this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
193 points (99.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12491 readers
792 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

Why is driver's ed not a required high school class in the US? 99.9999% of people will get a driver's license because you are screwed without one. Also bring back the Highway Of Agony movies

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

You know, this is a systemic issue, not a "stupid politicians being stupid" issue.

You've got a population of seniors, people who are getting older and losing their physical mobility, who are less able to walk or bicycle or take public transit than younger and healthier people are - many of whom live in car-dependent subdivisions or in areas with poor public transit, like, say, rural Illinois.

These are people who rely on their cars for grocery shopping and medical appointments and socializing.

These are people, often on fixed incomes, often close to the poverty line, who struggle to afford the fees for rideshares or grocery deliveries.

And you can say "if they can't pass the test they're not safe to be on the road" - but from the article:

According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, in 2023 the crash rate for drivers 75 years and older in Illinois was lower than any other age group of legal drivers.

This bill is not about leaving unsafe drivers on the road - it's about not adding unwarranted scrutiny and not making it harder for an especially car-dependent group of people to continue driving.

And it adds a provision that lets a senior's family members report them if they believe the senior is no longer safe to drive.

This bill is a response to seniors who are genuinely frightened of losing their right to drive and becoming unable to meet their basic needs - and they have a right to be frightened of that, because we've built a system where a lot of people can't meet their basic needs without driving.

In other words, if you build a system that makes driving necessary, you can't really blame people for not wanting to lose the right to drive.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Bro, if those seniors can't pass a driving test, they shouldn't be allowed to drive. The whole argument here is 'if we test them they may fail, and then wouldn't be able to drive'.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Those seniors could probably afford grocery delivery and rideshare services if they weren't paying insurance, gas, etc for their cars.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It makes sense if the lawmakers in question are close to 79 years old and are afraid they would not pass the upcoming test they have to take.

[–] danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 7 points 13 hours ago

79??? That would have to make them about the youngest lawmakers in the country!

[–] bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

It should be as low as 50, and repeat each decade

[–] Steve@communick.news 34 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

When I got my license I thought it was stupid that we didn't have to retake the road test ever again.
At least every 10 years, 5 sounds reasonable to me.

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 16 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It might save lives. So no why would we?

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

Won't anybody think of the shareholders? These tests aren't free, you know..

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 26 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Mental and physical health can degrade at any time, driving tests should be every 5 years for everyone.

Also would be good just to keep people up to date in changing road rules too.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Its horrendously expensive. Unless we make the drivers pay for it but then they will write to their politicians about how unconstitutional retesting them is.

[–] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Meanwhile, here in California seniors are never required to re-take the driving exam unless the DMV was notified by a doctor of a medical issue.

[–] abcdqfr@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago

Sounds like they want meemaw and peepaw driving their own hearse

[–] KraeuterRoy@feddit.org 12 points 17 hours ago

Pretty smart...if your sole aim is to decrease the workload of the people that have to process these tests.

With the imminent Medicare cuts and the resulting drop in life expectancy, raising the age will probably reduce the number of cases to like 2 every year.

[–] Jikiya@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago

It's stupid for everyone but the politicians. This looks good to the most reliable voting bloc, and is dangerous to everyone.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago

An elderly relative of mine started getting tickets in the mail for running red lights. She apparently just forgot that you couldn't turn left on a red light. It's a miracle she never hit anyone.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Should be reduced to 69 for the humor value alone.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

69 was a lot funnier before I tried it. It's really hard to concentrate on giving while receiving, and you end up doing a half assed job.

5/10. Would do, but won't initiate.