GREEN LAKE, Wis. — In June last year, Angela Zodrow got the call every parent fears: her 12-year-old son, Emmet, had been hit by a car. Emmet was riding his bike on the library sidewalk when a silver minivan jumped the curb, tore through a metal fence and stopped in a grassy lot. The driver, 85-year-old Jean Woolley, told police she had confused the brake and accelerator and “panicked” when the van accelerated. Emmet died. Woolley was not charged with a crime but received citations and fines.
The Zodrow family, grieving, is pushing for stricter relicensing rules in Wisconsin, where older drivers can go up to eight years between renewals. Angela Zodrow says the system relies too much on self-reporting: “If you say you’re fine, we believe you’re fine.” She and her husband want more frequent checks and greater accountability when older drivers are involved in crashes.
Across the U.S., more Americans are driving longer into old age. States set their own rules for renewals and testing — there is no national standard — and policies vary widely. Many older adults rely on driving for independence, especially in rural areas without viable public transit, and advocates warn against forcing people to stop driving based on age alone.
Experts say balancing safety and mobility is complex. Anne Dickerson, an occupational therapy professor who directs the Research for Older Adult Driver Initiative at East Carolina University, cautions against broad age-based restrictions. People are living longer and healthier lives, and crash rates for older drivers have fallen over the past 25 years. Dickerson says that for people without dementia or serious medical conditions, additional testing might reasonably begin around 80 rather than 70; drivers in their 70s often self-restrict driving and are not the highest-risk group.
Data show older drivers’ crash rates have declined even as more older people are licensed and drive more miles. Aimee Cox, a research scientist at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, notes vehicle safety improvements and healthier aging have helped reduce fatalities. Still, crash risk patterns are age-dependent: teens are the riskiest group, followed by drivers in their 20s. Drivers from about 30 to 79 are generally safer, but crash rates rise again for those 80 and older.
Identifying when an individual should stop or limit driving is difficult because declines in ability are often gradual and subjective. David Condon, an eldercare consultant, says reductions in driving aren’t usually binary; many older drivers can modify habits — avoid nighttime driving, bad weather, or busy highways — rather than stop altogether. Ideally, clinicians would guide patients about driving, but doctors often lack time or are reluctant to intervene. Police and family members also can be hesitant to confront older drivers.
In the early 2000s, some states tightened relicensing: adding mandatory vision tests, more frequent in-person renewals, and easier reporting by relatives, police and physicians. But many states never adopted such measures, and recently some have rolled back requirements. Illinois, once among the strictest, passed the Road Safety and Fairness Act, which raises the age for a mandatory behind-the-wheel test from the 70s to 87 and aims to reduce what supporters call age-based discrimination. Advocates for the change, including AARP Illinois and Republican state Rep. Jeff Keicher, argue driving privileges should be based on ability, not birthday.
Not all researchers agree that loosening rules is harmless. Cara Hamann, an epidemiologist at the University of Iowa who studies road safety, analyzed two decades of crash data from more than 19 million drivers across 13 states, seven of which loosened relicensing policies. Her study found increases in crash and injury rates among drivers ages 65 to 74 in states that eased requirements. Hamann warns that U.S. relicensing often lacks ongoing assessments compared with some other countries, noting that people are typically licensed young and rarely re-tested beyond occasional vision checks.
Those findings underline the trade-offs states face: stricter policies may improve safety but can limit mobility and independence for older adults, especially where alternatives to driving are scarce. For families like the Zodrows, the human cost of limited screening feels too high. “Yes, maybe it is a little difficult or inconvenient. I’m sorry about your inconvenience,” Angela Zodrow said. “It’s harder to live without my son.”
Policymakers, researchers and clinicians continue to debate the best approach: targeted assessments based on medical conditions or observed declines, improved reporting systems, more frequent vision and cognitive screenings, and community planning that reduces driving dependence. There is no simple solution, and experts emphasize the need to balance fairness, independence and public safety.