> prohibit driving after the age of 75 I, for one, would welcome that. The unpredictability of elderly drivers is every bit as dangerous as the stupidity of in

> prohibit driving after the age of 75 I, for one, would welcome that. The unpredictability of elderly drivers is every bit as dangerous as the stupidity of inexperienced ones. I saw an elderly man take out 8-10 of those construction barrels the other day just because he drifted over a bit out of his lane. Thank god no one was working that day. I agree that we should have the freedom to take risks, but one has to weigh the risks taken with the lives of others. An 18 year-old that drinks alcohol is primarily a risk to himself, whereas a 75 year-old that is physically unfit to handle a vehicle is only one step away from a drunk driver. I find it amusing that we have all these laws to protect ourselves from, well, ourselves, and yet we don't do obvious things like determine if someone is physically fit enough to operate a vehicle in public. My problem with MADD and the whole debate is that somehow the drinking age got attached to drunk driving. Last I checked, there was no minimum age at which driving while intoxicated becomes illegal. It's always illegal. Regardless of the drinking age, drunk drivers should be punished severely. For that reason, (and the cookies argument pointed out by someone else here), I think the age should be lowered to 16 or so. (I'm 25, and I feel more strongly about this now than I did at 18.) Let kids have their first experiences with alcohol with their families, which are more likely to instill some responsible habits. At the same time, I think drunk drivers should be punished more severely, including the use of public shaming (in additions to fines/loss of license/jail time).