Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Woman hit, injured by elderly driver


(North Haven-WTNH, Nov. 10, 2005 Updated 8:25 PM) _ A woman putting a child in her SUV was struck and seriously injured by another driver.

The incident happened in the Petco parking lot on Universal Drive.

Police say a car driven by a woman in her 80s hit a stop sign, jumped the curb and hit Kathleen Hobin, 41, of Madison, as she was putting her four-year-old nephew into her SUV.

Hobin was pinned under the suffered a serious leg injury. The child was also injured.

The driver of the car, Reatha Hamie, 87, of North Haven, was not injured. Her car will be inspected for any mechanical failures that may have contributed to the accident.

*Added note: The story interviewed an eyewitness who was walking his dog into the Petco. He said the car was "moving" and according to the reporter, the dog was so scared it pulled out of its leash. The vehicle also continued on after striking the woman about another 75 feet!*



When this story previewed before the newscast, it didn't mention anything about the elderly driver yet seeing the clip, two cars in a small parking lot, I blurted out "old person driving!" Then the story ran and sure enough I guessed correct.....

To be thorough, the Madison Ct PD will "inspect for any mechanical failures that may have contributed to the accident." I applaud that. I expect none to be found. I predict they will determine she used the accelerator instead of the brake, as we have seen before. That information should be made public and repeated over and over and over. There is no punishment for the elderly driver. Taking away her license is pointless now. Who diffuses a bomb after it's already gone off? To prevent future tragedies, legislation mandating comprehensive driver testing for persons over 65 must pass.

In Massachusetts we are furthering attempts to restrict teenage drivers yet we do nothing about testing drivers over 65.
Nothing.

---

Posted by: LenS

AARP is feared more than anything in the US. They are very effective in preventing testing of elders . . . instead we get an automatic insurance discount at age 65!

I am 58 and realize that I can't turn my head all the way around anymore like I did at age 18. I recognize that my skills are not as sharp as they were when I was a kid. Personally I would welcome retesting as a requirement for a number of reasons:
- Laws have changed, yet we only get the RMV book and have to learn them at age 16.
- Some people can't see adequately to drive safely. Current eye test is a joke and I don't think the clerks pay any attention when you are spouting off the letters/numbers.
- Medical conditions and aging process dictates that some don't belong on hte road any more.

I just don't see it happening.

---

Posted by: tarc

USMCTpr,

I couldn't agree more. We should make people over an age to be determined, take road tests to prove they are still able to operate a MV to full capacity. The problem though, it would be political suicide for those law makers who try to enact a law like this. The elderly are well heard in the polls.

---

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCTrooper In Massachusetts we are furthering attempts to restrict teenage drivers yet we do nothing about testing drivers over 65. Nothing.

Senior citizens vote in large numbers.

Enough said.

---

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784 Senior citizens vote in large numbers. Enough said.

and those under 18 can't.

Thats why it is up to tomorrow's seniors to get the ball moving forward.

---

Posted by: dcs2244

Driver testing should be the norm ACROSS the age ranges. Everyone should have to demonstrate their skill level periodically during the time they have a license.

Yes, it is a logistical nightmare. But it is one that can be overcome.

One of the impediments is the current state of driver 'training' and driver 'testing'. I have said it here before and now reiterate: The Massachusetts drivers licensing test, unnecessarily conducted by troopers, is merely a 'PARKING TEST", and then the test parameters are not adhered to.

Any licensing should be dependant on classroom and practical training...similar to what we as LEO's go through, and conducted periodically through a citizens 'license lifetime'. It would be prudent to have troopers (trained in vehicle dynamics, human factors, etc) conduct the tests in such a system.

There is much to be said on this subject...we have just scratched the surface...but one thing is certain: any attempt to target 'seasoned citizens' will fail. We must push for reforms across the 'age' board. Certainly, we will have to 'grandfather' persons currently licensed...we can only address the long term, hopefully providing the future generations with better drivers. Most of us will be approaching death as these new drivers began to make a difference.

Once we have committed to a more stringent driver training/examination program, we could make blood/breath tests for OUI mandatory (in a larger penalty/sanction/revocation picture).

In other words: "...through the looking glass...".

---

Posted by: Wolfman

Senior citizens CAN vote and they DO vote.
18-25 year olds CAN vote and they DON'T vote.

Those that would disagree - two words: "Ted Kennedy". 'Nuff said.

---

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Elderly Driver Crashes: Where Are Our Options?
Commentary By Neal Peirce


You can see it coming: efforts across the 50 states to test aging drivers to reduce horrors like 86-year-old Russell Weller apparently confusing his brake and accelerator and plowing through a farmer's market in Santa Monica, Calif., killing 10 people and injuring dozens of others.

Nine days later, Louis Nirenstein, 79, a polio victim who uses a wheelchair when not driving, lost control of his station wagon and careened into another outdoor market, this one in Flagler Beach, Fla. Despite injuries, no deaths were reported.

What's sure is that we can expect more incidents. Fatalities among drivers aged 70 or older jumped 27 percent from 1991 to 2001. Elders drive an average of 37 minutes a day, 28 percent more than a decade ago, according to the Washington-based Road Information Program.

What's more, as baby boomers age, a virtual tsunami of older drivers is headed for our roads. By 2030, more than one in five Americans will be 65 or older and one in 11 of those individuals will be 85 or older. Waning physical alertness and response is virtually inevitable at advanced ages.

So what to do? Brad Kahn, co-director of the Active Living Network, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, poses the critical question: ``If we, as a nation, are going to consider taking licenses away from unfit elderly drivers, what are we offering as an alternative to the car?''

Thousands of American communities, notes Kahn, are so completely designed around the automobile that ``taking away driving privilege is akin to a prison sentence.''

Is there a way out?

Perhaps. Provide elderly Americans with what the American consumer economy is supposed to be so good at: choice. We'll need more and more alternative ways for aging Americans to get around. Ride-sharing, community buses, radically improved public transit.

And we'll surely need a concerted, nationwide effort to redesign the suburbs where so many aging Americans live so that they're more walkable and bikeable, more compact, with parks and sidewalks and accessible town centers. So that homes, stores, restaurants, offices aren't zoned into isolated ``pods,'' but are integrated in the intelligent mixed-use formula of the historic, pre-World War II American town.

We'll just have to change. Because we've spent 50 years engineering ourselves into almost total dependency on a single transportation form, notes Anne Canby, president of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, ``older Americans are reluctant to give up driving simply because they have no other choice.''

But try to tell that to the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a truly shocking vote July 24, the House Appropriations Committee chose to emasculate the very provision of federal transportation law -- the so-called ``Transportation Enhancements program'' -- that has provided the only significant flow of national support for such road-building alternatives as pedestrian walkways, bike paths, rails-to-trails projects, landscaping and scenic protections.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., chair of the Appropriations transportation subcommittee, said the enhancement funds should be diverted to a backlog of regular highway building needs. He prevailed, 33-29, in a largely party-line vote of the full Appropriations Committee -- a clear victory for the highway lobby.

The vote has triggered outcries from groups ranging from the U.S. Conference of Mayors to the American Planning Association. Even the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials wants to protect the enhancement monies, which must show strong local support and in fact have become very popular since they were first inserted into federal transportation law, with the enlightened leadership of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in 1991.

The enhancements will be part of a September House floor debate focused on renewing the federal transportation law that is set to expire this autumn. And it's not just enhancements that are in peril: the Republican House leaders seem intent on starving Amtrak of the funds it needs to stay in operation. They want to choke back ``new starts'' for local transit systems, and to fund the remaining ones on a 50-50 federal-local basis, not the 80-20 percent split allowed for highways. None of this makes any sense in a rapidly graying nation. Increasingly separated from their grown children, today's elderly are tending to ``age in place'' in the homes they've occupied for years. Many have moved to new sprawling ``senior suburban growth centers'' in the Sunbelt. Small (and declining) numbers are using transit, biking or walking. Without non-driving alternatives, it's inevitable that millions will be stranded, their lifestyle independence destroyed. Instead of shoveling still more billions into roads, the federal government should be stimulating a national debate about our mobility options and community lifestyles as we gray. The rising toll of crashes by seniors behind the wheel is just the latest warning signal.

---

Posted by: frapmpd24

That could work well for SP. In any future driving legislation slip in "PVOC for Elders". The Personal Vehicle Operations Course could be held at each of the closed bases around the state that BRAC has closed just to screw the Democrats in Mass. Might as well use them for something useful like Devens. Of course in the legislation require another state police academy class to boost the numbers and create the "elder drivers testing unit". Meet at the senior center in town, hop on the bus; Nope not to Foxwoods this time, but to see how those drivings skills are working. Bus companies like Greyhound (no pun intended) could pick up some serious business under nice state contract bid. Build some state run casino's with slots and bingo on the route out of the testing sites.

It is a win win situation for all. The elders get to gamble a bit after the troopers yell and horrify them that PVOC "Is not fun, there will be no laughing here! No Yahoo out of anyone or you loose your right to gamble on the way home!" Most importantly, we the citizens of the great Massachusetts can feel safe crossing the road and not getting plowed over by someone who should not be on the road!

---

Posted by: dcs2244

Of course we could emulate the Eskimos and place 'seasoned citizens' on ice floes at a certain age...kind of a "Logans Run"...but at 75 yoa!

No testing, no troopers...very cost effective!

---

Posted by: sbf

on march 28,2005 i was struck by an 88 year old driver while working a detail. after hitting me the
elderly driver continued on not realizing that i had been thrown against his windshield causing it to
shatter. he left me on the side of rte 1 with a broken pelvis and a shattered lower leg, possibly career ending injuries. this guy drove thru 200 ft of traffic cones, then hit a truck, then hit me.
with two hearing aids and a walker i want to know why the hell he was driving. the kicker is the court excused him from his court hearing due to his age. call your state reps. and demand elderly
drivers get tested. they are far more a danger than any young driver on the road.

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser