459
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 154 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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

[-] Milk_Sheikh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] seang96@spgrn.com 13 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] semperverus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Other drivers are assholes.

Asshole drivers are terrifying.

"Nothing in it" usually means one car on the other side to most people.

The car on the other side is an asshole, and there's no way to tell which exit is theirs.

Nobody uses their blinkers in a roundabout like they're supposed to in order to indicate this (blink towards the center to indicate staying in, blink towards the outside to indicate leaving).

Other drivers are assholes.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You guys are retaking driver's tests?

Seriously, I haven't taken one since getting my license in the 90s.

[-] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 46 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

In PA emissions are required in populated areas, in the boonies they don't have get emissions.

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 11 points 2 weeks ago

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).

[-] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago

My work just had the warehouse driver show me the controls and move a couple of pallets. Now i'm forklift certified.

[-] wazzupdog 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Still more than some of the covid era driver exams had... (Cousin in a small town spent less than 15 mins with the proctor)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frezik 6 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 50 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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."

[-] cacti@ani.social 13 points 2 weeks ago

This is... really specific..

[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Part of that is a legal issue. People over 40 are a protected class, you can't discriminate against old people for being old. Young people can get fucked though.

[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I say this as a now old person at 40, that's hypocritical bullshit as far as policy goes, but that's humans for you.

[-] renzhexiangjiao@piefed.blahaj.zone 37 points 2 weeks ago

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

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 29 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 26 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Really, you can't think of any reason to be upset that you're required to take an exam that you then pass?

[-] TheFogan@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] inlandempire@jlai.lu 7 points 2 weeks ago

You're arguing against factual stats with some kind of generic "old people have old people problems sometimes" ?

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Fact is that if you want to spend some money, time or political capital on improving road safety, targeting older drivers is not where you should focus your efforts. The fact that it frequently is, is due to ageism.

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 11 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

In the absence of forthcoming data (hint hint), what factors do you think differ between the UK and USA which affect the ability of very old/very young drivers?

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 2 weeks ago

Car dependency mainly. A 65yo in the UK that dosen't feel physically capable of driving can still have an independent live, using public transit or walking. In the US you depend on cars for everything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] grueling_spool@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

I wonder if raising the licencing age to 25 would reduce the curve or just shift it to the right

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago

Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can't we trust them to drive? /s

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

We can only trust people that old if they are mentally unstable

[-] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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. There was no way to report anyone before this was created.

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

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

why should reporting be limited to immediate family?

if the neighbors see mr. jones take out a shrub or hop curbs the rest of the world ceases to matter, just immediate family?

[-] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Also what if they don't even have immediate family?

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

indeed.

also, what if.. they ate their own immediate family?

wait, which thread is this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

My nanna drove until 80. My Nana shouldn't have driven until 80. He hit something once a week

[-] AstaKask@lemmy.cafe 9 points 2 weeks ago

No one over the age of 70 should drive. It's simply not safe. Like putting a 7 year old in front of the wheel.

[-] runner_g 5 points 2 weeks ago

Hard disagree. People age very differently, depending on how well they take care of themselves. I know plenty of people I their 70s who are still fully capable of driving.

Implementint a driving test at 70 does make sense.

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 weeks ago

I expected the main writers of the bill to be about 78, but they look younger. (I'm not digging into it more)

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

typical boomer privilege - oh wait, now I'm old? no don't test me....

[-] twice_hatch@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe it'll save money. Illinois is broke and we're one of the last good states

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
459 points (100.0% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

41180 readers
453 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/ExplicitContent


-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:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


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