Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is tragic and horrible. Why would it be funny?

95 year old MIL thought it was the big bamboozle to go into the DMV, fail the vision test 3 times, and have the clerk grant her her driver's license, anyway. Legally blind and driving. Wonderful.

Anonymous wrote:Would a park car have stopped him? I think that strip did have cars parked along it, there just happened to be an empty space there. But this speaks to the value of having parking lanes next to sidewalks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

That part of Connecticut Avenue has great and frequent bus service.

Now there is a reasonable idea!!!

You don't understand-it doesn't matter how wonderful and convenient the bus service is! There are people who are "set in their ways" and are accustomed to driving everywhere. They are not going to take a bus, ever.

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.

x10000000

Exactly the point. But, people don't want to take care of their elderly parents, never mind drive them anywhere. Plus, old people can be stubborn, and their offspring just don't want to deal with them. What needs to happen is a law that prohibits anyone over 80 driving. Period. Too bad that your children don't want to drive you, they have to step up.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

x10000000

Exactly the point. But, people don't want to take care of their elderly parents, never mind drive them anywhere. Plus, old people can be stubborn, and their offspring just don't want to deal with them. What needs to happen is a law that prohibits anyone over 80 driving. Period. Too bad that your children don't want to drive you, they have to step up.

Not all elderly have children living close by to drive them. You can't force anyone to perform unpaid labor (driving their parents.) What WOULD make sense is to have elderly people plan earlier in life to save money to PAY for a private driver or regular taxi rides (or be willing to take the bus.)

My DH and I already plan to retire to a relatively dense urban environment where we will be able to take bus/subway/light rail/etc. most places. I think is the best way to replicate the freedom of youth as an older person. I think one mistake a lot of retirees make, when they can afford to do so, is to move to large-ish houses in inaccessible areas. It cuts them off from communities and basic amenities (the grocery store, the doctor, etc.) and thus forces them into cars. Which is why so many elderly people refuse to give up driving. But the whole set up makes no sense.

DH and I plan to retire to a small 2-bedroom apartment once we are in our 60s. Exact location isn't determined yet, will probably depend on where our child settles as an adult (we don't necessarily need to be in the same city, we aren't obsessive, but we want to make visiting each other easy as we are quite close). We'd like to be either in an elevator building or in a garden level unit (these can be quite nice and are more likely to have patios or other outdoor space), and close to bus or subway lines, plus with some amenities nearby, especially a grocery store. Continuing to walk should also be very good for our health and mobility, and I think being around lots of other people is especially important in old age because mental health becomes very important as you age and proximity to others help give your life structure and meaning.

So yes, being willing to take the bus sounds like a small, singular preference, but I think it is one of the best things people can do as they age. Just be willing to take public transportation and prioritize it in your housing choices. And you'll never accidentally kill two people and maim several others with your SUV. Seems worth the sacrifice.

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.

x10000000

Exactly the point. But, people don't want to take care of their elderly parents, never mind drive them anywhere. Plus, old people can be stubborn, and their offspring just don't want to deal with them. What needs to happen is a law that prohibits anyone over 80 driving. Period. Too bad that your children don't want to drive you, they have to step up.

Not all elderly have children living close by to drive them. You can't force anyone to perform unpaid labor (driving their parents.) What WOULD make sense is to have elderly people plan earlier in life to save money to PAY for a private driver or regular taxi rides (or be willing to take the bus.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

That part of Connecticut Avenue has great and frequent bus service.

Now there is a reasonable idea!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Start tossing the geriatrics who pull this sht in jail and people will wise up real quick.

Exactly. Call them what you want, they are murderers, and their kids are accomplices because they knowingly let them drive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it would, if we just provided reliable alternative modes of transportation to people who don't or can't drive. How many people under the age of 24 can afford to buy a car on their own? So, so few. We should live in a world where essential workers don't HAVE to have a car, especially because most of the jobs performed by people under the age of 24 don't pay well enough for someone to really be able to afford a car plus insurance/gas/maintenance. It is truly an unreasonable proposition for the economy to rely on workers being able to drive to work. It makes no sense at all.

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.

x10000000

Exactly the point. But, people don't want to take care of their elderly parents, never mind drive them anywhere. Plus, old people can be stubborn, and their offspring just don't want to deal with them. What needs to happen is a law that prohibits anyone over 80 driving. Period. Too bad that your children don't want to drive you, they have to step up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

That part of Connecticut Avenue has great and frequent bus service.

Anonymous wrote:I read a story online that the restaurant owner was at the dentist when the tragedy occured, and his son who works at the restaurant had to call him to get back. The owner said he knew the driver, "a nice old man" + that a server injured his leg jumping out of the way.

These stories freak me out. A good friend of mine was killed in DC 7 or so years ago walking his dog, a car jumped the curb + killed him + not the dog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It appears the vehicle was an older model Subaru. The newer models with Eyesight now have pre collision braking. I wonder if that would have helped here? I’m not sure if it works if you’re accelerating? I encouraged my aging but still in good shape parents to get cars with pre-collision braking. I also bought it for us with a teen driver.

Witness reports said they heard it accelerating really fast. I'm guessing the driver confused brake and accelerator pedal. Kind of like this incident in Rockville: http://www.rockvillenights.com/2018/02/kielbasa-factory-close-to-reopening.html

Pre-collission braking probably would not have helped here, since the driver can override it by hitting the accelerator. Also by the time it detects the obstructino, it would be going fast enough that it's too late to slow down to stop it.