A big problem I have with this whole debate is the emphasis on older drivers and the assumption that every person over 65 is decrepit and feeble.
Seems to me this whole driving thing should be based on ability, not age. Well, we’re not going to let a 6 year old drive because at that developmental stage he or she doesn’t have the mental development to make sound judgements yet, but certainly once a person is fully adult they either have the goods or they don’t.
So why don’t we test everyone every so many years - both written and road?
A number of years ago in Chicago there was a similar incident to what recently happened in Santa Monica. Driver came out of a parking garage in the Loop, hit the gas instead of the brake, and mowed down a bunch of pedestrians during the lunch rush. Five or six dead and about 18 injured (if I recall correctly). Driver was in her 40’s. We’ve also had a taxi driver with a runaway cab nail some pedestrians - driver again under 50. The difference? When the incidents were reported no one made a big deal about the age. So it isn’t JUST old people who do this.
I met a pilot who still flying in her mid-90’s - she has to have a physical exam every two years and take a flight test every two. (When she was still flying as a commercial pilot it was every year for the physical - just like every other commercial pilot of any age) Her vision is better than mine has ever been. Yeah, I have no problem with the idea of her driving a car. Yes, she’s exceptional in many ways, but I’d hate to see her driving privilages revoked just because she’s over a particular age and no other reason.
On the flip side, there are people in their 30’s who, because of medications, medical conditions, or sheer stupidity should NOT be on the road.
And as long as our society continues to build communities that demand cars we’re giving people an incentive to cheat the system. If giving up driving wasn’t so likely to result in, essentially, house arrest people who shouldn’t be driving might be more willing to stop driving.
mangeorge had an interesting point, if I understand it correctly. In the study to which you allude, how many of the fatalities in accidents in which there was an elderly driver, involved occupants of other vehicles as opposed to just the elderly driver? If said driver has a heart attack and goes off the road into a tree, does that count in the stats?
In the last few years several reckless drivers have involved me in accidents (all were found completely at fault). All three were under 40; one was in his early 20s. The one time an elderly driver hit me (and he had to be at least in his late 70s), he drifted backward into me at a stop sign (ignoring my honking as he got closer) and then toodled off, oblivious. When I finally got him stopped (after more honking and arm-waving), he was uncomprehending as to why he should have stopped. Damage was negligible. He would have been a good candidate for retesting (which is what I was clearly saying before - i.e. test more frequently after a certain age, including a written test to look for cognitive problems. The other tests might cover eye examination, reflexes etc., and maybe a complete road test if warranted. You chose to pick out only the part of my answer that dealt with a written exam.
Why do you keep insisting that we must normalize the statistics for average miles driven? What difference does this make? Our interest is to minimize the absolute number of accidents. If one group is at a certain level because they are competent drivers and another group because they rarely drive, the effect is the same, as a practical matter.
On a separate matter, I think the point I raised in an earlier post has not been addressed. Again, to the extent that elderly drivers are less attentive or more confused than other drivers, there is no readily apparent test that could weed this out. How do you determine the likelihood that a given driver will mistake the gas pedal for the brake? Or the likelihood that a given driver’s mind will wander and cause him to pull out without checking for oncoming traffic? It’s not as if these guys are wandering about in a constant state of confusion - it’s that they are subject to frequent momentary lapses.
(BTW, for those who query how a the gas and brake can be confused, I think it is very simple. The guy already has his foot on one of the pedals and forgets which one it is.)
I think the point raised by even sven is an important one. In many areas of the country, people simply need to drive. If we could easily weed out the drivers who have a very high likelihood of causing accidents it would be a good idea. But we can’t impose too draconian a solution on the elderly poluation as a whole (not that anyone here was proposing any). To some extent, having older drivers causing accidents is a sacrifice that society makes to accommodate our elderly population.
From th accounts I’ve heard, people who had dealt with the guy said that he was just a normal old guy, and didn’t ever seem to be confused, or disorieted normally. It was just that he became confused. Perhaps the high-stress situation of “oh shit! a bunch of people in front of me, what do I do?” triggered the “attack” of confusion. But if a guy can drive normally most of the time, and only because confused very occasionally, that seems like it would be difficult to test for.
Of course, we should get all new and retested drivers our on a race course and make them prove they know how to control their cars in all conditions, IMNSHO.
According to this morning’s (18 July) LA Times, the driver had just had a collision with a Mercedes at the entrance to the Farmer’s Market street. The Santa Monica police are now investigating that, questioning witnesses, examining both cars, etc.
No, blowero, I would like to see how many elderly people kill or injure people per year without factoring for miles driven. The true weight of a problem like this is how often it actually happens, not how often per mile. Jackmannii’s chart, if I see it correctly, gives occupant* ages. Not driver’s ages. Can there actually be 3 or 4 deaths/100,000 caused by drivers under the age of 5 every year? Look at the header for the chart.
“Motor Vehicle Occupant Fatality and Injury Rates 100,000 Population by Age Group, 1975-1997 per Year”
If I’m wrong, I’ll shut up.
In fairness, a teenage boy recently did this same thing (gas/brake pedal) next door when he drove into the ice cream store. He was parked & somehow hit the gas, went over the curb & into the store.
[quote]
A big problem I have with this whole debate is the emphasis on older drivers and the assumption that every person over 65 is decrepit and feeble.**
You’re absolutely right. Something like this happens, people start saying “test them more, take away their licences,” etc. Then people get mad: it’s oppressive, it’s generalising, etc. Where were these people when PA changed their laws affecting drivers under 18? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t care. PA’s laws are one thing (they’re not very restrictive), but what is this crap about not being able to drive other young people without someone over 25 in the car?
Why is it ok to do that to one age group and not to another? We should be testing everyone, every five years.
I also don’t buy the “panic” explanation, because, according to what I read, when he was pulled out of the car, and asked, “Do you know what you just did?”, he said, “No.”
It may be part of the problem, but I don’t think it’s all or even most of it. I live in NYC, possibly the easiest city in the country in which to live car-free.Still, I’ve known many people who drove past the point when they were no longer safe drivers. They simply did not believe that they were no longer safe drivers, no matter how often their children and grandchildren told them they should stop driving.
And while I have some sympathy for those who wil lose their independence by not being able to drive, I simply don’t think my grandfather’s “independence” was more important that the safety of the motorcyclist that who spent a year in the hospital after my grandfather hit him. Gramps had a stop sign, and neither saw nor heard the motorcycle which had the right of way.Even after that, he thought he was a safe driver.
Even in the areas where “people simply need to drive”, there are people who don’t drive, either because they never learned, or they can’t afford a car, or their vision is too poor. Those people function somehow.
As Guinastasia pointed out, he may have more of a history of problems than you realize. I see elderly drivers all the time who I know would never pass a road test; it’s not like you have to run over a pedestrian to fail the test. You seem to be assuming that since Mr. Weller never killed anyone before, that he was a stellar driver the rest of the time, but I seriously doubt it. I mean, what exactly would have been the panic situation that “triggered” him running into the wall of his garage?
But let’s say you’re right, and maybe some drivers drive great most of the time, but have sudden, unpredicatable onsets of confusion. So you are arguing that it’s useless to test them because they won’t be confused on the day of the test. Do you know that for a fact? Is that a reason not to even try it to see if it works? If some incompetent drivers manage to fool the examiner, isn’t it at least helpful to get the ones who didn’t fool the examiner off the road?
I don’t think anyone has suggested taking away a person’s license solely because she is over a certain age. The suggestion was to require a road test on renewal, that’s all.
Jackmannii, what I was asking you was why you think there should be an automatic written test for cognitive function, but only a road test “if warranted”. We want to check for deterioration of driving skills; wouldn’t a road test be the best way of doing so? And please, I’m trying to ask you in the most straightforward manner in which I am capable, so I’d appreciate a direct answer sans sarcasm.
Mangeorge, of course you’re not wrong. Like I said, the debate over normalizing the data is the crux of the issue. We just happen to disagree.
kputt:
Funny, I had the same thought. It’s scary, but I actually wondered why terrorists bother with car-bombs rather than just mowing people down.
Perhpas not in this forum, but the suggesion has been bandied about in the media, and I do hear it from people I know. There is a real element out there that thinks once you hit 65 it’s all over, you should enter nursing home, die and get out of the way of younger folks. I always wonder what happens to these people when they reach 65…
In many ways, I think the road test is actually more important. You don’t have to be a genius to drive (in fact, the highly intelligent are at higher risk I’ve been told) but you do have to be able to focus on what you’re doing and pay attention.
Bombs are scarier. Most of us have the notion we might be able to run from a rampaging car, but you can’t run from a hidden bomb - it just goes >BOOM!< and you’re either lucky or not. Thus from the terrorizing aspect of terrorism, bombs are much better than runaway cars.
