Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For the love of God, can we please just take people's car keys away on their 80th birthday. Nothing funny about this, at all.

This could happen to anyone - not paying attention, health emergency, drugs/alcohol....Scary.

It has already been stated that it was an elderly driver who confused the brake and gas pedals.

Omg

This was just discussed on a thread in the midlife/elder forum. There are a frightening numb of people with dementia on the road, and it can be very difficult to get them to stop driving, take away their keys. I understand that driving equals independence for many people, and it can be devastating to give up, but safety must always come first. Always.

Are you willing to go to prison for an assault and grand theft auto charge? "Take away their keys" doesn't mean asking your mom for the keys and they just hand them over. If your mom refuses to give them up, are you willing to beat her until she is unconscious and you can take them away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just awful. Senseless pain and death. And preventable.

If we had more infrastructure for alternate modes of transport, fewer elderly people would insist on driving (so would a lot if other people who might accidentally lose control of a vehicle). The man driving this vehicle could have been on a bus, train, light rail, etc.

If we had stricter emissions requirements for vehicles, we would have smaller, lighter cars that would cause less damage. We could also implement safety standards for cars that assess impact on pedestrisns, I stead of just evaluating how safe a car is fir the people inside it. The vehicle was a large SUV. Had it been a small sedan, there might have been fewer casualties and perhaps no one would have died. SUVs are incredibly dangerous to the human body because they suck bodies down and under the vehicle. Smaller vehicles tend to toss them up and over, which is still terrible but generally less deadly.

If our streets were designed with a focus on pedestrians, diners, shoppers, children, etc., instead of traffic, these incidents are less likely and, even if they do happen, less deadly because cars travel at lower rates of speed and pedestrian areas tend to be protected by sidewalks, trees, bike lanes, etc. Your proximity to traffic is much less.

While the man losing control of his vehicle could indeed “happen to anyone”, there are a half dozen policy choices here that contributed to these people dying. We could make other choices.

I don't think this is true. People get used to the freedom and convenience of driving and a buses and lightrail would not be the same.

When you offer people enough good alternatives, they realize there is significantly more freedom in NOT driving. Think about it, what is more liberating:

(1) Buying a vehicle for 30k, paying for insurance, gas, and maintenance. Driving it yourself, dealing with traffic, other people’s poor choices, road construction, etc. Looking for and paying for parking.

(2) Buying a bus pass. Riding the bus. Sometimes having to wait for the bus or sit on a slow moving bus while the bus driver deals with traffic, road construction, traffic laws, etc. Looking at your phone or reading a book until you arrive at your destination, where you will not have to park. Spending the thousands and thousands of dollars you save on travel, education, hobbies, housing— whatever the heck you want.

Cars are not liberating. It’s the opposite— people are afraid of giving up cars because they believe they are necessary. And often the are necessary, because we’ve constructed our infrastructure with the assumption that people will all invest in individual vehicles. How is that freedom? The imposition to spend many months salary on a vehicle?

My elderly mom lives in Philly where public buses are totally free, and that’s how she travels. It’s been great. If it’s later at night a friend will drive her (she wasn’t taking taxis/Uber during the pandemic but she might now).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just awful. Senseless pain and death. And preventable.

If we had more infrastructure for alternate modes of transport, fewer elderly people would insist on driving (so would a lot if other people who might accidentally lose control of a vehicle). The man driving this vehicle could have been on a bus, train, light rail, etc.

If we had stricter emissions requirements for vehicles, we would have smaller, lighter cars that would cause less damage. We could also implement safety standards for cars that assess impact on pedestrisns, I stead of just evaluating how safe a car is fir the people inside it. The vehicle was a large SUV. Had it been a small sedan, there might have been fewer casualties and perhaps no one would have died. SUVs are incredibly dangerous to the human body because they suck bodies down and under the vehicle. Smaller vehicles tend to toss them up and over, which is still terrible but generally less deadly.

If our streets were designed with a focus on pedestrians, diners, shoppers, children, etc., instead of traffic, these incidents are less likely and, even if they do happen, less deadly because cars travel at lower rates of speed and pedestrian areas tend to be protected by sidewalks, trees, bike lanes, etc. Your proximity to traffic is much less.

While the man losing control of his vehicle could indeed “happen to anyone”, there are a half dozen policy choices here that contributed to these people dying. We could make other choices.

I don't think this is true. People get used to the freedom and convenience of driving and a buses and lightrail would not be the same.

When you offer people enough good alternatives, they realize there is significantly more freedom in NOT driving. Think about it, what is more liberating:

(1) Buying a vehicle for 30k, paying for insurance, gas, and maintenance. Driving it yourself, dealing with traffic, other people’s poor choices, road construction, etc. Looking for and paying for parking.

(2) Buying a bus pass. Riding the bus. Sometimes having to wait for the bus or sit on a slow moving bus while the bus driver deals with traffic, road construction, traffic laws, etc. Looking at your phone or reading a book until you arrive at your destination, where you will not have to park. Spending the thousands and thousands of dollars you save on travel, education, hobbies, housing— whatever the heck you want.

Cars are not liberating. It’s the opposite— people are afraid of giving up cars because they believe they are necessary. And often the are necessary, because we’ve constructed our infrastructure with the assumption that people will all invest in individual vehicles. How is that freedom? The imposition to spend many months salary on a vehicle?

Your points are true and logical--but not everyone sees logic. The problem isn't finding a solution--the problem is these people don't care that there is a solution. They want to continue to drive and they will do what they damn well please.

Anonymous wrote:That stretch of Connecticut is relatively pedestrian friendly. The outdoor eating area predated Covid, and there is a parking lane, sidewalk, and light fence between traffic and diners. Problem is, traffic on Connecticut at Livingston is essentially a highway, bc it actually is a highway above Chevy Chase Circle. It brings commuters and others from residential Maryland, the Beltway, to points south and downtown DC. Are there are traffic calming measures that work for major arteries? We could reinstall street cars, but I’ll bet lots of commuters would still drive. I don’t drive much, but I’ve observed that many individuals in our society prefer to drive, even with other commuting options.

In any event, I’ve heard that this driver wasn’t speeding up or down Connecticut, but heading out of the service station across the street.

Even though I agree with many of your traffic policy ideas, I think the specific problem here is elder driving. I’m in my 60s, so I’m not anti elder. I think elderly people might hesitate to take public transport bc they feel more vulnerable to crime, getting hassled, press of people, not being able to walk fir long distances or stand if there’s no seat.

I don’t care for SUVs, and I completely agree that a huge SUV was not the right choice for this driver. And as my DC pointed out, maybe Uber is a better solution for those of us of a certain age? Maybe dedicated van transport for elderly?

But you can't force older people to Uber. As a pp said, her 90 year old mother is too afraid to get into a taxi with a stranger driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For the love of God, can we please just take people's car keys away on their 80th birthday. Nothing funny about this, at all.

This could happen to anyone - not paying attention, health emergency, drugs/alcohol....Scary.

It has already been stated that it was an elderly driver who confused the brake and gas pedals.

Omg

This was just discussed on a thread in the midlife/elder forum. There are a frightening numb of people with dementia on the road, and it can be very difficult to get them to stop driving, take away their keys. I understand that driving equals independence for many people, and it can be devastating to give up, but safety must always come first. Always.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just awful. Senseless pain and death. And preventable.

If we had more infrastructure for alternate modes of transport, fewer elderly people would insist on driving (so would a lot if other people who might accidentally lose control of a vehicle). The man driving this vehicle could have been on a bus, train, light rail, etc.

If we had stricter emissions requirements for vehicles, we would have smaller, lighter cars that would cause less damage. We could also implement safety standards for cars that assess impact on pedestrisns, I stead of just evaluating how safe a car is fir the people inside it. The vehicle was a large SUV. Had it been a small sedan, there might have been fewer casualties and perhaps no one would have died. SUVs are incredibly dangerous to the human body because they suck bodies down and under the vehicle. Smaller vehicles tend to toss them up and over, which is still terrible but generally less deadly.

If our streets were designed with a focus on pedestrians, diners, shoppers, children, etc., instead of traffic, these incidents are less likely and, even if they do happen, less deadly because cars travel at lower rates of speed and pedestrian areas tend to be protected by sidewalks, trees, bike lanes, etc. Your proximity to traffic is much less.

While the man losing control of his vehicle could indeed “happen to anyone”, there are a half dozen policy choices here that contributed to these people dying. We could make other choices.

I don't think this is true. People get used to the freedom and convenience of driving and a buses and lightrail would not be the same.

When you offer people enough good alternatives, they realize there is significantly more freedom in NOT driving. Think about it, what is more liberating:

(1) Buying a vehicle for 30k, paying for insurance, gas, and maintenance. Driving it yourself, dealing with traffic, other people’s poor choices, road construction, etc. Looking for and paying for parking.

(2) Buying a bus pass. Riding the bus. Sometimes having to wait for the bus or sit on a slow moving bus while the bus driver deals with traffic, road construction, traffic laws, etc. Looking at your phone or reading a book until you arrive at your destination, where you will not have to park. Spending the thousands and thousands of dollars you save on travel, education, hobbies, housing— whatever the heck you want.

Cars are not liberating. It’s the opposite— people are afraid of giving up cars because they believe they are necessary. And often the are necessary, because we’ve constructed our infrastructure with the assumption that people will all invest in individual vehicles. How is that freedom? The imposition to spend many months salary on a vehicle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is 90 and drives, one mile, to the local shopping center. She is scared to get into a taxi with a stranger.

I wish no one was permitted to drive until age 18 and under very strict conditions such as in Europe. I am a high school teacher and i cannot believe these 16 year olds are driving. They can barely read and have no concentration.

As a parent, my kids were permitted to drive at 18 and with the grades they should be getting.

Actually, it should be closer to 24 and not 18. There is a reason most insurance companies won't rent to under 21.

Do you have any idea how many ADULTS under the age of 24 actually drive as part of their job? Society wouldn't be able to function without many of these essential people being able to drive.

That stretch of Connecticut is relatively pedestrian friendly. The outdoor eating area predated Covid, and there is a parking lane, sidewalk, and light fence between traffic and diners. Problem is, traffic on Connecticut at Livingston is essentially a highway, bc it actually is a highway above Chevy Chase Circle. It brings commuters and others from residential Maryland, the Beltway, to points south and downtown DC. Are there are traffic calming measures that work for major arteries? We could reinstall street cars, but I’ll bet lots of commuters would still drive. I don’t drive much, but I’ve observed that many individuals in our society prefer to drive, even with other commuting options.

In any event, I’ve heard that this driver wasn’t speeding up or down Connecticut, but heading out of the service station across the street.

Even though I agree with many of your traffic policy ideas, I think the specific problem here is elder driving. I’m in my 60s, so I’m not anti elder. I think elderly people might hesitate to take public transport bc they feel more vulnerable to crime, getting hassled, press of people, not being able to walk fir long distances or stand if there’s no seat.

I don’t care for SUVs, and I completely agree that a huge SUV was not the right choice for this driver. And as my DC pointed out, maybe Uber is a better solution for those of us of a certain age? Maybe dedicated van transport for elderly?

Anonymous wrote:My mom is 90 and drives, one mile, to the local shopping center. She is scared to get into a taxi with a stranger.

I wish no one was permitted to drive until age 18 and under very strict conditions such as in Europe. I am a high school teacher and i cannot believe these 16 year olds are driving. They can barely read and have no concentration.

As a parent, my kids were permitted to drive at 18 and with the grades they should be getting.

Actually, it should be closer to 24 and not 18. There is a reason most insurance companies won't rent to under 21.

Anonymous wrote:This is just awful. Senseless pain and death. And preventable.

If we had more infrastructure for alternate modes of transport, fewer elderly people would insist on driving (so would a lot if other people who might accidentally lose control of a vehicle). The man driving this vehicle could have been on a bus, train, light rail, etc.

If we had stricter emissions requirements for vehicles, we would have smaller, lighter cars that would cause less damage. We could also implement safety standards for cars that assess impact on pedestrisns, I stead of just evaluating how safe a car is fir the people inside it. The vehicle was a large SUV. Had it been a small sedan, there might have been fewer casualties and perhaps no one would have died. SUVs are incredibly dangerous to the human body because they suck bodies down and under the vehicle. Smaller vehicles tend to toss them up and over, which is still terrible but generally less deadly.

If our streets were designed with a focus on pedestrians, diners, shoppers, children, etc., instead of traffic, these incidents are less likely and, even if they do happen, less deadly because cars travel at lower rates of speed and pedestrian areas tend to be protected by sidewalks, trees, bike lanes, etc. Your proximity to traffic is much less.

While the man losing control of his vehicle could indeed “happen to anyone”, there are a half dozen policy choices here that contributed to these people dying. We could make other choices.

I don't think this is true. People get used to the freedom and convenience of driving and a buses and lightrail would not be the same.

My dad is over 80 and in great health, and no, I don’t think his license should be taken away just because he hit some chronological marker. BUT, health issues obviously take downturns more quickly the older you get, so I do think once you hit a certain age you should be required to decertify your license every year. I even agree with the PP who said younger people should every 5 or even 10 years. It’s kind of crazy that you can get a license at 16 and then never have to prove your ability to handle a 2000+ vehicle ever again.

So many things had to align for this to happen. There was no traffic coming south on a busy street which enabled him to cross several lanes of road. There just happened to be an open parking spot between two parked cars that he drove though. One day later and it would be snowing and no one would have been out there. Just so many random coincidences. The owner of the Parthenon knows the driver. Says he’s been coming to the lounge for 15 years and is a very nice guy. So many lives ruined.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom is 90 and drives, one mile, to the local shopping center. She is scared to get into a taxi with a stranger.

She's a bigger risk to the rest of us than a taxi driver is to her

Why should she care about that?

Anonymous wrote:My mom is 90 and drives, one mile, to the local shopping center. She is scared to get into a taxi with a stranger.

She's a bigger risk to the rest of us than a taxi driver is to her

This is just awful. Senseless pain and death. And preventable.

If we had more infrastructure for alternate modes of transport, fewer elderly people would insist on driving (so would a lot if other people who might accidentally lose control of a vehicle). The man driving this vehicle could have been on a bus, train, light rail, etc.

If we had stricter emissions requirements for vehicles, we would have smaller, lighter cars that would cause less damage. We could also implement safety standards for cars that assess impact on pedestrisns, I stead of just evaluating how safe a car is fir the people inside it. The vehicle was a large SUV. Had it been a small sedan, there might have been fewer casualties and perhaps no one would have died. SUVs are incredibly dangerous to the human body because they suck bodies down and under the vehicle. Smaller vehicles tend to toss them up and over, which is still terrible but generally less deadly.

If our streets were designed with a focus on pedestrians, diners, shoppers, children, etc., instead of traffic, these incidents are less likely and, even if they do happen, less deadly because cars travel at lower rates of speed and pedestrian areas tend to be protected by sidewalks, trees, bike lanes, etc. Your proximity to traffic is much less.

While the man losing control of his vehicle could indeed “happen to anyone”, there are a half dozen policy choices here that contributed to these people dying. We could make other choices.

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

AARP now has the most well funded lobbying arm in DC. The testing you suggest will never happen.