Remember Fight Club passage (where Norton explained the mathematics of his job)?
If the total final cost of a couple of elderly having accidents (lawsuits, medical fees, etc.)is lower than the total revenue (licenses, insurance, etc.) coming from their driving activity, things won`t change.
It becomes predictible after a while…
Extra testing would carry a prohibitive cost. You may say ‘any amount of money is worth it, to avoid this kind of accident.’ However I, for one, don’t want to pay for it in taxes. There are other alternatives available.
So far I like popular pundit Bill O’Reilly’s solution best; test the problem drivers. Police and insurance companies can report moving violations and accidents (the guy in Santa Monica had run into his own garage, earlier, and been reported by his insurance carrier). Then send them to traffice counselors (at their own expense, just like anger management counselors) who would determine if they needed to be retested for competency and/or provisos put on their license, such as more frequent renewal.
So unsafe drivers are off the street, safe drivers don’t have to go through such a hassle (the DMV isn’t fun for anyone, no matter how old you are), and the people responsible for the problem are the ones paying for it. You won’t catch every dangerous elderly driver, but you’ll get most of them. Particularly if police are encouraged to give moving violations to the ‘little old ladies’ driving 15MPH on the freeway.