Elderly Drivers

Jason P

Cosmo

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

...
Driving a tad slower than the rest of the traffic is okay if you are aware of the rest of traffic. That is, you are in the right lane and are withing the posted speed limits, but not exceeding them.
I'm the same way... but, mostly for safety and fuel efficiency reasons. I only drive in the passing lane... to PASS a slower moving vehicle. I am aware of the flow of traffic and tend to stay in the second to the right lane on the freeway. If the average speed in that lane is 65 MPH... it's good enough for me.
The place i like best... when there are a bunch of cars way ahead of me and a bunch of cars way behind me. I like those open areas on the freeways, rather than cruising in the peleton.

JonnyPistachio

I dont even know where to start on this one. Being from Florida, I think about t his everyday. Lots of elderly here, and they often like to drive their cars through the front windows of the neighborhood convenience store. I used to ride a motorcycle in north Florida, when I came south, I ditched it because I was almost killed by too many old folks who forget that their heads actually turn to the side.

Cosmo

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I dont even know where to start on this one. Being from Florida, I think about t his everyday. Lots of elderly here, and they often like to drive their cars through the front windows of the neighborhood convenience store. I used to ride a motorcycle in north Florida, when I came south, I ditched it because I was almost killed by too many old folks who forget that their heads actually turn to the side.

...
You deserve a Purple Heart for riding a motorcycle in Florida. Or a Certificate stating how insane you were for riding a motorcycle in Florida.

rollings

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 thought you were going to say to let the person leaving the gas station into traffic.

That bothers me, but you're right, it's not as bad as letting the hallucination pass by

shortstack

Who Princess wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

brianlux wrote:

This is a good point- one I want to back but also one not easily to totally justify. Old drivers do kill people. Of course, as you said, young drivers do as well- maybe as often.

I know there are stories of older people injuring or killing people while driving; but more often than not... when I come across an idiot on the road... they are younger or middle-aged.

Let's get real: old people tend to drive very (perhaps over) cautiously.

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

As I understand it, young people are responsible for most auto accidents but older adults are the next highest group. I think it's already been pointed out that older adults may have slower reflexes and vision or hearing problems that affect their ability to drive safely.

not only that but a lot of them are doped up too.

schaefferlax

Wow this thread got interesting! I like to see all these opinions

your move now

I know when my grandfather was living in NSW every year after his 80th birthday (I think it was 80, once he reached a certain age anyway) he was required to take a new drivers test once a year. This eliminated people who couldn't drive sufficiently well to hold a licence (although a lot of people who can't drive have one!) whilst not removing elderly drivers who were good drivers.

The only problem with this is that my grandfather always said he found it terribly humiliating to be going in and judged and dictated to by the young tester bloke, who from my understanding was a very small (and I don't mean physically) little man who got off on being as harsh and rude and arrogant as he possibly could

josevolution

your move now wrote:

I know when my grandfather was living in NSW every year after his 80th birthday (I think it was 80, once he reached a certain age anyway) he was required to take a new drivers test once a year. This eliminated people who couldn't drive sufficiently well to hold a licence (although a lot of people who can't drive have one!) whilst not removing elderly drivers who were good drivers.

The only problem with this is that my grandfather always said he found it terribly humiliating to be going in and judged and dictated to by the young tester bloke, who from my understanding was a very small (and I don't mean physically) little man who got off on being as harsh and rude and arrogant as he possibly could

Wait so DMV people are the same there as here all idiots :shock:

Who Princess

I work for an agency that specifically provides services for older adults, so I meet lots of 'em! I also hope to be one eventually.

I like the idea of re-evaluating people as they age, looking at overall health and especially vision and hearing. The problems for me would be choosing the cut off age. Lots of older people are still very active and are conscientious drivers. Lots of them aren't. Many of the ones who aren't never were good drivers in the first place. They never took driver education but learned to drive on back roads and took their initial driver's exam when standards were more lax.

For me, the biggest problem with an age appropriate re-certification is that it does nothing about people in the younger age groups that are careless drivers. A few years ago a good friend of mine was killed by a guy who drifted over into the other lane as he came around a curve and hit her head on. I know that everybody is careless or inattentive some of the time. But I don't know how you find the people who don't think basic traffic laws apply to them, no matter what their age is.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rollings wrote:

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)

So... the most deadly age group: the really young ones.
The second most deadly: really a tie between the 25-34 group and the 65+ group when you factor in both fatalities and serious injuries.

The safest: 55-64.

And... given this... judging from the last dozen or so posts... people are ready to implement laws that require the older people to re-license. Isn't this attempt to safeguard our roads a little misplaced? Of course older people failing with vision should not be driving, but what about the testoserone driven idiots that race about our streets? Or the chatterboxes using their phones and not paying attention? I see tons of young women grooming themselves while driving? They are clearly the bigger problem. Maybe we are issuing licenses at too young of an age? Why be stuck on targeting our mothers and fathers? If we can look to the stats to tell us anything... we should be targeting our kids.

I feel that people deadset on having old people re-license are choosing to ignore the bigger problem to focus on another.

Jeanwah

Thirty Bills wrote:

And... given this... judging from the last dozen or so posts... people are ready to implement laws that require the older people to re-license. Isn't this attempt to safeguard our roads a little misplaced? Of course older people failing with vision should not be driving, but what about the testoserone driven idiots that race about our streets? Or the chatterboxes using their phones and not paying attention? I see tons of young women grooming themselves while driving? They are clearly the bigger problem. Maybe we are issuing licenses at too young of an age? Why be stuck on targeting our mothers and fathers? If we can look to the stats to tell us anything... we should be targeting our kids.

I feel that people deadset on having old people re-license are choosing to ignore the bigger problem to focus on another.

Personally, I think 16 is too young for driver's licenses and think it should be increased, especially having read deadly statistics of this age group in my state a couple years ago. Maybe FL does need to pay more attention to the seniors, since there are so many of them, but the bigger picture does seem to point the finger to the youngest being the most dangerous.

hedonist

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I feel that people deadset on having old people re-license are choosing to ignore the bigger problem to focus on another.

I'm not, and have said as much several times. It's not either/or, from here.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

hedonist wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I feel that people deadset on having old people re-license are choosing to ignore the bigger problem to focus on another.

I'm not, and have said as much several times. It's not either/or, from here.

Got it.