Due Process; #908; Safe At Any Age? Gov. Byrne Takes a Road Test - [No CC] - Original

New process, recipient of six Mid-Atlantic Emmy Awards. Flunking could be harder the day ago, but we've all flunked something in our lives though. And that's Brendan Byrne behind the wheel, just turned 80 and taking the chance that he could flunk this row test. Should seniors be forced to prove that they're still safe drivers? In this state, they're not. Are the driving laws all they should be? And did the governor pass the test? That's next on this edition of New Process. Major funding for New Process is made possible by the New Jersey State Bar Foundation, committed to educating the public about the law. Additional funding is provided by Lawyers Diary and Manual.

We're unsafe at certain speeds, but are we also unsafe at certain ages? As we grow older, can we be betrayed by our eyes, ears, reflexes? And do we always know when that happens? I'm Raymond Brown and we're talking today about elderly drivers. They can often be more careful, but at times are they a minus two? And should there be some legal safeguards to determine just who's safe and who's not?

21 states do have special requirements for older drivers. Should New Jersey be among them? We'll put that question to the chief of motor vehicles in this state to a representative of AARP and to a former governor. But first, here's Sandy King with a story of one senior citizen who fought or to ask, how am I driving? Raymond, that senior citizen is the former governor, who just a few days after his 80th birthday, decided to put himself to the test. It's not that Brendan Byrne has slowed down much. His schedule would make most of us dizzy, sports, law, politics, family. They're all still a part of his daily life, and so is driving. But since state law requires no checks to see which senior drivers are safe behind the wheel, Governor Byrne decided he'd find out if he'd get the same marks from the man at Motor Vehicles as he'd got from all those luminaries on his birthday. This is one of the very finest human beings I've ever had the privilege to know. Happy New Jersey. Happy 80th birthday, and what an 80 he is. Still comfortable on the court. Still unabashedly partisan.

I'm an environmentalist. I'm for more trees and fewer bushes. Still king of the one liner. He's a comedian. Tell me a joke. He said the euro politician. Tell me a lie. Brendan Byrne at 80, feisty lawyer, not too far off his old fighting weight. A doored husband of a devoted, dynamic, and younger wife. This is very special for my husband, who is a miracle in himself. His Ruthie is still comfortable in the passenger seat. And was Brendan still sure that she should be. That's how I have agreed. This is true. I have agreed on money to take a driver's test. And though that announcement too became a set up for a punchline.

Give me my helicopter back. The road test was for real. All along, that's a good idea. Let myself and everybody else know that at age 80, you can still handle a car. But flunking could be hard on the ego. Flunking could be hard on the ego. But we've all flunked something in our lives. So Governor Byrne, in a state where no one at any age is required to retest, decided he would take a chance on the dreaded course at motor vehicles. Wayne, he's not required to be retest. No, no. At 90, at 95, is there some point at which one has to be retested or no? Not in New Jersey. And not in 46 other states. But the governor hoped to set an example for other octogenarians. So he volunteered for the test. And he let us take a long.

But would he pass? And what if he failed? Most times when somebody comes voluntarily, they fail. They usually don't bother the second time. They don't drive anymore. They've already made a determination that I know there's something wrong. And the governor's tested have its shaky moments. Parallel parking was not a right on easy street. The orange cones took a beating that day. But after a couple of tries, the toughest test was behind him. And from there, no stop sign skipped. No signals missed. It was all easy riding. You passed.

That's so they tell me. Were you nervous? Sure. So would you urge your fellow octogenarians to voluntarily come and take a test? Yeah, I think so because they gave me a little self-confidence in my ability to drive and made me feel better about it. I did not think I would have to drive home, although in truth, he has me driving most of the time anyway now. But Ruthie's own mother was still driving at 90. I considered her dangerous at the end. But we never thought of taking a test. If I have to go back and look at that, we never said mother you should take a test. It just didn't occur to us. Still after a tragedy last year in Santa Monica, when an 86 year old man plowed through a crowded market, killing 10 people. The potential problem of drivers past their prime was difficult to ignore. And motor vehicles got a lot of calls. When things like that happen, it's not the actual person who has the driver's license. It is the family members.

Do they call and say, can I force my dad to be retested? That's the question. What can I do about this? And what do you tell him? And we can't do anything about it. You can't force somebody to have a road test. Unless there is a change in the law. Or if more senior drivers take the burn approach. I need a different certificate in passport. Hoping, of course, for the burn result. It is a good idea. It's not that threatening. Had you flunked, you did have your designated driver here today? Yes, I did. And if she got mad at me, I had a taxi fare. Governor Burn is part of a growing group. Not only are more of us living longer, we are driving longer too. At the start of this millennium, nearly 15% of American drivers were 65 or older. But 30 years in experts say one in four will be 65 plus. And some of them are bound to have problems. So two states, Illinois and New Hampshire require a road test at age 75. But the senior lobby is very strong. And most states like this one have no rules at all.

There is a requirement on the books that all New Jersey drivers have a vision test once a decade. But Raymond, as I found out last month when I got my license renewed, that rule is not enforced. And whether it should be, and whether it's enough, just two of the questions we'll put to our panel, including the intrepid Brendan Burns, I'll stay with us. I think the early drivers should be retested. Now, by the way, you're from, we're from the UK. And they have to reapply for a license after certain period of time after I think it's 70. I think after a certain age, they should just have like a brush up, you know, to check their reflexes, their sight. Like kids have progressive license. Maybe adults should have licenses that they need to have checked, like a Cinderella license on the other end.

Your vision, your judgment, and just physical abilities all play a part in driving, and I'm sure after a certain age, be okay to retest. We all change as we get older, and our perception is different, our vision is different. They probably should be retested, just mostly from vision, a vision standpoint, I would think. I think everyone should be retested after a certain point, just to make sure that they should be on the road. Younger and old, doesn't matter whether or not they're elderly or not. The Santa Monica tragedy, 10 dead, nearly 70 injured, raised new questions about the older driver. If California had required retesting, would Russell Weller, the elderly driver who plowed through the farmer's market, have been off the road? For some answers, we turned to Sharon Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicles Commission. To Matt Giancola, state coordinator for the driver's safety program for AARP, and with us from Newark, former Governor Brendan Bern. Welcome to all of you. Governor, let me start with you. What prompted you to put your license on the line and take that test, which wasn't required by statute?

Well, first of all, I didn't realize that if I wanted to test, I'd be off the road. But I thought, maybe at the age of 80, it wouldn't be a bad idea to suggest that we be retested and see if we can drive. But let me take this a step further than suggestion. You're a person who's throughout your career is willing to take on popular positions. I remember something about a New Jersey pit folks getting the income tax they didn't really want. So why wouldn't you, if you really think it's a good idea, urge the legislature or perhaps the governor to advocate a mandatory test at a certain age for everybody? Well, let's see. One of the reasons that I took the test is to get a little exposure and to see if maybe we could get some support for mandatory testing. However, the test I took, I'm not sure would answer all those questions. Well, I took did not test my peripheral vision. It did not test my reaction time. And so maybe one other study after this to see what should be tested, how it should be tested, and under what circumstances.

So it sounded like you were volunteering for another test on peripheral vision. But if your position then seems to me to be leading inevitably to this sense that at some point there needs to be some kind of mandatory test to determine the safety factor with respect to elderly drivers. Don't you think that's a logical end to this process? Well, let's see why not. But again, I think that the process has to test the things that you'll lose as you get older and reaction time is one of the things you'll lose peripheral vision is another. Well, let's not test it on the test I took. Let me turn to somebody who's in charge of or responsible for this process. Commissioner, would it make sense to have some kind of testing procedure in place that was rigorous and maybe not just elderly folks but really test people? The biggest problem with getting a license in New Jersey now is that you've got to dedicate half a day to a day to standing in a line. But very little of that has to do with your qualifications if you have the six pieces of paper with you.

Well, actually, I want to dispute that. What is happening now is that it's taking an average of eight minutes to get a license in New Jersey. If you have, if you have your six points of identity, I'm going to be knocking on your door. You can knock on my door or you've been complaining to me for several weeks now about her experience in Wayne. So you're saying that it's eight minutes for a yes to have a license produced. If your arrival produces that change, I'm sure you'll be embraced by the citizens of New Jersey. But getting back to the testing question, can we afford not to, but can we fiscally afford to rigorously test people on some regular basis for vision reflexes and road work? Well, actually, as Governor Bern volunteered to go in and take another road test, what we find is that people really self-regulate. And what I mean by that is that people drive. We've found that seniors particularly drive during the day, drive on familiar roads, make sure that they're comfortable with the circumstances in which they're driving. But in addition to being here, I'm a practicing lawyer, so I'm involved in people's lives all the time and the number of my peers who I know who are battling with their parents, who see themselves potentially losing a source of independence and an ability to get around and function.

Those parents, at least anecdotally, are not going in to be tested. And indeed, it seems that might be an area where the stage should intervene because it's hard for kids even in their middle years to regulate their parents. Well, actually, there are a couple of solutions to that. One is that you can recommend that your parents, you can write to. You can write to the Motor Vehicle Commission and suggest that your parents be reviewed. So assuming a person betray their parents, what would the commission then do? Well, we'd bring them in for a hearing and have a medical review and then also recommend either another driving test. And there can be up to three opportunities to pass that out. And this would happen just because of the recommendation of a child or a family member? A family member, law enforcement or a physician. The American Medical Society has a program to encourage that.

Mr. Jincol, let me bring you into the discussion. You've advocated something called a graduated driver's license? Or you've talked about that? Or not? Well, we haven't really taken position. Away your project? Okay. No, we've addressed the issue of older drivers. And I have to kind of agree with Sharon that many, many older drivers kind of regulate themselves in terms of evaluating whether they should drive any further. We do have a program. Are you satisfied then that self-regulation is sufficient? Because it seems to me you only need a small number of people who may not be fully conscious of limitations in order to have great traction. Well, I think that associated with the fact that certain risks can be identified. Scientifically, we haven't been able to do it quite as satisfactorily yet. But if those risks could be identified, certainly then it would be the opportunity to take anyone who is at risk. And not necessarily because of age as that young lady in the last segment of your...

But over 85, there at least is some evidence that we have more accidents and more fatalities. It seems odd to me that I'm with three adults mature thoughtful people who thought about this question. And not one of you is saying something that seems simple though it might be costly. Let's test everybody for vision every five, ten years. Or let's test everybody over say 65 in a rigorous way. Why is that not a logical way to go? Why is there seem not to be a movement in that direction? Not very simple. It's a rather complicated process to identify those factors which lead people to be at risk and then test those. So we don't really know how to test? We really don't know how to do it. And you've also talked about a graduated driver's license. That is a process that's in place now for new drivers, for young drivers. And what statistics have shown is that both young drivers and older drivers are the more at-risk populations. Those of us in our middle age.

Are we going to do it for the older drivers too? If young drivers do... If you say as to holding young there's a higher risk and young have the graduated license, would we also now do that? Well the graduated license is to introduce them to the driving experience. Older drivers have been driving for many years. But let me ask you this question. I would never try to match my political acumen with yours. But the little I know about politics is that seniors vote. They vote in high percentages and they tend to vote intelligently about issues they care about. Is there concern in terms of the political process that the person who seems to be advocating limitations that affect seniors is going to be heard at the polls? Well I'm not sure. If it's done right and it's done rationally, I don't see any problem. For instance, you can handle the problem of vision by having a senior citizen or whoever submit a certification from a doctor that they've been tested, that the vision is okay. And that can be done without any waste of time.

But I think most senior citizens are interested in staying alive and having them not be a dangerous others on a highway. And I don't see it as a great political. In exchange for not asking you about parallel parking, I'm going to ask you another sort of political question. It's not that I passed the parallel parking on the second time. We saw the cones on the ground governance, all I could say. But the question that I had for you is this that let's look at another aspect of this which seems compelling. And that is there are economic consequences to people not having licenses. You, for example, have a wife who's a skilled driver and spends time with you. We saw you threaten to come into the governor's helicopter. You probably have ways of getting around if you lost your license. There are probably folks who economically have no alternative means of transportation if they lose their license. Is there any thinking about how we might address those problems? Well I think a lot of municipalities are providing service for older people, especially if you're living in an assistant living center. Where you can get rides or you can get a bus.

And I have a sister who's doing that now. It doesn't use her car. Except the other supermarket and back where the food blocks away. So yeah, there are ways of coping. Let me ask you one direct question about your test. Was your vision tested when you went for the test? The test you just had. No, my vision hasn't been tested. The fact that I wore glasses during the test wasn't noted so that my license is still not restricted to wearing glasses. Alright, let me come back to Sharon Harrington. We know you're new on the job, so we can't hold you responsible for the test. But isn't there a requirement that there be periodic vision tests? And if so, is that requirement being met? There is a requirement. It's part of a law that's not been observed for many years. But we are going to move. We are moving in that direction and we intend that as we move to implement the digital driver's license, which is our new licensing procedure that in fact there will be a vision. Now I've hinted around about the cost question.

And I'm assuming that nobody made a policy decision to ignore the laws that existed. Is there a cost factor and is that likely to be prohibited? Is it going to cost the state's significant dollars to enhance a serious vision testing process? It's one of the things that, as I say, we're looking at and we're trying to find a solution for this. But yes, about 12 years ago, the cost was going to be a million dollars. And so we're hoping to find some ways to accommodate that. Mr. Jankola, what do you think is the most critical thing that can be done to be both fair to elderly drivers, but also minimize this toll that takes place at the higher end of the age spectrum? Well, I think the fact that ARP has a program where anyone actually, not only ARP members or not only older drivers, but can take advantage of a program educationally where they review the laws, the rules, the road. And even at the end is a chapter on driver retirement. So that focusing on refreshing your driving skills and kind of keeping up with the rules of the road,

those kinds of things, and reviewing whether you should reassess yourself in terms of driving, I think are the things we can do right now. But do you have any skepticism about self-assessment, about leaving out up to folks to make their own judgment about whether they're impaired or limited? Well, it's up to folks, but it's also up to families. It's up to doctors. It's up to law enforcement. It's up to judges. And the doctors have just recently in July been given a kind of an outline of what to look for in terms of older people. These things are being done already. How about this? Take some of the sting out of this process and test everybody every 10 years who's driving? Well, we hope we intend to, you mean complete drivers? A comprehensive test that would find any failing that a person might have physically or otherwise, that might limit their ability to operate safely.

Well, that actually is one of the things that happens just not a test. But generally, if a driver is an unsafe driver, there will be law enforcement intervention. If they're stopped by a police officer who takes the time to make the observation that there's more than just a temporary problem and who follows up and writes a letter, I mean, that can't be sufficient to encompass the universe of people who might potentially need either some help or have some limitations. Well, New Jersey has more drivers on the road than any other state. I mean, we really have the most congested roads as you know in the country and we will have every digital driver's license will make it easier to track our drivers. But I don't know that that's really a necessary solution. Governor Burns, two things. First of all, are your contemporaries doing what you did? Have you inspired those and your immediate entourage to rush down the DMV and get themselves tested? No, maybe I started something I shouldn't have started. I just thought from my own comfort.

I wanted to know, and I wanted my family to know that at 80, I'm competent to drive my car. And one quick question, as we wind down, I always ask people to look into the future. You've never been wrong in guessing about a political election. Ten years from now, are we going to be having mandatory tests for everybody or for the elderly? Yeah, I had able and the Canadian April fight. Are we going to be testing everybody in the future? I think society is too complicated. He says society is too complicated, but you're in your position because you know how to manage complicated tests. Do you also think that even 10, 15 years down the road, we will not have mandatory tests either for the elderly or periodically rigorous tests for everyone? No, I think that there are other solutions. I think that we will look to people's sensibilities in guiding them as to whether we stay on the roads or not. As I say, I just want to remind you, physicians have the ability to make recommendations and family members we trust will take care of the ones they love.

Let me bring you into the prediction business of Giancola. A legislator in New Jersey puts a bill in that says mandatory testing for everybody over 70. What's AARP's position likely to be? Well, our position would be that if there's some scientific basis for that and that testing is based on pure science, then we might be very good. There's a scientific basis, maybe, but not yet. No, that's it for this edition of due process. But we'll be back next week with another issue of law and justice. Till then, for Sandy King and all of us here, I'm Raymond Brown. Thanks for watching. I had taxi fare home today in a driver. Do you think 80? I mean, you have to arbitrarily pick a date. Is 80 as you are this month? Is that the right time? No, I don't know what the right time is. My brother and I dealt with my father who was still driving at about 84.

And how was he doing? We were a little worried about him. He wasn't doing so great. He's not all right, but we thought it was time to get out of the car and get into a taxi. Fortunately, the car broke down and solved our problem. Major funding for due process was made possible by the New Jersey State Bar Foundation, committed to educating the public about the law. Additional funding was provided by Lawyers Diary and Manual.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.