????????????????????????????

The safest at parking large vehicles off embankments?

This story was planted by AARP.

sorry i just spit out my freaking coke reading the title and looking at the picture HAHAHAHHHHHAHAHA
…….. sorry

I think Wilford Brimely, the used to be oatmeal guy and the now diabetes guy and liberty medical guy, is in on it.

Is that the Baltimore Po-lease?

i mean, i can KINDA see how they are safe- i mean, they drive atleast 5-10 miles below the speed limit, they hardly EVER change lanes, they put their blinkers on 3 blocks before they turn, come to a FULL stop at a yellow light and wait at least 5 seconds after the light turns green… i can see it now

Wow… what a bunch of doublespeak.

“Older drivers are safer.” But we still want them to take eye exams.

I think the Japanese have the right idea. Tell ‘em to give up their keys.

If I ever get to an age where I can’t do 5MPH over the posted limit and keep with traffic like everyone else… please take my license.

RaineMan, do you live in Boston, SF or NYC where you don’t need to drive? How old people get food, attend Church, go to a doctor? Do you want social services to be the provider of transportation? At what cost and who will pay? Taxpayers. Yes they drive 5 miles BELOW speed limit and annoying sometimes (especially if I am LATE), but if you have parents it could be them or you in 50 years.
Of course if someone is product of foster care, I can understand the hate. It’s hard to be raised off strangers table.

Funny xyunya… funny.

I’m not trying to tar all senior drivers with the same brush. My dad is 67 and is one of the best and most skilled drivers I know.

I am talking about the little old lady in her lincoln town car who can barely see above the steering wheel… who is bound and determined to ride in the fast lane of the highway doing 10-15 under the limit with her blinker on.

People like that cause wrecks. Sure… they aren’t injured b/c they weren’t directly involved in it. It’s typically the person following them or trying to go around them who gets hit.

Amen RaineMan

These statistics are f*cking meaningless. Everybody behind the wheel thinks they’re gawd’s gift to the road. The only difference is some have a little more tolerance for other drivers and a little more focus on what’s actually going on around them. Not that I want to live in a police state or anything but how many times after witnessing some bonehead move have you said where’s a cop when you need one? And that applies whether it’s RaineMan’s little old lady or some teenage doughhead weaving through traffic in the middle of rush hour. Our police out here have really taken to using some truly unique ghost cars. I’ve seen everything from Buicks to Volkswagens and when you happen to pass by the perp slow enough to get a look at their face, man they are usually some pissed. Everyone behaves when there is a marked car in plain view, but a ghost Jetta- nobody’s looking for that.

Safer for who? When they change lanes without the blinkers, (which I see everyday), & cut other drivers off so they’re (other drivers) the ones that get into accidents.

You do have a point there JohnnyCanuck. Though I’m all for a law requiring that traffic cops drive only marked cruisers. The police are really abusing their power driving around in these unmarked everyman cars and pulling people over. With the number of “bluelight bandits” out there it is inherently dangerous… and it’s really not fair to other motorists either.
Everyone speeds… it’s a fact. I have to do 10-15 over the limit daily just to keep from being run off the road by trucks and semis. I go right by a speed trap every day. Traffic slows down for about a mile… then speeds right back up again. It’s not doing any good.

RaineMan: I agree it’s tough to pick a stance on this one. The marked cars as you pointed out can create more of a problem than they’re trying to solve. Unmarked cruisers have a better chance of actually catching the real problem drivers, but are also more likely to dole out violations when, as you say, someone is not doing anything dangerous but rather just trying not to get run over.

How is any of that doublespeak? This study was done by a group of British wheel-shufflers… it’s the government who’s saying they want to mandate testing.

Frankly, older drivers should easily be proven to be the safest on the road because they’re (generally but not always – I remember how my grandpop used to drive…) the most overly-cautious group of motorists on the road. Just as it’s perfectly logical that accidents involving them produce less injuries than the average because of course there will be less of an impact when granny smacks into someone or something at 35mph opposed to 50-60mph… so all this study proves is that the laws of physics continue to remain in effect.

I think it’s a preposterous notion to mandate that drivers over a certain age “hang up their keys,” government has no place to do such thing. However, it’s perfectly reasonable that after a certain age, drivers should be subjected to retesting. Actually… I think everyone should be required to retake a driving test every ten years regardless of age. Then, somewhere between the age of 65-70, I think drivers should be required to retake both written and road tests as well as a vision test every fours years when they go to renew their license. At certain times and under certain circumstances, driving becomes more of a privilege than it is necessarily a right.

RaineMan: I agree it’s tough to pick a stance on this one. The marked cars can cause more of a problem than they’re trying to solve. You’re cruising along and all of a sudden there is a sea of red brake lights in front of you and you’re stabbing the brake pedal just because 100 cars up the chain reaction started when the first guy saw the trap. Unmarked cruisers have a better chance of actually catching the real problem drivers, but are also more likely to dole out violations when, as you say, someone is not doing anything dangerous but rather just trying not to get run over.

To me, this is a largely meaningless story. The real newsworthy item isn’t the IAM’s conclusion, but what they actually studied. Did IAM compare over-70 stats against all over-70 licensed drivers, or those who profess to actually drive their cars. I imagine the % of over-70 drivers who have their license, but who do NOT actually drive their cars, is among the highest (if not the highest) of any age group.

Anecdotally, I can see how over-70 drivers have fewer accidents, because that age group also doesn’t venture as far from their house, drive so much at night, and probably, generally speaking, drive slower and on less-congested roadways.

Regardless, the study has nothing to do with LLN’s final statement–

LLN writes: “Despite the test’s findings, the British government is currently considering compulsory eyesight and driving ability tests for drivers over the age of 75.”

Maybe one of the reasons why over-70 drivers were found to have been so safe was because those who FAILED eyesight and driving ability tests were not licensed.

…sorry for the double post. Wordpress issues.

Oh… and simply “keeping up” with traffic isn’t and has never been a viable defense for speeding – it’s the same old “if everyone jumps off a bridge” routine. I’m all for unmarked police cruisers… marked cruisers parked along the road cause more problems than actually help things because as has been mentioned, any time there is a marked police car sitting somewhere everyone will SLOW down to below the speed limit, which is absolutely ridiculous. I’ve never been able to understand that specific stupidity in people… a cop isn’t going to pull someone over for doing the speed limit or a couple miles over it… and then once those brake lights go off – it’s a chain reaction and it ****s everyone up. It’s even worse when they slow down a lot when they see a cop who’s pulled someone else over… Is that cop going to forget the person they have pulled over, jump back in his car and chase someone down for going 55 in a 50? It’s utter hogwash… just like when people hit the brakes when they pass a police car going in the opposite direction… if a cop sees your brake lights in his mirror as you go past, you’re basically admitting that you were either speeding… or you’re a moron.

Many people just have this innate fear of the police and I’ll never understand it… they’re public servants and they’re not THE law, they’re only meant to enforce it when there’s an egregious violation of it. Are there some overambitious yahoos wearing badges out there? Of course there are… but in the grand scheme of things, they’re just as inconsequential to my daily life as all of the other ones. There’s a difference between respect and fear that many people just don’t understand… I might respect (some) officers – but I’ll never be intimidated by someone who’s on my payroll.

“less likely to injure themselves and others drivers in accidents” Yea, it’s hard to get hurt when you are only doing 5mph.

In Northern California, cops have been known to use confiscated ricers as ghost cars. You’d never expect the tricked out civic next to you at the light. How’s that for unfair?

Haha that photo made me ROFL!

are you kidding? yeah they dont hurt as many people because they are going 15 in a 30 zone. Or they crash themselves, or they piss everyone off, or they mess up my lawn. I drove past an old lady who stuffed her LeBaron into a rock wall the other day and was sitting in her car looking around like she was lost. Yes some old people can drive, but id say 95% cant.

They’re recycling that picture of the old hag who launched the Buick off the road.

Doesnt apply in the US, where there is a huge concentration of older people in South Florida (where roads are 2 way, 6 lanes wide, 50 MPH), that came from NYC (1 way streets, 1 lane wide after cars are parked, most 2 way streets are only 2 lanes not counting parking lanes, 30 MPH)—I’m only 24 and when I go to Florida it takes me awhile to get accustomed to the traffic there, imagine your 70 years old and been driving for 50 years in NYC then you’re thrown into S. Florida…

Nobody said anything, but there’s a huge difference between the driving character of elderly in Japan than some grandpa in US. I won’t claim which one drivers better, just different. Thus we can’t really question why the brits think otherwise.

Less likely to injure doesn’t mean less likely to cause accidents.

Like the Diamond car insurance adverts for women state: “Women’s claims cost less”. They never said women have less claims!

That’s because women cause more accidents but haven’t got the testosterone to cause proper accidents.

Another thing that gets me is women dressed in the full Hijabs who have very limited peripheral vision; it’s dangerous and many a time have I seen near-accidents caused by unawareness due to this… Do you see people wearing fully closed LRG Dead Serious hoodies driving? It would be dangerous and stupid.

what a bullcrap..