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.
So why do we just use the term "jaywalking" for people and specific terms for cars that break various rules?
There is very little people on foot can do that is dangerous. The only thing they can do is enter the road at the wrong time or place. A person could in theory run into another but unless they were running the bump isn't likely to do much damage.
A car can do much more dangerous things. Like speed and the consequences of reckless action in a car are far greater in terms of damage to property(other cars, buildings) and people. Basically it is the people(pedestrians) that need protection from the cars and a side walk provides it(A car would really have to be out of control to get on the sidewalk(i.e. not your typical accident)).
This happened not too far from me. An elderly driver drove into the sidewalk, pinning two kids to a building wall in the collision. And he tried to blame the kids for "playing recklessly on the sidewalk."
Charges depend on the authorities. They could decide not to charge if the man was confused. They could decide not to charge if the cause of the accident was something beyond the drivers control(say a mechanical failure that normal care and maintenance would not pick up.) Lots of reasons.
Charges depend on the authorities. They could decide not to charge if the man was confused. They could decide not to charge if the cause of the accident was something beyond the drivers control(say a mechanical failure that normal care and maintenance would not pick up.) Lots of reasons.
The driver blamed the kids when he drove on the sidewalk?!?
The driver blamed the kids when he drove on the sidewalk?!?
A confused person, yeap. Trust me my family has had to hide the keys from some of my relatives as they get dementia. One of which drove around lost in an small town.
Also as you get older the reaction time slows down. I remember doing exactly the same thing when I was a young driver, but my reaction time was fast enough to hit the brake before the car went anywhere. This is why many states have tougher restrictions on older drivers.
A confused person, yeap. Trust me my family has had to hide the keys from some of my relatives as they get dementia. One of which drove around lost in an small town.
Also as you get older the reaction time slows down. I remember doing exactly the same thing when I was a young driver, but my reaction time was fast enough to hit the brake before the car went anywhere. This is why many states have tougher restrictions on older drivers.
Not tough enough IMO. It's always been amazing to me that I can get a drivers license at 16 and never have to re-take the test to ensure that I'm still able to operate a 3000 lb piece of machinery at 60 mph in the general public. Any good certification or license requires a retest at least occassionally.
Not tough enough IMO. It's always been amazing to me that I can get a drivers license at 16 and never have to re-take the test to ensure that I'm still able to operate a 3000 lb piece of machinery at 60 mph in the general public. Any good certification or license requires a retest at least occassionally.
Where do you get the idea that drivers are never re-tested? Don't you have to get your eyes tested every time you renew? When I was standing in line to renew in Illinois one time, they pulled people out of line to take the rules of the road test. I was one of them. I passed with flying colors. I believe some states require people over a certain age to take a driving test at intervals. Don't have time to look it up now.
***
Can someone tell me what this proposed law is all about?
Where do you get the idea that drivers are never re-tested? Don't you have to get your eyes tested every time you renew? When I was standing in line to renew in Illinois one time, they pulled people out of line to take the rules of the road test. I was one of them. I passed with flying colors. I believe some states require people over a certain age to take a driving test at intervals. Don't have time to look it up now.
***
Can someone tell me what this proposed law is all about?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. An eye test or rules of the road test is one thing, but testing to see to how well a person actually operates an automobile is whole other thing.
For example, I can tell you I have a relative that has been blind in one eye for 15 years, and has never had an eye test (different states may do things differently). She also has slowed reaction times, and is careful when she drives, but I'm VERY nervous riding with her because she gets disoriented, can't parallel park, struggles while backing up, etc. In fact, she ran into a building (yep, a building) because she put her car in drive instead of reverse, and guess what happened? Nothing...no ticket, no driving test, etc.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. An eye test or rules of the road test is one thing, but testing to see to how well a person actually operates an automobile is whole other thing.
For example, I can tell you I have a relative that has been blind in one eye for 15 years, and has never had an eye test (different states may do things differently). She also has slowed reaction times, and is careful when she drives, but I'm VERY nervous riding with her because she gets disoriented, can't parallel park, struggles while backing up, etc. In fact, she ran into a building (yep, a building) because she put her car in drive instead of reverse, and guess what happened? Nothing...no ticket, no driving test, etc.
That kind of testing requires a person present when they drive(or a black box in the car). Expensive and time consuming. Can't parallel park and struggles backing up are things you learn from practice. I have a garage and trust me those skills can get weak because I don't need to parallel park very often(from garage to nice store with parking lot) and backing up isn't something anybody does that well.
The big worries here are driving car into building and gets disoriented. Those are troublesome. Blind in one eye(I am surprised not checked) I had to get mine checked out every few cycles of renewal. Blind in one eye is an problem but not the end of the road type problem. Depending on the state there maybe ways around that one.
That kind of testing requires a person present when they drive(or a black box in the car). Expensive and time consuming. Can't parallel park and struggles backing up are things you learn from practice. I have a garage and trust me those skills can get weak because I don't need to parallel park very often(from garage to nice store with parking lot) and backing up isn't something anybody does that well.
Being tested every 10 - 15 years seems pretty reasonable though. That's a cost that should be accepted IMO, considering that close to 40,000 people die every year from automobiles...in 2013. That's not even accounting for the injuries and permanent damage there is to people in accidents.
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.
