Elderly Drivers: Grieving Family Calls for Greater Political Courage to Deal with 'Growing Deadly Problem'

teasatotalling on 20/12/2017 - 15:50
Last edited 21/12/2017 - 10:42 by 1 other user

The family of a young man killed by an elderly driver is calling for political courage to restrict older drivers before more lives are lost.

Sue Jenkins' 22-year-old son, Dann, was killed while riding a motorbike in northern NSW in October last year.

"[Older drivers] are a growing deadly problem on our roads and there is no will by governments to take any action to make it safer for the general public," Ms Jenkins told 7.30.

"We are second-class citizens because the independence of the elderly driver is more important than our right to expect other drivers on the roads to be competent."

Edwin Jessop, 87, was driving in the opposite direction and failed to see Dann coming and turned directly into his path.

A crash investigation found Mr Jessop had almost six seconds to see Dann.

Last week in the Lismore Magistrates Court, Mr Jessop was sentenced to nine months in jail and had his licence cancelled for three years after pleading guilty to negligent driving occasioning death.

But Mr Jessop's sentence was suspended due to his age and he will not serve any time behind bars.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-20/grieving-family-calls-…

Automotive

Comments

  • teasatotalling on 20/12/2017 - 15:53
    +82

    Totally agree that there should be regular medical checks & testing for elderly drivers.
    Driving is a privilege, not a right.

    And before you spit out the fallacious reasoning “but younger drivers cause more accidents than the elderly”, you neglect the false equivalence that young drivers have more competence over time, whereas the elderly have less competence

    • mskeggs on 20/12/2017 - 17:01
      +80

      I completely agree the ideal situation would be to restrict any non-competant drivers, however, the number of accidents/fatalities they are involved in is very small, because they self limit to short, local trips, don't drive at night etc.
      It is sad that anybody dies, but more regulations won't eliminate the problem, maybe just reduce it. It will guarantee additional costs and burdens for the community as we will all be old one day, touch wood.
      If the actuaries came out tomorrow and told you banning all drivers over 85 would save one life every two years, would you think that reasonable?
      If they gave the same response that banning all middle age people with glasses would save 4 deaths a year, would you ban them?
      Obviously, there are some cohorts of drivers who are less safe than others, but I would prefer a doddering older driver crawling along at 45km/h because they know they are getting past it, to the 19yro over confidently speeding - even if you could demonstrate the young one is better at passing tests than the old one, because the old one is less likely to be involved in a fatality, even with reduced capabilities.

      We use tests because it is a short cut to observe competency, but I believe risk taking at any age is a bigger issue for road safety - because risky behaviours like drink driving, speeding etc. cause more accidents, even if the drivers test perfectly!

      It is important not to be reactionary in demanding restrictions on freedoms that have substantial costs without considering the evidence.

      • PJC on 20/12/2017 - 17:40
        +5

        Excellent points there.

      • DoyA on 21/12/2017 - 16:41
        +3

        Sometime it would be hard for people to realise or admit that they no longer as good as they used to be, especially when the changes took place gradually/ over time. A regular test would not solve the issue but at least would get them a chance to review there own conditions.

        • mskeggs on 21/12/2017 - 18:04
          +2

          Yes. NSW already has this in place. First, you need to get medical clearance. Then when you are older you need to sit periodic practical tests.
          The old man in the story had recently passed just such a test.

        • shadowfax1007 on 23/12/2017 - 12:35
          +1

          This.

          I had a huge argument with my grandfather about his driving. I felt he was unfit and to be honest, dangerous and he didn't agree. He had been driving around Australia since he was 15 and didn't want to give up the license. Thankfully a doctor ruled him unfit to drive and had his license revoked.

          I understand elderly not wanting to lose their independence but some times you have to give it up.

      • alikazi on 21/12/2017 - 20:21
        +1

        Eradication is not possible but reduction is still worth all the effort. We are talking about people losing lives here.

        • mskeggs on 21/12/2017 - 20:45
          +8

          Sure, but if it costs $100m to save one life, and we could spend $50m elsewhere to save 30 lives, isn't it a better idea to do that?
          If lives are irreplaceably valuable, do you choose not to drive, as the risk is high? Or do you routinely make an assessment that the small risk of death is worth less than the hassle of catching 2 buses to do the shopping?

        • Elee3112 on 22/12/2017 - 08:57

          https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/7-…

          According to the above website, the safest car right now is the Chevrolet Volt. I'm sure they're way safer than all those Honda Jazz or Toyota Yaris and Nissan Micra and whatnot zooming around.

          At around $35k, they're not even terribly expensive. I'm sure if the government forces everyone to drive the Volts only, there will be lives saved.

          Remember kids, reduction is worth ALL the effort!

        • whooah1979 on 22/12/2017 - 09:00
          +2

          @Elee3112:

          the safest car right now is the Chevrolet Volt.

          Compared to other vehicles in the same class. It won't fair well against Australia's top selling 4x4 or 4x2.

        • pegaxs on 23/12/2017 - 10:04

          @whooah1979: You need to go and read up on crash data. Just because it is big and heavy, doesn’t mean it's the safest. Some of the worst performing cars, safety wise, are in the big, heavy 4x4 segment.

        • whooah1979 on 23/12/2017 - 10:28
          +1

          @pegaxs:

          This is the ancap rating for the volt and the Prado.

          https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/holden/volt/9a3e7b

          https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/prado/ddb0dd

          Now imagine a 50km/h front to front collision between a volt and a Prado. Which vehicle would your prefer to be driving in a situation like this?

        • whooah1979 on 23/12/2017 - 10:30
          +2

          @pegaxs:
          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/geared/your_car/the_metal/does_siz…

          “Generally speaking big cars will do better in a collision with a smaller car. This is a result of the physics of the crash, where the heavier object will experience a lower deceleration and therefore lower forces on the occupants” Michael says. “But if your car hits a larger stationary object, then there’s a lot more weight in a larger car, which means more crash energy to deal with.”

      • h4zey on 22/12/2017 - 10:22
        +1

        they should give elderly people telsa for free :)

      • airzone on 22/12/2017 - 13:32
        +1

        At the same time though, 45 kph through a stop sign they didn't see isn't fun for anyone.. Which is why my pop handed in his license. It's also how my sister got cleaned up a few years back by an elderly driver. And how my wife's grandfather got his license confiscated against his will by his own wife..

        • Suspect420 on 22/12/2017 - 23:13

          Your doing it wrong.

          Keep their license. Just don't let them drive. ;)

      • The Gent on 23/12/2017 - 00:22

        If the actuaries came out tomorrow and told you banning all drivers over 85 would save one life every two years, would you think that reasonable?

        I think the family of that victim would think it reasonable.

        I think bad drivers, regardless of age should have licenses revoked and it's quite clear after pension-age your faculties are not what they used to be, so an annual reactions test isn't unreasonable.

      • bobbified on 23/12/2017 - 14:21

        I absolutely agree - Most of us know that deaths on the road will never be reduced to zero. As long as there are vehicles controlled by humans on the road, there will be deaths.

        While no death is ever good, there is a point at which the wider society still considers these deaths to be an "acceptable loss".

        Regulation should only be applied at the point in which society deems those losses to be too high or where there is a foreseeable risk that can be eliminated without too high a level of consequence.

        This doesn't just apply to elderly drivers. It also applies to other driving offences.

        In the cases of "speeding" offences - the government has decided themselves that a even a single death is still not acceptable. They keep sprouting their unrealistic "Towards Zero" policy to justify their continuous lowering of the speed limits and the increase use of speed cameras to generate revenue.

        Restricting elderly drivers does not generate any revenue, so unless there's a huge community outcry (which then signifies that those "acceptable losses" are no longer acceptable, I don't expect the issue to be high on any government's list of things to do. They don't have much self-interest in that issue.

    • RockyRaccoon on 20/12/2017 - 17:18
      +1

      you neglect the false equivalence that young drivers have more competence over time, whereas the elderly have less competence

      ROFL, thats because the incompetent younger driver has killed themselves, leaving only the competent ones

      Its just so easy to make generalisations

      • airal3rt on 20/12/2017 - 19:02
        +4

        Statistics =/= generalisations, even if said statistics hurt your feelings.

        • RockyRaccoon on 20/12/2017 - 20:54

          So where is the statistic for competence as claimed?

          What defines Young Driver? 17-21?

          As they get older they are no longer young!

          Who is "elderly" In the case the OP gives its 87

          Already those over 85 have to have bi-annual checks by competent RMS assessors, so does the OP has statstics to support his claim, if so then the RMS assessors arent doing their job. These same assessors assess young drivers as well.

          If you want to continue with your unrestricted licence you must have a yearly medical assessment and pass an on-road driving assessment every two years

          I use NSW as the accident was in NSW, where the call was made

    • Baysew on 21/12/2017 - 14:34

      It’s mind boggling how arrogant & wilfully ignorant of road laws so many drivers are.
      Not to mention cyclists have no protection.
      No wonder door panels get kicked in & side windows knocked off

      Surprised it was only attempted assault. I would have thought it should have been attempted grevious bodily harm

      OP didn't mention anything about old drivers on their last outrage.

      • teasatotalling on 22/12/2017 - 02:13
        -3

        nope, no signs of logic here boss

    • JH100 on 21/12/2017 - 16:47
      +1

      But don't young drivers kill more and die more on the roads?

      How does restricting older drivers solve that?

      My only gripe with older drivers is they can be too slow, they do bump other cars at the car park, but nothing like the danger younger drivers are In my experience.

      • dsp26 on 21/12/2017 - 17:21

        Elderly = Unaware they are doing something wrong 100% of the time that results in a bad outcome
        Hoons = 'Somewhat' calculated risk making conscious choice less than 100% of the time, that results in a bad outcome

        "Which would you prefer?" is always the question I ask

        • Baysew on 21/12/2017 - 18:27
          +3

          Por qué no los dos?

          Cops take car off 78-year-old hoon

        • JH100 on 22/12/2017 - 13:26
          +3

          I prefer the elderly driver myself. They are predictable and can be accounted for.

          The young hoon on the other hand is not so, and given 'his' more aggressive attitude is likely to cause more damage.

          The elderly hoon is probably the worst of the lot. :-)

        • Euphemistic on 22/12/2017 - 16:23
          -1

          @JH100: and when the elderly driver comes careering through your morning coffee and into the kitchen because they couldn’t tell the difference between thegk and stop pedals?

        • JH100 on 23/12/2017 - 00:57
          +3

          @Euphemistic:

          and when the younger driver comes careering through your morning coffee and into the kitchen because they …

          Either way, I'd say morning coffee is ruined. :-)

      • eggles01 on 22/12/2017 - 17:50

        JH100,congradulations some sensibility does remain in ozzie

    • dave999 on 21/12/2017 - 17:03
      +1

      They already have medical tests every year to renew their license for people over 75. It is already exactly what you are saying it should be.

    • belongsinforums on 21/12/2017 - 21:07
      -1

      So we ignore the dangers associated with riding motorbikes on the road in favour of the dangers associated with elderly drivers?

      • eggles01 on 25/12/2017 - 18:49

        by using a pro rata system a lot more motorbikes have roared past me when I am obeying the road rules

  • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2017 - 15:56
    +1

    What action would you like to be seen taken by the govt ?

    • pformag on 21/12/2017 - 14:46
      +1

      Maybe over 70-year-old, Every 2 year's, do a medical check and then they have to go to the licence centre and provide a doctors approval. Every 3 years, do a specialise mini driving test to prove competency.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/12/2017 - 16:33
        +2

        Pass the test every year.
        Keep it simple

        • dave999 on 21/12/2017 - 17:02
          +1

          The law in NSW is that over 75 you have to have a medical test every single year to renew your licence. It is similar in every state I think.

          The govt doesn't have to do anything because they have already taken appropriate action.

        • ozssc on 21/12/2017 - 17:32
          +14

          @dave999: The issue is that it is very easy for an elderly person to be given medical clearance by their own doctor because if they weren't, they'd shop around until they found one. Elderly customers are too valuable to doctors in terms of revenue. Medical tests should be performed by an traffic authority appointed medical person….someone who has no potential conflict of interest.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/12/2017 - 17:34
          +2

          @dave999: I am talking about the driving test

        • johnno07 on 21/12/2017 - 20:04

          Except they make up 10-15% of the population. Can you imagine the state and territory transport bodies having to facilitate an extra THREE MILLION driving exams each year? Please.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/12/2017 - 22:41

          @johnno07: The same way they manage it for the other 85%-90%? I didn't say anything about facilitating though! They have to pay for it if they want to continue driving or everyone should be banned after 60 the same way kids are not allowed to drive? I have to pay for it myself one day but well if that saves people's life, I am all for it.
          Do you say the fight is tough, let's get killed! Or let's get killed as long as it's not you being killed? How about you were to get killed one day in one of these accidents? Would it ring a bell?
          How the states and federal government prosecute and manage billions of court cases each year? Add the police and other authorities involvement and costs. Can we ignore them all?
          I am all for deregulations and decriminalisation of pity misdemeanours with a slap on the hand but people are being killed here.

        • Rescue 26 on 21/12/2017 - 23:52
          +7

          @ozscs:
          That’s exactly what my 91year old father in law did. His regular doctor told him he wouldn’t renew his license so he found a doctor that would.

        • whooah1979 on 22/12/2017 - 00:01

          @Rescue 26:

          His regular doctor told him he wouldn’t renew his license so he found a doctor that would.

          so your father in law got a second (or third) medical opinion from another gp. seeking a second medical opinion is his legal right.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2017 - 00:49

          @whooah1979: well I have to admit that you are right here. That's why I said they should pass the real driving test every year. If passed, great welcome back to the road show. If not, please don't kill innocent people.
          Fair and square.

        • johnno07 on 22/12/2017 - 07:20

          @pal: that 85-90% does it ONCE. You're talking about that 10-15% doing it EVERY YEAR. And facilitate doesn't just mean "pay for", it means organise/perform/administrate etc.

        • Rescue 26 on 22/12/2017 - 09:49
          +1

          @whooah1979:
          True, he can doctor shop. Problem is only his regular doctor knows his medical history. The rest only know what he tells them.

        • Well Wasted on 22/12/2017 - 10:50
          -1

          @ozscs: why do you think centrelink employ's their own doctors? and on whose behalf do they make their medical diagnosis… a doctor has sworn a hippocratic oath to do everything in the best interest of their patient. there's always biased and greedy bastards that will sway in any direction when you wave money in their face…

        • idonotknowwhy on 22/12/2017 - 15:30

          I have; for as long as I can remember, believed that this would be a good idea.
          This avoids any kind of age-discrimination accusations.
          No need for a medical-checkup. Doesn't matter what medical problems you have, as long as you can pass the test.

        • samcro on 22/12/2017 - 16:26

          @Rescue 26: Perhaps there needs to be a central registry, just like certain prescription medication. Go to a doctor, he says no, that's it it gets put on the registry and there's no getting around it??

        • whooah1979 on 22/12/2017 - 21:04

          @samcro:

          Go to a doctor, he says no, that's it it gets put on the registry and there's no getting around it??

          patient medical records are confidential. these record shouldn't be disclosed without the patients consent to third parties unless required by law.
          http://www.abc.net.au/health/consumerguides/stories/2003/02/…

        • Dr C on 23/12/2017 - 00:06

          @pal: maybe everyone's driving competency should be tested regularly and willing disregard for safety of others addressed more severely. Lives are precious and everyone should be treated fairly.

        • eggles01 on 25/12/2017 - 19:27

          @ozscs: by your statement either you are one of those drivers or you know someone that does this,if so you are more responsible of any accidents and the continuing of such accidents,ring up and dob these doctors and the people who are getting their false medicals this way,I am 75yrs and live in the ACT and I have to do an annual medical because I had 3 heart attacks in 4 months in 2007 and suffer with controlled diabetes,I have only been booked for speeding once and that was in the early sixties, I was booked for exceeding the speed by 3 miles per hour over the Sydney Harbour Bridge,2 accidents which were deemed to be I was not at fault,I have held my license for 56 yrs and never lost a demerit point,I wonder how many other drivers driving on some sort of p plates can do that,and how many of the commenters on this site wanting oldies off the road can also match it,one thing to remember is that the ones talking the loudest are more likely to have the most traffic offences against them

    • Toons on 21/12/2017 - 17:05
      +3

      In some countries around the world they use a reflective sticker that can be seen by other cars etc. even at night indicating that the person driving the car is qualified to do so but elderly and prompting you to use a bit of common sense and not take for granted that their reactions are as quick as yours.

      I guess no different to a P Plate but in recognition of the age of driver which i believe a medical may be involved at each re-issue as they have conditions like can't see adequately in the dark so driving during daylight hours only, or well lit streets.

      Oddly enough i thought that people would be offended by it but the reply was no i'm recognising my limits and the others around me are aware i'm getting older not disabled. it helps all of us become safer and patient with those who move at a slower pace than they used to.

      I know i wouldn't be totally bothered having to comply to something like this if it potentially saves lives and teaches others a bit of roadside manors too.

      • eggles01 on 25/12/2017 - 19:29
        +1

        excellent comment

    • PleasureMe on 21/12/2017 - 21:51

      Automatically take away the licence of anyone over 75. But give them a mobility scooter to make up for it so that they don't lose their independence.

  • tassieeagle on 20/12/2017 - 16:10

    Get off the street! Old people are driving!!!

    • [Deactivated] on 21/12/2017 - 15:39
      +3

      Stay away from roads leading to Country Kitchen Buffet.

  • tsunamisurfer on 20/12/2017 - 16:17
    +22

    "But Mr Jessop's sentence was suspended due to his age and he will not serve any time behind bars."

    So Dan Jenkins' life was worth zero to the courts.

    • Herbse on 21/12/2017 - 08:57
      +33

      A sentence is meant to be a deterrent to stop the offender from committing the crime again. If the judge felt this has been met then that's the decision.

      I agree that the sentence feels too lenient. But sentences don't have anything to do with feelings.
      People tend to get vengeance and justice confused.

      • frewer on 21/12/2017 - 09:42
        +14

        People tend to get vengeance and justice confused.

        I never thought I would see this on online forum, well said.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/12/2017 - 16:32
          +1

          Well I don't think they should put this old fellow behind bars but if this is an argument then all life punishments should be abolished and replaced with "until old" which I would support!
          Secondly a punishment is not about vengeance but a deterrent and a signal to the community that a crime will have consequences.
          I personally have watched an old man who barely could walk behind wheels in a parking lot that he mistook the accelerator and the break and hit a car and then mistook the reverse gear and smashed another car behind him, luckily there was no one around.
          I saw him one week later, he still couldn't walk but had a brand new car. So no one had asked if he could drive at all!

      • one man clan on 21/12/2017 - 10:19
        +2

        I agree with the sentence in this case but a sentence is more than just a deterrent to the offender. It also includes justice to the victim and the community as a whole.

      • ensanguined on 22/12/2017 - 06:41
        +2

        So wrong. As an example, per the NSW Sentencing Bench Book: "The purposes of criminal punishment are various: protection of society, deterrence of the offender and of others who might be tempted to offend, retribution and reform." None of these goals were met with this pathetic decision.

        • Herbse on 22/12/2017 - 10:29

          The term retribution isn't mentioned in victroan law, it is mentioned in NSW law, exactly as you've quoted.

          But in the same section, it further explains that retribution does not equal vengeance in law:

          vengeance represents:
          … an uncalibrated act of harm upon another, frequently motivated by emotion and anger, as a reprisal for harm inflicted upon oneself by that person.

          By contrast, retribution represents:
          … an objective, reasoned and measured determination of an appropriate punishment which properly reflects the moral culpability of the offender, having regard to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, the consequential harm caused by the offender, and the normative character of the offender’s conduct.

          https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentenci…

      • Ozpit on 26/12/2017 - 17:34

        "A sentence is meant to be a deterrent to stop the offender from committing the crime again."
        That's why they cut off the hands of thieves in Arabia and then set them free. No prison sentence required as reoffending is quite a challenge. It also means no jail time costs to society. What's more, there's no dole in Arabia, so these thieving handless scum can't continue steal from society by an alternative means. There's a lesson here.

  • PJC on 20/12/2017 - 16:48
    +5

    Pathetic sentences encourage similar crimes.

    • mskeggs on 20/12/2017 - 17:02
      +29

      Yes, I will drive like a madman when I am 87 because I will be in no way impacted by killing young men on motorcycles!

      • PJC on 20/12/2017 - 17:18
        +8

        I knew I couldn't trust you.

        • Baysew on 21/12/2017 - 10:20
          +11

          He plays a long game.

    • dogboy on 20/12/2017 - 17:18

      Yep. I had a crackhead grandmother on a pension break into my house and steal stuff. She got convicted (via fingerprint evidence) but we never saw a cent for the stuff she stole because the courts won't garnish a pension. So basically she got off scott free. So you can also steal and get away with it if old.

      • Geoff-bargain on 21/12/2017 - 09:46
        +2

        too bad we dont have any of those stand your ground / your home is your castle - then you could have smoked the old biddy

      • mingofmongo on 21/12/2017 - 12:05
        +1

        Your home contents insurance wouldn't cover?

  • whooah1979 on 20/12/2017 - 17:46
    -2

    We spend a lot of time on the roads. Not a day go by where we don't record a young p player driving faster than the other drivers, zipping in and out of lanes.

    We prefer to share the roads with mature and elderly drivers than the younger ones.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 20/12/2017 - 18:31
      +27

      Whataboutism. Just because your confirmation bias points towards younger drivers speeding more (to which I'll counter that I see more fully-licensed individuals speeding and talking on their phones than P-platers), doesn't dismiss concerns about older drivers.

      It is an incontrovertible fact that older people lose their faculties as they age. Pointing the finger at younger drivers does absolutely nothing to address this, and is a pointless, waste of time misdirection. Your anecdotes don't trump the realities of the human condition.

  • pegaxs on 20/12/2017 - 17:47
    +6

    Young people want old drivers offf the road until they become old themselves and then they will want all the young drivers off the road…

    It is an issue though. I saw a guy not long ago at a Maccas take almost 5 mins to get out of his car and was hardly able to sustain his own weight. My first thought was, if he can’t hold his own weight, how can he be in control of the brake if required. And it just got worse from there on out. He walked out in front of cars, almost tripped up the step and was obvious that he had some sort of eye condition affecting his sight and he couldn’t hear the girl at the counter when she asked for his order.

    The problem is, when does the right to be independent outweigh public safety? The government is addicted to the elderly vote and there is no government in this country that would dare lose that chunk of voters.

    I think the adage starts to reason that young people are involved in the accidents, old people are the ones that cause them.

    • whooah1979 on 20/12/2017 - 17:57

      I think the adage starts to reason that young people are involved in the accidents, old people are the ones that cause them.

      How did you come this opinion? 42% of fatal collision in nsw for twelve months ending November 2017 involves speeding. How can an elderly driver cause a young driver to speed?

      • crfnx on 21/12/2017 - 10:31
        +9

        Ever been stuck behind someone doing 30KPH below the speed limit for 15 minutes when you are trying to get somewhere and then have them speed up at the only chance you have to overtake and go over the speed limit?

        • No ONE on 21/12/2017 - 13:37

          @syousef: so your answer is no!

        • rover100 on 21/12/2017 - 15:55
          +6

          @Oz Bargain 3:

          His answer is just because you have been held up in traffic, doesn't give you the right to speed endangering others.

        • syousef on 21/12/2017 - 16:42
          -2

          @rover100:

          And this right here is one thing I absolutely LOATHE about the Ozbargain community. There are members of the community who believe they are excellent drivers and have the god-given right to speed! 10 downvotes on my comment. 10 people that should not be on our roads and are a disaster waiting to happen. You can downvote me and argue all you like Ozbargainers. Doesn't change the fact that your license is conditional on you obeying the road rules including the speed limit AT ALL TIMES. People literally die due to this stupidity.

        • Euphemistic on 21/12/2017 - 20:32

          @syousef:
          Driving safely is a lot more than just obeying the speed limit.

          I’ve grown up a bit since I used to drive fast, but I didn’t kill anyone when I did and the couple of incidents I did have I wasn’t speeding.

          I don’t condone speeding, but it typically is not the cause of a crash, driving too fast for the conditions might not be speeding either.

        • PleasureMe on 21/12/2017 - 22:07
          -5

          @Euphemistic: I drive every day, 7 days a week (both car and motorbike). I drive about 40 km per day. I have been driving for 22 years. My maths isn't great, but I know that is a lot of driving. I speed every single day I drive. Not saying it's right or wrong, just stating the facts. I have had over 20 speeding tickets, but I have NEVER had a car or motorbike accident in my life. My wife drives the speed limit. She has been driving 5 years less than me and she has had 4 car accidents. Speed has absolutely NOTHING to do with car accidents. It all comes down to driving ability. I am an excellent driver, I have great reflexes, and I have natural ability. It's something you are born with, not something you can teach. That's why I have never had an accident. There are also many excellent drivers out there who I would completely trust to speed past me on the road and would prefer them as opposed to someone old who cannot see or hear well who is driving 20 km under the speed limit. To me, they are much more dangerous on the road than the speeder who knows how to drive.
          @syousef I'm sure my comment won't change your narrow-minded opinion, but the facts speak for themselves. Speed is not the cause of accidents otherwise I would most likely not be here today.

        • whooah1979 on 21/12/2017 - 22:37
          +1

          @PleasureMe:

          I have had over 20 speeding tickets,

          not funny, but lol.

        • whooah1979 on 21/12/2017 - 22:38
          +1

          @PleasureMe:

          I have natural ability.

          another one. lol.

        • skaman on 22/12/2017 - 08:45
          +4

          @PleasureMe: Speed May not cause an accident (although it certainly can) but it will definitely have an effect on the consequences of an accident. You can’t cheat physics.

          And you can’t be much of a driver if you don’t fully comprehend that speeding reduces your time available to react when someone else makes a mistake in front of you.

          If you’re such a good driver now, imagine how good you’d be if you slowed down a bit.

        • Euphemistic on 22/12/2017 - 08:48
          +1

          @whooah1979:

          I have had over 20 speeding tickets,

          not funny, but lol.

          There's somebody who pays well above the going rate in the stupid tax.

        • syousef on 22/12/2017 - 09:45
          +1

          @Euphemistic:

          Driving safely is a lot more than just obeying the speed limit.

          Yes but obeying the laws including the speed limit is a key part of driving safely. At no point did I say that all that was required to drive safely was to obey the speed limit. That is YOUR straw man.

        • syousef on 22/12/2017 - 09:52
          +1

          @PleasureMe:

          I have had over 20 speeding tickets, but I have NEVER had a car or motorbike accident in my life.

          Every time you speed, you take a risk. That you didn't crash doesn't mean

          My wife drives the speed limit. She has been driving 5 years less than me and she has had 4 car accidents.

          Obeying the speed limit is necessary but not sufficient for safe driving and avoiding accidents. You're not telling me anything I don't know. Perhaps your wife needs to go back and take more lessons.

          Speed has absolutely NOTHING to do with car accidents

          Your conclusion isn't just flawed. It's so flawed I sincerely think you shouldn't be on the road because you clearly have no grip on reality. I'm serious. You're completely delusional. That you think you say "facts speak for themselves" and that you don't recognise that you've been lucky, not skilled mean you are a menace on the road. I wish the authorities would look for posts like yours and revoke drivers licenses for a long enough period to get your attention.

          It is simple physics. E = 0.5mv^2 <— that squared tells you a lot. Double your speed, quadruple your energy.

          Which accident would you rather be in? The one where both cars collide head on at 110km/hr, or the fender bender where someone hits the back of your stopped car at the traffic lights at 5km/hr? Both could lead to an injury. One is a lot more survivable and there is every chance there will be no injury.

        • Euphemistic on 22/12/2017 - 16:21

          @syousef: Otis really easy to determine speed after a crash. It is really hard to determine other factors like distractions. Speed is attributed to many crashes when it is not the true cause.

          Still, obeying the posted limit is an important part of driving.

        • samcro on 22/12/2017 - 16:54

          @PleasureMe: You are modest too!

        • syousef on 22/12/2017 - 19:00

          @Euphemistic:

          Even when speed isn't the cause, more speed almost always leads to a worse outcome for major accidents.

        • eggles01 on 25/12/2017 - 19:45

          @skaman: very well said+++AAA

    • jelko on 20/12/2017 - 18:22

      Geez. Can't this guy just die already?

    • eggles01 on 22/12/2017 - 19:31
      -1

      your last statement just shows how wrong the way your brain works,the only people that would use that as an excuse to what caused you to have the accident and was using that excuse in a statement you were giving to either the police or a magistrate in court,drivers that use those types of excuses should never be allowed to have a license

      • eggles01 on 25/12/2017 - 20:07

        well one of the accidents was caused because the edge of the road collapsed because the rain washed the soil away from the unsealed section of the roadway the other travelling over the SHBridge a car forced it way from a t junction and it just happened to be a policeman standing on the corner and witnessed the accident,both myself and the driver at fault were booked for neg driving,he was booked for disobeying a stop sign and forcing his way into a major road traffic and according to the law I failed to give way to my right,the officer told me to go to the traffic office near Circular Key after 4 pm that day and my charge be written off which it was and it was listed as "a victim of the law" as the law stood,

  • whooah1979 on 20/12/2017 - 17:50

    Young male drivers are overrepresented in fatal and serious injury collision statistics in Australia and possibly anywhere in the world.

    • Herbse on 21/12/2017 - 08:53
      +3

      Relevance?

      • whooah1979 on 21/12/2017 - 10:16
        -1

        Any restrictions imposed on elderly drivers should be equally imposed on the age groups that represents the highest numbers of fatal and serious injury collisions.

        Imposing restrictions on one group without restricting the other one is a knee jerk reaction.

        • Herbse on 21/12/2017 - 10:22
          +8

          Which state do you live in?
          I thought all states had a porbationary period for young drivers with heavier restrictions and penalties?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join