99 year old on wrong side of road and no headlights in RV

[TCINTN]

99 year old driving RV on wrong side with no headlights kills two teenagers. In Florida

[fj12ryder]

troubledwaters wrote:

Planning wrote:

troubledwaters wrote:

Planning wrote:
How about:

mandatory behind the wheel testing (in conjunction with eye and knowledge testing) for anyone above age "X",...

and also for anyone involved in an injury-producing traffic collision or a history of 2 or more minor traffic collisions in a two year time period?

How would that be unreasonable?

So how about we make that x = 16, not what do you think of the idea?

No problem for me whatsoever. Those that can, do.

And if I cannot pass it, I do not belong on the road, regardless of age. Performance talks, everything else, including BS, walks.

Well I have a problem with it. I don't like the idea of creating BS laws to fix non-existent problems. In the grand scheme of things considering the trillions of miles driven every year, the system seems to be working just fine like it is.

"non-existent problems". Hmm, it would seem that the fact there were around 5,000,000 accidents last year with over 37,000 fatalities might refute your insistence that "the system seems to be working just fine like it is". Sure looks like it could use a little improvement to me.

[ksg5000]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Hopefully, the trajectory of the self driving car is going to cross my age before my driving skills diminish to a dangerous level. I look forward to crawling into the back seat and telling Alexa to drive me to the Opium Den.

x2

[troubledwaters]

Planning wrote:

troubledwaters wrote:

Planning wrote:
How about:

mandatory behind the wheel testing (in conjunction with eye and knowledge testing) for anyone above age "X",...

and also for anyone involved in an injury-producing traffic collision or a history of 2 or more minor traffic collisions in a two year time period?

How would that be unreasonable?

So how about we make that x = 16, not what do you think of the idea?

No problem for me whatsoever. Those that can, do.

And if I cannot pass it, I do not belong on the road, regardless of age. Performance talks, everything else, including BS, walks.

Well I have a problem with it. I don't like the idea of creating BS laws to fix non-existent problems. In the grand scheme of things considering the trillions of miles driven every year, the system seems to be working just fine like it is.

[westernrvparkow]

Hopefully, the trajectory of the self driving car is going to cross my age before my driving skills diminish to a dangerous level. I look forward to crawling into the back seat and telling Alexa to drive me to the Opium Den.

[Planning]

troubledwaters wrote:

Planning wrote:
How about:

mandatory behind the wheel testing (in conjunction with eye and knowledge testing) for anyone above age "X",...

and also for anyone involved in an injury-producing traffic collision or a history of 2 or more minor traffic collisions in a two year time period?

How would that be unreasonable?

So how about we make that x = 16, not what do you think of the idea?

No problem for me whatsoever. Those that can, do.

And if I cannot pass it, I do not belong on the road, regardless of age. Performance talks, everything else, including BS, walks.

[troubledwaters]

Planning wrote:
How about:

mandatory behind the wheel testing (in conjunction with eye and knowledge testing) for anyone above age "X",...

and also for anyone involved in an injury-producing traffic collision or a history of 2 or more minor traffic collisions in a two year time period?

How would that be unreasonable?

So how about we make that x = 16, not what do you think of the idea?

[Fizz]

Some of the best pictures of my dad are from his drivers licence.
He would have a big sh*t eating grin from ear to ear.
Passed another one.

[Planning]

How about:

mandatory behind the wheel testing (in conjunction with eye and knowledge testing) for anyone above age "X",...

and also for anyone involved in an injury-producing traffic collision or a history of 2 or more minor traffic collisions in a two year time period?

How would that be unreasonable?

[nbking]

As a driver, in Ontario, who just turned 80 last year, I was required to do a test to prove that I am still capable of driving. It will be repeated every two years for the rest of my driving life.

I don't resent the test. I would resent having my licence automatically removed because of my age.

I do resent that the older driver is targeted while the younger driver who seems to be in spectacular crashes; the drunken driver who continually drives; and the driver with poor driving skills, continues to go on their merry way causing destruction on the highways.

[paulcardoza]

EVERYONE should be road tested every 5 years, to renew a license. Just a basic road test to prove the ability to control a vehicle and use common sense. As one who commutes to work just outside of Boston every day, such a program would easily eliminate half the traffic! 😉

[monkey44]

Statistics can say pretty much anything you want if you target the audience properly.

Grandpa at doctor's office::

Doc says,"I need to prescribe this cholesterol medication, even though your cholesterol level is fine. It's like a preventative - statistics say you're likely to have either a heart attack or stroke in the next ten years."

Grandpa says: "No sense taking it then, I'm seventy-nine. Statistics say I probably won't make it the ten years necessary to have either one."

[fj12ryder]

As is always quoted: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

[spoon059]

Dutch_12078 wrote:
And a solution that would solve virtually nothing...

The 2016 fatal vehicle crash rates from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for instance, show that 16-19 year old drivers had the second highest rate at 17.8 fatalities per 100,000 drivers, only a little better than the 20-34 year old group at 21.6. The 70+ age group on the other hand, was the lowest at 13.1, with the next lowest the 35-69 year old group at 13.3. Those numbers would seem to indicate that no one should be allowed to drive until they're at least 35...

My favorite part about statistics is how they really don't mean anything...

Looking at the statistics at face value tells you very little.

First of all, how do we know how many "drivers" there are? Are they literally stopping every driver and asking their age, or are they compiling the numbers based upon people with active drivers licenses? I bet there are a LOT of people people aged 70+ that still have a drivers license but don't even drive a car anymore. Statistically speaking, those are the SAFEST "drivers" because they can NEVER be involved in a fatality, as opposed to someone who actually drives.

Second of all, these statistics say nothing about miles driven per year. Are the 70+ year old drivers in this study the people who drive to church and the post office... all on back roads and less than 3 miles from home? Are the 20-34 year olds the ones on the interstate, logging 30K miles a year? See how these numbers are skewed?

I'm sure I could find more variables that these numbers don't include. Like I mentioned... speeds of roadways (probably slower driving in the 70+ crowd)... alcohol/drug consumption (I'm sure the 70+ crowd has prescription drug issues, but the 20-34 year old is likely higher alcohol and illicit drug use)... vehicle condition (younger people might now have as nice of a car... but maybe the older crowd doesn't have newer safety features)... etc etc.

I love statistics, by the way. We can take IDENTICAL numbers and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions... But, I agree that it would likely be safer to raise the minimum driving age. I was stupid and full of self confidence at 16. I look back at decisions I made 21 years ago and am absolutely stunned I didn't hurt or kill myself or others.

[Dutch_12078]

tomman58 wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

Crowe wrote:
Easy solution but not one that would go over well-no license issued after a certain age, period.

And a solution that would solve virtually nothing...

The 2016 fatal vehicle crash rates from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for instance, show that 16-19 year old drivers had the second highest rate at 17.8 fatalities per 100,000 drivers, only a little better than the 20-34 year old group at 21.6. The 70+ age group on the other hand, was the lowest at 13.1, with the next lowest the 35-69 year old group at 13.3. Those numbers would seem to indicate that no one should be allowed to drive until they're at least 35...

I drove 1000's of miles at 18 and even more as I aged. BUT driving across the USA you are subjected to many , many folks that shouldn't be on the road and age has nothing to do with it.

I agree with you! The statistics just point out that old age in itself is not sufficient reason to withdraw driving privileges.

[wilber1]

Older DRL's just use headlights at reduced power. Most new cars use a string of LED's near or around the headlights. Easy to see but not nearly as bright as headlights. Canadian cars have had them since 1989 and they only come on if the park brake is released.