100 year old driver runs over 11 people - No arrest

Look up 'Sophie Delezio'. Old man ran into her childcare centre, trapped her under the car and burned her to a crisp. Two years later, another old man hit her in her stroller. Twice she nearly died, and was severely injured and disfigured, and both times the old men got a slap on the wrist.
Its ridiculous.

Old drivers are never held accountable for their crashes and they know it and so they keep on driving. State doesn't want old people in prison, knowing their health issues will bankrupt the prison.

Old people never go to prison because they are in 'poor health' or would 'die in prison' and its cruel to send them there, even if they killed someone.

I agree that old people can drive and harm someone and nothing ever happens about it.
 
Look up 'Sophie Delezio'. Old man ran into her childcare centre, trapped her under the car and burned her to a crisp. Two years later, another old man hit her in her stroller. Twice she nearly died, and was severely injured and disfigured, and both times the old men got a slap on the wrist.
Its ridiculous.

Old drivers are never held accountable for their crashes and they know it and so they keep on driving. State doesn't want old people in prison, knowing their health issues will bankrupt the prison.

Overcrowded prisons is a whole different story. Age is not the problem here. Driving skills are.

The old man in the OP has no driving skills - why does he still hold a license?
 
Funny how you rarely hear about a younger driver making such a mistake. The old man hit those kids because his reflexes are slower at his age. He shouldn't have been driving, and I hope the families of those kids do everything they can to take his license away.

4 teens killed in crash hours before graduation - New York Daily News

Teen dies after car hits tree near Grayslake - Chicago Tribune

Brownsburg mourns classmate in fatal car crash - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

3 teens, 2 from Plainfield, 1 from Naperville, killed in Kendall car-semi crash - The Naperville Sun

http://www.theprovince.com/news/brothers+killed/6613538/story.html#ixzz1ulMQdW84


Not so sure about kids and driving. The response maybe quicker but the judgement is a lot worse and more deadly.

Younger drivers have a tendency to speed, that I know. I see it enough on the news. But they don't mistake the accelerator for the brakes, and their responses are a lot quicker.

They also don't drive 40 ks under the bloody speed limit like so many old people.

http://www.rmiia.org/auto/teens/Teen_Driving_Statistics.asp


National Teen Driving Statistics

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

In 2007, the latest year for which data are available, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death among 13-19 year-old males and females in the United States.

A total of 3,466 teenagers ages 13-19 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. This is 60 percent fewer than in 1975 and 15 percent fewer than in 2008.
Thirty-three percent of deaths among 13-19-year-olds occurred in motor vehicle crashes, 39 percent among females and 31 percent among males.

16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.

The crash rate per mile driven is twice as high for 16-year-olds as it is for 18- and 19-year-olds.

About 2 out of every 3 teenagers killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2009 were males.

Sixty percent of teenage passenger deaths in 2009 occurred in vehicles driven by another teenager. Among deaths of passengers of all ages, 18 percent occurred when a teenager was driving.

Statistics show that 16- and 17-year-old driver death rates increase with each additional passenger.
Eighty-three percent of teenage motor vehicle crash deaths in 2009 were passenger vehicle occupants. The others were pedestrians (7 percent), motorcyclists (4 percent), bicyclists (2 percent), riders of all-terrain vehicles (2 percent), and people in other kinds of vehicles (2 percent).
Fifty-five percent of motor vehicle crash deaths among teenagers in 2009 occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
In states with GDL programs that include at least five of the most important elements, there was a 20% reduction in fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers.
In 2006 (latest data available) crashes involving 15- to 17-year-olds cost more than $34 billion nationwide in medical treatment, property damage and other costs, according to an AAA analysis.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Teenage drivers and passengers are among those least likely to wear their seat belts.
Hand-held cellphone use was highest among 16- to 24-year-olds (8 percent in 2008, down from 9 percent in 2007).
In 2008, 37 percent of male drivers ages 15-20 who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time.
In 2008, 55 percent of passenger vehicles occupants ages 16-20 who were killed in crashes were not buckled up.
In 2009, 33 percent of the young drivers (15 to 20 years old) who were killed in crashes had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher; 28 percent had a BAC of .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher.


Cry about slow drivers, but teenage drivers, are by far the worst.
 
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html


Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens, accounting for more than one in three deaths in this age group.1 In 2009, eight teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash. Fortunately, teen motor vehicle crashes are preventable, and proven strategies can improve the safety of young drivers on the road.

How big is the problem?
In 2009, about 3,000 teens in the United States aged 15–19 were killed and more than 350,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes.1,2

Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females.


In 2006, the motor vehicle death rate for male drivers and passengers ages 15 to 19 was almost two times that of their female counterparts.
Who is most at risk?
The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash.4

Among teen drivers, those at especially high risk for motor vehicle crashes are:

Males: In 2006, the motor vehicle death rate for male drivers and passengers ages 15 to 19 was almost two times that of their female counterparts.1
Teens driving with teen passengers: The presence of teen passengers increases the crash risk of unsupervised teen drivers. This risk increases with the number of teen passengers.5
Newly licensed teens: Crash risk is particularly high during the first year that teenagers are eligible to drive.4
What factors put teen drivers at risk?
Teens are more likely than older drivers to underestimate dangerous situations or not be able to recognize hazardous situations.
Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and allow shorter headways (the distance from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next). The presence of male teenage passengers increases the likelihood of this risky driving behavior.7
Among male drivers between 15 and 20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes in 2005, 37% were speeding at the time of the crash and 26% had been drinking.8,9
Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use. In 2005, 10% of high school students reported they rarely or never wear seat belts when riding with someone else.10
Male high school students (12.5%) were more likely than female students (7.8%) to rarely or never wear seat belts.10

Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use.
African-American students (12%) and Hispanic students (13%) were more likely than white students (10.1%) to rarely or never wear seat belts.10
At all levels of blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle crash is greater for teens than for older drivers.10
In 2008, 25% of drivers ages 15 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had a BAC of 0.08 g/dl or higher.10
In a national survey conducted in 2007, nearly three out of ten teens reported that, within the previous month, they had ridden with a driver who had been drinking alcohol. One in ten reported having driven after drinking alcohol within the same one-month period.10
In 2008, nearly three out of every four teen drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes after drinking and driving were not wearing a seat belt.10
In 2008, half of teen deaths from motor vehicle crashes occurred between 3 p.m. and midnight and 56% occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.10
 
Brakes failed my butt. Even if true, he could have turned off the engine or shifted in neutral. But no arrest!!!

Remember that runaway Toyota that triggered the whole anti-Toyota hysteria. A car full of people died while on the phone with 911 explaining that they couldn't stop. Uh, HEY YOU F-ING IDIOTS, HOW ABOUT YOU TURN OFF THE ENGINE! They also had plenty of time to pull the mat away from peddle, the suspected cause of the problem. That car full of now-dead morons didn't even have the excuse of being 100 years old. What the f- did these morons expect the 911 operator to do for them?

It's somewhat common for people to run into others and blame the breaks. Or even worse, claim the car accelerated when they pressed the brake.

People are stupid.
 
I am well aware that the majority of crashes are caused by, or involve, younger drivers. That is not in dispute. But there are crashes caused by older drivers too.
The difference is that when a younger driver has an accident, he is charged and fined (or jailed) and loses demerit points. When an elderly driver has a similar accident, he is given a slap on the wrist.

There is no consistency with sentencing here, and that is a big problem.
 
Brakes failed my butt. Even if true, he could have turned off the engine or shifted in neutral. But no arrest!!!

Remember that runaway Toyota that triggered the whole anti-Toyota hysteria. A car full of people died while on the phone with 911 explaining that they couldn't stop. Uh, HEY YOU F-ING IDIOTS, HOW ABOUT YOU TURN OFF THE ENGINE! They also had plenty of time to pull the mat away from peddle, the suspected cause of the problem. That car full of now-dead morons didn't even have the excuse of being 100 years old. What the f- did these morons expect the 911 operator to do for them?

It's somewhat common for people to run into others and blame the breaks. Or even worse, claim the car accelerated when they pressed the brake.

People are stupid.

There was a bloke who got stuck in his Toyota and couldn't make it stop. He couldn't turn the engine off because of the fault with the car.

I don't think being in a runaway car is as simple as you think. Most people would panic.
 
If government prohibits them from driving, will government assume responsibility for serving their needs? Or will government just let them fend for themselves in any way they can? You know that many of them will be driving without licenses, so what should government do about that -- put them in prison?

We should encourage (not force) old people to commit suicide. Seconal should be available at walmart.

ok .....you talk your grand parents and mom and dad first.....we will all be right behind you with ours....fucking jerk....
 
And we also have overwhelming evidence that brain development makes teens the most dangerous of all drivers.

http://www.gjel.com/news/teen-brain-development.html

It probably comes as no surprise that brain size does not equal intellectual or emotional maturity. A growing consensus among the scientific community about teen brain development has revealed the precise implications this fact has for teen drivers. Although the brain is 80 percent developed at adolescence, new research indicates that brain signals essential for motor skills and emotional maturity are the last to extend to the brain’s frontal lobe, which is responsible for many of the skills essential for driving.

The new research, first released by the National Institute of Mental Health, suggests that emotional immaturity, not inexperience, is the primary reason that teenage drivers are responsible for far more car accidents than any other age demographic. The most important aspect of brain development for drivers is the spread of white matter, the process that helps brain cells communicate more efficiently. The first and second stages of brain development, which occur before people become adults, over-produces brain cells, but lacks an adequate mechanism to process them.

When adults reach age 20, white matter begins to spread, from the back of the brain forward, usually completing this process between 25 and 30 years of age. The section of the brain most responsible for driving skills is the frontal lobe (shown above), which manages the body’s motor skills, emotional maturity, and aversion to taking risks. A dearth of white matter here explains why teenagers are much more likely to speed, disobey traffic signs, and lose control of their vehicles.

The white matter revelation has led some safety experts to suggest raising the minimum driving age to 18. But others have said this is an unnecessary change that would place an undue burden on parents. What’s more common is a push for the implementation of stricter graduated licensing laws, which would impose a multi-tiered licensing system to ease teenagers in to the responsibilities of driving without a parent in the car. The NHTSA recommends that each state implement a three-tiered graduated license system. This would begin with a learner’s permit, progress to an intermediate license with certain limitations, and conclude with an unrestricted license.

California’s graduated license program stipulates that teenagers can get their drivers permit at 15 years and six months, at which time they can only drive with a parent or guardian. Once the driver turns 16, he or she is eligible for a restricted license, with which the driver must be accompanied by an adult over 25 for the first twelve months and cannot drive between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am during that period. In 2006, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety estimated that the graduated license laws had already reduced accidents for 16 year-olds by 23 percent, preventing more than 8,000 accidents and injuries involving teenagers.
 
I am well aware that the majority of crashes are caused by, or involve, younger drivers. That is not in dispute. But there are crashes caused by older drivers too.
The difference is that when a younger driver has an accident, he is charged and fined (or jailed) and loses demerit points. When an elderly driver has a similar accident, he is given a slap on the wrist.

There is no consistency with sentencing here, and that is a big problem.

Yes there is, the mature driver made a mistake but was not drinking, goofing around, partaking in risky driving behaviors, talking on a cell phones ect..
 
I am well aware that the majority of crashes are caused by, or involve, younger drivers. That is not in dispute. But there are crashes caused by older drivers too.
The difference is that when a younger driver has an accident, he is charged and fined (or jailed) and loses demerit points. When an elderly driver has a similar accident, he is given a slap on the wrist.

There is no consistency with sentencing here, and that is a big problem.

Yes there is, the mature driver made a mistake but was not drinking, goofing around, partaking in risky driving behaviors, talking on a cell phones ect..

But as he injured 11 people, he should have his license taken away, because he if made one mistake that resulted in injury, he could make the same mistake again.
 
I am well aware that the majority of crashes are caused by, or involve, younger drivers. That is not in dispute. But there are crashes caused by older drivers too.
The difference is that when a younger driver has an accident, he is charged and fined (or jailed) and loses demerit points. When an elderly driver has a similar accident, he is given a slap on the wrist.

There is no consistency with sentencing here, and that is a big problem.

I don't know if what you say is true, but if it is...

What's the point of jailing an older driver? Jail/arrest/fine can help correct a kid. But, old people can't be corrected. Once someone's brain turns to bone, they're as dumb and hopeless as an Afro. Hmmm, maybe that's why we hardly punish Afros for their racism and crimes.
 
The brakes didn't fail, he pressed the accelerator instead of the brakes, obviously. The older you get, the slower your responses. Old people - over the age of 80 - should not have a license. They are dangerous drivers, IMO.
May I assume they've already called you to testify as an expert witness. ?

I have been driving for two years, and in that two years, I have never had an incident with a younger driver, but I have had multiple incidents with the elderly drivers. That is enough for me to steer clear of these terrible drivers.

well two years is ample time to have things all figured out, way to go.
 
I am well aware that the majority of crashes are caused by, or involve, younger drivers. That is not in dispute. But there are crashes caused by older drivers too.
The difference is that when a younger driver has an accident, he is charged and fined (or jailed) and loses demerit points. When an elderly driver has a similar accident, he is given a slap on the wrist.

There is no consistency with sentencing here, and that is a big problem.

Yes there is, the mature driver made a mistake but was not drinking, goofing around, partaking in risky driving behaviors, talking on a cell phones ect..

But as he injured 11 people, he should have his license taken away, because he if made one mistake that resulted in injury, he could make the same mistake again.

And teenage drivers kill thousands a year an injure many more thousands, do we take their license away?
 
I am well aware that the majority of crashes are caused by, or involve, younger drivers. That is not in dispute. But there are crashes caused by older drivers too.
The difference is that when a younger driver has an accident, he is charged and fined (or jailed) and loses demerit points. When an elderly driver has a similar accident, he is given a slap on the wrist.

There is no consistency with sentencing here, and that is a big problem.

I don't know if what you say is true, but if it is...

What's the point of jailing an older driver? Jail/arrest/fine can help correct a kid. But, old people can't be corrected. Once someone's brain turns to bone, they're as dumb and hopeless as an Afro. Hmmm, maybe that's why we hardly punish Afros for their racism and crimes.

If they commit a crime, they should be treated the same as a young person would be. An old person shouldn't avoid jail just because they are old!
 
Yes there is, the mature driver made a mistake but was not drinking, goofing around, partaking in risky driving behaviors, talking on a cell phones ect..

But as he injured 11 people, he should have his license taken away, because he if made one mistake that resulted in injury, he could make the same mistake again.

And teenage drivers kill thousands a year an injure many more thousands, do we take their license away?

Yes, they should lose their license until they grow up and become more mature.
 
But as he injured 11 people, he should have his license taken away, because he if made one mistake that resulted in injury, he could make the same mistake again.

And teenage drivers kill thousands a year an injure many more thousands, do we take their license away?

Yes, they should lose their license until they grow up and become more mature.

It rarely happens that way.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top