Ab_Normal

What's really weird here in Washington is that everyone complains about transportation; the highways are in rough shape, some of them need serious expansion to keep up with growth. But they don't want to pay for it. "Just cut out gummint waste!" they say, without actually stating what the waste is or where to find it.

'Round these parts, the developers squeal like little piggies and complain that the gummint is anti-bidness if they propose raising the impact fees enough to pay for the actual friggin' impact.

Yep, I'm bitter. And I'm still off-topic.

Ab_Normal

Majestyk, I'll apologize up front: this is one of my hot-button topics.

Public transportation in my area is so completely hosed as to be almost useless. Because of a citizen-passed initiative which lowered vehicle licensing fees, funding for public transportation was dramatically cut in the late 1990's. The local transit authority cut routes and hours of service, making it impossible for someone working swing shift, for instance, to use the bus to get home - because the busses stop running before their shift ends. They've also changed their policies to make it more expensive for those who use the bus for short trips; riders used to be able to use a transfer for a round trip, as long as the transfer was used within an hour. That is now impossible. In fact, transfers are about useless; they're only good for forty-five minutes, and if the first bus is late and you miss the second bus, you're doomed because the next one isn't for an hour.

A local sales tax increase of 0.05% (IIRC) was placed on the ballot in November, with the proceeds going to the transit authority. Guess what the voters did? Yep, the rhetoric was mainly, "If we give them this tax increase, it'll encourage them to waste more money," and it went down in flames. The transit authority has since brought in new leadership, and I hope they will find ways to improve service, because that's the only way they'll get any more community support.

NialScorva

Not an option for the vast majority of America. Not even a theoretical option, really. On my school bus I was the first to get off-- 30 minutes after getting on. MOst of them took 1-2 hours to get home. There were no neighborhoods, and most of the roads would be iffy for a bus, anyway. Public transportation works in cities, but most of america is not urban.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
What's really weird here in Washington is that everyone complains about transportation; the highways are in rough shape, some of them need serious expansion to keep up with growth. But they don't want to pay for it. "Just cut out gummint waste!" they say, without actually stating what the waste is or where to find it.

Well, I know where some of it is, unfortunately too late to save on it: Their new government center. Yes, the concept is good. However, I would like to see a constitutional amendmant: No government building may be built fancier than the average of the community it serves.

'Round these parts, the developers squeal like little piggies and complain that the gummint is anti-bidness if they propose raising the impact fees enough to pay for the actual friggin' impact.

They do here, also, and so far have managed to keep those fees too low.

donaldkilroy

While at Zupan's Grovery Store I observed an elderly man park his SUV in a handicap spot behind the BBQ stand where I was getting lunch. It took this guy 3 minutes to get out of the vehicle then another 1-2 minutes just to baby-shuffle step (using a three leg'd walking stick) around the front of the SUV and another 30 seconds just to grab a cart and get situated behind it before shuffling his way into the store.

By observation of the baseball sized growth on his right elbow, toothpick arms and legs, obvious 'shake' and clear inability to walk much less coordinate himself outside the vehicle; he IS NOT fit to drive. Yet this old man not only has current/valid license to drive but he is driving a vehicle that is in my opinion too large for him to handle in a safe and responsive manner should an accident occur (either by his doing or anothers).

:banghead:

In one week more than a dozen people have been killed by the elderly unfit to drive.

How sad...even more so for the families

Tristan Scott

Really? In one week hundreds of people have been killed on the highways by drivers that are not elderly.

In one week hundreds of people have been killed by drunk drivers.

In one week hundreds of people have been killed by young drivers.

Are you equally outraged over these statistics?

Actually, statistics do show that there is a bathtub curve for highway deaths by age group. The incidents of fatal accidents are higher for younger and older drivers. Some states have been taking measures to help in the problem, placing higher requirements on those age groups. In Az, for example, a drivers licence does not have to be renewed between the ages of 21 and 65. After that there are frequent testing requirements.

There is also a family responsibility. I can remember being designated to take away my grandparents drivers licences. Not a fun duty, but there comes a time when it has to be done. I always tell my kids that someday they will have to tell me I can't drive any more, and that I'll probably wig out.

I think it would be wrong to arbitrarily just take away licences at any certain age if the driver proves that he or she can still drive safely with reaction times within reasonable limits. There will always be accidents. The goal should be to level the curve.

Gawdawful

My 91 year old grandmother had her driving privilege revoked and her car taken away from her by her sons, my father and his two brothers, after she hooked bumpers with a car that was passing her on the highway. She was lucky this accident didn't result in someone's death. Was age a factor? Yes, her reaction time wasn't good enough for highway speeds, maybe for driving down to the grocery store or the beauty shop at 25 mph, but not at 65 mph, than again, maybe not even that. Another contributing factor was the fact that she was wearing her sister's (who passed away more than 20 years before) eyeglasses because she was too cheap to buy new ones for herself. The loss of mobility was devastating for Grandma, she declined in health rapidly after that, eventually succumbing to the effects of Alzheimer's Disease a couple of years later.

Apparently the Santa Monica Accident was another case of unintended acceleration. Note: Audi 5000 suffered from multiple complaints of this even though Audi proved in court that the brakes on the Audi 5000 could stop the car with the engine at full throttle, even on their turbocharged model. The Audi and others with more than usual reports of such problems, such as the Jeep Cherokee, have a pedal arrangement offset to the left compared to other cars, making the error more likely.

I witnessed this phenomenon myself when my father, driving an unfamiliar car, my sister's Pontiac, rapidly accelerated backwards out of a parking space at his apartment, stopping only after running into a grassy embankment across the street. While we were zooming backwards I yelled at him to hit the brakes and I glanced down at his feet. His right foot was firmly planted on the.... ACCELERATOR. He swore he was mashing the brake as hard as he could, but I knew different. At least nobody was hurt, the only damage was dirt and grass up under the rear bumper of the stationwagon.... oh, and Dad's pride. Dad was 55 at that time and is 70 now and still driving, accident free (so far). I need only compare him to his mother and I think he'll relinquish driving voluntarily.

In light of all this, I firmly advocate more extensive periodic driver testing, even if more expensive. In Oklahoma all you have to do to renew is pass an eye test, pay the fee and off you go to do carnage and mayhem.

Warren in OK

Loren Pechtel

Perhaps we should make old drivers drive stick-shift cars? I can't imagine having any serious unintended acceleration problem in such a car--if you did that you would have the other foot either on the brake or the clutch.

fando

Unholy cow! I was at the farmer's market until 10 am on that day, waiting for traffic on the I10 to ease up a little bit so I could get home. I had just discovered the market while driving around aimlessly and decided to do a little browsing. It's surreal to think of what happened there; it was absolutely packed at 10, but was probably dwindling by 2. It's a pretty long market and he went a good way through! That driver must have completely lost it at the wheel. Maybe he spaced out in shock.

Despite what happened, I don't think much will change. Traffic is already an absolute nightmare here and virtually nothing will stem the tide of cars and crap drivers. We are just beginning to have a viable light rail system that can carry people accross the entire city, but as we've already seen from existing rail, it will do nothing to aleviate congestion and keep bad drivers off the road. The principal reason for this is that the new rail system does not adequately span the city. You still need a car if your destination is more than a mile from any rail stop, and that pretty much means most of the city. The buses are already swarming with passengers and the streets are crammed with cars, so transfering won't be convenient. And then you have the problem where drivers believe that everyone else but them should take the rail. However, it might not be a bad idea to increase the difficulty of getting a license to drive after some age. Those that fail have a fine, new rail system to ride on. I wonder if the state DMV can refine the driving priviledge requirements by county so we can get that sort of regulation enacted.

donaldkilroy

Thanks for the red herrings, but the fish are not biting today.

The topic of this thread is when does it become too old to drive and the accidents/deaths caused by an elderly driver who was clearly unfit to drive. Not DUIs, DWIs, Road Rage, Cell Phone Drivers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. So please...stick to the topic of the OP!