Castanet

Darkre wrote:You are the one speculating. I'm waiting to make a judgment until the facts have been told to the public.

Your waiting to make a judgement by saying driver error was almost impossible based on what you saw as you drove past, ok.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the ageism here, but facts are facts and they cannot be denied.

I myself, have seen not less than 5 pedestrians nearly get mowed over in crosswalks by seniors not paying attention in the last 30 days alone. Specifically heading Southbound at Kinney and Skaha Lake Rd. whether you are turning right or left.

The near misses I've had were 30-40 group.

Fancy wrote:
Not necessarily. If a deer hit him causing the vehicle to swerve, the driver would not necessarily be found negligent.

A deer hit him or he hit a deer.
I will bet you the driver would be found negligent in a lawsuit.

fall wrote:A deer hit him or he hit a deer.
I will bet you the driver would be found negligent in a lawsuit.

Thought it was pretty clear - deer hit him - and no need to lose your bet as there's an ICBC case showing the driver was not negligent.

Fancy wrote:http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health112a-eng.htm

I've always hated this stat because it paints a picture that is so incomplete that it is basically useless. The main reason is number of miles driven does not appear at all. If a 20-24 year old drives 10x more than a 70-74 year old then the chances are 10x greater that they may be involved in an accident. This would skew the table above.

A slightly better stat, on that same web page, is the rate per 100,000. But even this does not take into account the miles driven. Also the stat from above is deaths. It is far more likely for a senior to die in an accident due to the bodies inability to heal from severe trauma.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableau ... 2d-eng.htm

There are so many factors that I could never blame someone just on age alone but my experience has lead me to believe that age can be a huge factor. My neighbor (late 70's?) has more scrapes, dents and dings on his car every month. After seeing the way he drives it is not a "senior" thing but a lifetime of being a bad driver. No doubt there are a few vehicles in this town with his cars white paint now embedded into their vehicle.

All this being said when I see a vehicle with a senior driving I pay more attention. After the first incident where one slammed on the brakes in front of me for no reason, I now follow even further behind than usual. No need to wreck my brakes due to someone who is lost and has his wife screaming at him to stop and then just ...stops.

Canada's Worst Driver show comes to mind now.

Fancy wrote:Thought it was pretty clear - deer hit him - and no need to lose your bet as there's an ICBC case showing the driver was not negligent.

I'm sorry I am lost.
Deer don't hit drivers, drivers hit deer. Kind of why you need to pay attention driving and react accordingly.
What ICBC case are you referring to?

fall wrote:

Darkre wrote:You are the one speculating. I'm waiting to make a judgment until the facts have been told to the public.

Your waiting to make a judgement by saying driver error was almost impossible based on what you saw as you drove past, ok.

I said it's almost impossible and I'm open to being proven wrong. However the accident occurred on a straight stretch of 4 lane highway just before the highway bends in to Trout Creek where there is a 5-6 foot center median between oncoming traffic. That would mean he would have had to have served about 15 feet in to the oncoming lane for no reason or driven in the wrong lane for an extended period of time while having 2 huge open lanes beside him where he should have been. Both are possibilities but would take a special kind of bad driver to accomplish. I'm not going to rush to judgement against the driver just because he's 72. He may have been at fault and he may not. Why not wait until the cause of the accident is released?

fall wrote::130:

alanjh595 wrote:
WOW! Look at that, age 20-24 have had 1st place in all years reported. Hmmmmmm

Look at what I wrote, seniors are second followed by young males.
Also look at the date of the last report, 2013.

It would take tree combined age groups between 64 - 74 to equal the same number of deaths caused by the 20 - 24 year old age group.

If we chose the 3 groups between 25 - 39 the total would be 450. By comparison the 70 - 90 age group would add up to 391. Including the fact that the 25-39 group is 14 years and the 70-90 is 20 years. Maybe the minimum age for obtaining driving privileges should be raised to 25 years old?

Darkre wrote:I said it's almost impossible and I'm open to being proven wrong. However the accident occurred on a straight stretch of 4 lane highway just before the highway bends in to Trout Creek where there is a 5-6 foot center median between oncoming traffic. That would mean he would have had to have served about 15 feet in to the oncoming lane for no reason or driven in the wrong lane for an extended period of time while having 2 huge open lanes beside him where he should have been. Both are possibilities but would take a special kind of bad driver to accomplish. I'm not going to rush to judgement against the driver just because he's 72. He may have been at fault and he may not. Why not wait until the cause of the accident is released?

Ok then, just because you said almost doesn't mean that you were speculating.
More quick speculation from me ( not afraid to speculate ) from your statement, heart attack or fell asleep.
He was 100 percent at fault no two ways around it whatever the cause.
Wait we will.

*removed*
What ICBC case were you referring to in regards to the deer?
I don't care but am now curious.

fall wrote:

Darkre wrote:I said it's almost impossible and I'm open to being proven wrong. However the accident occurred on a straight stretch of 4 lane highway just before the highway bends in to Trout Creek where there is a 5-6 foot center median between oncoming traffic. That would mean he would have had to have served about 15 feet in to the oncoming lane for no reason or driven in the wrong lane for an extended period of time while having 2 huge open lanes beside him where he should have been. Both are possibilities but would take a special kind of bad driver to accomplish. I'm not going to rush to judgement against the driver just because he's 72. He may have been at fault and he may not. Why not wait until the cause of the accident is released?

Ok then, just because you said almost doesn't mean that you were speculating.
More quick speculation from me ( not afraid to speculate ) from your statement, heart attack or fell asleep.
He was 100 percent at fault no two ways around it whatever the cause.
Wait we will.

Actually I'm looking at all the possibilities based on the accident scene and not condemning a man before details I do not have are released. I agree that the driver probably fell asleep or had a medical emergency. Mechanical failure is a possibility as well and so is an animal or person on the road and the driver focusing on that to the point of not seeing the oncoming vehicle and swerving the wrong way.

Unforeseen medical emergency or mechanical failure would not mean the driver was at fault. Just because the driver is 72 and more likely to have a medical emergency does not mean that a heart attack or stroke could have been foreseen. If he had a medical condition that could be considered foreseen he would have had his license medically revoked as a result.