ForumGarden

I put a question mark because the statistics used in this article seem severely lacking. We all know that statistics can be used to make just about anything sound true. Stats are in the eye of the beholder.

What I question is this: how many pedestrians were killed by elders? (they only count how many drivers and passengers died) and how does their own "fact" that elders don't drive in bad weather factor into the stats that say they killed just as many? How did they verify the percentage of times their study groups drove? If an elder only drove twice a week and killed a person... isn't that a higher stat than someone who drove every day and killed someone? How many elder pedestrians were killed by an elderly driver who didn't die because it was an extremely slo mo accident? I'm not exaggerating, that's the last car related senior death that occurred near where I live.

I'm unconvinced the author of this article had enough info to write anything conclusive.

Driver's seat safer than sidewalk for older adults | Fox News

Seems reasonable to me. You have to consider the fact that older adults will be much more likely to concentrate entirely on driving the vehicle because quite frankly they don't have much else to think about. They might perhaps need to think about taking their medicine, it's just that they have to focus on driving enough to make it to the pharmacy as safely as possible.

As far as " If an elder only drove twice a week and killed a person... isn't that a higher stat than someone who drove every day and killed someone?" I'd say that the stat is only relevant to the one kill. If someone were to have only driven a car once and ended up killing a pedestrian then his/her record for driving would be horrible but wouldn't increase the stats because how does one go about comparing his age group to others if he/she never drove again? Not a good stat to have.

The only conclusive thing I'd be willing to agree with is that they are less likely to be killed when in a vehicle than when not in one.

There are some elderly people who have more than their wits about them. Then there are others who lean on the touch screen of the photocopier and declare that technology conspired against them when they get 20 copies instead of 1. There is definitely a co-relation between how often a person drives and their chances of killing a person. It changes the statistics if not included in calculations. A person who takes airplanes on a weekly basis has a much better chance of dying in a plane crash.

More elderly people die as pedestrians because there are more pedestrian elderly than driving elderly. And some of them are killed by elderly drivers.

Here's a more complete presentation of statistics

Older Drivers, Elderly Driving, Seniors at the Wheel

The key phrase is "per miles driven"

The elderly have similar stats to new teen drivers who are, in Canada, now given very strict graduated permits.

Thee seems to come a point for some where they just lose it. My poor old Dad did before he died. Fortunately he was at least partly aware of it and only drove a couple of miles on back roads to the cricket ground. Nearly had us in the ditch even then. What really scared us was that he would forget and end up getting on the dual carriageway the wrong way or something. Mum on the other hand was sharp as a needle right to the last few days when I drove her home 20 miles from the hospital to die without exceeding 10mph at any point because it scared her.

I think that elderly people are generally excellent drivers until suddenly, without warning, they aren't.

Clodhopper;1402061 wrote:

I think that elderly people are generally excellent drivers until suddenly, without warning, they aren't. The only reason car Insurance Is cheaper for over 70's In the UK Is because by the time they've got home, they've forgotten and don't claim.

oscar;1402138 wrote: The only reason car Insurance Is cheaper for over 70's In the UK Is because by the time they've got home, they've forgotten and don't claim.I'd driven to the grocery store a few months ago and as I was walking up the parking lot I'd seen a car with the entire left side crinkled up like a dried up dish rag. I didn't pay any attention of course because how was I to know that it happened on the poor women's drive up to the store? She looked at it and then me as I walked by her and she had the look of complete shock. She then said "Oh dear, I didn't know that happened". I naturally asked if everything was ok and she'd told me she struck a deer just outside of town, keeping in mind I live in a University town.She'd then asked me what she should do. I asked if she'd stopped and she said no. She just hit it and driven to the store. I asked if she reported it and she said "no".

Hmmmm...I told her she should have reported it and at the very least perhaps her insurance would cover it and she looked at me as if I were an alien.

I just can't help but wonder if she at any time in her life understood what was a reasonable response to such a situation and if she did know why she couldn't reflect on that. There are most assuredly points to the argument that senior citizens should be retested that I agree with. If we can ever get medicare taken care of then perhaps charging an extra $10 for another test would be reasonable.

While some seniors drive when they shouldn't, I see far more danger from the kid with his headphones on and texting while driving, or even crossing the street - completely oblivious to the world around him. I saw one yesterday texting while riding a bicycle through stop signs and nearly causing a major accident. I see people putting makeup on with both hands while driving, with their full attention in the mirror. I see people reading newspapers while driving in heavy traffic. I see people wildly gesticulating with both hands while talking on the phone. I see more and more people with headphones on who can't hear what is going on around them.

At least most seniors seem to be focussing on their driving when behind the wheel, or focussing on their walking when a pedestrian.

Well, yes, the senior IS safer when in the car. It's the pedestrians that are in danger.

Police: 100-year-old driver hits 11 near L.A. school | Mansfield News Journal | mansfieldnewsjournal.com

That's the slant that the article took, only where the senior is safer. I suspect it's more to do with the population ageing and auto people not wanting to lose their market.

It's less to do with the age than the person driving imo. You see people of all ages doing daft things - and I'm not going to claim I am incident free myself. I read somewhere that for every 100 miles you drive you do something stupid that could result in an accident. Never seen any research on the subject but it seems right. How often have you pulled out when you maybe shouldn't have forcing an oncoming driver to brake or pulled out on a motorway and missed the car in your blind spot or not noticed the cars in front of you are braking when really you should have been paying more attention. How often has someone passed you then swerved in and jammed on their brakes because they are at heir turn off or how often have you misjudged it yourself? If the sign says your turn off is in one mile then at motorway speeds you have less than a minute to pass whatever is in front of you and then and pull back in to slow down and take your turn off. Pretty obvious but try that on your friends, it's amazing the number that won't understand what you mean.