Whenever a senior driver creates hazards on the road, the typical response is to demand license revocations or mandatory drive tests for older folk. Reddit user UCSDDropout rants, “This is why old people should have to take a driver’s test annually or something… Almost got into a crash with a grandma.” In the same post, the user shared a video of nearly colliding with a presumably senior driver making an improper U-turn. While these concerns are understandable, the rhetoric overshadows a more pressing issue: California’s senior neglect is risking public safety on the roads.
Recently, there have been a series of fatal vehicular crashes involving senior drivers in California. On Feb. 4, 2026, an 87-year-old crashed into and killed a pregnant woman in Los Angeles. The following day, a 92-year-old slammed into a 99 Ranch Market in Los Angeles’ Westwood neighborhood, killing three people and injuring six. Less than a week later, the 99 Ranch Market reopened, bearing a roadside memorial to remind residents of the community’s losses. Alongside pictures of victims, candles, and flowers, a neon green poster warning “Slow down Westwood. Pedestrian safety 1st!!!” decorated the boarded windows.
San Francisco has also had its share of devastating vehicular crashes involving senior drivers. In March 2024, Mary Fong Lau, then 78, killed a family of four while speeding in San Francisco’s West Portal neighborhood. Recently, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Bruce Chan expressed his intention to sentence Lau to probation rather than prison, sparking public outrage at the lenient punishment. But Jonathan Simon, a criminal justice professor at UC Berkeley Law, explained, “Prison is harsh on even young and healthy people and can be extremely difficult, and indeed life threatening here for the aged and or sick… to impose (incarceration) would be pointless and cruel.”
Alongside remorse and a no-contest plea, another factor that influenced Judge Bruce Chan’s decision was Lau’s old age. A 2014 study from Arizona State University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice found that judges tend to grant more leniency in sentencing older offenders than younger offenders. Rule 4.423 of the California Rules of Court, however, only formally lists young age — those under 26 years old — as a mitigating factor for a defendant. It is nonetheless evident that judicial discretion considers old age when punishment seems to outweigh the crime. As Simon points out, it is counterproductive to sentence Mary Fong Lau to what is essentially a death sentence considering her age.
If these conditions of age are formally recognized for younger offenders, why is there no formal recognition for seniors? On that same note, why is there a formal age minimum for drivers but no age maximum? A LendingTree survey of 2,050 U.S. consumers found that 61 percent agreed on setting a legal driving age maximum. But as the bold green poster urging slower driving suggests, perhaps the issue is not older people driving but simply poor driving skills in general. In reality, these tragic incidents are a result of California’s senior neglect, which forces seniors to drive for their own survival.
One increasing concern is the projected population surge in older Californians. From 2000 to 2040, California’s population aged 60 and older is expected to grow by 142 percent, and the population aged 80 and older is expected to grow by 238 percent. This means 11.3 million Californians age 60 and older and 3.1 million age 80 and older by 2040. These drastic projected growth rates potentially mean more senior drivers on the road, increasing traffic congestion and the need for driving regulations to protect drivers and pedestrians.
Currently, California drivers of all ages are required to renew their licenses every five years, which can be done either online or in person. Drivers age 70 and older are specifically required to renew their licenses in person, where they will take a vision test. However, ever since the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) changed its policy in 2024, senior drivers are not required to take a written test for license renewal. The policy change did not appear to be influenced by an improvement in senior driving but instead by business streamlining. California DMV Director Steve Gordon reasoned, “If thousands fewer people need to visit the DMV, or can spend less time in an office, the people who need to take care of their business in one of our offices can be better served.”
The DMV’s policy change may have been a mistake, sacrificing public safety for quicker wait times. Data from UC Berkeley SafeTREC’s California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) Summary reveals a 14.54 percent increase from 2020 to 2024 in older adult driver-related fatalities. In contrast, there was a 4.92 percent decrease in statewide fatalities. Although older drivers tend to be more careful than younger drivers, they are more likely to crash their vehicles at an intersection than other age groups. Older drivers also average more crashes per mile than their younger counterparts.
Furthermore, California’s regulations on senior driving are mostly reactive, meaning they address incidents after the fact instead of preventing them. California’s DMV website informs that drivers may be asked to take driving tests during their license renewals if they (1) fail the minimum vision requirements or (2) were referred from a Driver Safety office for “a medical condition [or] driving skills [that] need improvement.” Concern from a family member, doctor, or police officer about a senior’s driving abilities can also induce a drive test. But it is possible for a hazardous senior driver to bypass these safety regulations by driving infrequently, thus reducing the chances of raised concerns from community members and loved ones. Likewise, it is DMV policy to further investigate senior drivers who answer “yes” to having a disease, disorder, or disability that affects their driving abilities. These investigations can lead to reexaminations, but realistically speaking, this policy is only a reactive measure that requires truthfulness from seniors. Though some may genuinely believe in their strong health, other senior drivers might answer dishonestly to avoid jeopardizing their driving privileges. The policy also overlooks senior drivers with underlying or developing conditions that might impact their driving abilities. For example, a poll conducted by the Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation found that 94 percent of drivers age 65 and older had not discussed driving with their healthcare providers. Whether intentionally or not, this suggests that neither seniors themselves nor healthcare providers deem senior driving to be a substantial risk.
With all this considered, should we simply kick our seniors off the roads? I say no, as this poses unnecessary and cruel consequences for seniors’ livelihoods. For seniors without a support system, driving becomes a necessity for them to care and provide for themselves. Whether to buy groceries, visit the doctor, or attend social events, driving becomes crucial, especially for those who lack close proximity to basic resources. We also need to value the dignity of our older populations. Understandably, people of all ages value their individual choice and freedom. This is no different for some seniors who value their independence and prefer not to rely on others.
Another concern is that senior drivers risk declining health when giving up their keys. A 2016 study from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health revealed that drivers age 55 and older faced faster cognitive decline after they stopped driving and lost access to activities outside the home. For older individuals, the inability to drive meant reduced socialization and a replacement of outdoor activities with indoor ones. A poll conducted by the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation also found that 54 percent of drivers age 65 and older did not have a plan for transportation if they were unable to drive. This leads to another issue: insufficient public transportation options for older populations, especially in rural areas.
For example, a substantial portion of seniors in Los Angeles do not have adequate access to public transportation. A 2011 report from Transportation for America found that in 2000, 23 percent of seniors age 65 and older in Los Angeles’ suburban and exurban regions had poor access to public transportation. The National Center for Sustainable Transportation also found that in rural California, households with at least one person age 65 or older are 15 times more likely to lack a car than the general household. The study interviewed 22 people who lacked significant car access in the San Joaquin Valley, with the majority reporting they had to request rides or borrow vehicles for transportation. Unsurprisingly, interviewees who relied on public transportation faced challenges of sparse stop locations and infrequent service, which could lead to individuals forgoing trips entirely.
Aside from optimizing public transportation systems across California, another avenue is a push for agencies to subsidize Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber or Lyft. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) found success in expanding transportation options for MetroAccess, WMATA’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service. By covering Uber costs, ridership, customer satisfaction, and on-time performance goals increased. Currently, MetroAccess is limited to disabled individuals unable to access public transit; however, implementing similar services and expanding the eligibility requirements to include seniors can help older people meet their basic needs. City-run shared-ride transportation is another option, such as Redondo Beach’s WAVE Dial-A-Ride. Seniors age 62 and older are able to request a bus ride from and to satellite stops, with fares ranging from 75 cents to $1.00. The program also offers a variety of trip options, such as reservation rides, pickups within 30 minutes, and subscription-based scheduled pickups. If similar affordable programs are made available across California’s cities, our seniors can reliably access transportation and our roads can become safer for everyone.
The issue of senior driving can’t simply be solved by enforcing legal age limitations on driving privileges. Our older population deserves to preserve its dignity and independence, though this need requires expanded and enhanced transportation options. Moreover, the DMV clearly lacks the capacity to effectively examine senior drivers. However, if Californians continue to prioritize privatized driving options, then expanding the DMV’s capacity to enforce routine driving tests across all ages would maintain seniors’ dignity and minimize risks to public safety.
Featured Image Source: RDNE Stock Project