Senseless act of Stupidity ...kills someone!

[Dennis The Menace]

Annual testing wont prevent stupid decisions.  This is sad, and illustrates a problem with allowing some seniors to drive.  We dont let those under 16 have a license, and there should be an appropriate age at which a license is taken away.  Like, around 80 or 85.  Many may disagree, but in todays driving environment, its hard for a senior to not endanger the rest of the driving public.  Decreased reaction times and in many cases inability to maintain the speed limit are serious factors.

This accident was avoidable, but that doesnt bring back Mr. Veltrop.  I suspect Mr Law will have his license permanently revoked and issued a ticket.  Most likely also a suspended jail sentence with probabation for a very short period of time.  He likely doenst have a record of any kind at that age, so courts will not punish him to any degree.  Civil lawsuit will probably put some hurt on his heirs tho.

RIP Paul Veltrop.

[UltraManPaul]

The guy was 90 years old! IMO they should issue a one year drivers license for anybody 80 or over that must be renewed annually and include a written, vision, and drivring test.  The test should cost $100.00 to offset costs and to encourage oldsters to not renew.  My Father in Law has molecular degeneration, (sp?), and is going blind and he still drives.  My late Dad drove until his death at age 93, and had no business behind the wheel of his 28 year old Chrysler that was unsafe in and of itself.  I got stuck behind a gray head this morning that was going 30 mph in a 40 zone with a steady line of vehicles trying to get around her.  She was a hazard.  These people need to be off the road if they are a danger to themselves and everybody around them.  Don't get me started on cell phone drivers either.

What about the twenty-something year old girl recently in the mid-west who was polishing her nails while driving and rear ended and killed a  motorcyclist who was stopped at a stop sign. should everyone over the age of 20 be required to test yearly? Then maybe we should include every age group who commits a senseless acts of stupidity. I'm sorry but I can't agree with testing based on age only. There are many provisions in the law that allow the law enforcement community and the DMVs to take action against incompetent drivers. The problem is that thay don't.

Then I have to ask the question, if someone's dad was driving at 93 and shouldn't have been behind the wheel, why didn't that person do something about it instead of letting his dad continue to drive? If his dad had killed someone, shouldn't the son then also be responsible?

It is easy to attack a group who can't defend itself but remember, discrimination is discrimination!

Don't be so quick to judge the legal system in this case. Fatal accident investigations can take a long time and manslaughter charges can still be brought against the driver who made the illegal turn if it can be proven to a jury that he was at fault. I understand that there is anger an frustration a work here gbut don't lash out at an entire group becaus of one person's inattention.
Norm

Norm,
Every law we have can be discribed as discrimination if you interpret it that way. That's how laws work. We discriminate against people under 16 to drive right? Under 18? Sorry, you're to young to vote. We discriminate against felons to own a firearm or to vote right? Pick a law. It's discrimanatory in some fashion. I think what most are saying about this incident is it appears the 90 year olds judgement may have been impaired by his age. Certainly MOST people would not have tried to make that u turn, and if they did they would probably have done a better job of making sure the way was clear. It would still be illeagal, but with a differant outcome. As we get older our joints aren't as flexible as they used to be and in this case it may have been painful or impossible for him to actually turn and look behind to his left so he may have just checked the mirror and thought it was ok to make the turn. That may be how he has done lane changes and U turns for years. Unfortunately, this time it cost someone thier life. This is part of what I think should be included in driver testing as we get older. Maybe we should all have to prove we are physically able to do what it takes to be a responsible driver. We are all responsible for each other to some degree on the road, and we should be physically fit enough to not be a hazard to those around us. I'm not trying to bash you or anyone here, I just wanted to make a point.  Ok, stepping off the soap box now.



UMP

[DblackmanC]

My sympathy goes out to both families....
With that said I must weight in with my thoughs...

The younger age group problems are a matter of training, give a "Potty mouth" and respect for others, not their ablities. the older groups problems comes from aging and the effects it has on their ablitiy to make good, fast and correct decisions. Aging will do this to us all at some point in time...sooner for some of us and later for others. I feel there should be some kind of testing for everyone regardless of age...reaction time, reflexes, decision making along with what we have today. There may be some slow 20 year olds who can't get a lic. and some 80 year olds that can and that would be fair and safer for all. Anything to help keep the ones with a proven problems off the streets...
Dan

[verson22]

The guy laying under the car may have felt the 20 year olds were more dangerous.

[MMOCGuy]

UMP.

No problem and no offense taken. Good discussions require different opinions  .

You make a good point about all laws being discriminatory in some way however, I don't completely agree (It all depends on how one looks at them). The real point I was trying to make was well presented by Dennis The Menace when he said "Annual testing won't prevent stupid decisions". The attack on all drivers over or under ?? age as has been done here by some, is a knee jerk reaction to a very tragic situation. The same kind of reaction took place on another forum when that girl in her twenties was doing her nails while driving and rear ended the motorcyclist who was stopped for a red light.

The main point is that we shouldn't descriminate against a class of people (Whether they are teenagers or seniors - or anyone else, for that matter) because a few in the class make stupid decisions. I agree that something must be done but it should be done logically and with thought, not based on emotional reactions.

What we really should be doing is lobbying our representatives to lean on law enforcement and the various Departments of Motor Vehicles to enforce those laws that are already on the books in most states requiring the re-evaluation of anyone, regardless of age, who displays any indication that they are not competent to drive. I believe that most states have these laws yet they don't get enforced.


I hope that this clarifies what I was trying to say.

Thanks, all.

NormS.

[Skullfork]

Norm ...well said 

[hotroadking]

the insurance table show an inverted bell curve for accidents by age, under 30 high, super high for 20's and under.

Now the rate for accidents those 70 and older does the same.

For those under 20, testosterone and inexperience

Over 70, physical limitations such as eyesight and the ability to react quickly deteriorate, so while not all are dangers as a group both segments are the worst when it comes to driving and accidents.

For the guy 93, the family probably would have had to go to court and have him declared unable to drive, this of course makes the 93 year old mad, and then family feuds start, someone that is helping him and others ends up taking the guff.  So for families, domestically its a problem.

Having a law in place that requires vision and reaction testing for everyone is fine with me, we all should have to pay a fee every so many years to be checked.

However once you reach a certain age I'm positive medical science can prove the degredation of the ability of that group to substantiate a higher testing standard.

IF it saves one life is it not worth it?

[Rags722]

According to the State Highway Patrol, both the Harley Davidson operated by Paul Veltrop (48) and the automobile driven by John Law (90) were eastbound on I-70 when Law attempted to make an illegal turn into the crossover in the median from the right lane.

Ever hear of the term "plow turn"?  Farmers know it because when they get to one end of the field, they get as far to the right as they can so when they start back in the opposite directionthey are in line with the last row plowed.  Sounds to me like the old guy "plow turned" them while making an illegal U turn across the highway.

I know as folks get older, retaining their DL is important to them because once they lose their right to drive, they have life altering changes to face.  My mom just got her DL renewed at age 86 and was worried to death that they would shut her down and she would have to move into an assisted living center.  While she didn't want to do that (and at 1000 miles away it would be kinda hard for me to fly down and drive her to go shopping once a week), we were all concerned about the other side of the coin.  How could she live if she wound up hurting someone?  How would we sleep at night if we knew we did nothing to keep her off the road?
  I guess it was a hidden blessing a month ago when she fell and broke her pelvis.  Dr's think she may have had a minor stroke that caused the fall. She's in a care center, and has decided to turn in her license and sell the car. After laying on the living room floor for 20 hours, she also thinks that it is time to stop living on her own and move into an assisted living center. It will be tough on her, but at least I no longer have to worry that when the phone rings it will be the Ft Myers PD letting me know she was just in an accident that killed some innocent person.  And, for her, life will change, but it will go on.  Maybe not what she was used to, but the next stage of her time left on earth.  The bottom line is once they get into that age bracket, we need to stop thinking with our hearts and start thinking with our heads.  There may be some older folks out there that qualify to keep their license, but in many cases the family needs to step in and do what's right.  You can't expect the laws to be changed, because old people represent votes, and no politician is going to piss off that big a voting block.  Besides, even if they passed laws, the ACLU would cost every town in the country so much in legal fees none of us could afford it.

Rags

[JohnC]

Although I agree with annual testing of elderly drivers, I think that's a separate issue aside from this particular case.

Looking only at the facts:  Driver of vehicle A attempted to make an illegal u-turn on a major highway, resulting in a collision with vehicle B, causing the death of one person and the critical injuries of a second.  Driver of Vehicle A is guilty of involuntary manslaugter (when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act) and needs to bear the burden of the law.  None of this license revocation, probation crap.

I don't care how young or old the driver was, whether or not they were of "diminished capacity", etc.

[RK101]

As terrible as it is that people died in the accident. I think locking up a 90 Y/O man making him a ward of the state is pointless. Loss of licence and a evaluation of his mental condition is definitely in order with some sort of restitution from the insurance to the family. Who the hell would insure a 90 Y/O man? I blame the insurance Co. and the state more than anything. It's pretty obvious that we all know that 90 Y/O shouldn't drive but 90 Y/O don't know they can't drive. It's up to the states and the insurance Co. to tell them no more driving. They always want us to take MSF courses but seem to leave the people who they should be checking out alone. You right it's senseless and stupid.

[hotroadking]

That's kind of the point about testing elderly on a more frequent basis, driving should be viewed as a privilege not a right...

Now a man, lets say clean living family man, raised kids, grand kids, married contributed to society in a fruitful way, never causing a death, never hurting anyone, by virtue of a bad decision, is subjected to potential manslaughter charges as well as he has to live with the fact that at 90 he just killed someone with his actions.

If perchance he had been tested and found not competent to drive, this might not have happened, his life would have changed to not driving, the motorcyclist would still be riding home to see their family.

Would it not have helped both out to have him off the road.

I feel for both, he certainly didn't get up, put his wife in the car and say
"I'm gonna kill me a biker today"  wasn't in the thought process..

Good conversation, and remember, we have a large population of people about to go into this big time... can you imagine 100 times as many 90 year olds in Buick Regals plowing down the road...

[Ultrakid8]

I was a Motor Officer for fifteen years in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Part of my function was to investigate traffic accidents.
It is true that most avoidable accidents were caused by the elderly. Most common was the left turn at an intersection into on coming traffic. The biggest problem with the elderly is admitting fault. When ever questioned as to what caused the crash, the text book responses were "They came out of nowhere" and "They must have been doing a hundred miles an hour".
I had one elderly woman make a left turn towards a shopping plaza into the path of a motorcyclist. After the text book responses I just gave she proceeded to state"You have to be an idiot to ride a motorcycle".
I was standing there in my full Motor uniform right next to my bike. Of course being in that position(Public Servant) I was not allowed to answer that the way I would have liked to. I simply said Maam You are absolutely right about that. "I must be stupid to ride a motorcycle with driver's like you on the road.
I have concluded that the elderly feel if they give up their license they lose their independence. I can go on and on about elderly drivers and the dangers such as hitting the accelerator instead of the brake. Happens quite frequently in this area. The new problem I see now being retired and still riding is the young generation and something called text messaging.
A whole new danger of being on the road.

[IndyHarley]

well I'll probably be blasted but the reason in most accidents no one is arrested on the scene, most cases but not all, is because it is just that an accident. Accidents are not a crime so an investigation has to mounted to determine if there was intentional criminality and if so in most States where an accident results in death it goes to a Grand Jury.

If this person made an illegal turn then yes that may be criminal but also in most States traffic violations are not criminal but infractions. Yes I could take this explanation on and on but my point is that in accidents a through investigation is warranted and should be done just because of the nature of the event - an accident in and of itself is not a criminal act - look up the definition of accident and it pretty much applies to the legal definition that is applied to vehicle collisions.

Also if it were my relative I would want a thorough investigation before any charges were filed. Filing charges 'just because' would not necessarily translate to a conviction but a thorough investigation - getting your ducks in a row - most likely would result in a conviction if they had probable cause that a warrant should be issued or an indictment came from a Grand Jury.

[IndyHarley]

I was a Motor Officer for fifteen years in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Part of my function was to investigate traffic accidents.
It is true that most avoidable accidents were caused by the elderly. Most common was the left turn at an intersection into on coming traffic. The biggest problem with the elderly is admitting fault. When ever questioned as to what caused the crash, the text book responses were "They came out of nowhere" and "They must have been doing a hundred miles an hour".
I had one elderly woman make a left turn towards a shopping plaza into the path of a motorcyclist. After the text book responses I just gave she proceeded to state"You have to be an idiot to ride a motorcycle".
I was standing there in my full Motor uniform right next to my bike. Of course being in that position(Public Servant) I was not allowed to answer that the way I would have liked to. I simply said Maam You are absolutely right about that. "I must be stupid to ride a motorcycle with driver's like you on the road.
I have concluded that the elderly feel if they give up their license they lose their independence. I can go on and on about elderly drivers and the dangers such as hitting the accelerator instead of the brake. Happens quite frequently in this area. The new problem I see now being retired and still riding is the young generation and something called text messaging.
A whole new danger of being on the road.

oh yeah - yesterday I passed a lady that was talking on the cell phone in her right hand and in her left hand she was reading a map perched on the steering wheel. Did I ever have a chill go down my spine when I saw that. Now if she hit someone do you think there would ever be any evidence of what I just told you - I doubt it but a thorough investigation might discover those facts. Don't ask how I know other than to say I have a little experience in that field - over 23 years at present. Now retired or the lady I just mentioned would have had a huge surprise if I was still working that profession.

[threadkiller]

well I'll probably be blasted but the reason in most accidents no one is arrested on the scene, most cases but not all, is because it is just that an accident. Accidents are not a crime so an investigation has to mounted to determine if there was intentional criminality and if so in most States where an accident results in death it goes to a Grand Jury.

I always love this argument..............From Dictionary.com.................Accident...1) An undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, loss or casualty. 2) Any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause. 3) By chance, fortune, or "luck"........ Look, the old guy didn't "plan" on creaming two people but he DID make a conscious decision to cross that roadway in HIS own manner resulting in the death of one man and serious injuries to the wife. THIS is NO "accident". Kinda like a infamous ex-bike builder here in FL. TK.

Always ride like you're invisable and think like all the other drivers are blind  

[Babygirl73]

Yeah I just so happen to buy tht paper,makes me sick that some people can be so freakin ignorant....

Prayers out for the guys family

[Skullfork]

IndyHarley, I definitely know the feeling ...Kid you not, on my way to work this morning very near where the fatal accident occurred on I-70, I'm in my truck doing a shade over 70mph, a business type looking lady passed me in her car with a laptop on her lap opened up against the steering wheel typing!