Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4786 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 9:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-19 08:32:55 PM  
Fine. EVERYBODY gets the test, if it takes a lot of senile drivers off the road.
 
2013-01-19 08:33:04 PM  
Farmers markets rejoice.
 
2013-01-19 08:41:46 PM  
Not sure how to fight this one - age isn't a suspect class.
 
2013-01-19 08:44:11 PM  
"They're discriminating against us," Harre said, drawing nods of agreement from three friends gathered at the Lake Street Senior Center in west Lincoln.

You're drawing nods of agreement from your opponents as well - you're damned right I'm discriminating against you.

In other news my grandmother is still driving, and always drives drunk, ~90yo. But that doesn't prove anything.
 
2013-01-19 08:46:44 PM  
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
 
2013-01-19 08:51:52 PM  
Good.

Winters are hell down here in Yuma, Arizona because of the old drivers.  Earlier, I was behind someone who came to a stop while making a right turn.  Nothing blocking the path.  I waited a bit, then honked.

He gave me the finger.

It's just a matter of time before that guy hurts himself or others.

I spotted this in town a few weeks ago:

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-19 09:00:44 PM  

L.D. Ablo: Good.

Winters are hell down here in Yuma, Arizona because of the old drivers.  Earlier, I was behind someone who came to a stop while making a right turn.  Nothing blocking the path.  I waited a bit, then honked.

He gave me the finger.

It's just a matter of time before that guy hurts himself or others.

I spotted this in town a few weeks ago:

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 299x400]


Wow, I know that feel, bro

/lived in Tucson for many years
//and not as a snowbird, but as a recent import from LA
///......not sure what's worse, to be honest
 
2013-01-19 09:01:09 PM  
Old drivers can get off my lawn!
 
2013-01-19 09:04:21 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-19 09:07:31 PM  
That age needs to be lower.
 
2013-01-19 09:10:37 PM  
www.dvdtalk.com

"You'll have to pry the keys out of my cold, dead hands, ya hear me?!"
 
2013-01-19 09:11:27 PM  
If they can't pass the test, how will they remember they can't still drive?
 
2013-01-19 09:25:01 PM  
How much will they friggin charge for the test?

That's really the only problem is see.
 
2013-01-19 09:27:09 PM  

L.D. Ablo: Good.

Winters are hell down here in Yuma, Arizona because of the old drivers.  Earlier, I was behind someone who came to a stop while making a right turn.  Nothing blocking the path.  I waited a bit, then honked.

He gave me the finger.

It's just a matter of time before that guy hurts himself or others.

I spotted this in town a few weeks ago:

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 299x400]


As a fellow Yuman, THIS. My hate for snowbirds knows no bounds.
 
2013-01-19 09:28:07 PM  
Sentence that subby wrote in reference to a cognitive test. Naturally subby is greenlit.
 
2013-01-19 09:28:59 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 09:30:06 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-19 09:32:15 PM  
Ok, but we gotta provide a free low cost taxi service for the aged.
 
2013-01-19 09:33:26 PM  

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

.

FTFY
 
2013-01-19 09:35:11 PM  
Competency Testing ?

t.qkme.me
 
2013-01-19 09:35:30 PM  
Remember that guy that killed all those people at the movies? The old guy that drove through the farmers market killed just as many and injured more.

The guy with the gun will get life in prison if not executed. The old man got probation.

Why the difference? Old people vote, crazy people don't.
 
2013-01-19 09:35:30 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.


Same goes for keyboards. Some people wander away from the subject and start spouting off at the mouth. They are truly lost.
 
2013-01-19 09:36:32 PM  

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


We have a winner. Give everyone the test.

/Can't wait until some 40 year old Derp fails
 
2013-01-19 09:38:15 PM  

Randomly: Remember that guy that killed all those people at the movies? The old guy that drove through the farmers market killed just as many and injured more.

The guy with the gun will get life in prison if not executed. The old man got probation.

Why the difference? Old people vote, crazy people don't.


Or it could come down to intent. But don't let reality spoil yer buzz.
 
2013-01-19 09:38:35 PM  

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


Crazy people vote in droves.
 
2013-01-19 09:38:41 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.


Question 1: Do you wish to own a gun?

Any answer other than "No, it disgusts me, but I have literally no other way to feed my family than through hunting, for which use a firearm is efficient and relatively humane" would naturally result in a permit denial.
 
2013-01-19 09:39:41 PM  
If they don't want discrimination then everyone will take it. Which is fine with me, have people take it every two years.
 
2013-01-19 09:42:04 PM  

Thisbymaster: If they don't want discrimination then everyone will take it. Which is fine with me, have people take it every two years.


How about ten years. Sounds like a pain in the ass.
 
2013-01-19 09:43:41 PM  
The real problem is the fact that its impossible to be independent in most of this country if you can't drive.  Unless Grampa's kids live near enough and have the time to drive him around everywhere, if you take away his car you might as well put him in a home.

That's the thing that keeps otherwise reasonable old people driving long after they're too blind, slow of reflex, or senile to drive.

No, I don't know what the alternative is, at least until self-driving cars are commercially available.
 
2013-01-19 09:43:48 PM  
Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.
 
2013-01-19 09:43:48 PM  
Isn't 80 too late to start testing the geezers?
 
2013-01-19 09:43:53 PM  
Roadhog!!
 
2013-01-19 09:45:02 PM  

SilentStrider: That age needs to be lower.


^^^^^^This^^^^^^
 
2013-01-19 09:46:09 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-19 09:47:28 PM  
Should be required for ALL AGES.
 
2013-01-19 09:47:28 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-19 09:48:45 PM  
They should add Chinese women driving Mercedes Benz to the list.
 
2013-01-19 09:51:19 PM  

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


img3.imageshack.us
I'm ok with this.
 
2013-01-19 09:51:46 PM  
I'm 63 and know damn good and well that 70 is to old for a lot of people to still be driving.I plan on being smart enough to quit while I'm ahead.Old fart knockers scare the hell out of me,worse than young whipper snappers.
 
2013-01-19 09:52:27 PM  

DON.MAC: If they can't pass the test, how will they remember they can't still drive?


Just hide the keys.
 
2013-01-19 09:53:54 PM  
whidbey:
Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.

Typical dumbass statist solution. Pick a method that disrupts a city by requiring massive construction, costs an arm and a leg, and uses more energy per person-mile traveled, on average, than traveling with one person in a car. Obamatravel.

www.coyoteblog.com
 
2013-01-19 09:54:41 PM  
I am fine with this. We're not saying they MUSTN'T drive, we're just saying they should prove they CAN.

Road-test ME when I'm 82. I won't be offended. We can even play Justin Bieber on whatever the classic rock radio station is at the time.
 
2013-01-19 09:55:06 PM  
I moved in with my grandfather to take care of him years ago. He was still driving and after hitting a parked car, several garbage cans on the side of the road, and parking in a spot already occupied at the grocery, (all on separate occasions), I suggested to my mother he turn in his licence. The man was a menace in an Eagle.

" But what if he hits a kid riding their bike down the street?", I asked her. She told me that the child shouldn't be riding in the road. Ha! (This is the same woman that didn't want me to get him a scooter because all she could envision was a slow speed police chase on the highway!)

Finally, my insurance company wanted to raise my car insurance because he was a licensed driver in the household without his own insurance. We went to motor vehicles that day and traded his licence for a non-driver ID. Problem solved. Money talks mom!

Anyway, it's a tough decision for them because it's their freedom, I mean...how are they supposed to make their getaway when someone tries to throw them in the old folks home or after they get caught peeing behind the soda machine outside the store?
 
2013-01-19 09:56:13 PM  
"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.
 
2013-01-19 09:58:16 PM  

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

LET GO OF ME MOTHERFARKER! I WANNA LIVE BY _MY_ RULES!
 
2013-01-19 09:58:17 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 09:59:48 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 10:00:31 PM  

GeneralJim: whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.
Typical dumbass statist solution. Pick a method that disrupts a city by requiring massive construction, costs an arm and a leg, and uses more energy per person-mile traveled, on average, than traveling with one person in a car. Obamatravel.


Hint 1: How much R&D goes into mass transit v. auto. Hint 2: 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?

If you still need help, ask.
 
2013-01-19 10:02:04 PM  
Yeah, everyone should have to take a cognitive test as well as retake the actual driving exam on a regular basis.
 
2013-01-19 10:04:40 PM  
But aging is fantastic and no one would ever want to be young again. Old drivers drive by wisdom and experience, they don't need things like working eyes, non-decrepit brains and reflexes.
 
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?
 
2013-01-20 12:01:49 AM  
Too little, too late. By the time it gets through appeals all cars will be self driving.
 
2013-01-20 12:02:55 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 12:08:01 AM  

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


When does taking control personaly become illegal?
When driven cars are made illegal, only criminals will be drivers.
 
2013-01-20 12:10:58 AM  
Just remember all the laws and regulations you want to implement now will affect you in the not too distance future someday you'll be the grandpa who doesn't want to give up your keys. Maybe by then we'll have Google cars.
 
2013-01-20 12:15:44 AM  
I thought 0bongocare was supposed to take care of this. What happened to those Death Panels I was promised?
 
2013-01-20 12:16:43 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-20 12:30:37 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 12:35:12 AM  
If only you would need to pass a cognitive test to be a singer...
 
2013-01-20 12:38:36 AM  
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!
 
2013-01-20 12:39:38 AM  
Mental note: Start cognitive test administration company...

/niche probably filled
//hence the proposal
///need more juice...
 
2013-01-20 12:39:49 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 12:47:53 AM  

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


im okay with this
 
2013-01-20 12:50:20 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 12:52:00 AM  

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: Lawrence Welk cranked up to 10 r


YES!
 
2013-01-20 01:08:20 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 01:11:10 AM  

Darkviking: [i6.photobucket.com image 300x385]

Why all the hate for Snowbird?


Because she packs up and heads for Florida or Mexico every winter. Sick of that shiat.
 
2013-01-20 01:11:40 AM  
All old people should only be allowed to drive between monday and friday 10am to 1pm while the rest of us are at work.
 
2013-01-20 01:12:31 AM  

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
 
2013-01-20 01:14:37 AM  
Put some real public transit in place so people can get around without cars and then start the testing.
Old people still need to get around town so make it possible for them to do so with little fuss & bother.
 
2013-01-20 01:14:39 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-20 01:19:42 AM  

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).
 
2013-01-20 01:20:48 AM  

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

How'd this guy get into office then?


Pretty much the same way Bachmann got elected.

A total lack of activism in either Pennsylvania or Minnesota.
 
2013-01-20 01:25:57 AM  

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".
 
2013-01-20 01:26:19 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 01:37:41 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 01:51:22 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 02:04:16 AM  
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
 
2013-01-20 02:10:48 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 02:53:19 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 02:58:06 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 03:01:35 AM  

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!
 
2013-01-20 03:06:51 AM  
Clearly we need to ban high-capacity fuel tanks and implement wider windshield clarity checks...
 
2013-01-20 03:13:15 AM  
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.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
It does NOW.
 
2013-01-20 03:21:35 AM  

kabar: L.D. Ablo: Good.

Winters are hell down here in Yuma, Arizona because of the old drivers.  Earlier, I was behind someone who came to a stop while making a right turn.  Nothing blocking the path.  I waited a bit, then honked.

He gave me the finger.

It's just a matter of time before that guy hurts himself or others.

I spotted this in town a few weeks ago:

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 299x400]

As a fellow Yuman, THIS. My hate for snowbirds knows no bounds.


Enjoy a month of TotalFark, my friend!
 
2013-01-20 03:30:02 AM  
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."

api.ning.com
 
2013-01-20 03:41:55 AM  
goatleggedfellow:


I'll see your

i.ytimg.com

and raise you

media-cache-ec6.pinterest.com
 
2013-01-20 03:51:36 AM  
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!
 
2013-01-20 03:59:18 AM  
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?

static2.fjcdn.com
 
2013-01-20 04:09:03 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 04:17:37 AM  
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:

imagemacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-20 04:30:33 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 05:27:53 AM  
And this was the day I put General Jim on ignore with the label 'Flat Earther'.
 
2013-01-20 05:29:42 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 05:37:24 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 06:12:44 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 06:20:15 AM  
pfft. just check if they have pott. county plates and then watch out

In Omaha Without Asking!

/iowan
 
2013-01-20 08:32:51 AM  

whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.


Lol no. Given the size/scope of the united states, and the population density, a national/regional rail system makes zero sense.
 
2013-01-20 08:44:20 AM  
My wife's family recently went through this exact same scenario with her grandfather. Her uncle was riding with him in the car. After he drove through the 5th consecutive red light, her uncle made him pull over. The family set up a meeting for a week from that date to "discuss taking his keys away." I said fark that, you need to go pull the battery from the car because you know damn well he has a spare set somewhere. Sure enough he did. Two weeks later he was out driving somewhere and crashed into a ditch. He never recovered, 4 weeks later he was gone.
 
2013-01-20 08:46:43 AM  
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!
 
2013-01-20 10:20:45 AM  
My grandfathers drivers license was issued before they had an expiration date. It was also transferable and cost one dollar. It is still legal to use and in theory none of the laws about taking it away after it were issued apply to it thanks to ex-post-facto laws. Fortunately it is where it belongs: in a museum.
 
2013-01-20 10:37:58 AM  

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.


The St Louis light rail is nearly useless for 99% of the population of the city. If you look at Melbourne Australia which has a massive usable tram system, then the numbers start to show a major problem with trams. The Melbourne system uses about 6 times the energy per mile as the average new small car with one person. Converting to average car energy consumption would put the Melbourne system below the "average" on that graph but that could get tricky considering the Aussie car fleet is smaller but older. In addition to trams, it has light rail and heavy passenger rail systems. One of the light rail lines (96) would be similar to St Louis line for about 1/3 of its run but has way too many stops and starts on the rest of the line to hit that efficiency.
 
2013-01-20 10:40:16 AM  
My grandfather had a stroke when I was a kid, and he kept getting his driver's license renewed up until a few years before he died, regardless of the fact that he was paralyzed on his right side. He was physically incapable of driving in any way and they kept giving his license to him anyway.
 
2013-01-20 11:56:15 AM  
www.global-air.com

Age does bring some declines that affect driving. Chief among them are night vision that is less sharp, declining mobility that can make turning around or craning your neck difficult, and slower reaction times. (new window)
 
2013-01-20 11:59:43 AM  

GeneralJim: Well, farktard, the SCIENCE is what is falsifying all the panic-mongers trying for higher taxes and more control. The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.


Look how much you're lying. Good farking god.

Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.
 
2013-01-20 02:10:42 PM  
As someone who lost a friend to an 87 year old driver that "just didn't see him" in broad daylight, leaving behind a wife and two small children, I can totally get behind this. The worst part was that he was riding his motorcycle home from the shop, and his wife and kids were following him home in the car, so they saw everything.
 
2013-01-20 02:56:24 PM  

Moonfisher: As someone who lost a friend to an 87 year old driver that "just didn't see him" in broad daylight, leaving behind a wife and two small children, I can totally get behind this. The worst part was that he was riding his motorcycle home from the shop, and his wife and kids were following him home in the car, so they saw everything.


Closure
 
2013-01-20 03:37:19 PM  

GeneralJim: Well, farktard,


Because personal attacks automatically declare victory in any discussion.
 
2013-01-20 03:41:50 PM  

jayphat: whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.

Lol no. Given the size/scope of the united states, and the population density, a national/regional rail system makes zero sense.


LOL yes. I love the ridiculous argument that no one would be served on one hand, while on the other hand asserting the need to drive long distances because there is decent public transportation system.

You also ignore that much of the country did travel by rail, and in great numbers, before the car was mass marketed and the freeways were built.

The math is simple:
If millions of people can drive by car, then they can ride by train. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, and it doesn't have to meet some ridiculous business model where the service makes money within an X number of years.

The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.
 
2013-01-20 04:04:17 PM  
But, of course, no similar test for gun owners.
 
2013-01-20 04:24:57 PM  

whidbey: jayphat: whidbey: Nice, but we really should be putting all of our resources into establishing a decent regional/national public rail transportation system. Then we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about who or who would not be driving in our bright future.

Lol no. Given the size/scope of the united states, and the population density, a national/regional rail system makes zero sense.

LOL yes. I love the ridiculous argument that no one would be served on one hand, while on the other hand asserting the need to drive long distances because there is decent public transportation system.

You also ignore that much of the country did travel by rail, and in great numbers, before the car was mass marketed and the freeways were built.

The math is simple:
If millions of people can drive by car, then they can ride by train. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, and it doesn't have to meet some ridiculous business model where the service makes money within an X number of years.

The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.


8/10. Thats a great effort there. Unless you're serious in which case you need to look at the basic math of it. Removing millions of cars off the road won't happen. Simply because of geography. Once we get from point A to point B, we still need transportation in most places we go. Which requires in most instances, a car.
 
2013-01-20 09:54:52 PM  

DemonEater: Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.


I wonder about that in practice.  Melbourne has been adding more public transport services yet average commute times have increased.  It is typical to drive 20 miles in an hour through most of the city if you can use the highways.  The average distance driven per year is decreasing each year and the accidents per mile drive is increasing sharply. Melbourne and Sydney both have wonderful public transport yet parking is $20 an hour in their downtown areas.  Most of the roads in Melbourne carry less passengers per hour than other major cities because the trams block cars. Of course some say the cars block the trams but the reality is they they both block each other which leads to gridlock spreading through a massive area.  Melbourne is smaller than Chicago yet seems to have much higher transport costs in money, time, taxes, inconvenience and stress.  I think it is partially because of the good public transport, planning involves most office jobs being in the cubicle farms in the downtown area and people living an hour away unlike most US cities where a majority of jobs are around the outer interstate ring roads and some downtown.

On the plus side, you can be elderly around here and still get to a grocery store.  I have 6 food stores within 20 minute walk and busses run to all of them.
 
2013-01-21 06:34:53 AM  

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


And they should! Not just for dementia, but they should screen for sleep disorders. If I wanted, I could totally get my license, despite having narcolepsy. No medical professional is obligated or even confident they legally can report me to have it stopped. People with severe and untreated sleep apnea are more impaired than people driving drunk.

Since people aren't going to put down the keys on their own, I'm all for making sure people who are chronically impaired at the level of a drunk driver being taken off the roads.
 
2013-01-21 08:03:09 AM  

This is a thread about elderly drivers... oh well.

GeneralJim: The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.


blogs.loc.gov


I won't hold my breath for anything useful - since that statement is patently false. If the science has proven any such thing(as opposed to proving quite the opposite), then why does NEARLY EVERY scientist feel different?

www.desmogblog.com


Do you REALLY think that nearly all scientists of the world are on the take(from the green energy sector), or is it just a bit more likely and feasible that a small fraction are on the take (from the MUCH larger, richer oil industry sector)? Think man.

RandomRandom: 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.


You have about half the right idea, leading you to the wrong conclusion. Sure our forefathers probably did not imagine the kind of firepower we have today. So you automatically assume they would not want this firepower in the people's hands. But you neglect to realize that there are 2 sides to that coin. Our forefathers also did not imagine that kind of firepower in the hands of Government. Our forefathers had to fight against their legitimate government.

People like you - who pretend that the 2nd amendment is not there so the populace has a chance(we probably still don't) against our government should it become too corrupt or hostile to our freedoms - are playing word games where it suits you. Although it is not expressly spelled out in those words, that fact is every bit as obvious as the separation of church and state(also not spelled out in exactly those words).

Of course your interpretation is silly anyhow - the 2nd amendment (nor anywhere else in the constitution) DOES NOT specify models for which we have a right to bear.

You know what else our forefathers probably did not envision? That our politicians (and their their control and appointments our entire government) would be the property of gigantic corporate conglomerates. So maybe we might just need those firearms - higher power stuff than we really have access too as well. But if you want to take away people's right to firearms, do it properly... with an amendment to repeal the 2nd. A law is the incorrect way to do it, and not constitutionally valid where it clashes with the constitution. But even then, such an amendment is still a very bad idea.

crabsno termites: 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?


I dunno. How about that common sense you speak of? Because you don't seem to have any. Your post makes that very clear.
 
2013-01-21 08:22:38 AM  
DON.MAC:
DemonEater: Also, you're ignoring the other benefits of mass transit - for every 100 people who take a bus, tram, underground, or train to work, that's 100 less cars on the road trying to go the same place, and 100 less downtown parking spots needed. Efficient mass transit cuts commute times for everybody, and means you don't have to drive round in circles for half an hour trying to find an empty spot or open garage. Or, you know, pay like $20/day for parking.

I wonder about that in practice.  Melbourne has been adding more public transport services yet average commute times have increased.  It is typical to drive 20 miles in an hour through most of the city if you can use the highways.  The average distance driven per year is decreasing each year and the accidents per mile drive is increasing sharply. Melbourne and Sydney both have wonderful public transport yet parking is $20 an hour in their downtown areas.  Most of the roads in Melbourne carry less passengers per hour than other major cities because the trams block cars. Of course some say the cars block the trams but the reality is they they both block each other which leads to gridlock spreading through a massive area.  Melbourne is smaller than Chicago yet seems to have much higher transport costs in money, time, taxes, inconvenience and stress.  I think it is partially because of the good public transport, planning involves most office jobs being in the cubicle farms in the downtown area and people living an hour away unlike most US cities where a majority of jobs are around the outer interstate ring roads and some downtown.

Whoops. I didn't mean to "me too" you there... Too bad I didn't see this before I also answered. Good job. Carry on.
 
2013-01-21 09:51:22 AM  
bk3k:
This is a thread about elderly drivers... oh well.

GeneralJim: The SCIENCE has proven, in several different ways, that carbon dioxide released by humans WILL NEVER pose any threat to the climate.

[blogs.loc.gov image 340x180]

I won't hold my breath for anything useful - since that statement is patently false.

Oh, already know the answer, do you? THAT'S not very scientific of you, but it IS typical of a warmer alarmist.

If the science has proven any such thing(as opposed to proving quite the opposite), then why does NEARLY EVERY scientist feel different?

Did you notice that you mention what scientists feel, and then post a graphic describing published papers? Is that appropriate? Also, much of what passes for research in this area consists of references to ONE study, the Oreskes study, that was a highly flawed look at the literature. Her "fence" to jump to be considered skeptical of the "consensus" was so high that she claimed NO skeptical papers had been published in the period under study. That's bollocks, as every climate scientist who keeps up on the literature knows: "Wot? NO papers critical of AGW last year? Why, I read three or four myself."

Additionally, as has been documented by the remains of the e-mail base released to the public as "Climategate," there has been a lot of mucking about with the peer-review process in climatology. Reviewers have been picked who are both believers in the AGW hypothesis, and who tend to rate papers on whether or not they agree with the conclusions, rather than on the scientific rigor with which the papers were produced. This process is called "pal-review," and it does NOT produce good science. Examples of this go as "high" as the IPCC reports themselves, which have been found to be positively chock-a-block with un-reviewed material, despite their claims that they are peer-reviewed. Environmental groups' literature has been inserted into IPCC reports, totally without checking. It's pathetic.

And, finally, the questions used to determine which scientists support AGW are simply useless. I am a strong opponent of the crap that has taken the place of science in climatology, and I do not believe carbon dioxide release will offer ANY non-trivial danger to the planet until concentrations approach 10,000 ppm (1%). They are currently under 400 ppm. Nonetheless, when I took the Scientific American survey, my results placed me in the "AGW Supporter" category. Why? Because I believe that the planet has been warming, on average, for 150 years, and that mankind's release of carbon dioxide contributes to that increase.

Both of those ARE true. To sum up my position for you, I buy into the whole warmer argument... EXCEPT that estimates made of the atmosphere's temperature sensitivity to carbon dioxide are WAY high. Mankind HAS warmed the planet via carbon dioxide a bit; my estimate is that the amount warmed is less than 0.3 K, and that further increases of carbon dioxide will have even less effect. Early estimates of sensitivity involved eliminating how much the planet had warmed, how much carbon dioxide had been released, subtracting insolation warming, and the warming of carbon dioxide itself, and assuming that the balance of the warming was due to feedback from the carbon dioxide warming. First pass hypotheses are FINE. So is shooting them down; making guesses and then trying to falsify them is the very heart of science. That first pass hypothesis was falsified several ways recently. The PROBLEM is that the first pass hypothesis is mouth-watering for governments, notably that of the U.S. and the U.N., in that they can collect more taxes, and have an iron grip in controlling all business by using the "we have to save the planet" excuse, which works VERY well. But the science now, while it DOES show that mankind has warmed the planet a tad, does NOT support drastic and Draconian measure to "save" anything. Man's warming of the planet is so small that it is a mere scientific curiosity, and not a disaster waiting to happen.

About ninety per cent of the money for climate research comes from one government or another. About ninety per cent of the remainder comes from environmental groups. The last one per cent comes from industry, primarily from the energy industry. This money TALKS. It also talks LOUDLY. Since the panic over global warming began, right after the panic over the Soviet Union became untenable, funding for climate research has increased TWENTY-FOLD. Any climatologist who points out that the planet is in no danger is, in effect, saying "Please cut funding for my field of research by 95%."



[www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you REALLY think that nearly all scientists of the world are on the take(from the green energy sector), or is it just a bit more likely and feasible that a small fraction are on the take (from the MUCH larger, richer oil industry sector)? Think man.

Neither of those are feasible. Here's what I think: A VERY few scientists are corrupt. I would say fewer than a dozen. The ones of which I am aware are: James Hansen, Hansen's droog Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and someone at NOAA.

"Evil oil companies" being the fly in the ointment is NOT feasible for a couple of reasons. First, they DID oppose anything that smacked of carbon taxes, the same way that the insurance industry opposed Obamacare while it appeared it might become a single-payer system. The insurance industry, by the time of the "vote to pass the bill to see what was in it" took place, was a SUPPORTER of Obamacare, and for a simple reason: insurance industry lobbyists had written the health care bill, so it was VERY kind for them, including fining people who did not buy their products. The proposed legislation for the carbon scam has also been written by industry lobbyists -- oil industry, in this case. Once long-term high profits were written into the proposed bills, the oil industry now WANTS Gore and his ilk to get their way. They even funded the bash in Cancun.

Another reason that "evil oil company" manipulation is grossly unlikely is the very small amount of money they are spending, which appears on their financial statements. Environmentalist activist groups are out-spending the oil companies ten-to-one. And governments, who want this with a dull, throbbing ache, are outspending the greenies by ten-to-one. If money corrupts the process, this process is leaning 99% to the pro-AGW side.

Finally, my favorite -- EXAMINE what is happening. Have we seen corruption of the IPCC? Yes, yes we have. How much of it is "pro-oil company" corruption? Not a single incident of which I am aware. There are LOTS of examples of playing fast and loose on the environmental, pro-AGW side. Activist literature becomes part of the IPCC reports, and has caused dozens of embarrassing incidents. If you want links, I have them. The process involves bureaucrats modifying the "peer-reviewed" literature AFTER the scientists release it. And, all of THEIR modifications eliminate the scientific statements of uncertainty, and factors which argue against AGW. THINK, man -- and research.
 
2013-01-21 12:48:22 PM  

jayphat: The savings of taking people off the road, and using our resources wisely are more than an even break.

8/10. Thats a great effort there. Unless you're serious in which case you need to look at the basic math of it. Removing millions of cars off the road won't happen. Simply because of geography. Once we get from point A to point B, we still need transportation in most places we go. Which requires in most instances, a car.


Not a troll. Maybe you yourself might imagine what a nationwide transportation system would look without talking yourself out of it.

Amazing how hard that is for some people here.

GeneralJim: Nope.


Yep. I don't personally believe you are a "real" poster, but if you aren't some astroturfer (which is nearly impossible given the times you've been pwned in climate change threads), attacking me forfeits whatever point you were making.

Better luck next time. If I even choose to respond to you and validate what you have to post.
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report