Head-on crash kills woman

[fall]

.

[Dizzy1]

So it seems to me that the fairest way to deal with this is to make ALL drivers take a new driving test every 10 years, regardless of their age.

I know of several people who are well into their 70s and driving commercial vehicles, they have a medical retesting every year and there driving abilities are top notch. Many of the younger drivers for the same outfit, well, their driving capabilities are questionable. While age is a factor in driving capacities in terms of reflexes, eyesight and focus, it doesn't apply to many senior drivers and punishing them by determining their driving capabilities simply because of a number is beyond stupid.

I agree with Merry, mandatory drivers testing (and medical) for everyone, and once you reach a certain age (or have a medical condition that could effect your driving capacity), increase the frequency. In aviation, if you fly commercially, you have to have a medical done every year - once you hit age 40, you have to have one every 6 months. Same principle.

[Merry]

I got a chuckle out of the comment in the article fall posted to, where it said that failing to indicate was one indication that someone is unfit to drive. I figure that means that 90% of the population of the Okanagan are unfit to drive. LOL.

[fall]

And then you get the ones that are oblivious to the fact that their signal light is on and drive kilometres with it blinking.
When your in a turning lane with a signal it's pretty obvious where your going.

[Fancy]

And then you get the ones that are oblivious to the fact that their signal light is on and drive kilometres with it blinking.

Yup - those darn kids on the cellphones again....

[Darkre]

Maybe everyone should wait until the cause of the accident has been revealed. Jumping to conclusions based on the drivers age is unfair. He may have swerved to avoid an animal or even a person. A tire could have blown out. He could have had a medical emergency which can happen to anyone of any age. It's also possible that he had his license revoked already and was driving illegally.

Let's wait for the results of the investigation before casting blame.

[fall]

You don't need to wait for results to cast blame, it's obvious he is to blame.
Speculation as too what caused it aside from age being a factor is yet to be determined.
I heard he was from Alberta so I will speculate it was a 72 year old driving at 10 30 at night on an unfamiliar highway.

[Darkre]

You don't need to wait for results to cast blame, it's obvious he is to blame.
Speculation as too what caused it aside from age being a factor is yet to be determined.
I heard he was from Alberta so I will speculate it was a 72 year old driving at 10 30 at night on an unfamiliar highway.

Actually fall, it isn't obvious he is to blame. The accident could have been cause by a mechanical failure from a factory defect or a blown tire from a nail he picked up and was unaware of. I had to drive past the accident scene and where it occurred driver error is almost an impossibility.

[Fancy]

You don't need to wait for results to cast blame, it's obvious he is to blame.

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

[fall]

Actually fall, it isn't obvious he is to blame. The accident could have been cause by a mechanical failure from a factory defect or a blown tire from a nail he picked up and was unaware of. I had to drive past the accident scene and where it occurred driver error is almost an impossibility.

So now you are a crash reconstruction expert making a speculation.
Considering the vehicle was a 2017, mechanical failure to that extent is unlikely. So is a nail in the tire which would be a gradual leak. Tires don't just blow up easily

[fall]

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

You don't swerve into an oncoming vehicle to avoid a deer, that's where age,instinct and reaction would come into play.
I doubt it was a deer.

[alanjh595]

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

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

[Darkre]

Actually fall, it isn't obvious he is to blame. The accident could have been cause by a mechanical failure from a factory defect or a blown tire from a nail he picked up and was unaware of. I had to drive past the accident scene and where it occurred driver error is almost an impossibility.

So now you are a crash reconstruction expert making a speculation.

You don't swerve into an oncoming vehicle to avoid a deer, that's where age and reaction would come into play.
I doubt it was a deer.

You are the one speculating. I'm waiting to make a judgment until the facts have been told to the public. There are other possibilities besides old age and driver fault in this case so why don't you wait to hear the facts before making a judgment. The driver may have been at fault and he may not have. Why the rush to convict him without any evidence beyond his age?

[fall]

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.

[Fancy]

You don't swerve into an oncoming vehicle to avoid a deer, that's where age,instinct and reaction would come into play.

No one said that except you. Try responding to my statement.