Posted on 07/20/2007 5:52:43 AM PDT by Lou L
By John E. Carey
July 19, 2007
Let’s talk about older automobile drivers. Maybe it’s your Mom or Dad or Uncle Sam that shows signs of driving too slowly, running into things or having other difficulties handling a car.
What do you do and what are your responsibilities?
I’ve faced this dilemma three or four times already and here’s what experts say.Researchers at the Rand Institute for Social Justice found during a recent study a few interesting facts.
–Young drivers between 15 and 24 years old are three times as likely to cause car accidents as senior citizens.
–People over the age of 65 make up 15 percent of drivers but were responsible for only 7 percent of the 330,000 fatal two-car crashes in the past 25 years.
–Drivers up to age 24 represented 13 percent of drivers, but caused 43 percent of the accidents across the United States, they said.
–Younger drivers tend to use more dangerous and risky conduct behind the wheel. Overloaded cars playing loud music, eating meals while driving, even playing with the radio and CD player are much more likely factors in the accidents of young drivers.
–Senior drivers were only 16 percent more likely to cause an accident than drivers between the ages of 25 and 64.
(Excerpt) Read more at johnibii.wordpress.com ...
Expect more articles like this over next few years, as the baby boomers enter that golden age, and their political weight increases thru AARP, and they want to go places.
That all depends. Some older drivers were bad drivers when they were young drivers.
I guess we’ll all be “there” soon enough. As long as no one claims they have a “right” to transportation, and demands that be paid for with public funds...
Tell my insurance company this. Through whatever calculus they use to determine rates, as I have progressed beyond age 65, they have steadily increased my premiums, even with an extended period of no claims and no violations for some several years now.
Perhaps I am not as sharp a driver as I was at, say, age 35, but I drive with what I call a “comfortable” spacing between myself and the vehicle ahead, which to an impatient young driver hanging on my back bumper, looks like an opportunity to gain a 0.4 second advantage in traffic, by bursting out and going around me (often as not, on the right). I am right behind the person at the next traffic signal, a fact that has to further infuriate young hotspurs, and forces him (or occasionally, her) to accelerate away madly, only to have me directly behind them yet again at the next traffic signal.
There are old drivers, and there are bold drivers. There are no old bold drivers.
As the article says, elderly drivers tend to limit their driving time/distance somewhat voluntarily. They tend to drive within a closer radius to their home. But this doesn’t necessarily indicate they are safe. As a percentage of relative total driving time/distance, their accident rate is actually pretty high.
I think placing the age at which they consider one “older” at 65 probably also skews the statistics. Many/most at 65-70 can be capable drivers. It probably ought to be placed more around 75 or 80. That’s more of when the reflexes and eyesight really cause the problems. I think the stats would look very different, too. Perhaps there ought to be a study of what age the stats really start looking different before any are used to determine legislation.
Here’s the stastical fallacy in this article.
The problem is not with drivers “over 65”, but with drivers over 80 or so. The overbroad definition hides teh reality that octogenarians have a fatality rate comparable to teens, even though they drive far fewer miles than average drivers.
–People over the age of 65 make up 15 percent of drivers but were responsible for only 7 percent of the 330,000 fatal two-car crashes in the past 25 years.
Fatality RATES are the only useful measure.
LOL, that would be my father-in-law
I can’t get beyond the name of the author; how tragic.
This is a bogus article, because it lumps 85 year olds with 65 year olds. You can’t just pretend that 65 and ups are one monolothic age group — driving ability declines with age, and it declines pretty rapidly.
Ha! That used to be my complaint when I went to the bank on my lunch hour to deposit my paycheck and get a few bucks out for the weekend. Thank goodness for direct deposit, and ATM's that the seriously old won't touch!!
“””””There are old drivers, and there are bold drivers. There are no old bold drivers”””
I tremble when I see Geezers in Hondas on iPhones!!!!
Without determining the number of hours each age group actually spends driving, this “study” is nonsense. I’d wager that young people spend far more time on the road and would naturally have a higher percentage of accidents.
–People over the age of 65 make up 15 percent of drivers but were responsible for only 7 percent of the 330,000 fatal two-car crashes in the past 25 years.
is clearly wrong. If the wording were changed from "were responsible for" to "involved in" , it would be correct. But we have no idea how many accidents they are responsible for by driving 45 in a 70 mph zone. These so-called "safe" drivers are responsible for a lot more accidents than these statistics show.
When I am on my bicycle, the scariest sight is a teenage girl driving a big four-wheel-drive pickup truck while talking on a cell phone and applying makeup. She would roll over me and not even notice the bumps.
The next scariest sight is anyone of any age in any kind of vehicle who talks on a cell phone while driving. They seem to be oblivious of what is going on around them.
You should try Auto Owners. They love older drivers with clean records, as opposed to the "big three" (State Farm, Nationwide, Allstate). Instead of surcharges, they give DISCOUNTS. If they write in your state, you can find them with an independent broker. Check with your insurance commissioners office or check out their web page.
Fatal 2 car crashes. How many pedestrians do they clip?
How many non-lethal car crashes are they responsible for?
And I think to some extent the flip side applies, too. Older baby boomers as a group rebelled against parents and the norm in a big way, whether because of their sheer numbers or what, but they were the group in charge 10, 20 years ago when bigger restrictions were urged and placed on this driving age group 'for their own good'. And if you've ever had the (dis)pleasure of being around a boomer who treats their elderly parents like a toy or a pet, you know more precisely what I mean.
There is a world of growth in the driving experience of those between 15 and 24 years old but they were lumped together too.
Not just a clip . . . sometimes the geezers drive right the heck OVER the pedestrians.
“””The next scariest sight is anyone of any age in any kind of vehicle who talks on a cell phone while driving.”””
Agree!
Speed and cell phones - deadly combination.
‘hand’s free’ is not a remedy. If a driver & passenger are having a conversation - they are watching the same traffic events. A remote cell phone conversation causes the driver to visualize something else entirely. As a passenger I go ballistic if the driver makes or accepts a cell phone call. My cell phone message states “If I am driving, I will not respond - please leave a message”
8^O
“”””After following someone like this for several miles, and just getting madder and madder and madder,”””
Take the next turn-off and pray for ‘serenity now’, ‘serenity now’.
Road Rage is more dangerous than cell phones!
The question is, if the pedestrian is talking on a cell phone at the time, does he even notice?
(Possibly he does if he is talking to the driver: "Hey, idiot!! You got a red li...<Call was lost>")
I don’t care who y’are . . . that’s funny right there!
Here's an example of the reason why:
Vehicle rams Wilmette sandwich shop [8 injured]
I didn't post the pic with blood on the floor.
NOT in my family. And my baby boomer father was ALWAYS a dangerous driver, even before his two strokes.
Absolutely hilarious post. Unintentionally, I suspect.
Yes isn’t it funny that is always the elderly that seem to have the “sticky throttle” issues?
We bought an Audi 5000GT cheap one year due to that whole rumor mongering.
I have to agree. Despite what stats may or may not say, those of us in the real world know the story. The worst drivers are the blue hairs and the illegals.
I’m thinking some stats involving the term “per miles driven” or “hours behind the wheel” would paint a more informative picture.
I’m sure the insurance industry has the most accurate information.
Fatality RATES are the only useful measure.
Old people are feeble and die easier. There goes that thesis.
Yet given the limitation of elderly (80+) drivers to avoid night time, distant, unfamiliar, etc. driving, the danger to others is greater than the fatality rate would indicate.
f the wording were changed from “were responsible for” to “involved in” , it would be correct. But we have no idea how many accidents they are responsible for by driving 45 in a 70 mph zone. These so-called “safe” drivers are responsible for a lot more accidents than these statistics show.
But fatality rates are also very accurately kept statistics that correlate well with responsibility, though to not assign it.
I’ll buy that. I know I read the Brits want them off the road.
This is what I say about DUI stats; every year, more sober drivers kill or get killed than drunk ones, but it is reasonably safe to say that it is the bad drivers who wreck or cause wrecks in the first place, so the real problem lies in not finding the bad driver before he finds you and then, once recognized, not taking all the actions possible not to let that silly SOB drink a drop.
A few years ago an alcoholic friend of mine was in a 2 car accident. He was drinking and never denied it but the accident report showed that the other driver had crossed the center line causing the accident. Funny thing was that the paper reported that alcohol was a factor in the crash. Since my friend was arrested the story promotes the assumption that he caused the crash.
Taking away the driving privileges of the increasingly senile is a politically loaded move. Mandating large, visible stickers on all sides of their vehicle so the rest of us know who to watch out for would not hinder their mobility and is long overdue.
“””visible stickers on all sides of their vehicle “””
good suggestion - there are 26 letters in the alphabet that could be put to good use. Just a few below!
i.e. L=learner’s permit
Y=youth age 16-30
S=senior (senile)
A=alcohol abuser
P=perfect driving record
R=road rage challenged
N=no license no insurance
D= daylight only
I can think of some other demographic groups for whom these stickers would prove more useful.
I agree.
16-25 would be my first group of choice.
In my neighborhood there is a group of losers who terrorize the neighborhood (driving as live video game). They continually wrap their cars around inanimate objects and replace them immediately. How they get insurance I'll never know.
LOL. That was exactly my first thought.
They do this in Japan
New driver
Elderly driver
They’re going after the oldsters, who aren’t that much of a problem, because it’s politically incorrect to go after the real problem, young punks who are disproportionately “immigrants.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.