brz rear ended

[driftartist]

look on the bright side he prolly only has 2-3 years left

[Got3n]

I bet its because you have the lakers license tag and are in texas... lol

[BRZfan]

I must ask: What if the person who rear-ended the OP was 16?

Or 24?

Or 36?

Should those aged groups also be required to retake a driving test each year?

Too much getting on the bandwagon comments here. I thought I would just even it out. No one mentioned the other driver. I would hope that both drivers are OK. And, older people are not the only ones who crash into houses.

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

I'll say it again, after age 65 you should be required "yearly" to retake your driving test. Not trying to be rude to the elderly but what if that had been a child and not another car. I've seen elderly people drive into houses and buildings stating the same thing "I thought it was my brake pedal".


Either way, glad you're alright dude and sorry about the car. Even if you are a Lakers fan

[BRZfan]

Pointless?
One could argue - NOT if the the age group you mentioned is tested for drug use. and I know.

Originally Posted by GregV

Under 25 is pointless, they have the mental faculty to pass the road test regardless of how they drive in the real world.

The argument of testing at 65+ plus is to ensure a driver has the capacity to use a turn signal without amassing a body count.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by BRZfan

I must ask: What if the person who rear-ended the OP was 16?

Or 24?

Or 36?

Should those aged groups also be required to retake a driving test each year?

Too much getting on the bandwagon comments here. I thought I would just even it out. No one mentioned the other driver. I would hope that both drivers are OK. And, older people are not the only ones who crash into houses.

I'll pick this one up. If the person was between 25-65, I think statistics would back me up that the cause of their loss of control was not due to pedal confusion. The statistics also back me up that there are more accidents per capita for drivers under 25 and over 65 than the range between (and insurance rates seem to indicate this as well).

So testing someone yearly outside of that 25-65 age range seems logical, but likely won't happen, due to the logistical nightmare that would cause for BMVs, especially as a lot of the Baby Boomers are getting towards that age range.

As more elderly people take to the roads every day, obviously *something* has to be done besides beefing up the safety features on our cars. Some sort of compromise between the mandatory testing and how it stands now. Whether that be on a case-by-case basis for all ages (requiring it after someone causes a 2-car accident), or something else, I don't know. Especially with the advent of cell phones and other distracted driving, it gets scarier and scarier to drive every day.

/soapbox

[SVTSHC]

Originally Posted by BRZfan

I must ask: What if the person who rear-ended the OP was 16?

Or 24?

Or 36?

Should those aged groups also be required to retake a driving test each year?

Too much getting on the bandwagon comments here. I thought I would just even it out. No one mentioned the other driver. I would hope that both drivers are OK. And, older people are not the only ones who crash into houses.

Sure people of all age groups cause accidents but it's a hell of a lot more rare that someone not approaching senility would mistake the way the gas pedal feels and is shaped with the brake pedal. Not to mention the reactionary speed of someone over the age of 65 doesn't compare in a lot of cases to that of someone younger.

I FORCED my grandfather to stop driving but he did it anyway until he was 87. That is some nonsense right there, the man could barely move properly much less operate a two ton piece of machinery at road speeds.


PS. I agree, testing under the age of 25 should happen yearly as well. I say this being 24, I would have happily retaken my drivers test every year since I got my license at 17.

[GregV]

Originally Posted by BRZfan

Pointless?
One could argue - NOT if the the age group you mentioned is tested for drug use. and I know.

You're extending the argument beyond the premise. We're discussing the fundamental ability to operate a vehicle. It is illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence already.

There is no law preventing the operation of a vehicle by those mentally or physically incapable; the closest thing is when a doctor submits a patient's license to be revoked by the state.

The point of testing over 65 (I would actually argue should be older than even that, maybe 70+) is for a professional to be able to determine that a vehicle operator can actually safely manage the automobile regardless of outside influence or poor judgement.

The goal isn't to find and punish bad drivers, it's to remove drivers incapable of operating a vehicle from the roadways.

[russv]

Originally Posted by GregV

Under 25 is pointless, they have the mental faculty to pass the road test regardless of how they drive in the real world.

The argument of testing at 65+ plus is to ensure a driver has the capacity to use a turn signal without amassing a body count.

Here are some interesting stats regarding age and accident rates. Of particular interest are the fatal crash rates of 20-24 year olds vs senior drivers. Of more interest is the alcohol-age rate of drivers in fatal accidents in the 21-24 and 25-34 year old range vs senior drivers. Interesting where the body count is.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1114.pdf

[DBacon1052]

Originally Posted by tomt5078

Wow............Close to half the value of the car just from getting hit in the rear, that's unexceptable!!!!!

RWD means everything valuable and expensive is in the back

[Gords_zenith]

Don't want to keep sidetracking the OP topic but I don't want to add another thread. Sorry to see your baby damaged like that, hope all goes well with the repair.

To be honest, i think mandatory re-certifying should be every 5 years for ages between 20-65, and maybe every 2 years after that. We as a society need to I understand that there are more drivers and cars on the roads now than ever, which obviously increases the likeliness of a collision. Given that we are piloting 2,3,4 ton machines @ up to 80 mph (texas toll road) with nothing more than a 30 min driving test to ensure we're competent, is ridiculous! The forces and physics of a vehicle hitting something is taken too lightly by our drivers education, licensing, and of course the drivers themselves. So I say proper recertification would be a huge welcome in cleaning up bad driving habits and eliminating poor drivers off the road. It's expected that people get re-trained or have a refreshers course for work related stuff all the time. My work has us do recertification for operating a fork truck every 2 years, as it should be, not to mention we are also scheduled for training every 5 weeks to keep fresh to mitigate any emergency situations, while operating our machines, and reactors. anything that involves operating something that could impact public, and environmental safety should not be taken lightly. My two cents.

[res]

Originally Posted by russv

Here are some interesting stats regarding age and accident rates. Of particular interest are the fatal crash rates of 20-24 year olds vs senior drivers. Of more interest is the alcohol-age rate of drivers in fatal accidents in the 21-24 and 25-34 year old range vs senior drivers. Interesting where the body count is.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1114.pdf

What is amazing is you would think that a fragile elderly person would be more likely to die when involved in a crash as well, so it is probably surprising to some to see the lower numbers of fatalities in the elderly age groups.

[Pbrown]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I agree 100%. Retest and recertify every year if you are 65+ or under the age of 25.

Lets revisit this statement when you turn 65.

[eundaddy]

good luck getting ur car to align after whatever they do...

[jeebus]

ouch, looks like you got nailed pretty good. I got let off pretty easily when someone turned into my lane since it only required a new fender, headlight, and paint. Still...they have yet to get the paint to match to where I deem acceptable.