Woman, 79, kills 3 while backing out of church parking space, police say
-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/us/florida-elderly-driver-kills-three/
We should probably institute frequent drivers tests as you grow older. Make sure you are safe to be on the road.
DieHard, please, retake your drivers test. As you grow older your reflexes slow and you become more a danger to yourself and those around you when you get behind the wheel.
-
Don't mess with us old guys:
-
Also, woody, I would guess that if die hard backs over your tricycle in the driveway he probably did it on purpose.
WSS
-
Also, woody, I would guess that if die hard backs over your tricycle in the driveway he probably did it on purpose.
WSS
Also, woody, I would guess that if die hard backs over your tricycle in the driveway he probably did it on purpose.
WSS
Unlikely - Die Hard would be going forwards at about 80mph, especially if the tricycle had woody on.
-
I couldn't agree more, Woody. If it were up to me I would say mandatory driving retests every 4 years starting at 70 and every 2 years starting at 80. If you're mentally capable of driving then this should be no problem at all; A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.
Reminds me of:
"The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things " - mike huckabee -
I couldn't agree more, Woody. If it were up to me I would say mandatory driving retests every 4 years starting at 70 and every 2 years starting at 80. If you're mentally capable of driving then this should be no problem at all; A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.
Reminds me of:
I couldn't agree more, Woody. If it were up to me I would say mandatory driving retests every 4 years starting at 70 and every 2 years starting at 80. If you're mentally capable of driving then this should be no problem at all; A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.
Gun reform?
-
I couldn't agree more, Woody. If it were up to me I would say mandatory driving retests every 4 years starting at 70 and every 2 years starting at 80. If you're mentally capable of driving then this should be no problem at all; A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.
Gun reform?
Gun reform?
Stay on topic Woody I know it's tough.
-
A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.... just sounds familiar...
-
A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.... just sounds familiar...
MMGW?
-
sure
even taxes in general. Some small inconvenience with the purpose of improving society as a whole
-
I couldn't agree more, Woody. If it were up to me I would say mandatory driving retests every 4 years starting at 70 and every 2 years starting at 80. If you're mentally capable of driving then this should be no problem at all; A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.
Reminds me of:
I couldn't agree more, Woody. If it were up to me I would say mandatory driving retests every 4 years starting at 70 and every 2 years starting at 80. If you're mentally capable of driving then this should be no problem at all; A minor inconvenience for the safety of us all.
Reminds me of:
Well, that gives me 11 more years (if I make it).
-
Gun control and reform has much more serious implications than forcing the elderly to retake driving tests. They are completely different topics for different threads. You went and made a good point and followed it up with the usual BS.
-
Gun control and reform has much more serious implications than forcing the elderly to retake driving tests. They are completely different topics for different threads. You went and made a good point and followed it up with the usual BS.
-
It is a very similar premise, lol. No, it is not one to one. I view some of the gun reform ideas as minor inconvenience, like stricter registration process. No one is talking about removing the 2nd amendment. Not infringing on anyone's rights.
Point you agree with = good
Point you disagree with = bad
got it
but you are right, we should keep it in its own thread
-
To be fair, why stick with over 70s? There are plenty of people whose vision deteriorates after the age of 30 or so, my brother started wearing glasses in the last couple of years and he's 34. Also, if someone who's 70 has been driving all their life, chances are they're a safer driver than someone who passes their test aged 18, then does no driving for 20 years.
So, given that it's half a day's inconvenience for the test, plus a little theory revision (is that a thing there? we have to do a theory test here), once every 10 years isn't unreasonable.
-
No, I don't think it is.
My vision is awful. -7.5 for my contacts. I am damn near blind without contacts or glasses. I am used to it though. If someone had their vision change later in life they may not take care of it and it could be an issue
-
Been checked for diabetes?
But we must make cars harder to get. And when a tragic accident happens,
we must hold the car manufacturers responsible.
And God help us, we MUST have "NO CARS" zones. And, if you buy or drive a car,
you should have to have a background check to make sure you aren't a serial killer,
or a mentally deranged person, or a terrorist.
And all cars must havea steering wheel fingerprint reader, so that only the owner of the car
can ever start it and drive it.
Everybody knows that cars are only made with only one thing in mind:
making $$$$$$$$$$$ despite all the tragic deaths, and forcefully rolling over stuff.
We must ban all cars from school buildings, and zones, even 2500 feet near a school.
You'll have to leave your car locked up in a suitcase and it won't hurt you to walk the rest
of the way into work.
We can ban cars, but the AAA and liberals just want these kids to be run over.
These dangerous half ton things don't need those big engines. Just enough engine to
eventually go foward or backward as is necessary. You murderous liberals don't need a v-6
or v-8., You can ride bicycles, dammit. Little teeny tiny little Big Wheels. It would for you to
exercize and lose weight, get in shape, so Obamao doesn't have you costing his Obamaocare
any money.
-
That was cute Cal, but like every other fucking car to gun comparison it doesn't work.... keep doing it though. It makes your side of the argument really look good.
-
No diabetes, just bad vision.
-
It is a very similar premise, lol. No, it is not one to one. I view some of the gun reform ideas as minor inconvenience, like stricter registration process. No one is talking about removing the 2nd amendment. Not infringing on anyone's rights.
Point you agree with = good
Point you disagree with = bad
got it
but you are right, we should keep it in its own thread
It is a very similar premise, lol. No, it is not one to one. I view some of the gun reform ideas as minor inconvenience, like stricter registration process. No one is talking about removing the 2nd amendment. Not infringing on anyone's rights.
Point you agree with = good
Point you disagree with = bad
got it
but you are right, we should keep it in its own thread
It's not good vs bad point. It's relevant to the current conversation vs irrelevant. Gun control has more serious implications because the 2nd amendment is meant to be our protection from the government; Not from each other. If you control the guns then you control the people, and I for one have zero trust in our government. Serious. Trouble. lol sorry I couldn't help it.
I'll talk gun control/reform all day with you, just in another thread.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login