[Closed] Old people and automatic gerabox cars?

yeah I think this is more common than gets reported in the media. I saw a CCTV footage of this happening in a petrol station. she sped off took out a pump and flipped the car!! scary stuff!

I had to jump out of the way of an 89 year old lady who sped towards me after getting the 2 muddled just a couple of weeks ago.

Is this to say that the design of an automatic is a bad idea or its the driver?

Google audi automatic usa recall. Audi got blamed for all sorts of unintended acceration events. Drver error.

Sheesh, I spelt gearbox and pedal wrong!

We watched incredulously as some (albeit delightful) old lady struggled to get out of her car, failed to fill it with fuel (necessitating a member of staff coming out to help), and then really struggled to walk to the kiosk at our local petrol station yesterday. Now, she might have lightning quick reflexes, but somehow I doubt it, so how on earth can she still be driving?

Is this to say that the design of an automatic is a bad idea or its the driver?

Driver without doubt. But I think they'd be less room for error in a manual vehicle (two operations being required to accelerate from rest - clutch and throttle).

I know when I got an auto for the first time I managed to go for the clutch and hit the brakes. Only did it once mind, that was enough!

I'd hazard that there are more accidents* caused by under thirties with manual gearboxes.

*for want of a better word.

what a terrible combination this is?

Old people and cars? Couldn't agree more.

Doesn't say auto or not but this happened yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13641349

It's all just part of life's rich tapestry, spin of the dice etc.

I'm more concerned about the weather taking a turn just as the weekend comes around again

Regardless of manual or auto the "old dear" would still use only right foot on both. Difference with an auto is that driver doesn't have to use their left for anything. (Ed: if you're not used to an auto, hitting the brake with your clutch foot is th only dangerous bit)

I can't see that auto is inherently more dangerous at all, even for "confusing the pedals" as OP suggests. The gearbox is not the issue, other then maybe allowing some people to continue driving when they'd be unable to do so with a manual, possibly to the point of being unsafe to drive

Bu99er all to do with auto's, except maybe they are only on the road because they have one?

More down to how owning a car is a necessity - <call TJ to the post>

More likely to get wiped out by a youngster driving anyway

they have astronomical insurance premiums for a reason

I wonder if this is why automatics usually have such enormous brake pedals?

(Yeah I know there's more room but it might be for the oldies too).

Retests every 5 years with a full medical, eye and reaction tests. It's the only way.

I wear glasses (I'm long sited so don't need them for driving but prefer to wear them) but the other week I was running a training course at work and there was a chap in his 20s couldn't read the big TV screen my laptop was hooked to. Everyone else had no problem. I had to give him my notes to read instead. Now he was DRIVING home like that. I did actually suggest he should drive past an opticians on the way home, if he could see one, which got a bit if a giggle from the group but, seriously, WTF is he doing behind the wheel of a car like that??

Retests every 5 years with a medical. It's the only way.

I'd say every 2 or 3 years after 65, but yes.

Males under 25 cause them most accidents I would ban them. Ageing is not linear RM you get fit 85 year olds and unfit 30 year olds. Age discrimination is illegal BTW so I suspect they may need to apply it universally.
Like any right it has responsibilities. if you are so impaired you are a danger to others then your licence needs to be removed. I agree medical and retest/assessments needed.
I dont think an automatic is inherently more dangerous

I'd say every 2 or 3 years after 65, but yes.

Just wondering, how much experience of driving do you have RealMan? It's just that you look around eleven in that pic...or was it taken a long time ago?

Age discrimination is illegal BTW so I suspect they may need to apply it universally.

They're exceptions though, hence why the minimum age limits of 16,17,18 and 21 for certain categories.

Then there's this.

If your minibus entitlement is renewed, at the age of 70, you will normally be granted a licence for three years that will allow you to drive a minibus not for hire or reward. If your minibus entitlement is not renewed, the entitlement will no longer appear on your licence.

My uncle used to have a shop in a little precinct, with parking to the front of the shops. There were two occasions that I know of when old folks in automatics drove through the front of one of the shops by accident.

I'd personally go for mandatory re-tests and Doctors being able to instigate licence revocation. It's very easy to say "Stop driving if you're impaired", but most impaired people don't perceive that they are.

It's a bit like if you find out you need glasses when you go for your first sight test, or when you get a new prescription. The deterioration is generally so slow that you never notice it.

So how do we solve the [i]bigger[/i] problem of under 25s maiming people?

Tougher driving test (see Finland) and fines that hit a lot harder than the poxy ones given out currently.

So how do we solve the bigger problem of under 25s maiming people?

Drown 'em at birth.

what a terrible combination this is?

Old people and cars? Couldn't agree more.

Actuarial figures wouldn't support that. Young people and cars now, there's an accident not waiting very long to happen.

In seriousness,

I think the way forward might be to have retests every ($period) with a view to taking some form of advanced test after a couple of years.

Too many people on the road who simply can't drive, be they young, old, male, female, whatever. Get 'em off the roads and pumping money into public transport instead.

Actuarial figures wouldn't support that.

I bet they've seen plenty, though.

Have you got any figures for that claim, incidentally?

There's loads of stuff - too near beer time for a search but ............

one article
http://www.iam.org.uk/latest_news/youngdriversrunovermorethanathirdofpedestriancasualties.html

Have you got any figures for that claim, incidentally?

Rather than every 5 yrs, I'd support longer intervals but mandatory retest (within say 3 months) for all drivers after any collision, regardless of fault (unless yr car was parked).

Might help cut down on scammers getting themselves repeatedly shunted & claiming loads of times as well? I'd also not allow anyone to drive whilst they had a claim pending that included whiplash or similar and claim should not be settled until that driver declared themself fit to drive again so the period of disability could be approximately defined

Check it yourself.

That would set a very bad precedence indeed for the 'wild fictitious claims' brigade. If you're going to state something as a fact, you're going to have to back it up before you get taken seriously.

If you're going to state something as a fact, you're going to have to back it up before you get taken seriously.

I shouldn't be taken seriously. I've had several G&Ts.

Newsflash: [i]Uk Gov set to ban the use of automatic cars due to the number of accidents they cause through them being too complex for the elderly.[/i]

If only!

Too many people on the road who simply can't drive, be they young, old, male, female, whatever. Get 'em off the roads and pumping money into public transport instead.

Fine when you have public transport, try rural wales,both my sons would not be able to get to work if they had to rely on buses,shifts etc.

 

So how do we solve the bigger problem of under 25s maiming people?

It's very different problem.

Young drivers still have a lot to learn, and most will eventually become average drivers of an average risk.

Once someone's body & mind has deteriorated through age, they're very unlikely to improve.

Add in a bit of basic economics - ie, young people are far more likely to be working, and need a car to do so, and you can see how wildly different the two situations are.

Just last weekend my wife's auntie watched an old woman get dragged under her car and subsequently die after thinking her car was in park when it was in fact in reverse, and getting out and walking behind it. Ex doctor, so not short of a few braincells, and American so used to driving autos all her life...

As a percentage of actual drivers and time on the road though, who are involved in more accidents? Under 25s or over 70s?

My Mum's 90 and she's an excellent driver. My Dad is only 86 and he's crap and knows it, so very,very rarely drives any more.
So there you are - younger drivers are worse than older drivers 😀

Regardless of manual or auto the "old dear" would still use only right foot on both. Difference with an auto is that driver doesn't have to use their left for anything. (Ed: if you're not used to an auto, hitting the brake with your clutch foot is th only dangerous bit)

Exactly, if slowing down to stop, the left foot would be poised over the clutch in manual. Regardless of any error made with the right foot, depressing the clutch would instantly sever drive, and although the car would still be moving, at least it wouldn't be accelerating at maximum throttle. Remember the recent case where the guy dragged his wife to death with her shouting 'why aren't you braking' to which he replied 'I am' and just accelerated more?

[i]Just last weekend my wife's auntie watched an old woman get dragged under her car and subsequently die after thinking her car was in park when it was in fact in reverse, and getting out and walking behind it.[/i]

Eh, surely she'd know it was in drive/reverse as it would be moving as she tried to get out?

Exactly, if slowing down to stop, the left foot would be poised over the clutch in manual

Regardless of any error made with the right foot, depressing the clutch would instantly sever drive, and although the car would still be moving, at least it wouldn't be accelerating at maximum throttle. Remember the recent case where the guy dragged his wife to death with her shouting 'why aren't you braking' to which he replied 'I am' and just accelerated more?

Just had a look for your example - hippsley, I assume (tesco carpark)? I can't find anything that says it was an automatic though

My car is an auto - I don't like them but it was cheap. Next car will definitely be manual

That would set a very bad precedence indeed for the 'wild fictitious claims' brigade. If you're going to state something as a fact, you're going to have to back it up before you get taken seriously.

Please show evidence of the existence of this 'wild fictitious claims brigade.'

Eh, surely she'd know it was in drive/reverse as it would be moving as she tried to get out?

When an old style auto is in drive it has a very small amount of 'creep' which doesn't engage very quickly, so the above scenario is entirely plausible. And it actually happened too so by definition it's plausible!

Ironically this post is at the start of our local school leaver carnage season - where skilled young drivers in manual cars take 3 or 4 or their mates to Top Gear Valhalla with them.

Males under 25 cause them most accidents I would ban them. Ageing is not linear RM you get fit 85 year olds and unfit 30 year olds. Age discrimination is illegal BTW so I suspect they may need to apply it universally.

Spot the irony...

While we were working at a hospital in Middlesbrough an old-ish woman pulled up to the car park ticket barrier, took her ticket and when the barrier lifted went to drive into the car park. Unfortunately her heel somehow got meshed into the throttle pedal and carpet and pushed it to the floor and her Porsche 911 proceeded to accelerate rather quickly across about 50m of car park, only stopping after it had shunted a Peugeot up a fairly steep grass verge and came to rest in the parking space the Pug had occupied only moments earlier. Porsche call it Tiptronic or something, but it's an auto to all intents and purposes. Wrote em both off as far as I know. Made us laugh.

We used to have old series 3 Escort vans and the brake and accelerator pedals could be hit together when reacting quickly to a situation that required quick braking, needless to say this caused a few brown trouser moments with several drivers of all ages and abilities 😯

The only issue I have with autos is how they generally detract from the operation of driving a car, for me. Driving them becomes so uninvolved it's almost....automatic lol... The less people pay attention to their driving, how exactly their throttle relates to their speed etc, the less they are connected to how they're driving. That said, there's the counter argument of "you can spend more time concentrating on hazards" but I think that gets traded off for listening to the radio or doing your makeup. 😀

I'd personally go for mandatory re-tests and Doctors being able to instigate licence revocation.

Doctors already can contact the DVLA if they think a driver should not be driving? As, I believe, can any member of the public.

We used to have old series 3 Escort vans and the brake and accelerator pedals could be hit together when reacting quickly to a situation that required quick braking, needless to say this caused a few brown trouser moments with several drivers of all ages and abilities

Indeed I once drove a friends citroen AX GT (fun little [s]matchbox [/s]car!). Gently came round a country road to a junction with stopped traffic, went for the brake, hit the accel and clipped the brake instead. Tiny pedal box on those and he'd put on some silly racing pedals too. Took a lot of instinct reversal to come off what I'd thought was the brake and try again lol.

CK I don't agree. Changing gear is just one more thing to have to concentrate on. If you're going to ignore the road, you are still going to ignore it regardless of what type of transmission you're using imo.

I do agree with you about Citroen AXs though - drove a mate's once going from a pub to some other venue full of slightly pissed colleages. My driving was less than smooth due to the weird pedal arrangement, which caused much mickey-taking.

CK I don't agree. Changing gear is just one more thing to have to concentrate on. If you're going to ignore the road, you are still going to ignore it regardless of what type of transmission you're using imo.

Fair enough, guess I just don't really think about changing gear - I just do it as required. I suppose that's essentially similar to an auto in that sense lol.

If you're going to ignore the road, you are still going to ignore it regardless of what type of transmission you're using imo.

Totally agree. Having driven auto's and manuals my concentration is the same no matter what type of vehicle i'm driving.

Fair enough, guess I just don't really think about changing gear

Yeah, you don't.. nor do I. But it's not as instinctive for some people.

What a load of bollocks this twaddle about gear changing methods is.

I suppose it gives the wee boys something to do with their left hands and stops them playing with their joysticks.

There's no point in trying to go fast in a car. "Fast" cars are for wannabes and any idiot can exceed the speed limit, and there's no real skill involved in driving a car on public roads.

If you want to go fast, that's why god invented motorbikes.

😉