I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.

And my point this entire time has sailed right over your head. I don’t disagree that more stringent testing for driving would seem on its face to lead to more skilled drivers, which may lead to lower road deaths. I’m complaining about your apparent ageism, lack of concern for solutions that amount to more than “olds or disabled people get rekt for driving” and seemingly complete denial that large swaths of the US that are rural both exist and have old or disabled people living in them who need transport and the only option is cars.

You keep ignoring my actual point and continue to use basic sophistry to hammer a point I’ve accepted and granted in I think my first response. I admit, I like to play devils advocate, so I humor you with responding to your later points. You have yet to respond to my actual issue - accomplishing your desired end should be done in a way that is both realistic in our political environment and doesn’t make a large voting block widely worse off.

You also assert that lower road deaths is the greatest good, accomplished best by taking older drivers off the road, and do not compare to what deaths there would be if these same drivers could not travel at all, and were basically trapped in their houses. I’ve poked at that, but perhaps not directly enough to get you to substantiate this sets of assertions.