News-Record.com

Killian’s bill would have given me a break, extending the eight-year renewal requirement to age 64. But once I turned 65, I would have had to renew every five years.
Once I turned 75, I would have had to renew every three years.

And once I reached 85, I’d have had to take a road test each time I renewed my license.
Killian’s bill told us what we needed to hear, not necessarily what we wanted to hear, especially baby boomers — that, no matter how much we nip, tuck and inject ourselves, we are, in fact, growing older.

Even so, it’s understandable that seniors fear the loss of independence that surrendering one’s ability to drive means in a state not known for its mass transit systems. As one opponent of Killian’s bill told The News & Observer of Raleigh, “A lot of people like me would end up having to go into retirement homes, or whatever, that they can’t afford, or have someone come and pick them up.”

She was assuming, obviously, that those older drivers would take the road test and fail.
But the bill would not have automatically stripped older drivers of their licenses. It merely would have made sure they were still capable of driving.
If you passed the test, no problem.

Opponents of the legislation also noted that provisions already exist to take the keys from unsafe older drivers.

Anyone can refer a driver to the state for a medical review, and can even do so anonymously. DMV examiners also can require additional tests, including road tests, if they question a license applicant’s abilities.

But that still leaves wide gaps in the system. Better safe than sorry.

Give Killian credit for trying. Even as I creep deeper into a decade that once seemed to me more ancient than topsoil, I’m not mad at him for merely acknowledging the obvious.
The AARP definitely was. “I just think it’s not totally fair to older drivers,” said the AARP’s Richard Holden Jr., who ought to know better as a former member of the State Highway Patrol. “The problem I have with this bill is that it sort of puts everyone over a certain age in a pigeonhole.”

Of course it does. So does the existing law, which also restricts driving privileges for younger and older people. Such common-sense rules not only save unsafe drivers from themselves, but protect the rest of us as well.

We’re tragically too familiar with the death toll among young drivers. Older drivers are similarly prone to be involved in crashes and more likely to die as a result of those crashes.
(In fairness, older drivers are likely to be in a more fragile and vulnerable physical state than younger drivers, which naturally would increase the possibility of them dying in a crash. But that also would seem all the more reason to be sure they are capable of operating an automobile safely.)

Finally, I suspect, in their heart of hearts, the lawmakers in that hearing room last week were well aware of the numbers that correlate age and safety, for both younger and older drivers.
But they probably were even more aware of another number: the 17 percent of eligible North Carolina voters who are older than 66.

Older folks not only drive cars. They cast ballots.