I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m anti-vax. I’m pro-vax. I’m also pro proving you can drive to drive, but we don’t do that in the US and the reason is in large swaths of the land, if you can’t drive you’re going to die alone in your house due to lack of food, medicine or other needed things. Because the only way to get them is to drive to the darn store.
But the other thing that isn’t teased out that I can see is how that riskier driving interacts with cities. That is, NY data is by population overwhelmed by the NYC area, and maybe Buffalo. But that’s by land area - you know, places people might drive - like 1% of the state. So when you’re likely to be the only car on the road, or one of a few - how does the risk change there from a public policy perspective?
So - we should compare fatalities from potentially poor driving to expected fatalities from being unable to get necessities where they’re living because they can’t drive. I’d argue if the latter is higher, then they should keep driving from a safety perspective across a state population.
Now, because I like arguing on the internet, I’ll pick apart your reply to me.
Letting blind people with dementia unsafely operate motor vehicles so they can run people over while trying to get to grocery stores and medical
You talk like most elderly drivers ought to be in an assisted care home - that they probably can’t manage to put on pants in the morning. Or would forget that they’re actually driving. Sure, for that extreme I agree, they’re a danger to themselves just living alone, forget about driving.
nor is it an acceptable stopgap till public transportation can pick up the slack. It’s gotta stop right now.
Ok, so if you read that - we’re going to take away the only form of transportation for these people and worry about fixing it later - that’s what lead to my initial reply. Do you dispute this? Am I making an unfounded leap of logic that many people need a car to get to a store and bring back food? And these people tend to not be in heavily populated areas.
I feel sorry for old people who have no other way to get around, I really do.
I think this part is way too broad a statement. To me, it reads like you mean anyone that could be designated as old. You certainly were not as clear in the first post. I’d argue your problem is you’ve been focusing on age rather than driving ability in all your replies. There are plenty of younger unsafe drivers. And instead of acting ageist, you could have focused on tested driving ability. But you didn’t initially, and are now pivoting in the second post like I should have read this out of the first post, though also berating me from reading into your posts.
Note too that there’s a lot of waffling between your stats on being 65+ and your various characterizations as dangerous. I imagine if you actually defined your terms there I might agree more with you. I really thought your characterizations
Letting blind people with dementia
was hyperbole because if that is what you mean exactly - I don’t think we actually let blind people drive. By policy anyway, IDK about enforcement - and in any case that’s so anodyne a point as to make me wonder why you even posted. So I was left inferring from the stats you posted, which again all seemed to be completely about age and not at all about ability.
I firmly believe the reason the US makes it so easy to get and keep a drivers license is because the states don’t think there’s an alternative for enough people that trying to change that would get them voted out. So not having a solution to offer is also just saying you want to complain into the internet that the world isn’t perfect according to you. Again, no shit.
I have a quick question before I rip your comment to shreds: are you intentionally misinterpreting me, or are your reading comprehension skills just super, super bad? Because I read your entire comment and it’s abundantly clear that you missed the point completely. Like, you’re not even close.
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension and English is my first language. Given the other posts below you, have you considered you are really bad at writing clearly?
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension
I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m anti-vax. I’m pro-vax.
Dude, seriously? Give me a break.
You have also said the following:
Ok, so if you read that - we’re going to take away the only form of transportation for these people and worry about fixing it later - that’s what lead to my initial reply.
Already wrong. But let’s continue.
Do you dispute this? Am I making an unfounded leap of logic that many people need a car to get to a store and bring back food?
Yes, you are genuinely making an unfound leap of logic, it’s called begging the question. That’s your entire problem, really.
And these people tend to not be in heavily populated areas.
Yeah you mentioned this a few times.
But the other thing that isn’t teased out that I can see is how that riskier driving interacts with cities. That is, NY data is by population overwhelmed by the NYC area, and maybe Buffalo. But that’s by land area - you know, places people might drive - like 1% of the state. So when you’re likely to be the only car on the road, or one of a few - how does the risk change there from a public policy perspective?
People don’t drive on the land per se, they drive on roads—you know, the places people might drive. Where the fuck do you think all the roads are? I’ll give you hint, it’s where the people are, as evidenced by every road atlas ever printed.
And let’s not forget these gems:
I’m also pro proving you can drive to drive, but we don’t do that in the US
Actually we do do that. It’s the aptitude test they have at the DMV when you get your license. The one you also have to get re-tested on when your license expires. The one I’ve been talking about this entire time.
I really thought your characterizations
>Letting blind people with dementia
was hyperbole because if that is what you mean exactly - I don’t think we actually let blind people drive.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
And my point this entire time has sailed right over your head. I don’t disagree that more stringent testing for driving would seem on its face to lead to more skilled drivers, which may lead to lower road deaths. I’m complaining about your apparent ageism, lack of concern for solutions that amount to more than “olds or disabled people get rekt for driving” and seemingly complete denial that large swaths of the US that are rural both exist and have old or disabled people living in them who need transport and the only option is cars.
You keep ignoring my actual point and continue to use basic sophistry to hammer a point I’ve accepted and granted in I think my first response. I admit, I like to play devils advocate, so I humor you with responding to your later points. You have yet to respond to my actual issue - accomplishing your desired end should be done in a way that is both realistic in our political environment and doesn’t make a large voting block widely worse off.
You also assert that lower road deaths is the greatest good, accomplished best by taking older drivers off the road, and do not compare to what deaths there would be if these same drivers could not travel at all, and were basically trapped in their houses. I’ve poked at that, but perhaps not directly enough to get you to substantiate this sets of assertions.
I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m anti-vax. I’m pro-vax. I’m also pro proving you can drive to drive, but we don’t do that in the US and the reason is in large swaths of the land, if you can’t drive you’re going to die alone in your house due to lack of food, medicine or other needed things. Because the only way to get them is to drive to the darn store.
But the other thing that isn’t teased out that I can see is how that riskier driving interacts with cities. That is, NY data is by population overwhelmed by the NYC area, and maybe Buffalo. But that’s by land area - you know, places people might drive - like 1% of the state. So when you’re likely to be the only car on the road, or one of a few - how does the risk change there from a public policy perspective?
So - we should compare fatalities from potentially poor driving to expected fatalities from being unable to get necessities where they’re living because they can’t drive. I’d argue if the latter is higher, then they should keep driving from a safety perspective across a state population.
Now, because I like arguing on the internet, I’ll pick apart your reply to me.
You talk like most elderly drivers ought to be in an assisted care home - that they probably can’t manage to put on pants in the morning. Or would forget that they’re actually driving. Sure, for that extreme I agree, they’re a danger to themselves just living alone, forget about driving.
Ok, so if you read that - we’re going to take away the only form of transportation for these people and worry about fixing it later - that’s what lead to my initial reply. Do you dispute this? Am I making an unfounded leap of logic that many people need a car to get to a store and bring back food? And these people tend to not be in heavily populated areas.
I think this part is way too broad a statement. To me, it reads like you mean anyone that could be designated as old. You certainly were not as clear in the first post. I’d argue your problem is you’ve been focusing on age rather than driving ability in all your replies. There are plenty of younger unsafe drivers. And instead of acting ageist, you could have focused on tested driving ability. But you didn’t initially, and are now pivoting in the second post like I should have read this out of the first post, though also berating me from reading into your posts.
Note too that there’s a lot of waffling between your stats on being 65+ and your various characterizations as dangerous. I imagine if you actually defined your terms there I might agree more with you. I really thought your characterizations
I firmly believe the reason the US makes it so easy to get and keep a drivers license is because the states don’t think there’s an alternative for enough people that trying to change that would get them voted out. So not having a solution to offer is also just saying you want to complain into the internet that the world isn’t perfect according to you. Again, no shit.
I have a quick question before I rip your comment to shreds: are you intentionally misinterpreting me, or are your reading comprehension skills just super, super bad? Because I read your entire comment and it’s abundantly clear that you missed the point completely. Like, you’re not even close.
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension and English is my first language. Given the other posts below you, have you considered you are really bad at writing clearly?
Dude, seriously? Give me a break.
You have also said the following:
Already wrong. But let’s continue.
Yes, you are genuinely making an unfound leap of logic, it’s called begging the question. That’s your entire problem, really.
Yeah you mentioned this a few times.
People don’t drive on the land per se, they drive on roads—you know, the places people might drive. Where the fuck do you think all the roads are? I’ll give you hint, it’s where the people are, as evidenced by every road atlas ever printed.
And let’s not forget these gems:
Actually we do do that. It’s the aptitude test they have at the DMV when you get your license. The one you also have to get re-tested on when your license expires. The one I’ve been talking about this entire time.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
And my point this entire time has sailed right over your head. I don’t disagree that more stringent testing for driving would seem on its face to lead to more skilled drivers, which may lead to lower road deaths. I’m complaining about your apparent ageism, lack of concern for solutions that amount to more than “olds or disabled people get rekt for driving” and seemingly complete denial that large swaths of the US that are rural both exist and have old or disabled people living in them who need transport and the only option is cars.
You keep ignoring my actual point and continue to use basic sophistry to hammer a point I’ve accepted and granted in I think my first response. I admit, I like to play devils advocate, so I humor you with responding to your later points. You have yet to respond to my actual issue - accomplishing your desired end should be done in a way that is both realistic in our political environment and doesn’t make a large voting block widely worse off.
You also assert that lower road deaths is the greatest good, accomplished best by taking older drivers off the road, and do not compare to what deaths there would be if these same drivers could not travel at all, and were basically trapped in their houses. I’ve poked at that, but perhaps not directly enough to get you to substantiate this sets of assertions.
Damn, I think you might just be dumb. Listen, I can explain this for you, but I can’t inderstasd it for you. I’m done with you.