Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Fewer accidents is not necessarily proportional to fewer deaths. As you clearly identify the factors involved in testing are not the factors involved in deaths.
Parallel parking though is a critical skill it shows you understand the position of your car which would reduce parking lot bumps and scrapes which is good for people in general but doesn’t affect insurance companies over the long term.
There does not appear to be evidence to support that retesting would reduce fatalities.
|
I think the restricting old people argument saves lives in a way that doesn't show up in statistics, because even low-speed/minor-injury car accidents canhave severe consequences for the elderly.
Story time: I had a great aunt who shouldn't have been driving in her eighties. She had an at-fault t-bone accident in an intersection. The other driver wasn't injured, but she had a broken hip. That wouldn't have counted as a fatality accident in any statistics, but it definitely precipitated her death. She never walked again, and was released from the hospital directly to a care facility where she died shortly thereafter.
Her long-time family doctor had signed her medical release previously, which was ridiculous, but I feel bad for Dr's needing to be the bad guy on that stuff - it really should be a gov't test.
So in that case, while it wasn't a direct fatality, the cost of repairing two vehicles plus a long hospital stay plus a few months in long term care add up to a pretty significant societal cost. Even if you assume she would have died shortly thereafter from something else, having her not drive would have saved society a bunch of money and her a bunch of pain and suffering.