The Instigator
dcarbone7
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
chainmachine
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Older People Behind the Wheel Should be Tetsted on Skills

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
dcarbone7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,674 times Debate No: 21174
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

dcarbone7

Pro

In the next two decades, the number of elderly drivers is predicted to triple in the United States. As age increases, older drivers generally become more conservative on the road. Many mature drivers modify their driving habits (for instance to avoid busy highways or night-time driving) to match their declining capabilities. For years, young adults that are learning to drive take an exam to test their skills to see if they are well- equipped for the road. This examination is a way to monitor the drivers of the road and to insure that the people that drive on a daily basis are safe. Also, the reason for this examination is to show the young adults/ teenagers that driving is a privilege and can be taken away in a moment's notice. Testing the teenagers on their knowledge of the road and their car is a very useful way to monitor the road in being safe. The elderly, however, are also huge risks on the road. For years, the finger has been pointed at young adults/ in-experienced drivers because of the accidents that occur on a daily basis and it is often neglected or put aside the fact that many accident root from elderly people.
chainmachine

Con

Your argument has no facts, triple the amount? Where is that statistic?
Debate Round No. 1
dcarbone7

Pro

My argument is that the older people behind the wheel should be monitored frequently enough to avoid the harm they are doing to society without a second thought. You may wonder about older friends and family members' performance on the road. You want to support their continued mobility but on the other hand you worry about their driving abilities. I feel that the elderly people can cause so much havoc and enable so many dangerous situations while driving that it is simply not bearable anymore. I believe that there should be restrictions on driving at a certain age. For example, I, personally feel that at the age of sixty-five years old, people should have to take a course on safe and defensive driving and also have to take a road test as they did years ago when they first started driving.
This would insure that all of the people on the road are safe drivers and know all the rules of the road. I find that not everyone on the road does, indeed, know what the rules are and how to use them. There are many dangerous situations that happen every minute around the country due to ignorance or negligence of people. I am not debating that the elderly people should not be able to drive, but I am simply stating that the elderly should have to take a refresher course of driving and how to drive defensively. There is statistic that states that older drivers and younger drivers have the highest accident rates per miles driven. This goes to show that the elderly drivers, although they may have more experience, are paralleled with the younger drivers in a way that it is evident that the state needs to regulate such a thing.There are too many people out there in the world that are at the age where they just do not care anymore, and their regardless driving ends up hurting many people and causing much chaos on the road.
chainmachine

Con

As i am assuming this is an argument of actual debating and not just presenting evidence, so therefore i think people of the age of 65 have no reason to take a test. The vast majority of accidents actually happen from drunk driving and poor judgement. I personally think that because of there cautious nature they are less likely to cause accidents.
Debate Round No. 2
dcarbone7

Pro

How can you think they the elderly people are not doing any harm to other people. Have you ever driven behind or beside an elderly person behind the wheel? It is actually quite frightening to look over and witness an older person that can hardly see over the wheel swerving...without using signals or any type of sign. I am not saying that ALL of the elderly people are not cautious on the road, but I am simply stating reasons why they should be monitored or tested at such an age, which can be considered debating. If the testing and monitoring of the elderly people would ever come into effect, it would just be an extra precaution and measure taken in order to preserve life and the happiness of other people. Drunk driving and poor judgement DO contiribute to the many deaths that occur on the road, but the "poor judgement" of the elderly people also contribute to the many deaths that happen daily. The older people behind the wheel also have poor judgement... add hearing loss and vision problems to the equation and horrible things can happen because of their own self- interest.
In some states, there are mandatory driving tests. For example, California requires retesting for anyone involved in a fatal crash or three or more crashes in one year, requires drivers over 70 to retest if they are involved in two or more crashes in one year. Some may argue that testing the driver's ability because of age is discriminatory, like the AARP group and other lobbying groups as well, but it is for everyone's safety and health measures. There is nothing wrong with just testing a person on their capabilities on the road. The lobbyists argue that a person's chronological age has nothing to do with their driving capabilities; clearly it does have much to do with it. Lobbyists also argue that if they are given tests for the elderly people, then they should be giving tests for middle aged people as well. How can this text be discriminatory if only the new drivers have to take it? Is that not discriminatory? The younger drivers and older drivers should both be screened and tested equally to insure the safety of other civilians on the road.
chainmachine

Con

You still beat around the bush, I will present factual evidence since this argument is currently purely philosophical and will get us no where.

http://www.car-accidents.com...

Factual evidence shows that Old Age is an overall minor factor, the government has money that must be spend somewhere else. It is pointless to spend it on tests that will not be beneficial.

I cite more sources to prove my point.

http://bestcars101.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.calculateme.com...
Debate Round No. 3
dcarbone7

Pro

While not beating around the bush: There are thousands of websites, I'm sure, that can tell you what you want. But the issue at hand is testing the elderly because at such an age, their own discretion and judgement is no longer what it used to be. Let's face it... for example: if an elderly person develops neuropathy in their feet or any other extremity for that matter, how can you expect them to drive the way they used to when they were in perfect health. The tests given to the older people will most definitely be beneficial to the remainder of society. It is not putting the elderly under a microscope of any sort, and it will hopefully save lives. The outstanding point here is that elderly people ALONG WITH young drivers, drunk drivers, inexperienced drivers and negligent drivers is that they need to be monitored. I am not saying that drunk driving and young drivers do not contribute to the total number of fatalities from driving.
The younger drivers along with older drivers should both be screened and tested equally to insure the safety of other civilians on the road. Pennsylvania does have a "Deficit Reporting law," meaning that if a physician feels the need to screen and report the elderly person to the state, then they should feel free. Some physicians do feel, though, that it can also hurt their relationship with the patient, therefore not making fair judgments on their true ability to drive. Most other states do not require physicians to report psycho-motor, visual, and cognitive deficiencies that may affect driving to licensing agencies. If these two avenues are exhausted, then maybe the crash records can be looked at more closely. The DMV and insurance companies have records of the higher-risk older drivers. These records show that not everyone at that age can handle a vehicle on the road. How can it be a pointless waste of money if people's well beings are being preserved? Here are some websites to consider:

http://www.drdriving.org...
http://www.usroads.com...
http://www.senatormoore.com...
http://www.iihs.org...
chainmachine

Con

Lol excellent sources, thank you for proving my point have of the websites you posted fight in my favor. Do you know about unemployment and inflation? Yeah I think that's more important than elderly driving accidents, your points are easily refuted and your statistics flawed. I urge a vote con, government money is much more important than to be used on elderly driving tests.
Debate Round No. 4
dcarbone7

Pro

Thank you, I thought my sources were quite excellent as well. You are missing the point of this whole debate, though. I am not arguing that the government is spending their money in the wrong places. I am not debating how the government is supposed to fund the testing. I am simply debating that the elderly people should be monitored at such an age for the well-being of other people. You have tried morphing the debate into some type of governmental debate in which does not pertain slightly to the topic of discussion.The sources clearly explain my point of view, but also show other statistics as well, I am aware. Yes, thank you for asking and I am well-informed about unemployment and inflation. That has absolutley nothing to do with the topic of discussion. I am debating that older people behind the wheel DO contribute to driving accidents, therefore, they should be monitored or tested. Frankly, I believe it is quite irresponsible and selfish of an adult (elderly person) to get behind the wheel knowing that they do not have good eyesight or vision. In New York, there is no room for error in which an older person causes an accident behind them and keeps on driving because they didn't know they caused any accident.
The older people that gets behind the wheel everyday, knowing that they cannot hear or see that well, should be able to take a step back, with pride without another person intervening and have a more capable person drive. There is something to be said about someone that cannot even walk a straight line without a walker, but they can somehow get behind the wheel. It is not only a danger to other people, but it is a danger to them. It is not only a personal responsibility, but it is also the family's responsibility to step in before someone gets seriously hurt. There should be an end of the road for the elderly people that can no longer drive safely without harming themselves and any one else. The points I make enables me to walk away from this debate firmly believing that older people should definitley have to be given some sort of road test or must be monitored to question their knowledge of the parameters of their driving and the road.
chainmachine

Con

I would like to apologize to my opponent for such a late post.

I have stated my arguments so i have nothing really left to say. I urge a vote con!!!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
You can't make a case by asking readers to read stuff and make a case. You have to make explicit claims and then point sources to back up the claims. Pro had the BoP. Con can say nothing beyond denying the claim if Pro doesn't make a case.

There are tottering old drivers, and a case could be made that upon some cause -- say police noticing erratic driving -- that testing should then be required. However, the stats are that young drivers cause many more accidents, so on the face of it spending resources on young drivers would have a greater payback. Judgment ability can be tested with a simulator. I heard that New York stopped testing old drivers because it wasn't worth the effort.
Posted by dcarbone7 5 years ago
dcarbone7
I don't understand what you mean?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Oh lord...bad debate was bad.
Posted by dcarbone7 5 years ago
dcarbone7
Chainmachine... are you going to finish the last round? I hope you didn't forget! Thanks so much
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
dcarbone7chainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof. He needed to show that with testing, an accident rate of x would probably be reduced to y. Both sides invited readers to study the reference and build a case based upon what they read. That's not a case. However, only Pro had the burden of making a case. The accident data shows that young drivers are way more dangerous than even the oldest drivers, so the case would have to be carefully constructed. Con insults lose conduct.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
dcarbone7chainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly pro is the only one with a case... Con just claimed faulty sources. Con... You need to argue like in our Stalin debate.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
dcarbone7chainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually argued, instead of attacking the sources of the opponent with a lack of sources to back up his own point. The "Lol" is bad conduct from Con.