U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-30-2011, 05:42 AM
 
Location: Bar Harbor, ME
1,922 posts, read 3,785,907 times
Reputation: 1292

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Of course it is age discrimination and it is perfectly legal. As long as the state can provide a "rational basis" for mandatory testing, it will pass constitutional muster. Why is it that pilots have a mandatory retirement age? Or judges? Those folks don't even have the opportunity to take a test before relinquishing their positions. They could be fit as a fiddle but are still required to retire. We are only discussing mandatory testing. Unlike the pilot or judge, you pass the test, you keep your license.
You are missing the point..... perhaps because it hasn't happened to you yet.... but it will....as surely as death.

We need to make sure that we don't damn an entire age group simply because they are old. That is what is here. But the tests should NOT have to happen before mandatory retirement ages which is about age 70, and they should be done by a qualified person such as a geriatric physician, not some 22 year old down at the vehicle code office. And they should be done on the basis of specific physical tests which will show whether certain physical deterioration such as peripheral vision has taken place.

Enough said..... I tire of this topic. Just as with racial discrimination, financial discrimination, gay discrimination, etc., you can't convince the discriminators unless its happening to them. But in this case, as surely as the sun rises and sets, everyone of the people who are the discriminators will experience it---unless of course, they are very very very rich and are insulated from it due to the factor of money and power.

Last edited by Zarathu; 08-30-2011 at 05:56 AM.. Reason: will
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2011, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 19,020,878 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu View Post
Please read the paragraphs again. I'm not against testing elderly people to make sure that their reaction times and peripheral vision are suitable for driving, or that they understand the rules. But 65 is not elderly.
Is anyone listening to me, the Original Poster??? I said very elderly, as in OVER 80. I am not talking about people as young a s 65 or 70!!!! Why does everyone keep going on about younger older folks??

I was implying in my posts that there are risk categories--heart disease, vision problems, mobility challenges, and AGE. It is AGE (as in very, very old) that my question addresses, otherwise I would have created the OP in a general forum on "Driving."

Can we just discuss "very old" as a possible (or not) risk group that might mandate not only vision testing but regular road testing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 06:06 AM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,547,683 times
Reputation: 29083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu View Post
Enough said..... I tire of this topic. Just as with racial discrimination, financial discrimination, gay discrimination, etc., you can't convince the discriminators unless its happening to them. But in this case, as surely as the sun rises and sets, everyone of the people who are the discriminators will experience it---unless of course, they are very very very rich and are insulated from it due to the factor of money and power.
Unless, of course, they don't make it to old age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,746 posts, read 4,229,892 times
Reputation: 6867
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
Is anyone listening to me, the Original Poster??? I said very elderly, as in OVER 80. I am not talking about people as young a s 65 or 70!!!! Why does everyone keep going on about younger older folks??

I was implying in my posts that there are risk categories--heart disease, vision problems, mobility challenges, and AGE. It is AGE (as in very, very old) that my question addresses, otherwise I would have created the OP in a general forum on "Driving."

Can we just discuss "very old" as a possible (or not) risk group that might mandate not only vision testing but regular road testing?
Over 80 is too late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 19,020,878 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu View Post
Y Just as with racial discrimination, financial discrimination, gay discrimination, etc., you can't convince the discriminators unless its happening to them. But in this case, as surely as the sun rises and sets, everyone of the people who are the discriminators will experience it---unless of course, they are very very very rich and are insulated from it due to the factor of money and power.
Zarathu, while I hear your genuine concern, I just fail to see how identifying potential risk categories (not just old-old age) and requiring testing is discriminatory. Discrimination can be both an adverse activity or a positive one. In a classroom, if I identify 5 "gifted" kids (based on testing, no doubt) and put them in an advanced learning category, is that adverse discrimination for all the others or positive discrimination for the gifted? Risk groups for all kinds of things are created all the time---high risk for certain kinds of cancer, high risk for self harm, high risk for abuse, high risk for being bored in school and dropping out, and....high risk for an accident or fatality on the road. Very-very old age could just be one of those risk factors.

If my mother had driven till age 92, when she died, my sisters and I would have been JOYFUL if there had been a mandatory road test. Would we have wanted our mother to end her days in a hospital bed from an accident that either she caused or someone else did? Of course there are many 90 year olds who are OK to drive, but there are just as many perhaps who are not OK to drive. Should we wait till that not-OK person causes an accident/fatality? Same as with heart disease, vision problems, etc. The proof is in the pudding--if someone at age 90 can pass a road test, all the more power to them! No one is suggesting that just because of age they should stay off the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,746 posts, read 4,229,892 times
Reputation: 6867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu View Post
You are missing the point..... perhaps because it hasn't happened to you yet.... but it will....as surely as death.

We need to make sure that we don't damn an entire age group simply because they are old. That is what is here. But the tests should NOT have to happen before mandatory retirement ages which is about age 70, and they should be done by a qualified person such as a geriatric physician, not some 22 year old down at the vehicle code office. And they should be done on the basis of specific physical tests which will show whether certain physical deterioration such as peripheral vision has taken place.

Enough said..... I tire of this topic. Just as with racial discrimination, financial discrimination, gay discrimination, etc., you can't convince the discriminators unless its happening to them. But in this case, as surely as the sun rises and sets, everyone of the people who are the discriminators will experience it---unless of course, they are very very very rich and are insulated from it due to the factor of money and power.
You left out gender discrimination. I think more than a few of us older ladies have endured discrimination throughout our entire lifetimes. If you need any help on how to address your newly found issue, just ask. I'm sure most of the women in this forum could give you some tips on how to respond to the "dumber than a box of rocks" phenomena.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 07:24 AM
 
Location: not where you are
8,148 posts, read 7,664,490 times
Reputation: 6939
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
Is anyone listening to me, the Original Poster??? I said very elderly, as in OVER 80. I am not talking about people as young a s 65 or 70!!!! Why does everyone keep going on about younger older folks??

I was implying in my posts that there are risk categories--heart disease, vision problems, mobility challenges, and AGE. It is AGE (as in very, very old) that my question addresses, otherwise I would have created the OP in a general forum on "Driving."

Can we just discuss "very old" as a possible (or not) risk group that might mandate not only vision testing but regular road testing?
You ask the impossible.

Might as well look at it this way, driving accidents = thinning of the heard = makes more room for growing population. lemons to lemonade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 09:50 AM
 
8,237 posts, read 11,951,126 times
Reputation: 18122
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Why is it that pilots have a mandatory retirement age? Or judges?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow View Post
A Supreme Court Judge has no legal retirement age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
I know...but a Supreme Court Justice answers to no one but God.

Seriously, if you check it out, you'll find that there have been occasions when one of his brethren has given an elder Justice the "Come to Jesus talk". Justices are a special breed. Right, Moderate, or Left, they all know their work product is recorded for eternity.
There is no mandatory retirement age for any federal judge. That includes magistrate judges, bankruptcy judges, district court judges, appellate court judges as well as Supreme Court Justices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,782,140 times
Reputation: 32309
Default Essential irrationality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu View Post
Please read the paragraphs again. I'm not against testing elderly people to make sure that their reaction times and peripheral vision are suitable for driving, or that they understand the rules. But 65 is not elderly. Heck, many jobs can work until they are 70 until they need permission from their employer to keep working.

I'm against across the board d@mning of a whole group of people simply because of an age barrier. And since I'm in the age where the discrimination takes place and have already experienced it, walk a few miles in my mocasins before you make such statements. But you will be walking them eventually. I'll be running along side of you in my running shoes while you do it in your hover-round.
You don't get it at all. If mandatory testing happens at your age, you call it age discrimination and get your panties all in a bunch. If it happens later, you call it O.K. So while pretending to talk about age discrimination, you are actually just quibbling about the age at which the discrimination should begin to be applied. You wish to personalize everything, whereas a more rational viewpoint would allow you to see the bigger picture.

As for your last sentence, your essential irrationality is again showing; since you know nothing about my state of fitness or my exercise habits, you cannot make any valid statement about out-running me. I don't even know what a "hover-round" is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,746 posts, read 4,229,892 times
Reputation: 6867
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
There is no mandatory retirement age for any federal judge. That includes magistrate judges, bankruptcy judges, district court judges, appellate court judges as well as Supreme Court Justices.
I'm not talking about "senior status", where the judge is available for recall. The latter is discretionary and subject to the whims of the court. Do you have a link that states otherwise? Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top