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?

I’m very sorry for your loss, and no nothing could bring him back. That doesn’t mean nothing should be done to the responsible party. I don’t know what’s the right thing but there must be some form of deterrent/punishment. You can’t just walk away from taking someone’s life.

She has a suspended sentence, a fine, has had her driving licence removed. I am not sure what else you would suggest? She wasn't drunk driving or speeding. She just should not have been at the wheel

I disagree. If you choose to drive something that is essentially a tank knowing it will do more damage in an accident than a smaller lighter car would then you have to take responsibility for that additional damage it causes.

The news report in the first page of this says she was driving a corsa.

Yes but I was responding to some messages about the lady who crashed into a school in London here

That is in your fantasy land though. In real life, and in the legal system, owning a large but perfectly legal car does not bring additional punishment if you crash one.

Oh I am well aware of that. Doesn't mean that socially people will be judged more harshly though. And the reality is, it's the driver who was also punished. I mean I can't imagine she is skipping around all happy and carefree now. Whereas if she had driven a smaller car she might have had far less devastating consequences to live with. So the reality is that she has paid for her choice to drive around in a huge tank, and will I expect for the rest of her life.

@CassandraWebb

Thanks. Sorry lost track of thread. Landrover do install their cars with the additional safety feature, where they break down with great regularity. Thus keeping them off the roads.

ha ! Yes my ex used to have one. Very true

can be - it depends on how often you drive, how far you go, how easy it is to get a taxi where you live.

It was definitely cheaper for me, so I got rid of the car (I’m not a pensioner, just live somewhere with good public transport and bad parking/traffic).

And renting can be cheaper than buying.

It doesn’t mean renting IS cheaper than buying.

Louder for the judgey pants at the back!

People have agency and can exercise it until they pop their clogs.

I live in a US state where -
Everyone older than 75 has to renew their license in person (not online) and pass a vision test and road test/ driving test at the DMV facility.
Everyone aged 81-86 must renew their license every two years, in person, with the vision test and road test taken at the DMV.
Everyone aged 87 and older must renew annually, in person, with the vision test and road test taken at the DMV.

You can get a state ID instead of a driver's license if you don't drive or stop driving.

There is a public safety interest at play that can't be ignored.

In my county in the US, there is a public minibus service that picks up elderly people at their homes and drops them off anywhere. You book it by phone or online. Money where the mouth is, etc.

It is profitable if you are taking fares all day every day. If you were only taking a fare to and from the supermarket twice a week, which reflects many people’s driving pattern, it wouldn’t be a profitable business, no.

Drivers who kill often don't get custodial sentences. Especially if a first offence, it was an "accident" , and they plead guilty/show remorse

No it was a fairly standard reply from what I remember, it was earlier this year, but it was a definite no, with no suggestions as to what to do. I really didn't know what to do and knew I'd feel very guilty if he crashed the car so was very relieved to hear that he was no longer driving.

I think we're all capable of understanding that the PP meant that using taxis/uber is often cheaper (rather than always cheaper) than using a car, for people who do not make many journeys per week - which is likely to be the case for retired people. I'd be really unsurprised if taxis/uber are cheaper on average than owning and maintaining a car for those aged over 75.

You just make them retake the test at certain ages. I imagine a lot would fail on eyesight anyway never mind the actual driving part.

I think as something that could be introduced ASAP that when people renew their licence they should have an eye check.
That should also be compulsory for all drivers when they do their photo card. So 10 years for most people and 3 years for over 70s.

One of the worst bits of driving I have ever seen was a car that was crawling along, was all over the road. Straddling the white line and all sorts. I was convinced they were drunk. DH didn't want to over take or get too close. Eventually we got to a stretch of duel carriageway- and got past.
The driver was wearing a burka and obviously couldn't see properly. Very scary.

It was deferred, mores the pity. She should be put somewhere where she doesn't have access to a car.

What she did was no different from driving under the influence of drugs and drink. If she is on medication, then that is even worse. If she had problems walking, then her legs certainly could not cope with driving unless the controls were hand adapted.

What sort of justice system allows her to walk free whatever the age? Her friends and family are equally culpable and should be fined for not stopping her.

What sort of justice system allows her to walk free whatever the age? Her friends and family are equally culpable and should be fined for not stopping her

That would be an awful legal precedent to go down.

Over 70s who are still working will be concentrated mainly in the early 70s, and regardless of age would mainly be the ones who would pass a driving test fitness check just fine anyway. My dad is late seventies and still does some consultancy work part time, and he drives extremely well so a requirement to do a check would not be an issue.

If someone is in their 70s, is unable to pass a driving fitness check yet still somehow employed, which will be only a few people, then I am sorry but they will need to suck it up and accept that they will have to increase their travel costs somewhat by switching to cabs whenever public transport does not work, and giving up their car. It is not OK to endanger people on the road, it is as simple as that.

Quite.
This thread is confirming my belief that our education system needs to include a decent amount of education on the legal system and the principles underpinning it.

I could not agree more, it's a frequent though I have when browsing this forum...

Her friends and family are equally culpable and should be fined for not stopping her

That's ridiculous, you can't be made responsible for the actions of another adult.
If they're determined to do something they'll find a way.