Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
perhaps it is time we re-think the wisdom of putting handicapped spots right in the front without any barrier.
Just heard about this.

There are some very fortunate people there. Of course they could have just as easily been in a cross walk or in their living room. Barriers are pointless. There are precious and valuable things in every direction. If you take the barrier approach you're engaging the labor of Sisyphus.

Since I hold that opinion that government regulatory solutions are expensive, and largely ineffectual [if you disagree consider that we already have a very expensive DMV and police force which are supposed to see to driver qualifications and identify and sideline bad drivers, but obviously do not.] I'd prefer to see this kind of thing taken care of by the legal and insurance systems. Provide for enhanced (punitive) damage awards for negligent or impaired driving, and you'll inspire insurance companies to police the driving public and force the worst drivers out of the system with high rates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
It's a tough decision but when I am with my kids I am always extra cautious when a elderly person is stopped in front of us. At some point the need to end your ability to drive due to age
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
The problem is its a judgement call. Dr's can do it for certain diagnosable medical conditions. But when you're talking about the slow creeping combined effects of diminished muscle control, attention, awareness, reflexes, and eyesight, the only entity in our society that can consider it all and make a legally binding decisions that will stick is a judge. If cops or the lady at the DMV tried it they'd get sued blind.
 

·
b a n n e d
Joined
·
6,213 Posts
I'd prefer to see this kind of thing taken care of by the legal and insurance systems. Provide for enhanced (punitive) damage awards for negligent or impaired driving, and you'll inspire insurance companies to police the driving public and force the worst drivers out of the system with high rates.
You haven't thought this one through enough . . . . oiy, insurance companies saying who can and can't drive. :rolleyes:

This already happens in the healthcare industry where insurance companies DO (unfortunately) have the power to "police" the system . . . yeah, that's working out real swell.

The problem is its a judgement call. Dr's can do it for certain diagnosable medical conditions. But when you're talking about the slow creeping combined effects of diminished muscle control, attention, awareness, reflexes, and eyesight, the only entity in our society that can consider it all and make a legally binding decisions that will stick is a judge. If cops or the lady at the DMV tried it they'd get sued blind.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly . . . . are you suggesting that the DMV or police don't have the rights to take away someone's drivers license? :confused:

You are somewhat correct that a doctor can get a drivers license revoked . . . its not the doctor per se, its what they diagnose. There are certain conditions where if a diagnosis is given, it is an automatic revocation of driving privilege, which is enforced by the DMV and police.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
You haven't thought this one through enough . . . . oiy, insurance companies saying who can and can't drive. :rolleyes:

This already happens in the healthcare industry where insurance companies DO (unfortunately) have the power to "police" the system . . . yeah, that's working out real swell.



I'm not sure if I understand you correctly . . . . are you suggesting that the DMV or police don't have the rights to take away someone's drivers license? :confused:

You are somewhat correct that a doctor can get a drivers license revoked . . . its not the doctor per se, its what they diagnose. There are certain conditions where if a diagnosis is given, it is an automatic revocation of driving privilege, which is enforced by the DMV and police.
Insurance companies can set rates. If you allow victims to go to court and show that the drive was un-reasonably impaired (beyond a normal guy that was tired after a hard day, etc) but that there was good cause to expect that they were impaired, and then they would receive punitive damages (that is monetary awards that far exceed actual damages), you will create another, higher, category of risk. Old people, people with a history of substance abuse, repeat DUI'ers and the like would have their rates set higher to cover the risk. They are not every going to flat out deny anybody (you could write that into the law), but they are going to set rates to cover their exposure which is easily audit-able. So an 85 year old is going to be priced out of the driving market unless they've got some exceptional medical records.

I know the DMV and Police CAN pull licenses, but do they? Obviously they dont do it often enough as this is not the first case like this. I'd be willing to bet this happens 10 times a day in this state but the circumstances are such that it not dramatic enough to make the papers; maybe they just plowed into the cabinets at the end of their garage, or the car parked next to them at the supermarket.[Just for fun spend a half hour sitting in the grocery store parking lot on Wednesday morning (coupon day) and check out the bumpers of the cars the old people drive. Lots of new'ish cars with scuffs on all 4 corners.] The problem with having the DMV do it is that 1) there's no program in place for systematic testing; do you want to sponsor the law that says senior have to line up every 6 months for a driving test? Could the state afford to pay for such an enterprise? 2) DMV has no liability for failure to pull a license so you're never going to get them excited about wading into the fight that will often ensue when they try to pull a license. 3)To do the job right the DMV would have to consider medical records which raises privacy issues and the DMV doesn't have any kind of existing medical evaluation infrastructure that I'm aware of. Insurance companies on the other hand deal with this all the time and have the staff and expertise. 4) A price based system would allow seniors the dignity of making the decision themselves, based on cost, rather than just showing up at the DMV one day and getting flunked. 5) The DMV would have to deal with inter-state issues of authority and jurisdiction. Effectively it would have to be a federal law or places like florida and Arizona would opt out and the bad old drivers would just move out of state.
 

·
b a n n e d
Joined
·
6,213 Posts
Insurance companies can set rates. If you allow victims to go to court and show that the drive was UN-reasonably impaired (beyond a normal guy that was tired after a hard day, etc) but that there was good cause to expect that they were impaired, and then they would receive punitive damages (that is monetary awards that far exceed actual damages), you will create another, higher, category of risk. Old people, people with a history of substance abuse, repeat DUI'ers and the like would have their rates set higher to cover the risk. They are not every going to flat out deny anybody (you could write that into the law), but they are going to set rates to cover their exposure which is easily audit-able. So an 85 year old is going to be priced out of the driving market unless they've got some exceptional medical records.
Uhhhhh . . . you do realize that this is EXACTLY how the system works right now, correct?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Yeah, but obviously the damages being paid by the insurance companies are not high enough to create a progression in rates that will move the impaired out of their cars soon enough. At this point the impact on clams are not even high enough to cause the insurance companies to consider any metric other than age. A big step forward would be to just have them require the results of an eye exam that the person is already taking. What's the person's corrected vision? Another step would be to get the insurance companies interested in the results of a simple reaction time test that could be administered online. Until you start seeing those kinds of things you know the claim's risks are not serious enough.
 

·
b a n n e d
Joined
·
6,213 Posts
Metamorphic, I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a CLUE what you are talking about or the full ramifications of what you are suggesting.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Well, the State's not getting it done despite having the laws available and on the book. What do you suggest?

As far as I can see the insurance companies are the only ones with the proper positioning an a proven willingness to be the bad guys.
 

·
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joined
·
8,817 Posts
I know the DMV and Police CAN pull licenses, but do they? Obviously they dont do it often enough as this is not the first case like this.
They don't pull licenses because there is no mandatory re-testing once people get to a certain age. If all drivers were required to perform a driving skills test once every 2 years starting at age 65, the old people accidents would not happen as much because the DMV would have more first hand knowledge of an elderly persons motor skills and reaction time. That however is not really a feasible solution due to the cost to the state, and the lack of employees that would be needed to administer all the extra testing that would have to take place.

Accidents like this do not happen all the time, but when they do happen it makes the news because the captured video makes for a great news story. More people are injured or die in regular car accidents that are caused by distraction, not old age.

I don't think allowing litigation and insurance claims is the best way to regulate old people driving into stores and pedestrians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
You know watching this again and I am just glad no one was hurt- or seriously hurt although it looks like the lady at the counter might have gotten pinched abit. Just so glad it wasnt packed with customers.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top