[keekeeree]

If it takes you five minutes to crawl out of your car, it's time to take a taxi. You're wrong if you think going 20-MPH in a 35-MPH zone makes you safer (because you can't react quickly enough at 35-MPH). It's time to start pulling some of these drivers off the road.

I'm sure this woman feels horrible for crunching, squishing and pinning nine children with her car. But it doesn't change the fact that it's her refusal to park it that injured these children.

"We're trying, with a lot of compassion, to talk with her on what might have occurred."

With a lot of compassion?!? If this was a seventeen-year-old picking up his little brother, I'm sure the cops wouldn't be showing him much in the line of compassion. They'd nail his ass to the wall.

[BRussell]

I wonder how many accidents are caused by the elderly compared to teenagers?

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

I"m of the firm conviction that the elderly cause more accidents than they end up in, but of course that means they avoid being a statistic so its hard to tell.

I used to live in Las Vegas, where there is no last call for alcohol, as the casinos and bars are 24/7.
We had a lot pedestrians struck and injured there on a regular basis from both elderly pedestrians and elderly drivers.
The drivers became easily disoriented from all the lights, and the pedestrians tended to think the strip was an open walking mall instead of an actual road, ignoring traffic lights or curb boundaries.
most locals avoided driving on the strip if they could at all avoid it.

[Millennium]

I agree with this, actually. Mandatory testing, both written and in-car, once per year, after age 65 (or perhaps 60).

To keep your license, you must meet the following two conditions:

1) You must pass the test (duh).
2) Your score on the test must be no worse than 5 points less than your previous score, 9 points less than the one previous to that, 12 points less than the one two years previous, 14 points less than the one three years previous, and 15 points less than the one four years previous. In other words, a steadily-declining score will knock you out of the running. You may, of course, test again, but you must then get within five points of the highest score you've attained since entering this program in order to get your license back.

People's ability does, in fact, tend to steadily decrease after reaching a certain age, due to a large number of factors. Because of this, we need a system in place which will get the dangerous drivers off the road, while allowing those who can continue to drive safelt to do so.

Originally posted by keekeeree:
With a lot of compassion?!? If this was a seventeen-year-old picking up his little brother, I'm sure the cops wouldn't be showing him much in the line of compassion. They'd nail his ass to the wall.

From reading the article it looks like age wasn't the factor, but her medication was.

I'm all for driver testing, but it should be on all drivers, not just the elderly.

[daimoni]

.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by hayesk:


From reading the article it looks like age wasn't the factor, but her medication was.

I'm all for driver testing, but it should be on all drivers, not just the elderly.

from the article:
The woman was on some medications and blood tests will be conducted, but Shular said authorities "don't believe that's going to be a contributing cause in this accident."

The early indication is that her medication was NOT a factor. It's appears to be a question of competence and physical control of the vehicle.

Everyone should be tested regularly. Mail-in renewals for the elderly is a psyhotically bad policy that still exists in many states.

And I agree that if she was a teenager, there would be very little compassion in the investigation.

[misc]

I agree that everyone should be tested. I also believe that the age limit should be lowered, make the test harder, but allow people 14 years of age (2 or 3 years lower in some states). If they are going to test you every year, and you pass the test, why not make the age limit lower?

If drugs did cause the accident then she was DUI.

[Zimmerman]

I used this topic as a debate platform in class a while back. During my research I dug up tons of stats. One of the most horrifying was the fact that if the line continues the way it has been for the last 10 years, by as early as 2007, motor accident caualties (deaths, not just injuries) involving senior citizens (categorically, 55 or older) will surpass annual drunk driving deaths. Shocking, aint it? Thats only 5 years away.

It is primarily due to the fact that people are living longer and a we have a larger elderly population. In addition, people in general are (on average) becoming worse and worse drivers.

[Nimisys]

the biggest problem isn't the driver but the cars themselves and societies attitude towards them. a modern car today will shift for itself, brake for itself, control speed on its own, make turning easier, will tell you when t do the maintance, will let you know when tires are low, that is needs service, they strive to eleminate engine noise/vibration as much as possible, eliminate tire noise/roadnoise, they activly ,amgae power and traction to the tires, etc, basicly they are working to eleminate the driver completely from the vehicle.

as a result the driver is nothing more than a mechanism to point the vehicle and give it an indication on how fast to to go i that direction. as a result driving requires very little effort, very little thought and even worse very little skill. combine this with a vehicles relativly low cost and you now get the basis for driving is a right bullshit argument.

the probelm is that few people can really drive, fewer people know what their limits and thier cars limits are at this moment in time andfar fewer are the number of people who repsect autmobiles for ht eamazing machines they are and understand that operating them is a priviledge and not a right.

now lets look and grandma again. obvously the car is an automatic as a sudden accleration for stop in a manual requires movemnt of both feet, not just one. so the grandma is disconnected from the state her machine is in. second grandma is not htinking about keepiong her machine in contorl and in one place she is more concerned about getting a child into the vehicle. and lastly grandma overestimates her abilities to control this machine and becuase driving is so relativly easy to do ( and by driving i mena pointing the car in the correct direction) she thinks that it is her right to do so and would never think about giving up this so called right, because it is so easy anyone can do it. the result is a lack of respect for the machine and 9 people hit by it.

how can we avoid this in the future? longterm requires a change in the fundemental ways we view driving. vehicles will need to become more communicative and dependent ont he driver and the driver will need to become a better driver. the car needs to more cleanly communicate its status to the driver and the driver needs to understand that they are piloting a 3000lb projectile of steel and as such needs to know thier limits, their vehicles limits and how both react at the edge and beyond. that and driving will need to be viewed as a priviledge once again. licensing will need to become tougher and a greater quality and quanity of training will be needed. with this comes greater freedoms in vehicles ( faster speed limits, more powerful and better handleing vehicles) but the rules will become much better enforced ( moving violatins resulting in automatic suspension till it is cleared up)

in the short term we need to adopt a multiple tier licsenesing program, require more formal training and mandatory retests every 5 years from 18-55 and then every 2 years after that. driving age should still start at 16 but a nationwide progressive licsene (such as CA, which has shown statisticly to reduce teenage accidents) to the a full licsene at age 18. after 55 retest every 2 years, onwards with complete elimination follwing 3 successive statiscly signifacant decreases in score. furthermore every one should be required to compelete an 8 hours of trainging in any new vehicle purchased on a hazards cource to learn the limtis of the vehicle in a controlled enviroment. finally seperate licenses are given out for 4 door passanger sedans, trucks/suvs/vans/minivans and then perfromance oriented vehicles. purchase of a new vehicle would require a liscense for that vehicle type or a learnging permet for it, providing successful completeion of a hazards cource in 30 days of purchase. also you must test and future retests of lisence in that vehicle class.

[wdlove]

It dose seem that increase testing is on the way. As long as it is fair across all age groups.

[OldManMac]

Increased testing for all age groups is certainly a viable solution, but it isn't going to happen. Our society tolerates a certain number of deaths due to auto accidents because it "won't happen to me", and because it would cost more to implement better testing, by virtue of the fact that more examiners would be needed, more facilities would be needed, etc. This is no different than the war on drugs, or any other social issue we confront. These problems cost money to solve, and we're not willing to pay that money.

[olePigeon]

There's a slight problem with "everyone else" and the elderly. "Everyone else" will improve their driving skills over time. The elderly do not, they slowly decline as their health declines.

Testing at a reasonable ages is mandatory. There should be midterms as well for everyone. I think starting at age 65, you need to take a written and behind the wheel test. Then again at 70, then again at 74, 77, 79, and once a year after that.

As for everyone else, I think we should all have to take a written/wheel test every 7 years.

[TiGirl]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
There's a slight problem with "everyone else" and the elderly. "Everyone else" will improve their driving skills over time. The elderly do not, they slowly decline as their health declines.

Testing at a reasonable ages is mandatory. There should be midterms as well for everyone. I think starting at age 65, you need to take a written and behind the wheel test. Then again at 70, then again at 74, 77, 79, and once a year after that.

100% agreed, although I'd start the testing earlier and would make it annual. But you realize we're going up against a brick wall here with this. The AARP lobbies HARD to keep its member on the road (and is the main reason why I will never join the AARP when I retire). Many old people stubbornly hold onto their "freedom" behind the wheel, although that privilege has been putting people in their graves.

[Mr. Blur]

as someone that lives in a city that has a higher than average elderly population i see the results of letting people drive at advanced ages without testing all too frequently. yes, there has got to be some kind of testing. right now we have a graduated licencing scheme for new drivers, and once you have your "full" license it's good for how ever many years then you renew it (basically without testing - it's just a tax-grab).

why not something like, once you get your full license it is good for 5 years, with a test upon renewal if your driving record (accidents, tickets etc) warrants it. then once you hit 55, the renewal test becomes mandatory, once you hit 60 the renewal period shortens and thus you getvtested more frequently.

[Lerkfish]

I think a facet of this that we're overlooking is that IF you're going to take grandma's driving priveleges away, someone or some system is going to have to start transporting her..to the grocers, to church, to visit relatives, etc.
You're talking about a safety net of some sort that makes sure that seniors who are not in institutions have some access to transport. You can't just shut them up in their own houses or they're going to start starving right and left, for one thing.

If our society took better care of seniors in the first place without casting them loose on social icebergs to fend for themselves, there'd be more willingness on their parts to admit when they should no longer drive.

But put yourself in their shoes. Who is going to drive them to the grocery store or the doctor's appointment? the bus lines simply do not go everywhere they need to go, and its unreasonable to expect them to figure out viable solutions on their own if they're unable to even drive.

What is our responsibilty here? if we want the authority to remove their driving priveleges, we must hand in hand also solve their transportation problems.

[Spliffdaddy]

lock her up.

Anybody that gets behind the wheel without the skills or coordination to drive should be locked up. Just like a DUI, in my opinion.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
But put yourself in their shoes. Who is going to drive them to the grocery store or the doctor's appointment?

simple her family.

[Spliffdaddy]

the bus.

a taxi.

walk.

[PorscheBunny]

Most Americans believe that driving a vehicle is a right and not a privilege, and will fight or protest almost anything that makes it easier for them to lose their "right", including ignoring the revokation of their privilege.

What we need is:

1. More extensive driver's education before a license is issued.

2. Stricter drivers' examinations, both written and driving.

3. Mandatory examinations (both written and driving) every 3-5 years, regardless of age.

4. Stricter penalties and more enforcement for driving without license, under influence, carelessly, and recklessly. This includes the idiots on their cell phones, putting on makeup, driving slow in the 'fast' lane, shaving, eating, READING, etc., to pay for the extra costs caused by these measures.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nimisys:


simple her family.

I"m guessing you don't hang around much with the elderly. Many don't have families living close enough to take care of simple mundane things like groceries. Many times family is close but WON"T help them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying allow them to drive if they cannot, I agree with that, I'm just saying that will leave a transportation gap that will have to be filled in some way, whether by family or public transportation.
Do you think you could do your grocery shopping by bus? Imagine if you were 80, barely able to walk much less carry groceries on and off bus steps.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


I"m guessing you don't hang around much with the elderly.

quite the contrary, my 80 year old grandfather lives with us, my 74 year old granmother lives 5 miles away and my other survivng grandmother lives in a mountain village about 55miles away, with my uncle living next door to her. care for the elderly members of your family has always been a major family value.

though your right basic transportation needs to be addreesed, however there are things the elderly can do whent he family isn't there to help them. personal scooters ( pride, segway, etc) or even the golfcart vehicles would make a suitable replacement. that an location needs to become a concern. moving closer to doctors, grocery, etc is an option if you don;t feel like hiring someone to get grocerys or a cab to the doctors. however it is something most elderly don;t want to look at because it is difficult, i can respect that fear. however it is something that needs to be addressed.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


I"m guessing you don't hang around much with the elderly. Many don't have families living close enough to take care of simple mundane things like groceries. Many times family is close but WON"T help them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying allow them to drive if they cannot, I agree with that, I'm just saying that will leave a transportation gap that will have to be filled in some way, whether by family or public transportation.
Do you think you could do your grocery shopping by bus? Imagine if you were 80, barely able to walk much less carry groceries on and off bus steps.

Here's an idea, and it just popped into my head so I haven't had a chance to really mull over the pros and cons, but I'll throw out for discussion.

How about making children legally responsible for their aging parents. They were legally responsible for our butts for eighteen years. Seems like turning the table seems fair. And the morally right thing to do.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by keekeeree:


Here's an idea, and it just popped into my head so I haven't had a chance to really mull over the pros and cons, but I'll throw out for discussion.

How about making children legally responsible for their aging parents. They were legally responsible for our butts for eighteen years. Seems like turning the table seems fair. And the morally right thing to do.

nothing is quite that simple. I'll give you my own family situation as a for instance:

My 80-year old mother-in-law is fiercely independent and in complete control of her faculties. She used to walk to the grocery store and carry her groceries home. No problem. Then, she fell and broke her hip and now needs a walker. My brother-in-law lives five miles away, my sister-in-law lives four hours away, as do we (4 and half) in the opposite direction.
My brother-in-law is a worthless sort and refuses to buy groceries for his own mother (though this doesn't prevent him from hitting her up for money every time her SS check comes in).
What this requires is for my sister-in-law, who is a double amputee with artificial legs, and us, with a four-year old alternate coming in so she has someone that can get her groceries every two weeks.
We've tried to convince her until we're blue in the face to come live with us, we even cleared out and prepared the guest room for her, but she is extremely stubborn and refuses, not wanting to be a burden. What do you do? she is coherent, in her right mind and chooses NOT to let us take care of her, because she values her independence.

Its fine to say "make the children responsible" but as a society we cannot even track down all deadbeat dads, much less force adult children to accept responsibility for their elders. Sure, its great when that DOES happen, but in general, that cannot be counted on in all cases, and in many cases, the elderly have no family at all to depend upon.

[macroy]

Originally posted by keekeeree:


Here's an idea, and it just popped into my head so I haven't had a chance to really mull over the pros and cons, but I'll throw out for discussion.

How about making children legally responsible for their aging parents. They were legally responsible for our butts for eighteen years. Seems like turning the table seems fair. And the morally right thing to do.

hehe... this is mean. But the first thing I thought of when I read this was a bunch of folks who do not want this role trying to scare their parents into heart-attacks (popping out of closet and going "BOO!!!"... sorry

But yea, I've been "voicing" this periodic testing opinion for awhile now. I mean, pilots have to go through rigorous and continous training. Yes, an airplane is more complicated to operate (physics, weather etc...), but we're talking peoples safety here.

But I also will think public transportation will need to be better before this will be "accepted" by the majority.

[Millennium]

IU don't think that making cars harder to operate (note that I say operate, not drive), as some people have proposed, is the solution.

More rigorous training is definitely called for. To be honest, the kind of training required for a commercial license today should be mandatory for even a basic license. Some might even say this should be taken farther into basic stunt-driver training. There's some sense to that; after all, these people know how to get into all kinds of nasty situations with a car, and then get out of those situations without hurting themselves or anyone else. But I'm not sure it's necessary to go that far.

But mandatory testing, both written and in-car, every five years, for everyone? I'm not sure that's practical. The sheer volume of people having to go through testing every month would be enormous. That's roughly 2200 people every day per state, if you average it out. Assume 50 testing centers per state (and most states have far fewer than this, and that's basically two in-car tests per hour. Of course, no DMV is open 24 hours a day, so it's more like 6-8 per hour. Toss in weekends and federal holidays, and we see that number rise even further. Suddenly we start to see practical problems, because an in-car test takes longer than 10 minutes even when things go perfectly. Better, then, to concentrate on groups known to be dangerous, be it because of experience (the very young) or biology (the very old). At least, as far as in-car tests are concerned. Mandatory written tests every five years are another matter, simply because these do not take as long and may even be able to be done remotely. That's another problem, you see; even for someone who lives ten minutes from the DMV, it's often a three- or four-hour ordeal to get anything done there; you're saying you want to clog the offices even further?

Something definitely has to be done. The real question is, how best to do it?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macroy:
But I also will think public transportation will need to be better before this will be "accepted" by the majority.

yes, this is one of the points I'm trying to make.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
nothing is quite that simple. I'll give you my own family situation as a for instance:

Yes, I know it's not a perfect solution...hell it's not even a well thought-out solution, but one of those 2am-lightbulb-going-off-over-your-head ideas that seemed alot brighter in the dimness of a darkened livingroom

I still think it's a good starting point for discussion on our society's tendency to discard our elders.

Regarding your situation, has anyone told your mother-in-law that she's becoming a burden because she won't move in with you and your family?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Regarding your situation, has anyone told your mother-in-law that she's becoming a burden because she won't move in with you and your family?

In not so many words, yes. but did I mention she was stubborn?
If not, well, she's stubborn. And her daughter (my wife) is a carbon copy...in terms of stubborness. When they try to out-stubborn each other, I usually stay out of the way. Its like Godzilla against Gameera in a way, only both are trying to help the other one in a relentless martyr-type way.

[macvillage.net]

I couldn't agree more.


My mother is a home health aid, and has taken care of many older people.

Some of them can't even feed themselves, get themselves out of bed, or wash themselves without help...


Then they carried into their car... and drive off!


Can't wipe their own ass... but can drive.


How SICK is this idea?


Yet society assumes that a driver between 17-25 is a complete danger on the road.



Unfortunatly, it won't change any time soon. This demographic is a huge chuck of the voting demographic. A lawmaker passing this is a political death sentence. No chance of reelection.

Hopefully someone on the way out will "take one for the team (America)" and stop this stupidity.


I don't want to get all old people off the road, I don't want to imply that at all...

But after 70 years old. Every 3 years, come to the DMV for a quick spin around the course, and have a doctors note saying that your physically (eyes, reactions) and mentally capable.

I remember a few years ago, there was a big story in NJ about some woman (I believe in Hamilton, NJ, but am not sure) who was practically blind and deaf, not to mention was completely senile (spelling)... Hit and killed a few people driving at 2AM to a location she didn't even know of. She didn't even know her own name according to the story. Of course they didn't press charges because she didn't know she was doing anything wrong (she didn't know her own damn name). But she did still have a license! AND it was recently renewed. I highly doubt she became blind, lost hearing, and demented all in a few months. With no sign of that before hand.

And someone had to die to get those keys out of her hands.


My grandfather decided that he won't drive far anymore. Only local (within a few minutes on local, very quiet roads) now. Everything far family will drive, or they will simply take the train to go.... A very good idea. The mall is just a few minutes walk away (a nice walk for an older couple.) Food is minutes away. The bus stop is 30 second drive away. And the bus can take them anywhere, or to a train station to go elsewhere.... So he really doesn't need to drive far, or on highways. I think it's a good idea.

[AWD]

About 2 years ago an elderly woman driving her buick century decided to STOP on the highway (in hte middle lane) because she was 'confused' so she thought she'd STOP and look at her maps. She caused a multi car pile up killing at least one person.

The problem is, the whole 'testing' thing won't happen. Why? Think of the voting demographic: Once you get old, you don't have a whole hell of a lot to do so you vote more often. Old people make up a significant portion of the voters who turnout, and any candidate who supports 'old people license tests' will plain and simply NOT GET VOTED INTO OFFICE. Why? Old people like their freedom, and will not admit they have a problem. They drive like complete ****, indanger everyone, and force EVERYONES insurance rates to go up since they can't park, backup, or drive correctly (they get into a LOT of small accidents).

I hate old people.

- Ca$h

[residentEvil]

...never join the AARP when I retire...

i know, starting to drift off topic, but:

anyone can join AARP. they can't turn you down because of your age...thats discriminatory. i myself joined a few years back so i can get a discount on my car insurance...i turn 30 in a few days.

not to mention, get cool discounts at hotels

[digimage]

Originally posted by keekeeree:


Here's an idea, and it just popped into my head so I haven't had a chance to really mull over the pros and cons, but I'll throw out for discussion.

How about making children legally responsible for their aging parents. They were legally responsible for our butts for eighteen years. Seems like turning the table seems fair. And the morally right thing to do.

That's not going to happen. What if my parents rack up debts?
Am I supposed to pay for that?