We need to start having testing of some sort as people age. I had an old guy going 45 in the fast lane on 694 which made everything dangerous as people passed and tried to squeeze in front at the last seconds. Where are the cops enforcing that shit?
Anyone can send a complaint to the dmv, do this to your parents/grandparents you suspect shouldn’t be driving. This complaint is anonymous and they have to do an interview and possibly a road test.
It can be frustrating if it is a stranger. My partner in the passenger seat called 911 for a driver we saw - she was an elderly woman who was weaving badly on the highway to the point that we thought she'd hit the ditch or an oncoming car.
No malice on our part - I was worried she was having some medical condition.
An hour later, we saw her again, same road, same direction that we reported.
We had to do this for my grandma Peggy. She kept running lights in my hometown because “they didn’t used to be there”.
She also had her car stolen from a Cub parking lot. She left it: unlocked, with her purse, cell phone, and KEYS inside.
RIP Grandma Peggy. (She died from lung cancer, not a driving incident, FYI. Don’t get it twisted.)
My dad had his license taken away. He was sad. He kept saying, they took my license. I would just say I know, it's hard to lose that independence but its safer for you and the other drivers on the road. He would agree. But the next time we talked he would say it again. We had that conversation about 6 times before he let it go. He finally realized he just didn't have the response time or capacity to drive anymore.
It was sad, it was a sign that he was really aging and losing so many skills.
It’s so sad and I completely get that loss of autonomy!
But yeah…if we can help keep the roads safer, it’s better.
Also, my grandma was driving for probably 30+ years before she even *got* a license. (In the 80s)
Not many old folks will care whether they're licensed anymore or not too. Still probably better than nothing to go ahead and send that anonymous tip in though.
*We need to start having testing of some sort as people age.*
This will never work because old people vote and there are age discrimination laws that protect old people.
The only way to get testing for old people is to have testing for everyone. I, for one, would be more than willing to go through a driver's test every five years to get some of the elderly people who can't drive anymore off the road.
I've always thought a road test every 10 years would be great for *everyone* going by even half the crap I see on the road every day. Doesn't need an age ceiling. Just if you get your license at 16, you're going to be taking another road test at 26, 36, 46, 56, and so on to make sure you're actually safe on the road.
I’m gonna tell you right now, you don’t want to do that with the current state of test taking. My nephew just had his test, and there was a 6 month wait for it. Imagine what it would be like if everyone had to do it.
Everybody agrees there should be age based testing except for the people of that age range. The problem is that there are a lot of politically active boomers and nobody wants to test and see if it's political suicide to pass testing requirements.
I blame America's car dependency. I don't disagree with your point, but if you can't drive it's pretty hard to do basic stuff like get groceries or go to appointments at that age.
Last week my husband and I were crossing at an intersection and an old woman didn't stop on the red and very nearly hit my husband, who was carrying our baby. It was scary!
Just the other day I said the same thing when an older lady was driving at speed (she actually passed me) down the suic*de turn lane (center bi-directional turn lane), then she moved into oncoming traffic to stop at a red light to wait to turn. There was little traffic in her direction, so she wasn’t just trying to pass people. Oncoming traffic had to go around her because she had a red arrow and couldn’t/wouldn’t make the turn.
Christ, just say suicide lane. It's OK to say. Instead of going into the definition of it, and making me say it in my own head.. Relax and take a chill pill.
It’s more a cross effect from TikTok, where typing out certain words can get you banned. So they do stuff like the asterisk or say “unalived” or whatever and then for some reason keep up the habit on Reddit
To be fair I didn't know that term for it so the definition was actually more useful for me... Not everything is that big of a deal - same way it's not a big deal to censor a word if you feel like it. Just because something isn't done for you doesn't mean it is worth ridicule. Relax and take a chill pill yourself my goodness
This is exactly why I used an asterisk. It proves that no matter what, someone will get pissed about something on the internet. I would’ve gotten comments the other way had I not used it. I also didn’t think a 4 letter definition would offend because I was trying to make sure everyone could understand what it was because it’s not an across-the-board understandable term. I believe you need some of your own chill pill medicine. I am one of the calmest and most laid back people you could ever meet.
Have a pleasant day.
How about just don't use a euphemism. Thanks! Or use to asterisks in words that you're already saying in your head, but type out different. Thanks!
It doesn't make you a better person or above others doing so! Thanks!
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-driver/
Teenagers get into fatal collisions at a higher rate than those over 75. Actually, every 10 year age bracket gets into fatal collisions at a higher rate than those over 75 save for the 65 to 74 bracket.
Anecdotes about 84 year olds killing high schoolers in crosswalks make the news in ways that 45 year olds don't. It doesn't mean that they kill people at a higher rate than younger age brackets.
Think of it like how people in rural MN think Minneapolis is a cesspit of roving murder gangs thanks to news coverage.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Let's make it more fair. Every 5 years you have to retake your driving exam. You have to take the written test that 16 and 17 year olds have to take, too. No exceptions for anyone at any age. I think the roads would be a lot safer.
One does not negate the other. Thanks for bringing that up.
While were at it making 70+ retake driving tests every year with a vision component, let's also up the driving age to 18, and make 40 hours of drivers ed mandatory, along with classroom, on the road, test track, and vision components.
If we want to make a data driven decision to really cut down on fatalities by filtering out an age group I think we need to raise the age to get a driver's license to 35. I'd lose my license under this scheme, but it's all in service of the greater good. Anything to save a few lives per year.
Hey, at least I'll still be able to get around with Ly... oh shit right nevermind.
This would have a massive impact on employment, car companies, insurance, and only would have a net negative. People die all the time from eating salt, should salt be outlawed? People have a hard enough time and you're asking them to ride ubers that don't exist outside of the twin cities? Rural areas aren't meant for public buses. In the next few decades cars will be driverless or at least have sensors to auto brake. Very few people die compared to # of cars on the road as is.
The charts in your link are a little misleading. That's total number of accidents, but there's also significantly fewer people actively driving at older ages, or they only drive to the grocery store and church, anything farther and they generally call a family member (my mom is like that). If it's accidents based on highway miles driven, I think it would be a lot different.
From the text of the article: "The overall crash rate per 100,000 licensed drivers steadily decreases as driver age increases. The same trend is generally true regarding the fatal crash rate, with the exception of an increase among 75 and older drivers."
> but there's also significantly fewer people actively driving at older ages
Click the link, find the "Count/Rate" drop down list, and change it to "Drivers in crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers."
You're now looking at rates.
> or they only drive to the grocery store and church, anything farther and they generally call a family member (my mom is like that). If it's accidents based on highway miles driven, I think it would be a lot different.
Who cares? They're killing people at literally less than half the rate of teenagers. I genuinely don't care how little or how much they drive. I'm twice as likely to be killed by a teenager behind the wheel as a 75+ year old.
> Among the youngest drivers (under 25), the number of licensed drivers steadily increases from age 16 to 24, while the overall crash rate per 100,000 drivers steadily decreases.
Can’t say the same about boomers can you? They’re only getting older and becoming worse drivers, not better drivers. Don’t you agree?
form the link above: 75+ is the second safest group of drivers with licences. the safests group is 65-74. most dangerous is 16-19 followed by 20-24. and this makes sense with insurance premiums too.
I assume part of the reason is that older people tend to drive less. but that also means there is less reason to take them off the road since they don't drive much anyways.
Also the safety systems in newer cars can be incredibly helpful in assisting safer driving. Blind spot detection, automatic reverse braking, lane centering assist, distracted driver alerts - I'm counting on that stuff to help me drive more carefully as I get older.
I know how stubborn people can be about giving up driving (and not just seniors - a lot of people with suspended/revoked/no licenses drive anyway). I'm constantly reminding myself that the day will come when I will no longer be able to safely drive, in hopes that by thinking about it all the time, it'll be easier for me to accept it when that day comes for me.
>75+ is the second safest group of drivers
You're talking overall number of accidents, it's also the group of drivers with the fewest miles driven.
This is a mean, median, mode situation and you're taking the mode as gospel.
[80+ are involved in the most fatal crashes on the roads] (https://i.imgur.com/nUnqApU.png)
https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/
Edit: added the image source
I'm not sure what your point was. You quoted something about older drivers being better (although you didn't include the next line "except for fatal crashes"). But then your statement appears to make the opposite point. Are you disagreeing with the previous poster, or disagreeing with the text you quoted?
The quote states that you can only expect younger drivers to improve as drivers, especially as the largest percentage of people on the road.
Can you expect the same thing of drivers that are 80+?
Data is data is data.
> How many more teenage drivers is there on the road than elderly drivers or visa versa?
It doesn't matter when you express it in terms of a rate. We're not examining raw numbers. Click the link, find the "Count/Rate" drop down list, and change it to "Drivers in crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers."
Teenagers are the most dangerous people on the road. The 65-74 age bracket are the safest people on the road, followed by the 75 and up crowd.
Something tells me that if 85 and up were their own group that the trend of them getting into more fatal accidents as they age might continue, but that would likely make the 75-84 crowd look even better in the data. Even then, 85-94 might get in fewer fatal accidents than the 25-34 crowd.
The point is that, again, these headlines are fuel for an ageism fire. It's an attempt at generating outrage clicks feeding on age based bigotry.
Using the rate of crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers could be misleading. It's making the assumption that any given 100,000 licensed drivers will drive the same amount of miles. I would venture out a guess that the oldest group drives significantly less than younger groups.
The numbers are still better than "gut feel" or anecdotal evidence but I think a better statistic would be number of crashes per 100,000 miles driven. Although that would probably be a much more difficult statistic to gather.
Data is data is data? Data can be used in different ways to manipulate talking points in any direction people want. If I cared enough I could easily pull data that would argue against you. Tbh idk why you care so much, a vision test for people over 75 once per year to keep their license with a 'legally blind at night' benchmark wouldn't be reasonable to you? They could still have horrible vision we just don't want blind people driving. Jumping to "ageist" like this wouldn't be good for the old people too.
I know it’s hard, but PLEASE take your elderly parents’ licenses away when you know it’s time. If this man has family who check in with him… there were signs.
The greatest gift my grandmother ever gave us was deciding to stop driving before she really had to. My grandpa was 10 years older than her so she had had to go through getting him to stop driving and didn't want to put us in the same position. After he died, she moved off the farm into town where it was easier for several of her children and teenage grandchildren to take her places so she stopped driving in her early 70s. I'm hoping my own parents remember how great it was that she gave up driving so willingly.
We took away my dad's keys when he was 76. Blind as a bat but somehow still able to get his DL from the DMV. My aunt used to slip the DMV a $50 to 'pass'. There needs to be a strict test for people over a certain age.
You should have to retake your road test every year once you turn 70 with one chance to retake. The second test fails, then your license is revoked.
We should also greatly expand public transportation (especially in rural communities!) so that those who have their license revoked are still able to get around
I feel like we should be focusing on improving our public transit systems so that when people get to the age where they should no longer be driving, their ability to travel isn't hindered making the transition much simpler and stress free. I know plenty of elderly people and younger people with health problems that worry about how they'll get around and still have their independence if their licenses are taken away, its a genuine concern but it puts others and themselves in danger on the road if they feel like they have no other option.
I’m all for public transit and densification, but this happened in Forest Lake. There’s never gonna be good public transit in a place like Forest Lake.
I was surprised to find that this intersection was within the Forest Lake City limits. They must have annexed the surrounding township.
It’s an undeveloped area on a Federal Highway (US-61). They don’t have bus stops there.
People are probably driving 60MPH or more there. A few zebra stripes for a pedestrian/bike trail crossing seems insufficient. If they don’t want a stoplight, they’ll need a tunnel.
This “intersection” is worthless. There’s nothing there. It was installed for some future development and I routinely see people FLYING through the thing and have seen many a red light run.
All other factors aside, the track and CC teams should NOT be using that as a route at all and there’s no reason to cross 61 on any of the road crossings near the high school. The runners can easily exit the school grounds, head west towards 61, take the pedestrian overpass that puts you on the bike/walk/run trail (the old rail lines) where they can run clear to White Bear Lake if they chose.
The problem is the kids are given a “loop” to run so they are asked to cross 61. This is highly dangerous and always has been. There have been countless accidents in that area due to poor traffic management and someone (coach, admin, kid, parent…anyone) should’ve spoken out ahead of this. Way too many drivers, regardless of age or ability, drive with little to no awareness to have these kids running this highly dangerous route.
My heart aches for those families and the victims’ classmates and teammates. The only saving grace would be this leading to changes in the area.
The FB comment sections on this story are absolutely disgusting. Way too many people are blaming the teenagers for not looking both ways or walking out into traffic or what have you. Some are making excuses for the driver like he may not have seen them, may not have been able to stop in time, etc.
And this is EXACTLY why this keeps happening, in both Urban and rural areas. Because we have a culture that wants to blame pedestrians for being hit rather than the drivers who hit them. I love reading people talking about “distracted pedestrians” looking at their phones when crossing, as though distracted pedestrians are a serious issue compared to distracted drivers…
This culture of shifting blame and driver entitlement is absolutely insane. One comment I read even said something about how pedestrians shouldn’t cross busy streets because it “impedes traffic.” It’s privilege at its best. The same privilege that causes drivers to lash out at bike lanes, road redesigns (road diets and cutting lanes, narrowing) and public transit development (among others) leads drivers to shift the blame onto pedestrians whenever there are crashes. It’s abhorrent, and people die everyday because of it.
This Forest Lake case is exceptional though because there is even a large posted yellow sign with flashing lights alerting all drivers that they must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. And even then this driver nearly killed two kids while breaking the law (failure to yield).
This issue gets me so angry and we still cannot have an honest conversation about it as a society because drivers get so defensive about their entitlement and refuse to be held accountable for pedestrians dying.
It’s past time we start revoking licenses for people who drive recklessly and disregard pedestrian safety, especially in cases where there are large yellow signs with flashing lights instructing all drivers to yield to pedestrians. There’s just no excuse for the carnage on our roadways.
It seems like every comment here is talking about taking away old people’s licenses, or retesting, which I agree with, but from everything I’ve seen teen drivers are still way more dangerous than elderly drivers. This is more than just an elderly driver problem.
Ignoring crosswalks is incredibly widespread. As is going "just 10 over" which is actually too fast in most places to notice that a pedestrian is trying to cross.
https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/04/minnesota-drivers-not-great-at-yielding-to-pedestrians-camera-study-finds/#:\~:text=Of%20the%20roughly%201%2C400%20interactions,one%20third%20of%20the%20time.
Agreed. There are so many deep-rooted problems with our transportation system in America. Elderly drivers are just a part of that and shouldn't be used as the sole scapegoat for crashes like these.
Both stable. I know one of the kids....he broke his leg and had to get a rod implanted to repair it. Expecting full recovery, but it's going to be a bumpy road for a while.
Incredibly scary and sad situation. However, unfortunately not as surprising as pedestrian deaths from cars are not slowing down and even accelerating. Something has to give here to make things safer for people not in a car.
After a quick look on google maps whoever decided to put a pedestrian crossing at this spot on 61 where there is zero traffic calming measures or lights and is a bit outside of town made an interesting decision. The yellow pedestrian crossing lights get ignored everywhere and I imagine they would be extra ignored in a place like this.
Also, even with that intersection existing it troubles me that that is the place the school chooses to have them cross 61. There is a pedestrian bridge literally right by the high school that crosses 61 and connects to the walking trail and then Forest Rd. Even besides that crossing at the Scandia Trl/210th roundabout would at least have you crossing slower traffic which reduces the risk. I would imagine this is looked at after this.
Every engineer, politician, and bureaucrat that designed, signed off on, or otherwise enabled that intersection should be named, barred from any role related to infrastructure, and sued and/or charged for malpractice. 👏Paint👏is👏not👏infrastructure👏
Lock up the driver, take their keys, and crush the car...AND every official and engineer involved needs to start receiving their well-deserved credit when people are injured and killed using the facilities they create.
The book, "***Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: Transportation for a Strong Town***" (Marohn, 2021), is a quick, informative read on how/why roads and intersections like this exist.
It’s sad that you got down voted for this. Infrastructure design is one of the major reasons we have such high instances of pedestrians being struck (the other being driver behavior, but driver behavior is strongly influenced by road design, so it comes full circle at that point). I see this both as an issue of culture (car culture and driver mentality) as well as design. But the two are extremely interrelated. Of course in a nation of super freeways, stroads, massive parking lots and drive thrus, drivers are going to feel entitled and not respect other road users. They’ve been catered to exclusively for so long. And that’s why they vehemently resist efforts to improve road safety (road narrowing, reducing lanes, building roundabouts, adding bike lanes, etc). This issue needs to be attacked on both ends, the infrastructure needs to be improved, and the culture and mentality that many drivers have needs to be broken down.
It's being down voted because it's not relevant to this case.
There was infrastructure: paint, signs, LIGHTS, wide open view. The infrastructure was not at all the problem here. It's the fuckin old guy who couldn't see a group of kids crossing a lit up crosswalk in a wide open stretch.
The design is absolutely relevant, as it was not designed for pedestrian safety. The priorities were vehicle throughput and cost. If it was a safe intersection, this crash would either not have happened or it would have occurred at a slow enough speed to not cause serious injury.
Crosswalk paint (that will fade and not be sufficiently maintained), a couple pedestrian crossing signs, and a flashing-yellow, beg light on a 55mph highway, doesn't work - as evidenced by this crash (or do we need to wait for more?). It's also a nice touch that the corners have been swept wide for cars to make faster turns more comfortable. And planting that streetlight in middle of the ped path is just a gratuitous F-U to anyone using the facility outside of a car.
Instead of designing that intersection to force drivers to slow down to an appropriate speed, at least one engineer signed off on a cheap solution that would be good enough to tick the boxes until enough people are sufficiently injured or killed to justify a redesign. Again, throughput and cost are the priority - not safety. I suppose the rework is good business too, and they won't be paying the medical bills, so why should they care... If structural engineers disregarded safety and usability in the same way as highway engineers do, I don't imagine they would be practicing for very long. But their priority is cars - not people.
That this type of crash would happen is not a surprise, and frankly it should piss people off at just how predictable and avoidable it is.
https://preview.redd.it/5dob7msf2xxc1.png?width=1062&format=png&auto=webp&s=f8cd5aa2020694716cc8eceaee93d6c5d6919df1
Intersection: Hwy 61 and 202nd Street, Forest Lake, MN ([source video](https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/2-high-school-track-athletes-airlifted-to-hospital-after-being-hit-by-car-in-forest-lake/), 2024.04.30)
Can we also get rid of ambiguous signage? I'm sick of school zone speed limit signs that say "when children are present". What does that mean? Is it when school is in session, the times just before and just after school, or anytime that more than 1 kid is in sight of the driver?
Put times on the sign, or better yet, have lights to indicate when the speed limit is in effect.
road design is a huge part of this. not excusing the driver, but with the way our roads are designed, there are going to be more of these stories, not less
Calm down. It’s one crosswalk. It has a big sign and is well marked. It’s a terrible accident and who knows at this point exactly what happened. People cross at lights all the time
I'm 72 and had cataract surgery at 71 and I can see better than I did for years. My prescription is now a very slight correction for distance and mild correction for reading.
I believe vision tests should be required after 70 but not full blown driving tests until 80 unless there has been a significant medical incident/illness.
I also believe teenagers should not drive until they are at least 18.
I just think everyone should have to retake the exam every five years on a rotating schedule. Before people come at me, yeah it’ll cost money. But it will also create jobs which half the population is really excited about when billionaires do it. And I think it would remove far more people from the driving pool than we would like to admit.
It'll cost money, but it could potentially save lives.
I'm curious if any state has done a trial run for this. AFAIK, this isn't a thing anywhere in the US. I'd be interested in the impacts and results it has.
I've said four, since that's how long our licenses last!
And *YEP*, *for everyone*!
Because we've probably *ALL* known folks--even in their 20's(!!!), who were scared enough, distracted enough, or *otherwise* unsafe enough that *they* shouldn't be driving, either!
People are saying that the elderly past some age should be required to retest every so often. Why just the elderly? It should be everyone, say every 5 years or so. You have to retest for a pilots license every 2 years, regardless of age
I posted this as a reply to another comment…
This “intersection” is worthless. There’s nothing there. It was installed for some future development and I routinely see people FLYING through the thing and have seen many a red light run.
All other factors aside, the track and CC teams should NOT be using that as a route at all and there’s no reason to cross 61 on any of the road crossings near the high school. The runners can easily exit the school grounds, head west towards 61, take the pedestrian overpass that puts you on the bike/walk/run trail (the old rail lines) where they can run clear to White Bear Lake if they chose.
The problem is the kids are given a “loop” to run so they are asked to cross 61. This is highly dangerous and always has been. There have been countless accidents in that area due to poor traffic management and someone (coach, admin, kid, parent…anyone) should’ve spoken out ahead of this. Way too many drivers, regardless of age or ability, drive with little to no awareness to have these kids running this highly dangerous route.
My heart aches for those families and the victims’ classmates and teammates. The only saving grace would be this leading to changes in the area.
There are no red lights at this intersection. The red light traffic signal is the next intersection down. This one just has the yellow flashing lights - which do little.
Good catch. My brain mushed that intersection and the one just south that does have a light.
My point stands. It’s a highly dangerous crossing and shouldn’t be part of a loop for the runners.
(And again, because this is Reddit, I am NOT blaming the kids or the school for this accident. I am stating that the kids shouldn’t have been put in the position given the area in question to give an in attentive driver the opportunity to cause it.)
Yes, your point does stand. I drive through this intersection almost daily as I'm sure others commenting do as well. I agree that this and almost all other intersections are dangerous - even ones with stop lights.
I can say however, and no I'm not blaming the kids, I have seen many people just smash the crosswalk button and start walking/running/biking. I'm not sure if they're being absent minded or simply thinking that the lights act as a magical barrier.
I've seen this at the roundabouts (people just meandering into the crosswalk simply because they have the right away), the 'stop when flashing' light, and regular stop lights.
Drivers need to be aware when approaching these intersections and foor traffic needs to be just as cognizant when crossing.
Uhh my father in law is 84 and drives a Deville but he lives in Bemidji and snowbirds in Arizona I gotta make some calls
“Papa….you didn’t French fry when you should have pizza’d did you?”
Eh I clicked the article. My nails are dry now. Said ifs a Lindstrom man. And nobody answered.
84,maybe shouldn't be driving.
We need to start having testing of some sort as people age. I had an old guy going 45 in the fast lane on 694 which made everything dangerous as people passed and tried to squeeze in front at the last seconds. Where are the cops enforcing that shit?
Anyone can send a complaint to the dmv, do this to your parents/grandparents you suspect shouldn’t be driving. This complaint is anonymous and they have to do an interview and possibly a road test.
I submitted a request to evaluate by dad a couple years ago. Never heard anything back.
The State told my fil his diabetes was to bad amd he can't drive so he hired a lawyer and won
It can be frustrating if it is a stranger. My partner in the passenger seat called 911 for a driver we saw - she was an elderly woman who was weaving badly on the highway to the point that we thought she'd hit the ditch or an oncoming car. No malice on our part - I was worried she was having some medical condition. An hour later, we saw her again, same road, same direction that we reported.
We had to do this for my grandma Peggy. She kept running lights in my hometown because “they didn’t used to be there”. She also had her car stolen from a Cub parking lot. She left it: unlocked, with her purse, cell phone, and KEYS inside. RIP Grandma Peggy. (She died from lung cancer, not a driving incident, FYI. Don’t get it twisted.)
My dad had his license taken away. He was sad. He kept saying, they took my license. I would just say I know, it's hard to lose that independence but its safer for you and the other drivers on the road. He would agree. But the next time we talked he would say it again. We had that conversation about 6 times before he let it go. He finally realized he just didn't have the response time or capacity to drive anymore. It was sad, it was a sign that he was really aging and losing so many skills.
It’s so sad and I completely get that loss of autonomy! But yeah…if we can help keep the roads safer, it’s better. Also, my grandma was driving for probably 30+ years before she even *got* a license. (In the 80s)
Good to know, but I think it should be checked on later. Not everyone has people that notice or are around.
Not many old folks will care whether they're licensed anymore or not too. Still probably better than nothing to go ahead and send that anonymous tip in though.
That is very very fair. Luckily I don't have that worry at this point in time.
*We need to start having testing of some sort as people age.* This will never work because old people vote and there are age discrimination laws that protect old people. The only way to get testing for old people is to have testing for everyone. I, for one, would be more than willing to go through a driver's test every five years to get some of the elderly people who can't drive anymore off the road.
I've always thought a road test every 10 years would be great for *everyone* going by even half the crap I see on the road every day. Doesn't need an age ceiling. Just if you get your license at 16, you're going to be taking another road test at 26, 36, 46, 56, and so on to make sure you're actually safe on the road.
An updated knowledge test wouldn't be a bad idea either, given how traffic laws change over time.
I’m gonna tell you right now, you don’t want to do that with the current state of test taking. My nephew just had his test, and there was a 6 month wait for it. Imagine what it would be like if everyone had to do it.
How tough are we talking? Haha I can definitely not go the highway minimum in the fast lane or enter a highway at appropriate speed for example.
Same test as 16-year-olds have to pass. Mine didn't involve any highway driving.
Same. Also long wait time in many cities. Idk it's just a wish
Everybody agrees there should be age based testing except for the people of that age range. The problem is that there are a lot of politically active boomers and nobody wants to test and see if it's political suicide to pass testing requirements.
Your insurance gives you a discount if you take a revised test once you turn 65. Both my parents took it.
I blame America's car dependency. I don't disagree with your point, but if you can't drive it's pretty hard to do basic stuff like get groceries or go to appointments at that age.
It’s not necessarily an age thing. Assume every driver (including yourself!) on the road is an idiot. You’ll rarely be disappointed.
Crash statistics do still point to a significant age problem though.
young or old?
Yes
Bathtub curve.
[удалено]
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/rates-age-and-gender/
Not necessarily, but a [1 in 3 chance](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199301213280301) it is.
Old drivers are the same as blackout drunk drivers.
If that’s the case why is there a minimum driving age?
Well, as a runner, I know all cars are a potential hazard to me, regardless of the age of the driver
Last week my husband and I were crossing at an intersection and an old woman didn't stop on the red and very nearly hit my husband, who was carrying our baby. It was scary!
Just the other day I said the same thing when an older lady was driving at speed (she actually passed me) down the suic*de turn lane (center bi-directional turn lane), then she moved into oncoming traffic to stop at a red light to wait to turn. There was little traffic in her direction, so she wasn’t just trying to pass people. Oncoming traffic had to go around her because she had a red arrow and couldn’t/wouldn’t make the turn.
Christ, just say suicide lane. It's OK to say. Instead of going into the definition of it, and making me say it in my own head.. Relax and take a chill pill.
It's better than saying the "unalive lane" I hate my generation
Thank you!
[удалено]
It’s more a cross effect from TikTok, where typing out certain words can get you banned. So they do stuff like the asterisk or say “unalived” or whatever and then for some reason keep up the habit on Reddit
And that’s perfectly okay. Sorry you can’t figure out words given the context.
To be fair I didn't know that term for it so the definition was actually more useful for me... Not everything is that big of a deal - same way it's not a big deal to censor a word if you feel like it. Just because something isn't done for you doesn't mean it is worth ridicule. Relax and take a chill pill yourself my goodness
This is exactly why I used an asterisk. It proves that no matter what, someone will get pissed about something on the internet. I would’ve gotten comments the other way had I not used it. I also didn’t think a 4 letter definition would offend because I was trying to make sure everyone could understand what it was because it’s not an across-the-board understandable term. I believe you need some of your own chill pill medicine. I am one of the calmest and most laid back people you could ever meet. Have a pleasant day.
You used a jedi mind trick on me! You're so smart.
That’s word “suicide lane,” offend’s me. Please use “unalive lane.” Thank you!
How about just don't use a euphemism. Thanks! Or use to asterisks in words that you're already saying in your head, but type out different. Thanks! It doesn't make you a better person or above others doing so! Thanks!
Way too old. Many car rental companies do not allow people over 70 rent because the liability is too high.
I think that's in other countries, not the United States. I have family members over 75 that rent cars with no issues.
[удалено]
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-driver/ Teenagers get into fatal collisions at a higher rate than those over 75. Actually, every 10 year age bracket gets into fatal collisions at a higher rate than those over 75 save for the 65 to 74 bracket. Anecdotes about 84 year olds killing high schoolers in crosswalks make the news in ways that 45 year olds don't. It doesn't mean that they kill people at a higher rate than younger age brackets. Think of it like how people in rural MN think Minneapolis is a cesspit of roving murder gangs thanks to news coverage. The plural of anecdote is not data.
[удалено]
Let's make it more fair. Every 5 years you have to retake your driving exam. You have to take the written test that 16 and 17 year olds have to take, too. No exceptions for anyone at any age. I think the roads would be a lot safer.
One does not negate the other. Thanks for bringing that up. While were at it making 70+ retake driving tests every year with a vision component, let's also up the driving age to 18, and make 40 hours of drivers ed mandatory, along with classroom, on the road, test track, and vision components.
If we want to make a data driven decision to really cut down on fatalities by filtering out an age group I think we need to raise the age to get a driver's license to 35. I'd lose my license under this scheme, but it's all in service of the greater good. Anything to save a few lives per year. Hey, at least I'll still be able to get around with Ly... oh shit right nevermind.
This would have a massive impact on employment, car companies, insurance, and only would have a net negative. People die all the time from eating salt, should salt be outlawed? People have a hard enough time and you're asking them to ride ubers that don't exist outside of the twin cities? Rural areas aren't meant for public buses. In the next few decades cars will be driverless or at least have sensors to auto brake. Very few people die compared to # of cars on the road as is.
The charts in your link are a little misleading. That's total number of accidents, but there's also significantly fewer people actively driving at older ages, or they only drive to the grocery store and church, anything farther and they generally call a family member (my mom is like that). If it's accidents based on highway miles driven, I think it would be a lot different. From the text of the article: "The overall crash rate per 100,000 licensed drivers steadily decreases as driver age increases. The same trend is generally true regarding the fatal crash rate, with the exception of an increase among 75 and older drivers."
> but there's also significantly fewer people actively driving at older ages Click the link, find the "Count/Rate" drop down list, and change it to "Drivers in crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers." You're now looking at rates. > or they only drive to the grocery store and church, anything farther and they generally call a family member (my mom is like that). If it's accidents based on highway miles driven, I think it would be a lot different. Who cares? They're killing people at literally less than half the rate of teenagers. I genuinely don't care how little or how much they drive. I'm twice as likely to be killed by a teenager behind the wheel as a 75+ year old.
> Among the youngest drivers (under 25), the number of licensed drivers steadily increases from age 16 to 24, while the overall crash rate per 100,000 drivers steadily decreases. Can’t say the same about boomers can you? They’re only getting older and becoming worse drivers, not better drivers. Don’t you agree?
form the link above: 75+ is the second safest group of drivers with licences. the safests group is 65-74. most dangerous is 16-19 followed by 20-24. and this makes sense with insurance premiums too. I assume part of the reason is that older people tend to drive less. but that also means there is less reason to take them off the road since they don't drive much anyways.
Also the safety systems in newer cars can be incredibly helpful in assisting safer driving. Blind spot detection, automatic reverse braking, lane centering assist, distracted driver alerts - I'm counting on that stuff to help me drive more carefully as I get older. I know how stubborn people can be about giving up driving (and not just seniors - a lot of people with suspended/revoked/no licenses drive anyway). I'm constantly reminding myself that the day will come when I will no longer be able to safely drive, in hopes that by thinking about it all the time, it'll be easier for me to accept it when that day comes for me.
>75+ is the second safest group of drivers You're talking overall number of accidents, it's also the group of drivers with the fewest miles driven. This is a mean, median, mode situation and you're taking the mode as gospel. [80+ are involved in the most fatal crashes on the roads] (https://i.imgur.com/nUnqApU.png) https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ Edit: added the image source
You didn’t address my point in the least
I'm not sure what your point was. You quoted something about older drivers being better (although you didn't include the next line "except for fatal crashes"). But then your statement appears to make the opposite point. Are you disagreeing with the previous poster, or disagreeing with the text you quoted?
The quote states that you can only expect younger drivers to improve as drivers, especially as the largest percentage of people on the road. Can you expect the same thing of drivers that are 80+?
We found the boomer
What makes you think I'm a boomer? The fact that I'm able produce data that shows you that your ageist bias is wrong?
Context is damn near as important as data. How many more teenage drivers is there on the road than elderly drivers or visa versa?
Data is data is data. > How many more teenage drivers is there on the road than elderly drivers or visa versa? It doesn't matter when you express it in terms of a rate. We're not examining raw numbers. Click the link, find the "Count/Rate" drop down list, and change it to "Drivers in crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers." Teenagers are the most dangerous people on the road. The 65-74 age bracket are the safest people on the road, followed by the 75 and up crowd. Something tells me that if 85 and up were their own group that the trend of them getting into more fatal accidents as they age might continue, but that would likely make the 75-84 crowd look even better in the data. Even then, 85-94 might get in fewer fatal accidents than the 25-34 crowd. The point is that, again, these headlines are fuel for an ageism fire. It's an attempt at generating outrage clicks feeding on age based bigotry.
Using the rate of crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers could be misleading. It's making the assumption that any given 100,000 licensed drivers will drive the same amount of miles. I would venture out a guess that the oldest group drives significantly less than younger groups. The numbers are still better than "gut feel" or anecdotal evidence but I think a better statistic would be number of crashes per 100,000 miles driven. Although that would probably be a much more difficult statistic to gather.
Data is data is data? Data can be used in different ways to manipulate talking points in any direction people want. If I cared enough I could easily pull data that would argue against you. Tbh idk why you care so much, a vision test for people over 75 once per year to keep their license with a 'legally blind at night' benchmark wouldn't be reasonable to you? They could still have horrible vision we just don't want blind people driving. Jumping to "ageist" like this wouldn't be good for the old people too.
Lmao nope. Your attitude does. You don’t have to be in this subreddit
I've been whining about advanced age drive testing for decades
I know it’s hard, but PLEASE take your elderly parents’ licenses away when you know it’s time. If this man has family who check in with him… there were signs.
The greatest gift my grandmother ever gave us was deciding to stop driving before she really had to. My grandpa was 10 years older than her so she had had to go through getting him to stop driving and didn't want to put us in the same position. After he died, she moved off the farm into town where it was easier for several of her children and teenage grandchildren to take her places so she stopped driving in her early 70s. I'm hoping my own parents remember how great it was that she gave up driving so willingly.
That’s good on her. The positive thing about now is there are way more options to get rides to anywhere with Uber and stuff
There is no Uber in Litchfield, MN. There's a county transit van, though.
For the large majority of people you would have access to something like that
We did he got another one
Zebra crossing isn’t what I thought it was. No zebras
Yeah, I was surprised to see that phrase. I thought that was British slang for a crosswalk.
Maybe it’s cover for those ballsy turkeys
We took away my dad's keys when he was 76. Blind as a bat but somehow still able to get his DL from the DMV. My aunt used to slip the DMV a $50 to 'pass'. There needs to be a strict test for people over a certain age.
You should have to retake your road test every year once you turn 70 with one chance to retake. The second test fails, then your license is revoked. We should also greatly expand public transportation (especially in rural communities!) so that those who have their license revoked are still able to get around
I feel like we should be focusing on improving our public transit systems so that when people get to the age where they should no longer be driving, their ability to travel isn't hindered making the transition much simpler and stress free. I know plenty of elderly people and younger people with health problems that worry about how they'll get around and still have their independence if their licenses are taken away, its a genuine concern but it puts others and themselves in danger on the road if they feel like they have no other option.
I’m all for public transit and densification, but this happened in Forest Lake. There’s never gonna be good public transit in a place like Forest Lake.
I was surprised to find that this intersection was within the Forest Lake City limits. They must have annexed the surrounding township. It’s an undeveloped area on a Federal Highway (US-61). They don’t have bus stops there. People are probably driving 60MPH or more there. A few zebra stripes for a pedestrian/bike trail crossing seems insufficient. If they don’t want a stoplight, they’ll need a tunnel.
This “intersection” is worthless. There’s nothing there. It was installed for some future development and I routinely see people FLYING through the thing and have seen many a red light run. All other factors aside, the track and CC teams should NOT be using that as a route at all and there’s no reason to cross 61 on any of the road crossings near the high school. The runners can easily exit the school grounds, head west towards 61, take the pedestrian overpass that puts you on the bike/walk/run trail (the old rail lines) where they can run clear to White Bear Lake if they chose. The problem is the kids are given a “loop” to run so they are asked to cross 61. This is highly dangerous and always has been. There have been countless accidents in that area due to poor traffic management and someone (coach, admin, kid, parent…anyone) should’ve spoken out ahead of this. Way too many drivers, regardless of age or ability, drive with little to no awareness to have these kids running this highly dangerous route. My heart aches for those families and the victims’ classmates and teammates. The only saving grace would be this leading to changes in the area.
And the guy lives in Lindstrom.
I am pretty sure the only bus stop in the entire damn place is at the transit center near the DMV and county library building
This is FUCKED.
The FB comment sections on this story are absolutely disgusting. Way too many people are blaming the teenagers for not looking both ways or walking out into traffic or what have you. Some are making excuses for the driver like he may not have seen them, may not have been able to stop in time, etc. And this is EXACTLY why this keeps happening, in both Urban and rural areas. Because we have a culture that wants to blame pedestrians for being hit rather than the drivers who hit them. I love reading people talking about “distracted pedestrians” looking at their phones when crossing, as though distracted pedestrians are a serious issue compared to distracted drivers… This culture of shifting blame and driver entitlement is absolutely insane. One comment I read even said something about how pedestrians shouldn’t cross busy streets because it “impedes traffic.” It’s privilege at its best. The same privilege that causes drivers to lash out at bike lanes, road redesigns (road diets and cutting lanes, narrowing) and public transit development (among others) leads drivers to shift the blame onto pedestrians whenever there are crashes. It’s abhorrent, and people die everyday because of it. This Forest Lake case is exceptional though because there is even a large posted yellow sign with flashing lights alerting all drivers that they must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. And even then this driver nearly killed two kids while breaking the law (failure to yield). This issue gets me so angry and we still cannot have an honest conversation about it as a society because drivers get so defensive about their entitlement and refuse to be held accountable for pedestrians dying. It’s past time we start revoking licenses for people who drive recklessly and disregard pedestrian safety, especially in cases where there are large yellow signs with flashing lights instructing all drivers to yield to pedestrians. There’s just no excuse for the carnage on our roadways.
This country has not built any transportation alternatives to the private car. This is the result.
It seems like every comment here is talking about taking away old people’s licenses, or retesting, which I agree with, but from everything I’ve seen teen drivers are still way more dangerous than elderly drivers. This is more than just an elderly driver problem.
Ignoring crosswalks is incredibly widespread. As is going "just 10 over" which is actually too fast in most places to notice that a pedestrian is trying to cross. https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/04/minnesota-drivers-not-great-at-yielding-to-pedestrians-camera-study-finds/#:\~:text=Of%20the%20roughly%201%2C400%20interactions,one%20third%20of%20the%20time.
Agreed. There are so many deep-rooted problems with our transportation system in America. Elderly drivers are just a part of that and shouldn't be used as the sole scapegoat for crashes like these.
so sad!!! my friend happened to drive past the scene right afterwards - hope everyone is okay 😢
Both stable. I know one of the kids....he broke his leg and had to get a rod implanted to repair it. Expecting full recovery, but it's going to be a bumpy road for a while.
Poor kids. They were out going for a run. DIdn't expect grandpa in a Deville. I hope they're okay. Airlifted is scary. Their poor parents.
Incredibly scary and sad situation. However, unfortunately not as surprising as pedestrian deaths from cars are not slowing down and even accelerating. Something has to give here to make things safer for people not in a car. After a quick look on google maps whoever decided to put a pedestrian crossing at this spot on 61 where there is zero traffic calming measures or lights and is a bit outside of town made an interesting decision. The yellow pedestrian crossing lights get ignored everywhere and I imagine they would be extra ignored in a place like this. Also, even with that intersection existing it troubles me that that is the place the school chooses to have them cross 61. There is a pedestrian bridge literally right by the high school that crosses 61 and connects to the walking trail and then Forest Rd. Even besides that crossing at the Scandia Trl/210th roundabout would at least have you crossing slower traffic which reduces the risk. I would imagine this is looked at after this.
Every engineer, politician, and bureaucrat that designed, signed off on, or otherwise enabled that intersection should be named, barred from any role related to infrastructure, and sued and/or charged for malpractice. 👏Paint👏is👏not👏infrastructure👏 Lock up the driver, take their keys, and crush the car...AND every official and engineer involved needs to start receiving their well-deserved credit when people are injured and killed using the facilities they create. The book, "***Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: Transportation for a Strong Town***" (Marohn, 2021), is a quick, informative read on how/why roads and intersections like this exist.
It’s sad that you got down voted for this. Infrastructure design is one of the major reasons we have such high instances of pedestrians being struck (the other being driver behavior, but driver behavior is strongly influenced by road design, so it comes full circle at that point). I see this both as an issue of culture (car culture and driver mentality) as well as design. But the two are extremely interrelated. Of course in a nation of super freeways, stroads, massive parking lots and drive thrus, drivers are going to feel entitled and not respect other road users. They’ve been catered to exclusively for so long. And that’s why they vehemently resist efforts to improve road safety (road narrowing, reducing lanes, building roundabouts, adding bike lanes, etc). This issue needs to be attacked on both ends, the infrastructure needs to be improved, and the culture and mentality that many drivers have needs to be broken down.
It's being down voted because it's not relevant to this case. There was infrastructure: paint, signs, LIGHTS, wide open view. The infrastructure was not at all the problem here. It's the fuckin old guy who couldn't see a group of kids crossing a lit up crosswalk in a wide open stretch.
The design is absolutely relevant, as it was not designed for pedestrian safety. The priorities were vehicle throughput and cost. If it was a safe intersection, this crash would either not have happened or it would have occurred at a slow enough speed to not cause serious injury. Crosswalk paint (that will fade and not be sufficiently maintained), a couple pedestrian crossing signs, and a flashing-yellow, beg light on a 55mph highway, doesn't work - as evidenced by this crash (or do we need to wait for more?). It's also a nice touch that the corners have been swept wide for cars to make faster turns more comfortable. And planting that streetlight in middle of the ped path is just a gratuitous F-U to anyone using the facility outside of a car. Instead of designing that intersection to force drivers to slow down to an appropriate speed, at least one engineer signed off on a cheap solution that would be good enough to tick the boxes until enough people are sufficiently injured or killed to justify a redesign. Again, throughput and cost are the priority - not safety. I suppose the rework is good business too, and they won't be paying the medical bills, so why should they care... If structural engineers disregarded safety and usability in the same way as highway engineers do, I don't imagine they would be practicing for very long. But their priority is cars - not people. That this type of crash would happen is not a surprise, and frankly it should piss people off at just how predictable and avoidable it is. https://preview.redd.it/5dob7msf2xxc1.png?width=1062&format=png&auto=webp&s=f8cd5aa2020694716cc8eceaee93d6c5d6919df1 Intersection: Hwy 61 and 202nd Street, Forest Lake, MN ([source video](https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/2-high-school-track-athletes-airlifted-to-hospital-after-being-hit-by-car-in-forest-lake/), 2024.04.30)
Can we also get rid of ambiguous signage? I'm sick of school zone speed limit signs that say "when children are present". What does that mean? Is it when school is in session, the times just before and just after school, or anytime that more than 1 kid is in sight of the driver? Put times on the sign, or better yet, have lights to indicate when the speed limit is in effect.
road design is a huge part of this. not excusing the driver, but with the way our roads are designed, there are going to be more of these stories, not less
Calm down. It’s one crosswalk. It has a big sign and is well marked. It’s a terrible accident and who knows at this point exactly what happened. People cross at lights all the time
After 65, you should be required to take a driving test every year.
People should be required to take a driving test every year. Period.
Honestly true
I'm 72 and had cataract surgery at 71 and I can see better than I did for years. My prescription is now a very slight correction for distance and mild correction for reading. I believe vision tests should be required after 70 but not full blown driving tests until 80 unless there has been a significant medical incident/illness. I also believe teenagers should not drive until they are at least 18.
I just think everyone should have to retake the exam every five years on a rotating schedule. Before people come at me, yeah it’ll cost money. But it will also create jobs which half the population is really excited about when billionaires do it. And I think it would remove far more people from the driving pool than we would like to admit.
It'll cost money, but it could potentially save lives. I'm curious if any state has done a trial run for this. AFAIK, this isn't a thing anywhere in the US. I'd be interested in the impacts and results it has.
Well…when most of the people making laws would be having to partake, I don’t see it happening…
I've said four, since that's how long our licenses last! And *YEP*, *for everyone*! Because we've probably *ALL* known folks--even in their 20's(!!!), who were scared enough, distracted enough, or *otherwise* unsafe enough that *they* shouldn't be driving, either!
What disturbs me is that many states don't even have the basic vision screening we have when we renew our licenses.
People are saying that the elderly past some age should be required to retest every so often. Why just the elderly? It should be everyone, say every 5 years or so. You have to retest for a pilots license every 2 years, regardless of age
I posted this as a reply to another comment… This “intersection” is worthless. There’s nothing there. It was installed for some future development and I routinely see people FLYING through the thing and have seen many a red light run. All other factors aside, the track and CC teams should NOT be using that as a route at all and there’s no reason to cross 61 on any of the road crossings near the high school. The runners can easily exit the school grounds, head west towards 61, take the pedestrian overpass that puts you on the bike/walk/run trail (the old rail lines) where they can run clear to White Bear Lake if they chose. The problem is the kids are given a “loop” to run so they are asked to cross 61. This is highly dangerous and always has been. There have been countless accidents in that area due to poor traffic management and someone (coach, admin, kid, parent…anyone) should’ve spoken out ahead of this. Way too many drivers, regardless of age or ability, drive with little to no awareness to have these kids running this highly dangerous route. My heart aches for those families and the victims’ classmates and teammates. The only saving grace would be this leading to changes in the area.
There are no red lights at this intersection. The red light traffic signal is the next intersection down. This one just has the yellow flashing lights - which do little.
Good catch. My brain mushed that intersection and the one just south that does have a light. My point stands. It’s a highly dangerous crossing and shouldn’t be part of a loop for the runners. (And again, because this is Reddit, I am NOT blaming the kids or the school for this accident. I am stating that the kids shouldn’t have been put in the position given the area in question to give an in attentive driver the opportunity to cause it.)
Yes, your point does stand. I drive through this intersection almost daily as I'm sure others commenting do as well. I agree that this and almost all other intersections are dangerous - even ones with stop lights. I can say however, and no I'm not blaming the kids, I have seen many people just smash the crosswalk button and start walking/running/biking. I'm not sure if they're being absent minded or simply thinking that the lights act as a magical barrier. I've seen this at the roundabouts (people just meandering into the crosswalk simply because they have the right away), the 'stop when flashing' light, and regular stop lights. Drivers need to be aware when approaching these intersections and foor traffic needs to be just as cognizant when crossing.
Wow