should old people be allowed to drive?

[Black Sheep]

...so not age but health is more the problem. I think younger people sometimes cause more expensive accidents, which is why premiums are higher, for many premiums often rise after a certain age so insurers are aware of increased risk due to increased age as well.

Young drivers are more likely to park their car backwards up a tree

I've often said of the price difference between young men and women, statistically a woman is more likely to bump the car parking it, a man is more likely to write it off on a country lane into a field.

 

[Arch]

A few years ago, I'd have been 26, I was overtaken while driving briskly along a road that runs along the edge of ulswater by two 'boy racer' tarted up hatchbacks

the first overtook on a clear straight and other than 'he's speeding to get past me' I thought nothing of it, his mate overtaking me in the entry to a blind corner however...

just after the corner there was a line of cars heading towards us, had I not braked more for the corner than I'd been planning to there could have been a 3 car smash, us, the muppet and the car coming the other way, as it was muppet only got back onto the correct side of the road at the apex.

I'd guess the two drivers were my age or slightly younger.

I'm not perfect, but i'm not stupid.

I was once driving a minibusful of archaeologists to Orkney, and in traffic on the A9, in a line of vehicles following a caravan. We were all doing about 50, so not really slow, considering the A9 was single carriageway at that stage, a long straightish stretch, with fairly constant oncoming traffic.

I watched in my mirror as a silver Mondeo type car leapfrogged up the queue, overtaking in the smallest gaps in oncoming traffic, barging back into the line. When he was two cars behind me, I saw him pull out to come past. I could also see the HGV bearing down in the opposite direction. This bloke pulled out, started to over take, realised he wasn't going to make it past us and by the luck of the devil, there was a layby on the other side of the road, which he screeched to a halt in, the HGV passing between us and him in the layby. He was a middle aged chap. Sales rep perhaps.

It was so close that I'd started to work out how to minimise the impact, which way best to swerve and so on. I was convinvced there was going to be a collision, whatever. There must have been a matter of feet between us all.

Anyway, we drove on, with a lot of "Did you seee that, that was close! He won't do that again!" A few miles further on, still doing 50ish behind a couple of lorries and this caravan, I looked in my mirror to see a silver Mondeo type car, leapfrogging up the line of traffic...

I'm sure he thought he was a very good driver, because he hadn't been killed.

 

[FastRun]

I think it is easier to blame it to the age of the driver - too young, too old - I think there are quite a few people who still can drive despite their high age.

 

[ColinJ]

[QUOTE 1816642, member: 9609"]And were all of the vehicles that were so patiently queuing behind the caravan leaving enough space between yourselves to allow for someone capable of the overtake manoeuvre?[/quote]
So people who consider it unsafe to overtake, should make it easier for someone else to drive unsafely? Presumably, if they thought that it were safe to overtake then they would be doing it themselves!

If the traffic were travelling at 50 mph for 5 miles behind the caravan, that would take 6 minutes. Assuming a speed limit of 60 mph, then unhindered traffic could do the same distance in 5 minutes. So, even over a 5 mile stretch of road, the caravan was causing a mere 1 minute delay. What's the problem?

 

[Black Sheep]

what we really ought to do is clone bill bailey, sit him on every road sign / motorway gantry with a shot gun, if he see's unsafe driving / someone driving like a div then he gets to take a shot at them.

either people will learn to drive properly or be removed from the road.

yes, i'm kidding.

 

[PaulB]

[QUOTE 1816630, member: 9609"]I think the above three examples were all unintentional and I would be happy with the word accident being used, they certainly were not premeditated murder! The first was manslaughter through reckless endangerment and the last two manslaughter through gross negligence; And if I was dishing out sentences my deterent factor would be colossal, they would not be seeing the light of day for quite a few decades!

I just don't get where the word "Accident" diminishes anything.[/quote]

You'd be happy with the word 'accident' being used in such circumstances? Thirteen people died and their relatives are all to go, 'ah well, no harm done. It was an accident.' Is that how you'd like it? 'Manslaughter through reckless endangerment' and 'manslaughter through gross negligence' are not, in any shape or form or interpretation of the word 'accidents'. Let all the bereaved parents, relatives and loved ones of the poor British soldiers shot by an American Air Force jet in the Iraqi desert relieve their anguish and pain in the knowledge that the pilot launched his weapons at them 'accidentally'.

I just don't get how you find any comfort by some criminals seeking to diminish their actions hiding behind the weasel word 'accident'.

 

[Black Sheep]

I always understood 'accident' to mean that the person who's fault it was did not set out to cause the incident, thus there are two uses:

'I'm sorry' she said, picking up the coat she had knocked off the chair while walking back to her table

he was going too fast and lost control of the car which caused the accident - the driver of the car is at fault, but he had no intention of causing the colision even though hindsight shows he should have taken more care.

one results in nothing more than a bit of dirt needing to be brushed off a coat, the matter is forgotten about, the other unfortunately results in worse and someone being held acountable for their actions leading upto the incident.

neither were intended by anyone

 

[Arch]

[QUOTE 1816642, member: 9609"]And were all of the vehicles that were so patiently queuing behind the caravan leaving enough space between yourselves to allow for someone capable of the overtake manoeuvre?[/quote]

Oh right, it was my fault was it?

I was leaving the amount of space recommended, following the 2 second rule. I don't see why I should leave a huge gap so that some impatient gambler can fill it. And why is that even relevant, since the problem was the constant presence of oncoming traffic, making overtaking even one vehicle dangerous.

And at the point he pulled out to overtake the vehicles behind me and me, it wasn't safe to do so, even for a higher powered vehicle than mine. I could see that, and no doubt the poor oncoming lorry driver could see it too! A fact proved by the fact that the overtaker had to take such extreme evasive action.

He made the choice to do it. His foot didn't slip onto the accelerator at the shame time as his hands happened to turn the wheel to the right. His action was not 'accidental'. and without that escape into the layby, could have killed or injured several people.

The fact that he then did it all over again a few minutes later would be enough for me to take his licence away and have him re-educated, had I the power. Sadly, most bad drivers don't get sanctioned until it's too late, and even then, the courts don't seem willing to make examples.

 

[Crackle]

You'd be happy with the word 'accident' being used in such circumstances? Thirteen people died and their relatives are all to go, 'ah well, no harm done. It was an accident.' Is that how you'd like it? 'Manslaughter through reckless endangerment' and 'manslaughter through gross negligence' are not, in any shape or form or interpretation of the word 'accidents'. Let all the bereaved parents, relatives and loved ones of the poor British soldiers shot by an American Air Force jet in the Iraqi desert relieve their anguish and pain in the knowledge that the pilot launched his weapons at them 'accidentally'.

I just don't get how you find any comfort by some criminals seeking to diminish their actions hiding behind the weasel word 'accident'.

An accident is an unforeseen event or circumstance with a lack of intention or necessity, therefore it's quite an appropriate word to use, especially the lack of intent bit. It doesn't mean that there is no fault or blame, that nothing can be learned or no one is culpable i.e, it does not imply innocence it just means that the intention was not to do what was done.

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

I was once driving a minibusful of archaeologists to Orkney, and in traffic on the A9, in a line of vehicles following a caravan. We were all doing about 50, so not really slow, considering the A9 was single carriageway at that stage, a long straightish stretch, with fairly constant oncoming traffic.

I watched in my mirror as a silver Mondeo type car leapfrogged up the queue, overtaking in the smallest gaps in oncoming traffic, barging back into the line. When he was two cars behind me, I saw him pull out to come past. I could also see the HGV bearing down in the opposite direction. This bloke pulled out, started to over take, realised he wasn't going to make it past us and by the luck of the devil, there was a layby on the other side of the road, which he screeched to a halt in, the HGV passing between us and him in the layby. He was a middle aged chap. Sales rep perhaps.

It was so close that I'd started to work out how to minimise the impact, which way best to swerve and so on. I was convinvced there was going to be a collision, whatever. There must have been a matter of feet between us all.

Anyway, we drove on, with a lot of "Did you seee that, that was close! He won't do that again!" A few miles further on, still doing 50ish behind a couple of lorries and this caravan, I looked in my mirror to see a silver Mondeo type car, leapfrogging up the line of traffic...

I'm sure he thought he was a very good driver, because he hadn't been killed.

This is precisely the sort of driver I was referring to in my earlier post. No patience, no awareness, no sense. He probably moans to his mates about all the idiots he sees on the road.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

An accident is an unforeseen event or circumstance with a lack of intention or necessity, therefore it's quite an appropriate word to use, especially the lack of intent bit. It doesn't mean that there is no fault or blame, that nothing can be learned or no one is culpable i.e, it does not imply innocence it just means that the intention was not to do what was done.

Spot on.

 

[PaulB]

[QUOTE 1816911, member: 9609"]Can I just bring your attention to my comment "And if I was dishing out sentences my deterent factor would be colossal, they would not be seeing the light of day for quite a few decades!".
We seem to have a slightly different interpretation of the word accident. But let me assure you that in no way do I consider accidents on our roads to be trivial.[/quote]

That's welcome to read. Now if we could just lose the word.....you know the one I mean, doncha?

 

[Arch]

[QUOTE 1816931, member: 9609"]
If you do not wish to overtake yourself, hang back a bit and allow others to pass.[/quote]

I don't generally want to overtake myself when driving, as that would imply a degree of spin I might be uncomfortable with...

I can see your point, but in this case, the gap I left was completely irrelevant. He moved out to over take three vehicles in a gap barely suitable for overtaking one! I suppose if the cars behind me had been hanging back, he'd have pushed back in behind me, just, but why the hell should they, just to satisfy his ego?

 

[PaulB]

An accident is an unforeseen event or circumstance with a lack of intention or necessity, therefore it's quite an appropriate word to use, especially the lack of intent bit. It doesn't mean that there is no fault or blame, that nothing can be learned or no one is culpable i.e, it does not imply innocence it just means that the intention was not to do what was done.

Wrong. It's a totally INappropriate word to use. A classic example here regards a young girl in the newspaper this morning giving her feelings on a case that concerns her. She was in a shop in London with her mother and a gang fired a gun through the window intending to kill a rival gang member. Now I'm sure these lads didn't mean to shoot the five year old but they did. She's paralysed now, almost certainly for life, because of a criminal act of attempted murder. But let's see you tell us now, with as straight a face as you can muster, that as she wasn't the intended target, the unloading of a gun into a crowded shop paralysing a five year old child was an accident.

 

[Crackle]

Wrong. It's a totally INappropriate word to use. A classic example here regards a young girl in the newspaper this morning giving her feelings on a case that concerns her. She was in a shop in London with her mother and a gang fired a gun through the window intending to kill a rival gang member. Now I'm sure these lads didn't mean to shoot the five year old but they did. She's paralysed now, almost certainly for life, because of a criminal act of attempted murder. But let's see you tell us now, with as straight a face as you can muster, that as she wasn't the intended target, the unloading of a gun into a crowded shop paralysing a five year old child was an accident.

You missed the bit where I said 'lack of intent'. Clearly someone had intent to do do harm in the example you've given. The fact they hit the wrong person is neither here nor there (in terms of intent), so you're right not an accident but it doesn't make my definition wrong, just you're interpretation of it.