by INFORUM
North Dakota looks at extending drivers license renewal to six years
December 28, 2010 at 6:00 pm in INFORUM
BISMARCK North Dakotans may end up keeping their driver’s license picture a little longer in the future. Continue Reading
North Dakota looks at extending drivers license renewal to six years
15 Comments
North Dakota looks at extending drivers license renewal to six years
2 things-why not open other centers and create more jobs? And the last time I was there they made everyone take off their glasses for the beautiful photo opp–I thought they were concerned about appearance change.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Notice that both quoted officials in this article danced around the issue of elderly drivers being a menace?
So “we” the rest of the general driving public…have to trust that “elderly drivers know their limits”????? and THAT is the totality of the efforts of public safety officials? Geeeesshhhhh
Then we hear:
“The renewals are not meant to be a system that identifies certain driving abilities that we have at any age group. That system was never designed to catch those concerns,†he said.
so tell me…. what “system” do WE have to assess deterioriating driving abilities in compromised elderly drivers? Can we develop one? One that assesses reaction time, driving smoothly amongst moving traffic at both city AND highway speeds (meaning driving the posted speed limit), being able to change lanes, merge and exit onto roads, and a vision test of reading signs/colors at DISTANCE.
I think this bill is horrible if it also applies to anyone over age 60. The safety of the ENTIRE public is at risk. If we as a public believe that a youth’s license should be graduate to acquire, I firmly believe that we also need a DE-graduating license for those over age 60 who cannot pass a COMPREHENSIVE ON-THE-ROAD skill test every 5 years, else we start restricting their license to driving only during certain hours, under good driving conditions, or within 10 miles of their home.
The time has come to address this growing public safety hazard as the Baby Boom generation starts retiring in 3 days.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Growing hazard? You did see where this group makes up 17% of licensed drivers but are in 13.2% of the crashes. Now, perhaps they drive less miles than average, which would change their rates. However, on a strict percentage of crashes basis, they are less dangerous than other groups.
There is no system. There is no system to check if anyone is still able to drive. It isn’t like aviation where the license is forever, but the medical is for a limited amount of time. There is no medical. There are methods of reporting, and of course getting too many points would revoke the license as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Apparently you have selective reading skills when I clarified in my original post when I SAID create a system with “One that assesses reaction time, driving smoothly amongst moving traffic at both city AND highway speeds (meaning driving the posted speed limit), being able to change lanes, merge and exit onto roads, and a vision test of reading signs/colors at DISTANCE”
The stats you also regurgitated are misleading. What you don’t see, (and is hard to quantitate) is that slower drivers are creating traffic hazards on increasingly congested roads, with slower driving holding up traffic, defensive driving/nervous driving causing them to drive slower than normal traffic flow, not being able to make an accurate decision on when to turn in front of oncoming fast traffic, etc etc ad nauseum
I fully realize there is no current system in place. I’m saying CREATE ONE. Make it a required (read: mandatory) test to be completed every 5 years after age 60, via an actual physical on-the-road test with a State Trooper doing the assessment (like it used to be 20 years ago), as they are the most proficient/current on necessary skills to safely operate a motor vehicle. NOT some contract temp employee who blank checks their passing grade!
We need a strict system with teeth if they plan on extending driver’s licenses to 5+ years. Alternatively they could propose the law to apply to any driver between the age of 21 and 60, and then after 60 you need to apply for a on-the-road re-evaluation of your physical skill set capacity.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Slower drivers aren’t the problem. I seem to recall most of the accidents this past year that claimed a life were due to excessive speed by younger drivers. If you can’t deal with slow drivers, you’re driving too fast. I’ve never had a slow driver be a hazard to me.
Young people can very well have medical problems affecting everything you list. If you’re worried about those sorts of issues, it should be extended to everyone. Changing the license between 4 years and 6 years really doesn’t matter. All you need to renew for another four is good glasses. Whether it’s for four years or six years is quite irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I’ll repeat QED, slower drivers are almost an impossible quantifable entity to compute. Using “most of the accidents this past year” doesn’t address the bigger daily issue that drivers increasingly face on the roads.
Older drivers are both dangerous (one problem), and also when they create additional congestion ( the second problem), they pose an issue to orderly movement of everyone on a limited capacity infrastructure, that when blocked from orderly flow backs up.
I think you are intentionally limiting the scope of what I’ve accurately described now QED. I’m talking REACTION TIME, fast cognitive processing of environmental data from fast moving traffic (fast being anything over 20 MPH), and physical dexterity/flexibility to safely operate a motor vehicle.
Driving isn’t a RIGHT. It is a privilege extended to those who have the proper ability and training to operate a vehicle safely under all conditions. It is the same logic used in limiting teen drivers when they start out, and something we need to consider for those on the other end of the spectrum, as their capacity to do all of the above diminishes over time.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Reality Check,
I fail to follow your logic. You agree that there isn’t a system today and advocate that we CREATE one. Then you end by saying that they shouldn’t extend the license renewal time frame from 4 to 5+ years unless this new system to check for reaction time, etc. is in place. But if you agree that the existing system doesn’t do anything to check for driving skills, then what difference does it make if it is 4 or 6 year renewal?
Your advocating for a new system to test drivers over 60 is in no way related to renewal in 4 vs. 6 years. I’m now saying I’m opposed to your idea (I’m on the fence), just that it isn’t related to renewal timeframe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yea good idea leave us old duffers on the road running people into the ditches for 2 more years before you check to see if we can still draw a breath. why not just eliminate licenses all together?? KEEP IT AS IT IS!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
A better way maybe to change license for vehicles to a 2 year cycle. Based on the model year, odd model years get tags for 2 years on odd years, even model years on even years. Very easy to implement and saves money and work load.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I think Reality Check has checked out on reality. I guarantee I see more erratic and problematic driving from 20 & 30 somethings – either distracted by their cell phones or in some wicked hurry to get nowhere.
And to say defensive driving causes problems? If this is a problem, I wonder why there so many Defensive Driving classes and insurance discounts/points reductions if you take one?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
The news it report, and studies show, that inattentive driving is one of the major reasons for car accidents. The most commone reasons include texting or cell phone use, eating or drinking, etc. I be willing to bet three camels that those most engaged in those activities are in an age group from 16 to 50. Use of cell phones and texting is an epidemic. ND is slow to address these issues because of it’s opposition to regulations, even those that would benefit the majority. Sometimes ones independence gets in the way of ones well being.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Since the DOT wants to make some changes, how bout this…..a requirement that you must be able to read/understand English in order to get a drivers license. Right now you don’t have to.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Mr. Kenny, on the surface your proposal, it would seem to be aimed at minorities or illegal immigrants. However, reading many of the posts here and listening to many of the people that live here, I question whether or not many of the “normal” people would meet the requirement. Many adults who have lived here all of their lives, they seem to have very much difficulty with speaking the language according to English. They cannot spell or use words properly and use words such as “like” for every other word in a sentence. Your proposal, it may have unintended consequenses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
This will not fix the problem. There’s an article in the paper right now reporting a 100 car pile-up from Fargo to Jamestown on 94…http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/187620/group/homepage/.
Now, I don’t believe all of those drivers were elderly, however I can say with much conviction that every driver involved in the pile-up and even the ones not involved, are seriously lacking any sort of abstract thought skills. When the roads are covered in ice, I believe it’s a no-brainer that you shouldn’t drive, yet these fatheads are out there thinking they are immune to the laws of physics.
You can’t fix stupid, which this article clearly illustrates. Extending license renewals is not going to magically fix a lack of common sense.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Perhaps one reasonable thing would be to force doctors to report anyone with an Alzhiemer’s diagnosis and drop thier license immediately. Dad had it, and as long as he had the money, and could find his way to the DMV, he was good to go. (that was in MN)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0