Knocked down by an elderly driver

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Boyd
usenet.is.worse@plusnet says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said the following on 01/02/2008 19:05:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any car will cost you around a grand a year before you move it.

I don't know what you drive, but if you're talking about not moving it,
then mine costs around £500 a year tops, although that does involve
moving it to an MOT station :-)

I didn't say that, it was Doki.

In article <[email hidden]>, Doki
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Servicing costs go up rather than down with very low mileage - you should
service twice a year if you do a low mileage. I can't see many pensioners
who are in a state where they're not fit to drive any longer still being fit
to service their own car biannually and do their own MOT repairs.

Any running car is worth about £200-£300 so depreciation will be nil on your
car. OTOH maintenance is rather more than oil, filters and spark plugs.
Brake fluid every 2 years, suspension bushes as often as every 10k on some
cars, brakes and pads every couple of years, a proper visual check of just
about everything. Once you're paying a man for that lot, you'd be lucky to
get change out of £200 a year.

But as I said, I was quoting costs for keeping a car legal but unused,
as per your original statement. And you didn't say anything about
paying someone to do it.

In article <[email hidden]>, Jim Harvest
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I haven't found a local (ie 20 miles radius) MOT station which will pass
a car for less than £300. I got so frustrated with them that I ended up
buying a new car.

Don't have the work done at the testing garage. Some council transport
depots offer an MOT testing service, so check with them. A lot of the
minor work is easy to do yourself - wipers, lights etc. Other stuff
like brakes, tyres, exhaust can be done more cheaply by a specialist (my
local National Tyres and Autocare is good, places like Kwik Fit seem to
vary a lot depending on the staff). If you have a problem with
emissions a mobile tune-up service cheap and as good as a main dealer.
Buy parts from scruffy back-street motor factors that are used by the
trade (or sometimes supermarkets can be good for bulbs, wipers etc.)
rather than high street outlets.
I think this has gone really off-topic. :-)

On 02/02/2008 16:10, Rob Morley said,

Quoted message said:

I didn't say that, it was Doki.

Sorry - yes I know. Not quite sure how I got the attributions mixed up!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

Trevor A Panther said the following on 01/02/2008 01:17:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am now in my 71st year and although my body is coming up to 71 yrs
old, my mind is as alert as it was at -- say 30. I certainly have far
quicker reactions on my daily bike trips than a huge number of numpty
teenage- 50 yr old motorists that I encounter. I would also bet that I
could bear most of them on a straightforward, simple endurance walking
event -- never mind on my velo!

Quoted message said:

Well, you're fortunate. I don't think anyone has said that when you
reach a certain age you must stop driving. What has been said is that
if you become unable to drive safely you must stop driving. Isn't that
just plain common sense? Whatever the age?

Quoted message said:

Many people don't have active lifestyles, and it seems to be those
people that deteriorate faster. You're a long-time keen cyclist, and I
know from past experience of club rides that the 70 and 80 year olds
who've been cycling all or most of their lives can give us "youngsters"
a run for our money. Your lifestyle keeps you mentally and physically
fit, so as long as you are able to drive safely then of course you
should do so. I do still feel though that the driver or their doctor
should not be the one to decide if they're safe to drive, but that goes
for anyone regardless of age.

So the safest old drivers are likely to be cyclists? Just as I thought
:-)

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

John Kane said:

On Feb 1, 5:48 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

This just reinforces my belief that *everyone* should be re-tested at
least every 10 years, preferably every five. Once over 70, a license
should certainly not be able to be renewed simply because a doctor says
so - that's exactly how my grandmother was allowed to continue being a
danger to herself and others for so long.

Yes. I knew someone (now dead) who drove to the eye hospital and was
then registered blind (got a white stick with a red band because he
was deaf as well). Obviously he wasn't completely blind but his
eyesight was sufficiently bad that it counted as though he was
completely blind. Apparently the staff at the hospital were "shocked"
when they realized he'd driven there.

Quoted message said:

I watched someone (30's probably)come into a licencing office to renew
his driver's licence. A 30 second eye exam and they told him he should
not be on the road and I believe pulled his licence until he got
glasses.

I can still remember the the time a friend was testing out the
kick-down change-down for fast acceleration on his new Jensen
automatic, a seriously powerful sports saloon. I warned him after a
few experimental floorings of the accelerator that he was going rather
conspicuously fast for a built-up area.

"How fast am I going?" he asked.

"Can't you read the speedometer?" I asked.

"Not without my glasses," he said. "Don't worry, I can still see big
things. I only wear my specs if I'm going somewhere new and need to
read the road signs."

We were at the time approaching red traffic lights at 60mph.

"It's got bloody good brakes, hasn't it?" he said admiringly as we
slewed to a stop at the traffic lights.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

John Kane said the following on 01/02/2008 22:52:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I watched someone (30's probably)come into a licencing office to renew
his driver's licence. A 30 second eye exam and they told him he should
not be on the road and I believe pulled his licence until he got
glasses.

Quoted message said:

Whereas in the UK you can get a license at 17, and never have to have
any kind of eye test until the license expires at the age of 70. You
might get your eyes tested if you have just had an accident, but by then
you might already have killed someone.

Quoted message said:

Ridiculous!

I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 03/02/2008 10:27, Chris Malcolm said,

Quoted message said:

So the safest old drivers are likely to be cyclists? Just as I thought
:-)

Got it in one :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Chris Malcolm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

John Kane said the following on 01/02/2008 22:52:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I watched someone (30's probably)come into a licencing office to renew
his driver's licence. A 30 second eye exam and they told him he should
not be on the road and I believe pulled his licence until he got
glasses.

Quoted message said:

Whereas in the UK you can get a license at 17, and never have to have
any kind of eye test until the license expires at the age of 70. You
might get your eyes tested if you have just had an accident, but by then
you might already have killed someone.

Quoted message said:

Ridiculous!

I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

I presume that you are 25!

Despite the flippancy I actually do believe that the driver licensing system
has got it wrong at all levels, regardless of age!

Any driver involved in any accident, at all, should be automatically required
to take a retest to revalidate his licence before being allowed on the road
again. It would increase the cost to the driver ( and to the state -- but they
will /should recover the money)

I am continually amazed by the UK Government, accepting the huge cost of the
simple fact the car has got out of control.

Can you imagine if the early forecasts for the development of aeroplanes had
gone in the way expected

Our towns and villages would be spattered by the debris of the "numpty pilots"
doing their thing to get to nowhere special.

Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Chris Malcolm said:

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

John Kane said the following on 01/02/2008 22:52:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I watched someone (30's probably)come into a licencing office to
renew his driver's licence. A 30 second eye exam and they told him
he should not be on the road and I believe pulled his licence until
he got glasses.

Quoted message said:

Whereas in the UK you can get a license at 17, and never have to have
any kind of eye test until the license expires at the age of 70. You
might get your eyes tested if you have just had an accident, but by
then you might already have killed someone.

Quoted message said:

Ridiculous!

I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.

Fine by me as long as you're willing to pay all the taxes for massive
unemployment in the under 24s...

x-no-archive:Doki said:

Quoted message said:

I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.

Fine by me as long as you're willing to pay all the taxes for massive
unemployment in the under 24s...

How does that follow?

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

John Kane said the following on 01/02/2008 22:52:

Quoted message said:

I watched someone (30's probably)come into a licencing office to renew
his driver's licence. A 30 second eye exam and they told him he should
not be on the road and I believe pulled his licence until he got
glasses.

Whereas in the UK you can get a license at 17, and never have to have
any kind of eye test until the license expires at the age of 70. You
might get your eyes tested if you have just had an accident, but by then
you might already have killed someone.

Ridiculous!

Actually that's true but up to 80 in Ontario. I wonder why he was
getting an eye exam? Ah, probably moved from another province.
Ontario requires the eye test if you are exchanging a license from
another province.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Jim Harvest said:

x-no-archive:Doki said:

Quoted message said:

I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.

Quoted message said:

Fine by me as long as you're willing to pay all the taxes for massive
unemployment in the under 24s...

How does that follow?

Well, for one, how many professonal drivers are under age 25?
How many workers under 25 require a driver's license as a part of
their job?

Mind you, I like the idea but it may not be practical.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

x-no-archive:John Kane said:

Jim Harvest said:

x-no-archive:Doki said:

> I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
> people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.
Fine by me as long as you're willing to pay all the taxes for massive
unemployment in the under 24s...

How does that follow?

Well, for one, how many professonal drivers are under age 25?
How many workers under 25 require a driver's license as a part of
their job?

Mind you, I like the idea but it may not be practical.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

They can do something else. It won't cause mass unemployment. We are in
a full employment economy.

On 03/02/2008 19:10, Jim Harvest said,

Quoted message said:

They can do something else. It won't cause mass unemployment. We are in
a full employment economy.

Maybe that's the case wherever you are in the world, but it isn't in the UK.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

John Kane said:

Jim Harvest said:

x-no-archive:Doki said:

Fine by me as long as you're willing to pay all the taxes for massive
unemployment in the under 24s...

How does that follow?

Well, for one, how many professonal drivers are under age 25?

Very few, I believe. Employers don't like to employ under 25s as
professional drivers because they cost so much more to insure.

Quoted message said:

How many workers under 25 require a driver's license as a part of
their job?

That I have no idea of, but I should imagine that a requirement for a
driving licence implies a requirement to be able to use company
vehicles, which would mean a requirement to be insured to use company
vehicles, which would mean the employer would rather find someone over 25.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

x-no-archive:Paul Boyd said:

On 03/02/2008 19:10, Jim Harvest said,

Quoted message said:

They can do something else. It won't cause mass unemployment. We are
in a full employment economy.

Maybe that's the case wherever you are in the world, but it isn't in the
UK.

I'm referring to the UK. There is a labour shortage here hence the use
of migrant labour such as the Poles in recent years.

Jim Harvest said:

x-no-archive:Doki said:

Quoted message said:

I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.

Fine by me as long as you're willing to pay all the taxes for massive
unemployment in the under 24s...

How does that follow?

It's simply a lot easier to find a job when you've got a car. A friend of
mine went to a temp agency a while ago, same place as I went to a while ago.
Only difference was that he didn't have a car so was restricted on how far
he could travel to work. We both got good feedback from the people we'd
worked for. I could ring up on a Friday and tell them I didn't like the job
I was doing and have another on a Monday. He'd be weeks between jobs.

x-no-archive:Doki said:

It's simply a lot easier to find a job when you've got a car. A friend
of mine went to a temp agency a while ago, same place as I went to a
while ago. Only difference was that he didn't have a car so was
restricted on how far he could travel to work. We both got good feedback
from the people we'd worked for. I could ring up on a Friday and tell
them I didn't like the job I was doing and have another on a Monday.
He'd be weeks between jobs.

I would query whether he could have taken those jobs, and stayed near
the workplace rather than claiming dole, or found some other solution
such as using public transport and a folding bicycle, or blagging a
lift. In my day (1980s) the majority of those leaving education didn't
have cars. It was customary to move to the places where work was available.

As it happens, I didn't get my first motor vehicle until I was 25. My
job involved spending most time away from my office, at a variety of
customers. However, as possibly half of the employees at my level also
had no motorised transport, and neither did the manager, it was never
perceived to be an issue.

If all under 25s couldn't drive, suitable work arounds would be found.
It wouldn't really matter.

Jim Harvest said:

x-no-archive:John Kane said:

Jim Harvest said:

x-no-archive😄oki wrote:

>> I agree. Considering the age-related accident rates, I don't think
>> people should be allowed to drive unsupervised until they're 24.
> Fine by me as long as you're willing to pay all the taxes for massive
> unemployment in the under 24s...
How does that follow?

Well, for one, how many professonal drivers are under age 25?
How many workers under 25 require a driver's license as a part of
their job?

Mind you, I like the idea but it may not be practical.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

They can do something else. It won't cause mass unemployment. We are in
a full employment economy.

if you don't live in a big urban area, lack of a driving licence is a
real limiter.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com