Over 70 required form

[Starry Eyes]

7 hours ago, adolfo2 said:

There are limits EVERYWHERE for mostly everything. For air pilots it's maximum age of 60 ~ 65 years, for air traffic controllers it's 56. 

 

I'm not advocating a ban on older people cruising (I'm over 60 myself) BUT there are some cruisers out there who are so frail as to be a risk to themselves and their fellow passengers. It's very selfish in those cases to cruise just because "I have insurance" 

Your examples from the air travel for pilots and controllers are not applicable to passengers.  Do commercial airlines require medical clearance for passengers over a certain age?  That would be the parallel to your cruise passenger suggestion.  
 

Do all the frail/elderly/fools in your state and neighboring states need to provide medical clearance to drive a car?  Are they not a greater risk to themselves and others than cruise passengers?

 

[DeanD]

32 minutes ago, Starry Eyes said:

Your examples from the air travel for pilots and controllers are not applicable to passengers.  Do commercial airlines require medical clearance for passengers over a certain age?  That would be the parallel to your cruise passenger suggestion.  
 

Do all the frail/elderly/fools in your state and neighboring states need to provide medical clearance to drive a car?  Are they not a greater risk to themselves and others than cruise passengers?

 

Some states mandate physicians to report unsafe drivers and many of the rest have a mechanism to do so including Florida.  In FL anyone can report an unsafe driver and thus result in their license being suspended.  They also have more strict renewal laws for those 80 or above but they're still far too lax IMO.    It's not about protecting the other passengers as much as it is the cruise line.  Requiring additional documentation for those of a given age is reasonable due the statistically increased risk but they could do it for everyone if they wanted.  Unless they do so for everyone, any such requirement will, by definition, be arbitrary to some degree.

[Starry Eyes]

58 minutes ago, DeanD said:

Some states mandate physicians to report unsafe drivers and many of the rest have a mechanism to do so including Florida.  In FL anyone can report an unsafe driver and thus result in their license being suspended.  They also have more strict renewal laws for those 80 or above but they're still far too lax IMO.    It's not about protecting the other passengers as much as it is the cruise line.  Requiring additional documentation for those of a given age is reasonable due the statistically increased risk but they could do it for everyone if they wanted.  Unless they do so for everyone, any such requirement will, by definition, be arbitrary to some degree.

Thanks for the review of the driving laws in FLorida, DeanD.  I actually intended it more as a thought experiment for aldofo2 than as a detailed discussion point about specific because DL laws tend to be, as you say, lax.  My overarching point is that under adolfo2’s suggestion, an elderly person would have to get specific medical clearance from their doctor to board a cruiseship, yet they could renew their driver’s license without obtaining medical clearance (except a basic vision test)….Adolfo2 expressed concern that frail elderly passengers threaten his cruise experience while I suspect traffic safety on the way to and from port is a probably a statically greater risk.
 

The form that started this thread was developed, as I recall, in the early days of Covid19 as cruiselines tried to find ways to avoid a shutdown, including excluding high risk passengers…we all know how that worked out.

[DeanD]

7 minutes ago, Starry Eyes said:

Thanks for the review of the driving laws in FLorida, DeanD.  I actually intended it more as a thought experiment for aldofo2 than as a detailed discussion point about specific because DL laws tend to be, as you say, lax.  My overarching point is that under adolfo2’s suggestion, an elderly person would have to get specific medical clearance from their doctor to board a cruiseship, yet they could renew their driver’s license without obtaining medical clearance (except a basic vision test)….Adolfo2 expressed concern that frail elderly passengers threaten his cruise experience while I suspect traffic safety on the way to and from port is a probably a statically greater risk.
 

The form that started this thread was developed, as I recall, in the early days of Covid19 as cruiselines tried to find ways to avoid a shutdown, including excluding high risk passengers…we all know how that worked out.

Sure, based on what I've seen, 6 states require physicians to be mandatory reporters for driving hazards & 25 more have the option.  Almost half have reduced renewal times for elderly, most starting at 65 but there is a range (FL is actually 80).  30% require additional vision screening but only a few require in person renewal that is age based.  Screening based on those at higher risk is reasonable but it'll never be perfect.  Personally I think DL renewals should be far more restrictive than they are in general and certainly based on age, 65 seems to be a reasonable cutoff to me (and I'm basically there).  BTW, I stopped my wife from driving at age 62 because I didn't think she was safe, she agreed that was the right choice as well.  She's given up her DL and just has a state ID now.  

 

What the cruise lines could do would be to expand on the covid attestation and include higher risk situations as part of the registration process and require potential passengers to attest they don't have certain higher risk situations and either disqualifying those that do and/or requiring medical clearance depending on risk and severity.  They likely should do something along those lines even if Covid had never been a consideration.  

[Starry Eyes]

6 minutes ago, DeanD said:

Sure, based on what I've seen, 6 states require physicians to be mandatory reporters for driving hazards & 25 more have the option.  Almost half have reduced renewal times for elderly, most starting at 65 but there is a range (FL is actually 80).  30% require additional vision screening but only a few require in person renewal that is age based.  Screening based on those at higher risk is reasonable but it'll never be perfect.  Personally I think DL renewals should be far more restrictive than they are in general and certainly based on age, 65 seems to be a reasonable cutoff to me (and I'm basically there).  BTW, I stopped my wife from driving at age 62 because I didn't think she was safe, she agreed that was the right choice as well.  She's given up her DL and just has a state ID now.  

 

What the cruise lines could do would be to expand on the covid attestation and include higher risk situations as part of the registration process and require potential passengers to attest they don't have certain higher risk situations and either disqualifying those that do and/or requiring medical clearance depending on risk and severity.  They likely should do something along those lines even if Covid had never been a consideration.  

Well, as they as passengers rather than drivers or captains, I basically disagree about requiring medical clearance.  One’s chance of morbidity or mortality risk from CVA (as an example) differs whether one is on land close to advanced medical care, on land in a remote location, at sea, etc.  Still, as even a high risk person does not require medical clearance to continue to reside alone in their remote mountain home in the winter, why should they require medical clearance to leave that remote home to spend a week on a cruiseship?  They could stroke either place or not at all…. and meanwhile there’s always a chance a previously healthy person in another cabin might.  Warning people of risks is fair (doctor, cruise contract), but their choices are mostly their own, IMHO. 

[crazyank]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:06 PM, DeanD said:

What the cruise lines could do would be to expand on the covid attestation and include higher risk situations as part of the registration process and require potential passengers to attest they don't have certain higher risk situations and either disqualifying those that do and/or requiring medical clearance depending on risk and severity.  They likely should do something along those lines even if Covid had never been a consideration.  

Sure, they can also include obesity which is high risk at any age.

[adolfo2]

On 3/4/2022 at 5:43 PM, Starry Eyes said:

Still, as even a high risk person does not require medical clearance to continue to reside alone in their remote mountain home in the winter, why should they require medical clearance to leave that remote home to spend a week on a cruiseship?  They could stroke either place or not at all…. and meanwhile there’s always a chance a previously healthy person in another cabin might.  

#1: Because what they do or happens in their "remote mountain home" doesn't affect me BUT it causes issues (skipped/delayed ports, etc.) for thousands when it happens at sea. 

 

#2: Because STATISTICS. Yes, medical issues can/do happen to everyone but statistically much more likely as you get older. Additionally, I'm most concerned about those with full knowledge that they have severe, life-threatening medical issues and "Insurance UP" to cruise instead of staying home.

[DeanD]

6 hours ago, crazyank said:

Sure, they can also include obesity which is high risk at any age.

Here's the question, do they have the right and ability to limit risk that costs them money and affects the other passengers experiences.  That's the bottom line.  If the answer is yes, it's simply a matter of where to draw the line.  Where ever they draw the line someone is going to disagree and someone is going to be affected.  They do so in other areas as well, infant ages and with pregnancy are 2 examples.  Can they totally remove risk, no, but statistically they can dramatically reduce it.

[snaefell]

I remember well,driving to work one day,listening to a discussion on the radio about anybody over 60 being prevented from driving as they are bound to be not as alert as they were,I totally agreed!

That seems all of a couple of years ago BUT I was in my 30's at the time,next year I hit 70,where the hel l did that time go,it catches you so fast!😮

[njkruzer]

20 minutes ago, snaefell said:

I remember well,driving to work one day,listening to a discussion on the radio about anybody over 60 being prevented from driving as they are bound to be not as alert as they were,I totally agreed!

That seems all of a couple of years ago BUT I was in my 30's at the time,next year I hit 70,where the hel l did that time go,it catches you so fast!😮

I understand completely!  I thought I was still 50. How could my son be turning 50!

[snaefell]

Absolutely,between the ears(plenty of room😆😆) I still am in my 30's,the rest of me reminds me more & more that it ain't so!😂😂

[Daytonasailor]

On 3/4/2022 at 3:23 PM, DeanD said:

Some states mandate physicians to report unsafe drivers and many of the rest have a mechanism to do so including Florida.  In FL anyone can report an unsafe driver and thus result in their license being suspended.  They also have more strict renewal laws for those 80 or above but they're still far too lax IMO.    It's not about protecting the other passengers as much as it is the cruise line.  Requiring additional documentation for those of a given age is reasonable due the statistically increased risk but they could do it for everyone if they wanted.  Unless they do so for everyone, any such requirement will, by definition, be arbitrary to some degree.

I'm a retired Police Officer and years ago we had a form which would require a person to report to the DMV for retesting on their drivers license. The purpose of this was to check on older persons who the Officer thought had a problem with driving. Cause could be serious accidents, running off the road, etc. I can't think of one time that this form was used for it's intended purpose. This form was eliminated after finding out that many younger drivers were issued the form for retesting. The Officers were using the form as there was no charge for COC, (Contempt of Cop).

[DeanD]

39 minutes ago, Daytonasailor said:

I'm a retired Police Officer and years ago we had a form which would require a person to report to the DMV for retesting on their drivers license. The purpose of this was to check on older persons who the Officer thought had a problem with driving. Cause could be serious accidents, running off the road, etc. I can't think of one time that this form was used for it's intended purpose. This form was eliminated after finding out that many younger drivers were issued the form for retesting. The Officers were using the form as there was no charge for COC, (Contempt of Cop).

Even when used for it's intended purpose in that situation, it would have been episodic and likely too little too late.  In the situation under discussion it would be used across the board for whatever the designated group was.  That's a totally different scenario and I don't think your experience reported has any effect on the reasonableness of such an option.  IMO your post is more an indictment of the people using it than a negative for the plan itself.  I'd be willing to bet there were many, many times when they knew they should have and didn't.