Foo - Elderly on the road

I was rear ended today in my car while stopped at a red light. I was hit so hard that my car was pushed well into the one in front. I had been stopped in traffic, just sitting there.

The car that hit me at 50 km/h was a 84 year old lady. Her third at-fault accident in two months. She had no clue the traffic was stopped at the lights.

I've been fearing this for years, and it now only makes me more paranoid when on my bike. With the ageing population and ageing drivers, I'm reading about a tragedy every day.

If you have a elderly grand parent or parent that still drives, and drives poorly, think about telling them to stop, two or more lives may be saved.

If you have a elderly grand parent or parent that still drives, and drives poorly, think about telling them to stop, two or more lives may be saved.

I've got some teenaged grandkids who drive too. What should I tell them? Actually, of the fatal auto accidents in our area that I'm aware of, the teenagers are way, way, way above the older folk.

It's not the elderly that are sharp and alert that you have to worry about. My great uncle drove until his death at 95 and I never once felt he wasn't capable. It's the folks that have started to decline - either physically or mentally - and aren't yet at the point where they feel they should give it up.

My 65 year old father in-law was just one of these people. He was diagnosed with vascular dementia - which appears a lot like Alzheimers. He continued to drive. He'd forget where he was going but he still was able to handle the car.

After awhile, I noticed some small dents in the car. He couldn't recall how they got there - god knows what he hit. It wasn't long before we took the keys away.

55/Rad

I'm close to elderly(62) so watch out, I might rear end with my 96' Trek 2300...

I understand the rearend affliction. I ride mountain bike to stay in shape for riding a motorcycle, and have learned more about traffic from motorcycling. I was on my motorcycle in a left turn lane waiting for the light to change. I keep my motorcycle in first gear with the clutch pulled in for reasons like this: I was waiting for the next car to come up behind me and stop. While watching the car behind me getting closer I noticed a gray haired person, barely to see over the steering wheel. The car wasn't slowing down so I let out my clutch and went through the red light. The car that was coming up behind me slammed on it's brakes and skidded through the intersection. If I wasn't aware of what what was happening behind me, I would have been another statistic. It doesn't only pertain to old people. I was waiting for a light to change before I went through an intersection. The light changed and I just sat there wondering what difference a couple of seconds would make in reaction time, before you reacted to a green light (people in cars behind you will honk at you if you don't go right away) In that second or two, some guy who should've stopped for the red light, drove through the red light right in front of me going about 55 m.p.h. If I would've went the second the light turned green I would've probably been killed. Sometimes people learn from the obvious, but some people think they have the right of way. If you wanna stay alive when in motorized traffic, you must decide you never have the right of way, your only at the mercy of the person operating the motor vehicle thats in your view. Watch every vehicle moving! When i'm on a bicycle I'll do anything to avoid certain situations. Like intersections where people in cars wanna turn right on red but only look to the left, so they can get where they wanna go. It all comes down to experience and knowing that if a car hits you, your gonna get hurt, bad! I give all my reckless abandon to the trails.

I was driving down my normal bike route one day and I was behind and old lady in a Caprice Classic that assumed the bike lane was an extension of her lane. Kept veering in and out of it, and ended up driving in the bike lane for a good 3 miles, albeit going 35 mph in a 55 and backing up traffic for a mile. I feared for my life and went out and bought a helmet mirror that day.

Q tips (as they're called in FL) or just plain old furts, as they're better known, are surely a danger on the road. HOwever, in my personal experiences riding both bicycles and motorcycles, the worst danger is from cell phone talkers. Time after time after time again, when I have a close something or other, I note the damn cage runner is talking on the damn cell phone.

I'll accept old furts, drunks and anything else in trade for getting the cell phone off the road.

This is one of those big societal problems without an easy solution.

I think most of us would agree that some older drivers don't know when it's time to hang it up. These few pose significant danger to the rest of us, and give the safe-driving majority of seniors a bad image.

But, I'd be strongly against any mandatory age limit for drivers, and I think AARP are against proposals like yearly road testing for seniors (which means, politically, such proposals ain't gonna happen anytime soon).

Perhaps some kind of fairly simple alertness/reaction time test can be developed (I'm blue skying here)?

The more I read on here, the more inclined I am to become "that guy" -- the one who reports dangerous driving anytime I see it. Maybe we should all become "that guy."

This is one of those big societal problems without an easy solution.

I think most of us would agree that some older drivers don't know when it's time to hang it up. These few pose significant danger to the rest of us, and give the safe-driving majority of seniors a bad image.

But, I'd be strongly against any mandatory age limit for drivers, and I think AARP are against proposals like yearly road testing for seniors (which means, politically, such proposals ain't gonna happen anytime soon).

Perhaps some kind of fairly simple alertness/reaction time test can be developed (I'm blue skying here)?

The more I read on here, the more inclined I am to become "that guy" -- the one who reports dangerous driving anytime I see it. Maybe we should all become "that guy."


To bad for aarp. I think mandatory testing is needed. Ive seen to many elderly caused accidents. How about barberton kmart being turned in to a drive through 3 times in 6 years?
Or the wadsworth mcdonolds havign a new drive through added to the front when a old lady in her 70s plowed through the front hitting 2 customers who were seated there?

AARP are a bunch of psudo political idiots. They do some great things for the elderly granted but they also do things that not only endanger bystanders but the elderly they so vigorously try to help.

I don't see how one can argue against yearly road tests for elderly. The benefits far outweigh the costs. If one life is saved it is worth it, no question.

As for the comment about teenage drivers, as a teenager, I can agree that most of us are reckless and some cause accidents. Most elderly people probably don't remember their road test but I can say that they are way too easy. The tests should be longer(I only had to drive like five blocks) and more stricked.

I sure agree with mandatory testing. Last week my mother, who is 74 was driving on a 4 lane in Baltimore County. She apparantly blacked out behind the wheel, crossed over oncoming traffic hitting one other vehicle before hitting a brick wall. My sister and I have been trying to get her off the road for over a year now due to her age and her blood sugar issues but she would not budge on the subject and the state was no help. It took this accident to finaly get it done. Thank god no one else was seriously injured besides my mom.

I don't see how one can argue against yearly road tests for elderly. The benefits far outweigh the costs....Exactly, and not just for the elderly, but for everybody. The annual tests need to be both practical/road tests, and medical tests. Not just vision tests, but real "sit with your doctor" visits to judge physical and mental abilities. I'm a professional pilot, and we must undergo annual physical and practical tests. Just imagine how much safer driving would be.

Exactly, and not just for the elderly, but for everybody. The annual tests need to be both practical/road tests, and medical tests. Not just vision tests, but real "sit with your doctor" visits to judge physical and mental abilities. I'm a professional pilot, and we must undergo annual physical and practical tests. Just imagine how much safer driving would be.

Well with the job market as bad is it is you cant aford to take time off for a driving test (you know they woul donly do it m-5 9 am to 5pm) So essentially you ither need to take time off from work or loose your licence. Retestts for those over 65 no retest for those under.

This will sound pretty radical and probably piss someone off, but I'll say it anyway.

Driving is a privelage not a right. If you want to drive, you may have to use one of your sick/vaction days to take the test. If that is truly not an option then maybe they could have occasional saturday testing(I know this probably wont fly at the DMV, it's hard enough getting them do work as it is).

It's too difficult to difficult to draw a line for an age requirement (i.e. testing after 65) and will probably be labeled as discrimination. Until someone publishes a comprehensive study showing evidence substantial enough to convince everyone of it's neccessity, it wont happen.

I sure agree with mandatory testing. Last week my mother, who is 74 was driving on a 4 lane in Baltimore County. She apparantly blacked out behind the wheel, crossed over oncoming traffic hitting one other vehicle before hitting a brick wall. My sister and I have been trying to get her off the road for over a year now due to her age and her blood sugar issues but she would not budge on the subject and the state was no help. It took this accident to finaly get it done. Thank god no one else was seriously injured besides my mom.

How about yearly testing for diabetics? Epileptics? You don't start blacking out at 74. Something was afoot besides her age.

I remember there was this terrible accident a couple of years ago... some of you may remember. It was in Tampa, i think. This guy plowed right through a group on a ride- about 20 people. Apparently he was diabetic and had blacked out- he wasn't that old, in his 60s. But some of the riders were badly injured, although luckily no one was killed or crippled. The guy eventually pleaded guilty in court, paid a big fine and voluntarily surrendered his license.

I think for certain people with medical conditions like that, testing is probably better than waiting for a disaster. This time no one was killed- next time, who knows. I'm sorry that the AARP feels that they are in danger of losing their freedom to get around, but it's not just about them. Its public safety. And if there were better public transportation available in some cities, then they would have other ways to get around besides cars. The problem is that in some cities and burbs there is simply no other way to get around and nothing in walking distance.

The time an old fart crashed into a group of bikes near Tampa that I remember, the judge said it was the bikes' fault. His reasoning was that the bicyclists went through a red light a few block before (true). The judge said if they'd not have gone through the light, they'd not have been where the old fart lost control so the crash was their fault.

I wish I was making a joke here, but I'm not. Old farts driving while old farts judge.

How about yearly testing for diabetics? Epileptics? You don't start blacking out at 74. Something was afoot besides her age.

Any person susceptable to blackouts, and epileptics without drug control already cannot drive. A doctor has to report this by law.

According to the police inveestigator, the 84 year old who hit me will continue to be allowed to drive indefinitely until: 1. she kills someone or 2. her insurance company raises her premiums until she can't afford it , but they cannot deny her. Sorry, but knowing this scares the crap out of me now when I'm riding -I assume that the driver passing me on the left at least can see me, this woman did not see a whole line of cars with brake lights on -she would have killed people in a group ride. But we cannot deny her freedom? Since when is driving a right? Loud stereos, cell phones, coffee, eating, DVD players, etc. these are heavy, fast moving dangerous vehicles, not living room sofas.

As for more testing or laws-won't happen when the majority of people are now heading into their 60s -they will not believe they are incapable of driving safely. I'll bet that every person>60 in this forum would oppose it.

In Ontario, any driver above 75 is tested every year. But it's a joke, because my grandfather passed every year , but he was not fit to drive. At 82, we insisted and took away his car for his safety, an accident was a matter of short time. He's still kicking fine at 88.

A 92 year old that can drive well is great, but clearly, this is not the average, and only a few exceptional people are in this position.

My car was crushed-big deal, but in a cycling context, these accidents would be fatal.

I've got some teenaged grandkids who drive too. What should I tell them? Actually, of the fatal auto accidents in our area that I'm aware of, the teenagers are way, way, way above the older folk.

Sorry Grouch, but that is wrong. I don't know where this myth started, but this is from NSC.org:

http://www.nsc.org/library/report_injury_usa.htm

On Roads and Highways

* A death caused by a motor vehicle crash occurs every 12 minutes; a disabling injury occurs every 13 seconds.
* Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people ages 6 to 33.
* Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.
* The age groups most affected by motor vehicle crashes are 15-24 and 75+.
* There were an estimated 5,600 pedestrian deaths and 80,000 injuries.
* There is an alcohol-related traffic death every 30 minutes and a nonfatal injury every 2 minutes.
* Bicycling resulted in about 700 deaths in collisions with motor vehicles.

I don't see how one can argue against yearly road tests for elderly. The benefits far outweigh the costs....

Exactly, and not just for the elderly, but for everybody. The annual tests need to be both practical/road tests, and medical tests. Not just vision tests, but real "sit with your doctor" visits to judge physical and mental abilities. I'm a professional pilot, and we must undergo annual physical and practical tests. Just imagine how much safer driving would be.
I would vote for this. If we had a comprehensive public health care system, it would be a lot more practical, but that's a whole other issue.



Retro Grouch
I've got some teenaged grandkids who drive too. What should I tell them? Actually, of the fatal auto accidents in our area that I'm aware of, the teenagers are way, way, way above the older folk.

I'd imagine the stats would show that driving is as hazardous for folks 75+ as it is for under-25s -- but when a kid dies, it's news, so driving seems more dangerous for kids. Teach your grandkids to pay attention to everything on the road at all times (including cyclists, of course).

BTW, I hope nobody thinks I'm a huge fan of AARP! I do admire their skill in working together successfully. There are things you can change, and others you can't -- AARP, like the weather, is one of those things you can't do too much about.

Imagine if we had a national bike lobby that was as effective as they are....

Bicyclists United for Rights in Public.

BURP vs. AARP

How about yearly testing for diabetics? Epileptics? You don't start blacking out at 74. Something was afoot besides her age.

Agreed........so far with multiple MRI's, EKG's,EEG's and blood screenings the doctors have no theorys. I do know age in some way was a factor as her driving, walking and general day to life has been going downhill for a couple of years now.

The time an old fart crashed into a group of bikes near Tampa that I remember, the judge said it was the bikes' fault. His reasoning was that the bicyclists went through a red light a few block before (true). The judge said if they'd not have gone through the light, they'd not have been where the old fart lost control so the crash was their fault.

I wish I was making a joke here, but I'm not. Old farts driving while old farts judge.

They "tried" to say it was the cyclists fault. The old guy went over a double yellow center line to pass another vehicle, and swung wide head on into a pace line. I think two cyclists died from it. The issue of "intent" was what kept the guy from being charged in Florida criminally. He paid a fine and lost his license.

20 years ago the only cars that experienced sudden acceleration were Audi 5000s. It was a problem with the car. Now whenever I hear or read about a car doing this it's always a senior driver. Still, I'm against making any mandatory testing laws. Unfortunately, if you give law enforcement an inch, they take a mile. For example, law enforcement uses seizure mandates under drug confiscation laws to take bicycles away from riders riding on sidewalks. Or the police using drunk driving checkpoints to raise revenue by ticketing drivers for not wearing seat belts etc. Mandatory driver testing would be a slippery slope. Who's next and how would the law be misapplied?

They "tried" to say it was the cyclists fault. The old guy went over a double yellow center line to pass another vehicle, and swung wide head on into a pace line. I think two cyclists died from it. The issue of "intent" was what kept the guy from being charged in Florida criminally. He paid a fine and lost his license.

Maybe we are talking about different crashes. IIRC (it was a few years ago and I was just off my boat after a long time singlehanding) the JUDGE was the one who found against the cyclists. I may be remembering it all wrong. Even though I didn't ride then, I was outraged at that claim / decision.

20 years ago the only cars that experienced sudden acceleration were Audi 5000s. It was a problem with the car.

Actually, it wasn't. It was a combo of old fart, mass hysteria, the lamestream media and our corrupt court system. The Audis were just fine.

How about yearly testing for diabetics? Epileptics? You don't start blacking out at 74. Something was afoot besides her age.

Each state DMV (USA...sorry, don't know about other countries) has a Medical Division that investigates whether a driver is fit to drive with certain medical conditions. Some states (not all) have mandatory reporting in that a physician is required to report a driver to the DMV if they have had a stroke, head injury, dementia, etc. North Carolina has no such reporting law, however, ethical guidelines for physicians strongly encourage them to do so. To enroll a driver in the Medical Program through the state DMV, they will usually start an investigation based on a written complaint by the concerned party.

There is a group of professionals that evaluate driver fitness. These Driver Rehabilitation Specialists assess the client's physical, visual, cognitive and percepetual skills for driving and take them on a rather extensive road course. These results are shared with the referring physician and the state DMV. SO....if you have concerns about your loved one and are interested in having them evaluated, you can find an evaluator here: http://aded.net/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1

I worked in primary health care. We in NM have no such law either. I'm still more troubled by cell phone talkers than anything else. While a old guy may pass out and make a big crash, that's rare. Meanwhile almost any day I can experience a bad cell phone close call. When I'm not on the bicycle, I'm on the motorycles where I find the cell phone soccer moms are my bane. Other bikers report same.

Last year, an elderly man in a neighboring town ran into a group of elementary-school students, parents, and teachers as school was letting out. He pinned several of them to a low brick wall. As I recall, at least one of the children lost a leg. Many of the others suffered severe injuries. Thankfully, no one was killed. The driver was brought to trial and convicted. Due to his advanced age and multiple health problems, he was sentenced to one year of house arrest, rather than prison time. He made the paper again a couple of days ago, when he died at home of old age. Any question as to whether or not he should have been behind the wheel? AARP be damned, public safety is more important than the driving privileges of unsafe elderly motorists.

Actually, it wasn't. It was a combo of old fart, mass hysteria, the lamestream media and our corrupt court system. The Audis were just fine.


But..but...60 Minutes was soooo convincing!

If you have a elderly grand parent or parent that still drives, and drives poorly, think about telling them to stop, two or more lives may be saved.


Unfortunately our USA towns are not accommodating to people without cars. No sidewalks, no reliable public transport, just car based economy.
You must drive until it really is too late, such as an accident or disability or death.

BTW, I was just rear-ended, by a young lady on a cell phone. :eek:

20 years ago the only cars that experienced sudden acceleration were Audi 5000s. It was a problem with the car. Now whenever I hear or read about a car doing this it's always a senior driver. Still, I'm against making any mandatory testing laws. Unfortunately, if you give law enforcement an inch, they take a mile. For example, law enforcement uses seizure mandates under drug confiscation laws to take bicycles away from riders riding on sidewalks. Or the police using drunk driving checkpoints to raise revenue by ticketing drivers for not wearing seat belts etc. Mandatory driver testing would be a slippery slope. Who's next and how would the law be misapplied?

There was no problem with the car, the car was one of the larger german cars and it was being bought by older people. Audi was not the only car company with these accusations, it was the one fist brought to court over it. Audi proved it was older people hitting gas instead of brakes. I saw an old woman do this while parking a lincoln in Toronto in 1990 and she almost killed a pedestrian. Cadillac knew of this problem since the 70s-that's why a GM brake pedal is so wide.

Sorry but that weak ACLU argument won't wash, buy that reasoning, we shouldn't do anything based on what may happen.

Well I almost got hit today by a couple of older drivers. The road I ride on the weekends goes around our old airport which normally has very little traffic and car drivers that are there know to look for bicycles. Today was different there was a air show (B-17, ect) it was overcast and had started to rain when the influx of lost older drivers all in their goldish-brown Buicks flooded the roads and parking lots. It was like the episode of South Park where all of the older folks have taken over the town.......I thought they were all out to kill me.......by accident of course(but dead is dead) :rolleyes: .

In my experience with teenage/older drivers trying to kill me on the bike both drivers are over driving their ability. They just dont know it, the younger ones think they have more skills than they really do and the older ones do not realize that their skills/reaction times have dulled :(

The US FAA has it right when it comes to operating aircraft, and no-one ever accuses them of "age discrimation." A periodic medical examination is required of ALL PILOTS by FAA-designated Aviation Medical Examiners in order to "exercise the privileges of the pilot certificate," regardless of age. Airline pilot? See the doc every six months. Commercial pilot (charter pilot, flight instructor, anyone flying for hire)? See the doc every 12 months. Everybody else? See the doc every 36 months or, if you're over the age of 40, every 24 months. Doesn't matter if you're Chuck Yeager or Neil Armstrong, if you want to fly an aircraft, you see the doctor regularly. Now why is it so objectionable when we want to apply a requirement such as this to driving a car? (Note: I'm not talking about demonstrating your skills and proficiencies as a PILOT, which is an entirely set of requirements every 24 months.)

Sorry Grouch, but that is wrong. I don't know where this myth started, but this is from NSC.org:

http://www.nsc.org/library/report_injury_usa.htm

On Roads and Highways

* A death caused by a motor vehicle crash occurs every 12 minutes; a disabling injury occurs every 13 seconds.
* Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people ages 6 to 33.
* Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.
* The age groups most affected by motor vehicle crashes are 15-24 and 75+.
* There were an estimated 5,600 pedestrian deaths and 80,000 injuries.
* There is an alcohol-related traffic death every 30 minutes and a nonfatal injury every 2 minutes.
* Bicycling resulted in about 700 deaths in collisions with motor vehicles.


Assuming you meant to dispell the "myth" that teenage drivers are worse than eldery drivers: take a look at the second bullet in the information you provided.

*Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.

Also, the statement "The age groups most affected by motor vehicle crashes are 15-24 and 75+" is kind of ambiguous, as it fails to quantify the statistic. Is it a percentage of teenagers and elderly, or is it numbers of accidents? Or is it percentage of elderly and teenage drivers, among their own age groups, that had those accidents? That study fails to describe how these data/statements were taken and contructed. Anyone can manipulate numbers...

As a person who was a teenager not that long ago, I will freely admit that I was, while not unskilled, a bit of a risk taker. Oddly enough, I did not, and still do not, use a cell phone while driving unless absolutely necessary, and then, for a short period of time. It makes me too nervous.

I remember there was this terrible accident a couple of years ago... some of you may remember. It was in Tampa, i think. This guy plowed right through a group on a ride- about 20 people. Apparently he was diabetic and had blacked out- he wasn't that old, in his 60s. But some of the riders were badly injured, although luckily no one was killed or crippled. The guy eventually pleaded guilty in court, paid a big fine and voluntarily surrendered his license.



Well, gee, I haven't been here for a few days so don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but here in Tampa a few days ago?

...An elderly man, still driving in his 90s, plowed into a pedestrian so hard, he apparently knocked his head and 1 arm completely off, and the body flew into his windshield. He never even stopped, just continued driving along!

He only stopped to pay a toll several miles down the road, shocking the collector by driving up with this body stuck halfway through his windshield--this elderly man was so far gone he had no idea he hit an actual person, and told the toll booth worker that, "the body just fell from the sky!"

This was just a few days ago and has people pretty shook up down here, and even the elderly people I've talked to about this feel that after a certain age, annual competency tests should be given before just renewing driver's licenses.

For obvious reason, in Florida, elderly drivers are to be feared.

Exactly, and not just for the elderly, but for everybody. The annual tests need to be both practical/road tests, and medical tests. Not just vision tests, but real "sit with your doctor" visits to judge physical and mental abilities. I'm a professional pilot, and we must undergo annual physical and practical tests. Just imagine how much safer driving would be.

Absolutely. Some countries have retests every 3-5 years for everyone. Just because someone once passed the test 10 years ago does not mean that something may have changed regarding their ability to drive. In addition, get certain types of tickets, get an immediate re-test.

The US FAA has it right when it comes to operating aircraft, and no-one ever accuses them of "age discrimation." A periodic medical examination is required of ALL PILOTS by FAA-designated Aviation Medical Examiners in order to "exercise the privileges of the pilot certificate," regardless of age. Airline pilot? See the doc every six months. Commercial pilot (charter pilot, flight instructor, anyone flying for hire)? See the doc every 12 months. Everybody else? See the doc every 36 months or, if you're over the age of 40, every 24 months. Doesn't matter if you're Chuck Yeager or Neil Armstrong, if you want to fly an aircraft, you see the doctor regularly. Now why is it so objectionable when we want to apply a requirement such as this to driving a car? (Note: I'm not talking about demonstrating your skills and proficiencies as a PILOT, which is an entirely set of requirements every 24 months.)

The old farts say that they need a car to live. THis isn't Europe where you can walk, etc to most places, but the US where we have an infrastructure dependent on car ownership.

Here is another failure of the bicycle lobby. If we had better ways for bicycles to get around, we could get these old guys on bikes, away from endangering us and also leading a healthier lifestyle.

I don't know about you, but where I live, you can't get to a food store w/o mixing it up in some pretty scary traffic. Ditto movie theater and most other places. I can cut and dodge traffic even if I don't like it, but I can't see some out of shape 80 y.o. doing the same. So we here are saying don't drive, but that also means don't live here in the US.

Or maybe we could use some of that highway bill money for a separate lane for electric golf carts :D .

Assuming you meant to dispell the "myth" that teenage drivers are worse than eldery drivers: take a look at the second bullet in the information you provided.

*Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.

Also, the statement "The age groups most affected by motor vehicle crashes are 15-24 and 75+" is kind of ambiguous, as it fails to quantify the statistic. Is it a percentage of teenagers and elderly, or is it numbers of accidents? Or is it percentage of elderly and teenage drivers, among their own age groups, that had those accidents? That study fails to describe how these data/statements were taken and contructed. Anyone can manipulate numbers...

As a person who was a teenager not that long ago, I will freely admit that I was, while not unskilled, a bit of a risk taker. Oddly enough, I did not, and still do not, use a cell phone while driving unless absolutely necessary, and then, for a short period of time. It makes me too nervous.

Of course the leading cause of death of those 75+ is not going to be car accidents, THEY ARE 75+. Why would the NSA "manipulate" numbers? Are you somehow denying that people 75+ have slower reflexes and vision problems? How many people should get killed before removing a licence? 1-2, 2-5, 6+? Are you telling me that we are not seeing older people driving 40 mph in the fast lane with the right turn signal permanently on? That's an illusion? It's due to this exact attitude why this 84 year old is still driving.

The teenager numbers come from the fact that most states driver's exam is a total joke. Canada is not much better, but the british system is far more rigorous.

The fact that you use a cell phone _at all_ while driving indicates that you are a risk on the road to others. What's so "absolutely necessary" that you cannot stop the car?

How many car accidents have you been involved in?

How did this thread turn into apples and oranges? No one denies that young people statistically present a potential threat on the road. Everyone of us who survived our youth behind the wheel should count our blessings.

But Doc was rear-ended by an older driver. And here in the States, that has been a problem complicated by:

1) Pride. It is embarassing for anyone to be told they can no longer exercise a privilege they have had most of their adult life.

2) Practicality. Our suburban culture and civil planning has, in many areas, made the ability to drive close to mandatory to take advantage of major sectors of normal life. Yes, public transportation exists, etc., but the elderly I know personally who may not be safe on the roads anymore due to diminished reflexes and acuity (and continue to drive) UNANIMOUSLY do so because they fear the loss of personal freedom and ability to look after one's self.

Who's going to take them to meet with their friends? Shop? Their kids have all moved across the country, daughter-in-law can't stand them, etc.

In that light, what's the life and safety of a few lycra-loving, leg-shaving freaks worth?

My 2 centavos. . .test, test and re-test those old farts. I got hit by a granny in a buick months ago, she made a right turn from the left lane, hit me with her rear right quarter-panel and never even saw me in her blind spot. I anticipated this so she barely nicked my handlebars (skewed my lever a bit). I just shook my head and kept going, cause I looked thru the rear windshield and neither her nor gramps had any idea what had just happened, she just kept motoring right along, didn't even turn her head!

I think there should absolutely be mandatory yearly or testing for everyone over the age of 62. Driving is a privilige, not a right, and you have to prove that you should be granted this privilige. Also around here we have a little thing called "paratransit" that's basically free shuttle service for disabled people (and how hard is it for an old fart to claim a disability?) Not to mention, in this country those old farts didnt get where they are without knowing how to accumulate a little capital along the way, and can most likely afford a CAB to "the food store," doctor's office, etc.!

DocRay,

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out that teenage drivers are the group that need to be monitored a little bit closer; they are the ones who are at risk the most in my opinion.

And I completely agree with you about the elderly in a lot of cases. My grandmother fell asleep at the wheel a couple weeks ago with my 16 and 12 year old cousins, as well as my aunt/their mother, as passengers. The only reason they didn't die was because my cousin asked her a question, and due to her poor hearing, he asked it in a loud voice, which woke her up. They had started drifting over the center line when she woke up.

Both situations, due to poor regulation and monitoring, scare the hell out of me.

Also, I have been involved in one moving accident. I was rear ended by a girl who had just recieved her license, and 1) was talking on the phone and 2) had 4 passengers in the car. The second is illegal.

The other accident, non-moving, involved my car being hit by a teenage girl, on a cell phone, as she made a three point turn after leaving a fireworks show on the 4th of July. I was still playing frisbee with my friend and my girlfriend when my dad called, irate, demanding to know what had happened to the car. The police had called my parents and explained the situation, yet I, the driver, had no clue what had occured.

These two situations occured in high school, FYI.

About cell phone usage: I have the system where I plug my phone into a jack on the dash, the sound comes through my speakers, and a microphone on my mirror catches my voice. No hands involved. And I get off the phone in a hell of a hurry. As it is, now I drive maybe 30-40 days and nights, total, a year.

My 2 centavos. . .test, test and re-test those old farts. I got hit by a granny in a buick months ago, she made a right turn from the left lane, hit me with her rear right quarter-panel and never even saw me in her blind spot. I anticipated this so she barely nicked my handlebars (skewed my lever a bit). I just shook my head and kept going, cause I looked thru the rear windshield and neither her nor gramps had any idea what had just happened, she just kept motoring right along, didn't even turn her head!

I think there should absolutely be mandatory yearly or testing for everyone over the age of 62. Driving is a privilige, not a right, and you have to prove that you should be granted this privilige. Also around here we have a little thing called "paratransit" that's basically free shuttle service for disabled people (and how hard is it for an old fart to claim a disability?) Not to mention, in this country those old farts didnt get where they are without knowing how to accumulate a little capital along the way, and can most likely afford a CAB to "the food store," doctor's office, etc.!

And I've been rear ended twice this past year by illegal aliens driving without a license or insurance! They both tried to flee the scene--one I chased down, and got the license plate on the other. Both were arrested and taken to jail.

Driving is a privilege, not a right? Is it? I know a guy who lost his license due to drunk driving (repeatedly) who went and put his very own license plate on his car, which he named "freedom", drove anyway, and every time he's been arrested, went to court and successfully argued his "right" to drive--and won--8 times! As my best friend's ex husband, he's not exactly someone I like.

Do I agree with any of this? Hell no! It flat out pisses me off that these drivers are endangering my life, and everyone else's out there on the roads.

My only commentary to this? I've developed a healthy fear of riding my bike on the roads.

My 2 centavos. . .test, test and re-test those old farts.

I will be getting flack for this post.
I like to point out that all of you will be "OLD FARTS" someday. I am not sure why this derogatory term is tolerated. If such term were used for some Minority, all hell would break loose. It seems to be acceptable to be derogatory to the elderly.
I do not like that one bit.
BTW I apologize for replying to "minder". He is just one of many who use this term.
I protest on principle. :mad: :mad:

To solve the problem of the elderly driving :

Eliminate them at birth!

Id be more afraid of 16-20 year old girls...*shiver* :D

When I'm biking I ride defensivley. I assume every vehicle will pull out in front of me or cut me off so I'm always ready.

Reaction time decreases as we get older, as does our sense of balance/spatial orientation. Driving while under the influence of Age is in many ways like Driving drunk - except there's no breathalyzer test for age (maybe we can calibrate breathalyzers to detect Fixodent).

Would pulling over Crown Victoria's to test for driving under the influence of age be profiling?

Like I said, I much rather have elderly driving than 16-20 year old girls...

I drove with my friend a few times(84yo)...Other than the usual swerve out of the lane on the freeway turns, I thought he was a pretty good driver

You guys think the elderly drive poorly? Look at the girls/teenagers...At least elderly mitigate risk, girls/teenagers create extra risk

When is the last time you saw an elderly gentleman putting on makeup as he was driving...