killed by cager

[CRMNL]

something that has happened to many-someone i haven't seen in years pops up on the news totally devastated; his 9 yr old daughter killed on mothers day by 89 yr old woman in a car.her grandfather is all messed up as well.old woman gets a $550 INFRACTION!!!!!!! that's it! i cannot believe how fucked this is.what a shit day.

[RZRob]

I think starting at 65, drivers should have to take a competency test involving reaction time and motor skills.

RZ Rob

[drift]

Sorry to hear... I agree with the rage. No way should this be an "infraction" no matter who it is that does the killing.

Bruce

[williamr]

I've seen a bit more detail posted elsewhere on this.

No doubt the driver was at fault, but there may be a bit more to the story. One question is 'was the girl wearing a helmet'? Certainly there has to be a question about an 89 year old's ability to drive.

Rage might feel good, but it won't stop something similar from happening again.

I'm with the idea of medical checks, but for all drivers from the day they get their first licence. It may sound counter intuitive, but the most dangerous age group here is the 35 - 50 year olds. One estimate for the UK is that 50% of ths group would fail the minimum eyesight requirements for driving.

The reason is simply that this group, through vanity or refusal to accept that they're aging, are reluctant to admit that they need glasses. Older drivers are happy to get and use glasses - probably because they reach the stage where they need them to read the newspaper.

Elderly drivers don't feature high in the accident figures. That's why there's so much press coverage when it does happen. The next time a driver in his late thirties says 'I didn't see you', he's more likely to be telling the truth than someone older wearing glasses.

Rob

[drift]

I didn't think the point of the story was the age... it was the serious incident that was followed by a meaningless infraction charge... in some states the speeding tickets are just as high. Here in SF, running a red light camera will cost nearly as much.

Is there any other way a person could kill another person (other than self-defense) and get away so easily? Intended or not? If a car hits a pedestrian (unintentionally) what is the charge? I'm not a lawyer, but I've read "vehicular manslaughter" in the papers... which carries a much larger consequence than a $550 fine.

Bruce

[Moekazi]

It's too soon. The infraction is the easy part. What usually happens is that the case gets reviewed by the DA and then they make the formal charges. Cops don't just write a ticket for manslaughter and haul people off. The DA decides what "real" charges they can get to stick whether or not to pursue it.

There was a case where an elderly gentleman ran through a crowded outdoor market near where i live killing a few people. It took them at least a month before he was officially charged. In the interim, he was ordered to stay in the county. I wouldn't doubt this geriatric is in the same position and probably has a new pretty anklet to show for it.

Don't get too pissed off without checking with the DA first.

.

[Morgan]

9 yr old daughter killed on mothers day by 89 yr old woman in a car

According to some rather warped logic, clearly the 9 year old girl, or her parents are at fault. She, or her parents, should have been responsible enough to carry a gun to shoot the 89 year old dead in her tracks.

Of course, no civilised person would adhere to such a belief, unless blinded. What is striking, is that there are two forms of justice in the same mindset: a gun for self-defence in one instance; and the DA as the law for another.

[NeoGeniX]

I think starting at 65, drivers should have to take a competency test involving reaction time and motor skills.

RZ Rob

You don't have such a thing??? Wow.

[rx7tt95]

I live in God's waiting room, aka Florida where we have the largest percentage of retirees in the country. State legislature has tried numerous times to enact laws requiring competency tests for seniors. Unfortunately, seniors vote and the bills are often voted down or the politicians who propose them are voted out of office. I believe they finally passed a law requiring a vision test past the age of 65 and a three year license renewal cycle. I think it should be yearly at that age with vision and hearing tests.

Insurance companies continue to oppose further legislation as well. Less money for them if all the seniors are banned. Just think what sort of public transportation system we'd have if all the q-tips (old folks) had to take the bus!

I banned my own grandmother from driving some years ago and will do the same to my parents when the time comes.

[wingman03]

I've seen a bit more detail posted elsewhere on this.

No doubt the driver was at fault, but there may be a bit more to the story. One question is 'was the girl wearing a helmet'? Certainly there has to be a question about an 89 year old's ability to drive.

Rage might feel good, but it won't stop something similar from happening again.

I'm with the idea of medical checks, but for all drivers from the day they get their first licence. It may sound counter intuitive, but the most dangerous age group here is the 35 - 50 year olds. One estimate for the UK is that 50% of ths group would fail the minimum eyesight requirements for driving.

The reason is simply that this group, through vanity or refusal to accept that they're aging, are reluctant to admit that they need glasses. Older drivers are happy to get and use glasses - probably because they reach the stage where they need them to read the newspaper.

Elderly drivers don't feature high in the accident figures. That's why there's so much press coverage when it does happen. The next time a driver in his late thirties says 'I didn't see you', he's more likely to be telling the truth than someone older wearing glasses.

Rob

They don't seem to have any trouble seeing their cell phones.

[Speedtres]

According to some rather warped logic, clearly the 9 year old girl, or her parents are at fault. She, or her parents, should have been responsible enough to carry a gun to shoot the 89 year old dead in her tracks.

Of course, no civilised person would adhere to such a belief, unless blinded. What is striking, is that there are two forms of justice in the same mindset: a gun for self-defence in one instance; and the DA as the law for another.


How the hell does any of this drivel apply to the first post?

[wingman03]

How the hell does any of this drivel apply to the first post?

Hunker down and numb your brain, here it comes......

[williamr]

They don't seem to have any trouble seeing their cell phones.

Very true. Point is that compulsory eye tests for the over 65s are probably a waste of time. It's the wrong age group. There's even a post somewhere (Might be on the TJ forum) from a 17 year old who only got found out when he was asked to read a number plate on his driving test.

Back on thread, in cases like this where a relatively trivial mistake has fatal consequences, we've just added a new law of 'Causing death by careless driving' so that punishment can be given for the consequence as well as the mistake.

'Causing death by dangerous driving' has been on the statute book for a long time. A cop was jailed under this one last month for driving at over 90 mph in a 30 mph zone on an emergency call, without his lights and siren. He hit and killed a 16 year old pedestrian.

I'd still like to know if the girl was geared up, including a helmet.

Rob

[drift]

It's too soon. The infraction is the easy part. What usually happens is that the case gets reviewed by the DA and then they make the formal charges. Cops don't just write a ticket for manslaughter and haul people off. The DA decides what "real" charges they can get to stick whether or not to pursue it.

There was a case where an elderly gentleman ran through a crowded outdoor market near where i live killing a few people. It took them at least a month before he was officially charged. In the interim, he was ordered to stay in the county. I wouldn't doubt this geriatric is in the same position and probably has a new pretty anklet to show for it.

Don't get too pissed off without checking with the DA first.

.
That's a great explanation. I hadn't thought of that... it seems obvious to us that the driver is at fault, but if the DA can't/doesn't want to press charges... we won't know that for a while.

As far as the question of the girl wearing a helmet... OP never said she was on a motorcycle.

Bruce

[commandodave]

It's too soon. The infraction is the easy part. What usually happens is that the case gets reviewed by the DA and then they make the formal charges. Cops don't just write a ticket for manslaughter and haul people off. The DA decides what "real" charges they can get to stick whether or not to pursue it.

There was a case where an elderly gentleman ran through a crowded outdoor market near where i live killing a few people. It took them at least a month before he was officially charged. In the interim, he was ordered to stay in the county. I wouldn't doubt this geriatric is in the same position and probably has a new pretty anklet to show for it.

Don't get too pissed off without checking with the DA first.

.

I don't know your jurisdiction. But here in the corrupt state of Maryland they can't do that. A year or two ago something similar happened. Girl was in a car wreck that killed someone. The officer on the scene wrote her a ticket for something like "dangerous driving". She immediately went home and paid the ticket. Some weeks later the DA charged her with manslaughter. The girl's lawyer had a liberal judge throw out the manslaughter charge as DOUBLE JEOPARDY. (The defense lawyers own the judicial system here.) The police have now been instructed not to write tickets on the spot where accidents involving death and disfugurement are involved.

Dave

[williamr]

As far as the question of the girl wearing a helmet... OP never said she was on a motorcycle.

Bruce

On one of the other forums the report says that she was on the back of a Harley driven by her grandfather.

Some of my questions come from that. Forgot that it wasn't posted here.

Rob

[CRMNL]

yes, she was on the back of a harley with her grandad; and it wasn't really about specifics-just that the old woman pulled out in front of them, which caused it, and she "might" lose her license.it's just that ron has had enough crappy things happen, and losing his daughter has to be the worst possible thing.i have situations happen all the time with people trying to kill me on my bike, which i manage to just avoid, but this made me not want to ride at all.we all take these risks, being riders, but it still sucks; some people just do not pay attention (i drive a car as well, but not as worried as i drive a big american sedan and could care less if they hit me) and i wish more people drove as if they were riders.

[williamr]

.i have situations happen all the time with people trying to kill me on my bike, which i manage to just avoid, .

~If this really true, and you only just manage to avoid them, I'd suggest some training.

Rob

[CRMNL]

maybe you just don't have as shitty of drivers where you live.just a guess.

[williamr]

I think maybe because of the way European road systems have developed over the last 1,000 years or so we have much more in the way of blind or obscured curves and badly designed intersections with poor sight lines, so our training and testing is much more focussed on coping and is much more carried out on the street.

Shitty drivers are a fact of life everywhere.

I'd still suggest some training.

Rob

[CRMNL]

I would agree that training is a good idea for everyone, (me included-as i still can't ride with others). and as i look back to my trip to the uk, i remember the general populace being more considerate of others on the road (not selfish) and it being seemingly safer even with smaller roads, and i am still amazed at how many stupid self-absorbed drivers i see on a regular basis.cell phones are death.........