You know, this is a systemic issue, not a “stupid politicians being stupid” issue.
You’ve got a population of seniors, people who are getting older and losing their physical mobility, who are less able to walk or bicycle or take public transit than younger and healthier people are - many of whom live in car-dependent subdivisions or in areas with poor public transit, like, say, rural Illinois.
These are people who rely on their cars for grocery shopping and medical appointments and socializing.
These are people, often on fixed incomes, often close to the poverty line, who struggle to afford the fees for rideshares or grocery deliveries.
And you can say “if they can’t pass the test they’re not safe to be on the road” - but from the article:
According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, in 2023 the crash rate for drivers 75 years and older in Illinois was lower than any other age group of legal drivers.
This bill is not about leaving unsafe drivers on the road - it’s about not adding unwarranted scrutiny and not making it harder for an especially car-dependent group of people to continue driving.
And it adds a provision that lets a senior’s family members report them if they believe the senior is no longer safe to drive.
This bill is a response to seniors who are genuinely frightened of losing their right to drive and becoming unable to meet their basic needs - and they have a right to be frightened of that, because we’ve built a system where a lot of people can’t meet their basic needs without driving.
In other words, if you build a system that makes driving necessary, you can’t really blame people for not wanting to lose the right to drive.
Bro, if those seniors can’t pass a driving test, they shouldn’t be allowed to drive. The whole argument here is ‘if we test them they may fail, and then wouldn’t be able to drive’.
You know, this is a systemic issue, not a “stupid politicians being stupid” issue.
You’ve got a population of seniors, people who are getting older and losing their physical mobility, who are less able to walk or bicycle or take public transit than younger and healthier people are - many of whom live in car-dependent subdivisions or in areas with poor public transit, like, say, rural Illinois.
These are people who rely on their cars for grocery shopping and medical appointments and socializing.
These are people, often on fixed incomes, often close to the poverty line, who struggle to afford the fees for rideshares or grocery deliveries.
And you can say “if they can’t pass the test they’re not safe to be on the road” - but from the article:
This bill is not about leaving unsafe drivers on the road - it’s about not adding unwarranted scrutiny and not making it harder for an especially car-dependent group of people to continue driving.
And it adds a provision that lets a senior’s family members report them if they believe the senior is no longer safe to drive.
This bill is a response to seniors who are genuinely frightened of losing their right to drive and becoming unable to meet their basic needs - and they have a right to be frightened of that, because we’ve built a system where a lot of people can’t meet their basic needs without driving.
In other words, if you build a system that makes driving necessary, you can’t really blame people for not wanting to lose the right to drive.
Bro, if those seniors can’t pass a driving test, they shouldn’t be allowed to drive. The whole argument here is ‘if we test them they may fail, and then wouldn’t be able to drive’.
Those seniors could probably afford grocery delivery and rideshare services if they weren’t paying insurance, gas, etc for their cars.