Elderly driver runs into baby stroller

[jamapple]

As we grow older and wiser, logically we should become more and more proficient at all aspects of life. If age = experience, then an 80 year old should be a far more qualified driver than a 35-40 year old with decades less experience on the road.

However, when we read numerous news stories about plowing vehicles through store fronts (pick your example, there's plenty). Pin balling your van into 11 cars (http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/11 ... ot-pinball), and now driving 20km/h below the posted speed limit and still hitting and dragging a tot in a stroller...I can't help but thinking that, yes, age can certainly be a contributing factor.

This is exactly why I brought up travel insurance scenerio. Not to simply charge them more money, but rather to look at the point of if you are a group that cost the in surance company by virtue of increased incidents, you pay more.
By some peoples logic, drivers in their first 10 years of driving are being discriminated against because they pay very high premiums. Yet, eldery people have increased accident rates in their group, and what do they get?? A senior discount!

[LoneWolf_53]

Seems to me you made my point for me Randall T.

Anything that causes interference with a drivers ability to safely operate a vehicle should be looked into and addressed as appropriate. It could even be as simple as a prescription that impairs your abilities.

I don't think anyone would react to your scenario with enthusiasm but it is what it is and would have to be accepted.

In the case of many seniors in the eldest age bracket, their age is their impairment.

[ckirkey]

I think we can all agree there are pathetic driving skills displayed by all age groups. You can put the blinders on and obsess about one group, but the real issue is enforcement. We simply don't have enough resources in place to monitor how everyone behaves on the road. To single out any age group while ignoring the rest is not going to fix things. I fully realize the shortcomings of many elderly drivers but to say they are all incompetent because of their age is like saying all teens are dangerous because of their attitudes and all middle-aged movers and shakers are a hazard because they can't put their phones down. If you want to really fix things, then lobby for more enforcement and forget about the elimination of old folks' licences.

Yes Enforcement- Exactly. And there are many laws and mechanisms in place currently for many driving concerns and offenses- cell phones, distracted driving, speeding, the N program for young drivers. And agreed they should be enforced more- But what law should be enforced to prevent an elderly driver running into a store front? Or hitting a stroller? Enforcement at that stage is too late. Hence the need for retesting.

[Randall T]

This is exactly why I brought up travel insurance scenerio. Not to simply charge them more money, but rather to look at the point of if you are a group that cost the in surance company by virtue of increased incidents, you pay more.
By some peoples logic, drivers in their first 10 years of driving are being discriminated against because they pay very high premiums. Yet, eldery people have increased accident rates in their group, and what do they get?? A senior discount!

I'm not sure where you pulled that from, but rates are based on a scale and discounts are given to those who earn them. New drivers start at the base rate with no discount, retired people get a discount because they use their vehicles for pleasure and not pleasure/work. Check it out here http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/Documents/APG20E.pdf, starting at page 31, Part VIII. No one gets good driving discounts if they've left a trail of destruction behind them.

[Randall T]

Seems to me you made my point for me Randall T.

Anything that causes interference with a drivers ability to safely operate a vehicle should be looked into and addressed as appropriate. It could even be as simple as a prescription that impairs your abilities.

I don't think anyone would react to your scenario with enthusiasm but it is what it is and would have to be accepted.

In the case of many seniors in the eldest age bracket, their age is their impairment.

I liked your post. But another point is if all obese people are automatically categorized as not being capable of safely operating a motor vehicle, then it becomes discrimination. And where would that end? Those whose impairment, regardless of age, affects their ability to drive should be scrutinized further. Just because you're 80 doesn't mean you're impaired in ways that can affect your abilities to operate a vehicle and it should not be assumed to be so.

[Randall T]

Yes Enforcement- Exactly. And there are many laws and mechanisms in place currently for many driving concerns and offenses- cell phones, distracted driving, speeding, the N program for young drivers. And agreed they should be enforced more- But what law should be enforced to prevent an elderly driver running into a store front? Or hitting a stroller? Enforcement at that stage is too late. Hence the need for retesting.

Mandatory retesting will not happen. More feet on the street may catch a few exhibiting impaired skills, but other than that it comes down to the drivers physician and family. If you think about it, there are more safeguards for removing problem seniors from the roads than drunks and druggies who no one has an opportunity to stop unless you're following them and phone it in.

[Rosieodonell]

It could be interesting to see if a GPS system could be used to start tracking driver and basically the computer in your car starts to build a profile on the driver. Maybe more people could be flagged that way. I can see a lot of the elderly drivers being shown are really gone and should be easy to find.

This could also catch new drivers etc.. or basically any idiot etc... the worse the profile, the better chance for retesting!

[LoneWolf_53]

I'm of the mind that perhaps one way to address the elderly and retesting issue is to have a designated group of doctors whose mandate it is to specifically check for signs of aging that would adversely affect the subjects driving abilities, and if they note something of concern, then a report goes to the superintendent of motor vehicles to decide upon further action.

When the time comes and a person hits 80yrs old, ICBC would simply send a letter saying go see so and so driver competency testing certified doctor for an evaluation.

I'd prefer if the medical professionals chosen were not on the ICBC payroll however, to avoid a conflict of interest.

Since everyone would have to go through the same checks, it would be fair and remove the onus on the subjects regular GP to rat them out so to speak as it currently stands, a system that clearly lacks teeth.

[jamapple]

I'm not sure where you pulled that from, but rates are based on a scale and discounts are given to those who earn them. New drivers start at the base rate with no discount, retired people get a discount because they use their vehicles for pleasure and not pleasure/work. Check it out here http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/Documents/APG20E.pdf, starting at page 31, Part VIII. No one gets good driving discounts if they've left a trail of destruction behind them.

Where I pulled what from?? My opinion? Well, I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count. My post was in reference to comments made earlier in the thread, (if you were reading them), regarding age discrimination. My "opinion" was new drivers get nothing, so why do we not see that group shouting discrimination when they're paying the highest premiums of anyone, even though they never had the chance to even prove their ability? Wait...I know!! They have the highest accident rate! OK, now seniors, who have high rates of accidents don't pay higher premiums, they get a discount. Of course only for pleasure use.....THEY'RE RETIRED!!! So, we can cry age discrimination for the old, but not for the young.
Also, with all other forms of insurance,( again, if you were reading), seniors pay an astronomical rate for travel insurance, compared to us middle agers. Care to guess why?? I know!!! They're at a higher chance for something to happen to them, so they pay more because they are at higher risk.

[LoneWolf_53]

Where I pulled what from?? My opinion? Well, I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count. My post was in reference to comments made earlier in the thread, (if you were reading them), regarding age discrimination. My "opinion" was new drivers get nothing, so why do we not see that group shouting discrimination when they're paying the highest premiums of anyone, even though they never had the chance to even prove their ability? Wait...I know!! They have the highest accident rate! OK, now seniors, who have high rates of accidents don't pay higher premiums, they get a discount. Of course only for pleasure use.....THEY'RE RETIRED!!! So, we can cry age discrimination for the old, but not for the young.
Also, with all other forms of insurance,( again, if you were reading), seniors pay an astronomical rate for travel insurance, compared to us middle agers. Care to guess why?? I know!!! They're at a higher chance for something to happen to them, so they pay more because they are at higher risk.

Good point about the young drivers. I paid through the nose for insurance when I was in my early twenties because I was young and I drove a high performance vehicle.

I never got into an accident or had a claim though, so if anyone has a right to cry discrimination it would have been me.

[Hmmm]

Elderly drivers should not pay more because their age bracket is involved in more weirder type accidents. Senior citizens do need breaks financially speaking. If they show that they cannot operate a car safely then they shouldn't be allowed to drive. If they can do it safely, then they, as in most need a deal on insurance.

All will appreciate the deals when we are of that age one day....

[Randall T]

Where I pulled what from?? My opinion? Well, I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count. My post was in reference to comments made earlier in the thread, (if you were reading them), regarding age discrimination. My "opinion" was new drivers get nothing, wso why do we not see that group shouting discrimination when they're paying the highest premiums of anyone, even though they never had the chance to even prove their ability? Wait...I know!! They have the highest accident rate! OK, now seniors, who have high rates of accidents don't pay higher premiums, they get a discount. Of course only for pleasure use.....THEY'RE RETIRED!!! So, we can cry age discrimination for the old, but not for the young.
Also, with all other forms of insurance,( again, if you were reading), seniors pay an astronomical rate for travel insurance, compared to us middle agers. Care to guess why?? I know!!! They're at a higher chance for something to happen to them, so they pay more because they are at higher risk.

A new driver at 40 is pretty much the same as a new driver at 16. Same graduated system, no experience, no discounts. A 65 year old racking up claims will lose discounts like everyone else. Age discrimination is something totally different than an insurance rate scale that is based on risk. Discrimination would play into it if everyone over 65 was charged more because of their age and not their experience and claims history. And that's exactly why travel insurers are being challenged over accusations of ageism. The question is why are healthy people 65+ charged more than those in the lower group. Change will come but it may not be for some time. Insurers may play that game as long as they can but governments won't touch it.