Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's clearly having a problem with the fact that the consensus disagrees with him. I have no idea where he could make the comment that he made since I never once implied in any way that myself, my wife, or my sisters-in-law were at the scene of the incident. In fact, I specifically stated " We're not sure if the bicyclist was just driving fast and ran into him as my father-in-law has a tendency to brake early with his bad depth perception, or if he sideswiped him". I further went on to state in post #51 that "He's been driving up on curbs for a little bit now, having numerous close calls due to his bad reaction time, and the like." And yet he states "It does not sound like there is any indication that the FIL was at fault." How the heck would he know that? I don't know that. And yes, I do think it's a problem to consistently stop 10 to 15 feet away from a limit line (also stated). I wish it was as easy as fixing a prescription on his glasses, but sorry, he's sees the optometrist every year so it's a little more than just a simple fix like that.
And as for "Sometimes well intentioned people need to mind their own business"...I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a news story with someone's child being killed because people didn't react to an unsafe elderly driver because they were concerned about dealing with a difficult situation. Somehow I think the survivors of a loved won't be agreeing with him.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 04-14-2016 at 04:33 PM..
He's clearly having a problem with the fact that the consensus disagrees with him. I have no idea where he could make the comment that he made since I never once implied in any way that myself, my wife, or my sisters-in-law were at the scene of the incident. In fact, I specifically stated " We're not sure if the bicyclist was just driving fast and ran into him as my father-in-law has a tendency to brake early with his bad depth perception, or if he sideswiped him". I further went on to state in post #51 that "He's been driving up on curbs for a little bit now, having numerous close calls due to his bad reaction time, and the like." And yet he states "It does not sound like there is any indication that the FIL was at fault." How the heck would he know that? I don't know that. And yes, I do think it's a problem to consistently stop 10 to 15 feet away from a limit line (also stated). I wish it was as easy as fixing a prescription on his glasses, but sorry, he's sees the optometrist every year so it's a little more than just a simple fix like that.
And as for "Sometimes well intentioned people need to mind their own business"...I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a news story with someone's child being killed because people didn't react to an unsafe elderly driver because they were concerned about dealing with a difficult situation. Somehow I think the survivors of a loved won't be agreeing with him.
Go back and read who I was responding to. I was responding to the person who seemed to indicate that it was more likely the bicyclist fault and not the elderly driver's issue. I was taking issues with the comment you mentioned above...in other words, I'm on your side. Read more carefully next time.
Go back and read who I was responding to. I was responding to the person who seemed to indicate that it was more likely the bicyclist fault and not the elderly driver's issue. I was taking issues with the comment you mentioned above...in other words, I'm on your side. Read more carefully next time.
I knew that Burkmere. You must not have noticed how I kept saying "he's". I was referring to him in my response but speaking to you because we were in agreement. Re-read my response to you. It's "he's having a problem" and "people won't be agreeing with him". Had I been referring to you in my comment, I would would have been saying "you're clearly having a problem with the consensus not agreeing with you".
Also, one of the reasons I quoted you was that he removed his post after you called him out on it (which I'm glad you did), so there was no way to quote him directly.
I knew that Burkmere. You must not have noticed how I kept saying "he's". I was referring to him in my response but speaking to you because we were in agreement. Re-read my response to you. It's "he's having a problem" and "people won't be agreeing with him". Had I been referring to you in my comment, I would would have been saying "you're clearly having a problem with the consensus not agreeing with you".
Also, one of the reasons I quoted you was that he removed his post after you called him out on it (which I'm glad you did), so there was no way to quote him directly.
Ok, no problem. I hadn't realized he'd removed the post that seemed to blame the cyclist and defend the driver in question.
Everyone talks as if this is only a problem with parents. What if the demented driver is your spouse, and it's your car as well as his/hers? Are you supposed to disable your own car? Just wondering.
Everyone talks as if this is only a problem with parents. What if the demented driver is your spouse, and it's your car as well as his/hers? Are you supposed to disable your own car? Just wondering.
I think everyone was responding to the original post, no? Regardless of who it is, I think the consensus is that to do nothing is irresponsible and could cost people's lives.
Everyone talks as if this is only a problem with parents. What if the demented driver is your spouse, and it's your car as well as his/hers? Are you supposed to disable your own car? Just wondering.
While it is always difficult, IMHO, if the unsafe driver is your spouse it is often easier than if it is your parent. Spouses are equals and even a spouse with dementia will respond differently to their wife or husband than if an adult child tries to stop them from driving (a child telling the parent what to do). YMMV
I know that was the case at my house and when we have discussed this issue in the Alzheimer's/Dementia Caregivers Support Group that I attend many of the other people have said the same thing.
Several of the caregivers have had to do both, stop a parent or MIL or FIL from driving and also had to stop their spouse from driving so they had first hand knowledge.
The irrelevant argument about dangerous younger drivers
In every thread about impaired older drivers, that inane argument about there being younger drivers who are also dangerous surfaces. Of course we would all agree that some younger drivers are dangerous; for one thing a younger driver is much more likely to text while driving than an older driver. But all that is irrelevant to the discussion.
In most cases of impaired older drivers, there is no remedy and their impairment will probably just get worse over time, whereas younger drivers may well improve with experience or some sort of negative shock such as a near-miss, a ticket, or an accident. So the discussion about the two groups has little or no common ground.
If there is an impaired older driver who can be rendered safe by an eyeglass change, cataract surgery, or an adjustment to medications, well by all means that is worth pursuing. But how many cases does that represent, as a percentage of the whole? Very small.
In every thread about impaired older drivers, that inane argument about there being younger drivers who are also dangerous surfaces. Of course we would all agree that some younger drivers are dangerous; for one thing a younger driver is much more likely to text while driving than an older driver. But all that is irrelevant to the discussion.
In most cases of impaired older drivers, there is no remedy and their impairment will probably just get worse over time, whereas younger drivers may well improve with experience or some sort of negative shock such as a near-miss, a ticket, or an accident. So the discussion about the two groups has little or no common ground.
If there is an impaired older driver who can be rendered safe by an eyeglass change, cataract surgery, or an adjustment to medications, well by all means that is worth pursuing. But how many cases does that represent, as a percentage of the whole? Very small.
Very nice discussion, but I think there is one major point that has been omitted. When an older driver does become impaired, what is the appropriate action that can be taken? Ideally the issue could be reported to the DMV or to the individual's doctor. It seem that those steps are often not helpful. So some individuals want to take action themselves. First they start with recommendations, then coercion, and then by doing such things as disabling or removing the car.
I have seen way too many older people abused and taken advantage of my family members. Sometimes elders are defrauded, other times the abusive, illegal actions are well intended. I don't support either.
I certainly don't know the facts of this incident and the issue with the bicyclist. Personally I think a high percentage of cyclists are a menace to themselves and everyone else on the road. It seems they rarely follow traffic laws. When it suits them they drive on the roads as if they were a motorized vehicle. Unfortunately they also like to cut in and out of traffic and ride on sidewalks when it suits them. For this incident I would not want to guess if the cyclist or the older driver was at fault.
I certainly don't know the facts of this incident and the issue with the bicyclist. Personally I think a high percentage of cyclists are a menace to themselves and everyone else on the road. It seems they rarely follow traffic laws. When it suits them they drive on the roads as if they were a motorized vehicle. Unfortunately they also like to cut in and out of traffic and ride on sidewalks when it suits them. For this incident I would not want to guess if the cyclist or the older driver was at fault.
Nice about face but you've actually already made your comment on this and your guess (not to mention how you feel about young people)...
"I have seen plenty of cyclists drive like crazy fools. It does not sound like there is any indication that the FIL was at fault. Braking early due to depth perception issues sounds like nonsense. Does your FIL have a problem seeing? If so, it is time for a visit to the eye doc. Even if he can only see out of one eye, he can qualify for a drivers license. I am willing to bet he is braking "early" because he has become more cautious and his reflexes are slowly down. That is not necessarily an issue. I see plenty of young fools on the road who drive poorly and do not understand basic traffic regulations. An older driver can be a lot safer even with slower reflexes.
Sometimes well intentioned people need to mind their own business".
And I think it's clear that the consensus here agree that saving lives take precedence over your concerns (something you refuse to address in all of your posts). And from what I can see, no one here advocates abusing or taking advantage of old people but it makes for a convenient straw man argument to support your comment and to ignore the consequences of inaction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hadn't realized he'd removed the post that seemed to blame the cyclist and defend the driver in question.
The irrelevant argument about dangerous younger drivers
