In the trunks of the car ahead of them. Happened here yesterday, two
motorcycles impacted a car on highway that slowed down for unknown
reasons. Bikers "tried to evade"...gee, ya think a few seconds of
spacing would have allowed that?
Las time I rode with my wife she scared the hell out of me. Got her
lic pulled a couple weeks later. Couldn't figure out why she kept
varying speed, I watched. Following too close and eyes locked on the
That statement could be misleading:
Assume 1000 drivers.
In ten years (3650 days), that's 1000 crashes.
It could be that the SAME driver is having a crash ever 3.5 days, while the
other 999 drivers are enjoying a crash-free life style.
On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Gil wrote:
Of course there are always SOME good drivers in every age group.
When does it make sense to stop letting ALL the drivers in a particular age group continue to drive, simply because SOME of them are still good drivers?
Apparently never, because their feewings will be hurt. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because he might get MAD at us. We can't tell old Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because it's HARD. Awww.
Just an aside, caring about someone else's feelings, or someone else's safety, is a liberal trait. Good conservatives always look out for #1.
Personally, I would hope that someone takes my keys away if I become a menace. I'll probably get very angry when it happens. I'm sure I won't like it, but I won't be in a position to make an objective decision about my ability to drive. I'll still fancy myself to be Dale Freaking Earnhardt Jr, even if I'm 85, blind in one eye, with no feeling in my right leg.
On 03/08/2012 3:17 PM, email@example.com wrote:
Magoo he can't drive anymore because he might get MAD at us. We can't tell old
Mr Magoo he can't drive anymore because it's HARD. Awww.
That's a stupid attitude. Loss of driving privileges should be based on
displayed performance, not on some perceived deficiency because someone
reaches a certain age. A hell of a lot twenty-year old drivers shouldn't
be on the road. Based on your comments I doubt you would recognize a
sixty-year old if you saw one. Probably at your age everyone over forty
I agree and it should be regardless of age. If you think you can drive
safely like Dale Earnhart used to on the track just because you're
young, then you are delusional.
I'll probably get very angry when it happens. I'm sure I won't like it,
but I won't be in a position to make an objective decision about my
ability to drive. I'll still fancy myself to be Dale Freaking Earnhardt
Jr, even if I'm 85, blind in one eye, with no feeling in my right leg.
And what do you think your drivign ability will be when _you_ are over
60? As for accident record the worst group is the youths...which I
suspect you either are in or have just shortly left.
BTW 60 these days is a far pace from being what is considered "old".
I'll bet the statistics for age related accidents shows it begins at
around 70 or later.
worse than the 16-20 group. The 20-24 group is about the same as the 70-74
group. The middle of the bathtub, from age 30 to age 70 is pretty flat at
about half that of the 20-24 group. It's kinda old data but if anything the
older people are likely doing better now.
I doubt that assertion.
#1. I'll bet, but am too lazy to look it up, that drivers over 60, per
capita, have fewer wrecks than drivers under 25.
#2. Most of us old farts recognize creeping infirmity and adjust our
behavior accordingly. I, for example, know my reaction time has increased
over the years, so I expand the distance I use in following another car,
particularily at speed. I also check cross-street traffic twice, rather than
relying on the other driver to stop, and so on.
#3. With age comes patience. I can't remember the last time I flipped the
bird at another driver, shouted some obscenity, resorted to freeway
pay-back, or played a game of chicken.
No more road-rage for me. You'd be surprised at how much respect and
admiration you can garner by showing off your really big gun!
My my observation, the slight decline in reflexes in the 60s is more
than compensated for by the "experience" factor. I have flown with a
pilot who was in his 70s.
Most folks I know are still quite good drivers up to at least 75.
If you want to "generalize," I would set the "test often" age to 75.
Most would still qualify, IMO.
Probably not many. Driving tests are a joke. ...and it's pretty much by
necessity. Make them difficult and the voters get restless. The answer to
much of this nonsense isn't more laws but better enforcement (I don't mean
On 8/6/2012 5:14 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
How do you mean better enforcement? Meaning more cops looking for
problem drivers, or the courts punishing more or licenses getting taken
I'd like to see more enforcement of traffic laws but I don't know if
this is what you mean by "better enforcement"
Cops looking for more problem drivers. Texting is already against the law,
under the distracted driving laws. Other issues are a little harder sell but
the idea is the same. Turning or lane-change without a signal is already an
infraction. There are tons...
No, I'm not advocating the yanking of licenses, except as a last resort (the
points system already takes care of that).
More is probably a more precise word (fewer meanings).
"HeyBub" wrote in message
In Europe, so says Popular Science.
"Cars in Europe may soon become very much more robotic whether drivers want
them to or not. New rules coming down from the European Commission will
require all commercial vehicles to be fitted with autonomous emergency
braking (AEB) technology by November 2013, and passenger vehicles could soon
You can probably expect the U.S. to mimic Europe if the "It's for the
children" politicians are in power.
I have been rear ended 3 times. Each time I was stopped at a red light. One
was a drunken driver. One was a young girl. One was a fellow in a hot rod
that was racing the engine and his foot slipped off of the clutch. So
maybe that could have stopped the drunk and the girl. WW
I'll bet that police vehicles will not be equipped with such a device
because it might make it difficult or impossible for them to ram any
vehicle or do the PIT maneuver. Possibly all vehicles belonging to any
government law enforcement agency will be exempt from something forced
on us lowly subjects of The Imperial Federal Government. ^_^
On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:38:36 PM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
If all vehicles had an autonomous braking system, the police wouldn't have to ram anyone or perform the PIT maneuver. They just need to box the perp in, and slow down. The perp's car will stop itself, so as to avoid hitting the police vehicle in front of it.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.