Micheal, Again, I'm glad everyone is alright; that's the most important thing.
My point, small as it is, is that arbitrary age limits (for most things)are probably illegal in many countries. What makes someone a danger at age 80, but not 79? 63 but not 62? 30 but not 29?
If you're going to test people, test everyone.
The last person that plowed into my car at a stop light was 25.
Arbitrary age limits have all too often been found constitutional. Why should minors not be permitted to own long guns until age 18, and wait for 21 to own handguns? Why is sex with a 20 year old woman a wonderful thing and with a 16 year old woman statutory rape? Why must airline pilots retire at age 60? Why must you wait until age 25 to run for congress and age 35 for the presidency? Why would I pay tax penalties for withdrawals from retirement plans at age 54 but not at age 55?
Well, I agree that they should take her license away, but not because of her age. If she was knowingly blowing through a red like that, I'd say it's like DUI (only under the influence of stupidity instead of alcohol).
But then again, I think random retesting of any drivers would be a good thing-as long as the tests are realistic and consistent.
Julian, when I got my licence I had to do it through graduated licensing. I had to do an eye test, a written test, and take a driving test the first year. During the first year you could not drive on the highway, you could not drive after 10:00pm, and you could not drive without a licensed driver. Second year... you had to go in for a second driving test. After passing the second test you were on your own.
When this lady received her driving test they were handing them out at gas stations. Yes, I know many older people who got their license exactly that way!
Sorry... there is mandatory testing here starting at 80 years of age. (Hardly illegal) I just think that it should start even earlier. Just my opinion.
For what it's worth... I don't think that kids at 16 should be driving either. They can't vote or drink but they can drive around in the most dangerous equipment we have on the road.
I'm only 35 and I know that I'm not quite as quick with the reflexes as I was when I was 20. I may need glasses soon as well... I can only imagine what I'll be like when I'm 80.
Thank you! It was the strangest thing... she admitted to everyone that she KNEW that she was going through a red light. She just did it anyway...
I know a friend of mine who told me about an accident he had where an older lady pulled out in front of him at the last minute. He had the right of way and plowed right into her. Her response to the police... "I was waiting to pull out for a long time and got tired of waiting!"
Ask your Congressperson, who has his/her OWN, very nice retirement plan set up, all nice and separate from what we peons have.
Now suppose one day, someone comes up to you and says "Hello, Mr. Blank, I'm from the government, and I'm here to pick up your driver's license. You turned 65 (or 70, or 80) last week, and you haven't voluntarily turned it in as required by the Roads and Bridges Security Act of 2005. Failure to do so is punishible by law, you know."
And the day before, you had performed a sucessful open-heart surgery on a 4year old, who had been born with a life-threantening congenital defect.
What would YOU say? (I'd say, "That's Doctor Blank, to you @sshole.")
Just a note: After I got in an accident, it took 3 days for me to show signs of a concussion. I don't remember the next 2 years or so. Hope no one goes through that nightmare but I thought I was OK too.
To be fair, the famous heart surgeon Michael Debakey has continued to work to age 90 with great success.
Of course I'm not for forcing people to stop at a certain age, but just like people with DUIs are targeted for certain restrictions because the behavior signals a dangerous problem, I think older drivers that cause wrecks should be considered risky until tested to prove otherwise.
What's the problem, they pass the test and don't miss a beat. Why would that upset someone? Hell, if it were cost effective I'd be for annual testing for everyone.
As long as I was reasonably sure they wouldn't die of old age during the procedure, why not? How can you be sure your 40 year old doctor wasn't out drinking all night and has the mother of all hangovers?
I never said that, I said arbitrary ; in other words if you suspect someone of declining vision, reactions, judgement, whatever separates a good driver from a bad driver, then test them. Just don't say that when someone reaches a certain age, they can't do something anymore, that's generalizing in the worst way.
The problem is in a lack of testing. A person can get a standard drivers liscence at 16, and NEVER be retested again. they'll have an eye exam every 8 years.... but that can be ignored if they say they have a doctors note (made famous one day by the old lady in front of me at the DMV, "no, I cant see the chart. but I have a doctors note'. she didnt happen to have the doctors note on her... but the nice DMV clerk waved her through anyway)
Of course since I am a commercial driver:
*I have a required eye exam every year *Required drug test *TWO defensive driving tests a year! (everyone lese has one test once in their life)! Can you imagine if everyone had to pass two driving tests a year?! Most people have to bribe their way through one! *annual physical & reflex test.
One of my co-workers was suspended because he had tonsilitis! If any of the above were required for everyone, I'm pretty sure that everyone in america would have insurance premiums in the dozens of dollars a year.
But it is well understood that all of these areas deteriorate as people age, hence they should all be suspected. That is why commerical airline pilots are forced to retire early. I see no reason not to re-test people as they age (and I'm certainly not against re-testing of eveybody else regardless of age). I don't think that anybody is advocating that we should stop all old people from driving, but I think that it's reasonable (and even responsible) to require re-testing at some point.
"she knew that she was going through a red light" That should have been an immediate careless driving charge and an appointment with a judge. I almost guarantee that he would force her to do testing!
Sure, the car is a wreck - it amazes me when people are surprised when people walk away from a destroyed car. They are DESIGNED to do this - they fold like an accordian to take the force away from the delicate passengers within.
If your car didn't have these crumple zones, the damage would be minor but you would likely be in a wheelchair with massive head injuries by now... :frowning:
They are deisgned to handle head on collisions, but usually don't fair very well when T-Boned from the side. I would assume that since she ran a red light, that it was a side impact where the crumple zones would be of no benefit. Of course, I'm assuming all of this since he didn't clarify one way or the other, nor did he post any pictures.