okay, so i was told about this by a coworker who lives across the street from the scene. there's no news reports yet, so it's still heresy i guess.
apparently a guy was hit at 3:00a.m. while riding with his wife and baby (in a kid seat on the back of the woman's bike) up in NE, near MLK and Wygant. he was killed instantly, the wife and kid are okay. the driver took off and hasn't been found yet. why they had a baby out at 3:00 i don't know.
when are drivers going to wise up and start looking out? i live in this neighborhood, and people don't even stop for signs anymore, they just slow to 15-20 and roll through. scares the f##k out of me.
our obsession with cars has grown so intense that we feel invincible and infallible when we're inside them. my only hope is that the devastation in the gulf drives gas prices to $6 a gallon and nobody can afford to drive anymore.
let's all pour one out for those who've been killed or seriously injured in the streets. they're martyrs to me, dying while trying to do their part to save the environment, stay healthy or just make the world a simpler place.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
How will my seventy year old grandparents get around. Get a freaking tandem. Real logical post.
manboy
I really see your point. I mean, your grandparents should probably be driving around all the time. It will give them something to do, and cheap gas is the only way they can do it. I bet they would just shrivel up and die without a big American car to cart them off to Bingo.
Yes, I'm being an insensitive ass. So are you, recneps345.
recneps345
I really see your point. I mean, your grandparents should probably be driving around all the time. It will give them something to do, and cheap gas is the only way they can do it. I bet they would just shrivel up and die without a big American car to cart them off to Bingo.
Yes, I'm being an insensitive ass. So are you, recneps345.
You sound like a real level-head guy. Why such hostility towards cars. How will they get to Bingo, then?
lugged steel
there's no news reports yet, so it's still heresy i guess.
heresy? heaven forbid!
hyperRevue
Of all the motorists on the road, the 70-year-old grandparent contingent has to be one of the most dangerous and negligent, to both cyclists and other motorists.
The less of them on the road the better.
ImOnCrank
amen
recneps345
Wow, first time to check this subforum. The five or so that have responded to this thread seem like a couple of brain surgeons.
hyperRevue
Wow, first time to check this subforum. The five or so that have responded to this thread seem like a couple of brain surgeons.
What exactly is your point of contention?
phinney
It's not the cars, it's the bad drivers.
recneps345
It's not the cars, it's the bad drivers.
Exactly.
hyperRevue
It's the bad drivers as far as we, the cyclists, are concerned.
It's the cars as far as the environment is concerned.
toman
what a quality thread this is.
red house
Okay, my eyes have now seen the lite...After reading this thread, all of the cars parked on my street have atleast one flat tire...a couple of them have pipe bombs rigged to the gas tanks...ask me how
poopncow
Seventy + seniors should be living in areas where there is public transportation to take them to places they want to go (grocery or bingo... or to the cassino...or otherwise). First hand experience of near catastropy and second hand stories of fatal run in w less than full alert seniors abound. (I lived in a part of NJ full of senior commutities) We will all be seniors, but that does not mean we'll all be able to drive or even bike safely. Public transportation at retirement home villages or by living in cities with public transportation (and where there are cultural experiences ) will enrich the lives of our seniors and us when we are seniors.
btw: In the DC area, 2 bicyclist were killed this month on the rec paths by cars!
arcellus
wow... i just started this thread out of shock, remorse, and anger at another one of us being run down. didn't mean for it to turn into some retarded flame-fest. sorry... *heads back to his usual forum with head hung low*
red house
what? you are not going to 'ask' ? ...the clock's ticking..tic, tic
arcellus
i'm confused.
red house
i'm confused.
I've fallen and, I...can't.....get..
chephy
Wow, what a thread.
For one thing it just shows how ridiculously hooked on cars this society is. My grandparents don't have a car and never have. And they don't miss it either.
mlh122
I don't think seniors should be restricted from driving altogether. I just think drivers should do the writtien and driven tests every time you get your license renewed. In WA its every 4 years I think. In AZ its never, so they'll have to figure something else out.
InfamousG
How will my seventy year old grandparents get around. Get a freaking tandem. Real logical post.
If you're going to be a jerk about someone elses opinion, keep it to the Politics forum.
red house
If you're going to be a jerk about someone elses opinion, keep it to the Politics forum.
I think our elders should be provided complementary transportation by way of a 'bicycle taxi' -
"burouche'', ''lorrey'' -whatever...They do it in India, Burundi, China -you know, places where they elderly are respected. Expecting them to ride a tandem is not right..no, I draw the line at that.
InfamousG
I think our elders should be provided complementary transportation by way of a 'bicycle taxi' -
"burouche'', ''lorrey'' -whatever...They do it in India, Burundi, China -you know, places where they elderly are respected. Expecting them to ride a tandem is not right..no, I draw the line at that.
The OP made a quite obvious exaggeration that $6/gal would force all cars off the road. recneps345 decided to take it all to literally and then bring up a case where it may be beneficial to have a car due to a lack of alternative.
The point of the OP's post was that drivers need to wise up, stop driving like idiots because they feel they are invincible, and start looking out for us on bikes so these senseless deaths can stop happening.
red house
The OP made a quite obvious exaggeration that $6/gal would force all cars off the road. recneps345 decided to take it all to literally and then bring up a case where it may be beneficial to have a car due to a lack of alternative.
The point of the OP's post was that drivers need to wise up, stop driving like idiots because they feel they are invincible, and start looking out for us on bikes so these senseless deaths can stop happening.
With regards to your post...As a non-car/internal combustion machine owner, I still give props to all of the motorists out there who have shared the road with me and managed not to kill, maim or run me down. For every car and truck that has swirved, or applied the brakes at the oppertune time, -my helmet is off to you all. As for all the other a-hols and irresponsible people that are a threat to me and my bike, -eff 'em all...If one of them takes me out, -I will be sure to leave a big bloody smashed up hood or windshield, God willing...Ameen
hyperRevue
It strikes me as weird to take your hat off to someone for not recklessly hurting you.
I tend not to give people props for stuff they're supposed to do, like drive safely and watch the road for other people.
Bianchiriderlon
How quickly a troll can derail a thread! Cyclists are maimed and killed every day. I believe this forum is supposed to be about bikes, not granny-driven gass guzzlers and their demand for inflated-cost fuel.
Bianchiriderlon
How quickly a troll can derail a thread! Cyclists are maimed and killed every day. I believe this forum is supposed to be about bikes, not granny-driven gass guzzlers and their demand for inflated-cost fuel.
DnvrFox
Of all the motorists on the road, the 70-year-old grandparent contingent has to be one of the most dangerous and negligent, to both cyclists and other motorists.
The less of them on the road the better.
FYI, I have forwarded the above statement to the 50+ Forum for their reaction (if any).
You might want to check out the thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=135873
Oh, by the way, I am 65 yo, and have driven since I was 12. I have had no moving violation for 30 years, and only two very minor violations before that, and have never had a "chargeable" accident. I bicycle over 4,000 miles per year, bench press 225 pounds, and walk about 14 miles per week.
Why don't you share your statistics with the rest of us?
FarHorizon
...not granny-driven gass guzzlers and their demand for inflated-cost fuel.
The average gas guzzler is driven by a yuppie mom - not a granny. Further, the granny (focusing ALL her attention on the road) is probably a better and safer driver than yuppie mom, who has a cell phone in one ear and a wagon full of brats yammering in her other ear.
The stereotype of "old folks = Mr. Magoo" is just plain wrong. Don't believe me? Just wait a few more decades... :D
genec
How will my seventy year old grandparents get around. Get a freaking tandem. Real logical post.
How about if they get along slowly, drive under the speed limits and stop and look twice at stop signs... use turn signals and always stop and look twice at a right on red turn. Watch for bicycles and merge with cyclists to make right turns.
Hey, if you could get half the motorists out there to do that, we would be ahead of what occurs today.
Nobody wants you to take away everyone's car, but it would be nice if everyone drove responsibly.
Mars
This is from smartdriver.com:
"Research on age-related driving concerns has shown that at around the age of 65 drivers face an increased risk of being involved in a vehicle crash. After the age of 75, the risk of driver fatality increases sharply, because older drivers are more vulnerable to both crash-related injury and death. Three behavioral factors in particular may contribute to these statistics: poor judgement in making left-hand turns; drifting within the traffic lane; and decreased ability to change behavior in response to an unexpected or rapidly changing situation.
Concern about the increased number of older drivers and their potentially decreased driving abilities is growing, especially among younger drivers. Statistics, based on all people injured or killed in traffic crashes, indicate that older drivers are at a disproportionate risk for becoming involved in fatal crashes. A NHTSA study of 1995 FARS (Fatal Accident Reporting System) data reports that senior citizens accounted for:
5% of all people injured in traffic crashes
13% of all traffic fatalities
13% of all vehicle occupant fatalities
18% of all pedestrian fatalities
In a 1997 NHTSA study, older people made up 9 percent of the population but accounted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities and 17 percent of all pedestrian fatalities. NHTSA's "Traffic Safety Facts 1997: Older Population" (DOT HS 808 769) reports that:
In 1997, more than 24 million people in the United States were over 70 years of age.
Representing 9 percent of the population in 1997, the 70-and-older age group grew 2.1 times faster from 1987 to 1997 than the total population.
In 1986 older drivers were 7 percent of licensed drivers; in 1996 they were 19 percent of licensed drivers.
Of traffic fatalities involving older drivers, 82 percent happened in the daytime, 71 percent occurred on weekdays, and 75 percent involved a second vehicle.
When a crash involved an older driver and a younger driver, the older driver was 3 times as likely as the younger driver to be the one struck. Moreover, 28 percent of crash-involved older drivers were turning left when they were struck-- 7 times more often than younger drivers were struck while making left turns.
Older drivers involved in fatal crashes and fatally injured older pedestrians claimed the lowest proportion of intoxication--defined as a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 grams per deciliter or higher.
While only 55 percent of adult vehicle occupants (ages 18 to 69) involved in fatal crashes were using restraints at the time of the crash, 70 percent of fatal- crash-involved older occupants were using restraints.
"On the basis of estimated annual travel, the fatality rate for drivers 85 and over is nine times as high as the rate for drivers 25 through 69 years old."
Statistics show that in two-vehicle fatal crashes involving an older and a younger driver, it is 3.1 times as likely that the vehicle driven by the older person will be struck. In 27% of these two-vehicle fatal crashes the older driver was turning left. Drivers over 65, along with new teen-age drivers, have the highest accident rates per miles driven. Another NHTSA study found that on the basis of estimated annual travel, the fatality rate for drivers 85 and over is nine times as high as the rate for drivers 25 through 69 years old."
DnvrFox
Anyone out there in their teens?
Turn your license in, as you are automatically unsafe.
14% of all deaths due to motor vehicle accidents are teen drivers.
Most teen driver deaths due to motor vehicle accidents occur on weekends 53% of the time.
Teen drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents had a youth passenger in automobile 45% of the time. More facts below.
Of teen drivers fatally injured in automobiles, more than 1/3 were speed related accidents.
Teen lifestyle of staying up late make teen drivers a high risk to have an automobile accident due to drowsiness.
More than any age group, teens are likely to be involved in a single vehicle crash.
On the basis of current population trends, there will be 23% more 16-20- year-old drivers on the road in 2010 than there are today -- 26.1 million.
This age group makes up 7% of licensed drivers, but suffers 14% of fatalities and 20% of all reported accidents.
The 16-year-old population alone will increase from 3.5 million to over 4 million by 2010.
Many factors contribute to the cause of teen deaths in motor vehicles. Looking at the causes, it's not hard to see why teen accident and death rates are higher than older drivers'.
Teen drivers are more likely than older drivers to be the cause of their accidents. That is based on facts pointing to high rates of teen accidents involving one vehicle.
Immaturity is a contributing factor to the high rate of auto crashes and deaths among teenagers. For instance, tailgating and not using safety belts are misjudgments teens make more than older drivers.
Internet's Largest Online Library. Need statistics and articles for a report? Click here! .
Making matters worse are teen tendencies to drive small vehicles. Automobile crash and fatality statistics point to small vehicles not protecting passengers as well as mid-size or large vehicles in front end crashes.
Rounding out the problems teenagers face as new drivers is their lack of driving skill or inexperience. Thrown together, they help explain teenagers' alarming accident and fatality rates in motor vehicles
DnvrFox
And, I guess those of you males 24 and younger also need to turn in your licenses. Any males 24 and younger in this bicycling discussion (like about 75%)?
http://www.ou.edu/oupd/teentraf.htm
How big is the problem?
Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for youth and young adults, accounting for about 29 percent of all deaths between 15-24 years of age, based on 1991 multiple cause of death data.
Youths between 16 and 20 years of age are killed in traffic crashes at about twice the rate of the general population.
Males of this age group are killed at more than twice the rate of females.
Over 500,000 youth, 16 to 20 years, were injured in traffic crashes in 1994. Over 5,000 were killed.
What types of crashes are they involved in?
The great majority (94 percent) of youth (16 to 20 years) traffic deaths occur to vehicle occupants. Pedestrian fatalities account for about five percent, bicyclists over one percent.
Most youth traffic injuries (over 96 percent) also occur to vehicle occupants. About two percent occur to pedestrians, and over one percent to bicyclists.
Nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of youth (16 to 20 years) killed in motor vehicles during 1994 were drivers. Over one-third were passengers.
Almost 39 percent of youth (16 to 20 years) traffic fatalities in 1994 occurred in alcohol-related crashes.
What are the most effective solutions?
Increasing safety belt use, decreasing speed, and decreasing alcohol involvement will have the greatest effect on youth traffic fatalities.
About three-quarters of youth (16 to 20 years) passenger vehicle occupant fatalities (of known restraint use) in 1994 were unrestrained. If these youth had been wearing safety belts, about 45 percent of unrestrained fatalities, or over 1,400 in passenger vehicles, would have been saved.
Front seat lap and shoulder belts are about 45 percent effective in preventing occupant fatalities.
Safety belt use among youth passenger vehicle occupants with known restraint use was much lower in alcohol-related crashes than in crashes where alcohol was not involved. Only 21 percent of youth (16 to 20 years) drivers and 16 percent of youth passengers who were killed in alcohol-related crashes were buckled up.
Speed is a contributing factor in a large number of youth traffic fatalities. In 1994, approximately 45 percent of all young driver fatalities (16 to 20 years) were speed-related. Over 49 percent of the young males were speeding, as were about 33 percent of the females.
Mars
And, I guess those of you males 24 and younger also need to turn in your licenses. Any males 24 and younger in this bicycling discussion (like about 75%)?
I'm not quite sure what your point is here... is it because young man are more statistically likely to have an accident than many other groups, then we shouldn't examine statistics showing that the elderly are also more accident prone?
I think that everbody here would agree that reckless and drunken driving by young men is a serious problem and that anything reasonable that can be done to reduce that risk should be contemplated. The same applies to elderly drivers who are a risk to others, in my opinion. In my family, we had an elderly aunt who was an absolute menace to herself and anyone else when she got behind the wheel. As seems to be often the case with this group, she drove an enormous and powerful car :eek: . How she managed to live out her life whithout killing someone, I don't know, but she sure had a lot of accidents. It was virtually impossible for her family to do anything to get her off the road, too. It seems reasonable to me that as drivers age, some periodic examination of their driving competencies should be mandatory.
hyperRevue
FYI, I have forwarded the above statement to the 50+ Forum for their reaction (if any).
You might want to check out the thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=135873
Oh, by the way, I am 65 yo, and have driven since I was 12. I have had no moving violation for 30 years, and only two very minor violations before that, and have never had a "chargeable" accident. I bicycle over 4,000 miles per year, bench press 225 pounds, and walk about 14 miles per week.
Why don't you share your statistics with the rest of us?
Pass it on all you want.
The fact that you're 65 and can bench press 225 and all that jazz is great.
I hope I am in the same condition when I am that age.
But that still doesn't change the fact that you are in the slim minority of your age bracket.
I'm not anti-eldery, I'm anti dangerous drivers on the road, and it just happens that a great percentage of said dangerous drivers are elderly.
ps. that link didn't work.
InfamousG
Mars and Dnvr...
100% of crashes involve people between ages 0 and 129.
100% of "at-fault" crashes are because of at least one driver driving poorly.
100% of "nobody-at-fault" crashes are from some form of an anomoly where both had the right of way and are very rare.
It doesn't matter how old you are, there are certain people who are just plain bad drivers. Statistically, the worst drivers are the young, inexperienced, "invincible" teens and the old, slower-reaction time, senile elderly. It's quite obvious that the "best" drivers are the middle-aged, experienced, agile-reaction timed drivers because they have years of experience to know what might be about to happen, what do do if it does, and have the reaction time necessary to do what needs done.
DnvrFox: I admire the athleticism in a man of your age, I hope when I reach that age I am as capable as you are. However, the fact that you personally have not had problems driving, does not make those at or around your age exempt from the statistical measures. Also, the fact that ages 16-25 are statistically one of the most dangerous ages does not mean any individual should turn in their license without having an infraction.
My late great-grandmother had the beginning stages of Alheimers and while driving she would forget where she was going and or what road she was on. We eventually had to (much to her protest) take the keys away from her because she was a hazard to herself and to others on the road. However, her situation does not mean that you should have to turn in your keys.
In general... the less drivers on the road the better. Less congestion, less road rage, less idiocy... but we really can't single out a specific group based on their age to stop driving, it must be by merit (or lack there of) on an individual basis. I do think that every time one has to renew their license they should have to be retested in the rules of the road, both written and driving tests. Every four years or so. Those who fail should not be on the road, regardless of their "necessity" to do so.
If you feel that those who are too poor to own a car should just take the bus, then you must obviously feel that public transit is a suitable means of transportation when a car is not an option. If you are incapable of driving safely, take the bus.
DnvrFox
I'm not quite sure what your point is here... is it because young man are more statistically likely to have an accident than many other groups, then we shouldn't examine statistics showing that the elderly are also more accident prone?
I think that everbody here would agree that reckless and drunken driving by young men is a serious problem and that anything reasonable that can be done to reduce that risk should be contemplated. The same applies to elderly drivers who are a risk to others, in my opinion. In my family, we had an elderly aunt who was an absolute menace to herself and anyone else when she got behind the wheel. As seems to be often the case with this group, she drove an enormous and powerful car :eek: . How she managed to live out her life whithout killing someone, I don't know, but she sure had a lot of accidents. It was virtually impossible for her family to do anything to get her off the road, too. It seems reasonable to me that as drivers age, some periodic examination of their driving competencies should be mandatory.
My point is that we can find statistics to support any conclusion we might already have in mind.
I think ALL drivers should have periodic examinations and education, no matter their age, don't you?
I did an informal survey of SUV's leaving our local super grocery warehouse, and of those SUV's driven by women, over 75% had a cell phone they were talking on as they left the parking lot. Shouldn't these ladies receive education and examination? They are a REAL danger to those around them (and I could find statistics to support that finding to, but shan't bother, as it is obvious).
ps. that link didn't work.
Yeah it got dumped by Koffee Brown. Seems I violated forum policy by referencing a link.
DnvrFox
Pass it on all you want.
The fact that you're 65 and can bench press 225 and all that jazz is great.
I hope I am in the same condition when I am that age.
But that still doesn't change the fact that you are in the slim minority of your age bracket.
I'm not anti-eldery, I'm anti dangerous drivers on the road, and it just happens that a great percentage of said dangerous drivers are elderly.
ps. that link didn't work.
The fact is that we (you and I) shouldn't generalize to ALL drivers what you find in some. There are careful and safe young male drivers, as there are careful and safe drivers in their 70's.
We need to eliminate unsafe drivers, not an age group of drivers.
hyperRevue
"I think ALL drivers should have periodic examinations and education, no matter their age, don't you?"
I completely agree. I think it's lunacy that such a requirement does not exist.
But in the same vein, there is a difference between talking on your cell phone and no longer having the faculties or reflexes to drive safely. Where as they're both dangerous, the person who drives with the cell phone would most likely be able to pass a driving test once he or she puts the cell phone down. My point? I don't really remember anymore.
The bottom line is, everyone should get routinely tested and if you fail you fail, and if you pass you pass and it doesn't necessarially mean you will utilize your privledge responsibly.
hyperRevue
The fact is that we (you and I) shouldn't generalize to ALL drivers what you find in some. There are careful and safe young male drivers, as there are careful and safe drivers in their 70's.
We need to eliminate unsafe drivers, not an age group of drivers.
Agreed. I never meant to come off as I supported the removal of every eldery person's driver's license.
DnvrFox
Agreed. I never meant to come off as I supported the removal of every eldery person's driver's license.
Okay, I guess I misunderstood your post:
Of all the motorists on the road, the 70-year-old grandparent contingent has to be one of the most dangerous and negligent, to both cyclists and other motorists.
The less of them on the road the better
By the way, I was absolutely chagrined when I was able to renew my driver's license by mail for four more years recently and they DID NOT even require an eye test. They stated something like, "You certify that your vision is adequate" or words to that effect!
It blew me away, as I now know that there are thousands of drivers out their (young and old) who technically could be BLIND and are driving.
And I would admit that vision can be more problematic as you age.
FarHorizon
Another issue brought up by this thread: Within the next few decades MANY of the drivers currently on the road will age to the point where their reflexes and eyesight are somewhat diminished. Since it is preferable NOT to have impaired drivers on the road (and because it is in our national interest to conserve energy) why aren't we all calling our Senators & Representatives and asking for improved public transportation systems?
Busses in conjunction with above-ground monorail trains are the least expensive alternative to single-person automobiles. If every city in the country began building NOW, the infrastructure would be there so that every citizen wouldn't HAVE to drive. I'd LOVE not to have to drive my car in my city, using it only for long-distance trips. If my city had a functional and efficient public transportation system, it could be so!
I'll be relocating in the next five years. High on my priority list will be the public transportation capacity of the potential new city.
On another note, Dennis Hastert (?) was right - New Orleans SHOULDN'T be rebuilt as it was. The disaster that just happened will only happen again. Either the city needs improved dikes to protect against 500-year hurricanes, or everything in the city should be moved up on piles to above the worst-case flood level. My wife even had a better idea - the entire Gulf coast is now buried in debris. If all the debris was taken to New Orleans and used as fill, the problem could be solved!
Sorry for straying from topic...
SamHouston
How will my seventy year old grandparents get around. Get a freaking tandem. Real logical post.
How did the elderly or less able get around before motorized transport, a recent development? How did this fellows post offend you and your elderly kin? I think it's fabulous that they are still independent, after all if your response here is any indication they could be a bit worse off being cared for by someone without access to any relevent history and no ability to see where the current path we're on leads to.
Mars
My point is that we can find statistics to support any conclusion we might already have in mind.
I think ALL drivers should have periodic examinations and education, no matter their age, don't you?
.
You can find stats to support a lot of conclusions, but if one is familiar with statistics you won't be fooled by spurious conclusions. whish is why I think stats should be taught in all school curriculums.
At first I agreed with you second statement, but on reflection I don't. It would be very expensive and time consuming to test everybody say, every five years. And if their driving record indicated that they didn't seem to have issues with accidents or violations, then why test them. On the other hand, if you have accumulated a certain number of accidents, tickets, or belong to an at-risk age group (old or young) testing would seem a good idea.
hyperRevue
At first I agreed with you second statement, but on reflection I don't. It would be very expensive and time consuming to test everybody say, every five years. And if their driving record indicated that they didn't seem to have issues with accidents or violations, then why test them. On the other hand, if you have accumulated a certain number of accidents, tickets, or belong to an at-risk age group (old or young) testing would seem a good idea.
Anyone should be able to attest to the fact that after years of driving (regardless of age) one becomes rather lax behind the wheel and often forgets or ignores some basic rules of the road. Periodic testing would help curb this by forcing people to stay sharp on the rules or risk losing their license.
Expensive and time consuming shouldn't be factors when public safety is an issue.
If one is a good driver without any history of accidents or anything, then he or she should have nothing to worry about.
And as I said earlier, while this wont prevent *****holes from reading or shaving or constantly talking on their cell phone while driving, it will go a long way in taking some dangerous drivers off the road.
DnvrFox
You can find stats to support a lot of conclusions, but if one is familiar with statistics you won't be fooled by spurious conclusions. whish is why I think stats should be taught in all school curriculums.
Yes, and I have stats, advanced stats and more advanced stats.
One of the things I have learned in research classes is that you aren't supposed to generalize to all the population the conclusions for a part of the population, be that a minority or even a majority.
To conclude that 70+ folks have more driving problems (based on good evidence) is fine.
To use that conclusion as the reason for pulling my driver's license is not, which was the original premise stated by hyperRevue (the more 70+ driver's off the road, the better [or words to that effect]).
I would even accept that, based upon a valid conclusion of a particular population exhibiting certain characteristics, that population might have to have more frequent testing. Actually I would welcome that - anyway we can get any poor drivers off the road is appropriate, IMHO. But, those same rules should apply to young male drivers, to ladies using cell phones, to drivers of 4 wheel drive pickups, or whatever the research may show is a defined group with a high potential of accidents.
To apply it to 70+rs alone is inappropriate, IMHO.
Besides, the AARP won't let you. :D
Anyone should be able to attest to the fact that after years of driving (regardless of age) one becomes rather lax behind the wheel and often forgets or ignores some basic rules of the road.
There are a number of defensive driving courses targeted at seniors which also offer a 5% discount on premium. I have had numerous defensive driving courses along the way, although not the specific AARP one.
FarHorizon
...Actually I would welcome...any way we can get any poor drivers off the road...
Actually, the "poorest drivers" on the road are neither the elderly nor the young - they are the drunks! Chronic alcoholics continue to drive in almost every state in the union, causing untold death & misery and receiving only token punishment when caught.
After my only sister was killed by a drunk driver, I joined MADD, but had to quit when I came to serious disagreement with them over how to rid the roads of drunk drivers. MADD wanted to restrict likely drinking demographics (the young) under the assumption that they might drive drunk. I wanted, instead, to have those convicted of drunken driving punished significantly more severely.
The most dangerous drivers on the road, regardless of age, are the drunks: First offense - large fine and mandatory training on the effects of traffic accidents. Second offense - State takes the car, imprisons the driver, and suspends liscense for an additional five years. Third offense - mandatory execution - the driver is obviously going to continue to drive drunk until killing her/himself or others.
No humor at all intended in the above recommendations. I don't care how much you choose to drink - just don't drive!
DnvrFox
Actually, the "poorest drivers" on the road are neither the elderly nor the young - they are the drunks! Chronic alcoholics continue to drive in almost every state in the union, causing untold death & misery and receiving only token punishment when caught.
Well said.
Solving this problem would save more lives by far than removing all 70+rs from the road.
Dchiefransom
How did the elderly or less able get around before motorized transport, a recent development? How did this fellows post offend you and your elderly kin? I think it's fabulous that they are still independent, after all if your response here is any indication they could be a bit worse off being cared for by someone without access to any relevent history and no ability to see where the current path we're on leads to.
You're actually talking as far back as the 1950's, when cities and towns were still set up differently, before urban sprawl set in. The crime rate in those same cities and towns was much lower, so the elderly and less able were not preyed upon as much.