237

every 10 years while you are under 60, then one every 3-5 years after that

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

Why 10 years? If your job involves working with dangerous chemicals, heavy machinery, high places etc, your employer usually requires you to take a course and a test every 3 years. In some cases, every year. A 10 year cycle would be silly. Looking at the numbers, cars are really dangerous.

[-] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

The real answer is a LOT more good, efficient, and affordable public transit options.

[-] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I fully agree but I think we actually do need to take the independence of seniors seriously too. No they shouldn’t be driving but for many there are no good or affordable alternatives. I don’t like the idea of nana and pawpaw rotting away at home waiting for visitors when they had a normal social life. If this is implemented free or low cost public transportation or shuttles should be provided for anyone over say 65.

[-] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

I don't like when nana and pawpaw get on the freeway hesitantly at 35 mph AND FUCKING TRY TO KILL US ALL!

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Do you live in the States? I went to Michigan for the first time a few years ago and it seemed like so many homes were just separated from stores by so many roads ... I wonder if ebikes and scooters and safer travel for those is a solution. I kinda want it more for Canada right now because living in the suburbs I see so many kids.

[-] Meatwagon@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

I just wish we had functional public transport.

[-] postcapitalism@lemmy.today 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I upvoted because this IS an unpopular opinion (outside of this bubble)

I agree with the premise but can guarantee I would hate the outcome

With how many psychopaths have licenses - why do we think an even more bloated system is really gonna “catch em all”

But not to argue - please carry on

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Are you really saying that since so many bad drivers currently have licenses, we shouldn’t even try?

[-] postcapitalism@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

More like I’m not really sure the system in place is well set up to catch the psychotic, selfish, idiots who make the road dangerous. And that by bloating that system further means we will probably get worse results overall and a painful but at the end of day completely ineffective system.

I mean doing what is suggested would require increasing the number of DMV workers and administration by like 5-6x

But yeah a little bit of fatalism is there too

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 49 points 4 days ago

I don't think this opinion is as unpopular as you expect. Especially post COVID where everyone clearly forgot the little driving skill they did have.

[-] tmyakal@infosec.pub 14 points 4 days ago

The problem is who the opinion is unpopular with. About 22% of registered voters are in the AARP, and they'd be most at risk of losing their driving privileges. Any legislator proposing this or voting for it may as well kiss their office goodbye.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

for a couple years during covid, they didn't even do behind-the-wheel driving tests here, even for new drivers

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Janx@piefed.social 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is not unpopular. But guess what demographic consistently votes? That's right, older people. They're not going to give themselves less freedom and independence...

[-] DoctorWhoDMC@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

There is that, but I'd also argue quite a lot of people would be against this proposal because they don't want a drivers licence really; they just don't live in a walkable area but want to get to work and be able to shop and the licence and owning a car is just a means to an end. If you're a competent driver, having to retake the test would be a pain in the ass and your reward effectively is "You may continue to exist in society."

Getting the letter that you're due for a test would be more frustrating than a jury duty summons; jury duty pays.

The elderly resent the prospect of losing their licence for exactly that reason; it puts them at the mercy of family and expensive taxis to be able to feed themselves.

In a sane world, yes we'd all recognise driving can be dangerous and tests are sensible, but in that world you wouldn't need a car to do basic shit either.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Then don’t just put it on the elderly. Put it on all drivers. Maybe test beginner and elderly drivers more often, but it’s not like adults are exempt from poor driving habits

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The mistake is applying it only to older people. We’re so used to expecting facilities to decline and not pay attention to seniors limiting themselves but most importantly ignoring the injuries and deaths caused by poor drivers of all ages.

Post-Covid traffic was a real eye opener as so many people seem to have forgotten how to drive. It appears to be back to normal finally but as a frequent pedestrian, I am endangered almost every turn, despite staying on sidewalks and crosswalks and using crossing signals, and living in a place where drivers are better than most and there are few stroads. There’s always someone blowing through a light or ignoring the crossing signal or “stretching” the red, or blasting through a right in red (despite the law saying “after a complete stop”) or driving through the crosswalk, and pedestrians are in danger every time.

Drivers suck. Test them all. Fail those whose bad habits endanger other road users, and make them take remedial driver training.

[-] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I feel like this is one of those things that I can agree to on paper but I can’t support because I feel like it would disproportionately impact those that are already struggling to get by.

[-] colourlessidea@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 days ago

I’m surprised to hear that. If someone can pay insurance, parking, fuel, road tax, maintenance, EU checks for a car surely they can pay for a (potentially subsidized) re-certification once in 10 years?

[-] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I’m referring to the US because it’s where I’m familiar: Parking isn’t typically a cost outside of cities. Road tax is included in fuel. I’ve never had to get a car safety inspected, I’m sure it’s a thing in some places

Anyway, it’s not just the associated costs but also another generally pointless reason for everyone to have to visit an already over busy DMV and waste hours at best to show they can do something they are likely doing every day? It’s a lot easier for someone like me to go to the DMV and deal with the BS than it is someone who is working multiple jobs, has to actually clock in, and is otherwise hovered over. It’s easy for me to say how easy it is when I’m not struggling through the shit trying to make ends meet. Then what’s the solution, if the DMV decides, nah you can’t drive, does the state start paying their bills or assign them a chauffeur service so they can get where they need to in order to survive?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] stoly@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I agree. It's not that your driving skills might be lost over time, it's to refresh everyone on laws and regulations. It would also catch people who have had cognitive decline and should not be driving.

[-] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 25 points 4 days ago

I am nearing 70 and I have 2 cataracts. I am voluntarily taking myself off the road as I don’t feel right. Selling our vehicle at end of month. I will not be one of those old farts that crashes into people for my own convenience. It sucks but it’s the right thing to do.

[-] cokeslutgarbage@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

My grandpa is 85 this year. He's only had one eye for the last 55 years, and his good eye is...bad. He has no peripheral vision.

He legally gets his lisence renewed at the local AAA insurance office, because they don't make you take an eye exam like they do at the DMV. And they just do it, they just look right at this blind man and hand his wife a renewal form to sign for him. Then she gets in the passenger seat and let's him drive home.

Anyway, thanks for your sacrifice. It's the right thing to do ♡

[-] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Thank you for your kind words. Appreciated.

[-] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago

Bro, as your friendly neighborhood eye doctor, please go get your cataracts fixed. It's honestly one of the best quality of life improvements you can make. Most surgeries are less than 15 minutes.

[-] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago

I have been to an eye doctor. Unfortunately they are still ripening and not yet ready to be fixed. About 3 months ago he said come back in 6 months. I heard it is not good to work on them until the right time?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago
[-] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

I'd be interested in seeing a percentage based graph taking into account the number of drivers per age group. I would expect there to be fewer drivers in the last two groups, concurrent with an increased percentage of accident drivers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Sometimes when I'm driving home I pretend I'm doing a driving exam and see how far I can get before I fail, and I always seem to fail. My muscle memory for all the discouraged minutae is so strong.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] RBWells@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Yeah this is a good idea. I think I can trust my kids to tell me when I get dangerous driving, they did tell both their grandmas.

Not sure why we don't, maybe cost? I took my driver's test 40 years ago, any other license you hold that long requires continuing education.

[-] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

The problem is that by the time I'm old enough to be a problem by the wheel, I'm more than likely going to be driving alone 100% of the time. I have my kids in the car sometimes now, but they'll be out of the house and it'll be just me being a menace to society.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 days ago

I just want to not have to drive

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

Do it when you get your colonoscopies. A little propofol, a little road test… have fun with it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Sure, why not. Make it a 20min exam at something like 30 bucks and it'll improve road safety for everyone at a manageable cost for the individual. I mean I'm paying way more for the repairs, insurance, gasoline... Also spend way more time in some traffic jams. Guess I could do it every few years or so...

Edit: And go ahead and ask them some questions as well. Like: You're in a traffic jam. What do you do? a) change lines 200 times -- b) do something useful.

And take away their permit do go downtown or drive while rush hour if they're bad drivers.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

At least teach people the new rules.

In france bicycles are allowed to go the wrong way in 30-Zones. For example.

[-] jtrek@startrek.website 10 points 4 days ago

Adding more friction to driving might yield better transit options. Let's do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
237 points (91.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

9441 readers
90 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS