tadawdy

Didn't see an active post about this.

Today's Chicago Tribune has a front-page article about the incident in which three college-age women were struck by an elderly driver, who crossed the center line.

Mentioned as a by-the-way statement: "If found guilty he'll be fined $75." For improper lane usage.

Just underscores the fact that "minor" moving violations, like failure to yield, failure to signal, and uh...crossing the center line... should be very harshly punished. I'm talking loss of license. We look at them as not being a big deal, but it is a simple act of carelessness that will kill another person.

Drivers should be held to the same exacting standards as a surgeon. I am not exaggerating. If you can't do it without risking bodily injury to another person, the safety of other people should win over convenience for you. If you can't drive with a high degree of safety and precision, tough luck. We shouldn't let you.

The only people offended by this are bad drivers. Again: not my problem.

B. Carfree

I am so glad you feel that way. I thought I was the only person who thought drivers should lose their license for moving violations. From my saddle, real terrorists use car keys.

tadawdy

Aside from my vitriol as a cyclist, since another cyclist being killed by a driver hits close to home, I really do feel this way.

We go out of our way to prevent people from doing things they are not competent in, for fear of public safety, but we'll give the license and keys to pretty much any 16 (or 116) year old who can drive around the block.

Just another way insurance, auto, and oil companies subvert the good of the public for their financial gain.

It isn't like anyone can accomplish anything without driving a vehicle. It's just a tool, and if you can't use it without harming yourself and/or someone else, let someone else swing the hammer for you.

MTBLover

Agreed. "Share the Road" has no meaning to most drivers without laws with teeth. One law that would be ever so helpful is enforced re-testing every two years after the age of 65, and every year after age 70. And hang it up after age 85. We have laws that govern when you can get a license, and what you can do while you under a certain age. Why can't we do the same at the other end of the age spectrum? There's a sound neurological and cognitive justification for both.

ItsJustMe

I don't think there should be an absolute upper age limit on driving. I know some people in their 90s that I have ridden with and have no problem with their driving; they're quite attentive and careful drivers. I know some people in their 30s that I've ridden with, and I'll WALK before I get in their cars again.

GraysonPeddie

$75 for a fine is very cheap if you own a car. That's just the way I see that cars are very expensive (+$10,000).

MTBLover

And I've known several young teens (13-15) who were excellent drivers (on their own property, of course). But they're not allowed to get a license. The same arguments used to restrict driving to those below a certain age (cognitive ability, motor skills, physical strength, etc.) could, and should, be used to restrict driving above a certain age. So let's meet halfway on this- yes, you can continue to drive after your 85th birthday, but now you'll be re-evaluated every six months, and that includes a physical exam and list of current medications. That seems fair.

CyciumX

What lame ass backwater counties do these incidents happen in? If i park my car without paying 25 cents I get fined 50 dollars - anything else is 200+

tadawdy

Southern Illinois.

DX-MAN

North America isn't the only place, but is a major one, that trivializes the skills needed to operate a motor vehicle. A $75 fine for ANYthing resulting in personal injury is a punch in the victim's face. (Yes, a punch, not a slap) The absolute lack of personal accountability is more criminal than the criminal acts drivers get away with daily!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..................................

Mr IGH

Here's the irony, in the same state, a kid does a hit and run and gets a $500K bail. She should have killed a biker, she'd be out:
https://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...eaking+News%29

serra

This is so stupid! If he had it someone in a car and killed them, they'd have charged him with man slaughter, wreckless driving, and who knows what else. 75$ for killing someone by driving like an idiot? That's ridiculous. I agree that we trivialize driving. Yeah, it's easy to follow a line (apparently not in this guys case), but one must also be reliable enough to drive safely. It's more dangerous to give someone a car than a gun the way I see it. Our laws need to change to protect cyclists better.

Digital_Cowboy

Or how about this: 80 - 85 re-evaluate every 6-months (including physical, as well as psychological and list of all current (and recent past) meds), from 85 on re-evaluate every 3-months with the same conditions.

Digital_Cowboy

DM,

Sadly, as we know it comes down to education or a lack thereof as well as a lack of personal responsibility. As I'm sure I don't have to remind you things are way different in the military. Think of how often we have to qualify with our weapons. It would be nice if some aspects of civilian life were like military life.

Digital_Cowboy

Yep sadly as we all know (at least in this country) getting a license is way too easy and having it revoked is way too hard. It should be the exact opposite, it should be difficult if not impossible to get a license and easy to revoke it. Also one should have to show/prove a legitimate reason for why they need to drive in order to be able to get their license, much like a lot of areas do with concealed gun permits.

The person applying for one should have to show a legitimate reason why s/he wants to carry a concealed weapon. And have to go through a background check. One should also have to go through a similar background check in order to get a drivers license. And if ya don't pass your background check you don't get your drivers license.

MTBLover

I'd go with that- sounds perfectly reasonable. And although I'm a good 20+years away from that threshold, I'd support it when I get there too.

Digital_Cowboy

What would be an appropriate threshold/standard for testing those under 80?

I'd have to say that the first time that a person was caught driving with any sort of intoxicating agent in their system that they loose their license for at least a year. And IF/when they get it back they are subject to many conditions. Such as they would be required to have a Breathalyzer interlock installed into their car (and are responsible for all maintenance on it) there is a web cam hooked to it so that they can be monitored while using it so that they cannot cheat and have someone else blow into it. They have to carry more insurance because of their previous conviction. They are also subjected to the same evaluation period as an 80 - 85 year old for the next 5yrs.

Penalties for driving distracted whether it is because one is changing stations on the radio, tracks on a CD or CDs, or are distracted because of stress (whether mental or emotional) is given a strict sentencing, and if there is the loss of life the penalties become even stiffer.

Speeds within the city limits are posted at a max of 35 - 40MPH and a monitored and strictly enforced. Again with severe penalties for exceeding the posted speed limit and again with said penalties increasing if there is a loss of life involved. Only the open inter/intrastate's are allowed to have higher speeds.

Any "minor" traffic infraction i.e. speeding, failing to stop/yield, etc. get's one mandatory driving school, at the driver's expense. When the insurance companies report that a driver has dropped their coverage, and unless they can prove that they have gotten new coverage the DMV contacts local law enforcement who sends an officer out to put a boot on the car to keep it from being driven, until they can prove that they've gotten new coverage.

Just some ideas, anyone else have anything to add?