Twelvepole
|
posted on July 18, 2003 11:15:17 AM new
Now that an 84 year old man has killed 10 people, I think it is time for ALL states to reexamine it's driving laws for the elderly...
Once you are 65, you should be required to take a written and driving test every year.
I do hope they sentence that man to whatever prison term is appropriate for vehicular manslaughter.
He is no better than if an 18 year old had done the same thing.
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 18, 2003 11:24:16 AM new
My vote is for age 70 and every year thereafter. I'm sorry for the elderly who will lose their independence, but what other solution is there? There are plenty of senior services out there to assist them in getting to the stores and doctor's. My boyfriend's mother used these services to shop, go to church, community events and the doctors. Not only did she possibly spare someone's life on the road, she met a lot of wonderful people her own age who helped to keep her busy right up to the time she died.
My grandfather, rest his soul, was driving until about six months before he died. Had he not suffered a stroke, he probably would have been driving right up to the end. He was in his 80's when he died. He scared me half to death everytime he drove. He thought that the yellow dividing line was there for him to drive down the middle of. I held my breath everytime I got in the car with him.
I know that AARP is screaming that this would be discrimination, but everything can't be discrimination. If you take the test and pass, you can still drive. If you don't, wouldn't you want to know if you would be a danger to innocent people on the road?
Cheryl
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on July 18, 2003 11:51:25 AM new
Accidents happen all the time with all ages of drivers. Are the elderly worse than teenagers or middle age people? Are there stats to prove that? We have to get away from everything being a criminal act and start realizing that there are accidents in life.
|
gravid
|
posted on July 18, 2003 12:24:36 PM new
A person that runs through a stationary visible barrier and can not stop their car with which they are familiar for three blocks is not an accident.
An accident is a momentary loss of control due to something too sudden or unfamiliar for the person to respond to it.
Not a path of destruction and bodies for 3 blocks because there is a complete lack of ability to act completely frozen in befuddled panic.
No - accident is not the right term.
Selfish indifference and stubborn pride to deny and ignore one's diminished ability. Criminal negligence and willful risk taking. Homicide.
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on July 18, 2003 12:29:44 PM new
Doesn't matter how old you are!
You can take all the written they can throw at you.
Will not make you any better or worse on the road!
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 18, 2003 12:59:08 PM new
Who said anything about written tests? There are tests available to test reflexes. He hit the gas instead of the brake. I'm sure he didn't intentionally do it. But, his reflexes were too slow to make a quick adjustment that could have saved lives. For three blocks he could not make the adjustment!!!!! Prior to that, he had hit his garage more than once. Maybe his family should make the decision to take his license from him. He just should not be driving anymore.
They've put tough restrictions on teenage drivers. At least around here. They cannot drive at night without a licensed driver until they are 18. They must have so many hours of driving experience prior to getting their license. It's not easy here to get a license as a teenager.
Aren't some elderly too impaired to drive? It's been medically proven that your mental facilities diminish with age. Your reflexes slow, your vision deteriorates as well. We have an elderly woman that comes into the clinic at work. She's in great shape except for one HUGE problem - macular degeneration that is rapidly advancing. Guess what? She is still driving. She can barely see her hand in front of her face, but somehow she managed to get her license renewed. In less than a year, the poor dear will probably be blind. In the meantime, she has a legal right to drive. Do I want to be on the road with her? No sir, I don't.
How can one object to having one's reflexes tested at age 70 and each year thereafter? The next person this man hits could be a child crossing the street. Thankfully, he lives far enough away from me that it won't be my granddaughter. I don't want this man to spend time in jail. I think he will suffer enough. I would hate to think these people died for no reason at all. Making testing madatory after a certain age would at least give some meaning to their deaths.
Cheryl
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on July 18, 2003 01:01:01 PM new
Who said anything about written tests?
Read the first post on this thread!!
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 18, 2003 01:04:45 PM new
He also said "and driving." Not just written. The written test is a joke anyway. I remember when I first took mine (30+ years ago). You had to really study for it. Now, it's just a bunch of common sense questions. Neither of my kids had to study at all!
Cheryl
|
mlecher
|
posted on July 18, 2003 01:09:57 PM new
Accidents happen all the time with all ages of drivers. Are the elderly worse than teenagers or middle age people? Are there stats to prove that?
I seem to remember a study done. Stats were about the same for Under 25 and Over 65 for the number of accidents. However, the difference was in speed. With under 25, the accidents would happen becuase of excessive speed and just being stupid. The accidents involving the elderly would happen at much lower speeds and was the results of poor eyesight, poor reaction times and the hard-to-determine "cognative ability".
I just wonder what the death toll is between these two groups according to the stats. One would "assume" that accidents involving high speed would happen on the highway and/or away from population centers and result in mainly only injuring.killing the driver and his/her occupants. Those accidents at low speeds would be in higher population density areas resulting in higher casuality rates.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 18, 2003 01:39:51 PM new
There's no point in sending this old man to jail. If anyone is responsible for this accident, it's the system which gave him the privilege to drive.
Yearly testing beyond age 65 or 70 should be required in order to check eyesight, reaction times and especially the "hard-to-determine cognitive ability".
I was amazed when my mother in law was able to renew her driving license when she was unable at the same time to remember how to lock and unlock her front door.
Helen
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 18, 2003 02:05:58 PM new
Helen
I can relate. My mother is in the beginning stages of Alzheimers. I'm afraid she will be out driving one day and not remember how to get home. She'll sometimes forget where she's headed to when she gets in her car. It's frightening to think I may lose her one day and have to send a search party to locate her.
Cheryl
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on July 18, 2003 02:09:33 PM new
CBlev65252:
If you feel she's that bad, you could have her doctor pull her license
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 18, 2003 02:22:50 PM new
She's not that bad yet. She's no danger to anyone on the road. In fact, she's probably a better driver than I am. She's 68 and not one ticket ever. I just worry about her all the time, is all. I know she would eventually find her way home or to my house or my bother's. She herself has said that when she feels she's gotten bad, she will stop driving. She also knows that if that happens, I'll take her wherever and whenever she wants to go. My father as well. Sometimes it's hard to say whether it is normal forgetfulness or Alzheimers.
I understand an elderly person's concerns about being "locked" into their homes, though. My step-grandmother who is 85 feels like a prisoner at times. She quit driving on her own accord. Still, all of us are available to take her here and there. She's too proud to ask so we make sure we call her all the time. We "drop by" on our way to shopping (although she lives 15 miles from me) and ask her to come along. That way she doesn't feel as though she is being a "bother". Maybe more communities should have programs to see that they are not locked into their homes or better yet, more families should take an interest in their elderly parents. They raised you so it may be time to return the favor.
Cheryl
|
gravid
|
posted on July 18, 2003 05:20:39 PM new
Well I guess you could say the old boy flunked his driving test.
But this is an extremely expensive way to conduct it.
|
stusi
|
posted on July 18, 2003 06:38:04 PM new
I was traveling west on a four lane road with a ten foot wide grassy divider in the middle. As I wanted to turn left into a shopping center on the south side of the road, I looked to the west to see if any cars were coming. There were none, so I started to turn left into the center. As I passed the divider I noticed a car coming at me from the EAST on the south side of the road. An elderly man was driving on the wrong side of the road and was about to make a left turn into the center. I stopped just in time to avoid him hitting me. He was totally oblivious to any other cars on the road. To this day I don't know where he came from but he was clearly medicated. Diminishing reflexes are one issue, but I have to think that senior citizens tend to be more highly medicated as well.
Another time I parked my brand new car next to a double wide handicapped spot. When I came out I saw that a good samaritan had put a note on my windshield saying that the old lady driving the car in the handicapped spot had driven down the lane the wrong way and had hit my car, an almost impossible thing if you had seen the size of the spot.
Down here in South Florida we also have a large number of senior citizens who seem to drive into canals with some frequency. When you live among a large senior population you witness many scary drivers who, among other things, pull into oncoming traffic having clearly misjudged the speed of the approaching cars. Many times I have had to brake suddenly to avoid an accident. Anyone over the age of 70 should have a yearly vision and reflex test. Anyone of any age who takes certain classes of prescription drugs should have restrictions put on their driving as well.
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 18, 2003 08:41:37 PM new
All drivers should be tested on a regular basis and held to a certain standard of proficiency. There is also something to be said for the concept of having areas of the city with a high pedestrian density free of motorized vehicles. A system of trams or people movers would need to be implemented in these areas. This would have benefits in both quality of life and energy efficiency. This was once the case but then someone framed Roger Rabbit.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 18, 2003 09:12:48 PM new
Why all drivers? It seems to me that most drivers between the ages of 25 and 60 seem to do ok with the standards in place right now.
Elderly drivers over the age of 65 seem to cause more accidents than they are involved in, but in this instance the driver was 84 and not 18.
Of course we have those who immediately want to shift the blame from the person who caused the accident.
He did the crime, he needs to do the time... even if it means he dies in prison.
He made the choice to drive...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on July 18, 2003 10:06:07 PM new
At least he'd get better medical care if he went to prison.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 18, 2003 10:22:47 PM new
LOL!
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 18, 2003 10:34:02 PM new
From what I see on the roads either there are a lot of unlicensed drivers out there or the standard used to license drivers needs to be looked at. The last time I took an actual road test was 35 years ago, I take a written and eye test about once every eight years. I assume this is typical. I don't mind having to "qualify" to keep my privileges and if it gets some of the hazardous drivers off the road the inconvenience is well worth it. Setting the age of retesting arbitrarily is not fair and is illegal anyway. Testing everyone at some interval is fair.
There is no question that this man should lose his driving privilege. It will be interesting to see how his insurer if any handle the financial liability. However the cost of incarcerating him in the event that he is convicted would be a burden on society and unnecessary to boot. I'm sure another alternative will be found if needed.
Afterthought: Perhaps euthanasia the SOB is probably a leftist democratic commie pinko POS!
|
Fenix03
|
posted on July 19, 2003 12:32:15 AM new
Update on one man crime spree....
It now appears that the old man was fleeing the scene of an accident with another vehicle a couple blocks earlier.
Not only should this guy do jail time, so should the idiots at AARP that lobbied against mandatory drving tests for the elderly7 on the grounds of discrimination. The only people that test is going to discriminate against are those who have no right to be driving.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
~ Formerly Neonmania on Vendio ~
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 19, 2003 05:06:48 AM new
fenix03
Wholeheartedly agree! AARP is run by the elderly, isn't it? So what else could you expect from them.
There are several people on my street that have no driver's license. Yet, they continue to drive. They smuggly wave as they drive down the street. Turn them in? I could face bodily harm for doing so. Or, vandalism to my house or car. We once turned someone in for robbing us. We had several bricks thrown at our home over the course of several days. It stopped once my boyfriend grabbed his hunting rifle and chased them down the street with it. It was unloaded and broken, but you should have seen the fools run! LOL! The neighbors were laughing at the whole scene. Even the police said, "Good for you!" They never bothered us again.
The road is an increasingly more dangerous place to be. Between unlicensed drivers (especially those with multiple DUIs), the elderly and children joy riding, you need to be ever watchful!
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jul 19, 2003 05:07 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 19, 2003 05:46:56 AM new
Sending an 84 year old man to prison for a traffic accident will only serve a primitive need for revenge.
Time and money would be better spent in the promotion of a better functioning bureau of motor vehicles.
Helen
|
Fenix03
|
posted on July 19, 2003 07:09:29 AM new
Helen - sending at 15 year old to jail for murder serves the same need.
Are you advocating special sentencing for the elderly? Either they get special considerations (and responibilities) for their age or they don't. You don't get to have it both ways.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
~ Formerly Neonmania on Vendio ~
|
stusi
|
posted on July 19, 2003 07:16:48 AM new
davebraun- "Setting the age of retesting arbitrarily is not fair and is illegal anyway." Is forcing retirement fair? How about airline pilots? Should there be any controls over the elderly who have positions of public safety such as pilots, train engineers, bus drivers etc.? Do you want 90 year old pilots? As people age their reflexes diminish! As reflexes are integral to public safety how is this unfair? Such controls are only illegal until such time as the laws are changed. Go back and read my previous post again.
|
stusi
|
posted on July 19, 2003 07:21:39 AM new
"Support hose" Helen strikes again. I just had to say that. This time I actually agree with Helen, although this guy's family should be brought into court and a power of attorney should be assigned to a family member to insure that he never drives again. BTW- how about seniors on cell phones while driving? Are we all okay with that?
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 19, 2003 07:25:35 AM new
By that logic AARP should not be allowed to advocate on behalf of it's members based on the age of the member (you may join at the age of 50). I would then suppose that The NAACP should be ignored in the area of civil rights as they are run by members of the class they wish to promote as well as most "special interest" groups as their constituents are also members of the class.
If the driver was fleeing the scene of a prior accident there are laws that can adequately deal with that. It is not necessary to discriminate against a group of drivers because of the failings of an individual driver. Simply test all drivers repeatedly throughout their driving careers.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 19, 2003 07:29:01 AM new
Fenix03
I don't believe in sending licensed drivers to prison for traffic accidents regardless of age.
Because elderly people are more likely to be medicated and have some cognitive dysfunction I am in favor of more intensive testing for people over 65 or 70 years of age before renewing or issuing a drivers license.
Helen
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 19, 2003 07:44:11 AM new
So Helen, by your reasoning, all those Drunk Drivers in prison for vehicular homicide should be released... after all it was just and "accident"
So exactly when are people supposed to take responsibility for their own actions and not be able to "blame" everyone else around them?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
Helenjw
|
posted on July 19, 2003 08:16:13 AM new
Twelvepole,
"So Helen, by your reasoning, all those Drunk Drivers in prison for vehicular homicide should be released... after all it was just and "accident"
So exactly when are people supposed to take responsibility for their own actions and not be able to "blame" everyone else around them?
Sometimes poor reaction times, failing eyesight and cognitive dysfunction are conditions not apparent to the aging individual. It's not a case of failure to "take responsibility".
We have to rely on the department of motor vehicles to make an effort to screen drivers with these problems.
As you should know, twelvepole, I have no sympathy for drunk drivers...lock them up or send them to a treatment center after revoking their drivers license.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jul 19, 2003 08:18 AM ]
|
