StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.news-journalonline.com/Break ... area99.htm


When will the carnage end?

When they make everyone over 70 take a drivers test each year...

Is their privilege to drive more important than others right to live.

Given the observations of the car going full power in reverse first, I would say that his claim of mechanical failure would be true.

As long as there is an AARP, this shit will continue.

Wicked Pilot wrote:As long as there is an AARP, this shit will continue.

We ought to just take away the elderly's right to vote. We out them we could cut the presciption drug BS, fix Social Security, and cut off driving priviliges at a reasonable age.


But seriously, we need to just take driver's licenses away at a reasonable age. Certainly institute more stringent testing as people age. The elderly are by and large not capable of driving and this shit damn well shows why.

Fuck the Elderly. They cause more shit than teens do.

And if anyone even dares say that they were the greatest generation out there for fighting WWII, they were the ones who created that world in the first place.

Montcalm wrote:Is their privilege to drive more important than others right to live.

Old geezers vote, corpses don't. So from the PoW of a politician, yes.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Montcalm wrote:Is their privilege to drive more important than others right to live.

Old geezers vote, corpses don't. So from the PoW of a politician, yes.

Not entirely true. The deceased vote democrat, at least in Chicago.

Hyperion wrote:Given the observations of the car going full power in reverse first, I would say that his claim of mechanical failure would be true.

If he drives an automatic, the vehicle should have been in park.
If he drives a manual, the clutch would have to have been in.

And either way, if he were telling the truth he should have just jumped on the brakes. Either way, he fucked up.

Vorlon1701 wrote:Fuck the Elderly. They cause more shit than teens do.

Actually, no. Statisticaly the 16-25 year old range of drivers is still the most deadly and dangerous.

I've got a good feeling that alot of the people here being mad about the elderly would be mighty pissed when they are 70 and their suggestions here and now were followed.

Gil Hamilton wrote:I've got a good feeling that alot of the people here being mad about the elderly would be mighty pissed when they are 70 and their suggestions here and now were followed.

I don`t think we`ll ever know,we`ll be all dead thanks to the mighty power of nuclear holocaust.

Alyeska wrote:

Vorlon1701 wrote:Fuck the Elderly. They cause more shit than teens do.

Actually, no. Statisticaly the 16-25 year old range of drivers is still the most deadly and dangerous.

I said Shit. Not accidents. This is the same demographic that's dead-set against taxes for education...

Gil Hamilton wrote:I've got a good feeling that alot of the people here being mad about the elderly would be mighty pissed when they are 70 and their suggestions here and now were followed.

If I become callous enough that I think my driving priviledges should last even when I'm dangerous, I hope to God my kids shoot me before I kill someone.


I don't advocate taking their licenses away at a certain age, by any means. What I do think is absolutely necessary is checking people out again at a certain age (say 60 or 65 or something).

I think some of you are being a little harsh on the elderly. Sure, they do cause more trouble than most think. However, there are some that are actually pretty decent drivers. I don't think its fair to lump them in the same boat as those that aren't capable of handling a vehicle.

Here's what I propose:

1. After age 65, they should be required to be re-tested every two years to see if they can still handle a vehicle.
2. For those that are deemed unsafe to drive, they should have the option of having an alternative mode of transportation. Say....a section of public transportation that deals solely with the elderly. They dial up a number and asks for someone to pick them up. To fund this, the elderly pay X ammount per month OR X ammount depending on how far the driver has to go from their house.

Yes, its a little more strict on the elderly, but its alot more fair than what some of you are saying.

Vertigo1 wrote: 2. For those that are deemed unsafe to drive, they should have the option of having an alternative mode of transportation. Say....a section of public transportation that deals solely with the elderly. They dial up a number and asks for someone to pick them up. To fund this, the elderly pay X ammount per month OR X ammount depending on how far the driver has to go from their house.

Younger adults unable to drive for medical reasons do not get this benefit. Why, then, do the elderly?

Howedar wrote:Younger adults unable to drive for medical reasons do not get this benefit. Why, then, do the elderly?

Because most of them (the elderly) don't live around relatives and pretty much are on their own. Why do you think so many are in retirement homes? The younger adults have the option of calling up a friend, or having family take them to wherever they need to go.

Stormbringer wrote:
Not entirely true. The deceased vote democrat, at least in Chicago.

But politicians don't become whores to their votes.

Vertigo1 wrote: Because most of them (the elderly) don't live around relatives and pretty much are on their own. Why do you think so many are in retirement homes? The younger adults have the option of calling up a friend, or having family take them to wherever they need to go.

So are you saying that the elderly don't have friends, or are you saying that the elderly are less likely to live near relatives than younger people?

Howedar wrote:So are you saying that the elderly don't have friends, or are you saying that the elderly are less likely to live near relatives than younger people?

Most of the elderly that I've seen in my travels pretty much keep to themselves and don't live near many of their relatives.

Alyeska wrote:

Vorlon1701 wrote:Fuck the Elderly. They cause more shit than teens do.

Actually, no. Statisticaly the 16-25 year old range of drivers is still the most deadly and dangerous.

True. Too many teenaged drivers are arrogant, stupid, and reckless. Elderly drivers, on the other hand, have impaired reflexes, diminished hand-eye co-ordination, and may also have loss of vision or hearing. Luckily, they rarely drive, which cuts down their yearly mileage, hence cutting down their risk of an accident. Even the worst driver is less likely to have an accident when he only drives on Sundays.

Alyeska wrote:

Vorlon1701 wrote:Fuck the Elderly. They cause more shit than teens do.

Actually, no. Statisticaly the 16-25 year old range of drivers is still the most deadly and dangerous.

Actually, the elderly cause more accidents for miles driven. The thing is they mostly don't drive but they're dangerous when they do.

The other day when i was going past the church in my town there was this 90 ish lady tottering out of her car in the road, my mom slowed down and swevered so she wouldn't hit her and we saw that her car was wedged under the back bumper of the car in front of it.

Stormbringer wrote:

Alyeska wrote:

Vorlon1701 wrote:Fuck the Elderly. They cause more shit than teens do.

Actually, no. Statisticaly the 16-25 year old range of drivers is still the most deadly and dangerous.

Actually, the elderly cause more accidents for miles driven. The thing is they mostly don't drive but they're dangerous when they do.

Thats fascinating. Do you have any supporting data on that?