Moron Motorists #3

[jasonc]

[g-boaf]

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.

That's on the cards here too.

[jasonc]

it gets better. he's waved his arm in the air like it's all my fault

[warthog1]

[warthog1]

....
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.

Good examples of why there should be testing.
Good on you for having that hard conversation.
With testing it wouldn't be required.

[Cyclophiliac]

There's one obvious way to rebuff those complaining about the so-called "discrimination" of retesting only a certain group of car drivers every year: retest them ALL every year. This I think would make sense, because it helps enforce the idea that a driver's license is a privilege and not a right, a concept which I think is lost on a significant percentage of Australians.

If anyone asks "what about the expense of all this retesting?", tell them that it's offsetting the expense of motor vehicle incidents, which should reduce as the testing increases.

[zebee]

I used to think that retesting was silly: wouldn't they be on their best behaviour? Then I saw a report (this was years ago so no link) about just that. A bunch of people were given a driving test that they knew was a driving test and starter out driving correctly but very quickly relapsed back into old bad habits. It is possible that they'd not have done that if there were consequences but the testers thought that habit was too strong.

Should a test for renewing a licence be the same as getting one, or stricter? More complex? Same testing rubric?

[grt046]

I am starting to get concerned with this discussion as I have just turned 83. As with all Queenslanders I have to pass and carry a Driving Medical certificate and my regular GP is reasonably strict and requires I have an eye test before visiting him.
I am still comfortable driving both locally and on the freeways around SEQ and at this stage so are my passengers but I know the time will come shortly I need to make that decision to surrender my license.
Fortunately I live with walking distance of most necessities and have a younger wife who is an excellent driver.
Still riding 150 to 200 km a week with both club and retiree mid week groups so life is good.

BUT I play golf weekly with a group (10) retirees and in discussion over coffee their lack of knowledge of road rules pertaining to sharing the road with bikes and indicating at roundabouts was appalling.

[DavidS]

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.

It isn't an easy issue to solve.

Sending such people to gaol would just cost too much. Taking their licence away is completely useless.

The only solution I can think of is to confiscate assets. I suppose they have to have some assets to do this, but you go in and confiscate to the value of the fines - deprive them of things they will miss. Start with the car obviously, if they officially own one, then just move through any assets they have. Not perfect, and there are ways to avoid this, but I can't think of any other penalty which might actually work.

We do need to do something about driving. They are terrible. I know one way for Victoria to raise an absolute goldmine of revenue: a camera to catch people illegally changing lanes to turn into Punt Rd at StKilda junction. The number of drivers who deliberately choose the go straight lane and then jump into the turn lane late is huge - this is an illegal lane change (solid line between lanes) - put in a camera and print money!

DS

[elantra]

....
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.

“Went to three different doctors to get a ‘medical pass’ so the father could keep driving”

Oh my goodness - that is unfortunately a common scenario in the screwed-up Australian driver’s licensing system.
In other words, two GP’s were doing their job ethically and the third was not.
This is - as many have said - not a humorous or trivial issue, public safety is at stake (and of course the safety of the elderly car driver being “medically assessed”
I’m gonna say it - remove the Medicare rebate for over-75’s drivers licence Medicals and some of this “bulk billing doctor shopping BS” would be eradicated.

Unfortunately we exist in an overly populist system so the hard decisions that governments are supposed to be making just don’t happen anymore.

I spent a few days at a little seaside village this past week.
Iluka NSW, one of those glorious little places mainly inhabited by retired and semi-retired people, the only local industries of note being a fishing fleet, a few caravan parks and other accommodation providers.
Because it’s such a compact little village with most of life’s necessities within a kilometre or 2, the number of elderly people using mobility scooters is remarkable.

Probably most of them either don’t have a car or if they do - rarely use it (“it” may not be registered)
You could almost put a place like this on a “pedestal” and say “this is how geriatrics can have their cake and eat it too”
Here it simply makes no sense to have a car for many elderly residents. Everything that they need is close and the streets are quiet and relatively safe.

But unfortunately- places like Iluka are not the typical residential address of the vast majority of geriatric people in Australia.
The vast majority live in places where - for various reasons - it would not seem practical to exist using a mobility scooter rather than a motor car

[bychosis]

First step for driving tests should be having to pass a knowledge test to renew your licence. We have the infrastructure. You can even do your knowledge test online for your L in NSW now. Sure, some will cheat but if its a simple enough test - focussing on teaching the rules rather than penalising you for doing wrong then it'll improve the general knowledge base of drivers.

This morning had a young woman pull out of a side street in front of me. I was going about the speed a car would as its a good downhill. There was plenty of braking room but I was easily able to move up beside the drivers door after braking to slow down. When she looked around, shocked to see me, she had breakfast in her hand. I know she didn't look properly and if I was a car, the horn would have been used by the majority of drivers.

[Mr Purple]

It isn't an easy issue to solve.

Sending such people to gaol would just cost too much. Taking their licence away is completely useless.

The only solution I can think of is to confiscate assets. I suppose they have to have some assets to do this, but you go in and confiscate to the value of the fines - deprive them of things they will miss. Start with the car obviously, if they officially own one, then just move through any assets they have. Not perfect, and there are ways to avoid this, but I can't think of any other penalty which might actually work.

I'm with you, however I don't think there actually is a solution.

Next time you see a high level speeder on the road, have a close look at them and their vehicle. It's inevitably some sort of beaten up slightly older car in poor repair - the archetype is a VT Commodore with a missing fuel flap, but they're getting a bit rarer now.

My theory is there's a certain subgroup of people in society who it's impossible to punish. They don't have a licence, so you can't take that off them. They don't have a job, so they can't be fired. Their cars are worth less than nothing, so if you confiscate it they'll buy another one on Gumtree. And they have absolutely no money so you can't really fine them, because they'll never pay it anyway.

And yet these people never really do anything bad enough to go to jail for. So how exactly do you stop them?

I suspect in the bad old days this is what police brutality was useful for. But that's quite rightly not an option now. It's pretty hard to stop someone with nothing to lose.

[Retrobyte]

Possibly my own fault - instead of taking the lane on this merge I hugged the line. But still an IDGAF close pass by the BMW SUV. They definitely came within 1m.

[Andy01]

Sending such people to gaol would just cost too much. Taking their licence away is completely useless.

The only solution I can think of is to confiscate assets.
DS

Is locking them up more costly to society than innocent people being maimed or killed ?

In QLD (not sure about other states) a fairly large number (including the latest one a week ago) of the really bad accidents where innocents are badly hurt or worse - are being done by underage teens (as young as 12yo) in stolen vehicles. So, no vehicles, no assets, and in some cases no proper guardians.

The most recent one was a 16yo boy who has been "in the care of the state" (child services) for a few years, stole a Audi at gunpoint and a few minutes later ran a red light, hit a grandmother in her little Corolla and then a stationary unmarked police car. Sorry, but that is a lock up and ditch the key case IMO.

The "infamous" one a few years ago was not too different - an underage teen out on bail after multiple (think dozens) of vehicle related offenses, steals a car, drives like a hoon and kills a pregnant mum-to-be and her hubbie (all 3 dead) and then tried to escape the police. He was let out on bail and eventually got a few years behind bars.

These youths (some are not even teens yet) do these things because they know that at worst they get a slap on the wrist, and there are no penalties like suggested because they have no assets.

It is similar with kids who start bushfires and destroy people's homes (or worse) - there has been suggestions to hold the parents accountable but apparently the law doesn't allow that.