Another elderly driver screws up

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Just keep in mind that "driving is a privilege not a right" and then consider how aggressive lobbying from organizations like the AARP scare the politicians into doing anything meaningful to require mandatory performance evaluations after a certain age. This is ridiculous. How many innocent people need to get injured/killed before real changes are implemented?

Money counts for more than blood, apparently. No surprise there in our society.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/29/starbucks.crash.ap/index.html

[on-ramp]

it's called an accident.... older people are more prone to accidents, you want to ban all old people from driving?

what about 17 year olds? they are just as likely to crash too, you want to ban those?

what about handguns? ...which results in thousands of murders every year by criminals. you want to ban those too?

[bryanthompson]

periodic testing would be nice. If you're too young and reckless to drive, you shouldn't be able to. if you're too old and senile to drive, you shouldn't be able to. Testing every once-in-a-while wouldn't kill anybody.

Last week an old guy jumped a curb and his buick landed inside of an apartment about 8 blocks away. Nobody hurt, somehow.

[island_dude]

He won't get any sympathy from me. My first accident was when a 85 year old crashed a red light and plowed into me. His insurance company specialized in low risk drivers like him, and they hated to pay out. I was put through absolute hell after having my car trashed trying to get it fixed. Sure accidents happen, but plowing into a bunch of people accident or not is a real consequence of not having control of your vehicle. Like it or not, we should be placing restrictions on older drivers who are starting to lose their skills.

Lets make it fair. We should retest every driver at 10 year intervals.

[widgeon13]

He has an excuse, "He doesn't speak ENGLISH"!???????

[CJFusco]

It's a tough call, because the way most populated areas of the United States are set up, suburban areas rely so heavily on the use of automobiles to get to and from the resources we need. Unless you live in metro NY, Boston, Washington, etc., public transportation is a joke. The U.S. is not like many parts of Europe where cities and towns grew naturally from centuries-old townships, complete with local pubs and shops within walking distance. If you take away the American elderly's ability to drive, you, in many cases, condemn them to a very difficult lifestyle.

BUT, at the same time, elderly people should NOT be allowed to impede the safety of everyone else on the road. Sure, 16 and 17 year-olds are involved in a lot of accidents too, but crock this up to 1) lack of experience, and 2) a reckless attitude. It has nothing to do with lack of motor (no pun intended) skills, diminished eyesight/hearing, or senility. The more you let a 17 year-old drive, the better they will get (presumably... ). This is the opposite with the elderly.

When I see an elderly person swerving, driving 15mph on a 45-mph road, stopping in the middle of the road for no reason, blowing through red lights, taking left turns on red (saw this one the other day, she almost got creamed), pulling into traffic without looking... it terrifies me. I see both sides of the issue, but I really think the elderly should be retested to the standards which apply to new drivers.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by on-ramp
it's called an accident.... older people are more prone to accidents, you want to ban all old people from driving?

what about 17 year olds? they are just as likely to crash too, you want to ban those?

what about handguns? ...which results in thousands of murders every year by criminals. you want to ban those too?

First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

He did not say or imply in any way whatsoever that he wants to, "ban all old people from driving", where you got that is a mystery. The only reason not to have mandatory driving tests for everyone over 70 is it would piss off the old people lobbying arm, AARP. No other good reason at all. It potentially would create some hardship for those losing the priviledge to drive, but this is a greater public good issue.

My brother got hit driving an XKE roadster one time by woman on her 76th birthday. She ran a stop sign hit him and pushed him sideways about 10 feet, all four tires on the Jag made marks where her '67 Chrysler Newport pushed him. No evidence she ever hit the brakes, even after she hit him.

Her first accident. First recorded, no telling how many she caused.

I challenge anyone to try and argue mandatory testing at a certain age is a bad idea. It is an indefensible position.

[widgeon13]

It's done in aviation at least every two years and depending on your qualifications/rating can be as frequent as every six months.

I have no problem with that.

[stomachmonkey]

It's a tough call, because the way most populated areas of the United States are set up, suburban areas rely so heavily on the use of automobiles to get to and from the resources we need. Unless you live in metro NY, Boston, Washington, etc., public transportation is a joke. The U.S. is not like many parts of Europe where cities and towns grew naturally from centuries-old townships, complete with local pubs and shops within walking distance. If you take away the American elderly's ability to drive, you, in many cases, condemn them to a very difficult lifestyle.

Actually you can blame good old corporate greed for that one.

Primarily GM along with Phillips Petroleum, Standard Oil and Firestone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy