If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Omaha World Herald)   Legislative proposal that would require drivers 80 years of age and older to take a cognitive test to determine whether or not they are capable of getting behind the wheel. Naturally, only old people have a problem with this   (omaha.com) divider line 166
    More: Scary, lawmakers, John Hurt, medical complications, driver's licenses, Nebraska Legislature, senior citizens, psychological testing  
•       •       •

4779 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 9:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-19 10:04:42 PM

way south: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns.

Cool, let's do that for voting too.


And posting on internet message boards.
 
2013-01-19 10:06:41 PM
As someone else who lives in a warm place during the winter: Fark all the old people. I work in a hospital and we have multiple people every summer that get killed or badly injured by old people who run a red light, stomp the gas instead of the brake, or flat out don't see a stop sign.

Recommendation: Take a drivers test every two years for people of all ages. If you're declared incompetent to drive during the test then it is a felony if you get caught behind the wheel.
 
2013-01-19 10:07:42 PM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.


Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.
 
2013-01-19 10:08:05 PM
In Britain your license automatically expires at age 70, and you have to re-take the test in order to renew it. In Australia, after 75 you have to have a yearly physical exam, and after 85 you also have to re-take the driving test every 2 years

Some states already have restrictions on renewal over age 70-75, but those are a lot less restrictive, usually just that you can no longer renew by mail.
 
2013-01-19 10:10:09 PM

KrispyKritter: if you bothered looking at statistics you'd see how little crime and violence is directly attributed to the mentally ill.


Is that number proportional to the number of crazy people in the wild? I haven't looked and wouldn't dare to guess, but I bet that number would also qualify as "little".
 
2013-01-19 10:11:15 PM

way south: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns.

Cool, let's do that for voting too.



Nah. We should require all candidates take the test and the results should be public record before they're allowed on the ticket.


/and we should all stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance twice before we're allowed to eat at the chow hall.
 
2013-01-19 10:12:00 PM

stiletto_the_wise: Earguy: Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.

The olds would still be the only ones having a problem with it. Inside they know what a menace they are behind the wheel, but they're too proud to admit they need to stay off the road.


So, like drunk people and teenagers.

But I repeat myself.
 
2013-01-19 10:18:48 PM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.


Guns in the home are significantly more likely to end up accidentally killing family members than killing criminals. It's a self-limiting problem.

In fact, legalize bigger guns and maybe those people will wipe themselves out.
 
2013-01-19 10:19:12 PM
Mandatory retesting every five years.
 
2013-01-19 10:19:27 PM
Dear gosh, I would like an honest law that requires real testing.
I had a 96 year old try and cross four lanes of traffic, I went up and over him with my truck and put his 86 year old wife into the hospital with crushed ribs. 100% his fault according to the police report. I needed surgery, air bags kept my then kindergartner from any harm. I had picked up the kid less than five minutes before this.

My current license is good for 12 years. I would not care if every year after 60 I am required a road test and vision test. Make it part of a reduced insurance requirement.
 
2013-01-19 10:19:50 PM
I'm slow tonight, so someone enlighten me...

Road tests on 80 year olds = age discrimination.
Senior citizen discounts = not age discrimination?
 
2013-01-19 10:20:41 PM
i29.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-19 10:20:48 PM
I know someone in her 70s, with a husband the same age. He can't see well, refuses to wear his glasses and drives horribly. She knows it but can't stop him (or won't).

I expect one day to see a news report that he's killed someone after driving while old.

They live in Dallas, so FYI, Dallas Farkers. There's at least one old man you should watch out for, for sure. I'm not sure what kind of car he drives. Sorry.
 
2013-01-19 10:21:55 PM

whidbey: CasperImproved: I don't give a fark what they think.

If you can't pass an annual drivers test (including the actual driving) at the age of 65, you should have your keys taken away from you.

If you can't understand that? You shouldn't be on the road at all.

[flippingthepyramid.co.uk image 500x504]

LET GO OF ME MOTHERFARKER! I WANNA LIVE BY _MY_ RULES!


I just so happens that I have Lawrence Welk cranked up to 10 right now.
 
2013-01-19 10:22:40 PM

Randomly: Old people vote, crazy people don't.


How'd this guy get into office then?

upload.wikimedia.org


L.D. Ablo: Winters are hell down here in Yuma, Arizona because of the old drivers.


Sun Lakes and Ocotillo in Chandler is the same. I had so many close calls every year, especially in shopping center parking lots, I just decided to shop elsewhere when that time of the year came along. Very glad I don't live in the area anymore.
 
2013-01-19 10:23:17 PM
We just took the keys away from my 86 year old mother. I told her, " The family who you didnt kill because we took away the keys thanks us." She didn't understand wtf I was going on about, and the rest of us knew we were right.


Old people are toddlers, just less amusing and a PITA.
 
2013-01-19 10:23:18 PM

VespaGuy: I'm slow tonight, so someone enlighten me...

Road tests on 80 year olds = age discrimination.
Senior citizen discounts = not age discrimination?


Yeah, pretty much.

Maybe we should make early bird specials and senior discounts at the movies contingent on a driving test.
 
2013-01-19 10:28:21 PM

DemonEater: In Britain your license automatically expires at age 70, and you have to re-take the test in order to renew it. In Australia, after 75 you have to have a yearly physical exam, and after 85 you also have to re-take the driving test every 2 years

Some states already have restrictions on renewal over age 70-75, but those are a lot less restrictive, usually just that you can no longer renew by mail.


Illinois makes all drivers over 75 take a driving test at every renewal. Licenses are good for 4 years until 80. From 81-86, licenses are good for 2 years. After 86, licenses are good for one year.

Also any driver of any age who has gotten a ticket since their last renewal must take a written exam.
 
2013-01-19 10:29:54 PM

GeneralJim: Pick a method that ... uses more energy per person-mile traveled


Misleading comment is misleading.

Yes, "average", if you take the strict numerical mean. But your graph shows 2/3 of the cities beat, or equal, single-passenger vehicles.

Try again.
 
2013-01-19 10:32:05 PM

Mithiwithi: if you take away his car you might as well put him in a home


Holy shiat, dude! You read my mind! Put grampa in a home. Not only does it get him off the road, it'll free up your guest bedroom, too.
 
2013-01-19 10:38:13 PM

goatleggedfellow: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.

Guns in the home are significantly more likely to end up accidentally killing family members than killing criminals. It's a self-limiting problem.

In fact, legalize bigger guns and maybe those people will wipe themselves out.


Awesome, America. Good to see you moved on from that school shooting thing so fast. I guess it gets easier each time...
 
2013-01-19 10:41:29 PM
This law should include:

Congressmen & Congresswomen over 80, whether they can represent or not.
 
2013-01-19 10:42:36 PM

Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.


Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.
 
2013-01-19 10:50:17 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.


You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.
 
2013-01-19 10:52:35 PM

FizixJunkee: Yeah, everyone should have to take a cognitive test as well as retake the actual driving exam on a regular basis.


And get drug tested while we are at it. Amirite?
 
2013-01-19 10:54:41 PM
You think the NRA is a powerful lobby? They don't have shiat on the AARP. Old people will never, ever be disqualified from driving because the AARP will never allow it, even if it can be proven that they kill 30,000 people a year.
 
2013-01-19 10:55:31 PM
AARP PAC is not ammused with your shebabigans.
 
2013-01-19 10:59:05 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.


Don't forget, the NRA was in favor of gun control during the Civil Rights era when blah people found out they could use guns to defend their rights.
 
2013-01-19 11:00:02 PM

Warlordtrooper: Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.


Uh, no. That's not how our system works. We all have a constitutionally protected right against warrant-less searches, yet DUI checkpoints have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court as have a great many other forms of warrant-less searches.

There then is the very large question as to what constitutes a firearm suitable for public ownership. Most Republicans consider themselves to be constitutional orientalists, except when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Because when the constitution was originally written, firearms were single shot, very slowly hand-reloading muskets. The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist.

Would it therefore be constitutional for the government to rule that semi-automatic weapons were unfit for public ownership? Yes! Absolutely! In fact, the supreme court has already ruled the government has the constitutional right to limit the ownership of certain types of firearms. Were the government to expand the types of firearms so restricted, it would not require new Supreme Court review, the rulings already exist.

Will semi-automatic weapon ownership be greatly limited? Probably not. Would such limits be constitutional under the supreme court's current interpretation of the constitution? Yes.
 
2013-01-19 11:04:14 PM

The Troof hurts: FizixJunkee: Yeah, everyone should have to take a cognitive test as well as retake the actual driving exam on a regular basis.
And get drug tested while we are at it. Amirite?


Sure, why not. If you can't lay off the drugs long enough to pass a test, maybe you shouldn't be driving around either.

I have huge problems with drug testing, but really...if you're doing that many drugs, you might be a road hazard.
 
2013-01-19 11:10:28 PM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: goatleggedfellow: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.

Guns in the home are significantly more likely to end up accidentally killing family members than killing criminals. It's a self-limiting problem.

In fact, legalize bigger guns and maybe those people will wipe themselves out.

Awesome, America. Good to see you moved on from that school shooting thing so fast. I guess it gets easier each time...


America is an experiment. Or it used to be. The only experiment we're running now is trying to validate Lord of the Flies on large scale.
 
2013-01-19 11:12:47 PM

The Troof hurts: FizixJunkee: Yeah, everyone should have to take a cognitive test as well as retake the actual driving exam on a regular basis.

And get drug tested while we are at it. Amirite?


Only if it's etiquette.

-"puff, puff...puff?"
-wrong. hand over your lighter
 
2013-01-19 11:13:45 PM

goatleggedfellow: Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

Don't forget, the NRA was in favor of gun control during the Civil Rights era when blah people found out they could use guns to defend their rights.


Interesting argument - gun ownership as a constitutional right as opposed to driving which is a privilege. Perhaps the founding fathers couldn't conceptualize assault rifles and 600 hp horseless carriages, which in the case of weapons makes me wonder if the 2nd deserves any place in a constitutional document.
 
2013-01-19 11:14:40 PM

Bisu: MusketGun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.


If you don't believe in "Activist Judges" and are a constitutional originalist, clearly the constitution can say nothing about he ownership of semi-automatic weapons, weapons the did not exist at the time of the writing of the constitution.

In reality, the supreme court has ruled that the government has wide leeway in determining which types of firearms are suitable for general public ownership.
 
2013-01-19 11:17:39 PM

RandomRandom: Would it therefore be constitutional for the government to rule that semi-automatic weapons were unfit for public ownership? Yes! Absolutely! In fact, the supreme court has already ruled the government has the constitutional right to limit the ownership of certain types of firearms. Were the government to expand the types of firearms so restricted, it would not require new Supreme Court review, the rulings already exist.


Not that I have any interest in turning this into gun control thread number 8675309, but nevertheless: SCOTUS did say that reasonable restrictions were permissible, but they also applied the "common use" test, so restricting semi-automatic weapons to the extent that the restriction constitutes a ban is a non-starter.

But that's neither here nor there. Driving is not Constitutionally protected, the state can make you forfeit your driving privilege for any reason they choose, whereas there has to be a justified legal reason for the government to take away a Constitutional right such as voting or the right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-01-19 11:18:48 PM

Bisu: Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.


There was a point in history that a white man could vote, but neither a black (man or woman), nor a woman could vote. Women were people before the 1920's. But they were deprived of the right to vote prior to that, even without being convicted of a felony. Not extending rights to a group is the same thing as depriving them of it.
 
2013-01-19 11:25:39 PM

RandomRandom: The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist..


Incorrect.

The alternative to them wanting the inclusion of semi-automatic weapons is that they wanted only mid 18th century arms to be allowed to the people forever thereafter. That's even less logical considering the origins of the 2nd amendment. You are suggesting they only wanted the military to have weapons developed after 1789, and not the people, even though the entire purpose of the amendment was to give the people the ability to defend against a modernly armed military.

Your suggestion requires the framers be very stupid and short-sighted. It requires them to have wanted only weapons from the past to be included in the "right," but for them to not state that.

If they wanted only pre-1789 weaponry allowed via the 2nd amendment, they would have written that. They didn't.
 
2013-01-19 11:25:46 PM
Listen, ya young whippersnapper, if I need a rest, I'll let you know.
I been driving since before you were born and now you say I need a rest?
Sharp as a tack am I.

What?
 
2013-01-19 11:29:53 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Bisu: Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.

There was a point in history that a white man could vote, but neither a black (man or woman), nor a woman could vote. Women were people before the 1920's. But they were deprived of the right to vote prior to that, even without being convicted of a felony. Not extending rights to a group is the same thing as depriving them of it.


No it's not. You can't deprive someone of a right they have not been granted.

When you are arrested for murdering someone, you aren't being deprived of your right to kill people; there is no such right.
 
2013-01-19 11:30:24 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Bisu: Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.

There was a point in history that a white man could vote, but neither a black (man or woman), nor a woman could vote. Women were people before the 1920's. But they were deprived of the right to vote prior to that, even without being convicted of a felony. Not extending rights to a group is the same thing as depriving them of it.


Aren't their rights endowed by their Creator?

In that case, black and women's rights were indeed deprived. Unless you mean to say God changed his mind....
 
2013-01-19 11:31:54 PM

goatleggedfellow: Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

Don't forget, the NRA was in favor of gun control during the Civil Rights era when blah people found out they could use guns to defend their rights.


Really? Then why did Robert F. Williams (the Civil Rights activist who advocated armed and violent self-defense) apply for, and receive, a charter to form an NRA branch organization?
 
2013-01-19 11:34:57 PM
i6.photobucket.com

Why all the hate for Snowbird?
 
2013-01-19 11:36:06 PM
Personally I think everyone should be retested every so often. Shiatty drivers are my pet peeve peave. It's like after they get their license people forget everything they ever learned in drivers ed. Turn signals are not a last minute gesture you use halfway into a turn because you don't want a ticket. You don't need to come to a complete stop when entering a parking lot from the road or when making a turn. A merge lane is for getting up to speed and merging into traffic, not stopping and waiting for all traffic to clear before proceeding into a lane, especially if the merge lane goes over rail road tracks. If people on bicycles are passing by you while driving on a main road maybe it's time you gtf off the goddamn road and let people get by you. At least be willing to get up to the speed limit. Having the passenger hold the wheel while you push the gas so you can search for shiat in the back seat is farking retarded. Cutting across multiple lanes suddenly because your dumbass couldn't pay attention to the road or you didn't know where you're going is a good way to create an accident and get people killed asshole. If you're driving and texting or talking on your cell phone you deserve whatever the hell accident you end up getting in. If you're busted drinking and driving more than twice you should lose your license period. No work permit, no losing it temporarily, no one year bullshiat. No more driving, ever. You lose the ability to get to work, that's your farking fault dipshiat.

I could go all day with this crap. I know I'm not a perfect driver, but I'm at least considerate and I'm mindful of vehicles around me.
 
2013-01-19 11:40:17 PM
Elderly drivers are worse than drunk ones
 
2013-01-19 11:42:18 PM
Mandatory testing should start at 60, not 80. By 80, they should be barred from driving no matter what.
 
2013-01-19 11:44:23 PM

Bisu:
When you are arrested for murdering someone, you aren't being deprived of your right to kill people; there is no such right.


That's right. There is NO right to commit murder. Not for me. Not for you. Not for a woman, a man, a black a mexican, a genie or anyone else. There is, however, a right to vote. In the 1920's women were granted the right to vote. A right that had existed for black men for 50 years, and for white men a lot longer than that. Apparantly, "We the people" took a while to clarify.
 
2013-01-19 11:48:46 PM

macdaddy357: Mandatory testing should start at 60, not 80. By 80, they should be barred from driving no matter what.


Dan Gurney is out in the hall, wants a word.
He has this old guy, Sterling Moss w/ him.
 
2013-01-19 11:52:48 PM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.


You're trolling, but I'll answer you. The current psychological tests for potential violence have an error rate of 1 in 3. In other words, they don't farking know and are just guessing.
 
2013-01-19 11:58:35 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:
Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.


That's only partially true it depended on the State. Some States they could vote before the 15th and 19th Amendments.
 
2013-01-19 11:58:35 PM

Earguy: Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.


How about everybody has to take the test in order to get their license in the first place? And maybe once a decade afterwards?
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report