Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote:
Speaking of scumbags, at the concert some woman kept grabbing my wife, who then hid in front of me. The woman then started grabbing onto me and eventually her husband tapped me and tried to politely say "She wants to see". I told him and I indicated to my wife "So does she". WTF does he want me to do? Give up our spots to them? My wife already couldn't see. Should I have murdered the 6'5" wearing a cowboy hat in front of us? What makes you think your wife's view is more important than mine or anyone else's?

Yeah I had a similar experience. Was at a concert at a smallish venue, seating was like a high-school auditorium: not quite stadium. So, everybody's standing. I found that I could still see if I sat on the seat in "folded up" mode. So I'm about halfway between sitting and standing.

The woman behind me tapped me on the arm. I turn around, and she's sitting down fully. She says, "I can't see, do you mind sitting?" I said, "Lady, everybody in front of me is standing. If I sit, then *I* can't see. I can stand up if it makes you happier."

Every day, there are more.

Every day.

Let me paint a picture, then pose a question.

Driver, in a mid-level, dusty, 8 year old sedan.

Snow white hair. Skin pale, and semi-translucent. Dark black, peripheral light blocking sunglasses, huge and blocky and oversized on his skull, wrapped around to ensure no unfiltered light strikes his probably bleached out corneas.

Bony, knobby knuckles grip the wheel, and 11 and 1. He sits forward, slumped shoulders, his shrunken frame doing his best to see over the steering wheel.

3 o'clock school traffic, piled up behind him for a half mile. People with things to do.

So the question.... is he driving below, at, or above the speed limit?

I answered "below" after reading "snow white hair".

I feel like the thread title is a spoiler.

Aha you're all age-ist!

As am I. Mandatory driving/reflex tests after the age of 55. Liberal license-revocation policies. Penalties for the family who let them continue driving while impaired. Life in prison if they kill someone on the road.

GORDON wrote: Mandatory driving/reflex tests after the age of 55.

Good luck with that one.

The big problem you're going to have is that old people vote.

Leisher wrote:

GORDON wrote: Mandatory driving/reflex tests after the age of 55.

Good luck with that one.

The big problem you're going to have is that old people vote.

Step 2: people over 55 can't vote unless they can pass a driving test.

Everyone should love that.

GORDON wrote:

Leisher wrote:

GORDON wrote: Mandatory driving/reflex tests after the age of 55.

Good luck with that one.

The big problem you're going to have is that old people vote.

Step 2: people over 55 can't vote unless they can pass a driving test.

Everyone should love that.

I feel like surrendering their license, but still voting is OK

But they will keep voting themselves to not have to surrender their license.

If they are infirm, they shouldn't be risking lives in 2-ton murder machines, and they shouldn't be allowed to have a stake in a decision that affects my life.

GORDON wrote: But they will keep voting themselves to not have to surrender their license.

If they are infirm, they shouldn't be risking lives in 2-ton murder machines, and they shouldn't be allowed to have a stake in a decision that affects my life.

But they do have a stake, irrevocably so, since it's literally their mobility you're talking about. Lots of socially-atomized 56-year-olds who were raised believing in self-reliance and live in isolated suburbs will easily turn your point back on you and argue that you shouldn't have one-sided control over the car laws that affect them personally by allowing them to leave the house and live their lives.

So rather, everyone should have an equal say in a thing that affects everyone.

Their sad feelings about not driving don't enter my thoughts at all when considering whether or not they are a threat on the road.

If they can't pass a test, they can call an uber.

GORDON wrote: If they can't pass a test, they can call an uber.

But they're on a strict budget!

You'll need to subsidize their Lyft (Uber sucks) rides! Plus, you're hurting the oil and car industries.

All in all, it's a good thing the school year.... and my daily, insane commutes.... are nearly over. I've clearly become unhinged regarding bad drivers.

My uber driver got lost yesterday, and I got an extra tour of Boston.

Leisher wrote:You'll need to subsidize their Lyft (Uber sucks) rides! Plus, you're hurting the oil and car industries.

Plus you'd have to reorganize UberLyft so that it's competitive for the drivers to bother driving out to Withered Acres instead of cancelling on the senior and staying in the areas with more fares.

At some point it'd be more effective to just expand senior center services.

Alhazad wrote: At some point it'd be more effective to just expand senior center services.

You know how every state is legalizing casinos?

Combine those with senior living homes. Win-win! They can play penny slots, hog the pool, eat at the buffet, and never need to be driven anywhere.

Escalators. They work just like stairs, except they also move. Why do people's legs stop working once they hit an escalator?

Because I just walked for miles around Vegas and I want to rest for one fucking second.

Then I deem you too old to use escalators. Go find your elevator.