• Vinegar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    All too often I think the discussion misses the fact that there is no alternative to driving for the vast majority of US citizens. Busses, trains, walking, biking, etc are not viable options because US infrastructure & city planning overwhelmingly neglects everything but the automobile.

    It is supposedly a personal moral failing every time someone drives too old, too tired, or too impaired, but if trains, busses, & walking were the default ways to get around then this chronic societal problem would diminish dramatically. Incompetent driving is rooted in systemic failures, not personal moral ones.

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The moral failing is that of personally encouraging, supporting or defending car dependency, along with the other more failing of not trying anything to reverse it.

  • Retiring@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I recently saw some numbers, published by an automobile club, that suggested drivers over the age of 70 are involved in only 13% of crashes. My first thought was, that number is only that low because every other driver is already very cautious around old people in cars. And they usually drive rather slow. Still no reason to defend older people in death machines.

  • starlinguk@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    What are they going to do instead. Apparate?

    In the Netherlands you are tested every 5 years after the age of 70. So many people lose their licence and end up stuck in the middle of nowhere because there is no public transport and most affordable retirement homes have been shut down. So my dad, who is in his eighties and has passed his tests so far, drives around looking after them.