A View From The Press Box

I believe the Auto Club of Southern California has a start in the right direction--a discount for those passing the Mature Driver Program. It's not a big discount but could be progressively larger as a driver ages, and would help stave off the inevitable premium increases.

That, coupled with regular vehicle inspections now offered by the Auto Club, and perhaps made "mandatory" or offered free or as another policy discount method, would help make drivers more aware of maintenance issues, etc.

I believe California is trying to pass a bill that will require everyone over 75 to pass a road test again, but, as you point out, the AARP and some legal circles find this unacceptable.

Based on current DMV criteria, drivers with no moving violations are not required to take any tests to renew their licenses, and in some cases, can renew multiple 5-year terms by mail or online without ever visiting the DMV.

One positive point is California has a method in which you can request the state retest a person if you believe they are incompetent to drive. That does make it easier to get Grandpa or Grandma from behind the wheel, especially if they are grossly inadequate and unsafe.

But it's a very hard thing to ask or even intimate that someone give up the freedom that driving brings.

I have lived in Florida and personally have knowledge of cases where senior drivers who were legally blind still drove. Some who could barely lift their legs without assistance still got behind the wheel and drove.

Some who were so confused drove, and were so lost they had their families looking for them for hours after a trip to the corner store. Yet, no legislation was enacted at that time to revoke their driving privileges.

One person was refused a Florida drivers' license because they could not pass the vision test when they moved there. They then renewed their license from their previous state and were involved in an accident running over several children, killing one. The elderly driver thought he had struck "trash cans" and kept driving until stopped by the police some distance later.

No easy answers for this question. Asking a senior citizen to park their car permanently will almost certainly take an act of Congress, more than an act of an insurer.

Honestly, I believe we'd just create a whole new class of uninsured drivers, sneaking off to the store in those old vehicles, that would now be unregistered and unserviced, and more unsafe than ever.

The problem with taking licenses away from the elderly involves basic transportation. With very poor public transportation, how are they to get to the doctor, the store, etc?

When public transportation improves to the point that the elderly can get where they need to go easily, then you'll have a better chance of restricting older drivers.

Otherwise, removing their licenses puts the burden on working relatives to become the shuttle service.

Don't forget that not only are people living longer, they are more healthy than their prior generation.

So when the baby boomers hit their late 80s, it will be more like people in their 60s today.

So add 10-to-20 years onto those calculations of when the boomer will hit the streets driving like today's 85-year-olds.

By the way, I love Mr. Magoo!!

As they say, "what goes around, comes around."

For those of us who were toiling to work through the early baby-boom youthful operator years that spawned the huge spike in assigned risk business, we can only hope that the industry works on solving the issue of these same old kids coming through the system without throwing large portions of them into some large pool.

I do recall back then a company called Colonial Penn that figured out with a more sophisticated underwriting method how to capitalize on the senior market that the industry also was throwing into the pool and did quite well, even at discounted rates, while getting a bonus take-out credit.

It is encouraging that people like Mr. Wiesbart and insurers are talking about the issue today so that more creative solutions are developed long before the boomers age in large numbers.

So now that the boomers are back, let's work on solving the problem by not repeating history. As we have almost collapsed the assigned risk market, let's not even think of resurrecting this mistaken approach.

Shame on us if we can't continue to serve the senior market, while working with organizations like AARP to assure that the few truly unable to drive park their cars for their own safety and that of their grandchildren.

I think BJ hit the nail on the head. If our focus is on how we test and verify the driving ability of older drivers, it's just going to drive (pun intended) them underground (no pun intended) and create that new class of uninsured and unlicensed drivers.

I think our focus needs to be on why older drivers don't want to give up their driving privledges. They don't want to lose their freedom and mobility.

With that understanding, how can we create additional opportunities for them to get around? I'm thinking increased public transportation options.

These options don't necessarily need to be paid with tax dollars. Would insurance companies be willing to contribute in an effort to reduce their own exposures?

I'm sure seniors would be willing put some of the money they're putting in to their vehicles today in to better public transportation options or even private programs created to give them mobility options.

It should not be up to the insurance industry to "police" senior citizen drivers of any age. It is the sole responsibility of the state's own driver licensing process.

If they give elderly drivers "special" [read easy] driving skills tests, we are all in grave danger. Rather, they should require seniors to pass the same testing skills every other driver has to pass, except that seniors should be tested more often, depending on age.

Part of senior testing needs to include motor-coordination, reflex skills, visual and hearing tests, that perhaps younger dirvers may not need.

If the senior driver passes a standard on-the- road test everyone else has to pass, and they pass all of the aforementioned other physical type tests, they should be given a license and be able to secure afordable insurance.

Insurance should be the last thing in the chain of qualifications for senior drivers.

As a followup comment, the abilities that senior drivers have are so greatly variable that even driver tests cannot be seen as an accurate predictor of safe driving practices.

Example: A senior struggles with a particularly debilitating disease, but takes medication that relatively well controls it IF they remember to take the medication on schedule.

Prior to their testing they are successful in maintaining the schedule due to coaching by friends and family, and pass the test. Subsequently, they fall back into the old forgetful habits and their ability to drive safely is severely compromised.

Can it happen to younger person? Absolutely, but not with the frequency, nor to the degree that it happens to the elderly, who frequently take large amounts of medication, and have diseases associated with lapse of memory, including Alzheimer's.

Thus you now have a fully tested person on the road who is a menace to the motoring public, including themselves.

Many of the comments above point out the lack of adequate public transportation and they are absolutely correct. Paratransit connection vans that allow door-to-door access between the elderly and disabled patron's door and other transit portals, or main shopping and medical access areas, are highly successful in many cities, yet are sorely lacking in so many areas. The cost is minimal and is subsidized through transportation grants.

Scott McCluer has it right. The insurance industry should consider helping fix the transit problems to get those drivers off the road who shouldn't really be there.

Maybe offer to subsidize a transit deal for elderly drivers who can prove they reduce their driving by a certain percentage, or who do not drive on freeways or in heavy traffic areas.

Transponders along with the transit passes might make this a feasible idea to save lives and accident costs, as well as free up highway space and improve public transportation ridership!

The National Safety Council publishes stats that look at motor vehicle accident frequency by age. I'm not sure whether they capture this in any more detail in terms of gender, geography, etc.

However, their stats do show a drop in accident frequency from 8.6% of all motor vehicle accidents for ages 55-64 (2004 data is latest I've seen), and this number has fluctuated between 7% and 9%.

So far, this is not a consistent trend, showing a steady increase--but this may be a good 'general' number to watch.