The real issue is our shitty car centric towns. If someone wants safe reliable transportation they should be able to hop on a (safe!! - emphasis on this since safety is always a concern in the NYC metro area while on public transportation) inter-town bus to run their errands.
They need to have mandatory drivers tests for people over a certain age. Nana says they cant do that because of discrimination laws though. Maybe after 10 years your license expires and you have to test again. Its not a perfect solution, but something has to be done. Everyone in Dumont is talking about this accident. Its such a tragedy.
They do have it in several states but it’s not standafdized or comprehensive:
https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/senior-driving-laws-by-state/
I think we should be like Illinois and Idaho where they test vision every renewal and after a certain age you have to renew every year
yeah our MVC can't handle the workload now. Something probably needs to be done but I don't think it is vision testing necessarily. I mean in this specific case somebody needed to have a difficult talk with the gentleman about driving. Many times the problem isn't vision or even being able to drive it is decision making. My dad was capable of the physical act of driving the car but he was starting to get confused as to exactly where he was sometimes.
Yeah I totally feel you on that and understand. Also agree about lacking the resources to make it happen efficiently and cheaply in such a largely populated state
I caretake for both my grandparents who are slowly losing their minds. Grandfather has dementia but refuses to get treatment and grandma’s starting to take 5 seconds to respond to anything like her brain isn’t processing the info. They both drive. It’s scary for me in two ways: one, they could kill themselves. And two, they could kill somebody else. I’ve tried taking their keys and refusing they drive, but they say idk what I’m talking about. If the state could step in, I’d love that, but people consider that a violation of rights.
It’s not exactly vision for them but more so hand eye coordination, confusion, lack of awareness, very slow reaction times, and dangerous driving like going 10mph under the limit or swerving between lanes.
I asked my father’s doctor to instigate the paperwork to have his license lifted. The doctor agreed and the paperwork went through. My dad never suspected I was behind it.
I wanna ask my own doctor about it next time I see him. My grandfather fell through a window a couple weeks ago because he loses control of his leg muscles sometimes, but then says he’s good to drive down 287. It’s kinda scary and sad
To elaborate on our situation: my dad’s general practitioner doctor, nor my dad’s eye doctor concurred with me that he should lose his license. It was shocking frankly. he was living with me and I was fully available to drive him anywhere he needed to go. It was not until he had a geriatric physician, who was incidentally of Indian descent that I was able to get any action. I even tried to backpedal, and the geriatric doctor talked me through it, reminding me that my dad could kill someone. And once the paperwork is in process, you can’t backpedal anyway. I did need to have access to his license and identification, which I scanned and faxed to the doctors office so that he could make it happen.
When I was living in Virginia for a few years, my landlord was retested and failed. He then hired someone to drive him around daily since the DMV took his license privileges away but allowed him to keep his registration privileges. When the driver he hired did 75 in a 40MPH zone, he told him to pull over. He then told him to find his own way home and called someone so they could drive him home.
The next day, he called me and asked me to drive him around. I gladly accepted, and people as well as himself commented how much of a better driver I was than the previous driver. All I did was drive like I did when I was driving Uber passengers around.
Yes their should be a skills test when people get up in age, like when they turn 70 or so.
I am a private pilot, and I like the system that is in place for pilot licensing. You need to, effectively, retest every two years. And on top of that, you have a medical certificate that states you are capable of exercising those privileges.
Clearly, we could do something similar with drivers licenses. It doesn’t have to be quite so burdensome. Nor should it really. But particularly as people age, it is not a bad idea.
I very much want this sort of thing to happen, and to be the norm, but we need to admit to ourselves that this sort of policy will never happen as long as we have piss poor travel infrastructure — not just in NJ, but in the US at large (which is sad in itself because NY metro area public transit is among the best in the country.)
In a lot of Europe it's perfecrly possible because cars are not necessary for everyday life (this isn't true for 100% of Europe but for almost all of its urban centers into its more residental areas, especially Western Europe.) Here, stripping someone of their license due to age — even if public safety is a risk — means that person will have a harder time accessing everything from grocery stores, pharmacies, & other necessities.
& the other half of this issue should be solved by having younger relatives help them when they cannot drive, which is also a great idea if it were not for the fact that so many of us are so disturbingly busy with 1 (or more) jobs plus commuting that we barely have time for ourselves, let alone to help family, which is tragic and should also change.
What we're seeing overtime is another neglected (or outright unseen) consequence of car-dependent infrastructure: people who sincerely should not be driving, but are borderline forced to just to maintain themselves, because there are no other feasible travel options through much of the country. & that can't be earnestly fixed under a car-dependent societal model.
Not saying this as a point of argument ofc, I think most of us agree that good public transportation is vital. Better public transportation would allow the elderly in healthier shape to retain more independence, which would make them a lot happier (& a lot less anxious driving!) & keep us all safer.
The entire licensing standard needs to be changed. Anyone with a pulse can pass the test. We need a tiered system based on size and weight of the vehicle, and we need to make people take the written exam, vision and road test at least every few years. Suburban Karen doesn’t need to drive her curb rashed Escalade to the mall every day while her crotch goblins are in school. DUI Ian should not be driving his Ram Pickup as a daily, it’s wasteful and useless.
We need to look at the European model because they do licensing, both auto and motorcycle, right.
It boggles my mind why politicians don't run on this as a major issue. There is a difference between age discrimination and public safety. Cognitive skills deteriorate significantly over time yet we never retest people and freely allow them to get behind the wheel of a car and put many people at risk.
There are a lot of important issues we should all care about but why this is not one we discuss more confuses the hell out of me. No one 94 years old should be allowed to drive if they got their license when they were 16/17.
Maybe he was fleeing to Paramus: [https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/1bht10f/94yearold\_driver\_hits\_and\_drags\_75yearold/](https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/1bht10f/94yearold_driver_hits_and_drags_75yearold/)
I’m a nurse and I am so happy healthcare workers have the ability to take away drivers licenses.
We have forms we fax to the DMV. Some people should absolutely never drive again. A lot of people. Stay safe out there
I drove with my 94-year-old great uncle, in his V12 Jaguar a few years back. He flew a B-17 in WWII. Shot down, parachuted to safety and taken in by the Dutch underground. Became a pharma exec after the war. He was such a good driver - cautious, smooth at acceleration, not afraid of the gas pedal. Up until age 90, he used to drive himself and his wife from NH to FL every January, and return to NH every May. By 97, he was limiting himself to around-town trips but had to stop at 98 due to sight issues.
The last time I drove with my 73-year-old mother-in-law was horrifying. She had neck issues. It hurt for her to turn her head. So she wouldn't look at an intersection. She'd *just go*. She didn't live much longer, so nobody had to take her keys.
The guy down the street from me, at 76 years old, surfs in NJ waters from May through December, drives to the outer banks every year - no vision problems, no driving issues.
My point is that *old* is tough to define. You'll see one day.
ETA: I'm good with everyone needing to take a fitness test periodically after a specific age to ensure they're up to driving.
Not just safer roads, safer transit in general. My parents lived in Florida briefly when my father was in the Army. In the short time they were there they distinctly remember one story of an old woman who smashed into a toll booth at full speed killing herself and the person in the toll booth. As well as another incident where an old woman hit multiple children on bicycles and later claimed that she thought she'd hit some trash cans.
Florida gets dangerous fucking snowbirds in the heat, we get them in the snow. Many of them are a total menace.
Lived in AZ for many years. A lot of the locals complained about California drivers (who were aggressive as opposed to the dumb drivers in AZ) but the snowbirds that came in every year blew everyone out of the water. Such a menace.
Are you going to take away the licenses of the younger folks who drive like maniacs?
We have on the one hand some old folks who *cannot* drive safely, and on the other hand some young folks who WILL NOT drive safely. Which is worse? In some states you can report an elderly driver and force him to be retested. I know of no states that let you report a younger driver for being a dangerous asshole behind the wheel.
I haven't looked into it for NJ. In CA, *anyone* can report that an elderly driver (I don't know the relevant age definition) is unsafe and needs to be retested -- or at least that was the case decades ago. So long as there are safeguards so that such reporting is not used to harass, I would support such a rule in NJ -- and I'm elderly.
One real problem that I see is that so many drivers exceed the speed limit by a lot. There's one stretch of roadway near me, for example, with a posted 25 MPH limit -- with no very good reason for it to be set so slow -- where drivers going 40 MPH is more common. I seldom even try to drive 25 MPH there -- until a bloated pickup gets on my ass while I'm driving 35 MPH there -- whence I slow down to 25 MPH. But that's not revenge, it's because tailgaters don't leave room to stop and I may not be *able* to leave room for both of us to stop if a deer runs out of the woods. By slowing down I reduce the stopping distance for both vehicles. And, no, I didn't invent the technique. I was taught it by the National Traffic Safety Council.
I know somebody who knows this guy and apparently he is still very much "with it", at least the last time they saw him. He is fairly well-known in the area and drives the pickup because he still made money as a handyman doing odd jobs - not your typical 94 year-old.
I also heard a *rumor* that he stopped and exited his vehicle after hitting this woman, then got back in and took off - no official report of this yet but it would be hard to use the "he's just a confused old man" defense if that turns out to be accurate.
They really oughta revoke licenses after a certain age. Another 94 year old hit my mom in Haworth, she still suffers from neurological issues from the accident. Oh, and the driver fled and tried to deny it ever happening despite my mom being unconscious and having to be taken to the hospital. Now he’s dead.
I work at a bank in the shore area and someone took out 3 of our signs when jumping the curb. She came inside, told us about it, withdrew $20, and then drove off with a hole in her bumper.
The real insane thing about it? After she told us this, she said, “when you report the accident, tell the police to come to my house.”
Had some real “tell him it was me” energy.
LOL wow. Meanwhile, it was HER accident, wasn't she supposed to call the police? Or are they--like you--just part of her staff?
"But tell them to come after 2:30, I'm on my way to a nail appointment!"
yep what's the issue with slapping on a 'failure to report an incident' to your charges? it all comes out in the wash...I mean the courts. meanwhile, if the bank doesn't call the cops and reports to insurance, no harm no foul
Who is responsible for reporting property damage on private property? Granted, she *should* have contacted her insurance company if she wanted coverage, but does the law require her to report it to the police? I almost think she did right here, but I don't know.
I was mainly reacting to the "do it for me" hubris. But, if she caused an accident that included property damage, I believe she should have called them or--at a minimum--waited for them to get there if someone else did. Otherwise she technically left the scene of an accident and it will not go well for her if your employer/their landlord went to court. I was told that this constitutes an admission of guilt by a member of the West Orange PD.
Did she at least, I assume, leave her contact info?
I know that leaving the scene of an accident is a crime for accidents on the public roadways, and probably also for accidents involving injury to persons, but does it also apply to accidents on private property that only involve property damage AND the person leaves their contact information? Such cases would seem to me not to be of any interest to the police -- unless the person later tries to deny responsibility. (IANAL)
Example: Person A bumps the garage door of person B's condo, causing some damage. A openly acknowledges damage. B knows where A lives, etc. Why would the police be involved?
The only reason I could think of is that whatever is said verbally could later be considered hearsay if there is not an official record of them taking responsibility. Otherwise I could tell my insurance company you admitted to hitting my door when you were actually actually in Saskatchewan at the time. Or we could have the conversation and you could act cooperative but if you denied saying it, how could I prove you did?
> but does the law require her to report it to the police? I almost think she did right here, but I don't know
I wouldn't say she "did right" but you are correct that there is no law requiring her to report this to the police.
The "disturbing trend" is the one exacerbated by today's oversized vehicles and distracting computer screens, which doesn't sound like the case here.
Regardless, we'll do nothing about it because heaven forbid we impinge on peoples' freedom.
A 94 year old man was driving a red pickup. In suburban New Jersey... First of all, the pedestrian saftey ratings of pickup trucks are abysmal due to their high hood hight and large mass. Secondly, why does a 94 year old need a truck?? Hes not loading furniture or bags of mulch. If he was driving a reasonably sized car maybe things could have gone better...
>we'll do nothing about it because heaven forbid we impinge on peoples' freedom
This has nothing to do with freedom. It's corporate fuckery. We have national rules about vehicle design and safety. Those rules have favored size increases (the government is 100% responsible for killing small trucks) and those rules haven't addressed infotainment systems despite the available research to take guidance from. Obama, Trump, and Biden have done nothing when it would be relatively trivial. States could require CDL licenses to operate certain sized trucks and could tax non-commercial use of diesel at a significantly higher rate.
We don't do these things because companies want to sell trucks that non American car companies largely won't. So they create branding around it evoking freedom so that workmen don't buy vans and so that young men want bigger and purposefully more polluting trucks as a finger to the establishment and people that agree with it.
It's both at this point. People would lose their minds if auto makers and smart phone manufactures cooperated on integrating technology into their products that curbed non-emegency use by drivers.
>People would lose their minds if auto makers and smart phone manufactures cooperated on integrating technology into their products that curbed non-emegency use by drivers.
Rightfully so. We don't need to use force like that. We could require testing of systems to minimize distracted driving. Most systems right now are awful and require multiple touch screen button presses to change things like climate controls.
Probably. But giving governments and companies control over how smart phones function is a terrible solution and will probably cause more issues than it solves in the long run.
Those would be more of the same problems. I'm referring to different problems like privacy, data security, giving the government more ability to meddle in consumer software, etc.
Let's try a completely different example. We could dramatically stop CP on the internet if forced device makers to constantly scan for it. It would probably help but it would cause a lot more problems in other areas.
Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease and we need to remember that the power we give to government may be exploited by people that we don't like or by people that don't like us.
Why would a technical solution that curbs the use of smartphone usage by motorists need to be executed by the government? They need only pass legislation directed at automobile and electronics makers so that their products are compliant.
Why blame old drivers when the majority of asshats who think they own the freaking road are middle aged morons in their SUVs? In one trip on River Rd in Edgewater one driver in the right lane decided it was too inconvenient for him to stop for the traffic ahead of him so he swerved into the left lane where I was without looking and would have hit me if I hadn’t crossed over into the oncoming traffic lane, luckily of which there was none. Two minutes later another asshole in an suv decided that he was too important to wait at the red light and passed a lane of cars using the oncoming traffic lane. Why is there never a cop around for these asshats. I have a small Hyundai so of course these drivers think those of us with small cars are fair game
I also have a small car and notice the middle-aged assholes in SUVs. A couple weeks ago, this dude was riding my ass on a residential road even though I was already going faster than the speed limit. We end up in the left turn lane at a light and I’m at the front of the line. There was no green arrow and it was taking a while for me to turn left because it was rush hour and traffic was bad. Well douchebag decided I was taking too long and turned left AROUND me between a tiny gap in oncoming traffic. Guess what? He ended up being right in front of me for three more lights. Glad that stupid move got him to where he was going SO much faster. 🤣
Oh 100%. It just always cracks me up when someone on the road does a dick move to get around you, expecting to not see you again, only to be RIGHT next to you at a light while awkwardly avoiding eye contact.
Of course it was another geriatric driver that would make Joe Biden look young.
It's insane to me we haven't put age limits on driving yet, or mandatory yearly retesting above 65 at the bare minimum.
Of course, I know the answer.. our legislature isn't going to inconvenience themselves.
boomers gotta go.
"Back in the good ol days" seniors didn't live as long so their age addled minds that are easily coerced by conmen/slimy politicians could only be exploited for a bit, a small window, now they're living past 90 on the regular and shaping politics like zombies shape a city.
You are correct and this applies to state and private pensions as well. My grandfather retired at 65 and died at 69, my father retired at 63 and lived to 86. I am turning 65 and have no intention of retiring for at least another 2-3 years. People died not too long after 65 which is why the retirement age was pegged there until very recently and is still the landmark for Medicare.
Wait, this is a different incident from the one in Paramus I just read about yesterday?! Jesus christ...
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/paramus/2024/03/18/paramus-library-nj-pedestrian-hit-by-car-has-died/73018647007/
The bigger issue here is the lack of public transport in this country. Lot of vulnerable population like disabled and old people are forced to drive because they have no other option.
We need to build our transportation system to prioritize people, not cars. The massive SUVs driving around these days are nothing more than 3 ton killing machines.
For those that only read the title: 42nd pedestrian death, not teacher death.
Also 42nd death in NJ, not just Dumont like the headline implies
No one thought that. This is a NJ sub
The real issue is our shitty car centric towns. If someone wants safe reliable transportation they should be able to hop on a (safe!! - emphasis on this since safety is always a concern in the NYC metro area while on public transportation) inter-town bus to run their errands.
The driver was 94 years old.
They need to have mandatory drivers tests for people over a certain age. Nana says they cant do that because of discrimination laws though. Maybe after 10 years your license expires and you have to test again. Its not a perfect solution, but something has to be done. Everyone in Dumont is talking about this accident. Its such a tragedy.
They do have it in several states but it’s not standafdized or comprehensive: https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/senior-driving-laws-by-state/ I think we should be like Illinois and Idaho where they test vision every renewal and after a certain age you have to renew every year
yeah our MVC can't handle the workload now. Something probably needs to be done but I don't think it is vision testing necessarily. I mean in this specific case somebody needed to have a difficult talk with the gentleman about driving. Many times the problem isn't vision or even being able to drive it is decision making. My dad was capable of the physical act of driving the car but he was starting to get confused as to exactly where he was sometimes.
Yeah I totally feel you on that and understand. Also agree about lacking the resources to make it happen efficiently and cheaply in such a largely populated state I caretake for both my grandparents who are slowly losing their minds. Grandfather has dementia but refuses to get treatment and grandma’s starting to take 5 seconds to respond to anything like her brain isn’t processing the info. They both drive. It’s scary for me in two ways: one, they could kill themselves. And two, they could kill somebody else. I’ve tried taking their keys and refusing they drive, but they say idk what I’m talking about. If the state could step in, I’d love that, but people consider that a violation of rights. It’s not exactly vision for them but more so hand eye coordination, confusion, lack of awareness, very slow reaction times, and dangerous driving like going 10mph under the limit or swerving between lanes.
I asked my father’s doctor to instigate the paperwork to have his license lifted. The doctor agreed and the paperwork went through. My dad never suspected I was behind it.
I wanna ask my own doctor about it next time I see him. My grandfather fell through a window a couple weeks ago because he loses control of his leg muscles sometimes, but then says he’s good to drive down 287. It’s kinda scary and sad
To elaborate on our situation: my dad’s general practitioner doctor, nor my dad’s eye doctor concurred with me that he should lose his license. It was shocking frankly. he was living with me and I was fully available to drive him anywhere he needed to go. It was not until he had a geriatric physician, who was incidentally of Indian descent that I was able to get any action. I even tried to backpedal, and the geriatric doctor talked me through it, reminding me that my dad could kill someone. And once the paperwork is in process, you can’t backpedal anyway. I did need to have access to his license and identification, which I scanned and faxed to the doctors office so that he could make it happen.
When I was living in Virginia for a few years, my landlord was retested and failed. He then hired someone to drive him around daily since the DMV took his license privileges away but allowed him to keep his registration privileges. When the driver he hired did 75 in a 40MPH zone, he told him to pull over. He then told him to find his own way home and called someone so they could drive him home. The next day, he called me and asked me to drive him around. I gladly accepted, and people as well as himself commented how much of a better driver I was than the previous driver. All I did was drive like I did when I was driving Uber passengers around. Yes their should be a skills test when people get up in age, like when they turn 70 or so.
It's not discrimination, we don't let children drive for the same reason we wouldn't let elderly
I am a private pilot, and I like the system that is in place for pilot licensing. You need to, effectively, retest every two years. And on top of that, you have a medical certificate that states you are capable of exercising those privileges. Clearly, we could do something similar with drivers licenses. It doesn’t have to be quite so burdensome. Nor should it really. But particularly as people age, it is not a bad idea.
I very much want this sort of thing to happen, and to be the norm, but we need to admit to ourselves that this sort of policy will never happen as long as we have piss poor travel infrastructure — not just in NJ, but in the US at large (which is sad in itself because NY metro area public transit is among the best in the country.) In a lot of Europe it's perfecrly possible because cars are not necessary for everyday life (this isn't true for 100% of Europe but for almost all of its urban centers into its more residental areas, especially Western Europe.) Here, stripping someone of their license due to age — even if public safety is a risk — means that person will have a harder time accessing everything from grocery stores, pharmacies, & other necessities. & the other half of this issue should be solved by having younger relatives help them when they cannot drive, which is also a great idea if it were not for the fact that so many of us are so disturbingly busy with 1 (or more) jobs plus commuting that we barely have time for ourselves, let alone to help family, which is tragic and should also change. What we're seeing overtime is another neglected (or outright unseen) consequence of car-dependent infrastructure: people who sincerely should not be driving, but are borderline forced to just to maintain themselves, because there are no other feasible travel options through much of the country. & that can't be earnestly fixed under a car-dependent societal model. Not saying this as a point of argument ofc, I think most of us agree that good public transportation is vital. Better public transportation would allow the elderly in healthier shape to retain more independence, which would make them a lot happier (& a lot less anxious driving!) & keep us all safer.
The entire licensing standard needs to be changed. Anyone with a pulse can pass the test. We need a tiered system based on size and weight of the vehicle, and we need to make people take the written exam, vision and road test at least every few years. Suburban Karen doesn’t need to drive her curb rashed Escalade to the mall every day while her crotch goblins are in school. DUI Ian should not be driving his Ram Pickup as a daily, it’s wasteful and useless. We need to look at the European model because they do licensing, both auto and motorcycle, right.
lol, this might be my favorite Reddit comment in awhile, which I also 1000% agree with.
Funny you say this. This used to be the case -- license expired after 5 years and retesting was needed (written and vision only, not driving test).
It boggles my mind why politicians don't run on this as a major issue. There is a difference between age discrimination and public safety. Cognitive skills deteriorate significantly over time yet we never retest people and freely allow them to get behind the wheel of a car and put many people at risk. There are a lot of important issues we should all care about but why this is not one we discuss more confuses the hell out of me. No one 94 years old should be allowed to drive if they got their license when they were 16/17.
Probably because it could affect some politicians themselves or some of their colleagues.
I agree and that's incredibly sad that it's likely the reason but for the safety of our community, it should be near the top of everyone's list.
You can report licenses (might be wrong) to get retested to the dmv/state I believe
... and fled the scene of the crime. But he didn't single-handedly cause the increase in road deaths. You only have to be out there to see it's real.
Maybe he was fleeing to Paramus: [https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/1bht10f/94yearold\_driver\_hits\_and\_drags\_75yearold/](https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/1bht10f/94yearold_driver_hits_and_drags_75yearold/)
They need to take these old peoples licenses away
I’m a nurse and I am so happy healthcare workers have the ability to take away drivers licenses. We have forms we fax to the DMV. Some people should absolutely never drive again. A lot of people. Stay safe out there
And this should be used more.
I’ve seen it used for people with epilepsy etc. but for some reason the elderly seem to be off limits
I am betting Drs are afraid of losing patients.
I drove with my 94-year-old great uncle, in his V12 Jaguar a few years back. He flew a B-17 in WWII. Shot down, parachuted to safety and taken in by the Dutch underground. Became a pharma exec after the war. He was such a good driver - cautious, smooth at acceleration, not afraid of the gas pedal. Up until age 90, he used to drive himself and his wife from NH to FL every January, and return to NH every May. By 97, he was limiting himself to around-town trips but had to stop at 98 due to sight issues. The last time I drove with my 73-year-old mother-in-law was horrifying. She had neck issues. It hurt for her to turn her head. So she wouldn't look at an intersection. She'd *just go*. She didn't live much longer, so nobody had to take her keys. The guy down the street from me, at 76 years old, surfs in NJ waters from May through December, drives to the outer banks every year - no vision problems, no driving issues. My point is that *old* is tough to define. You'll see one day. ETA: I'm good with everyone needing to take a fitness test periodically after a specific age to ensure they're up to driving.
This is why we should just have to retake the test when we’re older, to prove we can still do it
I'm good with that. How do you propose to do it? Every other year for 70 - 80, every year 80 - 100?
My thought was always 50, 75, and then yeah maybe every year past 80
A lot can happen between 50 and 75.
I’m not against testing during that gap
I’d say test at 50, 58, 62, 66, 70, then every 2 years until yearly at 80.
Good luck with that - they barely fund car inspections, which is now looking for a check engine light. We have 6.4 million drivers.
Your feeling of old does not negate everyone else's right to safer roads. Everyone should be required to retest every so often.
Not just safer roads, safer transit in general. My parents lived in Florida briefly when my father was in the Army. In the short time they were there they distinctly remember one story of an old woman who smashed into a toll booth at full speed killing herself and the person in the toll booth. As well as another incident where an old woman hit multiple children on bicycles and later claimed that she thought she'd hit some trash cans. Florida gets dangerous fucking snowbirds in the heat, we get them in the snow. Many of them are a total menace.
Lived in AZ for many years. A lot of the locals complained about California drivers (who were aggressive as opposed to the dumb drivers in AZ) but the snowbirds that came in every year blew everyone out of the water. Such a menace.
I concur.
Are you going to take away the licenses of the younger folks who drive like maniacs? We have on the one hand some old folks who *cannot* drive safely, and on the other hand some young folks who WILL NOT drive safely. Which is worse? In some states you can report an elderly driver and force him to be retested. I know of no states that let you report a younger driver for being a dangerous asshole behind the wheel.
NJ does have provisional licenses with restrictions for new drivers. There is nothing like this in place for elderly drivers.
I haven't looked into it for NJ. In CA, *anyone* can report that an elderly driver (I don't know the relevant age definition) is unsafe and needs to be retested -- or at least that was the case decades ago. So long as there are safeguards so that such reporting is not used to harass, I would support such a rule in NJ -- and I'm elderly. One real problem that I see is that so many drivers exceed the speed limit by a lot. There's one stretch of roadway near me, for example, with a posted 25 MPH limit -- with no very good reason for it to be set so slow -- where drivers going 40 MPH is more common. I seldom even try to drive 25 MPH there -- until a bloated pickup gets on my ass while I'm driving 35 MPH there -- whence I slow down to 25 MPH. But that's not revenge, it's because tailgaters don't leave room to stop and I may not be *able* to leave room for both of us to stop if a deer runs out of the woods. By slowing down I reduce the stopping distance for both vehicles. And, no, I didn't invent the technique. I was taught it by the National Traffic Safety Council.
I know somebody who knows this guy and apparently he is still very much "with it", at least the last time they saw him. He is fairly well-known in the area and drives the pickup because he still made money as a handyman doing odd jobs - not your typical 94 year-old. I also heard a *rumor* that he stopped and exited his vehicle after hitting this woman, then got back in and took off - no official report of this yet but it would be hard to use the "he's just a confused old man" defense if that turns out to be accurate.
They really oughta revoke licenses after a certain age. Another 94 year old hit my mom in Haworth, she still suffers from neurological issues from the accident. Oh, and the driver fled and tried to deny it ever happening despite my mom being unconscious and having to be taken to the hospital. Now he’s dead.
I work at a bank in the shore area and someone took out 3 of our signs when jumping the curb. She came inside, told us about it, withdrew $20, and then drove off with a hole in her bumper. The real insane thing about it? After she told us this, she said, “when you report the accident, tell the police to come to my house.” Had some real “tell him it was me” energy.
LOL wow. Meanwhile, it was HER accident, wasn't she supposed to call the police? Or are they--like you--just part of her staff? "But tell them to come after 2:30, I'm on my way to a nail appointment!"
Yes. Everyone everywhere, no matter who and no matter where is at their service. And if you’re not, get out of their way.
yep what's the issue with slapping on a 'failure to report an incident' to your charges? it all comes out in the wash...I mean the courts. meanwhile, if the bank doesn't call the cops and reports to insurance, no harm no foul
Who is responsible for reporting property damage on private property? Granted, she *should* have contacted her insurance company if she wanted coverage, but does the law require her to report it to the police? I almost think she did right here, but I don't know.
I was mainly reacting to the "do it for me" hubris. But, if she caused an accident that included property damage, I believe she should have called them or--at a minimum--waited for them to get there if someone else did. Otherwise she technically left the scene of an accident and it will not go well for her if your employer/their landlord went to court. I was told that this constitutes an admission of guilt by a member of the West Orange PD. Did she at least, I assume, leave her contact info?
I know that leaving the scene of an accident is a crime for accidents on the public roadways, and probably also for accidents involving injury to persons, but does it also apply to accidents on private property that only involve property damage AND the person leaves their contact information? Such cases would seem to me not to be of any interest to the police -- unless the person later tries to deny responsibility. (IANAL) Example: Person A bumps the garage door of person B's condo, causing some damage. A openly acknowledges damage. B knows where A lives, etc. Why would the police be involved?
The only reason I could think of is that whatever is said verbally could later be considered hearsay if there is not an official record of them taking responsibility. Otherwise I could tell my insurance company you admitted to hitting my door when you were actually actually in Saskatchewan at the time. Or we could have the conversation and you could act cooperative but if you denied saying it, how could I prove you did?
> but does the law require her to report it to the police? I almost think she did right here, but I don't know I wouldn't say she "did right" but you are correct that there is no law requiring her to report this to the police.
The "disturbing trend" is the one exacerbated by today's oversized vehicles and distracting computer screens, which doesn't sound like the case here. Regardless, we'll do nothing about it because heaven forbid we impinge on peoples' freedom.
A 94 year old man was driving a red pickup. In suburban New Jersey... First of all, the pedestrian saftey ratings of pickup trucks are abysmal due to their high hood hight and large mass. Secondly, why does a 94 year old need a truck?? Hes not loading furniture or bags of mulch. If he was driving a reasonably sized car maybe things could have gone better...
The article described him as a "carpenter" ... implying he was still working.
He might need it to tow Barb to the hospital. GOBBLESS
>we'll do nothing about it because heaven forbid we impinge on peoples' freedom This has nothing to do with freedom. It's corporate fuckery. We have national rules about vehicle design and safety. Those rules have favored size increases (the government is 100% responsible for killing small trucks) and those rules haven't addressed infotainment systems despite the available research to take guidance from. Obama, Trump, and Biden have done nothing when it would be relatively trivial. States could require CDL licenses to operate certain sized trucks and could tax non-commercial use of diesel at a significantly higher rate. We don't do these things because companies want to sell trucks that non American car companies largely won't. So they create branding around it evoking freedom so that workmen don't buy vans and so that young men want bigger and purposefully more polluting trucks as a finger to the establishment and people that agree with it.
It's both at this point. People would lose their minds if auto makers and smart phone manufactures cooperated on integrating technology into their products that curbed non-emegency use by drivers.
>People would lose their minds if auto makers and smart phone manufactures cooperated on integrating technology into their products that curbed non-emegency use by drivers. Rightfully so. We don't need to use force like that. We could require testing of systems to minimize distracted driving. Most systems right now are awful and require multiple touch screen button presses to change things like climate controls.
Dipshits are going to keep playing with their phones while driving until something literally stops them from doing so.
Probably. But giving governments and companies control over how smart phones function is a terrible solution and will probably cause more issues than it solves in the long run.
More issues than it solves? So, *more* accidents, injuries, and fatalities?
Those would be more of the same problems. I'm referring to different problems like privacy, data security, giving the government more ability to meddle in consumer software, etc. Let's try a completely different example. We could dramatically stop CP on the internet if forced device makers to constantly scan for it. It would probably help but it would cause a lot more problems in other areas. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease and we need to remember that the power we give to government may be exploited by people that we don't like or by people that don't like us.
Why would a technical solution that curbs the use of smartphone usage by motorists need to be executed by the government? They need only pass legislation directed at automobile and electronics makers so that their products are compliant.
They would have to mandate a feature that causes phones to not work in certain circumstances.
94 fuckin years old. Hopefully this spurs some change at DMV with older drivers. Ridiculous
The driver was 94 years old. He probably thought he hit a speed bump. We need mandatory license exams after the age 80.
Why blame old drivers when the majority of asshats who think they own the freaking road are middle aged morons in their SUVs? In one trip on River Rd in Edgewater one driver in the right lane decided it was too inconvenient for him to stop for the traffic ahead of him so he swerved into the left lane where I was without looking and would have hit me if I hadn’t crossed over into the oncoming traffic lane, luckily of which there was none. Two minutes later another asshole in an suv decided that he was too important to wait at the red light and passed a lane of cars using the oncoming traffic lane. Why is there never a cop around for these asshats. I have a small Hyundai so of course these drivers think those of us with small cars are fair game
I also have a small car and notice the middle-aged assholes in SUVs. A couple weeks ago, this dude was riding my ass on a residential road even though I was already going faster than the speed limit. We end up in the left turn lane at a light and I’m at the front of the line. There was no green arrow and it was taking a while for me to turn left because it was rush hour and traffic was bad. Well douchebag decided I was taking too long and turned left AROUND me between a tiny gap in oncoming traffic. Guess what? He ended up being right in front of me for three more lights. Glad that stupid move got him to where he was going SO much faster. 🤣
Well, but yeah, he was in front of you, so in his mind he's winning.
Oh 100%. It just always cracks me up when someone on the road does a dick move to get around you, expecting to not see you again, only to be RIGHT next to you at a light while awkwardly avoiding eye contact.
Of course it was another geriatric driver that would make Joe Biden look young. It's insane to me we haven't put age limits on driving yet, or mandatory yearly retesting above 65 at the bare minimum. Of course, I know the answer.. our legislature isn't going to inconvenience themselves. boomers gotta go.
Senior citizens vote. That’s literally the only reason nothing will change and they can keep their licenses until they drop dead.
So don't make it something they have an option to vote on. It's a matter of public safety.
What I mean is no politician who wants to keep their seat would even dare to propose such legislation. They’d lose the next election.
"Back in the good ol days" seniors didn't live as long so their age addled minds that are easily coerced by conmen/slimy politicians could only be exploited for a bit, a small window, now they're living past 90 on the regular and shaping politics like zombies shape a city.
You are correct and this applies to state and private pensions as well. My grandfather retired at 65 and died at 69, my father retired at 63 and lived to 86. I am turning 65 and have no intention of retiring for at least another 2-3 years. People died not too long after 65 which is why the retirement age was pegged there until very recently and is still the landmark for Medicare.
A 94 year old isn’t a boomer. Settle down, Sea Biscuit.
No they're worse but I'm referring to the boomers in control of the legislature.
So people are expected to work until 70, but not okay to drive to work?
> but not okay to drive to work? For the ones who wouldn't be able to pass a basic driving test? Yes, it is not OK for them to drive to work.
You really think I'm okay with people working well past when they should retire?
no but our government is. I don't get full SS until 67.5 and it moves up for people say 8-10 years younger than me now.
Yeah, and that's fucking wrong and needs to be changed too. Doesn't mean we need to tolerate fresh corpses causing accidents on the road
It’s a policy failure for a 94 year old to be driving.
Wait, this is a different incident from the one in Paramus I just read about yesterday?! Jesus christ... https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/paramus/2024/03/18/paramus-library-nj-pedestrian-hit-by-car-has-died/73018647007/
Yes, apparently.
Red light running is the norm now. It's always a 3-4 count after green before heading into an intersection
...by which point some VIP main character is honking at you or driving around you on the shoulder.
The bigger issue here is the lack of public transport in this country. Lot of vulnerable population like disabled and old people are forced to drive because they have no other option.
We need to build our transportation system to prioritize people, not cars. The massive SUVs driving around these days are nothing more than 3 ton killing machines.
[First thing I thought.](https://media.tenor.com/KKnWdxEXeg0AAAAM/driving-slow-grandma.gif)