There are always at least two ways to look at something — the half-empty or half-full glass being a classic example.Was the DriveABLE program unfair to seniors and, when the B.C. government announced changes to the program, was it an admission of mismanagement?Or, was the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General doing a good job of listening to British Columbians and making common-sense adjustments?If you answered C (both of the above), you are correct.Requiring British Columbians who have reached 80 to prove they are still capable of driving safely is itself driven by the concept that operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a right.Our faculties dim with age. The safety of 80-plus drivers is at stake as well as that of any other motorists or pedestrians who cross their path.Having doctors refer seniors with cognitive challenges to the office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles makes sense. Seniors and their supporters were justified, though, in criticizing DriveABLE by following with a 45-minute computerized touch-screen test to gauge seniors’ cognitive abilities. If they failed, they could lose their licence.Seniors rightly complained that a computerized test was unfair considering they are unfamiliar with such technology. And compelling them to travel to centralized locations for testing ironically might have forced them to drive there.Seniors who fail the cognitive exam will now be offered a road test, which will be combined with computerized results.The government said it is considering adding new testing locations to 17 existing ones as well as making mobile testing available.Assuming new locations are actually added, these are sensible adjustments that show the government is listening to our concerns. Or they’re an admission the program, which the Liberals introduced as well as they did the HST, was originally botched.Or both. You decide.editor@comoxvalleyrecord.com