For the advanced class, participants bring their own motorcycles.

Why limit the testing to the elderly drivers? Look what TS101 classes have done for cycling and cyclists’ safety. I’m really surprised that the state of Florida has mandated Motorcycle Safety Foundation classes for people seeking to get a motorcycle endorsement. One more step, make driver license renewals involve a driver retest. Currently, the license expires every six years, which isn’t burdensome if one has to also pass a comprehensive written and driving test. Create some jobs by allowing legitimate contractors to provide the instruction and testing, just as it is done with the MSF and the LAB/LCI/TS101 stuff.

This would completely remove the supposed prejudice against elderly and might make the roads safer for the full population of road users.

Cripes! I hadn’t even thought about that. Reduced reflexes and acuity combined with a lack of experience.

Yes, AARP is a major roadblock to regular testing of driver competence. They’d get no traction if our culture did not view driving as a right rather than a privilege.

Look to private pilot licensing for some guidance. The FAA will snatch that ticket at the slightest heart murmur on your required medical exam. They’ll snatch that ticket if you get a DUI in car (or on a bike—DUI is DUI). Private pilots have to undergo a flight review (knowledge and practical testing) every 2 years.

Of course flying is slightly more involved (not the mechanics as much all the other stuff). People are given the license to hurl a heavy machine at high speeds, down here on the ground, among other machines and exposed humans, with little initial testing and no follow-up.

So much of urban design which is intended to improve civility on a human scale is often at odds with transportation design on an atumobile scale. Land use is definitely part of it, but then there are the land development regs that require wider turning radii, frangible trees along roadways (peds are fine along roadways, they’re frangible, trees kill, peds don’t), vast parking requirements, etc. Sadly, when it comes to public works departments, that comment in parens is often all too true. Lets not improve the pedestrian environment by planting trees that might provide shade because those same trees might kill a driver that runs off the road or also, get mired in the overhead utility transmission lines.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing to me. People just accept that 43,000 people will die on our roads every year without ever really trying to address the problem. We’ll make cars safer and improve their handling, braking and ability to handle a crash, but address the actual drivers?

Having grown up in south Florida, Palm Beach County to be exact, I can attest to the problems with elderly drivers and AARPs lobbying against restrictions on elderly drivers. The problems are exacerbated by the fact that many of the elderly in south Florida often come from transit friendly places and many never learn to drive until they retire and move to FL. Think about that for a minute.

A bunch of elderly men are sitting around at a men’s breakfast complaining about their health issues. The first one says, “I get tired so easily these days. Sometimes I just fall asleep unexpectedly.”

The second one says, “That’s nothing. At least you have your senses when you are awake. My hearing is so bad these days I’m almost deaf.”

The third one says, “At least you can see. I’m completely blind in my right eye, and my left eye can only make out dim shapes – and only in bright sunshine.”

The fourth one says, “Well, let’s count our blessings. At least we are all still driving.”

In my opinion, the licensing system in The Netherlands is far superior and should be adopted in North America. This features extensive (and expensive) mandatory driver training and a test that is challenging to pass which tests “real life” safe driving skills.