Health and Public Policy: Older Auto Drivers Safer Than You Think

Peace and Freedom - Policy and World Ideas ^ | July 20, 2007 | John E. Carey

[Lou L]

Health and Public Policy: Older Auto Drivers Safer Than You Think

By John E. Carey
July 19, 2007

Let’s talk about older automobile drivers. Maybe it’s your Mom or Dad or Uncle Sam that shows signs of driving too slowly, running into things or having other difficulties handling a car.

What do you do and what are your responsibilities?

I’ve faced this dilemma three or four times already and here’s what experts say.Researchers at the Rand Institute for Social Justice found during a recent study a few interesting facts.

–Young drivers between 15 and 24 years old are three times as likely to cause car accidents as senior citizens.

–People over the age of 65 make up 15 percent of drivers but were responsible for only 7 percent of the 330,000 fatal two-car crashes in the past 25 years.

–Drivers up to age 24 represented 13 percent of drivers, but caused 43 percent of the accidents across the United States, they said.

–Younger drivers tend to use more dangerous and risky conduct behind the wheel. Overloaded cars playing loud music, eating meals while driving, even playing with the radio and CD player are much more likely factors in the accidents of young drivers.

–Senior drivers were only 16 percent more likely to cause an accident than drivers between the ages of 25 and 64.

[C210N]

Expect more articles like this over next few years, as the baby boomers enter that golden age, and their political weight increases thru AARP, and they want to go places.

[cripplecreek]

That all depends. Some older drivers were bad drivers when they were young drivers.

[Lou L]

I guess we’ll all be “there” soon enough. As long as no one claims they have a “right” to transportation, and demands that be paid for with public funds...

[alloysteel]

Tell my insurance company this. Through whatever calculus they use to determine rates, as I have progressed beyond age 65, they have steadily increased my premiums, even with an extended period of no claims and no violations for some several years now.

Perhaps I am not as sharp a driver as I was at, say, age 35, but I drive with what I call a “comfortable” spacing between myself and the vehicle ahead, which to an impatient young driver hanging on my back bumper, looks like an opportunity to gain a 0.4 second advantage in traffic, by bursting out and going around me (often as not, on the right). I am right behind the person at the next traffic signal, a fact that has to further infuriate young hotspurs, and forces him (or occasionally, her) to accelerate away madly, only to have me directly behind them yet again at the next traffic signal.

There are old drivers, and there are bold drivers. There are no old bold drivers.

[chrisser]

I work in an area surrounded by aging suburbs. Inexplicably, the "older set" seems determined to do all their shopping between noon and 1:00, when everyone in the area who works is out trying to squeeze lunch and run errands into that hour.

Beyond the silliness of being out at this time when you have the whole day available, I see firsthand how dangerous some of these people are, both to themselves and those around them.

It isn't as if they are blatantly reckless, like many younger drivers can be, its more that they become obstructions to traffic.

I've seen older ladies in huge cars from which they can barely see over the dash plod down the street at 15mph in a 35. Then there's the ubiquitous turn signal that's on all the time, except when they're actually turning, which occurs without warning because they haven't checked the brake lights in 15 years and all the last of the bulbs burned out in 1998.

There are plenty of older drivers that are great. There are also many who realize their limitations and avoid crowded situations (rush-hour traffic), driving at night, and driving in inclement weather.

However, there are some that, willfully or not, refuse to adjust for their impairments and they are a danger, just as a 20-something with the same impairments would be a danger. It isn't age that's the problem, its the reduction in eyesight, hearing, reflexes, and (in some cases) coherence that is the problem.

[Help!]

As the article says, elderly drivers tend to limit their driving time/distance somewhat voluntarily. They tend to drive within a closer radius to their home. But this doesn’t necessarily indicate they are safe. As a percentage of relative total driving time/distance, their accident rate is actually pretty high.

I think placing the age at which they consider one “older” at 65 probably also skews the statistics. Many/most at 65-70 can be capable drivers. It probably ought to be placed more around 75 or 80. That’s more of when the reflexes and eyesight really cause the problems. I think the stats would look very different, too. Perhaps there ought to be a study of what age the stats really start looking different before any are used to determine legislation.

[darkwing104]

Ever been in Florida?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Here’s the stastical fallacy in this article.

The problem is not with drivers “over 65”, but with drivers over 80 or so. The overbroad definition hides teh reality that octogenarians have a fatality rate comparable to teens, even though they drive far fewer miles than average drivers.

[Atlas Sneezed]

–People over the age of 65 make up 15 percent of drivers but were responsible for only 7 percent of the 330,000 fatal two-car crashes in the past 25 years.

---

Irrelevant. Old folks don’t drive as much, particularly at the more congested or dangerous (night) times.

Fatality RATES are the only useful measure.

[Help!]

LOL, that would be my father-in-law

[ErnBatavia]

I can’t get beyond the name of the author; how tragic.

[Alter Kaker]

This is a bogus article, because it lumps 85 year olds with 65 year olds. You can’t just pretend that 65 and ups are one monolothic age group — driving ability declines with age, and it declines pretty rapidly.

[hunter112]

Inexplicably, the "older set" seems determined to do all their shopping between noon and 1:00, when everyone in the area who works is out trying to squeeze lunch and run errands into that hour.

Ha! That used to be my complaint when I went to the bank on my lunch hour to deposit my paycheck and get a few bucks out for the weekend. Thank goodness for direct deposit, and ATM's that the seriously old won't touch!!

[NurdlyPeon]

They show the stats about how many accidents that older drivers are ‘involved’ in, but not the stats about how many accidents they CAUSE. There’s nothing in this world that is more aggravating than following some old grandma in a Cadillac doing 20 in a 35. After following someone like this for several miles, and just getting madder and madder and madder, a lot of people will do ANYTHING just to get around them. Then, after the accident (and five minutes of gawking and screwing up traffic even further) granny just drives away.

[JohnA]

Fatality RATES are the only useful measure. Old people are feeble and die easier. There goes that thesis.

[sodpoodle]

“””””There are old drivers, and there are bold drivers. There are no old bold drivers”””

I tremble when I see Geezers in Hondas on iPhones!!!!

[L98Fiero]

Without determining the number of hours each age group actually spends driving, this “study” is nonsense. I’d wager that young people spend far more time on the road and would naturally have a higher percentage of accidents.

[Logophile]

My pet peeve is the driver who stops on the freeway on-ramp to wait for an opening in traffic before proceeding. Around here, the ones I see doing that tend to be young Hispanic females.

[jammer]

Of course, no one needs a "study" to know the dangers of these younger drivers. But this:

–People over the age of 65 make up 15 percent of drivers but were responsible for only 7 percent of the 330,000 fatal two-car crashes in the past 25 years.

is clearly wrong. If the wording were changed from "were responsible for" to "involved in" , it would be correct. But we have no idea how many accidents they are responsible for by driving 45 in a 70 mph zone. These so-called "safe" drivers are responsible for a lot more accidents than these statistics show.