Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can't we trust them to drive? /s
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
470 points (98.6% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
40913 readers
764 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We can only trust people that old if they are mentally unstable
personally i think everyone should be required to retake a driving test every 10 years it's absurd you only take it once at 16ish
And not just as a refresher/competency test! It should also be a chance to educate on updates like legislation that get passed, safety information and tips as research improves, and new traffic controls like double diamonds or roundabouts that weren’t in use when people learned to drive in their youth.
But at a minimum you should have to re-validate that you are a competent and safe driver every decade or so, agreed.
I don't know what makes roundabouts so hard that 90% of people stop in my town when nothing is in it instead of yield like the sign they had seen in their drivers test.
I like your ideas.
You guys are retaking driver's tests?
Seriously, I haven't taken one since getting my license in the 90s.
that's what i mean. i think they should be required to retake it. it's wild that you only do it once as a teenager.
Agreed!
We also don't have emissions tests. Pretty sure both are the result of being a mostly agricultural state as in the past both requirements would disproportionately impact farmer's time and ability to work if they failed either one. We really should start requiring both.
In PA emissions are required in populated areas, in the boonies they don't have get emissions.
What’s the frequency for forklift/crane certificates or similar? Driving a car should be regulated similarly (with the proviso that it is accepted that many blameless people will be found unfit to drive, and society should accommodate them by means other than lowering safety standards).
My work just had the warehouse driver show me the controls and move a couple of pallets. Now i'm forklift certified.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Forklift certs last for 3 years, but the test isn't much. You take a quiz (can be all done online), and then someone at your workplace who is a certified instructor gives you some pointers.
I wouldn't base car licensing around that. It's almost nothing.
As someone who learned to drive in 2 weeks and then passed the test 20+ years ago it’s kind of bonkers that I can get into a car and start driving rn. I haven’t driven since passing the test. I have no idea what many of the signs mean.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Should be every 2 years past age 60 if you want to keep your license.
Sorry, for every 20 year old doing 90, there's ten seniors wobbling between 2 lanes in a giant SUV intentionally purchased to protect them from the accidents their diminished capacity will cause, about to do a double lane change in the opposite direction of their blinker that's been on since they left their driveway.
Ive always found it bonkers that young drivers with the sharpest reflexes are punished to the maximum from insurance to rental car rates, as they should, while no one dares punitive action against people who literally lack the faculties to drive safely if they wanted to and incur the wrath of AARP and the like. But those necrotic seniors make the rules, sadly. They can cause accidents with abandon, but some thing's gotta be done about those young maniacs on the road driving 10 over the speed Limit as you drive 30 under it with white, arthritic knuckles on the steering wheel for dear life, calling your impromptu roadblock "safe."
Part of that is a legal issue. People over 40 are a protected class, you can't discriminate against old people for being old. Young people can get fucked though.
I say this as a now old person at 40, that's hypocritical bullshit as far as policy goes, but that's humans for you.
This is... really specific..
Spent 10 years driving around in a city with a lot of retirement communities setting up home medical equipment. Was a daily blight for me.
typical boomer privilege - oh wait, now I'm old? no don't test me....
Republicans: "Hillary Clinton was pushing population control!"
Also Republicans:
in case anyone's wondering, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021, the life expectancy in Illinois was 77.1
Life expectancy is a useless metric for this purpose. Maybe it would be more useful if you used "life expectancy at age 10" (so after any childhood illnesses), but even then it doesn't really say anything about what the process senescence looks like.
I would say 79 is way too high, seniors should be tested every 5 years after 65. Another commentor points out we should be doing every 10 years which is a decent idea as well.
frankly there should at least be an online refresher and test that people have to take every year, traffic laws change and people forget things.
But changing traffic laws isn't what makes people bad drivers.
Everyone should have to take the written AND driving portion of the test every 10 years or so.
load more comments
(18 replies)
Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don't forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven't been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.
Hmm
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias alongside AARP Illinois
Guess the old regulations might have been eating into profits
Still out of 55,000 administered tests only 97 failed. Imho they should keep the restriction because it did remove 97 unsafe drivers.
However, This also creates a path for immediate family members to report unsafe elderly family members. There was no way to report anyone before this was created.
So is it midlyinfurating? I suppose in that it may allow unsafe drivers to stay on the roads but with immediate family reporting it could also be a wash. I very much doubt these changes will pull more unsafe drivers than the regulations from before since family members will probably be hesitant to report elderly family members
why should reporting be limited to immediate family?
if the neighbors see mr. jones take out a shrub or hop curbs the rest of the world ceases to matter, just immediate family?
Also what if they don't even have immediate family?
indeed.
also, what if.. they ate their own immediate family?
wait, which thread is this?
load more comments
(1 replies)
The only reason this would need to be a bill is if people are upset that they are failing the exam. Which means they qre failing the exams, to the surprise of no one.
What we should be doing instead is making our neighborhoods more accessible to those without cars. I'm sure they feel like their mobility is gone if they lose their license, but that shouldn't be the case to begin with.
load more comments
(2 replies)
My nanna drove until 80. My Nana shouldn't have driven until 80. He hit something once a week
This is your regular reminder that it's generally not older people who are high-risk drivers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628ce5c7e90e071f68b19dfa/02-image-2.svg
Drivers get safer until about 70, and only get less safe than your average young driver when over 86.
There is a perception that older drivers are an absolute liability on the roads, which I can only assume stems from impatient people who get frustrated when stuck behind an older driver going more slowly than they'd like.
Not every 70 YO is the same health. Some can barely see at that age, or at night. There are also plenty of health issues or medications taken at this age which could affect reactions or alertness. Not saying it can't happen to the young, but it's far more prevalent.
Fact is that if you want to spend some money, time or political capital on improving road safety, targeting older drivers is not where you should focus your efforts. The fact that it frequently is, is due to ageism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
That's from the UK? I don't think you can extrapolate UK driving data to the US. Roads and car use don't compare at all.
In the absence of forthcoming data (hint hint), what factors do you think differ between the UK and USA which affect the ability of very old/very young drivers?
Car dependency mainly. A 65yo in the UK that dosen't feel physically capable of driving can still have an independent live, using public transit or walking. In the US you depend on cars for everything.
That doesn't affect the ability of older drivers, only the number of them.
In fact, since one reason very old drivers might get more accident prone is because they stop driving as much and lose some of the skills, you would expect that, if older Americans really persist in driving more as they get older (you haven't provided any evidence that they do) they would retain those skills and be less accident prone, not more, so would be safer, and less at need of re-tests, than their UK counterparts.
Focusing on the driving safety of the elderly is a classic example of Saliency Bias. A 20-year old kid wrecking his car is nothing unusual so you don't remember it when thinking about safety. An 80 year old who can't even remember which way to turn the wheel getting in a wreck is unusual and extreme, so it's more salient. Getting stuck behind an elderly driver gives you the impression that they're a bad and hence unsafe driver, which contributes to this.
It's self select the drivers that have the ability to drive. A nearly blind old person on the UK can have a fulfilling live walking and using public transit, the same nearly blind old person in the US have no choice but to keep driving.
It's a shame that you're so quick to express skepticism but so reluctant to do any research of your own, because the facts are a bit embarrassing with the exact same trend in the USA as in the UK.
Driver safety peaks in the 60s, and only moderately worsens after then. The large increase in fatal accidents, by the way, is clearly a result of older drivers being more vulnerable in a crash - because the chart at the bottom doesn't show any such large increase for passengers and others.
I'm interested to know if this changes your mind.
I wonder if raising the licencing age to 25 would reduce the curve or just shift it to the right
I expected the main writers of the bill to be about 78, but they look younger. (I'm not digging into it more)
view more: next ›