News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
“82 year olds shouldn’t be driving”. — THIS one shouldn’t have been; some people enter their90s with sight, hearing and reflexes intact.
Personally, I think that starting at 70, drivers should have to take the written test and screening every 5 years. If they fail to pass it they have to re-try until they do pass, and then take the practical exam again.
5 years is too long, a lot can happen in that amount of time at that age. I would say 2 years
It should be gradual. Every 10 years starting at 40, every 5 years starting at 60, every 2 years starting at 70, every year starting at 80, and every 6 months starting at 90.
I would be perfectly happy renewing my license every year if I knew people understood how to zipper merge.
I’d extend that to “…and did it.”
Instead you get people merging early, which results in some guy in his beamer speeding down thelane to merge in at the end, butthe guy in the jacked up GMC pulls out part way down the line to block him and the entire traffic pattern falls to pieces. Forcing an early merge free for all and creating a snake.
And then you have people slamming down to 20mph on the highway hours later for no discernible reason.
I literally watched it happen today.
A few weeks back I saw the initial incident that triggered the zipper snake and it was still going strong 2 hours later on my way back, but had moved a mile or so up the highway.
Same. When i did my licence, i was like: never again. Now when j see people just yolo everywhere on the road i would verg much love to do a test annually if i knew other people have to do so as well
I'm of two minds.
On the one hand, my dad literally drove right up to the day he died, and he shouldn't have been driving for at least the last 10 years of his life. He drove straight into a light post in a parking lot because, "the sun was in his eyes". It was dramatically sad, because he used to be the best driver around. However he didn't have the capacity to face his growing limitations.
On the other hand, I've been rear-ended more than is reasonable (at least 30 times - I've lost count), and I've never been hit by anyone older than 60. There are plenty of people middle-aged and younger who shouldn't be driving.
Maybe everyone should be required to be retested every five years.
Non-driving octogenarians have no other good means of transportation outside of Manhattan. It's like NYC has decent pedestrian travel and everywhere else is .. less.
Every year after 70, in that age bracket a decline happens way faster than 5 years.
The amount of bad that comes with allowing geriatric patients to drive far outweighs the good that comes from allowing 1% of competent seniors to drive.
How so? What percentage of serious accidents are caused by “geriatric patients”? Are they the same group as seniors (people over 64)? If not, should we maybe find a way to not lump them together?
The truth is, most serious vehicle incidents are caused by men between the age of 16 and 26.
Maybe we shouldn’t allow THAT age range to drive, despite all the competent drivers in that group?
My intuition suggests seniors aren't a greater statistic because they don't commute for work or school and drive fewer overall mileage.
Lol
You have no idea how these thing progress bud, but thanks for the uninformed opinion
It’s a compromise; it’s better than the current situation, and better than removing the elderly’s ability to be mobile in a vehicle-centric society.
The point being 70 is way too late to test, and every five years is too infrequently...
Honestly everyone taking it every five years might be ok from 16 to like 50? But not even just from age, lots of shit can happen before 70.
Once someone hits 60, it's time for annual certification.
That's just how aging works. And it's certainly how accident mitigation works, you don't wait till everyone is effected at some extent, you start *at least before the majority are statistically effected. That way you identify people as they lose their abilities rather than hoping they make it another five years without an incident serious enough to draw attention to
And that's not even getting into how this kind of testing benefits the elderly population by early identification and then early treatments of conditions.
With people living longer and longer, this will become a bigger problem.