To wonder how on earth they will sentence a 96 year old?!

[dreamer24]

news.sky.com/story/woman-96-admits-causing-death-of-pedestrian-after-she-panicked-and-mounted-the-kerb-13204265

A 96 year old woman killed a woman in her 70s after she lost control of her car. Due to be sentenced on Monday, apparently. It's obviously completely tragic that a woman has died, but I can't imagine a woman who is almost 100 will get a custodial sentence?

Of course she can go to jail
By her actions she killed someone
Her age is irrelevant (Justice is blind, remember)

It would be very easy for insurance companies to consult their actuarial tables and find out at what age drivers become involved in more collisions, set the retest age at that and then every 3 or 5 years thereafter

Although as you correctly pointed out, many young drivers are terrible. Maybe everyone should be retested every five years?

I would add nervous drivers of any age or the numpties who think they are saving fuel. Country roads round here so speed limit 60 and on windy roads 50 is still comfortable yet we have people driving 8 miles to nearest town at 35 miles per hour driving slower than the village speed limits of 40mph. And they NEVER pull over to let other cars pass.

On M5 yesterday and everything was calm most people sticking to 70mph and on the inside lane- sudden big braking because of a tosser driving at 50mph. There should be as much focus on these people as there is on the ones doing extreme speeding.

No. The graph shows you’re more likely to be hurt if you’re in a car accident as you age, like you’re more likely to be hurt falling on the pavement the older you are.

It doesn’t show older people are more likely to CAUSE casualties.

I support the idea that the elderly should have to have some sort of evaluation and monitoring process to ensure their safety on the road, but this graph doesn’t prove what you’re trying to claim it does.

Maybe everyone should be retested every five years?

Who will pay for this?

How long will wait times be?

Will you been suspended from driving every 5 years until it was passed again?

How would this impact people who drive for a living when they struggle to get driving tests booked?

How many driving tests would need to be provided daily to ensure everyone could continue to drive?

If you did 50 on some of the roads round here you’d have a suicide wish. We have a dual carriageway with a 40 limit and a stretch of the A1 which is 60.

Yes. Of course 🙂

@80sballetgirl was it a traffic offence?

drivers 'no more dangerous' www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37292951 Numbers

so, the numbers for the UK are crunched here and don’t justify sweeping changes. The picture is likely to improve a little as, as I mentioned previously, skill level isn’t just attributable to age related cognitive or physical change, it’s related to lifetime experience. There’s been a generation of women who are second drivers due to one car ownership and drive more once they lose a spouse. Lifetime experience is a protecting factor and women are now more likely to own and drive their own car.

Are you saying you believe there is no decline in abilities which affect driving from 70 upwards and that all the increase shown in that graph is due to increased frailty in an accident?

I take it you haven’t looked at the rest of the data on that page?

A previous poster suggested the Spanish system, whereby you have to do a test of your faculties and do a simulated driving test with a simulation machine. Would be feasible and would not add to the waitlist times for a real driving test place.

As for "who should pay for this"--frankly, the driver should pay for this. Most people of 75 or over are not working, meaning that almost all have the choice of giving up the car and doing a mixture of public transport and taxis, so driving is a choice and they should pay for the cost of the test, which probably would not be very much, certainly far cheaper than a driving test.

I’m not trying to use guilt to make you do anything actually. You had said you were decided on doing nothing and I wasn’t expecting to change that decision.

I was just stating what I’d personally do -ie. Report to relevant authority and agreeing with the previous posters in pointing out the flaw in your logic about “no kids on the road”.

And also I was wondering if you had a troubled relationship with your mum if you thought she would end things with you over reporting it to DVLA or whoever to have a look? I think this would be an extreme reaction from a parent which is why I asked.

People have the idea that prison is simply about punishment. It’s not.

The idea is to rehabilitate and protect society from offenders.

Would putting this woman in prison protect the public? I can’t imagine she would present a huge risk to anyone else so long as she doesn’t drive anymore.

Can she be rehabilitated? Does she need to be? Is she feeling guilt and horror at her own actions?

I take it you didn’t read the rest of my post.

Well it's also a deterrent. If people aren't sent to prison because they're elderly when they commit their dangerous driving crimes then there is nothing to prevent other elderly people driving when they shouldn't be.

And I’m happy to look at any graphs or data you have on the matter.

I’m just pointing out that what you have inferred from the one you posted is not a correct interpretation of the data.

No they aren’t.

again - link to some data. Is age a factor behind the wheel? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46916429

(1) The magnitude of this ‘problem’ is not sufficient to justify whole sale retesting (2) age and simulated tests are poor predictors of likelihood to have an accident (3) driving is a multi faceted skill set so pulling out a test that predicts likelihood to have an accident is challenging; medical issues like sight aside (4) we already have a system for safeguarding based on health and the ability to report anonymously (5) age related changes are characterised by variability; there is insufficient uniformity to justify identifying a cut off (6) there is a balance of harm to be had; policies that overreach and take drivers off the road prematurely cause other issues.

you can’t create a risk free, fail safe system. Yes, it’s terrible when someone is severely injured or killed but look at data, not anecdata.

No you can’t stop them needing to drive hence the support somewhere is needed.

If someone isn’t fit to drive then they shouldn’t, no amount of “support” is good enough to address the safety element.

Should younger people be “supported” by free driving lessons because they also “need” to drive? Or is it just older people who are allowed to be a hazard.

If you were in your right mind, you'd have probably given up, but sometimes our minds play tricks on us and we think we are ok when we are not. Perhaps she refuses to give up driving and thars why they are proceeding with prosecution.

Also, driving, for alot of people, equals independence, not wanting to give up independence is what keeps people going to an older age.

Fair enough. You are correct.

I can only talk what it was like in my mother's case in our home country. We don't have driving test yet. Only doctors note.

The driver Pays. Private GP offer standardised drivers licence renewal tests. As for the queues. When you make an institutional change it requires initial investments for equipment and staff.

The doctors note depends on the private hospital offerings in your area. Could be a day could be two weeks. The queue for driving tests are currently 4 weeks. Only paper renewal the queue is few weeks and then another few weeks for the new licence to arrive. If the driving test would become mandatory I'm sure driving schools would invest in more simulators. Would be a good business.

If you don't pass the doctors test then I'm not sure what happens but I'm sure it is case by case if you can have a redo or not. But if your cognitive abilities are impared at 85, I can't imagine you come back in 5 years. Where as if you have something temporary then you can come back.

A serial killer murder with intention.
This was an accident, could've been prevented by intervention from other people, aren't you supposed to take regular driving tests once over a certain age? Family should have respectfully removed keys ...
If the driver went against all of the above then yes, custodial sentence, the chances are tho she wasn't of sound mind at 96 as your mind also deteriorates as well s as reaction times.

Personally, I think it is pure selfishness to be driving at that age. They KNOW their reflexes are slow. I cannot believe the stupid statement that the accelerator ideal just fell under her foot and she panicked. They don’t just fall - you apply pressure with your gout to make the car accelerate. Clearly she forgot that

I agree, there should be set ages to retake driving test, theory test and me story sight test

does not have to be all at once, spread over years that theory test is retaken, then a few years later retake driving test and then annual or biannual sight test Heck, even discount fee for the tests (perhaps they pay abc get refunded upon passing to encourage going and passing).

licences should expire at a set age so the tests are required. Thrrrfire if they don’t have a valid licence, they can’t drive. Can’t register the car, so no tax paid so it can trigger the getting ticketed is towed away as an untaxed vehicle. Serious repercussion for not keeping their licence up to date

also, she can volunteer at a charity shop or library in her wheelchair. He could go volunteer work at any charity that man’s a call centre as that only means answering a phone and talking

her age should not mean she gets no form of punishment for her killing another person and injuring others.

"Pedal application errors" are the no. 1 cause of serious accidents among elderly drivers. I also think that that excuse was a load of bollocks. She stepped on the wrong thing.