EDITORIAL – Keeping a driver’s licence should be based on ability, not age
(Image: Matheus Ferroro, unsplash.com)
An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
DID YOU HEAR the one about the 86-year-old driver who took the government to court for having his driver’s licence taken away?
He was made to take a road test and failed it miserably. On multiple occasions during the test, he almost collided with other vehicles while making turns, drove too slowly “for conditions,” ignored advice from the examiner, made unsafe lane changes and failed to do proper shoulder checks, along with other mistakes.
The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the decision to suspend his licence.
This case once again demonstrated the trauma of having one’s driver’s licence taken away. The fact the man took it all the way to the Supreme Court with such a flimsy chance of success shows the seriousness of the loss of independence he must have felt.
This man was obviously a bad driver. But that doesn’t mean we should assume all older drivers are bad drivers, just because they face health issues as they age.
Fact is, statistics continue to show that younger drivers are much worse that older ones. Stats released earlier this year show drivers 25 to 54 are involved in far more collisions for their kilometres of driving than those 55 and over.
And drivers 24 and under have a lot more collisions than those 55 and over despite driving a lot fewer kilometres.
The right to drive shouldn’t be based on age. It should depend on ability.
In B.C., when you hit 80, you have to get a report from your GP or NP that says you’re still OK to drive. At 85 you have to get another one, and then every second year after that.
Why shouldn’t drivers of all ages have to provide such credentials every time they renew their licence, and retake a road test at least every 10 years?
Or base it on driving records. That would make our roads a lot safer than making false assumptions about seniors.
I’m Mel Rothenburger, the Armchair Mayor.
Mel Rothenburger is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
I think it would be a good idea for all drivers to not only take a road test every 10 years or so but to also take a fairly comprehensive test on the rules of the road. I acquired my class 6 (motorcycle) licence when I was 66 years old and I had to study the Learn to Ride Smart guide (the motorcyclist’s version of the Learn to Drive Smart guide). The whole exercise greatly improved my driving habits. Most of us become complacent and maybe even lazy about following the rules after decades of driving. Regular retesting might even make these good driving habits more ingrained and thus prolong our time behind the wheel as we age.
LikeLike
“Why shouldn’t drivers of all ages have to provide such credentials every time they renew their license, and retake a road test at least every 10 years?”
Well … I wouldnt argue everyone retaking the road test every 10 years,
… but people over 80 show a statistical likelihood of lost cognitive, spatial awareness, vision and hearing acuity and the many other skills necessary to safely negotiate the operation of a motor vehicle, at a far more prevalent rate than any other age group. This isn’t hyperbole, its simple fact.
Citation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8752189/
The BC system is set up so that a persons personal and private medical practitioner is responsible to balance the persons ability to safely operate a vehicle, and they have the tools and training to accurately and clinically assess the same.
Is this not better than an auto strike at an ICBC counter due to just age, not better than simply decided upon by the police, family or the courts … but let this be determined by medical professionals who know us?
Then if needed … the responsibility flips to a tester trained to assess driving skills, as in the example.
Is that not the way we want it?
If we dont have a systemic way of checking on those who may accidentally harm others due to lost abilities to drive safely due to the most natural of life changes, then how do we keep kids crossing streets in front of him … safe?
Beyond that, discussing this gentlemans case then using it as a diving board to immediately compare the skill he most likely had for many decades, to the driving skill statistics of youth … strikes me as a bit of a u-turn.
The issue of elderly driving safety assessments isnt about driving skill or good / bad drivers … its about lost clinical ability to perform a task they once were very good at, and has nothing to do with youths poor driving or even adult poor driving skills … both of which we all see a lot of.
This is comparing Apples and Papayas, not even the same continent of conversations.
Using one to condemn the other is wrong.
That said … I still wouldnt be against EVERYONE having to take a road test every 10 years … imaging the ICBC revenue on that one.
LikeLike