Head-on crash kills woman

[Darkre]

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

https://www.icbcclaiminfo.com/node/16

In Pitt Enterprises Ltd. v. Farkes, 2005 BCCA 511 the defendant collided with a moose standing in his lane and that caused his vehicle to move into the oncoming lane and strike the plaintiff’s vehicle. The trial judge found that the defendant was not travelling too fast in the circumstances and that the accident would not necessarily have been avoided even if the defendant had been travelling at the speed suggested by the plaintiff. The trial judge found that the defendant had provided an explanation for his vehicle being in the wrong lane which was equally consistent with negligence and no negligence, thus rebutting the presumption of negligence arising from his presence in the wrong lane.

In Olsen v. Barrett, 2002 BCSC 877 the plaintiff was injured when the motor cycle she was a passenger on collided with a deer that ran onto the road. Although the plaintiff and her husband who was driving the motorcycle inclined their evidence in favour of a finding of liability, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an inference of negligence and concluded that the accident occurred because the deer ran into the road at high speed and that the defendant had insufficient time to avoid the accident.

[fall]

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.

Vehicle malfunction would not make him liable (unless there was a recall or other repair he was aware of and failed to act on). I am going to say it was not due to mechanical failure.
If he had any prior medical history (which at 72 most people do) that in any way shape or form could have led to a medical condition that contributed to the crash he will be at fault.
It's not always as easy as just cutting their drivers license in half.

[fall]

In Pitt Enterprises Ltd. v. Farkes, 2005 BCCA 511 the defendant collided with a moose standing in his lane and that caused his vehicle to move into the oncoming lane and strike the plaintiff’s vehicle. The trial judge found that the defendant was not travelling too fast in the circumstances and that the accident would not necessarily have been avoided even if the defendant had been travelling at the speed suggested by the plaintiff. The trial judge found that the defendant had provided an explanation for his vehicle being in the wrong lane which was equally consistent with negligence and no negligence, thus rebutting the presumption of negligence arising from his presence in the wrong lane.

In Olsen v. Barrett, 2002 BCSC 877 the plaintiff was injured when the motor cycle she was a passenger on collided with a deer that ran onto the road. Although the plaintiff and her husband who was driving the motorcycle inclined their evidence in favour of a finding of liability, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an inference of negligence and concluded that the accident occurred because the deer ran into the road at high speed and that the defendant had insufficient time to avoid the accident.

Thanks, interesting.
Sounds like rather than swerving and hitting the other vehicle the impact from hitting it sent the two vehicles on a collision course.

[fall]

*removed*

[lightspeed]

If I had used poor judgement and accidently blocked an intersection (sounds like she entered with her lane coming to a stop, leaving her in the intersection) and you sat there honking at me, I'd likely give you the finger too.

If they block an intersection once, they will do it 1,000 times. I will honk to let these idiots know what they've done so that maybe, the next 1,000 times, they refrain from blocking intersections and drive competently. Despite having the attention span of gnats and no consideration for others, I just hope they have a think about how they're driving.

You meant "if you see anyone driving really badly". Right?

I'll refer you so the Yer an Idiot thread. You can scroll through and see how many times I've called in dangerous drivers of all ages. But I know for sure that the seniors will get sent in to a retest. I have no bias when it comes to idiot drivers.

[JagXKR]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/211330 ... nto-a-tree

Strange but the age is telling.

"The scene examination along with witness testimony confirmed that a Sedan was parked on the side of the highway, when it suddenly shot across the highway and struck a tree on the opposite side."

[applebee]

I am so glad that the folks responding about "older" drivers will NEVER get old. You will be the future of our country as you will NEVER fit into this "old People" category. God Bless.

[fluffy]

Statistically, accident risk is highest among drivers in their twenties.

[JagXKR]

I would like to see someone do actual stats on accidents caused per miles driven. For example if my elderly neighbor drives 2000km per year, only in daytime and rarely on the highway his risk is lower than mine due to me having more time on the road and at more hours in daylight and darkness. Any stats that do not take in number of miles driven is flawed and does not tell the whole story. Basically junk stats.
For example my neighbor has, in the last 5 years, many dings, dents and scrapes on his vehicle compared to zero on mine. I drive at least 10x more than he does and in much more varied conditions. Although these are "minor" it only goes to show his skill level is far less than mine. Now maybe his ability was always horrible but it could also be an indication that his lack of mobility, especially in being able to turn the head from side to side, due to age is a major cause.
That being said it still astounds me when I see parents drop kids off at school and then race away. I guess speeding in a school zone is OK when your kid is not in danger.

[fluffy]

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi24YfkpLrXAhVNxGMKHUmWAxAQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaafoundation.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2012OlderDriverRisk.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2HdeeIYovapYPzlLWtzDiS

Some stats here based on miles driven, American stats but they do bear out the trend that the youngest drivers are the highest risk.

[twobits]

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi24YfkpLrXAhVNxGMKHUmWAxAQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaafoundation.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2012OlderDriverRisk.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2HdeeIYovapYPzlLWtzDiS

Some stats here based on miles driven, American stats but they do bear out the trend that the youngest drivers are the highest risk.

Good find Fluff and I believe those stats would translate to Canadian in mirror image. Old folk haters here won't bother to read it but it's pretty clear that for miles driven, the safest drivers on the road are between 40 and 80 yrs old. I think the simplest explanation as to why is that risk taking behaviour diminishes with age.
Another interesting note from the study was that after about 80, the number of deaths that occurred, while rising in number, was the driver themselves and not passengers or pedestrians.
They just croaked at the wheel and didn't take anyone else out with them lol. Which brings up the old joke...."I wanna die like grandpa did, instantly from a massive heart attack, and not like the other people screaming in his car."

[JagXKR]

Stats may be similar but with a better roadway system in the US it may be different. Many more of our major roads are 2 lane death traps. I did notice the amount of injuries and deaths are much higher for the "old" drivers. Insurance costs would be, on average, much higher for an "old" person injured compared to a younger person. But you take your victim as they are.
There is also no stat for caused accidents, just involved.

This part of the link gives an idea of rates:

The mileage-based crash rate also decreased with increasing driver age until ages 60-69, and then increased slightly as age increased beyond this range. Drivers in their 70’s were involved in about the same number of crashes per mile driven as drivers in their 30’s, drivers ages 80-84 were involved in about the same number of crashes per mile driven as drivers ages 25-29, and drivers ages 85 and older were involved in about the same number of crashes per mile driven as drivers ages 20-24. Teenage drivers had by far the highest rates of crash involvement both in relation to their share of the driving population and in relation to the amount of driving that they did.

[fluffy]

This part of the link gives an idea of rates:

The mileage-based crash rate also decreased with increasing driver age until ages 60-69, and then increased slightly as age increased beyond this range. Drivers in their 70’s were involved in about the same number of crashes per mile driven as drivers in their 30’s, drivers ages 80-84 were involved in about the same number of crashes per mile driven as drivers ages 25-29, and drivers ages 85 and older were involved in about the same number of crashes per mile driven as drivers ages 20-24. Teenage drivers had by far the highest rates of crash involvement both in relation to their share of the driving population and in relation to the amount of driving that they did.

Those stats need to be tempered with information on the actual number of drivers in each age group on the road.

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Pages/Statistics.aspx

Click on "View Full Document" at the line above and scroll down to page for some numbers on active driver's licenses in BC by age group. It's misleading to compare per-mile accident rates of two age groups when one group has many more drivers on the road, as the overall risk to other drivers increases accordingly with the sheer strength of numbers.

For example, per-mile-driven accident rates are the same for driver in their 70s as for drivers in their 30s, but the latter group is twice the size of the former, hence the risk is double when you consider overall safety.

I notice that many stats do not differentiate between accident involvement and at-fault accidents.

Even with all these variables, the evidence is overwhelming that the greatest risk for all divers comes from new drivers, not old drivers.

[JagXKR]

Yep more of one group with the same rate means more risk for me on the road. Though in Penticton the average age is soooo much higher than most anywhere that the chances are almost equal. I did notice that the death rate was far lower in the younger group.
I am currently just over the median age in this town but under the median age of registered voters. Tells you something about the specific demographic of this city. On any given day I will see vastly more "old" drivers than young drivers. May be more difficult to get actual stats for this city as the "old" people may cry foul that they are being age discriminated.

BTW you can do a free records check online with ICBC

https://onlinebusiness.icbc.com/clio/

[fluffy]

I’ll give you points for persistence but the stats simply do not support the thought that older drivers have more accidents than younger ones.