Old people shouldn't drive

From CNN

Good god. Maybe I'd be less pissed off if my family wasn't down south, but jeez. This man is clearly incapable of driving a car. Break pedal's on the left, dumb ass.

No, the brake is the middle one, stupid pansy automatic driving Merikkkans

I heard this on NPR yesterday and got sick to my stomach. A 6 year old dies? A few 2 year olds on the brink of death?

And why? B/c some old asshole who shouldn''t be behind the wheel of a car....I hope he gets charged with involuntary manslaughter....I wish his family could get sued for allowing it.

This is why, as I said before, the AARP is just as bad as the NRA. We must take away liscenes after a certain age, I don''t care how ''alert'' some are over others, but until you can, with great accuracy, test for driving ability, you can''t allow this kind of thing.

And this was made huge b/c of the amount of deaths, you never hear about the accidents every day made by people who shouldn''t be driving.

God it makes me mad.

I know an emergency room doctor that lives in Florida. He says just about every time there''s an accident involving an old person, they always say ""I thought I was hitting the brakes, but the car kept speeding up!""

It''s bad. This was a horrible accident that shouldn''t have happened. This type of accident happens often, thankfully without such dire consequences. But the system for handing out the privilege of driving in the US has got to be revisited. There are too many deaths from car accidents to not take this more seriously.

Incidentally, this is also why I always choose a location to live that is walking distance from a bar.

I think a variety of driving laws need to be revisited. While I''ve always contended that there needs to be an upper limit to driving priviledges, let''s not make it out that all the horrible and offensive accidents out there are because of old people.

I''d like to see much more stringent exams to receive a licence. I''d like to see people have to retake those exams regularly. I''d like to see more fines that involve revocation, and even permanent revocation. I''d like to see driving without a licence become a felony in certain circumstances. I''d like to see driving under the influence become a much more serious crime with prison sentences, permanent revocation, and serious repurcussions for repeat offenders.

Listen, clearly this guy shouldn''t be driving, but neither should the asshole in the BMW talking on the phone and reading the freakin'' newspaper. And he''s certainly no less a menace. I''d not mind seeing him without his license for a few years.

I know a while back, one of the editors of Car & Driver proposed a graduated system for drivers licenses. This would entail the applicant taking exams of different lengths and difficulty levels. There would also be supplementary equipment inspections.

People who qualify for the top Class I licenses could drive in excess of the speed limit - but they had to have a properly equipped car, with all the most advanced saftey features. They would know better than to talk on a cell phone while driving and to absolutely never drink and drive. And those that don''t match those requirements scale down the list, until at the bottom end you have people who are only qualified to drive around town, not on interstates, either because they don''t properly maintain a vehicle, or they have had past felonies resulting from previous bad driving incidents, or they just physically don''t have the requisite skill to merge onto an interstate.

It''s a program that may make sense, yet also seems completely against the popular notion that driving is an egalitarian activity in the US - not to mention the inherent classicism involved when you say that the guy who can afford the brand new car with 18 air bags and xenon headlights gets more priviledges. As to whether the program could even be implemented is up in the air as well - there would be all sorts of commerce clause issues.

But, it''s just an idea. Something needs to be done, and while this may or may not be it, it is something to think about.

not to mention the inherent classicism involved when you say that the guy who can afford the brand new car with 18 air bags and xenon headlights gets more priviledges

Yeah, that would be a big problem for a lot of people. I don''t know, even for a liberal I start to think that your (general you, not YOU Bosephus) right to get offended by that sort of things ends at the point where you put people in danger. Maybe with a bit more refining than that. Either way, I think such a graduated system would be a solid idea!

Of course, it''s impractical because you''re right. The American Public has decided that driving a two ton vehicle at speeds that would pulverize bone is a right.

Technically it''s a priviledge, not a right, or so the nice officer told my sister one May evening...

"Elysium" wrote:

Listen, clearly this guy shouldn''t be driving, but neither should the asshole in the BMW talking on the phone and reading the freakin'' newspaper. And he''s certainly no less a menace. I''d not mind seeing him without his license for a few years.

I don''t hear stories about guys in BMWs on cell phones, plowing into a crowd of people. Even if somone is on the phone with eyes ahead, its still a sight better then those folks who aren''t on a phone and still can''t manage to drive correctly.

Of the list of car accidents, booze and age seem to be at the top, I don''t know where cell phone usage ranks but I hardly think you can group those in with people who just no longer have the abilities/sense to get behind the wheel.

Don''t know why this event bothers me so much, I think its the little girl dying that did it, but it really has me angry. I just hope AARP doesn''t try and be pre-emptive by calling this isolated or make remarks of the thousands of safe elderly drivers. If they know whats good for them, they''ll just shut the hell up and sit this one out.

The ""old people shouldn''t drive thing"" is somewhat harsh. There are many of them who can drive around without causing accidents. In fact, most accidents over here are caused by young and middle-aged people. Often a result of alcohol, lack of experience or sleep. I agree though that once you reach a certain age you should be required to undergo some test every second or third year.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1616-7826.html

Quote:
While older drivers have the lowest crash rate per licensed drivers of all (driving) age groups, they also have a significantly higher fatality rate per vehicle mile driven than other adult drivers. In fact, on the basis of estimated annual travel, the fatality rate for drivers 85 years and older is nine times higher than the rate for drivers 25- to 69-years old.

According to research from a 2000 CSA report, persons aged 65 years and older comprised 13 percent of the total U.S. population, but represented 18 percent of all traffic fatalities.

Statistics show that older drivers suffer a disproportionately high rate of motor vehicle fatalities compared with other adult drivers. This is due to an increased rate of crash per vehicle mile driven, and an increased risk of fatality in the event of a crash. Crash rates begin to rise at age 70 years and continue to rise with increasing age. In addition, older adults are five to six times more likely to die of a comparable injury than their younger counterparts.

I like how there is all this talk of giving old drivers vision tests, but in this particular case, I really don''t think vision was a factor. Unless you have to look down to see which pedal you are pushing.

I don''t hear stories about guys in BMWs on cell phones, plowing into a crowd of people. Even if somone is on the phone with eyes ahead, its still a sight better then those folks who aren''t on a phone and still can''t manage to drive correctly.

Well, to be fair this is an isolated event. Or maybe it''s a hyper event of a trend. It''s not like every day we''ve got old people plowing into pedestrians, so no need to paint it that way. But that''s irrelevant because, ultimately, I am agreeing that more needs to be done to make people responsible for their actions behind the wheel, and keep those who shouldn''t be behind the wheel away.

I''m not even focussing on the cell phone as much as the reading a newspaper while driving thing (I see that all the damn time). My point is, that unsafe driving practices should be struck down a little more vehimently in general. So, yeah, age thing a problem, but aggressive driving, road rage, and inappropriate activities also got to go.

This really has me more sad for everyone involved than anything. I mean, I''m all for punishing this guy to the full extent of the law - in this sort of incident personal responsiblity is a must - but there''s no question this guy didn''t get up and head out to kill some people. I''m not talking leniency here, but sympathy.

A lot of folks said he wasn''t slowing down, and the only reason he came to a stop is because of the BODY that was stuck underneath his car. It''s a damned shame really. While the guy has ""apologized,"" it doesn''t seem, to me, that he''s THAT upset about his actions. Personally, I hope they throw the book at him, i.e. 9 counts of murer or vehicular manslaughter plus whatever else they can drum up. This should not be tolerated.

What''s even worse is that I own the same make and model, with the same color, of car that this jerk did, so I''m hoping I don''t get mistaken for him or anything.

To be clear, if this proves to be anything but a horrible mistake, if there''s any clear indication that this man had any malicious or willful intent, you can throw out what I just said about sympathy. It''s predicated on the notion that he was not in control of his faculties.

"Veloxi" wrote:

What''s even worse is that I own the same make and model, with the same color, of car that this jerk did, so I''m hoping I don''t get mistaken for him or anything.

That depends. Are you an overweight, bald, gray-bearded old koot that needs to walk with a cane?

Ideally, I don''t think that restricting people is the answer. Why? Because fundamentally, a person doesn''t believe anyone has the right to say they''re unable to independently perform actions (like piloting a car). As a result, you see lots of elderly people and DUI offenders driving without licenses. The solution? I personally believe that you don''t harass someone for driving with a BAC of .11, or tell an elderly person they''re not fit to drive. Instead, make the penalties for which they''re liable (should an accident occur) much more stiff; if you wreck into someone sober, drunk, blind, whatever -- you can get the bejesus sued out of you and can be punished severly. What this would do is make people think twice or maybe more times before they get behind the wheel, and take every trip very seriously. Private pilots are incredibly careful with their planes *every* time they fly, becase one omitted detail or false move could kill them. I''m not suggesting you check your tire pressure before every trip to the 7-Eleven, but you get the idea.

Problem with that, Bagga, is that under that scenario there are still 9 people dead and dozens injured at this Farmer''s Market. In the case of hurtling tons of steel down concrete, I''m actually on the side of preemption. After all, we don''t just say everybody can pilot an aircraft, but if you crash we''re going to be really pissed off.

If he had been aware of the severe consequences of driving and not being able to control his car, perhaps he wouldn''t have made the trip. Don''t get me wrong; I''m all for stricter testing in order to get a license in the first place. Our current system is so disturbingly easy that I really don''t know why it''s there at all. It''s more of an inconvenience than a safety measure.

The problem goes back to utter lack of consequences in most of these situations. This guy needs to face 9 counts of vehicular manslaughter. Period. And the families of the people involved should sue him for wrongful death. Wipe out any accumulated wealth he might have built up, because he won''t need it in prison.

While I agree this person should have never been allowed to drive a car. After reading the article I think one way to help stop any further accidents of this sort would be to put more obstacles in the road to stop any vehicles that may try to turn down a closed street. I mean if you are going to have a market on the street you should have some way of stopping cars that may come down it. Spike strips or sand bags would be fine solutions to this I would think. That said please take this guy''s license and make him responsible for his actions. I also agree that we need stricter licensing tests, and re-tests for drivers in the U.S.

Cell phones in cars? Ban them for use while driving and make hands-free sets a requirement when you want to call someone from inside your car while driving. The police here fines pretty harsh when they see you using a regular cell phone while driving.

Accidents caused by elderly have in fact over taken accidents caused my young inexperienced drivers in the US. My mom is heavily involved in senior issues such as alzhiemers and elder abuse.

It really doesnt matter if they are able to drive and able to tell which is the brake and which is the gas. They real crux of the problem is reaction time and eye hand coordination.

I know I''ve stated this on the forums before. The real ""generation"" gap has nothing to do with age anymore. It has to do with reaction times and eye-hand coordination. Athletes and video game players are light years beyond ""soccer moms"" ""cell phone drivers"" and the elderly with regards to coordination. This is going to be a huge dilema in California real soon, where everybody drives and the public transportation is so poor.

Funny, I was just listening to the classic ""Nobody Walks in LA"" on the way home to visit my parent in LA.

Elysium if you ever care to visit the Bay Area in Northern California, I will be glad to show you how much of an epidemic it is.

Did I mention that my grandfather is an accident waiting to happen at 86? His insurance for a 1996 Buick is $320 a month.

A cop pulled him over and took away his license because he was driving so poorly. You know what? a week later, he the DMV gave him back his license.

He recently injured his back and has been spending time in a nursing home to rehabilitate. Finally, after many years we may be able to convince him to stop driving.

I drove with him for the first and last time 8 years ago and I really feared for my life. He would stop in intersections if he changed his mind about turning. He would get on the freeway from the onramp going 30 mph. He constantly swerved into different lanes and took wide turns into other lanes without looking.

This is really bad.

My grandfather is also an accident waiting to happen, but fortunately he lives in Pennsyvania, miles away from any freeway.

"Koesj" wrote:

Cell phones in cars? Ban them for use while driving and make hands-free sets a requirement when you want to call someone from inside your car while driving. The police here fines pretty harsh when they see you using a regular cell phone while driving.

I think that''s a horrible law. If you wanna ban cellphones, ban ''em while driving... but research has shown that the hands-free kits don''t cut down on the distraction. I can recall the number of times I''ve had to fumble around to get the kit hooked up and in my ear. I think the real danger is dialing the number; it and hooking the kit up are the only activities relating to cell phone use that force you to take your eyes off the road.

While we''re at it, ban eating in cars. Ban listening to CDs or the radio in cars. Ban dressing in cars. Ban talking with passengers in cars. Hell, ban passengers; god knows they distract you enough to cause an accident or two. How about banning driving? Most automobile accidents are caused by driving.

Bagga - making people ""more"" liable having the bejesus sued out of them isn''t a solution. I just moved from New Orleans, and that place has one of the highest auto insurance rates in the US. Why? Because more than 50% of drivers are uninsured. Many people don''t have jobs nor insurance on their cars. They don''t care what happens if they hit somebody. They got nothing to lose, except maybe go to jail.

Preemption is important. Don''t give these people license plates for their cars. That makes it much easier for the police to pull them over. Seatbelt usage has gone up dramatically since the 1970s because of police pulling people over to fine them for not wearing them. This has picked up more in the past year or so, now that it''s the law across all 50 states.

I don''t know if anybody hear checks fark.com, but there was a string of links to news articles over the past few months of elderly drivers who get into accidents, and when all the dust settles, the engine of the car is revving to the red line, and the tires are spinning, because the driver still has their foot on the gas, mistaking it to be the brakes.

It''s a shame, because without a proper system to care for older people, now that nobody seems to want their own grandparents around anymore, stuff like this is going to keep happening.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

My grandfather is also an accident waiting to happen, but fortunately he lives in Pennsyvania, miles away from any freeway.

I''m from PA, and my dad, who''s elderly, has to be one of the worst drivers I''ve ever seen. Where in PA is your Grandaddy from?

Butler, north of Pittsburgh. My father was from there to, and I don''t really blame him for wanting to get the hell out of Dodge.