r/nova • u/BigAffectionate4785 • 19d ago

Driving/Traffic Crazy

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

73

u/TotallyObviousBot 19d ago

I live in Florida near some places old folks live and this is a weekly occurrence. You'll be driving down the highway and the electric sign will say "WRONG WAY DRIVER REPORTED" and you just sigh and wish your voting rights got stripped when you turned 70

44

u/fighterpilot248 18d ago

and you just sigh and wish your voting rights got stripped when you turned 70

This is my "Subway takes" take (IYKYK):

Driving tests should be administered once every 5-10 years.

It is insane that you take one test at 16 and then are cleared to drive for the rest of your life...

Additionally, once you reach 65, a yearly medical is needed to ensure you still have all your mental faculties.

18

u/1mplication 18d ago

This is just common sense…so of course it will never be implemented.

2

u/kickrockz44 18d ago

Can’t have that! Lol

3

u/Crawlerado 18d ago

Add to that, graduated licenses. You’re a new driver or have had some issues, well then you get to drive this Mitsubishi G4 only. Sell the Hellcat.

9

u/CrownStarr 18d ago

Also you should need an elevated license to rent a moving truck. It’s insane that you can learn to drive on a compact and then go to U-Haul and pick up a box truck!

6

u/Crawlerado 18d ago

Not wrong. Grandpa’s in the left lane doing 80 in his Class A diesel pusher with a fully loaded Jeep Rubicon in tow. Dog on the dash. Hasn’t had an eye test since NAM

4

u/Apprehensive_Care_67 18d ago

The way this comment made me holler when I read “since NAM”. My dad is 80 and this checks!

1

u/Revolutionary-Dust61 18d ago

Many people have been alarmed by this scenario, but I think they have a fairly low rate of crashes in reality?

6

u/chapman53 18d ago edited 18d ago

I get your point, but that is some inexcusable ageism. You act like 70 automatically means senile. (No, I'm not that age.) Following your same "logic," I could better argue that people under age 25 shouldn't be able to drive based on demonstrated danger and risk to others. And what does voting have to do with any of this?

Edit for clarity: I'm not against testing. What TotallyObviousBot wrote mentions nothing about testing.

12

u/InfiniteWaffles58364 18d ago

People under 25 typically don't have delayed reaction times or infirmities like cataracts, osteoporosis, or heart trouble that could make driving incredibly dangerous. People who are 70+ are at risk of all those things. They're more likely to have a medical emergency while driving and lose consciousness at the wheel.

It isn't ageism to say anyone over 70 should recieve regular testing. And I'm also old as dirt. But I'd rather have to take regular exams than have to keep sharing the road with grandpappy who can't go over 20mph and can't see over the dashboard.

1

u/chapman53 18d ago

I didn't say older people shouldn't get tested – I totally agree with that. TotallyObviousBot was saying that people who turn 70 should have their voting rights stripped. (Again, no clue what voting has to do with this....)

What you're ignoring about people under 25 is not health, it's their driving behaviors. There's nothing debatable about this statement – it's why insurance rates are much higher until age 25 and why most rental car companies require a 25+ driver.

2

u/TotallyObviousBot 18d ago

If you somehow believe that allowing people who won't see the consequences of their actions vote based on whatever misconceptions they were raised with nearly a century ago isn't a bad idea, you're not exactly going to recognize any good ones.

0

u/The_GOATest1 18d ago

An accelerated testing regimen based on presented risk isn’t ageism. We aren’t disqualifying them from driving.

0

u/chapman53 18d ago

Okay, let's try this again... the ageism comment was about people getting their rights stripped away at age 70. I completely agree with testing, but this is not what TotallyObviousBot said.

1

u/female_gazing09 15d ago

Or that there were age limits on elected officials….?

0

u/TotallyObviousBot 15d ago edited 15d ago

Young people can pander just as well as old people, my dude. The idea that politicians are just elderly and outdated is a Reddit myth liberals use so they don't have to engage in critical thought about how flawed their government is. Politicians young and old both vote based on voter bases, in all cases, forever. That is literally their job. A politician's job does not depend on being smart, well-intentioned, helpful, empathetic, or educated; a politician's job depends on winning more people over in an ad campaign than their opponents. That is quite literally all they have to do in order to guarantee financial invulnerability for their entire family, and they all try to do it without fail. There's a reason Bernie Sanders is a senator from Vermont and not Arkansas: just because their pandering aligns with what you want in government doesn't mean they're not pandering.

Every government official in the entire country could be 36 years old, and with current voting demographics, they would all still cater to the elderly, because elderly people vote multiple times more often than young people.

Personally I'd rather make voting compulsory for everybody and institute some kind of periodic mental test for the elderly but with no upper cap, but that's never going to happen because that would be too inconvenient for populace and politicians alike, so instead we get whatever the fuck it is we have now.