Too little, too late. By the time it gets through appeals all cars will be self driving.

Sin_City_Superhero: 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.

Wrong. Voting wasn't a Constitutional right for anyone until 1868, and still not definitively so (it could be denied, but any state doing so decreases its representation). It was a state issue up until that point. It just so happens white men were pretty much all already allowed to vote. That doesn't make it a Constitutional right though.  I don't know of any "We the people" statement with regard to voting.

OgreMagi: 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.

And the tests for psychosis?

As an adult daughter of a man who had to take her father's keys away when he was 59 because of early onset Parkinsons and Alzheimer's, I am getting a kick out of all this.

Not really. That shiat farking sucked.

FWIW I think EVERYONE should have to renew their license every year up to the age of 25, then every 3 years up to 65, and every year thereafter, and to do so one must either complete a driving test, or complete a defensive driving course and pass with an 85% or above on the final exam. It'd force everyone to review state laws regarding lawful operation of vehicles, leaving fewer excuses for idiots doing stupid ass shiat on the roadways, and would help to lower everyone's insurance premiums. Plus, it would get a lot of severely unfit drivers off the road.
I also think there should be zero tolerance for DUIs. There is no excuse. Too many thousands to tens of thousands of innocents die every year because selfish idiots think only of themselves when they get behind the wheel when any sane person knows they shouldn't be.

If only you would need to pass a cognitive test to be a singer...

CSB: @1984 (can't remember exactly), was living in IA, had to renew Drvrs Lic. In line at DMV to renew DL, behind a middle aged ladie and her (70+?) mother who was renewing her license. Older lady takes eye test, bottom line is clerk says ' lady, you're blind!). Lady says 'I have to have my DL', clrk says "See your optometrist, your license is still good for 60 days'.

/WTF: A blind woman is on the road for 60 days, endangering me, wife, two infant children for two months. Why didn't he pull her license then and there? Money? Certainly not safety.
///My mother voluntarily surrendered her license @ age 73 because ' I don't feel safe anymore'.
///Realize that giving up your DL is the admission that you have no independence.
////Class act, my mommy.
//Not 'cause she's my mommy.
//I'm 67.
//WOW! six slashies!

Mental note: Start cognitive test administration company...

/niche probably filled
//hence the proposal
///need more juice...

You should get tested every 5 years from 16 to 60, then every 2 years from then on.

If you prove to be a lethal threat to society due to impaired mental capacity, your privileges for handling potentially lethal items should be reduced or revoked. (You can see where else this applies, obviously.)

That said, it is true that it's impossible to get around in the US without a car. And it's unfair to punish people for the involuntary and inevitable mental deterioration that accompanies the aging process. So how about cab rides are discounted for senior citizens? Or a transit system akin to a jitney? Just throwing these out here.

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

im okay with this

Bisu: 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.

I agree, but that is clearly not constitutional originalism. It is allowing the court to change the interpretation of the constitution to fit modern times.

Republicans over the past few decades have described such constitutional interpretation as Judicial Activism. That's my point. Republicans tend to hate judicial activism, except when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

smitty04: "This is about saving their lives, as well as the lives of others on the road,"

Locking up all Black people would cut crime in half.

Both are examples of discrimination.

So? Discrimination is a natural part of society, even if you won't admit to it. Not everyone is equal.

All old people should only be allowed to drive between monday and friday 10am to 1pm while the rest of us are at work.

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

I have been advocating this for years. There may some descrimination, but it's fact that your mental alertness deteriorates once you hit a certain age.

I started deteriorating at 5.

/seriously, good idea

Fade2black: smitty04: "This is about saving their lives, as well as the lives of others on the road,"

Locking up all Black people would cut crime in half.

Both are examples of discrimination.

So? Discrimination is a natural part of society, even if you won't admit to it. Not everyone is equal.

Example: My 89 yr old mother who has had a stroke and uses a walker is routinely singled out nfor 'further screening' by TSA. She's a farking security threat? What about all the 15 - 50 yr old semitic-appearing passengers who are routinely passed through without question? 'Racial profiling'? How 'bout farking common sense?

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.

It's not just pride. It's a mobility issue. The kinds of places where rent and food are cheap are not urban. They are suburban or rural. Places like that have very poor or no mass transit. If you take away their ability to drive, the seniors may have no way to go to doctors or buy groceries (no family available for whatever reason). Unfortunately, we can't just mandate that the elderly not drive, we have to actually pay to drive them places so that they won't have to drive. Or we have to force them to have a caretaker or move somewhere they can be taken care of (which incurs a separate set of expenses for taxpayers since we have to deal with their old residence and the wrath of people getting angry).

More importantly, this test isn't going to work because it's only half the solution. Let's say we institute this test without providing good shuttle service -- what do you think people who fail the test are going to do? Stop driving? Maybe some of them. But many of them will continue to drive unlicensed (and therefore uninsured).

doczoidberg: How much will they friggin charge for the test?

That's really the only problem is see.

In my mind it's something akin to the eye test you have to go through to get your Driver's License. It's simple enough that the person taking your application at the DMV office can perform it, perform it correctly, and isn't too put out by the whole thing.

Really, this should be viewed from the same perspective as an eyesight test. It's a proposed test to check on a VITAL ABILITY FOR DRIVING. Nobody really is up in arms over the "unreasonable demand" that you verify you can read roadsigns before they let you on the road.

Hell, my only objection is that its only supposed to apply to those over 80. If you ask me, EVERYONE applying for a Driver's License should be given a "basic cognitive test".

ennuie: what do you think people who fail the test are going to do? Stop driving? Maybe some of them. But many of them will continue to drive unlicensed (and therefore uninsured).

Family? See my previous post.

/Do families still exist?
//Sad.

yukichigai: doczoidberg: How much will they friggin charge for the test?

That's really the only problem is see.

In my mind it's something akin to the eye test you have to go through to get your Driver's License. It's simple enough that the person taking your application at the DMV office can perform it, perform it correctly, and isn't too put out by the whole thing.

Really, this should be viewed from the same perspective as an eyesight test. It's a proposed test to check on a VITAL ABILITY FOR DRIVING. Nobody really is up in arms over the "unreasonable demand" that you verify you can read roadsigns before they let you on the road.

Hell, my only objection is that its only supposed to apply to those over 80. If you ask me, EVERYONE applying for a Driver's License should be given a "basic cognitive test".

Everyone... yes... and more specifically, not just for a driver's license. I want one before you can vote, one before you can spawn, one before... well basically all the time.

sgnilward: Which way to the farmers market?

A)Doesn't matter stomp on the gas instead of the brake

B)Doesn't matter stomp on the gas instead of the brake

C)Doesn't matter stomp on the gas instead of the brake

D)All of the above

My friend the 91yo ex-B-24 pilot decided it was time to quit driving when he could no longer tell one pedal from the other. Luckily nobody got hurt.

my mom was 61, i think, when she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. it devastated her that she couldn't drive anymore.

I don't think semi-annual testing after 65 is unfair, and then annually at 70

Better yet, we should offer free vehicle trade in for old drivers that wish to continue driving. All old drivers would drive ultracompacts with external airbags, speed and accelerator limiters, collision detection brake override, etc. These vehicles should also be required for all new drivers, and those with excessive numbers of accidents or moving violations.

Last Monday, after I had slowed down to make a right hand turn, a 70-year-old guy driving a 1988 shiatmobile plowed into the rear end of my vehicle, totaling his shiatmobile and causing a little over $9000 in damage to my car, which had less than 6k on the clock.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm getting a kick out of this story, and the testing age needs to drop about a decade or so.

When I die, I want to go out peacefully, in my sleep like dear old grandpa not screaming in fear like the passengers in his car.

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: I just so happens that I have Lawrence Welk cranked up to 10 right now.

Well, happy trai-ai-ails to you!

Clearly we need to ban high-capacity fuel tanks and implement wider windshield clarity checks...

Begoggle:

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

You win. This is the way to do it. It's WAY too easy to KEEP a license most places. In Hawai'i: LOTS of drinking ---> LOTS of drunks ---> LOTS of drunk driving ---> LOTS of lost licenses. Mopeds and bicycles are big here, and a surprising number use them because it's that or nothing. So, people without licenses can still get around. People unable to think properly should not be driving. Never happen, though, because the state is heavily Democratic.

LOL yeah it's Obama's fault.
This has nothing to do with political alignment, friend.

It does NOW.

ProfessorOhki:

Do you think people study improving mass transit for fun or do you think that maybe there needs to be a demand to drive improvement?

In other words, it sucks now, but if EVERYONE did this sucky thing, it would improve? Sounds a lot like "We have to vote for it to find out what's in it."

Fun Fact: In Arizona your license is good until you are 65. So, if you get it at 18 then you do not have to renew it for 47 years!

ArcadianRefugee:

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

Seriously? While the average is worse than single-passenger autos, you are, what, BRAGGING, that two thirds of the cities listed have public transportation that isn't any worse on energy use than single-passenger autos? This is your line? Okay then, how about the fact that 2/3 of the listed rail systems are WORSE than automobiles, as they are driven now? Light rail uses MORE energy than cars -- and you say we should switch to it to save energy?

GeneralJim: . . . uses more energy per person-mile traveled, on average, than traveling with one person in a car.

The problem with that chart is that while all those cities have rail transit systems that would probably qualify as light rail under FTA rules, a number of those are also heritage streetcar lines that are operated with historic equipment. The bottom four systems on that list, River Rail Streetcar (Little Rock), MATA Trolley (Memphis), the Kenosha Streetcar, and the Galveston Island Trolley are all heritage systems operated with restored historic vehicles on short systems (about 10 miles or less of total track.) In comparison, the four top systems, the San Diego Trolley, MAX (Portland), TRAX (Salt Lake City), and MetroLink (St. Louis) are all much larger systems (35-53 miles of track each) with contemporary vehicles (that are presumably more energy-efficient.) The top four cities are also much larger and denser than the bottom four cities, and since the chart is based on energy use per passenger-mile (1 passenger carried 1 mile), it's also much easier for them to attract higher ridership to offset the vehicles' energy consumption.

RandomRandom:

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.

Using this alleged "logic," there is no freedom of speech on radio, television, cable, lithography, offset printing press, telephone, satellite, Morse code, computers, computer printers, or the Internets, since none of them were invented when the First Amendment was written, hence the framers could not possibly have meant the First Amendment to include them.

THEREFORE:

Adolf Oliver Nipples: 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.

This, though it is a shame.

And this was the day I put General Jim on ignore with the label 'Flat Earther'.

musashi1600:

The problem with that chart is that while all those cities have rail transit systems that would probably qualify as light rail under FTA rules, a number of those are also heritage streetcar lines that are operated with historic equipment. The bottom four systems on that list, River Rail Streetcar (Little Rock), MATA Trolley (Memphis), the Kenosha Streetcar, and the Galveston Island Trolley are all heritage systems operated with restored historic vehicles on short systems (about 10 miles or less of total track.) In comparison, the four top systems, the San Diego Trolley, MAX (Portland), TRAX (Salt Lake City), and MetroLink (St. Louis) are all much larger systems (35-53 miles of track each) with contemporary vehicles (that are presumably more energy-efficient.) The top four cities are also much larger and denser than the bottom four cities, and since the chart is based on energy use per passenger-mile (1 passenger carried 1 mile), it's also much easier for them to attract higher ridership to offset the vehicles' energy consumption.

A few problems with your logic... First off, you are stacking the deck. You want to throw out the four worst performing light rail systems. If you do that, why not throw out the worst 10% of the cars, by mileage?

But, even throwing out those worst four, normal automobile usage is STILL better than almost two-thirds of the systems, instead of more than two-thirds of them. Additionally, when discarding the worst four, six of the remaining twenty-two of the rail systems are no better than automobiles with one passenger. Subways aren't much better than light rail. For a good overview of this subject, see THIS ARTICLE.

Also, I doubt the populations of San Diego, Portland, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis will appreciate being referred to as "dense," but I'll let you fight THAT out with their respective chambers of commerce.

They need to also create a restricted license. My 90 yr old grandmother will not drive over 45, but will drive the correct speed in a 15, 25,35, & 45 zones. With the traffic, not 10 mph below. She will NOT get on the freeway, or a rural 55mph road. She knows her limits, and drives within them. There needs to be a limited driver's license, for people who are ok drivers, but would not be able to pass a freeway driver's test.

Begoggle: This has nothing to do with political alignment, friend.

EVERYTHING has do to with political alignment - and god help you if you're on the wrong side.

pfft. just check if they have pott. county plates and then watch out

In Omaha Without Asking!

/iowan

By the time I have to worry about it, the cars will be on autopilot, and I'll be chauffeured safely to my destination while posting on Fark.

/hooray for progress!