Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This recently happened in Florida. Elderly woman, man killed dining outside at restaurant. Woman not charged, because it was an "accident."

Honestly I think after 65, everyone needs to be retested every 5 years.

Hell, I wouldn't mind everyone being tested every 5 years, because lord knows there are so many people who never should have received licenses in the first place

65? Why 65? How ridiculous. Do you know what elderly is? 65 isn't elderly.

Btw, MV rarely turns anyone away from getting a license. Someone can be legally blind, have dementia, Parkinsons, etc.

People drive high on weed, prescription narcotics, antihistamines.

Well technically 65 IS elderly, it is the age that begins the clinical descriptor ‘elderly’. There is early elderly and there is late elderly, but definitely 65 is elderly.

For me 65 fallen into a senior category but is too early for the elderly label.

I don’t think of 65 year olds as elderly. I think of that as prime years for enjoying retirement. Unless you have major health problems or had chronic substance abuse issues when younger, most of us are able bodied at 65 and able to do a lot. We plan on traveling and volunteering around then after youngest in college.

People on both sides of our family live into their 90s.

However, I do think folks should stop driving by early 80s or so. I plan on walking and using public or private transit by then. One less thing to worry about

my brother and I insisted my mom stop driving after an accident two years ago --her third in 3 years. Frankly, she's always been a terrible driver, but it was clear that she was not capable of driving any more. She's having cognitive issues as well as physical/spatial issues. That being said, she was reissued her license at 82 without any problems (she uses it for ID). She complains that we took away her freedom, etc (although she has people to drive her) and is in denial about the decline of her abilities, but my fear of her getting in a bad accident and hurting or killing herself or other people made it a non negotiable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This recently happened in Florida. Elderly woman, man killed dining outside at restaurant. Woman not charged, because it was an "accident."

Honestly I think after 65, everyone needs to be retested every 5 years.

Hell, I wouldn't mind everyone being tested every 5 years, because lord knows there are so many people who never should have received licenses in the first place

65? Why 65? How ridiculous. Do you know what elderly is? 65 isn't elderly.

Btw, MV rarely turns anyone away from getting a license. Someone can be legally blind, have dementia, Parkinsons, etc.

People drive high on weed, prescription narcotics, antihistamines.

Well technically 65 IS elderly, it is the age that begins the clinical descriptor ‘elderly’. There is early elderly and there is late elderly, but definitely 65 is elderly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

I don't see anyone here thinking that. But adult "kids" don't have the legal authority to "take away the keys" as some here suggest. Like it or not--theft is a crime! If I literally strong arm my parent and STEAL his keys, I can go to prison for many years! Same with tampering with a car to disable it--also a crime!
Then all we have is a normally law abiding adult in prison, minor children in the foster care system (because their parent is now locked up) and the elderly person still out and about driving.

Oh stop. No one is going to jail for taking their demented parents keys away. Seriously. Most people don't go to jail for taking a car nefariously. It's just not that high a priority crime. If your parent shouldn't be driving, then do whatever you need to do to keep them from doing it, even if it means hiding the keys or disabling the battery.

x10000


Selfish breeds selfish....

We took the keys after our dear father shared his funny stories (to him only) that he drives up the wrong side of the ramp too often these days. My older sister and her DH arrived at my parent's house that evening, drove the car away and took all the keys. We then as a family rallied around and created a schedule where our parents had access to one of us at all times and since we lived relatively close, we could grant their little wishes on a whim until they got past that phase. Eventually it sorted itself out to two days a week shared by six siblings and grandchildren as they got older. We took care of them as they took care of us, as it should be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

I don't see anyone here thinking that. But adult "kids" don't have the legal authority to "take away the keys" as some here suggest. Like it or not--theft is a crime! If I literally strong arm my parent and STEAL his keys, I can go to prison for many years! Same with tampering with a car to disable it--also a crime!
Then all we have is a normally law abiding adult in prison, minor children in the foster care system (because their parent is now locked up) and the elderly person still out and about driving.

Oh stop. No one is going to jail for taking their demented parents keys away. Seriously. Most people don't go to jail for taking a car nefariously. It's just not that high a priority crime. If your parent shouldn't be driving, then do whatever you need to do to keep them from doing it, even if it means hiding the keys or disabling the battery.

x10000


Selfish breeds selfish....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

I don't see anyone here thinking that. But adult "kids" don't have the legal authority to "take away the keys" as some here suggest. Like it or not--theft is a crime! If I literally strong arm my parent and STEAL his keys, I can go to prison for many years! Same with tampering with a car to disable it--also a crime!
Then all we have is a normally law abiding adult in prison, minor children in the foster care system (because their parent is now locked up) and the elderly person still out and about driving.

Oh stop. No one is going to jail for taking their demented parents keys away. Seriously. Most people don't go to jail for taking a car nefariously. It's just not that high a priority crime. If your parent shouldn't be driving, then do whatever you need to do to keep them from doing it, even if it means hiding the keys or disabling the battery.

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

Without legal authority we cannot make them stop driving if they are legally allowed to and refuse to listen to reason.

We need law changes.

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

OK, who should be allowed to drive, given that any driver could kill innocent people in an accident?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who causes most of the traffic fatalities in the US - men under 25, but yeah Pick on the old people.

This point has been brought up several times but no one seems to want to comment on it. If people want to advocate for testing older people every year then they should support doing the same for MALES of certain age groups, as they have the highest fatality rates.

Males under the age of 25 were literally just tested/evaluated within the last decade.

Drivers over the age of 75 haven't been evaluated in 50 years!

Holy crap, when you put it that way, it really is terrifying that they are still on the road.

PP you quoted here. It really is! And actually, I did the math wrong--for most of them it's 60 years (assuming they got their license at 16.)

I am 46--I haven't had to take any type of test or evaluation since I was 16--30 years ago! I moved from the state I got my license (CA) to VA almost 16 years ago. To get my VA license, I just had to submit some paper work, pay a fee, and have my photo taken. I didn't have to take a test or have my driving evaluated--even though some traffic laws are different in CA compared to VA. That's actually not a good thing.

If your theory is correct, males under 25 should be the safest on the road having been most recently tested. I doubt that's true.

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

I don't see anyone here thinking that. But adult "kids" don't have the legal authority to "take away the keys" as some here suggest. Like it or not--theft is a crime! If I literally strong arm my parent and STEAL his keys, I can go to prison for many years! Same with tampering with a car to disable it--also a crime!
Then all we have is a normally law abiding adult in prison, minor children in the foster care system (because their parent is now locked up) and the elderly person still out and about driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who causes most of the traffic fatalities in the US - men under 25, but yeah Pick on the old people.

This point has been brought up several times but no one seems to want to comment on it. If people want to advocate for testing older people every year then they should support doing the same for MALES of certain age groups, as they have the highest fatality rates.

Males under the age of 25 were literally just tested/evaluated within the last decade.

Drivers over the age of 75 haven't been evaluated in 50 years!

Holy crap, when you put it that way, it really is terrifying that they are still on the road.

PP you quoted here. It really is! And actually, I did the math wrong--for most of them it's 60 years (assuming they got their license at 16.)

I am 46--I haven't had to take any type of test or evaluation since I was 16--30 years ago! I moved from the state I got my license (CA) to VA almost 16 years ago. To get my VA license, I just had to submit some paper work, pay a fee, and have my photo taken. I didn't have to take a test or have my driving evaluated--even though some traffic laws are different in CA compared to VA. That's actually not a good thing.

I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who causes most of the traffic fatalities in the US - men under 25, but yeah Pick on the old people.

This point has been brought up several times but no one seems to want to comment on it. If people want to advocate for testing older people every year then they should support doing the same for MALES of certain age groups, as they have the highest fatality rates.

The reason people don't want to discuss it is because limiting younger drivers would be inconvenient and many posters here aren't that far past 25. No one thinks they will ever get old. Everyone thinks that if they do get old they will be soooo much better and smarter than the stupid old people they see around them. Finally we don't value or respect our elderly here. So many think that old people should just move to Green Acres assisted living and be happy and not go out and about reminding people of their own frailties and mortality.

It has nothing to do with that.

No one thinks they will be run over and killed while eating lunch, but that is exactly what happened here.

I can't fathom being okay with allowing that to continue.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the driver feels bad about this, or whether he externalizes it as an accident that wasn’t his fault.

+1

This - which is exactly the problem. How many innocent people have to be run over?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who causes most of the traffic fatalities in the US - men under 25, but yeah Pick on the old people.

This point has been brought up several times but no one seems to want to comment on it. If people want to advocate for testing older people every year then they should support doing the same for MALES of certain age groups, as they have the highest fatality rates.

Males under the age of 25 were literally just tested/evaluated within the last decade.

Drivers over the age of 75 haven't been evaluated in 50 years!

Holy crap, when you put it that way, it really is terrifying that they are still on the road.