Elderly Drivers

even flow - question mark

Yes there should be an age where you have to go and get retested for your drivers license.

Jeanwah

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Every time I see an old person... my spider senses begin tingling. With that said...

I used to get frustrated with them, but I don't any more: that old fella you might get short with may have hunkered down on the beaches of Normandy.

They get to drive.

Every time I see a teenager behind the wheel, my spider senses begin tingling. In fact, I think the teenagers are more frightening than the elderly. At least we KNOW that the elderly are not distracted by the incoming text on their phone...

That said, being retested for the elderly isn't a bad idea, but they're not the ones I'm afraid of.

Jeanwah

rollings wrote:

"sensory acuity". I like that. Is that vision/hearing/tactile-reactionary?

I would vote for vision testing, because then corrective action can be taken.

Old people are very slow though. I was waiting for one to back out and leave a parking space yesterday, and I almost died just waiting for them to finish the process.

Typically they are very slow. Personally, I think being stuck behind a slow driver is a lot safer than being in the vicinity of a distracted young driver.

Jeanwah

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Without digging through the statistics, I will go out on a limb and state that young drivers kill many more people than old drivers.

I think you're right on this.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

For our consideration... let me introduce the 2009 Canadian traffic collisions statistics (source is from the government of Canada):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-t ... 173.htm#t2

2009 Fatalities and injuries by age group:

Age 16-19: 240 deaths and 1,400 serious injuries
Age 25-34: 364 deaths and 1,946 serious injuries
Age 55-64: 252 deaths and 1,089 serious injuries
Age 65+: 389 deaths and 1,116 serious injuries

2009 Number of licensed drivers:

Age 16-19: 1,096,437
Age 25-34: 3,999,556
Age: 55-64: 3,652,594
Age: 65+: 3,254,110


When one combines deaths and serious injuries... the 25-34 age class kicks ass.

The statistics do not lay blame to any particular group so it is tough to ascertain which age class is responsible for deaths and fatalities. I guiess I would suggest that the only prudent way to dissect such data without knowing exact proof of fault is to attribute blame evenly across the board.

* Included the young daredevil class. I revise my earlier statement: the young ones are the most dangerous group by far comparatively speaking.

** Edited twice. Sorry.

brianlux

Go Beavers wrote:

I probably have a bigger issue with old drivers than younger ones. I see old drivers, more than others, act like they own the road. Pay attention to who doesn't stop at crosswalks. It's disproportionately old people. And who taught these people to drive with both feet? Thanks for driving your car into the front of the 7-11! Make them drive stick shifts, that'll weed 'em out.

Years ago I knew a woman who drove through the front of a 7-11. She hit the gas instead of the brake, crashed through the front of the store and came to rest right next to the counter. She rolled her window down and said, "A pack of Winston Lights, please." She didn't know what else to say. She was in her early twenties at the time.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

For our consideration... let me introduce the 2009 Canadian traffic collisions statistics (source is from the government of Canada):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-t ... 173.htm#t2

2009 Fatalities and injuries by age group:

Age 16-19: 240 deaths and 1,400 serious injuries
Age 25-34: 364 deaths and 1,946 serious injuries
Age 55-64: 252 deaths and 1,089 serious injuries
Age 65+: 389 deaths and 1,116 serious injuries

2009 Number of licensed drivers:

Age 16-19: 1,096,437
Age 25-34: 3,999,556
Age: 55-64: 3,652,594
Age: 65+: 3,254,110


When one combines deaths and serious injuries... the 25-34 age class kicks ass.

The statistics do not lay blame to any particular group so it is tough to ascertain which age class is responsible for deaths and fatalities. I guiess I would suggest that the only prudent way to dissect such data without knowing exact proof of fault is to attribute blame evenly across the board.

* Included the young daredevil class. I revise my earlier statement: the young ones are the most dangerous group by far comparatively speaking.

** Edited twice. Sorry.

Drivers over the age of 75 should have to have a medical and an eye exam by the appropriate professionals every 2-3 years after that. I see no problem road testing drivers after 80 ... the test doesn't have to be as complete as when people first get their licence ... imo.

I don't think you can just go by stats alone ... most drivers 65 and under are driving a lot more than over 65 and the older you get the less your driving.

Wobbie

if you don't like the way I drive, stay off the fucking sidewalk.

hedonist

I in no way dismiss distracted young drivers (although I've seen more than my fair share of not-so-young drivers sitting at a green light chatting away or looking down at their phone)...but the point - I thought - of the thread was about OLDER drivers being re-tested.

It's not discriminatory, it's common sense and safety. And that applies to any generation.

*edit to imalive -

Thirty Bills Unpaid

lukin2006 wrote:

Drivers over the age of 75 should have to have a medical and an eye exam by the appropriate professionals every 2-3 years after that. I see no problem road testing drivers after 80 ... the test doesn't have to be as complete as when people first get their licence ... imo.

I don't think you can just go by stats alone ... most drivers 65 and under are driving a lot more than over 65 and the older you get the less your driving.

Nope.

That is an unsubstantiated claim. One could easily say that the 25-34 age class- the working class- is doing less driving: they are at work most of the time.

The retirees are driving big motor homes and beetling about town during the day going for coffee with their friends, playing cards and whatever else suits their fancy. They are typically not just sitting on their asses all day waiting to die.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Drivers over the age of 75 should have to have a medical and an eye exam by the appropriate professionals every 2-3 years after that. I see no problem road testing drivers after 80 ... the test doesn't have to be as complete as when people first get their licence ... imo.

I don't think you can just go by stats alone ... most drivers 65 and under are driving a lot more than over 65 and the older you get the less your driving.

Nope.

That is an unsubstantiated claim. One could easily say that the 25-34 age class- the working class- is doing less driving: they are at work most of the time.

The retirees are driving big motor homes and beetling about town during the day going for coffee with their friends, playing cards and whatever else suits their fancy. They are typically not just sitting on their asses all day waiting to die.

except when their not at work they shuttling the kids around town, doing errands etc...and as people get older move passed 65 and then passed 70 they do drive less...and I'm not talking about the 65-75 age group, nothing wrong a medical at 75 and nothing wrong with limited drivers test at 80 ... it sucks to get old, but something we all strive for.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

lukin2006 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Drivers over the age of 75 should have to have a medical and an eye exam by the appropriate professionals every 2-3 years after that. I see no problem road testing drivers after 80 ... the test doesn't have to be as complete as when people first get their licence ... imo.

I don't think you can just go by stats alone ... most drivers 65 and under are driving a lot more than over 65 and the older you get the less your driving.

Nope.

That is an unsubstantiated claim. One could easily say that the 25-34 age class- the working class- is doing less driving: they are at work most of the time.

The retirees are driving big motor homes and beetling about town during the day going for coffee with their friends, playing cards and whatever else suits their fancy. They are typically not just sitting on their asses all day waiting to die.

except when their not at work they shuttling the kids around town, doing errands etc...and as people get older move passed 65 and then passed 70 they do drive less...and I'm not talking about the 65-75 age group, nothing wrong a medical at 75 and nothing wrong with limited drivers test at 80 ... it sucks to get old, but something we all strive for.

Hey... don't get me wrong here. I agree that it would be precautionary to have the elderly tested when they get really old; but let's acknowledge that, in the bigger picture, we could be precautionary about many other things as well- some bearing much more significance than targeting our older generation.

This is not an epidemic: we do read of sometimes hilarious and sometimes tragic road accidents involving the old driver... but these are just some samples in the neverending catalogue of incidents involving all types of drivers.

rollings

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

For our consideration... let me introduce the 2009 Canadian traffic collisions statistics (source is from the government of Canada):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-t ... 173.htm#t2

2009 Fatalities and injuries by age group:

Age 16-19: 240 deaths and 1,400 serious injuries
Age 25-34: 364 deaths and 1,946 serious injuries
Age 55-64: 252 deaths and 1,089 serious injuries
Age 65+: 389 deaths and 1,116 serious injuries

2009 Number of licensed drivers:

Age 16-19: 1,096,437
Age 25-34: 3,999,556
Age: 55-64: 3,652,594
Age: 65+: 3,254,110


When one combines deaths and serious injuries... the 25-34 age class kicks ass

The statistics do not lay blame to any particular group so it is tough to ascertain which age class is responsible for deaths and fatalities. I guiess I would suggest that the only prudent way to dissect such data without knowing exact proof of fault is to attribute blame evenly across the board.

* Included the young daredevil class. I revise my earlier statement: the young ones are the most dangerous group by far comparatively speaking.

** Edited twice. Sorry.

To truly compare among the groups though, you have to compare per driver, thereby making the 16-19 group the true ass kickers and 55-64 the most safest

(per driver is calculated by dividing the # of deaths (or # of injuries) by the # of drivers in each range)



Deaths per Driver

16-19 range 0.0002188908 (#1 Spot)
25-34 range 0.0000910101 (#3)
55-64 range 0.0000689921 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.0001195411 (#2)



Serious Injury per Driver

16-19 range 0.001276863 (#1)
25-34 range 0.000486554 (#2)
55-64 range 0.000298144 (#4)
65 +. .range 0.000342951 (#3)

mikalina

Its a sad day a grown child needs to take away their parents car keys, but we sometimes need to do whats right for them as well as the rest of the drivers on the road...

Its the elderly's independence that we take away and I'm sure its a horrible feeling...

Cosmo

I think we should all be tested every two years for motor skills and reaction times after age 62. It could be part of our annual physicals and submitted to the DMV. Annually after 70. Doesn't mean we would have to re-new our licenses... more like a Smog Test for the drivers.
And I think it is much better to deal with the personal drama of revoking a parent's driving privileges than having to face criminal and civil cases after they drive through the window of the local Subway Sandwich shop.

pj1981

schaefferlax wrote:

We have all heard the stories of elderly folks being "responsible" for automobile accidents and that they are stereotypically not the best drivers. Should people over 70 have to take a sensory acuity test and renew their license through another driver's test?

I think 70 is a bit young for that but 80 maybe yes. This would relieve many children
who are watching over their elderly parents and worry about them.
It would save some family arguments too if it was mandatory for all that age.
I'll add, many if not most of the elderly are really good drivers, they drive
defensively and not as readily distracted by phones etc.
Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.

Cosmo

pj1981 wrote:

Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.

...
Actually, the thing that bothers me the most is when they stop in the middle of the street to let the hallucination pass by.

pj1981

Cosmo wrote:

pj1981 wrote:

Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.

...
Actually, the thing that bothers me the most is when they stop in the middle of the street to let the hallucination pass by.

looking forward to that now ?

Jeanwah

pj1981 wrote:

schaefferlax wrote:

We have all heard the stories of elderly folks being "responsible" for automobile accidents and that they are stereotypically not the best drivers. Should people over 70 have to take a sensory acuity test and renew their license through another driver's test?

I think 70 is a bit young for that but 80 maybe yes. This would relieve many children
who are watching over their elderly parents and worry about them.
It would save some family arguments too if it was mandatory for all that age.
I'll add, many if not most of the elderly are really good drivers, they drive
defensively and not as readily distracted by phones etc.
Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.

Coming from the perspective of nearly being sidelined from a car accident, I now drive like an elderly person: slow. It does not get me into trouble, I'm scared to death of being in another accident, and going slow is much better than going fast, especially when I see road rage caused by angry people insisting on driving fast and being bitter by everyone else on the road.

I know this thread is not about younger drivers, but I just can't see any laws being made for 80+ years of age, when there isn't more laws being made for the teenaged, unexperienced and iphone addicted drivers.

hedonist

Cosmo wrote:

pj1981 wrote:

Many people don't like them cause they don't go fast enough for the everyday hustle bustle.

...
Actually, the thing that bothers me the most is when they stop in the middle of the street to let the hallucination pass by.

I've had a few close calls like that...or the old "just merge! Don't bother checking to see if you can". In my immediate area, it's typically elderly drivers (and occasionally the dipshit fascinated with their phone).

Jeanwah, perhaps you drive slowly, but I bet you're aware. That's my beef, no matter the age of the driver. Lack of attention/quick-enough reaction due to age, impairment, texting, etc...unfair to put others at risk for those reasons.