The Instigator
Postup10101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Senior citizens over a certain age should not be able to drive

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,895 times Debate No: 15907
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Postup10101

Pro

I want to begin this debate by thanking whoever accepts.

On the ride home from my practice, there was a car in the left lane (2 lane road) who was driving between the lanes and crazily began to cut in front of my car. If I hadn't noticed her reckless driving as soon as I did, she would have easily swerved into my lane and caused a severe accident. When we pulled up next to each other, I could easily tell she was at least 75 and she could not handle driving.

This is why I believe that seniors over 75 are prohibited from driving, and seniors older than 70 take driving "check-ups" monthly. This is all to insure the safety of the public, and the safety of the senior, as well.

RoyLatham

Con

This debate hinges on whether drivers over age 75 are substantially less safe than younger drivers, and so much so that forbidding driving is appropriate. Pro seems to have drawn his conclusion from observing a grand total of one bad driver.

Statistics on traffic accidents are available for the United States from the U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov... The most recent are for 2008.

The accident rate is the number of accidents per 100,000 licensed drivers. For example, 16 year old drivers have an accident rate of 25 accidents per 100 drivers. The higher the rate, the worse. A rate of zero would be no accidents.

By age group, the accident rates are:

Ages 16-19 accident rate is 21
Ages 20-24 accident rate is 15
Ages 25-34 accident rate is 10
Ages 35-44 accident rate is 8
Ages 45-54 accident rate is 7
Ages 55-64 accident rate is 5
Ages 65-74 accident rate is 4
Over age 75 accident rate is 4

Another way to express it is that young drivers average one accident per 5 drivers, while the oldest have one accident per 20 drivers. The oldest drivers are the safest.

Fatal accidents are much rarer, so rates are given per 100,000 drivers. The most dangerous are again the youngest, 43-44 for the two youngest groups. It declines to about 20 for ages 35-74 and rises to 30 for 75+.

If any group ought to be banned or checked monthly, clearly it is those under 25, who have by far the worst safety record. If the safety record of the young drivers is acceptable, then over 75 must clearly be acceptable.

Now get off my lawn, ya whippersnapper!

In other words, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Postup10101

Pro

Postup10101 forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Now we wait for this to end.
Debate Round No. 2
Postup10101

Pro

Postup10101 forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro never rebutted my argument. The statistics show clearly that 75+ drivers are safer than young drivers, and among the safest overall. A few oldsters are irresponsible, but most know their limits.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
We couldn't afford dinosaurs. We had to stick our bare feet through the floor of the car and run on the road. And those roads were rough!
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
In my day, we had to drive dinosaurs.........damm kids with their ipods and rap music.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Postup10101RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
Postup10101RoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe this could have been a great debate, but for reasons unknown, Pro refused to show up. Con wins by default, but I believe that Con would still probably have won this based off of his traffic census evidence.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Postup10101RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: win via forfeit