Very sad. A tragic accident.
I disagree. The court said it was careless driving. We don't know if was a one-off, or whether his driving had been poor for 3 years (or indeed 30 years!).
What about stricter rules governing younger drivers?
I agree, and have said several times on here that I'd like to see regular top-up training for all drivers, catching poor driving before it leads to tragedies.
|
|
... And the regular top-up training should include eyesight (not meaning that to sound like I'm getting at older drivers - again it should be for all).
|
|
|
>> Very sad. A tragic accident. I disagree.
My Oxford English Dictionary defines 'accident'
"an unintentional act, an unfortunate (esp. a harmful) event".
Edited by drbe on 02/04/2009 at 18:36
|
My Oxford English Dictionary defines 'accident' "an unintentional act an unfortunate (esp. a harmful) event".
Which defines most motor accidents, as they are not caused deliberately. What do you call it when you drop a plate, a crash? It is easily avoidable with just a bit of care.
This PC nonsense about reclassifying accidents as "Crashes" because most of them could have been avoided with more foresight does nothing to improve road safety. In fact, in the eyes of the young it adds a bit of glamour. An accident is something granny has in the suprmarket car park, a crash is what a GP driver has when he's pushing the envelope at 180mph.
|
One aspect of this case might be worth mulling over a little more deeply:
"After failing sight tests at the scene and again at the police station, Ross was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
Following a test by an optician, he was charged with causing death by careless driving."
I have had some experience of dealing with ageing relatives and would like to avoid ageism as far as possible, but (let me put this tactfully) - there are two issues here: Mr Ross's inadequate eyesight and, possibly, his lack of awareness of the problem.
It is a sad fact that sometimes age brings a lack of self-awareness and perception and while this could also apply to a young driver, there are some specific issues related to old age.
I will never forget being driven by my 85-year-old father towards a set of traffic lights at red and realising, with sudden panic, that he hadn't registered what was in front of him. Fortunately a shout from me got him to stop in time, but if I hadn't been there...
I hesitate to suggest more state intervention in private lives, but I can't see any alternative to some kind of periodic screening beyond what we have now.
Someone pointed out that Mr Ross will be able to get his licence back in five years' time, when he's 98, but the news report makes it clear that will be only after taking an extended test.
Edited by ChrisPeugeot on 02/04/2009 at 20:20
|
I agree in general, CP, and would also say that it doesn't just apply to older people... a friend of mine who is well under 50 needs glasses but won't get them because of vanity... and that probably applies to more "yongsters" than "oldies"!
Me? I'm still trying to get used to my new bifoculs... anyone got any tips???
Edited by b308 on 03/04/2009 at 09:33
|
|
|
"After failing sight tests at the scene and again at the police station Ross was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
This is what makes all the difference in this case, IMHO.
I would have no objection to the DVLA requiring a copy of an eye test result every five years or so on an ongoing basis. Good eyesight is fundamental to driving, in that it is impossible to drive safely without it.
Pilots and HGV drivers have full medicals. Why shouldn't simple eyesight tests be mandatory for drivers?
|
The rules with regard to eyesight and health in general in terms of fitness to drive already exist. We have all agreed to be bound by them when completing Driving Licence application forms and in the case of older drivers, application forms to renew their driving licences. The respective forms require applicants to certify that their health meets the minimum requirements and if at any stage in the future it no longer does, then applicants must immediately notify Swansea.
Thus if some level of health screening were to be introduced, all that would he happening would be the proper enforcement of laws that already exist.
This is a terrible and tragic incident and what a sad irony that it happened on the first day of the victims retirement.
|
|
Re eyesight tests - For car licences, we have had them in N.Z. for some years now, albeit only compulsory at the 10-year licence renewal. Front up to the renewal desk [ no on-line modernity here ] and the first thing is to peer into the machine whilst the clerk puts your eyes through their paces. Straight pass / fail. Recent Doctor's / Optician's certificate acceptable in lieu. Heavies and passenger service require regular full medicals including eyesight for licence renewal, so are excused the desk check.
|
|
While statistically younger people may have more accidents, old people drive very low distances per year in my experience. Typically under 2,000 miles of in-town miles. It's one of those things where one has to strike a balance between ruining the lives of lots of old people or letting them ruin or takeaway the lives of a few young people. It's one of those subjects people prefer to bury their heads in the sand about, as everyone knows it will be them one day.
|
The accidents per mile figure is revealing as per the link below. They are unlikely to cover the same mileage as young drivers but have a higher accident per mile rate than any other age group. While no one would wish to needlessly inhibit the lives of elderley people, they certainly should not be taking the lives of others.
It is a thorny subject and few politicians would wish to take this on as it would be a monumental vote loser among the grey electorate.
"Drivers over 80 cause more accidents per mile than any other age group"
tinyurl.com/co4xh8
Edited by Derfel on 03/04/2009 at 12:41
|
I agree with the suggestions about regular eye tests for drivers. It would be wrong to ban people just because of their age.
Both my father and mother died in the last year, both aged 92. My brother and I stopped my father driving when he was 88. He had gone senile and on his last drive got lost. We sold his car but he later rang a dealer and ordered another. We stopped that, but it is difficult to stop a proud man driving.
My mother stopped driving when she was 90 after an eye test. She should have probably stopped 2 years sooner, she used to follow the white line in the middle of the road! But she only went short distances thank goodness. She really missed her car though, I felt sorry for her. She found it odd to use a taxi.
It's been a sad time, first stopping them driving and then following them on their last trip in a black Volvo.
|
.....thorny subject for politicians...
We used to have 2-yearly practical driving tests for the over-80's, but the previous [ Labour ] government bought the grey vote by cancelling the test requirement. No statistics published on whether, in the 3 years since, elderly crashes have increased.
|
"the previous [ Labour ] government bought the grey vote by cancelling the test requirement"
So it is not just UK politicians who are cynical when it comes to pleasing the electorate!
In the UK it would require a consensus among politicians of all parties to tackle this issue as no one would be willing to stand alone on this one. However, as mentioned previously, health screening especially in terms of an eyesight check, would simply be enforcing laws which already exist and to which we have all agreed.
It is hard to see how an effective campaign against health screening could be waged as it would effectively have to say we demand the right to continue flouting the law.
|
|
|
|
|
