100 year old driver runs over 11 people - No arrest

[ShootSpeeders]

Why is this in politics?

Crime is always a big political issue and criminal drivers are the biggest crime problem we have. THINK

 

[GoneBezerk]

The left-wing AARP defends the right of old people to run you over.

I recall a politician in Florida tried to pass a bill regulating old people driving and AARP took him down at the polls.

Good job AARP you promote the liberal mindset and protect killers behind the wheel.

 

[Sallow]

Brakes failed my butt. Even if true, he could have turned off the engine or shifted in neutral. But no arrest!!!

EarthLink - Top News

August 29, 2012 9:47 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A 100-year-old man backed his car on to a sidewalk and hit 11 people, including nine children, across from an elementary school in South Los Angeles just after classes had ended Wednesday, authorities said.

Four of the children were in critical condition when firefighters arrived but they were stabilized and were in serious condition at a hospital, city fire Capt. Jaime Moore said. Everyone was expected to survive, he said.

The powder blue Cadillac backed slowly into the group of parents and children buying snacks from a sidewalk vendor, and the crowd banged on his windows and screamed for him to stop, but not before some of the children were trapped under the car, witnesses said.

Police identified the driver as Preston Carter and said he was being very cooperative.

Carter talked to television reporters after the crash some five miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles. He said he has a driver's license and will be 101 years old Sept. 5.

"My brakes failed. It was out of control," Carter told KCAL-TV.

Carter was pulling out of the grocery store parking lot, but instead of backing into the street, he backed onto the sidewalk, police Capt. George Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said the collision was being investigated as an accident, and Carter was not under arrest

That wouldn't have worked.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[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?

.

In a speeding car, turning off the engine is a bad idea since you lose power assist in brakes and steering. But in the case of this old guy who was just backing out, it would have worked ok.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

That's a good point. Fact is everbody (except me of course) is a bad driver. Speeders, DUIs, texting drivers etc are a bigger problem than geezer drivers. The auto industry has brainwashed the stupid american into thinking homicidal driving is cool.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Comparing teen drivers with old drivers isn't comparable.

Teen drivers must meet a certain age, then pass driving tests, etc before they get a license.

Old people oppose an age ceiling where they would need to bes re-tested and pass a physical exam based on their aging body.

Old people probably think it is stupid to let a 13 year old drive a car, but they get pissed if we say anyone over 65 should get approval to keep driving every 1, 2, 5 or so years based on their age issues just like some pre-teen.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And that is an accident, not a criminal violation with "intent", which is why he wasn't arrested.

You don't understand the law, peabrain. Drunk drivers and speeders who injure others are prosecuted even though they had no intent to harm others.

Speeding and drunk driving are both acts of identifiable negligence contributing to the accident. What's the negligence contributing to this old guy's accident? Also, drunk driving and speeding past a certain point are both crimes. What crime was this old guy guilty of that contributed to his accident?

If something is simply an accident, there normally isn't an arrest. Besides, if police determine they need to arrest this guy, they can do it later.

Now you're changing your story. Originally you said there must be intent to do harm for the police to make an arrest. Now you say forget intent - all the cops need is negligence. Make up your mind.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And I think it is safe to say the old guy will not be driving any more, sad that he did not give it up earlier.

BS. I bet nothing is done to him and he will keep his license. If you think he will voluntarily give it up, you're a fool.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

​

You have no issue with being stuck behind someone who goes less than half the speed limit?

Outside of farm or road maintenance vehicles like bulldozers i have never seen a vehicle doing half the speed limit. But i encourage it. You can't drive too slow.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Brakes failed my butt. Even if true, he could have turned off the engine or shifted in neutral. But no arrest!!!

And what do you think it would have done to shift into neutral? A car in drive coasts to a stop faster than a car in neutral.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And that is an accident, not a criminal violation with "intent", which is why he wasn't arrested.

You don't understand the law, peabrain. Drunk drivers and speeders who injure others are prosecuted even though they had no intent to harm others.

Drunk driving and reckless endangerment are criminal offenses. Vehicle malfunctioning is not.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Brakes failed my butt. Even if true, he could have turned off the engine or shifted in neutral. But no arrest!!!

And what do you think it would have done to shift into neutral? A car in drive coasts to a stop faster than a car in neutral.

A car in drive coasts to a stop???? Where do you get these ideas.? Don't answer that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Look up 'Sophie Delezio'.

I'm much more interested in the name of the person in your avatar.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Drunk driving and reckless endangerment are criminal offenses. Vehicle malfunctioning is not.

Stop being a fool. This geezer's story about the brakes failing is nonsense. All cars have separate brakes for front and rear and there's no way both can simultaneously fail. Anyway a mechanic can check the brakes and see if there is anything wrong. Hopefully the cops impounded the car for evidence before the geezer had a chance to cut the brake lines.

The geezer got confused and screwed up. He deserves serious can time. Stop being a criminal coddler.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

How do you know that once the investigation is over, he won't lose his license? They will investigate, check his brakes, etc....

I do agree that after a certain age....say 65...that the requirements for renewal of driver's licenses should become increasingly stricter....tests....shorter expiration periods, etc.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Maybe they should be euthanized.

That is the progressive way.

BS! More like the "Let him die" Conservative way. I note it's you conservatives who are proposing suicide and euthanasia, not liberals.

I agree with the poster who suggested that behind the wheel driving tests should be given on each renewal date after a certain age. Most of these folks in their 80's have slow reflexes and poor eyesight and hearing. It would be a good thing to get them from behind the wheel. Safer for them, safer for us.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Exactly, many old drivers have the same Reflex times as a Younger Driver who is driving Drunk.

 

[Charles_Main]

Maybe they should be euthanized.

That is the progressive way.

BS! More like the "Let him die" Conservative way. I note it's you conservatives who are proposing suicide and euthanasia, not liberals.

That is a completely False statement, The only groups pushing for Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia are Liberal Democrats. You are either completely miss informed, or a liar.

Are you going to tell us the Liberal Democrats who pushed for Assisted suicide in Oregon for example were really Conservatives?

Pathetic.

 

[squeeze berry]

Age should not be the determining factor.

Age determines when you can sit your driving test - why shouldn't it also determine when you stop driving?

don't ever get old

 

[Steelplate]

That is the progressive way.

BS! More like the "Let him die" Conservative way. I note it's you conservatives who are proposing suicide and euthanasia, not liberals.

That is a completely False statement, The only groups pushing for Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia are Liberal Democrats. You are either completely miss informed, or a liar.

Are you going to tell us the Liberal Democrats who pushed for Assisted suicide in Oregon for example were really Conservatives?

Pathetic.

well aside from Shoot Speeders, of course. Seconal at Walmart?

BTW....show me ANYWHERE in THIS country where anyone is pushing for mandatory euthanasia.

IMO, If someone is suffering terribly in a medically hopeless situation and want the pain and misery to stop? Who the fuck are you or me to say they shouldn't be allowed to do so? Believe me....God will understand.