On July 16, an 86-year-old man named Russell Weller drove his
car into a crowd of people at the Santa Monica Farmers’
Market. He killed 10 people, including a 7-month-old boy, and
injured more than 50. It is possible that Weller mistook the gas
pedal for the brake. It is certain that he did not stop for nearly
three blocks, by which time a man was on the hood and a woman was
pinned beneath. His only reported infirmity was age ““ he was
not drunk or on any drugs. But age alone, it seems, was enough to
keep Weller from reacting in time to avert tragedy.
Yet while this incident seems to be an example of how age can
make a driver dangerous just as surely as alcohol or narcotics can,
the DMV has consistently resisted calls to better regulate elderly
drivers. Currently, a driver over 70 who is renewing his or her
license is only required to take a short written test which can be
retaken twice in a single sitting.
Clearly this form of testing is inadequate.
Drivers who are not sensible enough to stop driving when they
get too old to drive safely are a menace. The DMV needs to take
many more steps to keep these dangerous drivers off the streets. A
good start would be annual behind-the-wheel driving tests for all
drivers over the age of 75 ““ the age at which drivers begin
to be “markedly overinvolved” in accidents according to
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Advanced age can be just as much a handicap as youthful
inexperience. We should hold elderly drivers to the same standards
as teenage drivers ““ who, as we all know, are not allowed to
drive alone until they have proven themselves in a behind-the-wheel
test.
Of course, the elderly have much more political clout than young
people. For example, in 2000 the American Association of Retired
Persons (a senior citizens advocacy group) quashed a bill making
its way through Sacramento that would have required road tests for
drivers over the age of 75. Shame on them.
The AARP is doing its members a disservice by opposing such
legislation. Just like someone who kills while driving drunk,
elderly drivers who kill because they are unable to objectively
evaluate their diminished capacity will live the rest their lives
in shame and regret. Who doubts that Russell Weller wishes he had
not driven on July 16?
Some may argue that driving, especially in a city such as Los
Angeles, is as necessary and as much a right as any of our other
freedoms. And obviously, many seniors are able to drive perfectly
well. But as countless car accidents show each year, driving is
dangerous ““ for anyone. The government has every reason to
make driving a privilege granted only to those who can do so
without unduly endangering others. This is not a question of
allowing the elderly to age in dignity or independently ““ it
is a question of recognizing the society’s real safety
concerns and how those concerns can best be reconciled with
seniors’ desires and interests.
When each new driver receives a license, he or she takes on an
obligation to drive responsibly and safely. If you drink, you find
someone else to drive. If you are nearsighted and fail an eye test,
you wear glasses. The police and the DMV are tireless in their
pursuit of drunk drivers and others who skirt their
responsibilities. The same must be applied to age.
Older drivers must recognize their reduced abilities and curtail
their driving as necessary. Despite our reluctance to treat the
elderly with anything but respect and trust, the DMV and the police
must create and enforce policies allowing seniors to drive only
after they have proven that they can do so safely.
Johnston is a third-year microbiology, immunology &
molecular genetics student.