A few years ago AAMVA got quite involved in the older driver safety issue.  AAMVA even created the nation's first older driver public awareness campaign:  GrandDriver.

The idea behind GrandDriver was to urge folks to learn more about aging and driving. This included encouraging the public to; begin preparing for their driving futures, and, to understand how the accompaniments of aging can affect driving.

Now after years of stakeholder groups (AAMVA, AARP, AAA, N4A and countless others) educating journalists and the public about the true facts and statistics surrounding older drivers, most reporters seem to "get it." But it is still saddening when a reporter "misses it."

In the case of our older drivers,  families, physicians, clergy and others who care, play a significant role in helping older drivers continue to driving for as long as safely possible.  These same folks also carry a tremendous amount of responsibility in talking with an older person and helping them to transition to alternative means of transportation when driving is no longer an option.  Expecting an age-based testing law to save you from dealing with your older driver parent is expecting too much of a law and too little of yourself.

Yet all it takes is one crash involving an older driver for the media to start screaming, "Test them all and take the keys."  This sends the wrong message and does nothing to help older Americans, their friends and their families to understand issues of aging and driving.  And quite frankly it sets the entire dialogue back about 20 years.

This week the Boston Herald's Margery Eagan has done her part to send the wrong message about older drivers and the facts surrounding their safety on the roadways and how state agencies assess someone's physical and cognitive ability to drive.

Here is where she went wrong.

First, she fails to see understand that all drivers age at different rates.  So, age-based testing cannot be the end all, be all answer.  Keep in mind, just because someone passes a driver's test, that doesn't necessarily make them a safe driver.  The test that gets your driver's license at 16 or 17 doesn't predict whether you will be a safe driver or a bad driver.  It proves you know how to operate a car.  But years of experience and safe judgment calls behind the wheel is what makes a safe driver.

Something different is needed to weed out bad drivers, young or old. Two of the worst older driver accidents this year were in states with annual road tests, N.H. and Ill.  (The accident in New Hampshire, where a driver dragged a young boy a significant distance, may be familiar to readers in Boston.) 

What is needed are tests that uncover limitations or problems that lead to accidents.  Some states, like Calif. and Md., are taking a thoughtful approach to finding a way to identify risky drivers.

Second, Eagan has misinterpreted a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 

Eagan claims, "Surely this doesn’t help older drivers, many of whom still drive well. But many others can’t, and those who can’t, over age 80, are more likely to hit pedestrians than any other age group of drivers, including newly licensed teenagers, reports the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Quite the opposite is true.  I read the report, talked withe the folks at IIHS, and page 3 reads, "These findings suggest that the oldest drivers are overinvolved in crashes, but they're less likely than teenage driver to hurt other people."

The bottomline is this--We all want the roads safe for ourselves and our loved ones.  To imply that anyone wants to protect bad drivers is ridiculous.  Unsafe drivers need to be off the road.  And level heads need to prevail after a tragedy. 

Until next time, stay safe behind the wheel.

Jason D. King
VP, Public Relations and Info. Serv.
AAMVA
jking@aamva.org
www.aamva.org

http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping