Last night our leasing company dropped off our new car, much earlier than expected. We were pleasantly surprised and thought we could now return our old one, which was expiring on December 10th, instead of renewing it for another month.

So the plan was, she takes the kids to school, then I meet her at a dealership in the new car when she drops it off.

Man plans, God laughs.

My wife just called me up, clearly in shock. "I just got in a car accident. It's really bad, but everyone is OK"

She was driving my two-year-old daughter to school, and had our eight-month-old son in the car as well. She was nearing the school, and went through an intersection that had been green for at least a minute, when out of nowhere an 83-year-old man in an old Crown Vic rumbles through the red light and smashes into the side of her car.

Both airbags deployed and the car is probably totalled. This is going to be a massive headache for us to get sorted out paperwork wise. Luckily there were witnesses who came over to the cop on the scene and said they saw him run the light.

The old man was apologetic, but honestly, I think he's a selfish idiot. When you get to be that age, and you know that your eyesight and reflexes have dimmed, you should not be driving.

Senior citizens should be forced to take a retest every other year, if not every year.

Most of the idiot drivers I see on the road I see are either spoiled teenagers driving $50,000 cars or really old people driving 20 miles an hour on a freeway, or otherwise just backing out of parking spaces without turning their heads because of their arthritis.

We get our cars inspected regularly by law, why not the people driving them?

The answer is because old people vote, and old people would never let a law pass that is bad for old people. It's totally ridiculous though. People who make the road unsafe should not be allowed on it. Period.

You'll get no arguments from me here. I'm just glad your family's OK.

I saw this over at "the other place". Glad your family's OK.

Hey Jax, are you just tryin' to get sympathy votes???


J/K :-D

I'm glad everyone is ok.

Old people get their eyes checked yearly, don't they?

Glad everyone is ok, and your right, senior citizens are a powerful voting group. They are only going to get stronger as the baby boomers join their ranks.

So, what's the new car? Sorry, I'm a guy.

I think they should either have a checkup/retest every year over a certain age or they should be subject to passing certain spot checks for reactions etc like an impairment roadside test. If they (or anyone) fails, they should be charged with impaired driving.

On a similar note, I've got a friend of the family that's got MS. His one leg has *totally* gone asleep and his other one's not much better - and he *still* drives. It's nuts and we've tried telling him. *sigh*

I've said this in a number of threads now... South Park did a great take on this argument; Grey Dawn, series 7 episode 10.
Basically, all you need to do is close down all of the County Kitchen Buffet restaurants, and they loose their ability. Simple.

Seriously though, I'm with you on this. I'm not going to say what the age should be. Obviously, everybody's different, and that's their main argument; there plenty of older people that are perfectly able to drive and they refuse to see that they should have to be re-tested just because somebody else their age caused an accident.

The simple solution to that argument is bring in compulsory re-testing at an even earlier age, just at greater time intervals.

That's lots of arguments that everybody should be retested every so often as some people do become lax in their driving and form their own bad habits. Say, 5-10 years after passing your test you have to take a refreshers exam. Then another after another 5-10 years. Then when you hit a certain age you take one every 3 years. Then, at another certain age, you have to start doing it every year.

Time scales are just examples, I'm no expert and I've not spent a great deal of time thinking about them, it's the theory that I'm pointing out here...

I'd even be happy with something as simple as a compulsory eye and reflexes test to be able to renew your license.

I mean, if your doctor finds that you have epilepsy, your license gets yanked, why not have it the same for the two biggest culprits of old-age-bad-driving?

I would support everybody getting retested every year or two. Sure, elderly drivers are more of a hazard, but I see so many drivers who are clearly under the age of 60 that either don't know the rules of the road or their vehicle. Pilots are required to be tested annually or they lose their liscence, so why not drivers? There are WAY more car accidents than aircraft accidents.

agreed....im a pretty cautious driver because i have been in an accident (my car hydroplaned underneath another car this time of year last year) so i always drive the speed limit and i always am aware of my surroundings (i check my mirrors every 30 seconds on average)
but even with my own caution....it still never fails that at least once a day i have to either swerve or honk my horn to avoid an accident! i mean i know i live in SF and there are a lot of bad drivers here...but come on! people dont seem to look around them and will just change lanes! and i hate to stereotype...but most of the time it is an elderly person! i almost got run off the freeway 2 days ago by an elderly man who was merging and didnt even look to see if anyone was there! the worst part is after i swerved and layed on my horn, HE DIDNT EVEN NOTICE!!! augh its just frustrating!

i think people should be regularly tested....i mean not all elderly are bad drivers, my grandpa was tested several times because of his age and he drove until the day he died...he was 93!!! but my other grandpa...whew....even at 60 he was a terror on the road! i think he needs to have his liscence revoked.

in the end jax....im glad your wife and child are okay! i know everything u have to deal with will be a pain....but at least they are safe!

ps- one frustrating thing is the elderly seem to get off pretty light when it comes to causing traffic accidents and fatalitites

Glad your clan are OK n all... I thought a re-test at 60 then every 10 years would be a good idea, but after reading this thread a simple change in the law requiring your GP to notify someone if your sight or reactions time go to pot would do just as well. But would it stop old people from going to the Dr in fear of loosing their mobility?

Yes I hate to think that in 30 years time I could be banned from driving, but it it means 30 years of not been stuck behind an old woman doing 25 in a 30, then 25 in a 40 then back to 25 in a 30 It's a chance I will gladly take!

BTW when I was 18, a older lady (50-60 years ish) pulled out in front of me as I was driving along at the speed limit (50mph) and in the time it took me to think "oh no she didn't?!" I was pushing her sideways, wrote her car off, so the roads were safe for at least a week or 2 :)

At least this 83 year old driver is off the road and it didn't cost someone their life.

BTW, 2006 - 83 + 16 = 1939, check out the cars this guy took his test in:

Luckily, I have had two parents (my father and father-in-law) take themselves off the road. They just knew it was time.

Both my mother and mother-in-law know their limitations and drive sparingly and rarely at night.

Common sense.

But, NJ has been fighting this struggle with retesting of drivers. Even just an eye test.

It was only recently that we required a picture license. I believe that there are some people who still do not have pictures on their license. We used to renew by mail.

The elder generation was afraid to go to the DMV (I don't blame them, NJ DMV was awful at best). Now they will have to. Just test EVERYONE at renewal. Once every four years is fine. It only takes five minutes, if it only saves one life, it is worth it.

I am glad your family came out of it OK.

My old fart did this at 59. Even stopped working in Preston cos the drive was too long.

However, my nan is an old boot and she wont quit for anything. Worse thing is, she makes tons of mistakes then shouts at all the other drivers. She will even stop the car to do it - right in the middle of the road. Scaresthe life out of me and im a toughy.
I could go on aout bad drivers in my family but I really cant be bothered typing half of their names or even refering to them.

Jax - Selfish is the word.

And as for the point about them being voters, they shouldnt be able to do that either. Old people will hate me for saying this - but their out of touch. My nan, who swears blind everyone is a mess these days, votes for BNP because she thinks it is something about getting rid of immigrants.
A - Its not.
B - That kind of attitude needs needs to go to bed with them.

So what should be the cutoff age? 90? 80? 70? 60? 50?
Discrimination, whether it be based on age, skin color, or gender, is wrong.

That's OK, my wife still votes the opposite way I do, and I still let her vote :)

She says it cancels out my vote or somesuch.

Just think about over here, stateside, Milkshake, you can't get anywhere without a car. There isn't a train or bus within 20 miles of me and then I'd have to go to Philly or NYC!

Good discussion.

Retirement.
Voting is a right of taxpayers.
You may say 'But after a lifetime of work should they not still be allowed the right to vote'
No - should children be allowed to vote because one day they will pay tax?
The age of working life is set as it is because that is the average span that a human life is capable of doing so. Your not allowed in before, you shouldnt be after.

Anyway, this is one of those topics that could go down a silly debate route. Some older people would agree with me, some wouldnt. Their the people that matter in this case and in my experience - most older people think voting is a waste of time anyway. Theyve grown wise to the fact that it changes pretty much nothing. One muppet out, another muppet in.

And zadscmc. Fair point. The town I live is 3 miles wide (not inluding the fylde) and everything is within walking distance so I dont think of it that way. But testing a certainly a good idea.

Retirement doesn't mean and end to taxes.

In NJ, our retired community is quote vocal about that. With rising property taxes, our retired people are being forced to leave property that they've worked hard to pay off (after a 30 year mortgage) and find they can't stay because the taxes are so high.

I mean VERY high.

The only thing we're trying to discriminate against here is people who are unable to drive safely.

To ingnore the *fact* that people get slower and less visually accute as they get older is naive.

If you really want to play it fair, I'd rather see *everyone* tested every 5 years than nobody at any age.

Well thats crap isnt it. Not your comment of course. :)

Yup. Crap. New Jersey. Synonyms.