Wasn't it in the news just yesterdayThat despite the perception that older drivers are a menace to society, they are no more likely to be involved in an accident than the 'average' driver?
EDIT: Yes, here on the bbc
(EDIT: Yes, here on the bbc
Halibut If you think education is expensive, try crack.,
Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:54,
archived)
They are less likely to have accidentsBut the people around them are all being involved in fatal car crashes
(
Michael Ellis contributes nothing,
Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:58,
archived)
How does that work then?if they aren't directly involved, then they'd presumably be forcing someone to brake and / or change direction.
If that causes a collision with a third vehicle, then the two in the collision are as guilty as the elderly driver for not anticipating potential problems. Surely?
(If that causes a collision with a third vehicle, then the two in the collision are as guilty as the elderly driver for not anticipating potential problems. Surely?
Halibut If you think education is expensive, try crack.,
Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:02,
archived)
This is the same as the women are involved in less accidents line...As I understand it people often complain that driving too slow, or hogging the middle lane causes other drivers to have to break hard or change direction unexpectedly and be involved in accidents. There's a difference between anticipating potential problems and anticipating poor drivers. Rather than putting up speed cameras on motorways they'd be better served quizzing middle lane drivers and/or giving them points on their license. There are clear rules relating to usage of lanes and safe driving speeds, they just don't follow them.
Rant over.
(Rant over.
JebediahSpringfield,
Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:17,
archived)
.The women are safer theory doesn't hold water. Women drive less, so they have less accidents.
My wife has an excellent safety record. Apart from a lot of scratches and minor dents, she has hardly damaged our car at all.
(My wife has an excellent safety record. Apart from a lot of scratches and minor dents, she has hardly damaged our car at all.
Not Pineapple anymore,
Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:25,
archived)
don't think I can agree with you, and your argument seems inconsistent.I fail to see the destinction between anticipating potential problems and anticipating poor drivers. Poor drivers are a potential problem.
And last time I chacked, there was no minimum speed limit. Swerving and breaking isn't caused by a slow driver, it's caused by a failure to read the road properly. If you are traveling at speed you should be looking a suitable distance ahead and maintaining an adequate stopping distance. If you have to jump on the breaks or swerve because of a slow mover, it's no-body elses fault.
(And last time I chacked, there was no minimum speed limit. Swerving and breaking isn't caused by a slow driver, it's caused by a failure to read the road properly. If you are traveling at speed you should be looking a suitable distance ahead and maintaining an adequate stopping distance. If you have to jump on the breaks or swerve because of a slow mover, it's no-body elses fault.
Halibut If you think education is expensive, try crack.,
Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:36,
archived)