Poll: How Old Is Too Old To Drive? (100 year old man runs over 14 people, mostly school kids)

[Hunter65416]

I dont think there is an age.. within reason obviously. A healthy 75 year old man could still be perfectly fit to drive for another few years without incident while another 60 year old man with undiagnosed parkinsons disease could cause an accident at any given moment.

The elderly persons family needs to take responsibility for this stuff.. If grandma or grandad's old age is starting to get to them and they aren't as sharp as used to be then don't let them drive.. find a compromise so they wont need to drive to remain independent

 

[Evil Smurf]

when they cannot safely any longer, that is when they should hang up the keys

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

You're asking me to admit that I'm wrong? Because you've decided you're right because of the most obvious stereotype that has presented itself? Adorable.

You have a good day. Keep on stereotyping everything put in front of you, I'm sure it will serve you well in living a rich life.

 

[RJ 17]

-snip-

You're asking me to admit that I'm wrong? Because you've decided you're right because of the most obvious stereotype that has presented itself? Adorable.

You have a good day. Keep on stereotyping everything put in front of you, I'm sure it will serve you well in living a rich life.

Ummmmm, try reading my post again, sweet-heart. You might see that I said I'd happily admit that I was wrong if a future update to the story proves that I'm wrong. Seems to me that you're the one stereotyping me, as you're ignoring everything I say to stick to your pre-conceived notion about me.

Sheesh, I think I liked it better when my topic went completely ignored...

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Have the elderly take a test every year / two-years and decide based on that.

 

[Crimson Lucario]

There is no too old to do anything, there IS however a incapable of doing something.
Check their driving abilities, not their birth certificates before you judge.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

As long as they can.

I think people should be rested at certain points (possibly ten yearly) to make sure they still know what they're doing.

I've known 23 year olds who killed people in car crashes (and in fact the statistics suggest that you're more likely to be involved in a fatal accident when you're 20 than when you're 80) and I've known 50 year olds who crashed their cars. There's no age limit on this stuff.

So I would say you take a test every X number of years until you can't reliably pass it. Then you're free to take it again to get a new licence, but otherwise you stay off the road.

Because people age so differently. Some people are blind and have terrible reactions by the time they're forty, yet others can still see and react at the speed of a much younger human when they're well into their 90s.

Don't stereotype old people just because of one incident.

 

[Lilani]

Ummmmm, try reading my post again, sweet-heart. You might see that I said I'd happily admit that I was wrong if a future update to the story proves that I'm wrong. Seems to me that you're the one stereotyping me, as you're ignoring everything I say to stick to your pre-conceived notion about me.

Sheesh, I think I liked it better when my topic went completely ignored...

Well I guess that's something. No I didn't read that, I've got a bit of a splitting migraine at the moment and reading too much off the screen right now makes me want to throw up. I would apologize for not reading, except your condescending "sweet-heart" really put me out of the mood. I don't mind it when people are irate with me, but I will not concede to somebody who insists on being patronizing. The objectivist in me says I was being patronizing as well, but I don't think I ever named you in that process.

 

[Guffe]

I don't think it's about age but rather how well you can drive.
My license will last until I am 65 and after that I have to redo it every 5 years with a sight, hearing and some other tests but not actually driving, I hope they add that even if it would cost a bit because most old people drive like insanity itself would be behind the weel here in Finland.

 

[I-Protest-I]

when they cannot safely any longer, that is when they should hang up the keys

So women shouldn't drive? That isn't fair

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

snip.

Actually, my opinion was based on the fact that this isn't the first time such a situation has happened. In July of 2003 in Santa Monica, an 86 year old man drove through a farmer's market, killing 9 people.

it's based on the fact that if you do some digging around, you'll find numerous stories just like this one.

Oh danger oh danger!

You want to compare statistics? Then let's really go for it, get all the 'facts' out in the open.

The highest risk age groups is 16-19 year olds. For every mile they drive they are four times as likely to be involved in a car crash as any other driver.

5,000 teens die in the 16-20 range in the US from car crash yearly. 400,000 are injured.

Teens make up 10% of drivers and account for 12% of accidents.

$26 billion in car crash claims come from under 24s. Approximately 30% of all claims.

Now, the second highest group for percentage of deaths is over 65s, but this is still much less than under 25s. Equally, they are so much less likely to be pulled over for traditional offences such as speeding, failing to yield, not stopping at the lights etc.

So, facts alone suggest that we should keep 16-24 year olds off the road, not over 65 year olds.

Now obviously that's a stupid idea, which is why we have driving tests. Which is why the same should be applied to old folks. Don't take them off the roads, test whether they are safe to be.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

Oh I'm not irate with you, I don't get irate with people over the internet as it's silly to get angry at someone you can't see and don't even know. I just felt the need to explain why an opinion is an opinion and not a fact since you seem to have thought that having an opinion about something based on a case presented that has numerous ones like is wrong, and that people can have opinions that change when more information is presented.

As for the "sweet-heart" comment...*shrug* What can I say? I'm a bit of an ass, though you've probably already labled me as such due to how vehemently you disagree with my opinion.

I do hope your migraine goes away soon, though.

 

[RJ 17]

snip.

Actually, my opinion was based on the fact that this isn't the first time such a situation has happened. In July of 2003 in Santa Monica, an 86 year old man drove through a farmer's market, killing 9 people.

it's based on the fact that if you do some digging around, you'll find numerous stories just like this one.

Oh danger oh danger!

You want to compare statistics? Then let's really go for it, get all the 'facts' out in the open.

The highest risk age groups is 16-19 year olds. For every mile they drive they are four times as likely to be involved in a car crash as any other driver.

5,000 teens die in the 16-20 range in the US from car crash yearly. 400,000 are injured.

Teens make up 10% of drivers and account for 12% of accidents.

$26 billion in car crash claims come from under 24s. Approximately 30% of all claims.

Now, the second highest group for percentage of deaths is over 65s, but this is still much less than under 25s. Equally, they are so much less likely to be pulled over for traditional offences such as speeding, failing to yield, not stopping at the lights etc.

So, facts alone suggest that we should keep 16-24 year olds off the road, not over 65 year olds.

Now obviously that's a stupid idea, which is why we have driving tests. Which is why the same should be applied to old folks. Don't take them off the roads, test whether they are safe to be.

To that I will simply say this: I never said that teens weren't crappy drivers as well. But that's for a topic associated with a teen who causes a fatal accident due to texting while driving or something. The question of this topic is raised because a 100 year old man ran over 14 people.

 

[madster11]

At 65 you should have to take the driving test again every 3 years, after 75 if you fail the test 3 times in a row you can't get it back.

captcha: now look here

 

[MetalMagpie]

It shouldn't be based on age - it should be based on fitness to drive. If your eyes, leg/arm muscles, ability to concentrate, etc. have deteriorated to a point that makes driving unsafe (and there is no modification to your car available that will make it safe) then you aren't fit to drive. That can happen at almost any age, depending on your health.

 

[Sam Warrior]

As far as I'm aware in the UK you can have your licence for ever once youve passed I personally think that after 60 or so regular tests should be in place to ensure your still fit to drive safely. News stories like this come up all too regularly. In several cases I've heard of the driver of the car couldn't actually see much past the bonnet making driving nearly impossible.

 

[Woodsey]

Granted, the man in the story claims that it was a vehicular malfunction, that his breaks went out. But still, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think that at 100 it's officially about time to hang up your car keys.

And it hasn't been proven either way just yet it seems, so the way you've presented the topic is very misleading and possibly totally fraudulent. Bad form.

Anyway, the DMV already requires drivers over 70 to re-take the vision and written parts of the driver's tests every five years. I feel like that's enough.

I dunno about the States, but over here (UK), those are the easiest parts by a mile. Retaking a practical test would be far more revealing and useful.

Still, I would say that 70 is about the right age for all retests.

 

[idodo35]

in mop its ont about age but about clearity of mind (and sight) for example my 80 years old grandpa is still a sharp tool. sure he wears glasses but he is compeletly aware of his sroundings and can easily opperate a car with no danger
however my grandma (may she rest in peace) was only 65 when she got ill and couldnt be trusted with driving.
so yea if you are 100 and can still see hear and are aware of your srrounding you should be able to drive (imo) but if you are 50 and already loosing your sight and ability to hear you should get off the wheel pronto

 

[Signa]

"Mechanical Failure" as in failing to use the mechanics of the break pedal. Sorry, but mistakes like that are common in people half that person's age. I've seen so many videos on Failblog long after hearing stories from my mechanic family members of people forgetting which pedal their foot is on, and rushing full speed into something or someone. Even after the car is stuck against a wall, you will see the tires still spinning at full speed, because the person hasn't realized they are flooring the wrong pedal.

I think a few other people have already said what I think. Yearly tests. There's no reason to believe that being 100 should instantly revoke your privilege to drive (remember, it is a privilege, not a right), but for the safety of others, you HAVE to acknowledge your age is a dangerous factor in your peer group.