A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No porn.
No ads / spamming.
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
Horrific. Very fortunate that there weren't any fatalities.
Can't wait to hear the excuse explaining this one.
Give a 77yo driver a car that will essentially drive through anything, what could go wrong.
77 isn't that old to drive, but whatever the cause, it needs to be addressed before ever letting the driver get behind the wheel again.
Nah, hitting 8 cyclists is a straight license revocation in my book. At 77, there's no chance they're getting it back.
Agreed, but regular driving tests should be required for older drivers that haven't had accidents. The risk is too high and cognitive decline is too common to ignore.
Just an FYI, but statistically speaking, younger drivers are far more likely than those over 50, to get into accidents.
I came across the stat after our government proposed mandatory testing over a certain age, something like every few years. And to me, it just seemed like age discrimination after looking at the numbers.
In fact, the number of accidents caused by older drivers seemed so low that they lumped everyone over 50 into one group, while they had to split up other ages into much smaller groups as not to make the numbers seem crazy high for their demographic.
If those 18 to 25 are causing more accidents, why not retest them every few years? Older drivers, while the potential for cognitive and motor impairment is higher, don't seem to be the problem.
Most will be told by their doctor to stop driving, or there will be other signs of driving impairment (small things like hitting a curb while trying to park) that would set off red flags long before a major accident.
Now.... turn it around to ebikes, and there is absolutely a trend of older riders getting into crashes vs younger ones.
For the record, I think the data support more rigorous training and testing for young drivers too.
It's pretty ridiculous that a written test and a 10 minute drive with a teat administrator give Americans the right to pilot multi-ton death machines just inches from people and children.
If those 18 to 25 are causing more accidents, why not retest them every few years?
You certainly could but driving tests are often about knowledge. They’re used to determine if you understand how to operate a vehicle legally in your jurisdiction. Younger people get into more accidents because they’re more reckless and inexperienced on average, it’s not that they don’t know how to drive legally.
If where you live requires a government license to operate a motor vehicle then it’s up to the government to ensure you’re still capable, not you or your doctor.
Less car dependent culture would go a lot further, particularly for older individuals with cognitive and mobility issues.
Yes, don't get me wrong. I want to see fewer cars and less car dependency, with harsh penalties for those who drive negligently.
I think that drivers of all ages are dangerous, but mostly younger people who tend to be more distracted, less skilled, and over confident of their driving abilities.
I think that any driving infraction, even something as "minor" as speeding, should require a retest at the driver's expense.
With accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, it seems that drivers are always let off the hook too easily. We need to do better and reform all aspects of motor vehicle transportation.
Agreed. Make it every 10, and more frequent once you're over 70 or so.
Above 70 it should be maybe every 5, and above 80 every 2. And shucks, if you're driving at age 90, it should be annually.
(Obviously, the real problem is that cars in America are required to live, work, eat, etc. I hope to find a way to not need to drive when I'm that age, it's why I fight for changes to my city to make it liveable without a car.)
Agreed on all accounts.
I wish I didn't need a car. I don't really like driving, and cars are big and expensive, but my lifestyle wouldn't be possible without one, at least in my area. I'd much rather bike and use transit everywhere, but that's unfortunately impractical unless I accept a 1.5-2 hour commute each way to work.
That said, if I was retired, I could probably get away with it. Most things can be delivered, and I wouldn't be pressed for time so I could use the slower modes of transportation to get around. Even paying for taxis or Ubers or whatever would be fine for doctors appointments and whatnot. That's impractical now, but it's feasible for a retiree.
100% is the limit.
Only if one's imagination is limited 🤭
My grandmother was still driving a car at 98. She should definitely have been stopped years earlier.
I'm fully in support of requiring older drivers to retake a driving test if they are safe drivers then there is no problem but we need to identify the unsafe ones dementia and Alzheimer's can hit it anytime. My Grandfather died in his 60s of what was probably Alzheimer's.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted, they must have a vision of 77 being a crumbling old man, but out in Vancouver I see people in their 70s doing mountain hikes and jogging, and have their full faculties. There should be testing across the board as we age, but age shouldn't have be a cutoff for license. My great uncle gave me a ride home once, he was 95, he was 100% with it mentally, and handling the manual transmission like a champ. He was a great driver.
Exactly. My grandpa was a fine driver well into his 80s, and he stopped when he was about 90 because he needed a walker and getting that out of the car was a challenge. I don't think he had a single accident in all the years I remember (something like 20 years).
Some 60 year olds shouldn't drive, and some 90 year olds are some of the best drivers out there.
"In addition to the injured cyclist, the driver of the Kia Soul and six other cyclists were also transported to the hospital, with three of the cyclists classified as trauma alerts, [...]"
Is this terrorism because cycling is considered progressive in the 2020's?
77-year-old woman
Possibly, or maybe she just fell asleep. Investigation appears to be ongoing.
I've driven in about 12 countries and 20 states in the US. Between the elderly who refuse to stop driving, the people driving on substances, and the general unfriendliness of the drivers in Florida - it is, by far, the worst place I've ever driven. I'm a cyclist as well and you couldn't pay me to ride there. It's dangerous enough to drive there, let alone cycle. *Mumbai would be another runner up to terrible places to ride.
For a lot of people including me not driving in not an option. Everything is a few miles away in between parking lots of other people living in the same dilemma.
This compounds as you're older and have to go places for doctor appts. Or groceries: nothing is walking distance and the cycle grows as people move farther away for cheaper land.
When I ride the bike people tell me to be careful but when they drive I can see them eyes on screen like if they're on their living room couch.
Old age health care needs to include rideshare allowances. Just my two cents for a short term solution until the US actually builds better public transit options. But I get where you're coming from. Keep looking for those eyes. It's the safest way to ride. And get a helmet cam and a rear cam. Be safe!
Thanks for the kind words, still saving for that sweet garmin varia with camera. A regular one for now is great for awareness.
Dude, why even bother with this comment. Ridiculous.