Moron Motorists #3

[warthog1]

There should be recurrenting testing on licence renewal as we age. As the body fails so does our ability to safely operate a motorvehicle and this places others in danger.
I can hear the shock and outrage now were that even suggested. Personal convenience is placed well ahead of others' safety.

[Duck!]

The idea of mandatory testing for licence renewals for people over a certain age was thrown around some years ago, but the bleeding hearts shouted it down as "ageist" and discriminatory, so it never went further. Simple way to make it non-discriminatory: mandatory testing for EVERY renewal!

Tonight's MM: dingbat in a Toyota RAV4 driving with no lights on, at 8:30pm. Here in Melbourne at this time of night and this time of year, there is a lingering glimmer of twilight, but it's basically dark. Just adds further weight to my belief that Toyota need to change their ad slogan to "Oh What A F**kwit ".

[g-boaf]

This one definitely:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XPscaJVgB6Y

Fairly normal for most of the folks I see driving these on the road. Car doesn’t look original or stock so not a great loss as far as the car is concerned.

With any luck the driver will be off the road for a long time.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... crash.html

Old mate decided to try and run, but the car wouldn’t go so he decided to run on foot instead.

[jasonc]

turning right around a round about. car enters round about as I am passing. I saw it coming. I catch him at the next intersection. "I didn't see you"
sounds like either his eyes or vehicle are not fit for driving.
forgot to turn the front camera on this morning damn it

[Mr Purple]

They just don't look. Almost T-boned a car at a roundabout today while driving - he was coming from my left and studiously looking left so he didn't have to give way to me.

It's like they believe 'if I can't see you, you're not there'. There's probably some interesting psychology behind it.

[jules21]

I drive a Jaaaaggggg
https://youtu.be/gwHqlzfOcII

[jules21]

The idea of mandatory testing for licence renewals for people over a certain age was thrown around some years ago, but the bleeding hearts shouted it down as "ageist" and discriminatory, so it never went further. Simple way to make it non-discriminatory: mandatory testing for EVERY renewal!

Driver licences are a populist concept. Your (our) hope that they are used as a filter for competent and incompetent drivers is something the authorities would love you to assume, but it isn't that. It's a veil.

[Retrobyte]

I drive a Jaaaaggggg
https://youtu.be/gwHqlzfOcII

Gotta love that he went down the inside to beat the traffic and you still ended up passing him!

[jules21]

Gotta love that he went down the inside to beat the traffic and you still ended up passing him!

Clearly didn't check his mirrors. Could have been a motorbike coming behind, hell even a car. I'm sure he thinks he's a cut above other drivers jumping those spots. I gave him the "use your eyes".

[zebee]

There should be recurrenting testing on licence renewal as we age. As the body fails so does our ability to safely operate a motorvehicle and this places others in danger.
I can hear the shock and outrage now were that even suggested. Personal convenience is placed well ahead of others' safety.

Main problem with this is 4 generations of designing cities for driving. I live where I can get to pretty well everything I want by bicycle. Anyone living in a post-war suburb requires a car to live.

You have to fix that before you can fix the driving problem.

[warthog1]

There should be recurrenting testing on licence renewal as we age. As the body fails so does our ability to safely operate a motorvehicle and this places others in danger.
I can hear the shock and outrage now were that even suggested. Personal convenience is placed well ahead of others' safety.

Main problem with this is 4 generations of designing cities for driving. I live where I can get to pretty well everything I want by bicycle. Anyone living in a post-war suburb requires a car to live.

You have to fix that before you can fix the driving problem.

Disagree. As I said convenience should not over ride other road users safety. Regardless of infrastructure, inability to perform the task safely should mean removal of the right to do so.

[jules21]

Disagree. As I said convenience should not over ride other road users safety. Regardless of infrastructure, inability to perform the task safely should mean removal of the right to do so.

Yeah true in principle, but what Zebee is pointing out is what's stopping what you're demanding. As long as driving is seen (accurately) as a right for people to perform necessary daily tasks, there is no mandate to remove their right to drive.

Officially courts can disqualify a driver but in between the formal power is a load of unwritten cultural and societal values that mean they won't exercise that power.

This is why they jailed that idiot grave robber who was in the news. The real harm from desecrating graves is not as much as some of the driving crimes we see, but courts think "people will support me throwing the book at this clown".

[warthog1]

Disagree. As I said convenience should not over ride other road users safety. Regardless of infrastructure, inability to perform the task safely should mean removal of the right to do so.

Yeah true in principle, but what Zebee is pointing out is what's stopping what you're demanding. As long as driving is seen (accurately) as a right for people to perform necessary daily tasks, there is no mandate to remove their right to drive.

Officially courts can disqualify a driver but in between the formal power is a load of unwritten cultural and societal values that mean they won't exercise that power.

This is why they jailed that idiot grave robber who was in the news. The real harm from desecrating graves is not as much as some of the driving crimes we see, but courts think "people will support me throwing the book at this clown".

Am I "demanding" anything? I am pointing out that a person's "right" to drive, should not take priority over anothers right to life. Driving used to be described as a privilege not a "right".
You cannot perform that task safely and that privilege should be removed, just as it is in so many other fields where safety is a priority.
Strange that I am here on a forum for vulnerable road users and being informed that driving standards are unimportant or at least a persons need to travel is more important.
Cultural and societal values are wrong if the result is people can plow into others in their heavy motorvehicle injuring or killing them because there is no other way to get around.

[jules21]

don't shoot the messenger!

I didn't say I agreed with it. I am on your side. But we are preaching to the choir.

[warthog1]

don't shoot the messenger!

I didn't say I agreed with it. I am on your side. But we are preaching to the choir.

Sorry
Fair enough. Our attitude to driving and other road users in this country is terrible.

[jules21]

don't shoot the messenger!

I didn't say I agreed with it. I am on your side. But we are preaching to the choir.

Sorry
Fair enough. Our attitude to driving and other road users in this country is terrible.

nah, I could have been clearer.

but I agree with Zebee - getting people to overcome their reliance on motoring will help with freeing up authorities (courts, etc.) to take a proper line on driver licensing. right now it's "well you're dangerous on the roads, but I can't take your licence away, so.. " which is crazy but it's real.

[warthog1]

It is crazy. My late FIL had post polio syndrome with a caliper on his L leg. He recognised his driving was becoming impaired due to age. Inability to rotate his head sufficiently to look for approaching traffic and impaired eye sight. He sold his car and ceased driving. He had impaired mobility.
He ultilised services to take him shopping and assist with home duties such as cleaning. He had an electric mobility device. He had renal dialysis toward the end and was conveyed to dialysis 3 times a week to attend dialysis.
He was on a disability pension. I am unsure if services were greater than what is applicable to a normal aged pensioner. I don't believe so however.
He made the decision to stop driving as he recognised he was unsafe. Utilised sevices that enabled him to stay in his home. My understanding is the preference is to keep people in their own home, where possible, as it is far cheaper than residential aged care. The services are there and they should be utilised. The option to continue to drive, despite the inability to do so safely, should not be a choice.

[find_bruce]

One of the issues behind what you're discussing is empathy - for many motoring collisions the jury or judge think "that could've been me" in relation to the driver - you often hear it described as a momentary lapse of attention or a minor mistake, like this negligence is a whoopsie that could have happened to anyone.

The reason so many on this forum have a different perspective is when we think "that could've been me" is because we can see ourselves in the position of the innocent victim of that negligence.

What gave me the irrits was the grandson who wanted her to drive, failing to recognise the danger to his beloved grandmother

[g-boaf]

18 year old P player in Toyota 86 crashes into grandmother and girl when running red light:

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... 8bb91dafb5

The Toyota guy was allegedly driving on a suspended license.

[jules21]

The Toyota guy was allegedly driving on a suspended license.

This is another factor in why courts are reluctant to disqualify drivers. It's an open secret that doesn't stop most from continuing to drive.

While you can jail them, the reality is - jails are full and courts are reluctant to jail 'non-violent' offenders for this stuff.

It's a classic example of how the courts' hands are tied by a system that just isn't equipped to manage this risk. It's not dissimilar to youth crime. People say "just jail them" but it's impracticable. The problem is, there's no real solution for how to effectively deal with them. It's similar for recidivist or negligent drivers - the default outcome is, just let them keep driving and pray.

[Andy01]

The Toyota guy was allegedly driving on a suspended license.

This is another factor in why courts are reluctant to disqualify drivers. It's an open secret that doesn't stop most from continuing to drive.

While you can jail them, the reality is - jails are full and courts are reluctant to jail 'non-violent' offenders for this stuff.

It's a classic example of how the courts' hands are tied by a system that just isn't equipped to manage this risk. It's not dissimilar to youth crime. People say "just jail them" but it's impracticable. The problem is, there's no real solution for how to effectively deal with them. It's similar for recidivist or negligent drivers - the default outcome is, just let them keep driving and pray.

The thing is .... they are violent offenders. Perhaps not deliberately so, like a home invader, but if you run a red a light and injure or kill someone, that is a violent offense.

The teenager who killed a couple and their unborn child in Brisbane a few years ago was on bail for a string of vehicle and drug related offenses (none probably classified as "violent"), no licence, vehicle stolen etc etc - then he killed 3 people. That is about as violent as it gets in the suburbs. And I think from memory (and please correct me if I am wrong), the offender got something like 7 years - for killing 3 people !!!

It is a complete cop-out for the courts to say they hands are tied - these people are a danger to society, plain and simple. It is not a matter of IF something worse or bad happens, but rather WHEN it happens.

[warthog1]

Well said Andy!

[jasonc]

riding on the footpath towards a bike way (legal in Qld). a ute heading towards me turning left into a service road doesn't give way to me. I saw it coming so stopped and shook my head. Driver took offence and hopped out and started yelling. By that time I had already ridden past and was on my merry way. I had obviously inconvenienced his day by him not obeying the road rules

[g-boaf]

riding on the footpath towards a bike way (legal in Qld). a ute heading towards me turning left into a service road doesn't give way to me. I saw it coming so stopped and shook my head. Driver took offence and hopped out and started yelling. By that time I had already ridden past and was on my merry way. I had obviously inconvenienced his day by him not obeying the road rules

You probably need to be 7 foot tall, huge and look completely intimidating to deter them, or the other solution, drive or ride around with your protection people nearby, ie, the three of four G63 AMGs each with the usual "bricks" driving them. The latter one is fairly common in my area.

People are just so stupid in this country, everyone is so stressed and aggro. Nobody has any patience.

[MichaelB]

....
He made the decision to stop driving as he recognised he was unsafe. ....

Sadly, I think he would be in the minority and made a hard, but eminently correct decision.

I have two direct experiences with work colleagues that are the exact opposite.
One went to three different doctors to get a 'medical pass' so the father could keep driving, as "it was really important to him".
Second one was they made sure their mother was in a Merc so that she was at least safe when she was driving and caused an accident. She was 90.

I too have to have the conversation with my father, now 85 whether he should consider the same decision. His driving isn't bad, but he's not what he used to be.
It won't be an easy conversation, but it has to be had soon.