Home › News › County News
Behind-the-wheel exams sought for drivers 65 and older
Testing the road
Download this story as a podcast!
Eric Parsons / Star staff "That's a big thrill," said Cal Meuser, 73, who drives his 1994 Mustang Cobra convertible with the top down and his dog by his side. He has an excellent driving record — "knock on wood" — but would have no problem taking a road test at 75.
Driver safety
VIDEOS
Seniors talk about the transition of declining driving skills and experts offer advice on how to approach someone whose abilities may have been better in the past.
Watch now »
SELF ASSESSMENT
Put your own skills to the test through this online driving assessment, courtesy of the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
Self assessment
Older drivers worried about how well they see the road may want to consider the following questions from the AARP Driver Safety Program. For a complete self-assessment of driving skills, go to the links with the online version of this story at VenturaCountyStar.com.
- Is it hard to maintain a safe speed?
- Does glare frequently bother you?
- When making a right turn, do you sometimes strike the curb?
- Are traffic signals or signs blurry when you approach an intersection?
- Is it hard to read flashing message signs over or alongside the highway?
- Is it hard to keep a safe distance when following another car?
- When merging into traffic, are you sometimes surprised by another car in the lane?
- Are you surprised by the speed of oncoming vehicles when trying to make a left turn at an intersection?
- Is it unusually difficult to drive in rain or fog?
- Do you sometimes say, "That car came out of nowhere"?
Yes answers to any of these questions could mean a vision problem. Several yes answers mean you should consider visiting an eye doctor.
Photos by Dana Rene Bowler / Star staff "This program exists to help senior citizens remember things they might have forgotten about and need to be reminded of while driving," said AARP Driver Safety Program teacher Ralph Schwiesow, at left.
STORY TOOLS 
More from County News
Bill Flothmeier studies his California Drivers Handbook during an AARP driver safety course in Ventura. Political opposition to a mandatory behind-the-wheel test is fierce.
The 84-year-old woman with the purple Toyota Corolla believes she is a good, safe driver — not like her mother was at the same age.
Mom had always been a responsible driver but became too cautious with age, crawling down the road as if it were paved with molasses. After she was stopped by a police officer for driving too slowly, her daughter suggested it might be time to allow her license to expire. Did it work?
"No," she said with a slight smile, declining to give a name out of concern someone might think less of her mother. "They have minds of their own."
It is one of life's most dreaded landmarks: the talk with a parent about relinquishing independence and setting down the car keys for good. Because of the mixed results, the reluctance of adult children to broach the subject and a 49-year-old bicyclist killed by a car driven by an 82-year-old woman with cataracts, an Oxnard lawyer is pushing for an alternative.
He wants mandatory behind-the-wheel driving tests every 10 years beginning at 65.
"The ultimate goal is to ferret out drivers who would otherwise never be tested," said Mark Hiepler.
He represented the family of Thousand Oaks dentist Glenn Garvin in a wrongful death lawsuit against Norma Seigel. Now 83, she was driving a Lexus that drifted into a bicycle lane and struck Garvin on Sept. 16, 2006.
A Simi Valley jury awarded Garvin's family $12.5 million in November.
Opposition is fierce
Hiepler said he believes the accident and the 2003 tragedy when a car driven by 86-year-old George Russell Weller barged through a Santa Monica farmers market and killed 10 people justifies his push for a new law. He argues mandatory road tests would allow seniors to prove they're still good drivers and prod families into addressing the behind-the-wheel risk of an artificial hip, dementia and arthritis.
He's floating his proposal to legislators, and if that doesn't work, he talks of a ballot initiative that would take the issue to voters.
Political opposition is fierce. A drive for mandatory road tests every four years starting at 75 was blocked and then neutered by the state Legislature eight years ago after a wave of lobbying led by senior groups.
"It's the assumption that after a certain age you can't drive or your driving skills are necessarily diminished, and that's just not true across the board," said AARP's California state spokesman Mark Beach, asserting that driving tests can be linked to vision problems or slow reaction times but not solely to age. "It's just not fair."
How many miles are driven
More than 2.5 million California drivers are 65 and older, according to a task force led by the California Highway Patrol. Baby Boomers will push that number to 4 million in 2020 and 6 million a decade after that.
Current law requires people age 70 or older to renew their licenses in person, taking a written test and eye exam. There's no required road test, though it can be triggered by a request from a doctor, a family member or police.
The state already regulates teenage drivers with laws stating a person younger than 18 can't drive after 11 p.m. or with other teenagers unless accompanied by a parent or other adult 25 and older.
The safety record of the state's older drivers depends on how the numbers are sifted. About 12 percent of the state's fatal collisions in 2005 involved drivers 65 and older, according to the CHP. Nearly 25 percent of those crashes involved drivers from 15 to 24.
But the rate of older drivers in crashes goes much higher when the accidents are calculated by how many miles are driven rather than by the number of drivers. That's because seniors tend to drive less, said Kent Milton, a member of the Older Californian Traffic Safety Task Force.
The numbers that corral Milton's attention come from the National Institute of Aging's calculation that a man who lives to 88 will likely no longer be able to drive the last six years of his life. A woman who is 70 has a life expectancy of about 91 but will likely stop driving at 81.
'You have to resist us'
That gives Milton two more years behind the wheel. He turned 80 on Nov. 19. His wife, Barbara, is 82. He thinks it's time they initiated their own version of the talk.
"I'll tell (the kids), When you think we can't drive anymore, you really ought to talk to us,'" he said. "If we resist you, you have to resist us."
Milton suggests adult children monitor their parents' driving, looking for signs like ticket after ticket or dings in the fender that can't be explained.
If there are enough clues, the children should gather and reach a consensus. Then they should have one person talk to the parent and suggest visiting a doctor or occupational therapist for an evaluation.
Sometimes families are pushed to more drastic measures, like hiding the car keys or making the car disappear.
"I think sometimes you have to," Milton said of such last-resort efforts.
The push for mandatory road tests is driven by nightmarish stories.
Last month, an 85-year-old man who lives near Sacramento got lost on the freeway and just kept driving. He ended up 400 miles away in Sylmar, where he ran out of gas.
Ralph Schwiesow, who teaches AARP driver safety courses in Ventura County, said that before his dad received a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, he tried to drive from his home in Phoenix to Los Angeles.
He was missing for more than a week and ended up in the parking lot of a convenience store in New Mexico.
The family never figured out exactly what happened but thinks he may have picked up passengers who took him into Mexico, sold his brand new tires, replaced them with old ones, took the money and left.
It was the last time he drove.
'The ultimate turmoil'
Glenn Garvin was a dental surgeon who specialized in root canals. He was married for 25 years and had two kids, ages 17 and 13.
When his bike was hit on Westlake Boulevard, he was wearing a helmet. The driver, who had received a diagnosis of cataracts about a month earlier, said in a deposition she didn't see Garvin.
"Talk about turmoil, the ultimate turmoil," said Hiepler of the impact on both families. "Tragedy for all."
Hiepler, who is 44, has a reputation for turning cases into causes, most notably his battle against managed care organizations that deny patients' requests for care.
That fight started after HealthNet denied a bone marrow transplant to Nelene Fox, who was Hiepler's sister and died of breast cancer in 1993. He won an $89 million verdict.
He said current laws do little if anything to keep drivers battling age or physical impairments off the road. He argues people avoid the talk with their parents not only because it's painful but also because they don't want the burden.
"You have adult children in their 40s or 50s who don't want to care for their parents," he said.
People already have a bias against older drivers. Mandatory road tests would allow seniors to do something about it and prove they are good drivers, he said.
Drivers of all ages
Opponents argue about logistics, saying the cost of testing all seniors would overwhelm the state. Others worry about fairness.
"I guess what I'm concerned about is engaging in geriatric profiling," said Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara.
The AARP favors a pilot program in which drivers of all ages renewing licenses would be given tests on their ability to pick out objects in the rain or fog. If they failed, their reactions would be tested in a timed computer test. People who can't pass either evaluation would have to pass a road exam.
The Department of Motor Vehicles tried out the three-tier program in Northern California for several months this year. A spokesman said if tests gained support from the Legislature, they probably wouldn't be implemented until 2012 at the earliest.
Drives with the top down
The reaction to forced road tests is different from seniors taking a driver's safety class in Ventura, qualifying them for an insurance discount.
Margaret Meuser, 70, of Ventura, argues only about the age. She thinks driving tests should be the law starting at age 75.
"If I felt I was a good enough driver, I'd be willing to prove it to someone," she said.
Her husband, Cal Meuser, is 73. Earlier this year, he drove 11,500 miles across country in a truck pulling a travel trailer. His pride and joy is his 1994 Mustang Cobra convertible with a stick shift.
"That's a big thrill," said Meuser, who drives with the top down with his yellow lab, Morgan, at his side.
He has an excellent driving record — "knock on wood" — but would have no problem taking a road test at 75. Seniors younger than that should have to sign a sworn affidavit that gauges their vision, hearing, reflexes and other physical abilities, he said. Only people with problems should be forced to take a driving test.
Other people find different solutions.
The 84-year-old woman who couldn't get her mother to stop driving finally called the DMV. Officials asked her mother to take a driving exam. She did, and Mom's driving days came to an abrupt end. "She went over the curb to go on the highway," the woman said.
Posted by lrgvanman on December 16, 2007 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is probably a good idea in the making, but what about also weeding out the unlicensed drivers, too? When you start getting overcautious or disabled in your driving skills, the combinations are disastrous, and it does appear to be getting more high paced (crazy) out there. I have lived in Oxnard some 39 years and been a licensed driver for 34 years, probably irrelevant, but where it is a scary thing; realizing that the other guy may not be licensed/insured because of refusal to comply with our laws. When these same people wreck, they scatter like c---roaches. If you have never suspected the fore mentioned phenomenon, you can see it when you come to a four way stop and the other driver appears to not know what to do. They wait for the horns to honk and the wave of the hands. I could go on and on, but I won't. If I may add: People, please, use your turn signals. They are for communication for not only courtesy, but safety.
Posted by dcsfancy on December 16, 2007 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree why don't we go after all the unlicensed drivers that really have no driving skills. They love to run red lights. Ignore stop signs, speed, and drive under the influence. No Insurance . My father in law is 92 he used to be a pilot still drives better than these unlicensed people.
Posted by THX1138 on December 16, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If seniors are so confident in their driving skills, why not take a test[?]. Sure losing some independence/freedom is a tough pill to swallow, but would they rather risk killing someone[?!].
re:Profiling; get real.. with all due respect, there isn't a senior out there that can claim that they have the same re-action time and sight quality as someone in their 20's or 30's.
Perhaps there should be an effort to increase local transportation for seniors...?
Posted by terryt6666 on December 16, 2007 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is obvious that this LAWYER who is suggesting this law has not reached 65 or anywhere near it. It is always the other guy that we seem to want to regulate and not ourselves. Some of the other writers are correct in lets go after the unlicensed and uninsured drivers. If we are going to have testing then it should be done for all age groups and not single out one segment of our society. I have seen some pretty bad teen drivers and those in their twenty's and thirty's as well.As far as for seniors, let the family members take the responsibility of telling mom and pop to turn in their keys. It is not the responsibility of the state to single out one group for regulation over another. If testing--then testing for ALL drivers in California and nationwide as well...
Posted by Face on December 16, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a very good idea whose time has been long coming. All that needs to be tested is the senior's eyesight, reflexes, and clarity? The fact is, as we get older, we eventually lose the ability to drive safely. As far as cost, it would be nominal. Basically a video game with street signs and then a kid runs out from the side of the street, sensors and the ability to time reactions etc. I have seen too many old people coming down the wrong way on one way streets and not knowing how to use the left turn lane etc. to not know this is a good idea.
Posted by Jacksprat on December 16, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A costly dumb idea. First place with a senior or any one they take a test today and tomorrow they are driving on the freeway and have a stroke or what ever. Did the test prove that would happen. Really what will a test prove. I most case senior seem to do self checking. I live in a senior community, but there is no public transportation available, so how does one get to the store to buy food. I know a lot that have stopped or cut back on driving at night. Staying off freeways if possible. Not driving during the rush hour.
So of course the next thing some one of these lawyers or what ever will want is that we put any one over 65 into a big home, or do like Hitler did get rid of them. So that they are out of the way and can't go any where.
This comes up all the time, by some young person. The teen drivers have more accidents where some one is killed than the seniors. Most senior accidents are the fender benders.
So stop this crazy stuff.
Posted by Face on December 16, 2007 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a public safety issue, it is the State's duty to make sure licensed drivers can in fact drive a car. A good point is made about nighttime driving, and perhaps some seniors will need a "Can Drive only in Daylight" check box on their licenses. There is no way to know if a senior will die behind the wheel as suggested, but there is a way to know if they have the coordination, motor skills, and reflexes needed to operate a vehicle in the State of California. As far as public transportation and senior communities, I have a hard time believing that a transportation authority is not required to have stops at such locations, and if not, I would advise every senior in that community to go to the next transportation board meeting and remedy that situation. This is not dumb Hitler crazy, this is Public Safety.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on December 16, 2007 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A difficult subject to be sure.
A few points though...unsafe drivers are not necessarily unlicensed, and being licensed does not equate to being a safe and effective driver.
Testing of our senior citizens probably needs to occur. Perhaps a partial mitigation would be restrictions on licenses, such as no night driving, or limiting the license to an electric low speed car (less than 35mph usually) for simple neighborhood access.
It will cost money to implement and that is another problem in this economy and era of civil budgeting.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 16, 2007 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Re: MrWright1's comment
You apparently don't know squat about effective cycling. Motoring per unit time has been shown to be almost twice as deadly as bicycling per unit time. Operating a bicycle as the driver of a vehicle has been shown to result in 80% less crashes than operating a bicycle as a “pedestrian-on-wheels.” I bicycle 25 miles every day for exercise on ordinary surface roads between Newbury Park and Agoura Hills and find it very safe.
Nevertheless, there aren't many trips of mine — whether by bicycle *or* by motor vehicle — where I don't encounter at least one incompetent or jerk motorist — out of the dozens or hundreds total motorists which I probably encounter during that trip. It is inappropriate to scapegoat bicyclists as a group just due to a tiny fraction of individual incompetents and jerks.
By the way, the speed limit at a red light is zero, both for bicyclists as well as for motorists — never 55 mph. An effective cyclist rightfully claims his or her lane — single file with all other traffic in the lane — at a red light in the interest of safety in order to prevent an unsafe, incomplete, crowding-out, lane-splitting pass by a motorist who proceeds to cut-off the bicyclist with a (frequently-unsignaled) right turn. A motorist who claims not to have “seen” a moving bicyclist ahead is even more incompetent than a motorist who claims not to have “seen” a stationary stop sign, or a parallel-parked car, ahead.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 16, 2007 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I also forgot to mention that it has also been shown that one gains about 20 years of life through the health benefits of bicycling for every one year of life lost through crashing while bicycling. Hence, bicycling should be described much more as a healthy activity than as a dangerous activity.
Posted by jeff93024 on December 16, 2007 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about once-a-year drugs tests for everyone who wants to drive?
How about making driving while holding a cell phone with one hand an offense for which one could lose their driver's license for a certain period of time?
How about installing tamper-proof alcohol level sensors in all cars, just like the ones you have to blow into in order to start your car if you're a DUI probationer?
If we're going to go after unsafe drivers, let's go after more than just the old folks.
Posted by a.wisotsky on December 17, 2007 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pilots of passenger airlines face mandatory retirement at age 60. There is now a push for the age to be increased to 65. What's the difference between an airplane and a two-ton rocket on wheels? As an almost-60 year old driver, I strongly support proficiency testing for our senior citizens. Good luck, Mark.
Posted by Prodigy on December 17, 2007 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This issue needs to be taken serious. The problem is that many of the poeople that could pass such legislation at a federal level are themselves senior citizens! I also agree that doing something about the non-licensed or insured drivers needs to be done as well. Everyday I feel more so like I'm driving in third-world country with the lack of driving skills and enforcement on California roads.
Posted by bill on December 17, 2007 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about a little focus on the issue here... drivers who are a high risk to the public due to age related issues such as slower reaction times, limited mobility, poor eyesite, etc. This is a problem and a process to test these people on a regular basis will help to reduce the danger. For all those older drivers with no problems why worry, shouldn't you pass the test just fine? As for all the other problem drivers (unlicensed, young and reckless, etc.) I agree something should be done also, but these are separate issues. Personally I think all drivers should be required to take a driving test on a regular basis including driving a closed course that shows the driver can judge the car (like parking in a tight spot, backing, etc.).
Posted by narc121 on December 18, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree A.Wisotsky and Bill!
There are restrictions for those drivers that are new and young, so why shouldn't it go the other way? I live in Camarillo and have been almost hit and run over by "elderly" drivers on more than one ocassion in the Mission Oaks area. I hope this lawyer wins his fight!
Posted by BrianS on December 18, 2007 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seniors vote more than any other demographic. Seniors want their independence. Why do you think Arizona licenses only get renewed every 20 years? Good luck taking away their licenses
Posted by QuestionAuthority on December 18, 2007 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only elderly people who will have their license revoked are those who can't pass the tests and prove to be a liability and risk to all other drivers as well as themselves. My father made the decision on his own, to give up his keys at age 71 because he KNEW he failed in many areas as mentioned within like reaction time, eyesight, motor skills, etc. We simply CAN'T rely on ALL seniors to monitor themselves because their Pride and/or Attitudes get in the way. I've seen it first hand with my neighbor. It is those who we don't want or need out there on the roads. It is not safe for them, and it is not safe for everyone else. I am extremely proud of my father for having what it takes to realize and accept the facts, that as we age, our abilities age with us. Its too bad more elderly citizens don't feel the same. I'm all for a testing program. It is long over due. Those who can pass the test have nothing to worry about... and after all... driving is a privilege not a right!
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.