[pete_pf]

i'm speechless really - don't be a stupid driver please.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZcrMpBjah4[/YT]

---

Last edited by pete_pf; 01-13-2010 at 11:12 AM.

[Phil1]

'old people should be off the road, period!!! you think it's cute until one day they hit someone.'

As a geezer I will agree with that for the most part. DMV should be doing far more extensive testing on people over 70/75 before a DL is issued. Some geezers are functioning like middle age people fine and some can't tie thier shoe laces. I would say driver skill/eye sight really varies as the years pile up. On the converse some young uns can't drive worth a damn either.

We had an 86 year old plow through a street farmers market in Santa Monica and kill 10 and injure 50. He never took his foot off the gas and was an arrogant ass in court about it. That was a couple years back.

CNN.com - Infant 10th fatality in farmers' market crash - Jul. 17, 2003

We love everyone here so we put them on the road till someone dies.

[pxpaulx]

'old people should be off the road, period!!! you think it's cute until one day they hit someone.'

As a geezer I will agree with that for the most part. DMV should be doing far more extensive testing on people over 70/75 before a DL is issued. Some geezers are functioning like middle age people fine and some can't tie thier shoe laces. I would say driver skill/eye sight really varies as the years pile up. On the converse some young uns can't drive worth a damn either.

In Canada (Ontario at least) they do actually test drivers annually past a certain age (around 70, might be earlier, I can't recall now). This kind of law makes 100% sense. And in the US, it would be harder to pass than health care reform.

[Phil1]

They might do that is some states as well. At 70+ I have not experienced it in Calif as my license is good for 5 years.

In the family, one member had cataract surgery in both eyes. He had periferal vision like looking through two toilet paper tubes. He retired in northern Baja and managed to get a Calif license without even showing up to a Calif office. He should not have been driving. Fortunatly nothing bad happened.

[Gooshin]

In Canada (Ontario at least) they do actually test drivers annually past a certain age (around 70, might be earlier, I can't recall now). This kind of law makes 100% sense. And in the US, it would be harder to pass than health care reform.

The drivers test in Ontario is a joke, easier than chewing cheerios.

I see people running red lights daily, it really is a scary world out there.

[Leaf Fan]

I work one block west of this intersection, it was a horrible tragedy and my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of the deceased, may she rest in peace. As well to the driver of the car and her family, can you imagine what this 83 year old woman is going through right now.

As far as retesting, I am a firm believer in retesting of ALL drivers on a set timescale, something along the lines of every 5 years for people under 60, 2-3 years for people 60-70, and every year above that.

Driving and using the roadways for any type of transporation, walking, riding, whatever, is probably the most frequent way of injuries and death today. I think this can be reduced dramatically with education, training and retesting. Just because you learned a skill when you were 16 (and the cars didn't have the performance levels they have today, particularly when you're 83 years old), doesn't mean you are a "good" driver today. We all have the responsibility to ensure the safety of ourselves, our passengers, and our fellow road users by paying attention, knowing our vehicles, adapting our driving to the road conditions, and did I say PAYING ATTENTION.

This was an avoidable tragedy along many lines and it's very sad that it had to happen at all.

[Ash]

This old lady probably didn't run the red light because she was in a rush or disrespects authority. She probably genuinely didn't see it, or the mother she ran over.

A few older people are defiant about relinquishing their licences despite being clearly too blind to drive, but generally they are few and far between. The rules for older people are strict, subject to yearly review after the age of 70, particularly for eyesight and have helped limit such incidents quite remarkably.

I'm sure this will be a sobering reminder for the Canadian people, and hope that the police and road safety workers take this incident seriously.

[Eruditass]

In Canada (Ontario at least) they do actually test drivers annually past a certain age (around 70, might be earlier, I can't recall now). This kind of law makes 100% sense. And in the US, it would be harder to pass than health care reform.

In the least, everywhere should have more stringent eye tests for everyone when they renew - which has to happen every x number of years, since old folks only laws are hard to pass given their larger focus on politics.

[MRRiley]

I was hit by a 90 year old woman in Abilene, TX about 15 years back. I was about the 5th or 6th car going thru an intersection and granny plowed right into my passenger side at about 40mph. Fortunately I was not seriously injured and there was no one in the passenger seat, otherwise they'd have been hamburger. Granny, thanks to her brand new BMW, wasn't even scratched (great airbag I guess). The police report stated that she claimed the light had been green for her for at least 30 seconds and she didn't see any cross traffic in the intersection. At least 6 witnesses going in the same direction as she was refuted this claim consistently. Witnesses behind me said that the light did not change for at least another 15 seconds after she hit me.

She ended up buying me a new car and I agreed to not sue her antique butt off if she handed over her license and signed a contract to NEVER ever attempt to get a new one or to drive another vehicle. I did reserve the right to come after her for any health issues that might come up (my insurance company insisted on this) but fortunately never experienced any problems that I felt were due to the accident.

Btw, her vision tested as 20/20 so it wasn't her eyes, it was her brain and cognitive skills (or lack thereof) that caused the accident.

Frankly once past 70, people should be required to take a driving test (complete with examiner) every 2 years. I'd even say to give it to em at half price just so they can't gripe about the cost. After 80, test em every year for FREE... It'd be worth it to get the incompetent ones off the streets.

Mike

p.s. once past 70, if they go into the hospital or see a doctor for any condition that could impare their ability to drive, the doctors should have to report this to the authorities who should have the ability to suspend or revoke the person's license.

[res3567]

'old people should be off the road, period!!! you think it's cute until one day they hit someone.'

As a geezer I will agree with that for the most part. DMV should be doing far more extensive testing on people over 70/75 before a DL is issued. Some geezers are functioning like middle age people fine and some can't tie thier shoe laces. I would say driver skill/eye sight really varies as the years pile up. On the converse some young uns can't drive worth a damn either.

We had an 86 year old plow through a street farmers market in Santa Monica and kill 10 and injure 50. He never took his foot off the gas and was an arrogant ass in court about it. That was a couple years back.

CNN.com - Infant 10th fatality in farmers' market crash - Jul. 17, 2003

We love everyone here so we put them on the road till someone dies.

Yea.... I remember that.......I was living in NorCal at the time....He got off with a mild sentance......I believe, and when he apologized.....the judge said it was hollow.....

[lithos]

As far as retesting, I am a firm believer in retesting of ALL drivers on a set timescale, something along the lines of every 5 years for people under 60, 2-3 years for people 60-70, and every year above that.

Driving and using the roadways for any type of transporation, walking, riding, whatever, is probably the most frequent way of injuries and death today. I think this can be reduced dramatically with education, training and retesting. Just because you learned a skill when you were 16 (and the cars didn't have the performance levels they have today, particularly when you're 83 years old), doesn't mean you are a "good" driver today. We all have the responsibility to ensure the safety of ourselves, our passengers, and our fellow road users by paying attention, knowing our vehicles, adapting our driving to the road conditions, and did I say PAYING ATTENTION.

This was an avoidable tragedy along many lines and it's very sad that it had to happen at all.

A-bloody-men. I got my licence a few months back. Had to sit through the written tests, read the road rules manual, and pass a driving test.

Going through some practice with my mum, she was amazed (to the point of annoyance, occasionally,) when I did things like indicating when turning off a roundabout - "You don't indicate when you come off a roundabout!" I'd then pull over, get the road rules manual out of the glovebox, and show her the appropriate page with that rule on it.

I've nearly had accidents when following another current rule - which everyone ignores in favour of an obsolete. Again, at roundabouts here, it's first come, first serve. It used to be "give way (yield) to the right." If you were waiting to enter a roundabout, but then a car was approaching the roundabout from the entrance on your right, no matter how long you had been waiting, you had to let that car in.

Now, if you've been waiting, the car that just pulls up (or is farther than you from the roundabout) after you is meant to give way to you. Whenever I've tried to do that, the car on my right almost ends up embedded in my ribcage, and much irate honking ensues. For safety's sake, I now give way to the right, which can slow a lot of traffic down.

That's an example. There are probably others. My point is, laws change, as do cars, and as do our bodies. Whenever there's a slow news day and they do a story on how Mr. Geezer Codgerson has had his licence since 1946 and has never had an accident, I just can't help but think maybe the luck's running out. (Bonus points if he says something like "We never had any traffic lights in those days, and the driving exam consisted of driving once around the block with the local copper...") If he's still fine mentally and physically - good on him. But I'd like to see him pass a licence exam.

There are laws here similar to what you described, leaf. For example, you can be put on limited licences, where you're only allowed to drive with a 15km radius of your house. After that, it gets revoked. My great grandfather had the first condition put on his licence, then when he found out that they'd soon revoke it entirely (he had limited mobility, had a Gopher to get him around instead of walking,) he drove to another town - one more than 15km from where he lived - and got their branch of the RTA to renew his licence, because they didn't know him or what his health was like. That was in his nineties; he then used his new licence to drive nearly a thousand km's to Melbourne. Couldn't see the edges of the road by then, so to hedge his bets, he drove the whole distance right on the centre lines.

[WerTicus]

Most people cant drive. It really sux having a nice car, just makes traffic worse.

honestly at the legal speed limits I cannot see how it is even possible to have an accident.

[lithos]

Most people cant drive. It really sux having a nice car, just makes traffic worse.

honestly at the legal speed limits I cannot see how it is even possible to have an accident.

You can drive, but can't spell?

Worrying.

[Rupert]

First, my sympathy for the loss of life in this tragedy, it is heartbreaking to say the least.

Now, for all you young whippersnappers ready to send old Granny to the Electric Chair......are you aware that driving while talking on your cell, either at your ear or hands free is about like driving with a .17 alcohol content in your young attentive brains? Do a little research, many studies have shown this relationship, and while I am sure many of you insist that you can also drink and drive with superiority, the facts do not bare it out. So as we take Granny off the road, which I am all for, let's get you off of it too, and I am damn sure all for that. I'd love to get hold of some of you erratic cell driver for a brief lesson on how to not drive "Cell Drunk".
Regards!

[Leaf Fan]

First, my sympathy for the loss of life in this tragedy, it is heartbreaking to say the least.

Now, for all you young whippersnappers ready to send old Granny to the Electric Chair......are you aware that driving while talking on your cell, either at your ear or hands free is about like driving with a .17 alcohol content in your young attentive brains? Do a little research, many studies have shown this relationship, and while I am sure many of you insist that you can also drink and drive with superiority, the facts do not bare it out. So as we take Granny off the road, which I am all for, let's get you off of it too, and I am damn sure all for that. I'd love to get hold of some of you erratic cell driver for a brief lesson on how to not drive "Cell Drunk".
Regards!

The other thing to keep in mind is that we don't know the whole story yet. Was the pedestrian obeying all signals, did she try and rush through the light at the end of the cycle, or beginning of the cycle, did the driver have any medical conditions, etc? That's why blame in this incident at this time is pure speculation. It's just a tragic incident all ways around.

You'll notice how I said ALL drivers should be retested, this would also be accompanied by education and training.

As of October 1, 2009 driving and talking on a cell phone (actually using ANY handheld device while driving) here in Ontario is illegal and you can get a ticket.