Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Neubob on October 20, 2006, 02:43:33 PM
-
Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15349441/)
I remember this story well. 89 year old driver mistakes gas for brake and plows into a crowd of people at something like 70 mph. No intent, no culpability, just a horrendous driving error. To die, including a baby and its mother. Tragic event.
Just curious, how many here think he deserves to do time. How many here think that we need more stringent regulations in licensing senior citizens?
-
if he killed/injured people then yes, I don't think your age or mental stability should have anything to do with it
-
No culpability? Culpability is the measure of moral or legal responsibility for an action. A driver who kills because his reduced capability from drinking is held culpable, why not an old person who continues to drive past the point where they can safely control the car?
At what point do we as a society begin to hold people personally responsible for their actions? Where is accountability?
It's ridiculous that someone flying something that weighs less than a Honda civic must jump through hoops to qualify for a 3rd class medical while Joe Senior can drift along the highway in a multi-ton Cadillac Car, barely seeing over the dashboard in some cases.
I'm loathe to add government controls to anything, so I'd like to see business coming to bat. Are there non-governmental solutions to this problem?
-
He mistook the brake for the gas for 300 yards. It's not an accident, it's negligence. He should not have been driving.
My Grandpa sold his car in his late 80's and traded it in for a golf cart. He knew he did not have the mental capacity or reflexes to operate a car.
As sad as it is, jail seems appropriate. If he were 18 or drunk we would not be having this conversation.
-
It's funny that in the other thread about the cop who ran a stop sign and killed two people the consensus was on the fence as to whether he should do time or not. Doesn't anyone think these two incidents are related in any way?
-
First of all, let it be known that I don't think that this guy is free and clear just because he was old. I remember when this happened, I wished that the mob that pulled him out of the car had killed him there and then.
That being said, I'm going to play devil's advocate...
I think that he should have never been granted a driver's license, or insured, for that matter. That, however, should have been the decision of the DMV, the insurance company or both. I think that the last person who will know of his incapability to drive safely was, in fact, the 89 year old driver himself. He had no perspective on the matter, and in spite of his clear lack of fitness as a driver, the authorities, who should be experts in the matter of evaluating drivers, failed to do their job. He had every right to apply for a license. They had every responsibility to reject him.
Originally posted by Mickey1992
If he were 18 or drunk we would not be having this conversation.
A drunk is not only aware of his impairment, is not only aware of his responsibility for the impairment, but he should be aware of the illegality of what he is doing. The old man may not have known that he was impaired, was not responsible for it, and most likely had no idea of the illegality of his physical state. Not everyone is lucky enough to learn of his/her age-related problems in largely benign household accidents.
As for an 18 year-old... That's an odd one, but, most likely, this would involve some sort of very evident physical condition that would not have been overlooked by the DMV.
Again, I am not standing up for this guy. I'm only pointing out how un-straightforward this situation is.
-
driving tip of the day, when your car sounds like a vacuum sweeper and does not stop when you step on a pedal, that's not the brake, it's the gas pedal.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
we need more stringent regulations in licensing senior citizens
seniors at what age?
and who will decide it? the gouverment? ;)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
seniors at what age?
and who will decide it? the gouverment? ;)
I don't know.
65 seems too young for this, while 89 sounds too old to have gone without some sort of additional testing.
They test hearing, they test eyesight and they generally do a half-assed job of both. I think they should also test reaction time, among a host of other things. The DMV should not have given this man a license. Plain and simple. In fact, I'd be willing to say that having a cut off at some point, where getting a license is impossible or next to impossible, may be the way to go. It's a matter of balancing public interest against personal privilage. As Chairboy said, 'those who can't see over their dashboards', might be better off taking the bus.
-
In Michigan you have to renew every 5 years. Every other time you can renew by mail. A lot of stuff can happen to an elderly person in 10 years. Above a certain age (say 65) you should have to renew in person every year. Over 70 you should have to have an annual physical.
-
The driver in question is pretty obviously guilty of a severe crime. There's no need to punish many for the mistake of one. If we were into that, teenagers should all have their licenses revoked as well, as they're notoriously crash-prone.
Some of you apparently don't realize that, for many seniors, taking away their driver's license amounts to little better than a death sentence. Getting old really, really sucks, and it sucks a whole lot worse once you become confined and unable to care for yourself.
Furthermore, why should only the aged be forced to undergo additional testing? That's nothing more than age-based discrimination. I'm not opposed to making standards more stringent, but make them more stringent for everybody. I've seen a heck of a lot more traffic crashes involving young and middle age drivers than old ones.
Age-based discrimination = bad
Tougher standards for everyone = not so bad
J_A_B
-
they should raise the driving age to 30 and above
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Age-based discrimination = bad
Tougher standards for everyone = not so bad
J_A_B
I would agree. But, remember, this isn't so much aged-based discrimination as it is competance-based discrimination. Personally, I would raise the standards for teenagers as well, because I'm pretty sure that they cause more accidents annually than any other segment of the population.
As for him committing a serious crime, I do not know about the wording. He screwed up bigtime, but, in this country, intent accounts for a lot. I would feel very odd sending a man this age, in his health, to jail for an act that he clearly did not will. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to let a man who deprived 10 others of life, and 70 others of health, to enjoy freedom.
I do believe that he is suffering greatly on the inside, and just like that cop who ran the stop sign, will never sleep peacefully again. Punishing this old man will serve no point as far as deterence, only retribution. We have to consider that before we light the torches.
I believe that the biggest act of negligence here was perpetrated by the DMV, and it should be their policies that come under question.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15349441/)
Just curious, how many here think he deserves to do time. How many here think that we need more stringent regulations in licensing senior citizens?
I say, String him up!
But seriously. I think the elderly should have to pass drinving tests annually.
and the older you get. the mor frequesnt you should have to take em
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
At what point do we as a society begin to hold people personally responsible for their actions? Where is accountability?
What?? That would be untinkable!
We used to do that. Not anymore since PC and the shift the blame mentality arrived. But we used to
-
i have said it all along old people shouldn't drive. 60 you stop.
-
The law (at least Ohio law) pretty clearly indicates that lack of intent doesn't mean no crime was committed. There are 4 levels of culpability. In order of severity, they go as follows: Purposely (aka intentionally), Knowingly, Recklessly, and Negligently.
There's no such thing as a "car accident". It doesn't exist. Unintentionally ramming another car is still a crime. Unintentionally killing ten people is definately a crime!
Most courts won't send an 89 year old man to jail. They'll figure out a fitting way to punish him. Most likely they'll strip him of his license and he'll wind up in a nursing facility--which is basically the same as jail anyway.
If the BMV followed their proper procedure, then they did nothing negligent. You're judging them based on hindsight.
J_A_B
-
Considering his age and actions jail is a bit harsh for an old man most likely he will die *giggles*. Maybe a recovery center or psychological center? Cause he must have done it for a reason
-
jail is the right thing if your not for "DuDs - You get what you give" Law.
I think he should be hit by a car. punishment should = the crime.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
The law (at least Ohio law) pretty clearly indicates that lack of intent doesn't mean no crime was committed. There are 4 levels of culpability. In order of severity, they go as follows: Purposely (aka intentionally), Knowingly, Recklessly, and Negligently.
There's no such thing as a "car accident". It doesn't exist. Unintentionally ramming another car is still a crime. Unintentionally killing ten people is definately a crime!
Most courts won't send an 89 year old man to jail. They'll figure out a fitting way to punish him. Most likely they'll strip him of his license and he'll wind up in a nursing facility--which is basically the same as jail anyway.
If the BMV followed their proper procedure, then they did nothing negligent. You're judging them based on hindsight.
J_A_B
I think that those 4 levels of culpability apply everywhere in the states. There is a 5th, when there is no culpability, which is legally rare because you can almost always find fault somewhere. One example that has legal precedent is when somebody with an undiagnosed heart problem passes out or dies behind the wheel and hurts or kills somebody else...I digress...
I think that the DMV's procedure is improper by design. They may well have licensed him according to policy, but, clearly, they do this to many people who are, for one reason or another, not fit to drive. I've had a CA license before. I've taken their tests. Not the finest of filters, as far as weeding out potentially dangerous drivers.
-
Originally posted by megadud
jail is the right thing if your not for "DuDs - You get what you give" Law.
I think he should be hit by a car. punishment should = the crime.
If you want to stick to that theory, MegaDud, you'd have to hit him 10 times over, inducing death each time, and another 70, inducing varying degrees of injury.
Personally, I vote for forcing him to watch every episode of the OC, back to back, but that's just me.
-
I see nothing wrong with old people driving. It's just that since they are more prone to losing their abilities, they should be tested more frequently.
At least once a year. And to placate them a little, they'll have their own section in the DMV, so they don't get held up and don't hold us up in the regular DMV driver's license section.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I see nothing wrong with old people driving. It's just that since they are more prone to losing their abilities, they should be tested more frequently.
At least once a year. And to placate them a little, they'll have their own section in the DMV, so they don't get held up and don't hold us up in the regular DMV driver's license section.
Good idea.
Here in Michigan we not too long ago we passed a law resticting licenses for 16-18 year olds, cant dive during certain hours, no other kids in the car etc.
I asked a state rep why we dont require reaction testing for the elderly and he told me that the elderly vote, 16-18 year olds dont.
shamus
-
Originally posted by megadud
jail is the right thing if your not for "DuDs - You get what you give" Law.
I think he should be hit by a car. punishment should = the crime.
Indubitably, same thing I thought for Tookie, kill him 3 timeds over, but that's another story. I'm going to side with Krypto because at 89, you probably don't have much life left in you. Strip his life and put him in an assisted living home, or with family.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
It's funny that in the other thread about the cop who ran a stop sign and killed two people the consensus was on the fence as to whether he should do time or not. Doesn't anyone think these two incidents are related in any way?
Apparently in your mind they are. It's not the case here though in reality.
In the case here the guy has been convicted. He has had a trial. A full investigation has been completed and the evidence was brought to the court where a jury heard it and rendered a verdict.
None of that was present in the situation of the thread you are alluding to.
As to his doing time, sure why shouldn't he serve time? He's been convicted of a crime that does not require mens rea. Just because he didn't mean to does not mean he should not face the penalty for the act and his age is not an excuse or get out of jail free situation.
As to the issue of drivers license holders and age, think hard about linking specific ages to licenses. Think also about the age of drivers involved on the collisions. If you do a direct corollary you may not like the result.
BTW who were you before you got banned?
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Some of you apparently don't realize that, for many seniors, taking away their driver's license amounts to little better than a death sentence.
And if you don't you give the death sentence to someone else, as in this case.
This reminds me of an everybody loves raymond episode. His father is the worst driver and has to get his license renewed and has to take a driving test to do it. He passes and Ray's wife is in shock(thinking he would never pass), it was freakin hilarious.
-
I don't really see the problem... he was legaly licenced so there is no way age should be considered.
He was grossly negligent and guilty of several counts of reckless driving resulting in manslaughter.
Unless you could prove he planned to do it. then it is murder.
One death or ten... you were reckless or negligent it is manslaughter.
I have allways wondered how long it would take for the nutcases to figure out that they can do more damage with a car than a gun.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Apparently in your mind they are. It's not the case here though in reality.
In the case here the guy has been convicted. He has had a trial. A full investigation has been completed and the evidence was brought to the court where a jury heard it and rendered a verdict.
None of that was present in the situation of the thread you are alluding to.
As to his doing time, sure why shouldn't he serve time? He's been convicted of a crime that does not require mens rea. Just because he didn't mean to does not mean he should not face the penalty for the act and his age is not an excuse or get out of jail free situation.
As to the issue of drivers license holders and age, think hard about linking specific ages to licenses. Think also about the age of drivers involved on the collisions. If you do a direct corollary you may not like the result.
BTW who were you before you got banned?
I think you took my statement all wrong. All I'm saying is that in the case of the cop, a lot of people were saying all he did was miss a stop sign and no crime was committed. In this case all the guy did was confuse the gas and brake pedal and he's a murderer. I wonder (I could go back and match up the posts to the posters but I'm too lazy) how many of the people who said the cop only ran a stop sign are saying "string the old man up" and how many people who want to execute the cop think they should just leave the poor old man alone…
My own opinion is that the old man should do time and the only injustice in that is that he probably doesn't have enough years left to properly pay his debt, and that if no criminal charges are brought against the cop then a lot of people's suspicions about cops being above the law are correct.
A few years back (Clinton was prez so it was a least 7 or 8) the prez was in town and his motorcade caused a huge traffic back-up on the e-way. A semi-truck driver didn't see the jam and plowed into it and killed a bunch of people (I can't remember an exact number). He was convicted on X counts of Vehicular Manslaughter and most likely will spend most of the rest of his life in prison all because he was daydreaming and didn't see the stopped traffic in front of him.
Of these three incidences the two involving civilians are consistent and most people would agree that the outcome is just. Why would people argue that a cop who ran a stop sign and killed two people is only guilty of failing to stop?
As far as age and license testing goes, my point is that at least in Michigan, a person can go for as long as ten years without having any kind of test at all. A LOT of things can happen to a person in ten years. Perhaps changing laws for elderly people is the wrong approach. Maybe what should be done is to expand a doctor's Hippocratic Oath to include the duty to inform the proper authorities when a person is not mentally or physically sound to operate a motor vehicle.
-
I still think 60 or over no driving. And the punishment should equal the crime. So if he killed people drving, he should be killed with a car.
There should be a strike rule if it is an "accident" 2 strikes your out. kill someone twice by accident then you die. people would think twice about killing people knowing they will die instead of spending a long time in a prison.
the murderers would slowing but surely disappear.
just a thought :)
-
If this man was denied a job due to his age, we'd be hearing about age discrimination.
This man mowed over a bunch of people, showed no remorse and told multiple witnesses "Why didnt you get out of my way?"
I dont think the prison system should show any age discrimination. What he did is criminal and he oughta get the death penalty.
This whole "aw, poor old idiot didnt know better" doesnt cut it for me.
If he showed any kind of remorse, I might feel different. But he hasnt.
-
Sluggish,
I don't think people were arguing that the Officer "just ran a stop sign" so therefor should go away with no penalty. What I saw was a lot of very strident bleating that the Officer should be punished automatically before any investigation is completed. There were also minor rants about murder, which were blatantly posted indicating that this was a premeditated act, something that is required to have a charge of murder. That is also not required in the case of vehicular manslaughter. The rants were pretty one sided indicating that the decision was made, irregardless of the lack of knowledge of the scene, evidence and circumstances, to just pronounce sentence. Why have in investigation or trial when we can serve "justice" based on an article almost completely devoid of any information by the folks who post on a bbs? :rolleyes:
As was stated before, no charges will be brought until the investigation is completed and no citations are issued for vehicular manslaughter anyhow.
Again I want to point out that the situation in this thread is far different.
An investigation was held. A trial was conducted after the investigation where a "jury of his peers" saw, heard and deliberated on the evidence, not a 3rd hand news article bereft of any of that, and pronunced a judgment. Not a bit of that had been done much less written about in the post you were alluding to yet the calls for the death or imprisonment of the Officer were present. Due process be damned and all that stuff.
Once the system has done the tasks that we expect to be done in any case like that, then let the sentence be levied and served by the guilty party. That is the same here in the case of the elderly man as it should be in the case with the Police Officer. Both are entitled to due process. One has received that benefit, the other has yet to have it completed.
-
I agree with you completely Maverick. What I was commenting on was the opinions of the people in the thread, not the inconsistencies or lack there of in the process of law.
Lukster said, "Accidents happen, sad but true. Anyone here never accidentally ran a stop sign? The degree of negligence should determine the punishment."
Toecutter said, "Just to clear this up. If in NJ, you drive through a stop sign without stopping and hit another car and kill the people in it you can be charged with failure to stop at a stop sign. Unless of course there are other contributing factors which caused you to fail to stop at the stop sign. Such as DWI, or excessive speed. If the only offense committed was the failure to stop, then thats the only offense that the driver can be charged with. People very rarely get arrested and charged with a crime when the only original offense is a motor vehicle violation, police officer or not. We don't know the complete circumstances of the incident with the NJ trooper, but I'm sure the hydrashock to the back of the head might be a little much."
Loser said, "Would I be arrested? No
Charged? No
If no other factors were present, I would be given a ticket for "failure to obey a traffic signal." Maybe....maybe..... "Driving without due care and attention."
I guess what I'm getting at is that I would like to know what the people who commented these things in the other thread think about this situation.
Peace.
-
The real solution is a better public transportation system that does a better job of catering to the large elderly population. There are a few "small buses" that drive around Orange County, CA. I'm told that they're on-call--at what cost, I don't know. But, I think it'd be worth it to offer the service at a minimal rate to all senior citizens who cannot pass a truly stringent driving test and interview process.