When I heard that he had prior accidents, I thought the opposite - that it would be used to show negligence. His prior events should have been enough for him to know he was no longer safe on the road.
My grandfather drove through his garage for the same reason, he thought the gas was the brake. That was enough for our family to take away his license and tell him he could no longer drive. That’s what really angers me about these kind of accidents - 9 times out of 10 you will hear family or friends say yeah, they thought he probably shouldn’t be driving, they knew he was unsafe, etc. People! If your family member should not be on the road, do what it takes to get them off it! No one wants to hurt feelings, so they would rather let them kill themselves or someone else. There needs to be more education and awareness about this for family members, too. If I was one of those people who was hurt or lost a family member, I think I would be more angry at his family for not getting him off the road. How long until we have a lawsuit against a Dr. or family member who did not try to prevent an obviously unsafe person from driving?
I was thinking about this, and does anyone know what insurance rates are like for seniors? I know rates are high for teenagers and then go down as you get older, is there an age where they start to go back up again? I wonder if a system could be implemented where seniors (or anyone, for that matter) could get a break on their rates if they take a test every few years or something - at least it would encourage some people to get evaluated. I would take a very comprehensive test if I got a break on my insurance.
NINE people killed and another 54 people’s lives wrecked and all you can think is “Gee, that poor old man”???
Would you have half this amount of sympathy if the driver had been a 20 year old woman?
You do nothing but express sympathy for this “old man” while completely blowing off the damage done to 63 other people. Why don’t you try expressing some sympathy for them?
And stop with the patronizing “old people are children who aren’t responsible for their actions” crap. If that’s true, then they should all be locked up where they can’t hurt people.
Ahh but he didn’t break any laws in the state of California getting into his car that day…Just because someone knows they maybe shouldn’t drive, doesn’t mean they won’t.
Prior accidents just means he’s prone to this sort of thing…but he wasn’t breaking any laws as far as I can see, just by simply getting behind his wheel.
Easier said than done. I don’t know what it’s like elsewhere, but here in NJ you have to get the person declared incompetent. My sister and I felt that our father was unfit to drive during the final year of his life, and probably before that. He didn’t have any accidents causing physical injury to anyone as far as we knew, but he did seriously mess up his own car a few times. Based on our own observations, we believed it was just a matter of time before something worse happened. At one point his doctor advised him not to drive, but did not confiscate his license, or notify the authorities. We would have had to have him declared incompetent in a court of law, and we had nothing but our own non-medical observations to go on. Legal advice indicated that without some specific professional backing, our own opinions would have been meaningless.
His insurance rates were very, very high. Something like $5000 a year just for liability. He had been dropped by at least one insurer because of too many claims. We tried to point out that 5K would buy an awful lot of cab rides, but he wouldn’t hear of it.
No, but how is negligence proved in other types of cases? I thought part of it is whether or not a person should have a reasonable expectation of something or an average person could reasonably assume there would be consequences…IANAL (obviously, could you tell by that definition?). In my understanding I can be held responsible for a death if I am reckless even if I did not break a law, if it is reasonable to assume that what I am doing could bring about death.
I could be completely wrong about this. I could also be confusing “reckless” and “negligence.”
sorry, that last post was in response to Phlosphr.
MLS, that is difficult. I can see how potential problems could arise from giving family members the ability to get a license removed - at what age can my kids decide for me what I can and cannot do?
I was in an accident about ten years ago. I didn’t see a taupe Taurus and I hit it. That’s my only accident, but it definitely was a case of “I didn’t see that car at all.”
I understand people getting upset at this, but that doesn’t make the man some sort of geriatric Hitler.
Anecdote alert! I do wonder if he’s going to be tested for stroke, though. My father had a stroke while driving a few years ago. It wasn’t until a couple weeks later that a stroke was suspected and tested for.
If this is regarded as an Accident - by the Santa Monica Police, and the D.A., can anyone say 10 Wrongful Death LawSuits. Can you imagine the Heirs, they are probably like - Thanks Dad, you just gave away our Inheritance.
We have a 80 yr Great-Aunt in Santa Barbara, CA who refuses to give up driving, this guy has just helped our arguement, why she should not drive.
i think that drivers should be tested every 10 years from the time they get their license.
the man in s. m. had been driving since he was 14. in the 70ish years he had been driving, many laws have changed; many, many more cars are on the road with him. i’m willing to bet when he was 14 he had the same driving test my dad did: sign the book and drive home.
testing everyone with driving and written exams every 10 years would help keep people current with traffic laws, and perhaps even hidden medical problems could be found through the driving exams.
The issue of retesting drivers is a really sticky one. At face value, I agree with it, but on closer thought, there are difficulties.
The driving test I did in Australia back in the 80s was extremely tough. I assume the US tests are also tough. Fair enough too.
Now, I was failed on my first two attempts on very minor details. Even by the 80s, the time of fronting up to the local policeman who knows you by name, and says “Yeah, you passed. Keep practicing mate, and say hi to your dad for me” were long gone. I was subjected to rigorous and detailed testing by an out-of-town official from the transport department. And on the third attempt, when I passed, I don’t think my driving was any better or worse than on the others.
I need my car. I need to get to work, and take my son to school. What happens if, as an experienced driver in my thirties, I am forced to submit to retesting and, I dunno, forget to look over my shoulder on changing lanes, even though it’s a quiet street, and I’ve looked over my shoulder seconds before and know I’m the only car within a bull’s roar in either direction? what if I’m simply nervous, or not feeling well that day? What if the examiner isn’t up to par himself, makes a mistake, or is just in a bad mood? Suddenly, I find myself without transport. My son walks to school and gets in a dangerous situation…
He isn’t guilty of attempted murder unless he was actually trying to deliberately murder people. That’s absurd.
However, old drivers are certainly a growing problem. It’s happening here all the time; last year an 81-year-old woman hit a woman at a crosswalk and dragged her under her car, screaming, for two kilometres. She never saw the woman she killed and couldn’t hear her screaming, though many bystanders heard.
Not long before that some old man decided to pass a school bus that was picking up kids. Pass it on the RIGHT, that is. Two children dead.
In my hometown an old woman just recently drove her car right into a house and killed a woman sitting in her own living room.
In every case the driver was simply too old and blind to drive a car. Inexcusable, stupid, avoidable accidents.
Just to clarify my last post. I’m concerned about problems arising from regular retesting throughout a driver’s career. For the elderly, I think it’s a good idea. In my jurisdiction, drivers over 80 are tested annually. I have no problem with that (other than that the age could maybe be a little lower).
Doesn’t seem like it to me. After all, you did say “If they can pass tests, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be driving.” If you admit there are other factors at work in a 10 year old, so that a 10 year old who can pass a driving test shouldn’t necessarily be driving on public roads, then you must also admit there are other factors at work in an 80 year old driver.
You’d be surprised. My test consisted of making about 5 right turns, parallel parking, pulling off to the side and then re-entering traffic, and returning to the DOL building. I botched parallel parking, failed to signal once, and still passed.
What makes you think a 20 year old has the physical strength to handle that? At a certain point you just can’t overpower the physics of mass+velocity, and that point comes a lot sooner than most people think.
Far better is having the wit and foresight to avoid getting into those situations in the first place (when that can be done)
So, you intend to surrender your own license voluntarially the day before your 80th birthday no matter how healthy and vigorous you may be? Can we hold you to that?
No, the US tests are NOT tough! Although for the younger folks the system is starting to crack down.
When I got my license in 1981 in the state of Michigan, because I had passed the school driver’s ed course. I never had to take a road test. Yes, that’s right - I’ve been driving 22 years and never took a road test in my life.
Of course I’m an excellent driver! (Really, not even a parking ticket, much less a moving violation…)
Well, the law has been changed, and no, it shouldn’t have been done that way even if, in my case, I don’t think it would have made a difference (I could have passed the road test with no problem, I just wasn’t required to take it). But that’s part of the problem. Too many people have been allowed on the road who shouldn’t be there, resulting in a landscape where cars are mandatory which makes it that much harder to give up driving.
For those who say it was “panic”, well, then why, according to what I’ve read, when Weller got out of the car and someone asked him if he realized what he had just done, Weller replied, “No.”
Everyone knows pilots are better pilots than non-pilots. Just ask one! Besides, it says so in The Right Stuff.
Shock. Have you ever been in a panic situation? A serious car crash?
That’s why I didn’t want to jump on the bandwagon and say, “He is old. He crashed. Old people are always confused. Ergo, the crash was caused because the guy was too old and confused to drive.” Now that more evidence has surfaced, I think that the conclusion people jumped to is correct.
Sometimes in an emergency situation people freeze. Their minds are telling them they are doing the right thing (e.g. stepping as hard as they can on the brake) but they see they are heading for disaster and they are focused on what they are doing (or what they think they are doing) and on being horrified at what’s coming. They can’t think to evaluate the problem and take corrective measures. That’s panic.
As far as not knowing what has happened, people in shock often don’t know what happened.
Given what has come to light since this and the other thread were started (his history of running into things in the last couple of years), it appears that he was too old to be driving in the city. But I don’t think that not knowing what just happened after a traumatic experience is necessarily indicative of feeble-mindedness.
Mean? Mean??? If someone wants to be allowed the same rights and privileges as “everyone else” they damn well better be subjected to the same penalties “as every one else” for committing a crime whilst enjoying that privilege. Expecting something like justice equal justice for equal crimes is hardly mean. :rolleyes:
Otherwise we’re implying that like children, the elderly as a group are not fully responsible for their actions, and they should be restricted accordingly. That hardly seems fair to the elderly who are as spry if not sharper than many younger people, does it? Either they’re responsible for their actions and should be held accountable for them, or they’re not and shouldn’t be driving. Which is it?
Of course I’m an excellent driver! (Really, not even a parking ticket, much less a moving violation…)