Maybe it'll save money. Illinois is broke and we're one of the last good states
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
329 points (98.5% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
40832 readers
835 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hmm
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias alongside AARP Illinois
Guess the old regulations might have been eating into profits
Still out of 55,000 administered tests only 97 failed. Imho they should keep the restriction because it did remove 97 unsafe drivers.
However, This also creates a path for immediate family members to report unsafe elderly family members.
So is it midlyinfurating? I suppose in that it may allow unsafe drivers to stay on the roads but with immediate family reporting it could also be a wash. I very much doubt these changes will pull more unsafe drivers than the regulations from before since family members will probably be hesitant to report elderly family members
My nanna drove until 80. My Nana shouldn't have driven until 80. He hit something once a week
Should be every 2 years past age 60 if you want to keep your license.
Sorry, for every 20 year old doing 90, there's ten seniors wobbling between 2 lanes in a giant SUV intentionally purchased to protect them from the accidents their diminished capacity will cause, about to do a double lane change in the opposite direction of their blinker that's been on since they left their driveway.
Ive always found it bonkers that young drivers with the sharpest reflexes are punished to the maximum from insurance to rental car rates, as they should, while no one dares punitive action against people who literally lack the faculties to drive safely if they wanted to and incur the wrath of AARP and the like. But those necrotic seniors make the rules, sadly. They can cause accidents with abandon, but some thing's gotta be done about those young maniacs on the road driving 10 over the speed Limit as you drive 30 under it with white, arthritic knuckles on the steering wheel for dear life, calling your impromptu roadblock "safe."
This is... really specific..
Spent 10 years driving around in a city with a lot of retirement communities setting up home medical equipment. Was a daily blight for me.
personally i think everyone should be required to retake a driving test every 10 years it's absurd you only take it once at 16ish
As someone who learned to drive in 2 weeks and then passed the test 20+ years ago it’s kind of bonkers that I can get into a car and start driving rn. I haven’t driven since passing the test. I have no idea what many of the signs mean.
And not just as a refresher/competency test! It should also be a chance to educate on updates like legislation that get passed, safety information and tips as research improves, and new traffic controls like double diamonds or roundabouts that weren’t in use when people learned to drive in their youth.
But at a minimum you should have to re-validate that you are a competent and safe driver every decade or so, agreed.
I don't know what makes roundabouts so hard that 90% of people stop in my town when nothing is in it instead of yield like the sign they had seen in their drivers test.
I like your ideas.
What’s the frequency for forklift/crane certificates or similar? Driving a car should be regulated similarly (with the proviso that it is accepted that many blameless people will be found unfit to drive, and society should accommodate them by means other than lowering safety standards).
Forklift certs last for 3 years, but the test isn't much. You take a quiz (can be all done online), and then someone at your workplace who is a certified instructor gives you some pointers.
I wouldn't base car licensing around that. It's almost nothing.
My work just had the warehouse driver show me the controls and move a couple of pallets. Now i'm forklift certified.
Still more than some of the covid era driver exams had... (Cousin in a small town spent less than 15 mins with the proctor)
I know a couple of people who just had to pass a written test (basic multiple choices test on sign recognition and road laws) and no behind the wheel test. Heck my wife's best friend lived somewhere where one person out of every class could get their license without any behind the wheel test. They'd draw names out of a hat and the lucky individual just had to pass the written test
With how dangerous cars are, retesting and recertification should be required with every renewal. An hour or two of class time to cover "here's what's new this decade" plus a 20 minute behind the wheel test would filter a lot of people who really shouldn't be driving away from their licenses
On the other hand, there's a ton of people who drive without a valid license regularly due to barriers to getting one and infrastructure that prevents any alternative method of getting around, so this would probably just exacerbate this issue
You guys are retaking driver's tests?
Seriously, I haven't taken one since getting my license in the 90s.
that's what i mean. i think they should be required to retake it. it's wild that you only do it once as a teenager.
Agreed!
We also don't have emissions tests. Pretty sure both are the result of being a mostly agricultural state as in the past both requirements would disproportionately impact farmer's time and ability to work if they failed either one. We really should start requiring both.
This is your regular reminder that it's generally not older people who are high-risk drivers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628ce5c7e90e071f68b19dfa/02-image-2.svg
Drivers get safer until about 70, and only get less safe than your average young driver when over 86.
There is a perception that older drivers are an absolute liability on the roads, which I can only assume stems from impatient people who get frustrated when stuck behind an older driver going more slowly than they'd like.
That's from the UK? I don't think you can extrapolate UK driving data to the US. Roads and car use don't compare at all.
Not every 70 YO is the same health. Some can barely see at that age, or at night. There are also plenty of health issues or medications taken at this age which could affect reactions or alertness. Not saying it can't happen to the young, but it's far more prevalent.
You're arguing against factual stats with some kind of generic "old people have old people problems sometimes" ?
Yes. The young are reckless causing most of their accidents. We do what we can to prevent those accidents, seems like we could do a lot more. The old have accidents from downsides of aging/slowing reaction times/health issues. We can definitely do more than just hoping their kids take the keys away before it's too late. One idea is regular driver's tests starting at a certain age.
I wonder if raising the licencing age to 25 would reduce the curve or just shift it to the right
The only reason this would need to be a bill is if people are upset that they are failing the exam. Which means they qre failing the exams, to the surprise of no one.
What we should be doing instead is making our neighborhoods more accessible to those without cars. I'm sure they feel like their mobility is gone if they lose their license, but that shouldn't be the case to begin with.
Really, you can't think of any reason to be upset that you're required to take an exam that you then pass?
I mean the general logic of it isn't totally off the wall, any more so than say why we're annoyed that ID laws make it harder to vote.
But I could still 100% say, obviously if you need/want a drivers license, it's fair to say you have reliable transportation. At 79 you are almost certainly either not working, or so well established wherever you are that you aren't at risk of getting fired for needing to schedule a 3 hour trip to the DMV.
in case anyone's wondering, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021, the life expectancy in Illinois was 77.1
Life expectancy is a useless metric for this purpose. Maybe it would be more useful if you used "life expectancy at age 10" (so after any childhood illnesses), but even then it doesn't really say anything about what the process senescence looks like.
I would say 79 is way too high, seniors should be tested every 5 years after 65. Another commentor points out we should be doing every 10 years which is a decent idea as well.
frankly there should at least be an online refresher and test that people have to take every year, traffic laws change and people forget things.
But changing traffic laws isn't what makes people bad drivers.
Everyone should have to take the written AND driving portion of the test every 10 years or so.
What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?
People choose to ignore speed limits, roll through stop signs, pass illegally, use their mobile devices etc. but they'd follow the rules for the duration of a test for the same reason they slow down when they see a cop on the side of the road.
To be clear, I don't really have a preference one way or the other but I'm struggling to understand the purpose of both a written and practical portion for renewal.
It's true that it would do nothing for someone who deliberately breaks the law but, especially when it comes to the elderly, poor vision and reaction time is a big factor in driving ability - both would be obvious during a practical exam.
Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?
In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it's on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don't get to renew.
Because things change? People get worse at different ages? I dunno man, I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.
Legally using a 2-ton murder machine. The requirement itself doesn't actually stop anyone from driving.
How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?
I don't even know how you'd prove it prevents deaths. The increased fatal crash risk among older drivers is largely due to their increased susceptibility to injuries, particularly to the chest, and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.
I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I'm thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?
I'm all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it's always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn't create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.
You asked me why I liked Idea A more than Idea B and I told you.
Now you've just written me a lengthy reply about why Idea B is actually bad and expecting me to defend it.
You are being weirdly aggressive about a strawman and it's extremely offputting. Please don't do that.
You asked me why I liked Idea A more than Idea B and I told you.
No, I didn't. I asked "What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?".
You replied specifically referencing the elderly and vision and reaction concerns.
Which is why I asked "Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?"
Then you replied with "I don't know", routine verification, and saving lives, but that's not supported by the data and, similar to gun control, a written AND practical test every year only burdens law abiding drivers because not having a valid license doesn't actually prevent anyone from driving.
Now you’ve just written me a lengthy reply about why Idea B is actually bad and expecting me to defend it.
I don't think a practical driving test is bad. I'm just unclear why you think every 10 years makes sense, especially when your concern seems to be elderly drivers. That's why I asked "Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?" which you seemed to struggle to answer.
You are being weirdly aggressive about a strawman and it’s extremely offputting. Please don’t do that.
Where am I being aggressive? By asking questions to understand what logic and information was used to arrive at "a written and practical test every 10 years"? These are pretty basic questions a logic based and data driven solution should answer.
What strawman? Where did I misrepresent or distort your argument for "a written and practical test every 10 years"?
I truly wouldn't care if your idea became the law tomorrow but I would still have all the same questions.
We have new drivers in Minnesota currently that have to book practical driving tests months in advance or go way out state just to get in. If everyone had to do the practical to renew the burden on the examiners and DVS would skyrocket.
The public testing centers for practical driving tests are not as prevalent as regular licensing centers that just process paperwork here either. This adds a burden to people, especially lower income, who would now have to travel further and take more time missing work just to renew their license.
I was literally giving an example of something apparent at a practical exam. I'm not reading another essay from you, farewell!
Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don't forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven't been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.
I expected the main writers of the bill to be about 78, but they look younger. (I'm not digging into it more)