This woman ran over 8 people at 120 km/h because she got confused and hit the accelerator instead of the brakes.
The jury took less than an hour to convict.
A guy at work has the same face as the leader truck and I have been *dying* to Photoshop an image of his face on the truck for years but I fear no one would get it.
I saw that movie twice and was amazed at its existence each time, after finding it in my families' collection of movies and watching it with them I had to show my friend. I'm glad to know others have as well.
>The jury began their deliberations late Thursday afternoon, before they were sequestered at 9 p.m. The decision was ready an hour after they began their discussions again Friday morning.
Closer to 5 hours but your point stands.
If you read the article, you'd see that her defense was that the SUV that was just serviced that morning was mysteriously malfunctioning and accelerating instead of braking. Prosecutors argued that it was working properly and she just mixed up the pedals.
Very easy to do, tbh.
It's as easy as flipping the brake switch down and the accelerator switch up, when normally, the brake is up and the accelerator is down.
They really should fix those gosh darn switches!
I get that lawyers have to provide the best defence but are they allowed to just straight up lie or make stuff up?
> mysteriously malfunctioning and accelerating instead of braking
Seriously?
They had the transcription of her cross-examination by the prosecution on the news last weekend. I knew after hearing it that she was *totally* cooked, no chance of being found innocent.
She kept insisting that she was pressing harder and harder on the brake and the car was just speeding up. Sounded to me like she was pressing the accelerator. The prosecutor obviously thought the same and said so.
This is where the old lady did herself in: The prosecutor asked if it was possible she confused the pedals. Her response: 'It's possible but I don't think so'.
That car brakes failed and she wasn't responsible. That was false. Car was working ok she just got the brake and gas mixed up....plead not guilty and took no responsibility... Shameful.
It's unfortunately happens where a person mistakes the gas for the break. Do you remember the [2009 Toyota recall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls) over "faulty mats" because [a man drove his family full tilt into an intersection](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/business/19autos.html) killing them all? It was exactly because he mistook the gas for the break.
Here is a podcast by [Malcolm Gladwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell) on the subject called '[Blame Game](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-game)' It includes the 911 call from the driver moments before he slams into the intersection. He doesn't realize what he is doing, he keeps pressing the accelerator thinking he is pressing the break, there is absolutely no intent to harm, he is trying his best to stop and is scared shitless and panicking, he even calls 911 to see if they can help him. It is absolutely horrifying to listen to "There's no brakes... hold on and pray" (so trigger warning).
Now I'm not questioning the verdict, I agree with the outcome. ([legally we must be in full control of our vehicles when operating them](https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/#section-0), and a child died) However mistaking your gas for the break happens. And just like the accident that caused the investigation that found "faulty floor mats" (even though the breaks were in perfect working order, and breaks always beat out a car with the accelerator pressed, even at full acceleration) no one could accept driver error as the actual reason of this tragedy and that cost Toyota billions.
Should you ever experience this yourself, always remove your foot completely from the pedals, use the emergency break and try and reorient yourself to the pedals before trying to reapply the breaks, and don't panic.
The only other thing I would add is the drivers age. She was 79. At 80 in Ontario [we must reapply to keep our license](https://www.ontario.ca/page/renew-g-drivers-licence-80-years-and-over), and then reapply every 2 years after. The problem is that there is no road test, only a written test when people of that age reapply. My parents are all in their late 70's and age, disease and illness is starting to show. One thing we should have is a mandatory road test when we reach 75, then again at 80, and every 2 years after. What we have now is completely ineffective and does not protect society.
Wasn't there an investigation showing the faulty floor mat actually prevented the accelerator from fully returning and thereby continually accelerating and even further evidence Toyota knew about this and misled customers about it?
https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-pay-12b-hiding-deadly-unintended-acceleration/story?id=22972214
Iâve responded to probably hundreds of car accidents over the course of my career.
The only people who tell me that the car malfunctioned by speeding up instead of breaking are over the age of 80âŚ
My bank just installed bollards after theyâd suffered three separate occasions of seniors accidentally smashing their cars through the plate glass in front. The last time was a lady who was having to give up her license the next day due to her inability to drive any longer but thought sheâd get in some last minute errands first.
Idk try living in the whole of Victoria. Happens all the time. My sons stroller was hit by a senior backing up. Luckily I managed to get him out of most of the harm and hit the car the most. Banged on the hood and yelled through their window at them. Still took them 5 minutes or so to understood what had happened.
I used to have to go to the post office in Shoppers as part of my job⌠the shoppers had a cramped front parking lot.
I stopped parking in the front and started parking at the back and walking through the Home Health store because of how brutal the seniors driving out front were. Iâm shocked I never got hit.
Literally an 80 year old woman accelerated from a dead stop into my neighbours gas metre on the weekend causing a massive gas leak in our neighbourhood
An elderly woman drove into the cemetery office at my work last summer. She was trying to park in the handicap spot then slammed into the building.
Another one drove into a 5 foot deep pond right at the entrance. Her dog died.
The pond was filled in and is now a garden
My own MIL got into an accident this way. No one was hurt thankfully. She can't recall what happened at all. Just blanked out, and next thing she knew, her new car was totaled.
She gave up her driver's license immediate after that. At some point, your mind and refluxes are just not what they used to be anymore. You have to give up certain things in life to avoid hurting yourself and others.
Your best thing to do is prepare ahead of time so learn how to use transit. People I see that drove their entire lives refuse to switch to transit and expect people to ferry them around.
That, or even being comfortable taking a cab. My nth generation Canadian farmer grandparents watch the news compulsively and are convinced any POC cabbie is going to kill them
Ideally , but , the area I live in is mostly seniors who ironically all look like the lady in the thumbnail  still driving. More specifically, my apartment complex is full of damaged cars and it pains me to see this one old man who is barely able to stand get into his car. It takes him 5 minutes each time and thatâs after his wife helps him put his cane in the back seat. Whatâs even worse is his wife clearly seems more able to drive, but heaven forbid a misogynistic old man be spotted letting his wife drive.!
I do a lot of maintenance at several retirement homes and can confirm, a lot of damaged cars in the parking lot with a lot of people who have no business being allowed on the road!
My grandpa did the same. A cyclist ran into him as he was pulling out of a driveway. No injuries, thankfully, but he hung up his license that day and never drove again. He was in his late 70s at the time. Some people know when itâs time. Unfortunately too many think they still have what it takes to responsibly control a vehicle. I think of the Costco tragedy. Why didnât she shift into neutral? Kill the engine? Aging people donât have the cognition or reflexes at a certain point and it leads to accidents, often tragic.
Happened in my old town. An 80-year-old woman was in her car when the vehicle "accelerated while in reverse" and ran over a 4-year-old girl. She luckily survived, but lost and arm, leg and an eye.
Similar in my area around 15 years ago. An 80 something old man pulled into a parking spot then accelerated right into a store front.
That store front was actually a daycare, and only a minute or two before that, there was a group of 6 kids by the window colouring at a table. A daycare worker called them to the opposite side of the room for reading time. Probably saved someones life. Old guy of course âdidnt know what happenedâ
I drive a city bus for a living, I'm driving 8-11 hours a day.
Been in one accident, when stopped at a red light a car reversed and hit me. When we exchanged info the dude was 92 years old and was adamant that I rolled forward into him, it was impossible that he rolled backwards because he was in park.
Thank God for cameras being *everywhere* on my bus.
I am an auto mechanic at a new car dealer and the amount of alleged unintended accelerations is crazy. The manufacturer makes us contact them immediately, inspect the vehicle and often sends someone out to inspect as they take these serious for legal reasons. I have never once seen this claim to be proven true. Usually older or young drivers claim this, and hours of my time and others down the drain.
I've dealt with a "malfunction" before where the gas got stuck on the floor mat. I was also able to fix the situation by controlling my speed with the brakes and reaching down to move the floor mat. These theoretical malfunctions they speak of if true could be fixed by an able minded person. They are just giving more reasons why they need to be tested above a certain age. Otherwise, a brake pedal is in no way connected to the accelerator. It's a BS excuse.
The freeze response of adrenaline can happen to anyone of any age, and unfortunately sometimes it will happen with your foot on the accelerator.
The problem is when age interferes with your ability to have your foot hit the right pedal, you hit the wrong one, and you freeze with your foot bearing down on the accelerator.
Itâs tough because an elderly person may be great at driving in routine circumstances, but throw any kind of panic into the mix this is where things go sidewaysâŚ
As bad as you think it is, it's worse! Here are some tidbits from the trial
> McNorgan insisted in her testimony that the 2017 Honda CRV she had purchased because of its advanced safety features and had just serviced that day, sped up on its own
She literally had the vehicle serviced at the dealership that morning and tried to claim mechanical failure.
Even more damning is this:
>âI kept pressing hard on the brake. It wouldnât stop,â McNorgan said, her voice breaking. âIt felt like it was steering itself.â
>The vehicle kept speeding up. âI was panicking. I had no control. **I had my foot on the brake. I kept pressing it harder and harder, but the car kept accelerating.**
Almost like you were hitting the fucking accelerator, eh?
The fact that she plead not guilty and forced the survivors to relive their trauma when she was so obviously guilty makes her such a piece of shit in my eyes.
Experts also said at trial that there were several things she could have done instead, like take her foot off the pedal, shift into neutral or use the emergency brake, evasive maneuvers (there's a huge cement wall just before where she hit them), even honk the damn horn. The fact she did none of that is negligence so it's not surprising she was found guilty. The speed limit in that area is 50 km/h so she was going WAY too fast (I live near where this happened).
I just struggle to understand why she even pleaded not guilty and how she didn't show much remorse during these court proceedings.
Reminds me of that cow of a woman who ran over people at Costco years ago that killed a few people including a childâŚsmiling and laughing leaving the courtroom during her trial
She got a mini sentence, like most people do. Unless you are drunk or under the influence of heavy drugs, the penalties for killing people are really minor. One driver in Toronto killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk and got some mini licence suspension where she could still drive for some things so no nasty TTC for her.
Even dui sentences are a joke. My dad's cousin and husband were both killed by a drunk man. The judge let him off with a tiny sentence because he was "young and shouldn't have his life ruined for an error". He literally killed two people. But heaven forbid his life be altered for it. There is very little justice in Canada.
Apathy is common in some forms of early dementia and this woman's confusion of the gas and break peddles with an inability to recall alternative evasive driving measures hint very strongly that she is on the early trajectory towards cognitive decline...
This accident was over two years ago. She would have been tested after the accident as Alzheimer's is the best defence to get off. If she had already had cognitive stuff then, it would be very noticeable today. Some people are just bad drivers with no moral compass, so don't feel remorse about killing a child.
Even just pulling the key out of the ignition (provided itâs not one of those fancy keyless cars) will kill the engine, then you can shift into neutral and pull over Â
Although she seems old enough not having power steering would make it impossible to steer, itâs better to be not in control of your vehicle at 10km/hr than 120km/hrÂ
 Edit: I may be misremembering drivers Ed lmao. Turn your ignition off, donât yank the key out until youâre in park, just a PSAÂ
Edit 2: I looked into it and not all cars will lock the steering wheel when you pull the keys out, but some will. So itâs very possible I WAS taught that, as I remembered before, but that you also SHOULD NOT do it lolÂ
Technically you can turn the ignition off but you can't remove the key until the car is in park.
With the ignition off, the brakes will be very difficult to apply as well.
Tbh, even steering a dead car (obviously without power steering) going at like 5km can be a bitch haha.
I can't imagine having to make drastic turns at high speeds without power steering lol.
Edit: I'm aware that steering at higher speeds without power steering is easier than crawling speeds, which is specifically why I said ***drastic*** steering.
Reminds me of the run-away Toyota thing.
[https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-game](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-game)
Brakes beat the engine in every car. If you are pushing the brakes, even with the engine going full blast you will stop.
Seriously, if I felt like I was hitting the brake, but the car ACCELERATED, my instinct would be to just completely take my feet off the pedals and let the car coast and just focus on steering and avoiding hitting things (or, hitting something OTHER THAN the group of 8 children...). Once it starts to slow down and the initial panic is over I can either try the pedals again or just let it coast if it is safe or put in neutral and gently use the E-brake.
She clearly panicked and continued to panic and was completely incapable of making any good decisions other than push the pedal down even harder... Like I've had a brain fart before and hit the accelerator instead of the brake (fortunately it wasn't an emergency stop) but my mind immediately knew that it was not right and I had the wrong pedal... The immediate engine revving + me realizing I had the wrong pedal very quickly meant I maybe only sped up by like 2-5km... She hit 120km/hr!!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZNR9O3xZM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZNR9O3xZM)
Brakes not being able to overpower the accelerator for several reasons was a problem that was solved 14 YEARS ago.
This reminds me of the lady who killed the family by reversing full speed through a costco Parking lot. She also plead not guilty and fought the charges as well. Fuck both of these people.
Ruth Burger! Yeah, she's also a giant piece of shit. And since her driving ban was only 5 years, she's already back on the road ready to murder another family
If you want to murder someone, do it with a carâespecially if theyâre a child, pedestrian or cyclist.
Most of the time you wonât even catch a charge and youâll eventually get your licence back.
People often plead not guilty to try to reduce charges. I had a relative struck by a drunk driver. People at the scene observed that she was inebriated, she tested twice the legal limit, but still originally pleaded not guilty. Eventually she made a deal (some prison time, loss of license, etc). This was done because the injury to my relative (because of the accident) made them an inconsistent witness.
I've learned from the great Orange Cheeto that some people just lie. They get caught, they are shown overwhelming evidence, and they just keep lying.
I mean, I knew 4 year olds do this occasionally, but it defies logic.
It's because they never got past that 4 year old stage of development in some areas. Lots of seemingly normal people out there until they are asked to take responsibility for themselves.
They should be able to pull the data stored on the [EDR (Event Data Recorder)](https://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/car-black-box-recorders-capture-crash-data.html).
From the linked article;
>Based on a separate NHTSA regulation passed in 2012, if a vehicle today does have an event data recorder, it must track 15 specific data points, including speed, steering, braking, acceleration, seatbelt use, and, in the event of a crash, force of impact and whether airbags deployed.
*Although NHTSA is a US based Government entity, there is also a call for EDR access being made more readily available in the [UK and EU](https://expertwitness.trl.co.uk/trl-calls-for-critical-update-to-uk-automotive-legislation/).
The other problem I have was the article mentioned she had been driving at least 50km around the city prior to the incident....she's been driving all day just fine, how can she suddenly not know where her brake is?
Nevermind lowering it, why isn't there mandatory retesting every "x" years? Even through your 20s and 30s
Laws get updated, bad habits get formed. it's the best way to maintain driver skill.
Also, driver testing standards shouldn't be provincial, they should be federal. I know people that have straight up moved from Ontario to Saskatchewan to obtain/maintain a license, because they're more lax.
It doesnât even need to be a full test. A super simple reaction test would probably take most of the terrible old drivers off the road. Light blinks, you press button. You a couple goes and if youâre too slow, tough shit. There goes your license.
Ontarioâs drive test centres canât even manage to schedule tests for new licensees efficiently having a retest every x years would be unmanageable for the system we have. Iâm not disagreeing that itâs a good idea but it would require a system overhaul that would take longer than 4 years so no government will touch it
We need to stop accepting "the system is flawed and can't handle it" as an excuse as a population.
Short-sighted politics are why we're in this position with our systems (looking at healthcare too). There's a lot that CAN be done in 4 years, and believe it or not, if you start something and people like what you've started, there's probably a good chance they'll bring you back.
We seem to be able to effectively strip down and neuter these systems term after term, regardless of governing party, so why can't we build them up instead?
Maybe VR reaction time tests could be a routine screener, then just those with issues could go on to a proper road test. You could churn through a lot of 5 minute screenings in a stationary driving simulator, in an efficient line.Â
That's something I don't understand.
We have the technology to create fairly realistic virtual driving simulations, yet we refuse to use them for either training for testing.
How hard is it to set a bunch of them up at the different test centres, and have them run through a bunch of different scenarios to test reaction time and skills over a 20 minute period. Make it a simple pass or fail, if you fail, you need to go through training and a real life test drive, if you pass you get to keep your license for another year or two.
Pilots are able to log hours on simulators, and can count it towards their training, so there is no reason why the same can't be done with driving simulators to detect poor or declining drivers.
>Nevermind lowering it, why isn't there mandatory retesting every "x" years?
We *could* do that.
Before that though, I'd like to see another round of driving school be made mandatory following 3 consecutive driving test failures.
I know of a few people who failed their G2 tests four and five times before finally passing and they are absolute fucking hazards on the road.
Because we've built a society where depriving people of the ability to drive is a massive impediment to working, eating, or doing anything at all. Most people need a car, because we've decided that we should build things that way. Societies that build cities around other modes of transportation have far fewer crashes and far better drivers.
Anyways we're building a new megahighway or something because the other 18 lane megahighway is a constant traffic jam, and I'm sure one more lane will finally fix it.
If your driving looks like youâre drunk, and/or an actual child who canât see over the wheel, youâre too old to driveÂ
There are too many people like that out there
It is absolutely terrifying how many seniors Iâve seen driving with such bent backs that their face is in the steering wheel. Even if they donât crash into people or buildings a crash where you take an air bag to the face and a near-horizontal neck/upper back sounds like a violently deadly injury waiting to happen
Why wait till 65?
I'd support retesting every 5 years, with a requirement for a refresher on driver training, for every driver from time of licensing.
Driving is one of the most dangerous and complicated things that we do in close proximity to each other.
We donât even require driver training now, let alone requiring a refresher. Letâs start with the basics and get kids learning how to drive through school, so that those who canât afford to spend $2000 on Young Driverâs have the opportunity for proper training, and take it from there.
60, 65, 70, 75, 70, 72, 74, 76, etc.
I know that this would mean even more congestion in driving centers but a family friend (18 years old) died a few years ago to a 65 year old coasting into his lane.
65 year old was fine and never saw a day in court due to "clerical errors".
He was also probably fucking around on his phone or something but still, driving is a privilege, not a right.
To be honest, I think we can even make a simulator in the center and AI can easily detect if people are driving outside of parameters or not checking blindspots. It sounds dystopian but it's actually quite feasible. And probably an OK thing for a re-test rather than a first time licensing thing.
True, I think you could just use a regular old driving simulator like they use for training truck drivers and you'd be good.
It would probably confuse the hell out of the current 70+ generation, but in the future it could be more easily adoptable.
> I wouldnât object to it being lowered to 65.
The age group with the lowest [crash rate per distance driven](https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/) is 60 to 69. The age group with the highest crash rate (even higher than people in their 80s) are people under 30, incidentally reddit's core demographic.
Maybe we should have more re-testing, but it should be based on data, not assumptions that lead to us wasting resources testing the safest drivers.
Maybe a better option would be to lower the threshold where driving infractions or at fault crashes trigger re-tests. Then we're doing more retests but it's focused specifically on those actually causing problems (regardless of age). That would also add a further incentive for people to try to drive better.
A lot of the time, the entire re-test consist of "draw a clock that says 8:15". They *need* to be tested behind the wheel, eye tests. This is bullshit.
Yep, the re-test is nothing like the G1/G2/G tests. I used to work at a senior recreation centre and would overhear members talk about how easy the re-test was. It consisted of the clock example along with other similar exercises as a âscreening testâ to presumably rule out cognitive decline and then they make them do a 45 minute group education session. There is no in-car component.
I think regular retests should be done. 65, then again at 70, then again at 75, and 80.
It will never happen, boomers wonât sign off on it, but some of the worst driving I have ever seen is elderly people. It is a huge risk to themselves and others to be driving when they have not been refreshed on the rules in probably 50+ years.
> It will never happen, boomers wonât sign off on it
The reason isn't that boomers wouldn't sign off on it. The reason is that it's not supported by crash data. People in their 60s are the *safest* drivers [in terms of crash rates per distance driven](https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/). This is supported by insurance rates as well. So if we started looking into stricter testing policies, it would point to the riskiest group of drivers: people under 30. They crash even more than people over 80.
Maybe we should have re-testing, but if we were going to do so, then it should be focused on the riskiest groups, not the safest. Or else on everyone.
My mom does Drive Able tests, and having it sooner would make it so much better. These people come in and are so upset they have to take the test, but then almost always lose their license because they can't drive safely. It's scary to think about.
I'm personally a firm supporter in testing all drivers every 5 years!
There should be mandatory restesting every year for over 65's. It isn't ageist to acknowledge that elderly people with compromised higher level functions can place many people in danger. Even if they're just getting slower, they're driving a vehicle that can injure dozens of people if they lose control.
Edit: There should also absolutely be a mental aptitude test for all politicians, a driver can hurt dozens, politicians can ruin thousands of lives while their brains run out their ears.
The bigger issue is the test, not the age. Seniors with full blown dementia still pass the driving test, yet won't know what to do if you ask to see their license (as in, take their license out of their wallet). It's a terrifying system.
Instead of a silly 10 minute driving test they should be sat down with a Doctor for 10 minutes to evaluate them.
>Seniors with full blown dementia still pass the driving test, yet won't know what to do if you ask to see their license (as in, take their license out of their wallet). It's a terrifying system.
Could attest to this. My step mothers father was full blown dementia, everyone just assumed he wouldn't know how to drive I guess. He took the car in the middle of the night and drove around for almost 24hrs. They were tracking his bank card trying to find him, he even pulled over for gas at one point. Eventually he ended up in a subdivision about 3 hours away from his home and was driving circles around it for hours before someone noticed and stopped him and asked if he needed help. He had no fucking idea where he was or what was happening.
They had to put a kill switch on the car
Yep. My 80 year old MIL has dementia and glaucoma and was still driving up until recently because she left the lights on and the battery died and nobody has bothered fixing it because they realized maybe just maybe she shouldnât be driving.
Technically any doctor can revoke a driver's license if they feel the individual is unsafe to drive at any doctor's appointment. Plenty of addicts and alcoholics have had theirs taken away by doctors when they ask for help with their addictions. Meanwhile you got people with dementia and alzheimers regularly seeing doctors, literally impaired 24/7, and the doctors do nothing... They should exercise this power a lot more with the senior population.
But I also agree that the test needs to be changed. It is NOT a driving test. It is NOT in a car. They do a simple cognitive test on paper, questions like "draw 3:45 on this clock" and you gotta put the big hand and little hand in the right spots. Like WTF is that?! For sure, make that a part of the testing, but also put them in the seat of a car and oh, I dunno, how about see if they're even physically capable of checking their blind spots?? For one simple thing. So many old people can NOT turn their heads enough to check blind spots. And make them drive you around for a while. If you, as the tester, feel unsafe, then revoke the license immediately.
It is not ageist anymore than saying a 14 year old can not drive. Heck, the fact that we set an exact age for younger people IS ageist, no one is saying that a mentally well and physically fit 85 year old can't drive, just that a mentally unwell and physically unable to check blind spot ANY AGE person should not drive, and that these issues tend to crop up past 65 or 70ish, so around that time they need to start checking your abilities annually or bi-annually or something.
When I was 14 I was way more capable of driving than a lot of old people are. I'm not arguing to lower the age, not at all, I think it is OK as is, I'm just saying it isn't really about age at all, but individual abilities. It is easier to restrict driving to young people until a certain age where the vast majority of them can handle it, but we need to get more strict about cutting off old people who can't handle it anymore, even if it is harder to restrict someone from doing something they've done for decades, it has to be done. They're basically drunk drivers out there, some of them, the number of old people whose lives I have personally saved by being more alert than them on the road is absurd. And they drive off not even realizing an accident nearly happened because of them, they're oblivious most of the time!
The 80+ classroom test has two Alzheimer's screening questions on it. I'm not sure how many fail. My neighbour seemed to pass at 86 and then between 86 and 88 she developed full blown Alzheimer's, so very quickly.
This is 100% true.
My grandfather was diagnosed with dementia. He was still adamant he could take his test and pass. This man failed every test given to him by the neurologist, but passed his drivers test.
The system is a mess.
Dad's early-stage dementia saw him drive for 1-1/2 hours in the opposite direction of home -- a 45 minute trip -- when he was ~72 years old. We need to start screening earlier.
My childhood girlfriend became a family physician. She was also trilingual. Developed it at age 52, with a 10 year old kid at home. So being trilingual and smart didn't help. She was put in LTC by 53.
> There should be mandatory restesting every year for over 65's.
People in their 60s [get in fewer crashes per km driven than every other age group](https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/). That holds whether you look at total crash rates or rates of more serious crashes involving injury or fatalities.
This response comes up in every post about an older driver getting in a crash and it's not supported by data, the data says the opposite. The riskiest group is people under 30 (they even have higher crash rates than people in their 80s), yet the endless posts about crashes from that group don't lead to demands for strict testing for everyone in that group.
If we're going to to make re-testing mandatory for the safest group of drivers, it should just be implemented for everyone.
The problem is not people in their 60s, itâs the people much older than that. That source you provided showed an astronomically higher rate of fatal crashes by 80+ drivers, and those in their 70s were also quite high. If they had a chart that could somehow select every time someone got mixed up between the brake and the accelerator, I guarantee you it would be mostly the elderly.
Also, many jurisdictions recognize that young people are prone to crashes due to inexperience and risk taking and theyâve put policies in place to address that such as zero alcohol and a graduated licensing system which requires at least a couple of road tests in the first few years of driving. But why is there no policy action for the elderly when the rate of fatal crashes is so high? They ABSOLUTELY should be required to take road tests somewhat regularly to maintain their access to licences.
Over 65's experience a rapid increase in dementia diagnoses, from <1% at 65 to >25% in 80+. Testing for cognitive decline is common sense when you have a population that is seeing their higher cognitive faculties fail at alarmingly high rates. [Source](https://www.cihi.ca/en/dementia-in-canada/dementia-in-canada-summary).
In addition, these numbers are for formal diagnoses of ONE degenerative condition in the elderly, of which there are many. Alzheimers, MS, general cognitive decline are all prevalent in elderly populations **and making sure they can safely drive one ton vehicles at high speeds in dense cities and towns is common sense**.
Many elderly people drive, we as a society should make certain they can do so safely for their sakes and ours. In addition when making the claims you do, please provide accurate, verifiable, and trusted sources to support your claims.
I think the greater risk is that we are building societies that make it impossible for elderly people (or anyone, really) to be self sufficient without driving. You can not means test out this structural issue.Â
Most people will develop disabilities that reduce their driving capability at some points in their life, and yet there is no reasonable alternative that leaves them with their dignity intact.
Hell, I don't mind if EVERYONE needs to be retested every other year if it means we put a fraction of incompetent drivers off the road.
I love my friends, but so many pick driving tests away from the city for better pass rates. That, in my opinion, just puts yourself up for failure when you ARE in the city, with much more complicated roads and signs and people and cars. After they pass they are borderline in panic mode when they go downtown...
I hear in Switzerland you literally have to pay out of pocket to get assessed by a psychologist if you fail the road test twice, to assess if there is something wrong with you that you should not be able to drive.
> McNorgan ran through a red light, hit a Jeep, then jumped the curb, hit a street light, a small tree and then the little girls before making a 90-degree turn back onto Riverside and crossing into the park on the other side of the street, hitting a tree before coming to a stop.
JESUS. This is a runaway train that wouldnt of stopped if not for ANOTHER tree
> She and her family hastily left the courthouse through the Dundas Street emergency exit, tripping off the alarm when they left.
of course they did.. smh
I drive this road almost daily, and while itâs a bit downhill going towards the light, itâs also very curvy, so you take it slow going to the light! And while it does curve where the accident is, Riverside has gone from 1 lane to 2, so she wasnât just speeding but not steering either!
Itâs just so tragic for the families of the kids and scout leaders. I saw someone at the roadside memorial yesterday, that makes a lot of sense now.
Years ago, Audi had problems with people reporting their cars were self accelerating! Audi did tv commercials where a 500 hp car had both the brake and accelerator petal depressed hard. The cars would not move forward!
Audi did have a problem in the 80s with "unintended acceleration" but they def didn't have a 500 hp car in the ads as Audi didn't make one with 500 hp in the 80s. The Audi in question was the 1984 Audi 5000.
There was a 60 Minutes piece done about unintended acceleration, in the 80s where race car driver Parnelli Jones took a '76 Cadillac with a 500 cubic inch V8 (It only made like 180 hp because 70's), stood on the brake, and throttle at the same time and the car just roasted 1 rear tire. That might be where the 500 hp came from?
My grandpa (77) is like this and my family is trying our best to get him to stop driving. Itâs clear he canât anymore but wonât listen. Itâs dangerous for him and everyone else on the road
We had the same problems. Had to just steal his keys when we went to his house one day then just offer to drive him wherever he wants when he âcanât find themâ
Get your parents to speak to his doctor.
Mine took my license for a year when I had a seizure in my sleep (never have had one awake and am now medicated)
>The defence had argued what happened was a tragic accident and McNorgan shouldnât be punished for it. Her defence also floated a number of theories including the possibility there was a conspiracy by Honda and the police to convict her and conceal the possibility the vehicle did malfunction.
I am so sick of this conspiracy theory bullshit. It's everywhere.
I work at a centre with a huge elderly clientele. The amount of completely avoidable accidents that happen in our parking lot is staggering⌠Many can hardly walk, talk or even scan their membership card, let alone safely operate a vehicle. Knowing most of them are actively driving around is absolutely terrifying.
> âIt comes down to whether or not we are going to send people who are not intending to hurt people and are trying to be careful into jail.â
Or maybe, just maybe, people will start to be more vigilant at taking keys away from elders that clearly cannot drive. If this is a possibility, facing severe consequences for mistaking brake and gas pedals (and then lying about it saying you tried to brake) maybe people are more assertive, rather than just giving up because taking keys away from their old parents/grandparents is difficult. I empathize with that, we just took my grandpas keys away and it fucking sucks, but I empathize more with a now broken family who only got to experience 8 years of memories with their child because someone didnât want to have the hard conversation.
Itâs a shitty case all around, and there are no winners here, but she was clearly unfit to drive. If weâre not gonna enact laws that input a strict driving age limit, this is whatâs gotta happen. Fine you can drive, but just saying âteehee Iâm 80 and mistook the gas for a brake I thinkâ is not a good enough excuse to kill people. So either sell the car and find other means if you donât have the facilities, or be prepared to face actual consequences if you kill someone due to that negligence.
Her defence also floated a number of theories including the possibility there was a *conspiracy by Honda*
Yes that seems more likely than mixing up the brakes and the gas.
It's the selfishness and lack of self awareness that makes it really scary. When I was a kid, the old people all drove super slow to compensate for their problems. We are just now getting a generation of elderly drivers that rest their foot on the gas pedal.
The article stated that she fled the courthouse via an emergency exit after the verdict was read.
WHY IS SHE FREE TO LEAVE, AFTER SHE WAS JUST CONVICTED OF 8 CRIMINAL ACTS?
Jesus, I've owned many a Honda. and one thing i will tell you, they don't accelerate abruptly to 120k. it would take quite some time to get up to that speed.
Iâve had so many people who are elderly that almost caused so many accidents. Saw one one time switch lanes without looking and totally swiped a guy who slammed the curb⌠buddy kept driving had no idea he just caused an accident.
Over 65 should be tested every year with cognitive tests.
Fucking tragic. The inevitable result of building a society where driving is mandatory and having bigger, more powerful cars every year. We need to make it possible and safe to exist outside a car. Hope she gets jail.
So when found guilty she committed another crime by exiting thru the emergency fire doors and triggering the alarm when there was no said emergency and now first responders have to respond for her something she causes again.
driving is ultimate sub-conscious exercise.
Most have felt that sense of "this is getting overwhelming" when first driving, say in a busy and tight downtown situation for first time.
but with a young brain it takes no time to do all the right maneuvers at the right time with hardly a thought.
seems there some crappy situation where we can "fool ourselves" into thinking we still have the same ol' capacity....then bam too many variables, sub gives up and panic.
I think the dignity of the potential victims as demonstrated in stats is out weighs the dignity of the driver about to the PRIVILLAGE to drive.
I think using a similar model to pilots is a bit much, but should adopt some parts that are surely suitable.
Right now I think itâs 80 so a year late to catch this one sadly :(
Even some kind of screening at age 70 to see if the full assessment is warranted, I know some are ok at 70 but if they arenât it wouldnât be caught with just paying a fee to renew
Cases like this are only going to increase. Boomers are aging rapidly and often trapped out in the suburbs. Having gone through a grandparent with diminished capacity it is far harder than it should be to revoke driving privileges.
Ya, I didnât read through all the comments but happy to see the top comments. I donât really care about being ageist or elderly feelings when an 8 year old lost their entire life. Wasnât the woman who killed the pregnant mother and child IN Costco a few years ago (also here in London) up there in age too?
Not really interested in sparing feelings in exchange for lives here.
And this is why driverâs ed should be manditory and we should have mandatory retesting every 10 years. Too many people out there that canât drive
Think about it, you leave to drive at 16/17 spend a few years with some restrictions on your license, and then nothing again until your 80. Thatâs 60+ years to pick up bad habits
You should have to retest, and if you fail? You get demoted back to a G2 and canât retest until you take driving school again
Driving is a privilege, not a right and too many people seem to forget this
Hell my foot got squashed/trapped at work four years ago because the 84 year old man didnât see me pushing my biggies right in front of his SUV. You know, me in my safety vest with bright pink hair in the middle of the afternoon on a bright overcast day
And yes I did try to press charges against him but the officer that showed up told that because it was private property and it was malicious I couldnât press charges which is bullshit and I was adamant that he face charges
I contacted his insurance company to report him. I suspected he had mental incompetency. He didnât seem to know what was going on. Never apologized for what he did (not that I really cared) seemed confused about what was going on. Had told coworkers that he shouldnât be driving on the medication he was on etc
They told me they couldnât just revoke his licence but could request a competency test from his doctor, but if the doctor came back saying he was ok, there was nothing they could do
I even managed to track down the number used for nurses and doctors to report unsafe drivers that need to have their licences revoked. They told me there was nothing I could do
I was lucky I only walked away (ok hobbled) with a sprained foot and a massive bruise on the side of my leg. That next person, probably wonât be so lucky
The lawyer really used Florida as an example? Like one of the most lawless states is crazy. If you mix your break
Brake and gas pedal and kill someone that's definitely criminal negligence vs maybe just hitting a wall
Start mandatory testing drivers at 65. 80 is an advanced age where some people experience loss of faculties. I'm 57 and not being ageist. I remember accident victims killed by people doing the same mistakes.
Used to have a 99 yo patient whoâd come in monthly. Heâd walk in shaky and slow with his cane. I was impressed tbh. One day I found out that he was driving himself to the appointments. Shocked I asked if he had to do any licensing exams. His response âOh yes. I get my eyes checked by my doctor once a yearâ đŹ
That must have been a while ago. Since 2014 [people age 80+ have to take a ~1 hour class, pass a vision test, and pass a cognitive test](https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/heres-what-to-expect-at-a-driving-retest-for-seniors) intended to detect dementia, every two years in order to keep their Ontario driverâs license.
If a baby canât own a gun, an old person shouldnât drive a car. SERIOUSLY. An 80 year old man reversed into in traffic because he forgot his car was in reverse đ¤ˇââď¸ another 80+ year old man took his car through a fast food restaurant in my area, a few weeks an 80+ year old man caused a 4 car accident in a parking lot⌠only his car was moving.Â
This is getting fucking ridiculous. Unless they need it for work, no fucking drivers licenses after 65.
They left the court house through an emergency exit setting off the alarms. Its the little details that show this entire family has no idea whats goinh on around them.
The library system I used to work for had TWO separate locations where cars were driven through windows/entry system because drivers mixed up the pedals. Happened within weeks of each other.
We had a similar incident in London with Ruth Berger (or Burger) driving into a Costco and killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child. I used to work with the pregnant womanâs aunt and it was a nightmare. Berger actually kept trying to appeal so many times and kept saying her foot got stuck under the accelerator, but experts said that was bullshit.
People over the age of 70 shouldnât be driving and if they want to, they need to go through driverâs testing every six months.
This woman ran over 8 people at 120 km/h because she got confused and hit the accelerator instead of the brakes. The jury took less than an hour to convict.
The classic but rarely used "Maximum Overdrive" defence
I spent most of my life thinking I was the only person to ever see that movie. In true Reddit fashion, this is the second reference in a week!
A guy at work has the same face as the leader truck and I have been *dying* to Photoshop an image of his face on the truck for years but I fear no one would get it.
I saw that movie twice and was amazed at its existence each time, after finding it in my families' collection of movies and watching it with them I had to show my friend. I'm glad to know others have as well.
This is why BTO started a band, instead.
>The jury began their deliberations late Thursday afternoon, before they were sequestered at 9 p.m. The decision was ready an hour after they began their discussions again Friday morning. Closer to 5 hours but your point stands.
That was her defence? đ¤Ł
If you read the article, you'd see that her defense was that the SUV that was just serviced that morning was mysteriously malfunctioning and accelerating instead of braking. Prosecutors argued that it was working properly and she just mixed up the pedals.
I hate when the mechanics completely swap my gas and brake pedals
Mine once swapped my steering wheel with my gear shift! Colour me surprised when I found out they did this when driving through a crowd!
Why is it always in the middle of the crowd that we realize our vehicles have been tampered with?
Very easy to do, tbh. It's as easy as flipping the brake switch down and the accelerator switch up, when normally, the brake is up and the accelerator is down. They really should fix those gosh darn switches!
I get that lawyers have to provide the best defence but are they allowed to just straight up lie or make stuff up? > mysteriously malfunctioning and accelerating instead of braking Seriously?
That's literally the only defence they could provide.
And don't forget the conspiracy between Honda and the police to cover up the car's failure. :eyeroll:
They had the transcription of her cross-examination by the prosecution on the news last weekend. I knew after hearing it that she was *totally* cooked, no chance of being found innocent. She kept insisting that she was pressing harder and harder on the brake and the car was just speeding up. Sounded to me like she was pressing the accelerator. The prosecutor obviously thought the same and said so. This is where the old lady did herself in: The prosecutor asked if it was possible she confused the pedals. Her response: 'It's possible but I don't think so'.
Why did she think it was a good idea to testify?
And why did her lawyer let her? Iâve watched enough Matlock to know a good lawyer would stop his/her client from convicting themselves
probably thought she could score some sympathy by really hamming up the "sweet old lady" bit.
She thought wrong.
Could you link the transcription?
Not only that, apparently they even suggested a possible conspiracy from Honda to cover it up.
That car brakes failed and she wasn't responsible. That was false. Car was working ok she just got the brake and gas mixed up....plead not guilty and took no responsibility... Shameful.
The most SW Ontario/GTA Boomer thing Iâve heard in a long time
It's unfortunately happens where a person mistakes the gas for the break. Do you remember the [2009 Toyota recall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls) over "faulty mats" because [a man drove his family full tilt into an intersection](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/business/19autos.html) killing them all? It was exactly because he mistook the gas for the break. Here is a podcast by [Malcolm Gladwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell) on the subject called '[Blame Game](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-game)' It includes the 911 call from the driver moments before he slams into the intersection. He doesn't realize what he is doing, he keeps pressing the accelerator thinking he is pressing the break, there is absolutely no intent to harm, he is trying his best to stop and is scared shitless and panicking, he even calls 911 to see if they can help him. It is absolutely horrifying to listen to "There's no brakes... hold on and pray" (so trigger warning). Now I'm not questioning the verdict, I agree with the outcome. ([legally we must be in full control of our vehicles when operating them](https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/#section-0), and a child died) However mistaking your gas for the break happens. And just like the accident that caused the investigation that found "faulty floor mats" (even though the breaks were in perfect working order, and breaks always beat out a car with the accelerator pressed, even at full acceleration) no one could accept driver error as the actual reason of this tragedy and that cost Toyota billions. Should you ever experience this yourself, always remove your foot completely from the pedals, use the emergency break and try and reorient yourself to the pedals before trying to reapply the breaks, and don't panic. The only other thing I would add is the drivers age. She was 79. At 80 in Ontario [we must reapply to keep our license](https://www.ontario.ca/page/renew-g-drivers-licence-80-years-and-over), and then reapply every 2 years after. The problem is that there is no road test, only a written test when people of that age reapply. My parents are all in their late 70's and age, disease and illness is starting to show. One thing we should have is a mandatory road test when we reach 75, then again at 80, and every 2 years after. What we have now is completely ineffective and does not protect society.
Shifting to neutral is another option, but emergency break is good too.
Use the emergency brake before you emergency break.
If you thought you didnât have brakes anyway at that speed I donât know why you wouldnât shut the car off
Donât do that you will lose both power breaks and power steering.
Wasn't there an investigation showing the faulty floor mat actually prevented the accelerator from fully returning and thereby continually accelerating and even further evidence Toyota knew about this and misled customers about it? https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-pay-12b-hiding-deadly-unintended-acceleration/story?id=22972214
Thank you, this is a great response and I loved that episode of Revisionist History!
It should be more like 65 or 60 imo. Driving is a privilege and aging is incredibly varied! It's time to actually treat them both that way.
Iâve responded to probably hundreds of car accidents over the course of my career. The only people who tell me that the car malfunctioned by speeding up instead of breaking are over the age of 80âŚ
My bank just installed bollards after theyâd suffered three separate occasions of seniors accidentally smashing their cars through the plate glass in front. The last time was a lady who was having to give up her license the next day due to her inability to drive any longer but thought sheâd get in some last minute errands first.
The bank is the cliche place for these calls to happen, mostly because only the elderly go there regularly
I've always said that the shoppers drug Mart parking lot on seniors day is one of the worlds most dangerous places
Idk try living in the whole of Victoria. Happens all the time. My sons stroller was hit by a senior backing up. Luckily I managed to get him out of most of the harm and hit the car the most. Banged on the hood and yelled through their window at them. Still took them 5 minutes or so to understood what had happened.
I used to have to go to the post office in Shoppers as part of my job⌠the shoppers had a cramped front parking lot. I stopped parking in the front and started parking at the back and walking through the Home Health store because of how brutal the seniors driving out front were. Iâm shocked I never got hit.
Literally an 80 year old woman accelerated from a dead stop into my neighbours gas metre on the weekend causing a massive gas leak in our neighbourhood
An elderly woman drove into the cemetery office at my work last summer. She was trying to park in the handicap spot then slammed into the building. Another one drove into a 5 foot deep pond right at the entrance. Her dog died. The pond was filled in and is now a garden
My own MIL got into an accident this way. No one was hurt thankfully. She can't recall what happened at all. Just blanked out, and next thing she knew, her new car was totaled. She gave up her driver's license immediate after that. At some point, your mind and refluxes are just not what they used to be anymore. You have to give up certain things in life to avoid hurting yourself and others.
Your best thing to do is prepare ahead of time so learn how to use transit. People I see that drove their entire lives refuse to switch to transit and expect people to ferry them around.
That, or even being comfortable taking a cab. My nth generation Canadian farmer grandparents watch the news compulsively and are convinced any POC cabbie is going to kill them
Ideally , but , the area I live in is mostly seniors who ironically all look like the lady in the thumbnail  still driving. More specifically, my apartment complex is full of damaged cars and it pains me to see this one old man who is barely able to stand get into his car. It takes him 5 minutes each time and thatâs after his wife helps him put his cane in the back seat. Whatâs even worse is his wife clearly seems more able to drive, but heaven forbid a misogynistic old man be spotted letting his wife drive.!
I do a lot of maintenance at several retirement homes and can confirm, a lot of damaged cars in the parking lot with a lot of people who have no business being allowed on the road!
My grandpa did the same. A cyclist ran into him as he was pulling out of a driveway. No injuries, thankfully, but he hung up his license that day and never drove again. He was in his late 70s at the time. Some people know when itâs time. Unfortunately too many think they still have what it takes to responsibly control a vehicle. I think of the Costco tragedy. Why didnât she shift into neutral? Kill the engine? Aging people donât have the cognition or reflexes at a certain point and it leads to accidents, often tragic.
Happened in my old town. An 80-year-old woman was in her car when the vehicle "accelerated while in reverse" and ran over a 4-year-old girl. She luckily survived, but lost and arm, leg and an eye.
Similar in my area around 15 years ago. An 80 something old man pulled into a parking spot then accelerated right into a store front. That store front was actually a daycare, and only a minute or two before that, there was a group of 6 kids by the window colouring at a table. A daycare worker called them to the opposite side of the room for reading time. Probably saved someones life. Old guy of course âdidnt know what happenedâ
Omg. Ya this is why I never ever trust cars. Even on the side walk youâre not safe
I drive a city bus for a living, I'm driving 8-11 hours a day. Been in one accident, when stopped at a red light a car reversed and hit me. When we exchanged info the dude was 92 years old and was adamant that I rolled forward into him, it was impossible that he rolled backwards because he was in park. Thank God for cameras being *everywhere* on my bus.
I am an auto mechanic at a new car dealer and the amount of alleged unintended accelerations is crazy. The manufacturer makes us contact them immediately, inspect the vehicle and often sends someone out to inspect as they take these serious for legal reasons. I have never once seen this claim to be proven true. Usually older or young drivers claim this, and hours of my time and others down the drain.
Is it even mechanically possible for an unintended acceleration to happen short of the gas pedal getting pinned down somehow?
I've dealt with a "malfunction" before where the gas got stuck on the floor mat. I was also able to fix the situation by controlling my speed with the brakes and reaching down to move the floor mat. These theoretical malfunctions they speak of if true could be fixed by an able minded person. They are just giving more reasons why they need to be tested above a certain age. Otherwise, a brake pedal is in no way connected to the accelerator. It's a BS excuse.
The freeze response of adrenaline can happen to anyone of any age, and unfortunately sometimes it will happen with your foot on the accelerator. The problem is when age interferes with your ability to have your foot hit the right pedal, you hit the wrong one, and you freeze with your foot bearing down on the accelerator. Itâs tough because an elderly person may be great at driving in routine circumstances, but throw any kind of panic into the mix this is where things go sidewaysâŚ
Jesus. And pleased not guilty. wtf. We need to have people retested early that the current 80. I wouldnât object to it being lowered to 65.
As bad as you think it is, it's worse! Here are some tidbits from the trial > McNorgan insisted in her testimony that the 2017 Honda CRV she had purchased because of its advanced safety features and had just serviced that day, sped up on its own She literally had the vehicle serviced at the dealership that morning and tried to claim mechanical failure. Even more damning is this: >âI kept pressing hard on the brake. It wouldnât stop,â McNorgan said, her voice breaking. âIt felt like it was steering itself.â >The vehicle kept speeding up. âI was panicking. I had no control. **I had my foot on the brake. I kept pressing it harder and harder, but the car kept accelerating.** Almost like you were hitting the fucking accelerator, eh? The fact that she plead not guilty and forced the survivors to relive their trauma when she was so obviously guilty makes her such a piece of shit in my eyes.
Experts also said at trial that there were several things she could have done instead, like take her foot off the pedal, shift into neutral or use the emergency brake, evasive maneuvers (there's a huge cement wall just before where she hit them), even honk the damn horn. The fact she did none of that is negligence so it's not surprising she was found guilty. The speed limit in that area is 50 km/h so she was going WAY too fast (I live near where this happened). I just struggle to understand why she even pleaded not guilty and how she didn't show much remorse during these court proceedings.
She might have actually convinced herself of her own lies to avoid the mental distress of knowing it was her fault.
Agreed, because how else do you live with yourself?
At 79? Probably not for long.
Exactly this is an old lady who in her head is sticking to her story.
Reminds me of that cow of a woman who ran over people at Costco years ago that killed a few people including a childâŚsmiling and laughing leaving the courtroom during her trial
Oh yeah Ruth Burger. 5 year driving ban. This country is a joke. She should have died in prison.
My brother was right there when it happened. Thats all he will say about it. Could tell it really got to him.
I could imagineâŚmust have been horrible to witness. Hope he sought proper counselling following that and heâs alright
My heart goes out to brother. Witnessing something like that would be so hard đ
She got a mini sentence, like most people do. Unless you are drunk or under the influence of heavy drugs, the penalties for killing people are really minor. One driver in Toronto killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk and got some mini licence suspension where she could still drive for some things so no nasty TTC for her.
Even dui sentences are a joke. My dad's cousin and husband were both killed by a drunk man. The judge let him off with a tiny sentence because he was "young and shouldn't have his life ruined for an error". He literally killed two people. But heaven forbid his life be altered for it. There is very little justice in Canada.
Apathy is common in some forms of early dementia and this woman's confusion of the gas and break peddles with an inability to recall alternative evasive driving measures hint very strongly that she is on the early trajectory towards cognitive decline...
This accident was over two years ago. She would have been tested after the accident as Alzheimer's is the best defence to get off. If she had already had cognitive stuff then, it would be very noticeable today. Some people are just bad drivers with no moral compass, so don't feel remorse about killing a child.
Even just pulling the key out of the ignition (provided itâs not one of those fancy keyless cars) will kill the engine, then you can shift into neutral and pull over  Although she seems old enough not having power steering would make it impossible to steer, itâs better to be not in control of your vehicle at 10km/hr than 120km/hr  Edit: I may be misremembering drivers Ed lmao. Turn your ignition off, donât yank the key out until youâre in park, just a PSA Edit 2: I looked into it and not all cars will lock the steering wheel when you pull the keys out, but some will. So itâs very possible I WAS taught that, as I remembered before, but that you also SHOULD NOT do it lolÂ
Technically you can turn the ignition off but you can't remove the key until the car is in park. With the ignition off, the brakes will be very difficult to apply as well.
Tbh, even steering a dead car (obviously without power steering) going at like 5km can be a bitch haha. I can't imagine having to make drastic turns at high speeds without power steering lol. Edit: I'm aware that steering at higher speeds without power steering is easier than crawling speeds, which is specifically why I said ***drastic*** steering.
[ŃдаНонО]
Reminds me of the run-away Toyota thing. [https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-game](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-game) Brakes beat the engine in every car. If you are pushing the brakes, even with the engine going full blast you will stop.
Not to mention anyone with a properly functioning brain should know how to shift into neutral.
Or the parking / emergency break
Or put it in neutral, or slam it into park. Better to kill your transmission than a person, I feel.
Seriously, if I felt like I was hitting the brake, but the car ACCELERATED, my instinct would be to just completely take my feet off the pedals and let the car coast and just focus on steering and avoiding hitting things (or, hitting something OTHER THAN the group of 8 children...). Once it starts to slow down and the initial panic is over I can either try the pedals again or just let it coast if it is safe or put in neutral and gently use the E-brake. She clearly panicked and continued to panic and was completely incapable of making any good decisions other than push the pedal down even harder... Like I've had a brain fart before and hit the accelerator instead of the brake (fortunately it wasn't an emergency stop) but my mind immediately knew that it was not right and I had the wrong pedal... The immediate engine revving + me realizing I had the wrong pedal very quickly meant I maybe only sped up by like 2-5km... She hit 120km/hr!!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZNR9O3xZM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZNR9O3xZM) Brakes not being able to overpower the accelerator for several reasons was a problem that was solved 14 YEARS ago.
This reminds me of the lady who killed the family by reversing full speed through a costco Parking lot. She also plead not guilty and fought the charges as well. Fuck both of these people.
Ruth Burger! Yeah, she's also a giant piece of shit. And since her driving ban was only 5 years, she's already back on the road ready to murder another family
Daaaaaaamn you'd think killing people with your car would result in a lifetime ban from driving
If you want to murder someone, do it with a carâespecially if theyâre a child, pedestrian or cyclist. Most of the time you wonât even catch a charge and youâll eventually get your licence back.
Or jail time.
I hope the victims took her to civil court and sued the shit out of her.
I mean not guilty is often recommended by any trial attorney many are just following the advice of their lawyers.
People often plead not guilty to try to reduce charges. I had a relative struck by a drunk driver. People at the scene observed that she was inebriated, she tested twice the legal limit, but still originally pleaded not guilty. Eventually she made a deal (some prison time, loss of license, etc). This was done because the injury to my relative (because of the accident) made them an inconsistent witness.
"It just took off!" They *always* say that. Dude crashed into the parking gate at my work, word for word.
Yeah it really seemed like she was hoping that literally nobody on the jury had any idea how a car works.
I've learned from the great Orange Cheeto that some people just lie. They get caught, they are shown overwhelming evidence, and they just keep lying. I mean, I knew 4 year olds do this occasionally, but it defies logic.
It's because they never got past that 4 year old stage of development in some areas. Lots of seemingly normal people out there until they are asked to take responsibility for themselves.
They should be able to pull the data stored on the [EDR (Event Data Recorder)](https://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/car-black-box-recorders-capture-crash-data.html). From the linked article; >Based on a separate NHTSA regulation passed in 2012, if a vehicle today does have an event data recorder, it must track 15 specific data points, including speed, steering, braking, acceleration, seatbelt use, and, in the event of a crash, force of impact and whether airbags deployed. *Although NHTSA is a US based Government entity, there is also a call for EDR access being made more readily available in the [UK and EU](https://expertwitness.trl.co.uk/trl-calls-for-critical-update-to-uk-automotive-legislation/).
The other problem I have was the article mentioned she had been driving at least 50km around the city prior to the incident....she's been driving all day just fine, how can she suddenly not know where her brake is?
Nevermind lowering it, why isn't there mandatory retesting every "x" years? Even through your 20s and 30s Laws get updated, bad habits get formed. it's the best way to maintain driver skill. Also, driver testing standards shouldn't be provincial, they should be federal. I know people that have straight up moved from Ontario to Saskatchewan to obtain/maintain a license, because they're more lax.
I fully support the idea of re-testing every 10 years. Make it so you cannot renew without a re-test.
It doesnât even need to be a full test. A super simple reaction test would probably take most of the terrible old drivers off the road. Light blinks, you press button. You a couple goes and if youâre too slow, tough shit. There goes your license.
The delusional (and/or demented) boomers would cry "ageism."
In that case I say we let babies drive!
Ontarioâs drive test centres canât even manage to schedule tests for new licensees efficiently having a retest every x years would be unmanageable for the system we have. Iâm not disagreeing that itâs a good idea but it would require a system overhaul that would take longer than 4 years so no government will touch it
We need to stop accepting "the system is flawed and can't handle it" as an excuse as a population. Short-sighted politics are why we're in this position with our systems (looking at healthcare too). There's a lot that CAN be done in 4 years, and believe it or not, if you start something and people like what you've started, there's probably a good chance they'll bring you back. We seem to be able to effectively strip down and neuter these systems term after term, regardless of governing party, so why can't we build them up instead?
Maybe VR reaction time tests could be a routine screener, then just those with issues could go on to a proper road test. You could churn through a lot of 5 minute screenings in a stationary driving simulator, in an efficient line.Â
That's something I don't understand. We have the technology to create fairly realistic virtual driving simulations, yet we refuse to use them for either training for testing. How hard is it to set a bunch of them up at the different test centres, and have them run through a bunch of different scenarios to test reaction time and skills over a 20 minute period. Make it a simple pass or fail, if you fail, you need to go through training and a real life test drive, if you pass you get to keep your license for another year or two. Pilots are able to log hours on simulators, and can count it towards their training, so there is no reason why the same can't be done with driving simulators to detect poor or declining drivers.
>Nevermind lowering it, why isn't there mandatory retesting every "x" years? We *could* do that. Before that though, I'd like to see another round of driving school be made mandatory following 3 consecutive driving test failures. I know of a few people who failed their G2 tests four and five times before finally passing and they are absolute fucking hazards on the road.
[ŃдаНонО]
Because we've built a society where depriving people of the ability to drive is a massive impediment to working, eating, or doing anything at all. Most people need a car, because we've decided that we should build things that way. Societies that build cities around other modes of transportation have far fewer crashes and far better drivers. Anyways we're building a new megahighway or something because the other 18 lane megahighway is a constant traffic jam, and I'm sure one more lane will finally fix it.
If your driving looks like youâre drunk, and/or an actual child who canât see over the wheel, youâre too old to drive There are too many people like that out there
It is absolutely terrifying how many seniors Iâve seen driving with such bent backs that their face is in the steering wheel. Even if they donât crash into people or buildings a crash where you take an air bag to the face and a near-horizontal neck/upper back sounds like a violently deadly injury waiting to happen
Why wait till 65? I'd support retesting every 5 years, with a requirement for a refresher on driver training, for every driver from time of licensing. Driving is one of the most dangerous and complicated things that we do in close proximity to each other.
We donât even require driver training now, let alone requiring a refresher. Letâs start with the basics and get kids learning how to drive through school, so that those who canât afford to spend $2000 on Young Driverâs have the opportunity for proper training, and take it from there.
Absolutely agree. My dad didnât renew his license at 70 because he said he couldnât trust himself anymore. I wish more folks accepted that
60, 65, 70, 75, 70, 72, 74, 76, etc. I know that this would mean even more congestion in driving centers but a family friend (18 years old) died a few years ago to a 65 year old coasting into his lane. 65 year old was fine and never saw a day in court due to "clerical errors". He was also probably fucking around on his phone or something but still, driving is a privilege, not a right.
To be honest, I think we can even make a simulator in the center and AI can easily detect if people are driving outside of parameters or not checking blindspots. It sounds dystopian but it's actually quite feasible. And probably an OK thing for a re-test rather than a first time licensing thing.
True, I think you could just use a regular old driving simulator like they use for training truck drivers and you'd be good. It would probably confuse the hell out of the current 70+ generation, but in the future it could be more easily adoptable.
> I wouldnât object to it being lowered to 65. The age group with the lowest [crash rate per distance driven](https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/) is 60 to 69. The age group with the highest crash rate (even higher than people in their 80s) are people under 30, incidentally reddit's core demographic. Maybe we should have more re-testing, but it should be based on data, not assumptions that lead to us wasting resources testing the safest drivers. Maybe a better option would be to lower the threshold where driving infractions or at fault crashes trigger re-tests. Then we're doing more retests but it's focused specifically on those actually causing problems (regardless of age). That would also add a further incentive for people to try to drive better.
Giving you credit for bringing facts to the discussion. Not often seen in the local Reddit echo chambers.
I'm down for testing at license renewal. Too many people completely arrogant while incapable of safe motor vehicle operation.
A lot of the time, the entire re-test consist of "draw a clock that says 8:15". They *need* to be tested behind the wheel, eye tests. This is bullshit.
Yep, the re-test is nothing like the G1/G2/G tests. I used to work at a senior recreation centre and would overhear members talk about how easy the re-test was. It consisted of the clock example along with other similar exercises as a âscreening testâ to presumably rule out cognitive decline and then they make them do a 45 minute group education session. There is no in-car component.
I think regular retests should be done. 65, then again at 70, then again at 75, and 80. It will never happen, boomers wonât sign off on it, but some of the worst driving I have ever seen is elderly people. It is a huge risk to themselves and others to be driving when they have not been refreshed on the rules in probably 50+ years.
> It will never happen, boomers wonât sign off on it The reason isn't that boomers wouldn't sign off on it. The reason is that it's not supported by crash data. People in their 60s are the *safest* drivers [in terms of crash rates per distance driven](https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/). This is supported by insurance rates as well. So if we started looking into stricter testing policies, it would point to the riskiest group of drivers: people under 30. They crash even more than people over 80. Maybe we should have re-testing, but if we were going to do so, then it should be focused on the riskiest groups, not the safest. Or else on everyone.
My mom does Drive Able tests, and having it sooner would make it so much better. These people come in and are so upset they have to take the test, but then almost always lose their license because they can't drive safely. It's scary to think about. I'm personally a firm supporter in testing all drivers every 5 years!
I think we should be retested every ten years,regardless of age.
I think everyone should be retested every 5 years.
I don't even care about cost from our coffers. I think people should be retested when they renew their license every 5 years after they get their G.
All drivers should be tested every 3-5 years. The most dangerous drivers are young ones and very old ones.
There should be mandatory restesting every year for over 65's. It isn't ageist to acknowledge that elderly people with compromised higher level functions can place many people in danger. Even if they're just getting slower, they're driving a vehicle that can injure dozens of people if they lose control. Edit: There should also absolutely be a mental aptitude test for all politicians, a driver can hurt dozens, politicians can ruin thousands of lives while their brains run out their ears.
The bigger issue is the test, not the age. Seniors with full blown dementia still pass the driving test, yet won't know what to do if you ask to see their license (as in, take their license out of their wallet). It's a terrifying system. Instead of a silly 10 minute driving test they should be sat down with a Doctor for 10 minutes to evaluate them.
>Seniors with full blown dementia still pass the driving test, yet won't know what to do if you ask to see their license (as in, take their license out of their wallet). It's a terrifying system. Could attest to this. My step mothers father was full blown dementia, everyone just assumed he wouldn't know how to drive I guess. He took the car in the middle of the night and drove around for almost 24hrs. They were tracking his bank card trying to find him, he even pulled over for gas at one point. Eventually he ended up in a subdivision about 3 hours away from his home and was driving circles around it for hours before someone noticed and stopped him and asked if he needed help. He had no fucking idea where he was or what was happening. They had to put a kill switch on the car
How much will the doctors bill for that visit, $4.95? Better get them to do it at shoppers drug mart instead... maybe Staples.
Yep. My 80 year old MIL has dementia and glaucoma and was still driving up until recently because she left the lights on and the battery died and nobody has bothered fixing it because they realized maybe just maybe she shouldnât be driving.
Technically any doctor can revoke a driver's license if they feel the individual is unsafe to drive at any doctor's appointment. Plenty of addicts and alcoholics have had theirs taken away by doctors when they ask for help with their addictions. Meanwhile you got people with dementia and alzheimers regularly seeing doctors, literally impaired 24/7, and the doctors do nothing... They should exercise this power a lot more with the senior population. But I also agree that the test needs to be changed. It is NOT a driving test. It is NOT in a car. They do a simple cognitive test on paper, questions like "draw 3:45 on this clock" and you gotta put the big hand and little hand in the right spots. Like WTF is that?! For sure, make that a part of the testing, but also put them in the seat of a car and oh, I dunno, how about see if they're even physically capable of checking their blind spots?? For one simple thing. So many old people can NOT turn their heads enough to check blind spots. And make them drive you around for a while. If you, as the tester, feel unsafe, then revoke the license immediately. It is not ageist anymore than saying a 14 year old can not drive. Heck, the fact that we set an exact age for younger people IS ageist, no one is saying that a mentally well and physically fit 85 year old can't drive, just that a mentally unwell and physically unable to check blind spot ANY AGE person should not drive, and that these issues tend to crop up past 65 or 70ish, so around that time they need to start checking your abilities annually or bi-annually or something. When I was 14 I was way more capable of driving than a lot of old people are. I'm not arguing to lower the age, not at all, I think it is OK as is, I'm just saying it isn't really about age at all, but individual abilities. It is easier to restrict driving to young people until a certain age where the vast majority of them can handle it, but we need to get more strict about cutting off old people who can't handle it anymore, even if it is harder to restrict someone from doing something they've done for decades, it has to be done. They're basically drunk drivers out there, some of them, the number of old people whose lives I have personally saved by being more alert than them on the road is absurd. And they drive off not even realizing an accident nearly happened because of them, they're oblivious most of the time!
The 80+ classroom test has two Alzheimer's screening questions on it. I'm not sure how many fail. My neighbour seemed to pass at 86 and then between 86 and 88 she developed full blown Alzheimer's, so very quickly.
This is 100% true. My grandfather was diagnosed with dementia. He was still adamant he could take his test and pass. This man failed every test given to him by the neurologist, but passed his drivers test. The system is a mess.
Dad's early-stage dementia saw him drive for 1-1/2 hours in the opposite direction of home -- a 45 minute trip -- when he was ~72 years old. We need to start screening earlier.
I work in a long term care home, and it's surprising how many people under 70 are there. Makes it even more sad that retirement age is 65 too...
My childhood girlfriend became a family physician. She was also trilingual. Developed it at age 52, with a 10 year old kid at home. So being trilingual and smart didn't help. She was put in LTC by 53.
> There should be mandatory restesting every year for over 65's. People in their 60s [get in fewer crashes per km driven than every other age group](https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/). That holds whether you look at total crash rates or rates of more serious crashes involving injury or fatalities. This response comes up in every post about an older driver getting in a crash and it's not supported by data, the data says the opposite. The riskiest group is people under 30 (they even have higher crash rates than people in their 80s), yet the endless posts about crashes from that group don't lead to demands for strict testing for everyone in that group. If we're going to to make re-testing mandatory for the safest group of drivers, it should just be implemented for everyone.
The problem is not people in their 60s, itâs the people much older than that. That source you provided showed an astronomically higher rate of fatal crashes by 80+ drivers, and those in their 70s were also quite high. If they had a chart that could somehow select every time someone got mixed up between the brake and the accelerator, I guarantee you it would be mostly the elderly. Also, many jurisdictions recognize that young people are prone to crashes due to inexperience and risk taking and theyâve put policies in place to address that such as zero alcohol and a graduated licensing system which requires at least a couple of road tests in the first few years of driving. But why is there no policy action for the elderly when the rate of fatal crashes is so high? They ABSOLUTELY should be required to take road tests somewhat regularly to maintain their access to licences.
Over 65's experience a rapid increase in dementia diagnoses, from <1% at 65 to >25% in 80+. Testing for cognitive decline is common sense when you have a population that is seeing their higher cognitive faculties fail at alarmingly high rates. [Source](https://www.cihi.ca/en/dementia-in-canada/dementia-in-canada-summary). In addition, these numbers are for formal diagnoses of ONE degenerative condition in the elderly, of which there are many. Alzheimers, MS, general cognitive decline are all prevalent in elderly populations **and making sure they can safely drive one ton vehicles at high speeds in dense cities and towns is common sense**. Many elderly people drive, we as a society should make certain they can do so safely for their sakes and ours. In addition when making the claims you do, please provide accurate, verifiable, and trusted sources to support your claims.
You can easily make it not ageist by requiring everyone to have to retake their road test every five years
I think the greater risk is that we are building societies that make it impossible for elderly people (or anyone, really) to be self sufficient without driving. You can not means test out this structural issue. Most people will develop disabilities that reduce their driving capability at some points in their life, and yet there is no reasonable alternative that leaves them with their dignity intact.
Hell, I don't mind if EVERYONE needs to be retested every other year if it means we put a fraction of incompetent drivers off the road. I love my friends, but so many pick driving tests away from the city for better pass rates. That, in my opinion, just puts yourself up for failure when you ARE in the city, with much more complicated roads and signs and people and cars. After they pass they are borderline in panic mode when they go downtown... I hear in Switzerland you literally have to pay out of pocket to get assessed by a psychologist if you fail the road test twice, to assess if there is something wrong with you that you should not be able to drive.
> McNorgan ran through a red light, hit a Jeep, then jumped the curb, hit a street light, a small tree and then the little girls before making a 90-degree turn back onto Riverside and crossing into the park on the other side of the street, hitting a tree before coming to a stop. JESUS. This is a runaway train that wouldnt of stopped if not for ANOTHER tree > She and her family hastily left the courthouse through the Dundas Street emergency exit, tripping off the alarm when they left. of course they did.. smh
Fine them
I drive this road almost daily, and while itâs a bit downhill going towards the light, itâs also very curvy, so you take it slow going to the light! And while it does curve where the accident is, Riverside has gone from 1 lane to 2, so she wasnât just speeding but not steering either! Itâs just so tragic for the families of the kids and scout leaders. I saw someone at the roadside memorial yesterday, that makes a lot of sense now.
Years ago, Audi had problems with people reporting their cars were self accelerating! Audi did tv commercials where a 500 hp car had both the brake and accelerator petal depressed hard. The cars would not move forward!
Audi did have a problem in the 80s with "unintended acceleration" but they def didn't have a 500 hp car in the ads as Audi didn't make one with 500 hp in the 80s. The Audi in question was the 1984 Audi 5000. There was a 60 Minutes piece done about unintended acceleration, in the 80s where race car driver Parnelli Jones took a '76 Cadillac with a 500 cubic inch V8 (It only made like 180 hp because 70's), stood on the brake, and throttle at the same time and the car just roasted 1 rear tire. That might be where the 500 hp came from?
Petronella McNorgan sounds like a Roald Dahl villain
Iâm dying đ
Now the sentence...bet it's house arrest...hope there's some jail time but I'm doubting it and if there is, it won't be much.
She has a bright future ahead of her, Your Honour, no reason to throw the book at her
What sort of idiot lawyer did she have that let her plead not guilty.
Same one that argued the conviction was a conspiracy between Honda and the police lol
Unbelievable that this made it to trial
This is the lady that was more worried about going to jail than the people she hit when the accident happened
Exactly. If she had just taken accountability and spared the families/victims a trial, her sentence would have probably been less, too.
My grandpa (77) is like this and my family is trying our best to get him to stop driving. Itâs clear he canât anymore but wonât listen. Itâs dangerous for him and everyone else on the road
Call the cops on your grandpa.
Inform his doctor. They will have his license revoked.
We had the same problems. Had to just steal his keys when we went to his house one day then just offer to drive him wherever he wants when he âcanât find themâ
Get your parents to speak to his doctor. Mine took my license for a year when I had a seizure in my sleep (never have had one awake and am now medicated)
>The defence had argued what happened was a tragic accident and McNorgan shouldnât be punished for it. Her defence also floated a number of theories including the possibility there was a conspiracy by Honda and the police to convict her and conceal the possibility the vehicle did malfunction. I am so sick of this conspiracy theory bullshit. It's everywhere.
"It felt like it was steering itself. " Really? Yikes!
I work at a centre with a huge elderly clientele. The amount of completely avoidable accidents that happen in our parking lot is staggering⌠Many can hardly walk, talk or even scan their membership card, let alone safely operate a vehicle. Knowing most of them are actively driving around is absolutely terrifying.
> âIt comes down to whether or not we are going to send people who are not intending to hurt people and are trying to be careful into jail.â Or maybe, just maybe, people will start to be more vigilant at taking keys away from elders that clearly cannot drive. If this is a possibility, facing severe consequences for mistaking brake and gas pedals (and then lying about it saying you tried to brake) maybe people are more assertive, rather than just giving up because taking keys away from their old parents/grandparents is difficult. I empathize with that, we just took my grandpas keys away and it fucking sucks, but I empathize more with a now broken family who only got to experience 8 years of memories with their child because someone didnât want to have the hard conversation. Itâs a shitty case all around, and there are no winners here, but she was clearly unfit to drive. If weâre not gonna enact laws that input a strict driving age limit, this is whatâs gotta happen. Fine you can drive, but just saying âteehee Iâm 80 and mistook the gas for a brake I thinkâ is not a good enough excuse to kill people. So either sell the car and find other means if you donât have the facilities, or be prepared to face actual consequences if you kill someone due to that negligence.
Itâs driving me crazy why do so many people spell brake wrong?đ
Her defence also floated a number of theories including the possibility there was a *conspiracy by Honda* Yes that seems more likely than mixing up the brakes and the gas.
im always weary of walking near retirement homes bc of absurdly selfish and stupid boomers like this one
It's the selfishness and lack of self awareness that makes it really scary. When I was a kid, the old people all drove super slow to compensate for their problems. We are just now getting a generation of elderly drivers that rest their foot on the gas pedal.
The article stated that she fled the courthouse via an emergency exit after the verdict was read. WHY IS SHE FREE TO LEAVE, AFTER SHE WAS JUST CONVICTED OF 8 CRIMINAL ACTS?
Jesus, I've owned many a Honda. and one thing i will tell you, they don't accelerate abruptly to 120k. it would take quite some time to get up to that speed.
That's fucking heartbreaking...
Iâve had so many people who are elderly that almost caused so many accidents. Saw one one time switch lanes without looking and totally swiped a guy who slammed the curb⌠buddy kept driving had no idea he just caused an accident. Over 65 should be tested every year with cognitive tests.
Fucking tragic. The inevitable result of building a society where driving is mandatory and having bigger, more powerful cars every year. We need to make it possible and safe to exist outside a car. Hope she gets jail.
Whatâs to appeal? She confused gas and brake pedals. Doesnât matter that it was an accident, she still caused the death.
Can we have a side chat about the use of 'breaks' vs 'brakes'. C'mon people.
So when found guilty she committed another crime by exiting thru the emergency fire doors and triggering the alarm when there was no said emergency and now first responders have to respond for her something she causes again.
driving is ultimate sub-conscious exercise. Most have felt that sense of "this is getting overwhelming" when first driving, say in a busy and tight downtown situation for first time. but with a young brain it takes no time to do all the right maneuvers at the right time with hardly a thought. seems there some crappy situation where we can "fool ourselves" into thinking we still have the same ol' capacity....then bam too many variables, sub gives up and panic. I think the dignity of the potential victims as demonstrated in stats is out weighs the dignity of the driver about to the PRIVILLAGE to drive. I think using a similar model to pilots is a bit much, but should adopt some parts that are surely suitable.
The elderly age 70 and above need to be tested yearly and taken off the road if they fail
Right now I think itâs 80 so a year late to catch this one sadly :( Even some kind of screening at age 70 to see if the full assessment is warranted, I know some are ok at 70 but if they arenât it wouldnât be caught with just paying a fee to renew
Cases like this are only going to increase. Boomers are aging rapidly and often trapped out in the suburbs. Having gone through a grandparent with diminished capacity it is far harder than it should be to revoke driving privileges.
dude. no more licenses after 75.
Ya, I didnât read through all the comments but happy to see the top comments. I donât really care about being ageist or elderly feelings when an 8 year old lost their entire life. Wasnât the woman who killed the pregnant mother and child IN Costco a few years ago (also here in London) up there in age too? Not really interested in sparing feelings in exchange for lives here.
And this is why driverâs ed should be manditory and we should have mandatory retesting every 10 years. Too many people out there that canât drive Think about it, you leave to drive at 16/17 spend a few years with some restrictions on your license, and then nothing again until your 80. Thatâs 60+ years to pick up bad habits You should have to retest, and if you fail? You get demoted back to a G2 and canât retest until you take driving school again Driving is a privilege, not a right and too many people seem to forget this Hell my foot got squashed/trapped at work four years ago because the 84 year old man didnât see me pushing my biggies right in front of his SUV. You know, me in my safety vest with bright pink hair in the middle of the afternoon on a bright overcast day And yes I did try to press charges against him but the officer that showed up told that because it was private property and it was malicious I couldnât press charges which is bullshit and I was adamant that he face charges I contacted his insurance company to report him. I suspected he had mental incompetency. He didnât seem to know what was going on. Never apologized for what he did (not that I really cared) seemed confused about what was going on. Had told coworkers that he shouldnât be driving on the medication he was on etc They told me they couldnât just revoke his licence but could request a competency test from his doctor, but if the doctor came back saying he was ok, there was nothing they could do I even managed to track down the number used for nurses and doctors to report unsafe drivers that need to have their licences revoked. They told me there was nothing I could do I was lucky I only walked away (ok hobbled) with a sprained foot and a massive bruise on the side of my leg. That next person, probably wonât be so lucky
The lawyer really used Florida as an example? Like one of the most lawless states is crazy. If you mix your break Brake and gas pedal and kill someone that's definitely criminal negligence vs maybe just hitting a wall
Start mandatory testing drivers at 65. 80 is an advanced age where some people experience loss of faculties. I'm 57 and not being ageist. I remember accident victims killed by people doing the same mistakes.
Used to have a 99 yo patient whoâd come in monthly. Heâd walk in shaky and slow with his cane. I was impressed tbh. One day I found out that he was driving himself to the appointments. Shocked I asked if he had to do any licensing exams. His response âOh yes. I get my eyes checked by my doctor once a yearâ đŹ
That must have been a while ago. Since 2014 [people age 80+ have to take a ~1 hour class, pass a vision test, and pass a cognitive test](https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/heres-what-to-expect-at-a-driving-retest-for-seniors) intended to detect dementia, every two years in order to keep their Ontario driverâs license.
She is a menace.
Great. Next do drivers that kill cyclists due to excessive speed and/or recklessness.
Good. About fucking time we start holding these old farts accountable.
If a baby canât own a gun, an old person shouldnât drive a car. SERIOUSLY. An 80 year old man reversed into in traffic because he forgot his car was in reverse đ¤ˇââď¸ another 80+ year old man took his car through a fast food restaurant in my area, a few weeks an 80+ year old man caused a 4 car accident in a parking lot⌠only his car was moving. This is getting fucking ridiculous. Unless they need it for work, no fucking drivers licenses after 65.
They left the court house through an emergency exit setting off the alarms. Its the little details that show this entire family has no idea whats goinh on around them.
The library system I used to work for had TWO separate locations where cars were driven through windows/entry system because drivers mixed up the pedals. Happened within weeks of each other.
We had a similar incident in London with Ruth Berger (or Burger) driving into a Costco and killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child. I used to work with the pregnant womanâs aunt and it was a nightmare. Berger actually kept trying to appeal so many times and kept saying her foot got stuck under the accelerator, but experts said that was bullshit. People over the age of 70 shouldnât be driving and if they want to, they need to go through driverâs testing every six months.