8 ms·

Unfortunately what is needed are tests of driving ability. Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn'

Unfortunately what is needed are tests of driving ability. Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn't be on the road at all. Politically very difficult to take people's licences away though, especially when it's permanent, not their fault and it makes their life a lot worse.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
FigurativeVoid 8mo ago
Especially in the US. In countries with more robust public transport, you can get away with not having a car. That's basically impossible in the US.
- jnovek 8mo ago
  I’m an American and my vision, fully corrected, is right at the legal borderline to get a license without restrictions. I’ve never “failed” a vision exam at the DMV; one time the clerk even said, “good enough”. (Don’t worry, I never drive, I only keep my license up to date for serious emergencies).
  - AustinDev 8mo ago
    A serious emergency isn't going to be helped by someone with very little driving experience. I don't follow your reasoning. If it was a serious emergency who would care if you had a license?
    - margalabargala 8mo ago
      People think about things differently. It may be that for OP, "but I don't have a license" would cause a second thought and waste time in an emergency. They may be self aware enough to head that off.
    - zdragnar 8mo ago
      A police officer would. The penalty for an accident might be negligent driving. The penalty for an accident without a license is, at minimum, driving without a license. You're also not likely to be covered by insurance without one either, even if you're not at fault.
      - xboxnolifes 8mo ago
        Sure, if you assume the one time they end up driving leads to an accident, which is a crazy assumption. There are bad drivers out there right now, driving every day that rarely or never get into an accident.
        zdragnar 8mo ago
        Take a person who has marginally acceptable eyesight, who never drives, put them in an emergency situation where they need to drive and you've got a recipe for much higher odds of having an accident. Given that getting a license is an option, and it conveniently doubles as a photo ID, and there's really not a reason to not get one.
  - orochimaaru 8mo ago
    You also need a drivers license that doubles up as a real id if you want to travel by air. So the issuance of a DL isn't just for driving. I'm not sure if they give regular state id's as real id.
    - rootusrootus 8mo ago
      At least in Oregon they definitely do offer non-driver real ID cards. I’d guess that’s likely true everywhere.
    - j-wags 8mo ago
      At least in CA, the DMV does issue Real ID state IDs. I have one.
    - mikkupikku 8mo ago
      This is one of the strangest internet myths. Every single state in America will issue a photo ID which is fully equivalent to a drivers license for every purpose other than permitting you to drive. Also, you don't need "Real ID" to fly no matter what they say. You don't even need a photo ID at all (although they'll force you to waste time if you don't have one. I found this out when I lost mine but still had to travel.)
      - lostlogin 8mo ago
        Here in New Zealand you don’t need any ID to fly (nationally), so even the claim that ID is required is shaky.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
    - bookofjoe 8mo ago
      Not true. >No Real ID? The TSA Will Now Charge You $45 to Fly https://money.com/no-real-id-tsa-fee/ https://money.com/no-real-id-tsa-fee/
    - labcomputer 8mo ago
      You can also get a passport card. It's meant as a substitute for a passport for re-entry to the US by land or sea, but it counts as a Real ID (tm).
- pjmlp 8mo ago
  As European, that has lived across multiple countries, that only applies to the lucky ones able to afford living close to the city center. Also healthy enough to be able to walk stairs, as very few places care about people with disabilities, or carrying stuff that is a pain to transport across stairways. People visit the touristic centre of the main cities and assume we all enjoy nice public transport systems.
  - nephihaha 8mo ago
    UK transport is much worse than the continent. London is fairly well served but elsewhere not so much, especially not the countryside. The trains are very expensive (even with an old person's railcard) and the buses are often irregular or non-existent in large areas of the countryside.
    - pjmlp 8mo ago
      I am aware, having spent some time in Bristol and Cardiff, in various occasions. That situation is very comparable to many places in the continent, some of them even worse. Also here that are many small towns and villages that an hourly bus is already something, and naturally there aren't stops scattered all over the place, or worse, offer no protection from weather.
    - tialaramex 8mo ago
      Well there's a big gap between something like London, a very dense city, and actual countryside. There's also a big variation in will. Where I grew up (Metroland, just beyond the end of the Metropolitan "underground" Line) the services are (other than the afore-mentioned London underground) abysmal because providing services costs money & people there want lower taxes. But where my mother lives today, near Bingley, there are enough buses that I get confused as to which one goes closest to her house when I visit. The difference in London is also in large part because London was allowed to retain a unified transport system when Tories dismantled other systems because ideologically their position is the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will fix everything.
  - snovymgodym 8mo ago
- nephihaha 8mo ago
  UK public transport is not good, especially when you get out of the major cities. Better than the US, but worse than Continental Europe. The buses turn up when they feel like it, and there are problems with antisocial behaviour on a lot of them, including assault.
  - pmyteh 8mo ago
    This depends a lot on where you are. I've lived in York, Darlington, Leeds, London, Oxford, and Liverpool for decent periods and used buses in all of them regularly. Only Darlington was really unpleasant for buses - they were often every half an hour and if one came early and you missed it you would be left in the cold for ages without information. Oxford was great (though cycling was even better); Leeds, Liverpool, and York were perfectly fine, with regular and reliable services; London's are famously efficient. Antisocial behaviour isn't honestly that common in my experience, though I'm sure that varies by location. Had some aggro in London once, and again on a London night bus. The football special to the LNER stadium in York was properly boisterous, and quite threatening to the poor away-supporting family on the lower deck, but that at least carried a copper to make sure nothing stupid happened. Other than that, I've only ever really seen loud schoolchildren - who can be annoying but have never caused difficulty for anyone outside their group. I've honestly seen worse behaviour on the tube (and been the object of it on Cross Country Trains).
    - nephihaha 8mo ago
      Unfortunately, I've encountered antisocial behaviour on many occasions on buses. Had one guy sit opposite me and proceed to insult me about my clothes. I went over to the driver to complain (I had said nothing and this point) and the driver threatened to throw me off. Also had people hit me on buses and trains. And witnessed someone sexually harassing another passenger — he stood rubbing his crotch in front of her and asked her to "finish me off". Football fans are often bad. Especially on trains. I hate getting a train full of them.
      - pmyteh 8mo ago
        Ugh, that's grim. Football fans are a bit odd. If you spend a lot of time in football crowds you get much more adept at telling when things are going to kick off and when people are only being obnoxiously loud. Both are annoying but only the first is actually dangerous. But the second can definitely make people feel unsafe. And given that you can't easily get off a train if you feel threatened it's a big problem. When I was younger I got assaulted on the street five times, and it was always in improbable places and for no obvious reason. Some people are just shitty, some of the time.
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  Not impossible, with uber/lyft being available. And yes public transit is not good everywhere in the US, but in high density cities it generally is.
- kakacik 8mo ago
  Nope, even best countries in the world with great public transport like Switzerland have tons of remote places basically unreachable by public transport, or bus that goes 2x a day on some days of the week. Guess what, mostly old folks live there and all this applies there. Its just not financially feasible to cover everybody. Proper full self driving should fix this, nothing less I am afraid.
  - CPLX 8mo ago
    > basically unreachable by public transport, or bus that goes 2x a day on some days of the week. This sentence is hilarious from an American perspective. There are central business districts of major US cities that are less connected to public transit than the most remote rock at the end of a steep canyon in Switzerland. A bus that ran 1x a day on any day of any week would be a drastic improvement for nearly all of the US.
    - kakacik 8mo ago
      Its not mutually exclusive - most of the world thats not in stone age has better public transport than US, I guess everybody knows that and its not by accident but for good (well bad but logical) reasons. That some PT is still not covering somebody's full needs for long term living is understandable too I presume, especially if its few days gaps in service.
  - boelboel 8mo ago
    Proper self driving is furthest away from being able to handle these cities as well, don't see these driving in Sicily before 2040. Many of these older people don't even know how to use a smartphone so even a 'perfect solution' will take some effort.I still have to help my grandpa with landline calls because he never had one himself (I live in one of the most developed countries in the world).
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- cebert 8mo ago
  I know it doesn’t work everywhere, but I’m happy there are services like Uber and Lyft when I get older. I could see myself using those services a lot when I am no longer able to drive.
  - FigurativeVoid 8mo ago
    I wonder if communities will move away from things like buses to public autonomous cars. If you could run a fleet of $30k Waymo’s, that would be nice
flkiwi 8mo ago
Well the obvious solution is take away the vote for over-65s! /s … maybe
- HPsquared 8mo ago
  It's not like voting does anything, anyway. Once elected, they do what they want.
  - zdc1 8mo ago
    The purpose of a system is what it does. There's lots of literature on what the best, or at least better, voting systems (hello preference voting) and decision making approaches are. Getting them implemented is another story.
    - jstanley 8mo ago
      Conversely, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
      - TimorousBestie 8mo ago
        Scott aggressively missing the point of Beer’s maxim is not a counter-argument. Making a specific point would be more persuasive than a mere link.
        jstanley 8mo ago
        I don't have a view on the main thrust of the comment, but "the purpose of a system is what it does" is very obviously wrong (as detailed in the linked blog post) and that is what I was responding to.
        zdc1 8mo ago
        I believe we say "the purpose of a system is what it does" is to also poke at the fact that there are mechanisms and design decisions (tradeoffs) at play that lead to certain results, and that if we want to change outcomes, we need to change the system. Votes matter more in some systems than others. Preference voting allows for smaller parties to more easily gain seats while first-past-the-post supports two-party systems. In the UK and AU, the prime minister must hold a seat, and so can be removed from parliament through (a subset of) citizen votes removing them from their seat, even if the majority party stays in power. In the US, the President (who can issue executive orders) is elected by an electoral college--none of whom are directly elected by citizen votes. Maybe it's not a big conspiracy, but these systems are doing what they are known to do, and will do so unless they are changed. Of course there are systems in place to change these systems, which are also quite hard to utilise. And strangely (or not), no one is rushing to improve voter power and representation. So there's some interesting questions there around what changes can be made that would best improve representation, and what could be blocking those changes from being made.
graemep 8mo ago
> Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn't be on the road at all. Evidence? I thought over-70s were on average safer than young drivers
- GJR 8mo ago
  UK statistics here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2024/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-younger-driver-factsheet-2024 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... The issue is that the rate of accidents rapidly increases after 70 and the easiest detectable indicator is deteriorating eyesight.
  - joeig 8mo ago
    I opened the link and didn’t expected a report about younger drivers. This link is about older drivers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2024/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2024 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
  - notahacker 8mo ago
    Yep. In practice, you've probably got a group of over 70s who are much safer drivers than the average 17-24 year old and some with declining eyesight who are worse. The test proposes to distinguish between the two
    - graemep 8mo ago
      I am not objecting to the test. I am disagreeing with the sweeping statement. I think testing eyesight is important. In fact you need to make a declaration about your eyesight when you first get a license and when you renew after 70. There is no real enforcement of the former either (they just ask you to read a number plate at a distance IIRC).
    - pwg 8mo ago
jstummbillig 8mo ago
This is good, no? The intent is obvious, it's likely improving the current situation, and I don't see any reason not to applaud it as an low-barrier incremental improvement.
nephihaha 8mo ago
Of course it makes their lives worse. In a lot of parts of the UK, the public transport is barely fit for purpose, irregular, non-existent (in much of the countryside) or dangerous (in the city). I speak from personal experience. I've been harassed and assaulted on British buses and trains on more than one occasion. Once had to phone the police to get rid of someone who started to follow me home, after he had hit me getting out of a train in a small branch station. It's like the Wild West. In one village I visited, there was only one bus there a day, and a bus back on a different day. How are old people supposed to function with that? As usual this is set up as a tax farming scheme for the government to make money. They will make tonnes of money off forcing people to reapply for an overpriced licence every three years.
- andyjohnson0 8mo ago
  > As usual this is set up as a tax farming scheme for the government to make money. They will make tonnes of money off forcing people to reapply for an overpriced licence every three years. This is zero-evidence bullshit. On and after the age of 70, all UK drivers have to renew their licence every three years anyway - it's been like that since 1976. This new change just adds a requirement to get an eye test (which the government doesn't "make money" from) as well, rather than self-certifying.
  - tonyedgecombe 8mo ago
    In fact the government pays for eye tests once you are over sixty.
  - nephihaha 8mo ago
    Starmer was talking about getting over 55s to get a new licence every five years a few months ago. He hasn't managed to push that through. Of course, you would have to pay more money to them every time you get one. British TV licences are overpriced as are British passports, but you have to have one or the other as ID. I have one just now, but no car. The public transport is awful. Most of the price of petrol in the UK is government duty and VAT, then there is the extortionate road tax etc. The British exchequer rakes it in off motorists but fails to help provide safe and reliable alternatives.
boelboel 8mo ago
I wouldn't say over 70 year olds, average 70 year old is fine. Problem gets a lot worse at 75 or 80. Most these people don't drive nearly as much as younger people anyway. My grandma is 90 and drives 5 miles to the grocery store, a slow road. I don't think she'd pass a driving test but she drives during the day when barely anyone is on the road, chances of serious injury are nil. Is it worth it to spend large amounts of money on testing these people, taking their license away if they fail? Getting rid of their car will force them to replace it with someone else driving or cycling which could be a problem in many places. Worst case scenario they'll need to go in a retirement home.
- nandomrumber 8mo ago
  Maybe less of an issue if they’re given taxi vouchers to the value of about the typical amount of driving they would have done?
  - boelboel 8mo ago
    There's not many taxis in most places, I come from a town of 400 people it'd be a very uneconomical solution. I'm not saying it's great for them to drive, I just doubt there's a way to fix it in these sort of places. My grandma cycles to the small store for most of her groceries everyday, it's only the big store she drives to bi-weekly. Honestly the cycling is probably more dangerous, and there's some elderly in my town who're pushing 100 cycling daily.
    - treve 8mo ago
      Public services don't need to be 'economical'
  - steveBK123 8mo ago
    Across the western world, elderly benefits increasingly outstrip the growth young workers paying taxes for their benefits are able to eke out. I do not think they need free taxis as well. For UK in particular look up triple lock pension.
tedggh 8mo ago
The worst age group behind the wheel is by far 16-25. The middle age group is the safest and the gap is actually moderate compared to 70-75.
- calpaterson 8mo ago
  You're taking about statistical averages but I'm talking about a significant minority of over-70s who are wildly dangerous. Most of them only stop driving when they cause an accident. Sometimes its a serious one. There are already some measures for young people, like the 6 point thing. Maybe there could be more. Doesn't change the facts about dangerous OAP drivers
  - bumby 8mo ago
    “I'm talking about a significant minority of [under 25 year olds] who are wildly dangerous.” (Edit mine) Don’t you think that statement is also true?
    - LEDThereBeLight 8mo ago
      16 year olds get better at driving.
      - bumby 8mo ago
        They also get less likely to commit crime, but that’s not how we gauge risk. We don’t generally say “that teenager’s crime risk is going down so they are less risky than that geriatric whose crime risk is fairly constant.” Risk probability is usually the area under a hazard rate curve. Over a long enough interval, that reduction in risk would be important. So what is the appropriate time interval for these risk assessments?
  - 7thpower 8mo ago
    > Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn't be on the road at all. > You're taking about statistical averages but I'm talking about a significant minority of over-70s who are wildly dangerous. You sure about that?
kakacik 8mo ago
In Switzerland we do it all. After 75 there is requirement for periodic health check by doctor which consists of various mental checks and eyesight. I would put it at 70, everybody degrades with age at different pace, some lose it even before 50 (ie sclerosis or parkinson) but cca 70 is an age I can see clear mental decline in every person I ever interacted closely. Wife is a GP and she regularly faces this at her work. I begged her numerous times to take away those licenses without mercy if the person is unfit, no amount of pleading, begging, crying of threats should change that. And they do it all, oh so much - to the point she is giving up this revenue stream, too much emotional burden (from somebody who sometimes has to tell patients they have ie cancer). Why so harsh - we live in more rural place with tons of old folks. They are properly dangerous behind the wheel - they can't handle any sudden situation, heavy traffic is a challenge at best, they need to drive at absolute minimum speed at bright daylight to handle situations. Its tough, they live their whole lives in the middle of nowhere, too stubborn to sell and move someplace more reasonable and without a car they can't easily take care of themselves in their remote places (but its 2026 we have ubers, taxis and home deliveries, and once further down the road good social housings for elderly). Often, they know old but still working doctors who turn the blind eye because they are old buddies and then its sometimes sad news. When they handle 1.5 tonne of steel that accelerates fast and easily kills others, very easily it stops being primarily about them but about rest of society. When you see them barely managing driving around local primary school, its either them or us/our kids
guerrilla 8mo ago
> Politically very difficult to take people's licences away though, especially when it's permanent, not their fault and it makes their life a lot worse. It shouldn't be permanent. If they can improve, then why not? Maybe illness causes their poor driving and they find a treatment for that illness.
- calpaterson 8mo ago
  > If they can improve, then why not? I'm talking about removing licences due to cognitive decline. It's not a temporary condition
  - gus_massa 8mo ago
    It can be for "3 months" (with a low expectation that after 3 months they improve enough to get the licence again).
  - the_real_cher 8mo ago
    It's a vague definition though. All cognitive decline is not equal. If they're able to drive they should be allowed to
  - cjbgkagh 8mo ago
    Theoretically it can be, though usually not, so the question is what should be the law to cover the general case. It wouldn’t be such a problem if it were easy for them to get around without driving. Either self driving cars, subsidized Ubers, public transit, walkable cities, home delivery, etc. My opinion is that in the general case people over 70 shouldn’t be driving and I say this as someone who has 4 spritly grandparents in their 90s. I really don’t like how dangerous roads are, a fact that we accept because we did not really have good alternatives, now that we do we should implement them.
    - Wistar 8mo ago
      Paul Newman won his last race at Lime Rock in Sept. 2007 driving a 900-horsepower Corvette when he was 82.
hyperman1 8mo ago
In my experience, the 70+ are bad at driving in ways that do lighter accidents. Typically: Drive 50 km/h everywhere, even if the road is 30 or 70. General weird behaviour. Swerving slowly left right left forever. They do cause a lot of cursing, but they are signalling hard enough they're bad at driving and other drivers leave huge margins, overly grant right of way, don't cross the road, etc...
oncallthrow 8mo ago
Fairly regularly an 80-something will end up driving down the wrong carriageway of a motorway or dual carriageway. Fairly regularly this results in deaths.
afavour 8mo ago
It is unfortunate that things like this become politically impossible because older people are one of the most reliable voting groups out there. I will always be bitter that older voters chose Brexit by a large margin, in opposition to the younger voters who will actually be around to feel its long term effects. Not taking that into account in voting feels wrong but there’s no politically palatable way of addressing it.
- Der_Einzige 8mo ago
  Make voting be based on military eligibility. This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about. You can't be drafted in war time emergencies? You can't vote (also yes I do want women to be draftable)
  - landl0rd 8mo ago
    You're right about military eligibility, but also that you shouldn't make calls for a nation which you will never see. Doubly so if one does not have children. No skin in the game, no alignment of incentives, no moral right to choose. Even moreso when you consider basically the whole generation relies on leeching off the young and have continued to capture an ever-increasing proportion of public spending across the western world despite owning an outsized proportion of both real estate and wealth overall.
  - Waterluvian 8mo ago
    > This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about. It might also suggest further reflection is warranted.
    - lokar 8mo ago
      Another in a long line of tech people not understanding science fiction
      - iwontberude 8mo ago
        Or policy. We have an embarrassing chap in these comments advocating for the equivalent of Jim Crow voting laws.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

FigurativeVoid 8mo ago

Especially in the US. In countries with more robust public transport, you can get away with not having a car. That's basically impossible in the US.

jnovek 8mo ago
I’m an American and my vision, fully corrected, is right at the legal borderline to get a license without restrictions. I’ve never “failed” a vision exam at the DMV; one time the clerk even said, “good enough”. (Don’t worry, I never drive, I only keep my license up to date for serious emergencies).
- AustinDev 8mo ago
  A serious emergency isn't going to be helped by someone with very little driving experience. I don't follow your reasoning. If it was a serious emergency who would care if you had a license?
  - margalabargala 8mo ago
    People think about things differently. It may be that for OP, "but I don't have a license" would cause a second thought and waste time in an emergency. They may be self aware enough to head that off.
  - zdragnar 8mo ago
    A police officer would. The penalty for an accident might be negligent driving. The penalty for an accident without a license is, at minimum, driving without a license. You're also not likely to be covered by insurance without one either, even if you're not at fault.
    - xboxnolifes 8mo ago
      Sure, if you assume the one time they end up driving leads to an accident, which is a crazy assumption. There are bad drivers out there right now, driving every day that rarely or never get into an accident.
      - zdragnar 8mo ago
        Take a person who has marginally acceptable eyesight, who never drives, put them in an emergency situation where they need to drive and you've got a recipe for much higher odds of having an accident. Given that getting a license is an option, and it conveniently doubles as a photo ID, and there's really not a reason to not get one.
- orochimaaru 8mo ago
  You also need a drivers license that doubles up as a real id if you want to travel by air. So the issuance of a DL isn't just for driving. I'm not sure if they give regular state id's as real id.
  - rootusrootus 8mo ago
    At least in Oregon they definitely do offer non-driver real ID cards. I’d guess that’s likely true everywhere.
  - j-wags 8mo ago
    At least in CA, the DMV does issue Real ID state IDs. I have one.
  - mikkupikku 8mo ago
    This is one of the strangest internet myths. Every single state in America will issue a photo ID which is fully equivalent to a drivers license for every purpose other than permitting you to drive. Also, you don't need "Real ID" to fly no matter what they say. You don't even need a photo ID at all (although they'll force you to waste time if you don't have one. I found this out when I lost mine but still had to travel.)
    - lostlogin 8mo ago
      Here in New Zealand you don’t need any ID to fly (nationally), so even the claim that ID is required is shaky.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - bookofjoe 8mo ago
    Not true. >No Real ID? The TSA Will Now Charge You $45 to Fly https://money.com/no-real-id-tsa-fee/ https://money.com/no-real-id-tsa-fee/
  - labcomputer 8mo ago
    You can also get a passport card. It's meant as a substitute for a passport for re-entry to the US by land or sea, but it counts as a Real ID (tm).
pjmlp 8mo ago
As European, that has lived across multiple countries, that only applies to the lucky ones able to afford living close to the city center. Also healthy enough to be able to walk stairs, as very few places care about people with disabilities, or carrying stuff that is a pain to transport across stairways. People visit the touristic centre of the main cities and assume we all enjoy nice public transport systems.
- nephihaha 8mo ago
  UK transport is much worse than the continent. London is fairly well served but elsewhere not so much, especially not the countryside. The trains are very expensive (even with an old person's railcard) and the buses are often irregular or non-existent in large areas of the countryside.
  - pjmlp 8mo ago
    I am aware, having spent some time in Bristol and Cardiff, in various occasions. That situation is very comparable to many places in the continent, some of them even worse. Also here that are many small towns and villages that an hourly bus is already something, and naturally there aren't stops scattered all over the place, or worse, offer no protection from weather.
  - tialaramex 8mo ago
    Well there's a big gap between something like London, a very dense city, and actual countryside. There's also a big variation in will. Where I grew up (Metroland, just beyond the end of the Metropolitan "underground" Line) the services are (other than the afore-mentioned London underground) abysmal because providing services costs money & people there want lower taxes. But where my mother lives today, near Bingley, there are enough buses that I get confused as to which one goes closest to her house when I visit. The difference in London is also in large part because London was allowed to retain a unified transport system when Tories dismantled other systems because ideologically their position is the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will fix everything.
- snovymgodym 8mo ago
nephihaha 8mo ago
UK public transport is not good, especially when you get out of the major cities. Better than the US, but worse than Continental Europe. The buses turn up when they feel like it, and there are problems with antisocial behaviour on a lot of them, including assault.
- pmyteh 8mo ago
  This depends a lot on where you are. I've lived in York, Darlington, Leeds, London, Oxford, and Liverpool for decent periods and used buses in all of them regularly. Only Darlington was really unpleasant for buses - they were often every half an hour and if one came early and you missed it you would be left in the cold for ages without information. Oxford was great (though cycling was even better); Leeds, Liverpool, and York were perfectly fine, with regular and reliable services; London's are famously efficient. Antisocial behaviour isn't honestly that common in my experience, though I'm sure that varies by location. Had some aggro in London once, and again on a London night bus. The football special to the LNER stadium in York was properly boisterous, and quite threatening to the poor away-supporting family on the lower deck, but that at least carried a copper to make sure nothing stupid happened. Other than that, I've only ever really seen loud schoolchildren - who can be annoying but have never caused difficulty for anyone outside their group. I've honestly seen worse behaviour on the tube (and been the object of it on Cross Country Trains).
  - nephihaha 8mo ago
    Unfortunately, I've encountered antisocial behaviour on many occasions on buses. Had one guy sit opposite me and proceed to insult me about my clothes. I went over to the driver to complain (I had said nothing and this point) and the driver threatened to throw me off. Also had people hit me on buses and trains. And witnessed someone sexually harassing another passenger — he stood rubbing his crotch in front of her and asked her to "finish me off". Football fans are often bad. Especially on trains. I hate getting a train full of them.
    - pmyteh 8mo ago
      Ugh, that's grim. Football fans are a bit odd. If you spend a lot of time in football crowds you get much more adept at telling when things are going to kick off and when people are only being obnoxiously loud. Both are annoying but only the first is actually dangerous. But the second can definitely make people feel unsafe. And given that you can't easily get off a train if you feel threatened it's a big problem. When I was younger I got assaulted on the street five times, and it was always in improbable places and for no obvious reason. Some people are just shitty, some of the time.
SoftTalker 8mo ago
Not impossible, with uber/lyft being available. And yes public transit is not good everywhere in the US, but in high density cities it generally is.
kakacik 8mo ago
Nope, even best countries in the world with great public transport like Switzerland have tons of remote places basically unreachable by public transport, or bus that goes 2x a day on some days of the week. Guess what, mostly old folks live there and all this applies there. Its just not financially feasible to cover everybody. Proper full self driving should fix this, nothing less I am afraid.
- CPLX 8mo ago
  > basically unreachable by public transport, or bus that goes 2x a day on some days of the week. This sentence is hilarious from an American perspective. There are central business districts of major US cities that are less connected to public transit than the most remote rock at the end of a steep canyon in Switzerland. A bus that ran 1x a day on any day of any week would be a drastic improvement for nearly all of the US.
  - kakacik 8mo ago
    Its not mutually exclusive - most of the world thats not in stone age has better public transport than US, I guess everybody knows that and its not by accident but for good (well bad but logical) reasons. That some PT is still not covering somebody's full needs for long term living is understandable too I presume, especially if its few days gaps in service.
- boelboel 8mo ago
  Proper self driving is furthest away from being able to handle these cities as well, don't see these driving in Sicily before 2040. Many of these older people don't even know how to use a smartphone so even a 'perfect solution' will take some effort.I still have to help my grandpa with landline calls because he never had one himself (I live in one of the most developed countries in the world).
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
cebert 8mo ago
I know it doesn’t work everywhere, but I’m happy there are services like Uber and Lyft when I get older. I could see myself using those services a lot when I am no longer able to drive.
- FigurativeVoid 8mo ago
  I wonder if communities will move away from things like buses to public autonomous cars. If you could run a fleet of $30k Waymo’s, that would be nice

flkiwi 8mo ago

Well the obvious solution is take away the vote for over-65s! /s … maybe

HPsquared 8mo ago
It's not like voting does anything, anyway. Once elected, they do what they want.
- zdc1 8mo ago
  The purpose of a system is what it does. There's lots of literature on what the best, or at least better, voting systems (hello preference voting) and decision making approaches are. Getting them implemented is another story.
  - jstanley 8mo ago
    Conversely, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
    - TimorousBestie 8mo ago
      Scott aggressively missing the point of Beer’s maxim is not a counter-argument. Making a specific point would be more persuasive than a mere link.
      - jstanley 8mo ago
        I don't have a view on the main thrust of the comment, but "the purpose of a system is what it does" is very obviously wrong (as detailed in the linked blog post) and that is what I was responding to.
        zdc1 8mo ago
        I believe we say "the purpose of a system is what it does" is to also poke at the fact that there are mechanisms and design decisions (tradeoffs) at play that lead to certain results, and that if we want to change outcomes, we need to change the system. Votes matter more in some systems than others. Preference voting allows for smaller parties to more easily gain seats while first-past-the-post supports two-party systems. In the UK and AU, the prime minister must hold a seat, and so can be removed from parliament through (a subset of) citizen votes removing them from their seat, even if the majority party stays in power. In the US, the President (who can issue executive orders) is elected by an electoral college--none of whom are directly elected by citizen votes. Maybe it's not a big conspiracy, but these systems are doing what they are known to do, and will do so unless they are changed. Of course there are systems in place to change these systems, which are also quite hard to utilise. And strangely (or not), no one is rushing to improve voter power and representation. So there's some interesting questions there around what changes can be made that would best improve representation, and what could be blocking those changes from being made.

graemep 8mo ago

> Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn't be on the road at all. Evidence? I thought over-70s were on average safer than young drivers

GJR 8mo ago
UK statistics here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2024/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-younger-driver-factsheet-2024 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... The issue is that the rate of accidents rapidly increases after 70 and the easiest detectable indicator is deteriorating eyesight.
- joeig 8mo ago
  I opened the link and didn’t expected a report about younger drivers. This link is about older drivers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2024/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2024 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
- notahacker 8mo ago
  Yep. In practice, you've probably got a group of over 70s who are much safer drivers than the average 17-24 year old and some with declining eyesight who are worse. The test proposes to distinguish between the two
  - graemep 8mo ago
    I am not objecting to the test. I am disagreeing with the sweeping statement. I think testing eyesight is important. In fact you need to make a declaration about your eyesight when you first get a license and when you renew after 70. There is no real enforcement of the former either (they just ask you to read a number plate at a distance IIRC).
  - pwg 8mo ago

jstummbillig 8mo ago

This is good, no? The intent is obvious, it's likely improving the current situation, and I don't see any reason not to applaud it as an low-barrier incremental improvement.

nephihaha 8mo ago

Of course it makes their lives worse. In a lot of parts of the UK, the public transport is barely fit for purpose, irregular, non-existent (in much of the countryside) or dangerous (in the city). I speak from personal experience. I've been harassed and assaulted on British buses and trains on more than one occasion. Once had to phone the police to get rid of someone who started to follow me home, after he had hit me getting out of a train in a small branch station. It's like the Wild West. In one village I visited, there was only one bus there a day, and a bus back on a different day. How are old people supposed to function with that? As usual this is set up as a tax farming scheme for the government to make money. They will make tonnes of money off forcing people to reapply for an overpriced licence every three years.

andyjohnson0 8mo ago
> As usual this is set up as a tax farming scheme for the government to make money. They will make tonnes of money off forcing people to reapply for an overpriced licence every three years. This is zero-evidence bullshit. On and after the age of 70, all UK drivers have to renew their licence every three years anyway - it's been like that since 1976. This new change just adds a requirement to get an eye test (which the government doesn't "make money" from) as well, rather than self-certifying.
- tonyedgecombe 8mo ago
  In fact the government pays for eye tests once you are over sixty.
- nephihaha 8mo ago
  Starmer was talking about getting over 55s to get a new licence every five years a few months ago. He hasn't managed to push that through. Of course, you would have to pay more money to them every time you get one. British TV licences are overpriced as are British passports, but you have to have one or the other as ID. I have one just now, but no car. The public transport is awful. Most of the price of petrol in the UK is government duty and VAT, then there is the extortionate road tax etc. The British exchequer rakes it in off motorists but fails to help provide safe and reliable alternatives.

boelboel 8mo ago

I wouldn't say over 70 year olds, average 70 year old is fine. Problem gets a lot worse at 75 or 80. Most these people don't drive nearly as much as younger people anyway. My grandma is 90 and drives 5 miles to the grocery store, a slow road. I don't think she'd pass a driving test but she drives during the day when barely anyone is on the road, chances of serious injury are nil. Is it worth it to spend large amounts of money on testing these people, taking their license away if they fail? Getting rid of their car will force them to replace it with someone else driving or cycling which could be a problem in many places. Worst case scenario they'll need to go in a retirement home.

nandomrumber 8mo ago
Maybe less of an issue if they’re given taxi vouchers to the value of about the typical amount of driving they would have done?
- boelboel 8mo ago
  There's not many taxis in most places, I come from a town of 400 people it'd be a very uneconomical solution. I'm not saying it's great for them to drive, I just doubt there's a way to fix it in these sort of places. My grandma cycles to the small store for most of her groceries everyday, it's only the big store she drives to bi-weekly. Honestly the cycling is probably more dangerous, and there's some elderly in my town who're pushing 100 cycling daily.
  - treve 8mo ago
    Public services don't need to be 'economical'
- steveBK123 8mo ago
  Across the western world, elderly benefits increasingly outstrip the growth young workers paying taxes for their benefits are able to eke out. I do not think they need free taxis as well. For UK in particular look up triple lock pension.

tedggh 8mo ago

The worst age group behind the wheel is by far 16-25. The middle age group is the safest and the gap is actually moderate compared to 70-75.

calpaterson 8mo ago
You're taking about statistical averages but I'm talking about a significant minority of over-70s who are wildly dangerous. Most of them only stop driving when they cause an accident. Sometimes its a serious one. There are already some measures for young people, like the 6 point thing. Maybe there could be more. Doesn't change the facts about dangerous OAP drivers
- bumby 8mo ago
  “I'm talking about a significant minority of [under 25 year olds] who are wildly dangerous.” (Edit mine) Don’t you think that statement is also true?
  - LEDThereBeLight 8mo ago
    16 year olds get better at driving.
    - bumby 8mo ago
      They also get less likely to commit crime, but that’s not how we gauge risk. We don’t generally say “that teenager’s crime risk is going down so they are less risky than that geriatric whose crime risk is fairly constant.” Risk probability is usually the area under a hazard rate curve. Over a long enough interval, that reduction in risk would be important. So what is the appropriate time interval for these risk assessments?
- 7thpower 8mo ago
  > Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn't be on the road at all. > You're taking about statistical averages but I'm talking about a significant minority of over-70s who are wildly dangerous. You sure about that?

kakacik 8mo ago

In Switzerland we do it all. After 75 there is requirement for periodic health check by doctor which consists of various mental checks and eyesight. I would put it at 70, everybody degrades with age at different pace, some lose it even before 50 (ie sclerosis or parkinson) but cca 70 is an age I can see clear mental decline in every person I ever interacted closely. Wife is a GP and she regularly faces this at her work. I begged her numerous times to take away those licenses without mercy if the person is unfit, no amount of pleading, begging, crying of threats should change that. And they do it all, oh so much - to the point she is giving up this revenue stream, too much emotional burden (from somebody who sometimes has to tell patients they have ie cancer). Why so harsh - we live in more rural place with tons of old folks. They are properly dangerous behind the wheel - they can't handle any sudden situation, heavy traffic is a challenge at best, they need to drive at absolute minimum speed at bright daylight to handle situations. Its tough, they live their whole lives in the middle of nowhere, too stubborn to sell and move someplace more reasonable and without a car they can't easily take care of themselves in their remote places (but its 2026 we have ubers, taxis and home deliveries, and once further down the road good social housings for elderly). Often, they know old but still working doctors who turn the blind eye because they are old buddies and then its sometimes sad news. When they handle 1.5 tonne of steel that accelerates fast and easily kills others, very easily it stops being primarily about them but about rest of society. When you see them barely managing driving around local primary school, its either them or us/our kids

guerrilla 8mo ago

> Politically very difficult to take people's licences away though, especially when it's permanent, not their fault and it makes their life a lot worse. It shouldn't be permanent. If they can improve, then why not? Maybe illness causes their poor driving and they find a treatment for that illness.

calpaterson 8mo ago
> If they can improve, then why not? I'm talking about removing licences due to cognitive decline. It's not a temporary condition
- gus_massa 8mo ago
  It can be for "3 months" (with a low expectation that after 3 months they improve enough to get the licence again).
- the_real_cher 8mo ago
  It's a vague definition though. All cognitive decline is not equal. If they're able to drive they should be allowed to
- cjbgkagh 8mo ago
  Theoretically it can be, though usually not, so the question is what should be the law to cover the general case. It wouldn’t be such a problem if it were easy for them to get around without driving. Either self driving cars, subsidized Ubers, public transit, walkable cities, home delivery, etc. My opinion is that in the general case people over 70 shouldn’t be driving and I say this as someone who has 4 spritly grandparents in their 90s. I really don’t like how dangerous roads are, a fact that we accept because we did not really have good alternatives, now that we do we should implement them.
  - Wistar 8mo ago
    Paul Newman won his last race at Lime Rock in Sept. 2007 driving a 900-horsepower Corvette when he was 82.

hyperman1 8mo ago

In my experience, the 70+ are bad at driving in ways that do lighter accidents. Typically: Drive 50 km/h everywhere, even if the road is 30 or 70. General weird behaviour. Swerving slowly left right left forever. They do cause a lot of cursing, but they are signalling hard enough they're bad at driving and other drivers leave huge margins, overly grant right of way, don't cross the road, etc...

oncallthrow 8mo ago

Fairly regularly an 80-something will end up driving down the wrong carriageway of a motorway or dual carriageway. Fairly regularly this results in deaths.

afavour 8mo ago

It is unfortunate that things like this become politically impossible because older people are one of the most reliable voting groups out there. I will always be bitter that older voters chose Brexit by a large margin, in opposition to the younger voters who will actually be around to feel its long term effects. Not taking that into account in voting feels wrong but there’s no politically palatable way of addressing it.

Der_Einzige 8mo ago
Make voting be based on military eligibility. This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about. You can't be drafted in war time emergencies? You can't vote (also yes I do want women to be draftable)
- landl0rd 8mo ago
  You're right about military eligibility, but also that you shouldn't make calls for a nation which you will never see. Doubly so if one does not have children. No skin in the game, no alignment of incentives, no moral right to choose. Even moreso when you consider basically the whole generation relies on leeching off the young and have continued to capture an ever-increasing proportion of public spending across the western world despite owning an outsized proportion of both real estate and wealth overall.
- Waterluvian 8mo ago
  > This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about. It might also suggest further reflection is warranted.
  - lokar 8mo ago
    Another in a long line of tech people not understanding science fiction
    - iwontberude 8mo ago
      Or policy. We have an embarrassing chap in these comments advocating for the equivalent of Jim Crow voting laws.