Page 1 of 3

My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:21 am
by Miles
The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES —
A 100-year-old man backed his car on to a sidewalk and hit 11 people, including nine children, across from an elementary school in South Los Angeles just after classes had ended Wednesday, authorities said.

Four of the children were in critical condition when firefighters arrived but they were stabilized and were in serious condition at a hospital, city fire Capt. Jaime Moore said. Everyone was expected to survive, he said.

The powder blue Cadillac backed slowly into the group of parents and children buying snacks from a sidewalk vendor, and the crowd banged on his windows and screamed for him to stop, but not before some of the children were trapped under the car, witnesses said.

Children's backpacks, shoes, candy and loose change were strewn about the scene behind a discount grocery store across from Main Street Elementary.

Police identified the driver as Preston Carter and said he was being very cooperative.

Carter talked to television reporters after the crash some five miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles. He said he has a driver's license and will be 101 years old Sept. 5.

"My brakes failed. It was out of control," Carter told KCAL-TV.

Asked about hitting the children, Preston said: "You know I'm sorry about that. I wouldn't do that for nothing on earth. My sympathies for them."

Carter was pulling out of the grocery store parking lot, but instead of backing into the street, he backed onto the sidewalk, police Capt. George Rodriguez said.

"I think it was a miscalculation on his part. The gentleman is elderly," Rodriguez said. "Obviously he is going to have some impairment on his decision making."

Older drivers have been involved in other tragedies. In 2003, an 86-year-old man mistakenly stepped on the gas pedal of his car instead of the brake and then panicked, plowing into an open-air market in Santa Monica. Ten people were killed and 63 injured.

According to California's Department of Motor Vehicles, people over age 70 must renew their driver's license in person, rather than via the Internet or by mail. Older drivers can also be required to take a supplemental driving test if they fail a vision exam, or if a police officer, a physician, or a family member raises questions about their ability to drive.

Rodriguez said the collision was being investigated as an accident, and Carter was not under arrest. He has a valid driver's license, Rodriguez said.

Copyright The Associate

Just let him keep on driving, thats good sense. :loon

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:35 am
by The Hen
I have two old birds in my family I have concerns with when they are in the road. One of them (me Mum) has recently got an automatic car which has reduced some of my concerns. However, I will be pulling the plug on her driving career as soon as I think she has become a danger.
Asked about hitting the children, Preston said: "You know I'm sorry about that. I wouldn't do that for nothing on earth. My sympathies for them."
But you did Preston, you did. You killed many people and you should permanently remove yourself from the driving wheel.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:13 am
by Econoline
If you read the OP more carefully, it says that no one was killed. This time. (That means there's still time to stop him before he does kill someone.)

My mother is 89 years old and still drives (a little); my sister, my brother, and I would definitely make sure that she stops driving if she shows any signs of incompetence at the wheel. In Illinois DL renewal applicants 75 and older must take a road test at a Secretary of State Driver's License Facility, plus they have to renew every 2 years if they're between the ages of 81-86, and every year if they're 87 or older.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:27 am
by The Hen
Many thanks Econoline. Read in haste, repent in leisure.

My mistake.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:39 pm
by dgs49
The guy has apparently been driving for 30 years+ since his 70th birthday.

It seems like California has a reasonable process to keep dangerous elderly drivers off the street, it just failed this time. I'm sure the guy feels like shit.

Among the people I would remove from the road for being a ever-present danger (teenage boys, cellphone talkers, etc), old guys are not at the top of MY list.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:52 pm
by Gob
One wonders why? :lol:

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:59 pm
by dales
Statiscally, teen and those 65 and older have the same accident rates.

With that being said;

Let both the above groups take the bus.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:59 pm
by Lord Jim
Among the people I would remove from the road for being a ever-present danger (teenage boys,
As I am no longer a teenage boy, and have a daughter who just became a teenage girl, I am with you 110% on that one Dave.... :ok

Males should not be allowed to have driver's licenses before they turn 25! Screw 'em... :P

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:20 pm
by Crackpot
That's exaclly what they'll be doing without cars to distract them Jim.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:31 am
by Econoline
:funee:

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:59 pm
by Long Run
Hardly a pet peeve, Miles. Getting incompetent drivers off the road is a basic safety issue. Old people who basically drive safely, but too slowly -- that's a righteous pet peeve. :)

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:14 pm
by Joe Guy
Foremost... :)

There should be no government mandated age to give up your right to drive a car. Relatives and friends of people who can't drive safely should be the ones who should convince or not allow someone who has lost the ability to drive safely.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:27 pm
by Gob
Joe Guy wrote:Foremost... :)

There should be no government mandated age to give up your right to drive a car.
But there should be rigorous and regular testing once you are over the age of 70, to ensure public safety.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:35 pm
by Joe Guy
The tests should be the same for all ages. Anything else would be discrimination.

It would be similar to having a law requiring Asians to have more 'rigorous and regular' testing.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:39 pm
by Lord Jim
Old people who basically drive safely, but too slowly -- that's a righteous pet peeve
I really see that as safety issue as well...

I'll freely admit that I don't have statistics at hand to back this up, (I don't know if statistics on this are even compiled) but I firmly believe that while people who drive over-cautiously may not be involved in a high percentage of accidents, they are definitely the cause of many of them....

People who drive at inappropriately slow speeds, or who break way too far in advance of intersections, or take forever to make lane changes, or to merge on to interstates etc. create a wild card for other drivers to deal with that makes them nearly as much of a menace as the guy who tailgates, makes frequent and unadvertised lane changes, or cuts other drivers off...

It's really just another version of "I own the road, and everybody else has to adjust to me..."

ETA:

This is not just a problem with older drivers, BTW, I know several folks who are in their 80's who drive just fine and don't exhibit any of these accident causing habits.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:39 pm
by Gob
I disagree Joe, it's a certainty that sight and reaction fail with age, it's not discriminatory to recognise and regulate for that.
Driver's licence requirements from 70 years of age

Drivers over 70 years of age must pass a medical and eyesight examination each year.

After reaching the age of 70 you will be posted a certificate of fitness to drive.

You will need to visit your medical practitioner who will complete the certificate.

If you are 85 years of age or older and hold a class of licence other than a 'car' you will need to pass a practical driving test each year to retain that class of licence.

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:46 pm
by Lord Jim
It would be similar to having a law requiring Asians to have more 'rigorous and regular' testing.
Well, there's one difference I can think of....

If we (knock on wood) live long enough, we will all , regardless of race or gender wind up being over 70....(or if you don't like 70, pick 75) and sooner or later, all of us will experience deterioration in our motor skills, eyesight, reaction times, etc....

But unless you're born an Asian, you're not going to turn into one....

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:01 pm
by Joe Guy
Lord Jim wrote: Well, there's one difference I can think of....

If we (knock on wood) live long enough, we will all , regardless of race or gender wind up being over 70....(or if you don't like 70, pick 75) and sooner or later, all of us will experience deterioration in our motor skills, eyesight, reaction times, etc........
What about those who are terrible drivers in their 20's, 30's 40's etc.?

Why shouldn't they be mandated to have rigorous testing when their licenses are due to be renewed?

How come people who have several drunk driving convictions aren't tested more rigorously? What about people who have had several accidents? Or people with several citations for speeding or driving through stoplights?

But you want to have 'rigorous testing' based on the age of a person rather than his or her driving record.

Where's the logic or the fairness in that?

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:05 pm
by dales
Joe Guy wrote:The tests should be the same for all ages. Anything else would be discrimination.

It would be similar to having a law requiring Asians to have more 'rigorous and regular' testing.
Or handicapped to use special driving assist, or nearsighted boobs (such as I) to wear corrective lenses, or short people sit on boosters, or..... :nana

Re: My formost pet peeve

Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:07 pm
by dales
Joe Guy wrote:
How come people who have several drunk driving convictions aren't tested more rigorously? What about people who have had several accidents? Or people with several citations for speeding or driving through stoplights?

But you want to have 'rigorous testing' based on the age of a person rather than his or her driving record.

Where's the logic or the fairness in that?
After a license suspension or revocation, testing is more rigorous and frequent.