Herpes Reasons
Banned
This is why old people shouldnt drive.
And which age is considered too old? 70? 65? 60?
This is why old people shouldnt drive.
And which age is considered too old? 70? 65? 60?
And which age is considered too old? 70? 65? 60?
My dad is 65 and drives just fine. This guy is 92. I think after 80 you should have to retest mostly for awareness of what you're doing to protect those around you.
And which age is considered too old? 70? 65? 60?
Yet as you get older, your insurance gets cheaper, and the young people pay extremely high rates. Maybe it should be the other way around. Or we could not base it off of age at all.
So much ageism in this thread, fucking hell.
fixed*People are fucking dangerous on the road.
Retest is one thing, banning outright someone being 'too old' isn't feasible nor acceptable.
Wondering if you should make sure and be safe to ask for that white senior discount.Not charged? Wish I had that senior discount.
Wow. that's something alright. How is he not being charged with a crime? He clearly hit all of those other cars because he was trying to flee the scene.
I'm not okay with removing licenses based on age alone, but perhaps once you reach a certain age the testing should become more strict and frequent.
Hmm, all this talk about old people and should they be driving. While those over 70 are indeed an age group that causes many accidents, the 16-24 age group are still usually the winners of most dangerous drivers. Those over 70 are a close second.
So for those that say people over 70 shouldn't drive, should those under 25 not drive as well?
It's legal ageism. Punished for being young. It would be better if we raised rates for those who actually cause car accidents, rather than charging an arm and a leg to an entire group of people instead.Young people pay a lot because, by definition, they're inexperienced and therefore more likely to be in an accident.
I do agree that basing it purely on age is wrong, though, i.e. a new 17-year-old driver shouldn't pay more than a new 47-year-old driver. But even if they do that, it won't change the fact that young/new drivers will pay exorbitant insurance premiums.
In a perfect world.
But you could argue that young people are more involved in accidents because they're still getting the ropes of things. If you had people start driving at 25, you'd have more accidents in the 25-30 age group.
Public transportation? You'd have someone to talk to as well.
Mandatory retesting and reevaluation at 65 and every 2 years after.
Old people are fucking dangerous on the road.
I miss this store so damn much. They got closed pretty much everywhere in Georgia when I was young. I still remember that bomb ass Swoopee Ice Cream they used to sell. One had Reese's Pieces in it. SO GOOD.Piggly Wiggly has made me want to crash into other drivers sometimes too
Mandatory retesting and reevaluation at 65 and every 2 years after.
Old people are fucking dangerous on the road.
He didn't seem that clueless, he fucking swerved like a pro to not totally t-bone that truck. Looks like the first hit was accidental and he tried to book it out of there and now he is using his old man powers to pretend to be confused.
It's legal ageism. Punished for being young. It would be better if we raised rates for those who actually cause car accidents, rather than charging an arm and a leg to an entire group of people instead.
I get why they do it. That doesn't make it fair. It's still legalized ageism.It's statistics. Insuring a group of people effectively requires some people to be paying for other's bad behaviors.
Insurance is based on high quality statistics. Insurance companies charge younger people more money because they are a much higher risk. A few years after getting a car my premiums dropped in half because I was no longer in a risky bracket.Yet as you get older, your insurance gets cheaper, and the young people pay extremely high rates. Maybe it should be the other way around. Or we could not base it off of age at all.