Elderly driver causes $120K in damage

Morcheeba

Morcheeba

Buaidh no Bàs
Adventurer
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
4,070
Age
44
Location
G.W.N.
FFXIV
Morcheeba
read here

or here

Spoiler:
By IRENE THOMAIDIS, Toronto Sun

An elderly driver went on a 120-metre path of destruction in a Scarborough parking lot Thursday afternoon, causing $120,000 in damage to eight vehicles but miraculously harming no one.

The 83-year-old woman was in the Cliffcrest Plaza strip mall lot, on Kingston Rd. east of McCowan Rd., when she “somehow lost control of her vehicle, hit the accelerator and went speeding through the parking lot” around 3:20 p.m., Toronto Police Const. Wayne Thompson said.

Before stopping, the out-of-control gold, four-door Mazda 3 hit seven parked vehicles — totaling three of them, plus her own.

"Hundreds of shoppers were nearby, and we're extremely fortunate there were no injuries,” Thompson said. “One woman was just a couple of feet from her car when it was struck."

Witness Alison McDonald, 45, of Toronto, said she was “in shock” during the incident, but somehow managed to call 911.

She said she heard the sound of screeching tires and looked up to see the Mazda barreling eastward across the parking lot, striking several cars along the way.

“Then it turned 180 degrees, hopped over two curbs - completely airborne – and hit another car and flipped onto its side” sliding into one final vehicle before coming to a stop, McDonald said. “A group of people pulled the elderly lady out of the car while I was still on the phone with 911.”

The owner of one of the damaged cars said she heard something, but didn’t realize what had happened until she left the plaza’s dollar store to find the front of her vehicle smashed.

“I don’t know what I’m going to do without my car. This is just insane,” said the woman who did not want to give her name.

The elderly woman was not injured, but was sent to hospital as a precaution, Thompson said.

He estimated the damage at $120,000.



Now I'm not going on a rampage to say all elderly should have their licenses revoked or anything of the sort.

But since graduated licensing seems to be an issue here, what with corrupt instructors passing family members or people of the same home country that have no business driving. And they did institute a need to re-test elderly starting at a certain age. I really think this is a huge failure of our Ministry standards.

Our instructors need to be reviewed, our testing needs to be reviewed and revamped. And our elderly need to be more stringently tested if they're going to be let back onto our roads.

It's a safe assumption most if not all of us do lose reaction time and natural reflex with age.

This story is scary. Of course I have more reason now to worry, but had she taken out a father with his son, or two young girls babysitting their little sister. What then?

This women undoubtedly scared the living shit out of herself. And hopefully her license will be taken away with no chance to earn it back. She's proven that she can get spooked enough to cause a hell of a lot of carnage.

My papa (or grandfather) is 81 years old and feels very uncomfortable driving on the 80km highway into the local town which is no more than a 5 minute drive. But he recognizes this 'weakness' in his driving abilities and waits until my mother can take him. Around the country roads he's fine. There's no rush, people will go around him and don't swerve in and out around him.

But he's stubborn, and won't retire his license.

I don't believe all elderly will need to hand in their licenses, but the sheer number that are still driving in our mass metropolitans, that cannot navigate our roads in the caliper required are risking their lives and others on an almost daily and it's astounding. And quite frankly frightening.
 
Last edited:
What the crap. Blind? Senile? Spiteful? I can't think of any other reasons to cause such destruction. None that wouldn't get me banned from the site anyway haha.
 
Last edited:
I believe at the age of 60+ people in general should have to re-take driving exams. Being primarily in the auto insurance industry, I speak with plenty of elderly who think that just because they're elderly, that their insurance should be uber cheap. What they don't seem to understand is that most of them are the equivalent of teenage drivers because of their eyesight/hearing/reflexes not being at their peak to respond to road stimulus as fast as people in the 20-50 range. But I digress, after 60 you should be required to take the driving test again, as well as a hearing and eye exam to make sure you are able to drive properly. Thats just my two cents.
 
Your insurance rates start going back up once you're over 55 years old because you become a higher risk. Old people have shit reaction time lol and crazy health problems. Best I can say is it's a good thing no one was hurt. She probably doesn't have the insurance to pay for those cars, but their uninsured motorist coverage will cover underinsured as well, so they're protected without it being a chargeable claim. And hopefully she loses her license lol
 
Kotsu said:
Your insurance rates start going back up once you're over 55 years old because you become a higher risk. Old people have shit reaction time lol and crazy health problems. Best I can say is it's a good thing no one was hurt. She probably doesn't have the insurance to pay for those cars, but their uninsured motorist coverage will cover underinsured as well, so they're protected without it being a chargeable claim. And hopefully she loses her license lol
Click to expand...

I hope for all our sakes she does lose her license. And I'm not sure but the Mazda 3 is probably still being paid for, so she would be required to have it fully insured. But again I'm unsure, who knows she could of had lumps of cash under a mattress, or a well of child that bought or gave the car to her.

That's neither here nor there. I'm not sure whether the rates go up here, but what I do know is no matter whether they're covered to the nines, our Ministry needs to take another approach at the re-testing methods because some would be shocked at some I see driving. Women so tiny they can't see over the wheel (no word of a lie) and consistently drive 20-30 under the limit. Intimidated taking a left hand turn, making right turns and practically taking over both lanes... this isn't all elders, but too many.
 
Last edited:
it's not full coverage I mean, her car will be fixed under collision coverage. But liability wise, I doubt she has over $120,000 in property damage protection.
 
Something like this just happened near here last week: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/driver_90_damages_wall_of_town.html

It's happening around the country and in a lot of cases, people are getting killed. I'm all for the elderly having rights and they have a right to be independent... UNTIL their independence risks lives. Any impairment while driving is illegal - DWI, DUI, in many states cell phone usage or texting while driving - age should be no different. It is simply a fact that as your age increases, your reflexes, your response time, your vision and hearing decrease. I think that starting at age 60, maybe every 5 years you should be required to provide proof that your physician has tested your vision and hearing, or make such testing available at the DMV and I think there should be a basic competency test beyond a certain age to assure that elderly who have issues with mental function and memory are not stepping behind the wheel of a car.

I mean seriously, how do you "somehow lose control" and not manage to get it back before plowing into SEVEN cars? If you can't tell the difference between P and D or the accelerator and the brake pedal, you should not be driving a vehicle that can kill, maim, or otherwise injure people, including yourself.
 
Zyndara said:
Something like this just happened near here last week: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/driver_90_damages_wall_of_town.html

It's happening around the country and in a lot of cases, people are getting killed. I'm all for the elderly having rights and they have a right to be independent... UNTIL their independence risks lives. Any impairment while driving is illegal - DWI, DUI, in many states cell phone usage or texting while driving - age should be no different. It is simply a fact that as your age increases, your reflexes, your response time, your vision and hearing decrease. I think that starting at age 60, maybe every 5 years you should be required to provide proof that your physician has tested your vision and hearing, or make such testing available at the DMV and I think there should be a basic competency test beyond a certain age to assure that elderly who have issues with mental function and memory are not stepping behind the wheel of a car.

I mean seriously, how do you "somehow lose control" and not manage to get it back before plowing into SEVEN cars? If you can't tell the difference between P and D or the accelerator and the brake pedal, you should not be driving a vehicle that can kill, maim, or otherwise injure people, including yourself.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. That being said however, those methods are being practiced. The Driver Exam locations do have eye exams right at the counters. I'm not too sure about the hearing aspect though. But it's a good point, I know I've not heard ambulances/firetrucks and cruisers because of the volume I had my music blasting at, so yeah you need to hear clearly and be able to at least decipher the importance of the sounds.

Personally I believe there needs to be further testing. Apparently this is not enough to weed out those that really shouldn't be issued their licenses.

@ Kotsu - I misunderstood your post. I don't know how liability breaks down as I've only ever seen it grouped as one sum.
 
If all the people who had no business driving had their licenses revoked the roads would be empty and I would be so happy.
 
Morcheeba said:
I agree 100%. That being said however, those methods are being practiced. The Driver Exam locations do have eye exams right at the counters. I'm not too sure about the hearing aspect though. But it's a good point, I know I've not heard ambulances/firetrucks and cruisers because of the volume I had my music blasting at, so yeah you need to hear clearly and be able to at least decipher the importance of the sounds.

Personally I believe there needs to be further testing. Apparently this is not enough to weed out those that really shouldn't be issued their licenses.
Click to expand...

In New York, you have to be vision tested before receiving your initial license, 5 years following your first license issue, and then every 8 years upon renewing your license (which I think after a certain age is too long in between). But they don't test hearing, and unless they receive notification from a doctor regarding existing medical conditions that could impair your driving ability, your license is valid as long as you keep paying the fee and passing the vision test.
 
Kotsu said:
it's not full coverage I mean, her car will be fixed under collision coverage. But liability wise, I doubt she has over $120,000 in property damage protection.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most people tend to carry only the bare minimum that the state requires to be legal. As it is, I try to convince people to carry higher limits, but then they turn around and complain that we (insurance companies) are trying to rob them of more money for more coverage that they will "never" use. Then this shit happens. Sorry to say but I'm sure she will be stuck with a hefty repair bill.
 
Hexx said:
Yeah, most people tend to carry only the bare minimum that the state requires to be legal. As it is, I try to convince people to carry higher limits, but then they turn around and complain that we (insurance companies) are trying to rob them of more money for more coverage that they will "never" use. Then this shit happens. Sorry to say but I'm sure she will be stuck with a hefty repair bill.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if the car was still being paid for, every aspect of her insurance would be to the nines. It's required, you don't have an option to lessen or opt out of any coverage.

And what I do know of our liability was it showed $1,000,000. 1 Million, and I believe that brought our rate down but kept our deductible high. If I remember correctly.
 
Oh right, in canada the government tends to provide the insurance right? I think only one or two provinces allow for people to buy insurance from private vendors. Well, if thats the case then she should be alright. Thank goodness for having high limit requirements!

Edit: As for insurance limits Morch, in the states at least, liability is broken down into two/three separate amounts. First of all you have BI (bodily injury) and PD (property damage). BI is broken down further into two separate amounts, the "per person amount" and the "per accident" amount. Then PD is one total amount per accident as well. Now not all companies in the states do this, but the majority do to lessen the amount of money paid out for each individual accident. Let's say for example your state requires you to carry the following: 25/50/25, that means that your insurance company, in case of an at-fault accident, would pay out up to a max of $25k per person for their injuries (to the person you hit if youre at fault), up to $50k per accident (if there was more than one person injured), and $25k per accident in property damage (be that vehicular or personal property that was damaged). Some companies put it all into one big lump sum, and say will charge you for a total of $100k in damages, be they injuries or property damages. From the sounds of it Morch you folks have your insurance all in one lump sum (save for the comp and collision, unless thats also part of it, im not too knowledgeable about canadian insurance).
 
Last edited:
Hexx said:
Oh right, in canada the government tends to provide the insurance right? I think only one or two provinces allow for people to buy insurance from private vendors. Well, if thats the case then she should be alright. Thank goodness for having high limit requirements!
Click to expand...

No no it's all privatized, but because you don't own the vehicle when leased or financed through a dealership, the bank or loaner owns the vehicle and it's now essential that you have the car fully insured otherwise you don't get any coverage and then you're truly up the river.

Either way, I really don't know how it all works when it's said and done. I just know the last 2 vehicles we've purchased had to be fully insured (costing us an arm and a leg) because we had financed both.
 
My boss was affected by something similar to this recently. A sixty something year old man hit many of her families headstones in a graveyard to include: her brother's, her sister's, and her father's. he was going way to fast and didn't make the turn, I remember the cops told her mother to not expect him to be able to pay because he was on "fixed income". Luckily the Judge wasn't as stupid as them, the man is paying monthly payments until the debt is payed off and if he misses even one, it's an automatic 90 days in jail.

I definitely agree that the elderly should be retested.
 
Morcheeba said:
No no it's all privatized, but because you don't own the vehicle when leased or financed through a dealership, the bank or loaner owns the vehicle and it's now essential that you have the car fully insured otherwise you don't get any coverage and then you're truly up the river.

Either way, I really don't know how it all works when it's said and done. I just know the last 2 vehicles we've purchased had to be fully insured (costing us an arm and a leg) because we had financed both.
Click to expand...

/puts on his insurance sales hat

See the bolded part cheebs? Thats a common misconception that people have when they aren't aware of how insurance works. Regardless of your policy, you are NEVER fully insured for each policy has it's limits. You may be fully covered as in covering all the angles necessary to keep the government and your lienholder off your back, but monetarily, with a bad enough accident (or the possible death) you can easily go over your limits no matter how high you may have them set.

/takes off his insurance sales hat
 
Last edited:
Hexx said:
/puts on his insurance sales hat

See the bolded part cheebs? Thats a common misconception that people have when they aren't aware of how insurance works. Regardless of your policy, you are NEVER fully insured for each policy has it's limits. You may be fully covered as in covering all the angles necessary to keep the government and your lienholder off your back, but monetarily, with a bad enough accident (or the possible death) you can easily go over your limits no matter how high you may have them set.

/takes off his insurance sales hat
Click to expand...

Ah lol, thank you for that. Yea I don't know what each policy would entail obviously. No doubt it differs from company to company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top