Quote:
Originally Posted by Gboehm
I am sorry but that is pure AGE DISCRIMINATION!!!
|
Yes, it is. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, regardless of the font size in which it is written. Many acts of discrimination, including age discrimination, are necessary for the efficient functioning of society. I look forward to the day when we have a quick and efficient measure of maturity (and driving ability!), but until that point voting ages, drinking ages, and driving ages will use the crude -- but efficient -- method of measuring how long you have been alive as a rough guide to determining an individual's maturity and responsbility levels. In many ways this law attempts to further refine a measure of maturity and responsibility for drivers by linking their mature and responsible attitudes towards education to their mature and responsible attititudes towards driving.
Don't feel that it is only young people who get stung with age discrimination, please, older people will pay higher health and life insurance premiums. Some will face mandatory retirement at age 65 (often earlier in some careers), or be unable to collect pension benefits before reaching a certain age. There are also several laws that protect people under a certain age, including young offender laws that realize that young people sometimes do stupid things that should not be allowed to haunt them for the rest of their lives.... because they are not mature enough to be entirely responsible for their actions.
As for the issues of older drivers having difficulty maintaining their youthful reflexes, you have a fair point... it would make a great deal of sense to have all drivers retested every five years or so, regardless of age.... however if you look at the statistics, young drivers (particularly males) are much, much more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle collision than older drivers, so it makes sense to focus on the most dangerous drivers first, does it not?
Jason