to go, Jeanne Nathanson! Thanks for saying what I've been thinking all along. All too often a rape case is a matter of she said/he said. Now the tootsie is found to be lying. More reputations and lives have been ruined by lying little *itches than we'll ever know. Real rape victims rarely come forward to even report the incident.

How do you tell if an older person has lost "mental capabilities"?

The DC DMV? They're supposed to give rigorous tests on this?

Please...

Oh, and one more thing -- I live in Southern Maryland. In 1990 I got a unique personalized license plate and have driven since 1968 without any moving violations at all. Honest. In early March of this year I got a letter from the Rockville traffic light police with a photo of a car with my license plate driving through a red light. That was not my car. The Maryland MVA had issued the same tag to another driver in Rockville. It took a month to get this straigtened out, including phone calls, letters and photos to the ROckville City Police, as well as a trip in person to the Maryland MVA by me, not the other driver. People, even those with computers, make mistakes.

I agree with 'what a mistake'. There are way too many people out there who never met a speed limit that they couldn't pass by 20 mph, weave in and out of lanes, and have cobwebs growing on their turn signals.

Everyone should have to pass written/driving tests every 5 years or so. Maybe youngsters (below 25) and oldsters (over 75) should get tested more frequently. Basing the more frequent testing on accident statistics.

Simply administering vision and paper tests will not adequately resolve this issue. All drivers should be tested regularly behind the wheel.

True story: While waiting at a DMV for a license renewal (in a different state) an elderly couple walked to the desk to have the wife's license renewed. She had to take a vision test and subsequently got every single letter wrong (I had memorized the order from watching earlier test takers). The woman's husband looks at the test and tells his wife what the letters were - all in clear view to the test administrator - and the woman STILL got her license renewed!!!

Marc, your anger in this piece is overpowering. What's going on with you this week?

DCer: Maybe Marc is a little upset because a special interest group has *itched and moaned long enough that they got their way.

Maybe he should remember:

This is Washington DC.
That is how things work around here.
The welfare of the people is never an issue, only getting elected/re-elected.
The majority of the people do not count.
Only the extremely vocal minority counts.

As long as 10 people carrying signs (surrounded by the obligatory 100 members of the press) represent the "will of the people" then things will always be this way.

SoMd hit it on the head.

True story --- I lived in Washington, DC from 1965 until 1985 before moving out to the 'burbs. I registered to vote as a Republican in 1967 and got a voter registration card with identifying information on it. Every time I went to vote in the D of C the people at the polls couldn't find my name in the voter lists. So, my vote was put in a separate box with the 'questioned votes'. In those days we voted by checking off a name on a piece of paper like choosing prom queen. I'd be willing to bet none of my votes were ever counted from 1967 to 1985. To top it off, I was never called for jury duty until 1984, and potential jurers are pulled from the voter registration lists.

I agree that older drivers should be retested periodically, though I am not sure I would have much confidence in the testers. When my teenage daughter took her driving test a few years ago, the parking test consisted of pulling straight into an open space in a strip mall. She did not have to turn the wheel at all. Of course, if an older driver failed at that...

Test everyone? Really? As if the lines at the DMV aren't bad enough.

It's all about probabilities, people. Do we breathalize every driver on the road? No. The cops pay attention to probabilities-- out late, weaving, speed inconsistencies. And then they choose the ones most likely to be dangerous.

You can't call testing older people discriminatory, because everyone (or most everyone, the lucky ones) will get old. It's in all our best interests to pay a little extra attention to the at-risk groups.

I've only ever been in two auto accidents. They were both the other driver's fault, and both drivers were over 70. One blew a stop light without even slowing down, the other rear-ended me at a pretty good clip. I expect now that I live in DC, it's even odds my next accident will be the fault of some self-important jerk on a cell phone. Perhaps making a one-handed, three-point turn in the middle of a block on 14th street.

I moved to a medium sized metro area in the Midwest a few years ago as part of a job transfer for my husband. The area has a pretty high percentage of senior citizens.

So while the traffic is far less than DC, we've found the drivers to be more dangerous.

It is not unusual at all for seniors to do one or more of the following:

* weave in and out of lanes, or simply drive straddling the white/yellow lines;

* blow through stop lights or our stop signs (the latter having blinking LED's on them to make them visible);

* pull over onto narrow shoulders of local arteries at traveling speed and then slam on their brakes to dig around on the passenger seat, causing everyone to swerve out of the way;

* or (my personal favorite) STOP at the top of highway exit off-ramps to read the sign to make sure they're getting off at the right place. And you better hope they are, because otherwise, they just pull back into traffic without looking.

You really should re-test seniors. Age can cause various levels of reduced eye-sight, hearing, cognitive abilities and reaction times, all things that can lead to huge accidents. Unfair perhaps, but that's biology. I do feel for the loss of independence some of these people may have (my grandmother lost her license a year or so ago), but is one person's independence worth more than someone else's life or limbs?

AARP should be ashamed of itself. Perhaps they should advocate for an improved Metro assistive system than focusing on letting potentially dangerous drivers keep their licenses.

The additional written and road tests for older drivers are burdensome and unnecessary.

No other state requires such drivers to take a written test, and only two other states imposed the road test -- and that is for good reason. As the AAA has testified, there is no basis for believing that these tests improve public safety for either the older driver or the rest of us. At two separate hearings, I requested some basis for this imposition from DMV and they came up empty-handed.

The claim that older drivers are involved in more accidents than any drivers except teenagers is simply not true. The CDC data measures fatal crashes per mile driven, which is not the same thing as crashes per mile driven. For physical reasons that should be obvious, older drivers have a much greater fatality rate per accident than other drivers. When this difference is taken into account, it becomes clear that older drivers, contrary to stereotype, are actually some of the safest drivers on the road. They are the drivers least likely to drive while intoxicated, and the least likely to kill another driver or pedestrian

It should be noted that DC already has one of the toughest renewal processes for older drivers in the Nation. It has four elements (none of which are modified by my bill): in person renewal required, thus permitting visual observation; a vision test; a certification by a physician that the older driver is fit to drive; and a reflex test.

For those reasons, I support the tests that are in place without the additional burdens.

My mother was in her 60's when it became clear she should turn in her license. She couldn't pull out of the driveway without running over the mailbox. She only drove places within 2 miles of her home but that was enough to cause plenty of damage. One time she was in a supermarket parking lot and slid into a brand new truck, one that had been picked up from the dealer that very day. The man flew into a rage and I believe he would have killed my mother if not for his more even-tempered wife who apparently saved my mother's life. My mother ended up turning in her license voluntarily. Thank God.

Councilman Jim Graham should be congratulated for participating in this form of democratic debate. He should be ashamed of himself for his craven pandering. He qualifies one statistic then says that "makes it clear" that the entire argument that older drivers are the safest is specious. Here's another statistic I am sure he is aware of: senior citizens vote at a much higher rate than other sectors of the population.

Sorry, Jim, but all the statistics in the world can't obscure the facts that we see every day on our roads; older drivers are some the worst out there.

Although I will agree that our driving tests are a joke and don't really test anyones ability to drive. Sadly in this country we judge our driving abilities as A) how well we obey the laws and B) how many accidents we have or haven't had. Nothing about managing your car to minimize its impact on traffic flow for example. Such as, there is no reson to slow down for the Smart Tag Only lanes on the toll road; you can go through at 60 so don't create a traffic jam by slowing down to 10 mph. Don't switch lanes just because the other one is moving .05 mph faster. Don't hog the lane and slow way down because you have to make a turn 6 miles up the road. Take some consideration of others instead of your own stupid selfish self.

My wife's aunt, a long-productive, law-observing member of our society, born 1909, having been separated from her closest family for more than 15 years, only ceased driving last year. I am sure that among her primary reasons for continuing on the road were a sense personal freedom and a deep desire not to be a burden to her remaining family. I am equally sure, following long delayed reports of narrowly missed disasters, that my family and others were very fortunate not to be the subject of a small run of Metro-style subheads in her local newspapers.

I don't have a clue as to a politically feasible solution, but surely there must be a way to monitor driver performance after a certain age without threatening the living patterns of people have built them over seven or eight decades, and will give them up lawfully when it's proven they should.

Perhaps some interaction with our driving programs for the young?

A lot of the give-and-take on the question of whether seniors are inherently more dangerous drivers comes down to a "glass half empty or full question." I, like most drivers, drive as fast as I can on the freeways. There always seems to be that one senior "folk" out there who will not go over 50 miles an hour, causing congestion and rolling tie-ups for the rest of us who have to slow down from 75. I gather that many seniors would say that one guy doing 50 is the safe driver, but I would beg to differ.

Call it democracy in action, or alternatively the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Older Americans may or may not be competent behind the wheel, but they for sure know how to vote -- even if they run you over on the way to the polls.

When the voices are heard theirs are heard plenty loud on this issue. When I get there I hope my voice is just as loud.

In the meantime, watch out for large cars with drivers who seem to hardly peer over the steering wheel - it's your Aunt/Uncle/Mother/Father.

I like the idea of retesting periodically, but they need to test meaningful things, like the ability to see and stop at a red light or stop sign. Like the ability to make a right turn without swinging into the left lane. Whether or not you can parallel park a car has absolutely nothing to do with how safely you drive.

While it may appear paternalistic and discriminatory to some, I'm afraid the regulations are necessary as a growing number of the District's residents reach and surpase the age of 75.

The importance of the District's now-defunct mandate became especially apparent to me, as last night, I rode home from a family event with my grandmother - she is 89 and insists upon continuing to drive everywhere. After swerving dangerously on several occassions, nearly failing to stop at two red-lighted intersections, and consistently forgetting to deactivate her indicator, I exited her car unnerved and afraid for her future.

Many seniors in our community may be obstinate when faced with the mandatory driving examination; however, for the good of public safety, this measure is indispensable and should be restored.

Soooo . . . we should discriminate against all for the failings of a few? Because blacks and the poor would certainly become the victims of many a practice. Discrimination -- making assumptions about an entire class of people based on your perception/misconception of some of that class -- is wrong, period. We give people in this society the opportunity to prove they do not deserve a given liberty. And by the way, virtually every complaint voiced about older drivers has been an instance I've observed in younger drivers. Evidently, people are so addle-brained that they cannot talk on a cell phone and drive AT ALL (e.g., stopped in the middle of a thoroughfare). As for Marc admitting he was wrong? bin Laden would do fundraisers for B`nai B`rith before Marc ever owns up to a mistake, don`t hold you breath.

Not testing the elderly is indeed a step in the wrong direction, but I'm not surprised, having been in this area for so long. After moving from MD to VA, I went to the DMV to get a VA driver's license. Next to me at the vision testing was an elderly hispanic woman who spoke no English. She didn't understand the DMV employee's directions, so her bilingual son tranlated for the 2 of them. All I could think was, is this woman capable of reading English signs? She couldn't even say the letters of the alphabet in English. Wouldn't want to be driving near her! Anyone can get a license around here. What testing is done is a joke.

Since when have you all become incapable of taking action? If you are scared to ride the same roads as your granny, report her to the DMV for retesting. The DMV only has a crack at her every 4 years or so and you see her every day. Take some responsibility!

It's only discrimination if it's based on prejudice rather than fact. Deterioration of mental faculties crucial to driving is a well-documented part of the aging process.

"Soooo . . . we should discriminate against all for the failings of a few?"

RL,
At least Mr. Fisher is consistent. See his past articles on any gun issue.

On the other hand maybe he's not very consistent because it's kinds of funny how nobody (even Mr. Fisher) is blaming the cars for the trouble.

A road test might not be necessary. Requiring folks to go down to the Motor Vehicles office, taking an eye exam, and, say, a brief computer hazards recognition and reaction-time test (like the one now used on the British driving test) would probably weed out most of those who have lost a key ability. Mostly, they wouldn't turn up for the test, knowing they would fail. Then their licences should automatically be converted to non-driver IDs.

The only way to deal with aged drivers or any potentially unsafe driver is to test all drivers annually. Discriminate against no one. If I cannot pass a drivers test - I should not be driving - endangering others. I'm willing to bet we'd lose the worst 10% of drivers out there today. Therein lies the problem...less car sales...less people pay over $3 per gallon....less folks buying auto insurance. Do the math. Its the same reason we don't test potential gun-owners for their compentency handling fire-arms...it would cut into gun and ammo sales. I am a daily driver and occasional shooter. Driver and gun-ownership should be tied to annual testing. Public safety is at stake. Oh yeah - private profits are more important thatn public safety. Dang!

Maybe everybody needs to be retested every-other license renewal cycle. A complete behind the wheel test on a closed track, set up with traffic lights and obstacles.

Recognition of road signs may also need to be tested, but the new signs using the international symbols seem to be working well with our immigrants and graduates of the DC public school system.

I have been driving for almost 40 years and would be willing to see what my reaction times would be in a real life situation - I do just fine on computers running reaction time simulations, but those can be beat by just about anybody.

I noticed a few comments about the length of time this would take at the DMV.

Interesting that the "get out of my way 'cause I'm in a hurry" crowd still think it is "all about them". I guess the price of human life is lower for them.

You know what, I went back and checked previous articles and I have to issue a retraction about one thing. Mr. Fisher, it seems, has not been one of those people who blames inanimate objects for the mistakes made by the people who use them.

I apparently mixed him up with another blogger and for that I apologize.

(Still don't like the "baby out with the bathwater" approach to things though).

The only reason that teenagers are involved in more car crashes (let's not call them accidents--that implies there is no fault) than seniors is because teenage drivers do more driving. If you look at the fatality rates--deaths per mile driven--then you see that 75--84 year olds are slightly worse than teenagers, but 85+ year olds cause almost 4 times as many fatalities as teenagers. A graph is at: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-stupid-policymaking-in-dc.html

Age isn't a strict scrutiny protected class - so the government would need a rational basis or a substantial basis for the discrimation. It's not wrong to discriminate against a whole class of people in every instance, that's too broad a statement. The government makes distinctions all the time, and it is free to do so as long as it measures up to the required level of judicial scrutiny. You could even discriminate against minority people if there were a compelling reason - good luck finding one, though. It's all down to the justification behind the law. Seems pretty solid here....

Mr. Graham is indeed correct, despite one reader's assertion of the Councilman's so-called pandering, but he didn't go far enough in his explanation. Also, Marc has misinterpreted the statistics from the CDC. Just for the record, the overall numbers of older drivers involved in fatal crashes is low compared to other age groups - their fatal crash rate per mile is high because 1) they don't drive many miles per trip, and 2) when they do crash, they don't recover from their injuries because of their fragility.

Physiologically speaking, all people experience some functional decline after age 70 - does that mean we should take their licenses away? No, because we know that older drivers generally have many years of driving experience behind them, which makes up for some of this decline. Also, most older drivers tend to self-select themselves out of the most dangerous driving tasks (women more than men, BTW).

Testing all drivers is completely and utterly out of the question - there is not enough time, money, or political will to make that happen. It's just not feasible. Maybe a testing lottery might work, though?

Oh, and the reason you see older drivers more often is because they're out when you're out. Most people don't see the real cuprits of crash causation/injury - the impaired, the young drivers, the agregious speeders, and the unbelted - because they're out and crash late at night.

If you take a good look at the numbers instead of relying on what you "see" out there on the road, the older drivers are not the huge problem everyone makes them out to be.

How is it that no one has mentioned the fact that if you find grouping "older drivers" together as discriminatory, then grouping "younger drivers" together is as well?

I for one don't believe that the testing should have been repealed, more for the biological points behind the defense of the tests; but I think that personal opinion (not to mention personal ignorance) should stay out of a debate like this. This isn't a conversation for anecdotal evidence, and by allowing it to be affected so greatly by such stories, the AARP was effectively able to lobby the victory.

For those who think singling out older drivers is discriminatory, I think that as someone with a perfect record it is discriminatory for the insurance companies to discriminate against me because I am under 25. Sure, insurance companies are private, but the government requires you to have it in order to drive, so it may as well not be. Test the older drivers!

I think it's interesting that you support some forms of nanny-state reform (driving tests for the elderly) and oppose others (trans fat bans).

What's the difference between these? Both cost money, both impose on individuals. Arguably, trans fat is just as dangerous as blind elderly drivers. What do you think distinguishes these two initiatives?

Nope, Marc is pretty adamant that guns and access to guns are a problem; never that the criminal misuse os them is a problem. The criminal misuse is a symptom. To be truly consistent about older drivers it would be that older drivers are a hazard and should have their driving priviliges revoled; and since we all get old that it makes sense to revoke everyones priviliges as well. Those that might have use of driving because the don't live in an area with public transport just have to suffer the consequences. Of course, none of this applies to him.

Nope, Marc is pretty adamant that guns and access to guns are a problem; never that the criminal misuse os them is a problem. The criminal misuse is a symptom. To be truly consistent about older drivers it would be that older drivers are a hazard and should have their driving priviliges revoled; and since we all get old that it makes sense to revoke everyones priviliges as well. Those that might have use of driving because the don't live in an area with public transport just have to suffer the consequences. Of course, none of this applies to him.

I can't agree that older drivers are the worst out there. They may be the ones that irritate us the most because they do drive slow, stay in the left lane, etc. But they do so because they know they don't have the reactions they used to have and don't see as well. I live near Leasure World in Maryland. There are plenty of older drivers here. As much as they "get in the way", I much prefer the way they drive to the way those idiots who seem to think that the speed limit is meant for everyone except them, weave in and out, tailgate until they can whip around you, and can't remember what a turn signal is. The DMV should have the right to make anyone take a reaction test, just like they make you take an eye test to renew your license, but it shouldn't be limited to old people, and it shouldn't be mandatory for older people. It should be based on the examiner's perception that someone young or old, may not be in good enough shape to drive anymore.

"Such as, there is no reson to slow down for the Smart Tag Only lanes on the toll road; you can go through at 60 so don't create a traffic jam by slowing down to 10 mph."

I don't know how smart it is to go that fast. I used to do this. Then one day I had to slam on my brakes when a carload of Orientals came to a stop in the Smart Tag lane and started trying to figure out where to throw their money. Thankfully I was able to cut into the other lane to get around without getting hit, but ever since then, I've assumed that the driver in front will come to a sudden stop and I keep it well below 60 mph. I'd rather annoy some speed-demon behind me than rear-end someone in front of me.

ARGGHHHHHHHH!!! Discriminatory? AARP, get a grip! People and their skills do not last forever! You should be advocating for improved standards to PROTECT your constiuents from themselves and their inability to make sound judgments as age sets in. Driving is a privilege for those who can handle it, and YOU, AARP, are an accessory to murder of both innocent bystanders who are plowed over and the old farts who instigate the deaths while asserting their "ability" to drive amid watered-down, AARP-endorsed safety protocols!!!!!! I won't be joining your membership rolls when my age gets up there because of the sheer common senselessness the organization is showing!

Never mind DC's government succumbing to your pressure...par for course for them.

My own father is refusing to admit he's blind as a bat (diabetes coupled with a fear of all things doctor)...and he drives despite protests from myself and my mother. He's 56. 56!!! The only way to get him off the road is by having the DMV TEST HIM AND REVOKE HIS LICENSE. AT 56! AARP, he's a member of your group too! Will you be willing to foot the bill for lost income when my father eventually kills himself and others behind the wheel because, gosh darn it, testing his ability is DISCRIMINATORY??????? (I'd do more, but they live in another state, and short of babysitting him, what can I do? he might listen to AARP and the DMV, however!!!)

And for the record, I'd be all for routine testing of ALL ages. I'd prefer to know sooner, rather than never, that my skills are rotted through or that I'm overlooking something while driving, and routine road tests every 5 years would alert people (and police) to the presence of half baked driving abilities before someone gets hurt. Right now, after you get your cracker jack drivers license, there's no testing after the initial road test (which ANYONE can be on their best behavior for)...ever! I'd voluntarily submit to routine skills assessments if it meant safer roads. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right!

What's funny, DMV's across the nation would then catch all the deafblind folks out there still driving (deaf and blind, as in no tunnel vision, as in Usher's syndrome). There are MANY on the roads here in DC, thanks to Gallaudet University's proximity. Louisiana has its share, as does Washington State. I damn near got run over by one at Gallaudet, and when confronted, this girl from Pennsylvania refused to talk about how she almost murdered me and why is she still driving when she is legally blind??? Oh...the DMV let her have a license and does not require vision tests regularly so it will be several years before this gal is outed and forced to give up the keys. Meanwhile, beware! Deafblind on the roads are a real hazard, and many of them are young, 40's and under!

Councilman Graham said: "It should be noted that DC already has one of the toughest renewal processes for older drivers in the Nation. It has four elements..."

Sir, I respectfully submit that even the best laid process is subject to the ineptitude of the people charged with carrying out the process. In this case, that is the DMV workers. The people on the front lines are often barely educated and are not adequately trained to make decisions based on in person observations, as one of the elements requires. Any student of public administration can tell you that. When you get qualified, motivated people to fill these public service jobs, I'll believe it when you say the four elements alone are sufficient. Meanwhile, those of us who drive (as opposed to being chauffeured everywhere, ahem) will continue to see the many people who fall through the cracks of this process's elements, due to the skill level of the people on the front lines.

Marc, when you get too old a decrepit to drive, I hope you are living in a area that does not have mass transit and I hope you are too poor to be able to afford a taxi everywhere you want to go. You clearly have no respect for older folks who are in their senior years and want to hold onto what little independency that they can. If I have to drive behind a senior citizen who (heaven forbid!) is only driving at the posted speed limit, then I will do so. Elderly drivers are no more of a threat than the snot-nosed teens that are speeding down the roads in the fancy cars that their mommy and daddy bought for them. And a previous poster wonders why his/her insurance is higher because he/she is under 25 y/o.

Personally, I am opposed to re-testing senior citizens as it would further reduce the population of old men with hats and old women with lots of make up peering over those cute furry steering wheels! That would be a virtual crime against humanity itself. Testing old people would require more DMV offices, examiners, and administrators, which would add more mediocre employees to the state payroll. That would be in keeping with the highest traditions of the democratic party.

Discrimination is not bad, per se.
Some of you talk about "discrimination" like it's bad, wrong, immoral, or illegal. It's not. Is it discrimination to retest people over 75? Yes, your're discriminating by advanced age. It's also discriminating by age to refuse to issue a license to a 14 year old. Likewise, if you just declared bankruptcy, you're unlikely to get a mortgage. This is dicrimination as well, and I'll bet there are few who think the discrimination in the last two examples is inappropriate.

I say the problem is those young whipper-snappers out there with their hooting and hollering all hours of the night. Some people want to go to bed at 8! I say put a curfew in effect. And no Glen Miller after 6:30, it interrupts repeats of 'murder she wrote' on USA and I can't figure out how to work the confounded record button on my vcr.

You can have the keys to my car when I drive it up yours. I didn't fight the nazis in WWII just to give up the right to drive because you don't want to die.

"I wanna die in my sleep like my grandpa, not screaming in
terror like his passengers"!