I cannot imagine the horror on the turnpike yesterday. May God bless and keep them.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090627_298_0_TeOlhm212300
Quote from: guido911 on June 27, 2009, 09:41:51 AM
I cannot imagine the horror on the turnpike yesterday.
And we can only wonder as to why the OHP categorized the trucks apparent failure to even slow down as "unsafe speed for traffic conditions".
He wasnt speeding, he just didnt stop.
Trucker fell asleep at the wheel, I reckon. Traffic cops I've talked to say it happens a lot more often than you'd think.
Did I read that right...a truck driver who was 76 years old!!!! This is why at the age of 65 every driver should be tested at least every 2 to 3 years. They monitor teenage drivers and most can't drive after midnight...the same should happen to senior citizens. Didn't this happen like 4 years ago in California where a senior citizen drove and killed people at a farmers market, that person wasn't asleep or even had anything wrong. The story doesn't say anything about this 76 year old driver with a speeding bullet falling asleep at the wheel it happened in the afternoon so did he need to take a kindergarten nap or something? I'm surprised someone allowed him to even drive a full size truck, I understand the whole age discrimination thing but come on!
Young people can fall asleep at the wheel too. Considering the way people drive all over the US (each area claims to have the worst), maybe everyone should be tested every 2 or 3 years, regardless of age.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 28, 2009, 10:31:35 AM
Young people can fall asleep at the wheel too. Considering the way people drive all over the US (each area claims to have the worst), maybe everyone should be tested every 2 or 3 years, regardless of age.
I would be happy with some testing and training at the beginning.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 28, 2009, 10:31:35 AM
Young people can fall asleep at the wheel too. Considering the way people drive all over the US (each area claims to have the worst), maybe everyone should be tested every 2 or 3 years, regardless of age.
I don't know anout every two or three years...but maybe every five years after fifty would be prudent.
Quote from: nathanm on June 28, 2009, 10:46:18 AM
I would be happy with some testing and training at the beginning.
Beginning of what? Driving "career", age group,...?
As a private pilot, I must fly with a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) every two years for a review of the rules and to make sure I still can fly properly. Age doesn't matter. Number of hours flying since the previous exam don't matter. The most notable exception is adding a rating which involves flying with the FAA or one of their designated examiners. Airline pilots have checks more often.
I could see an abbreviated testing every DL renewal for everyone. I'm tired of being lumped into old age just because I'm over 50. Paul Newman was competing and winning races in his 70's. A young driver with a hangover, sucking down super caffeinated canned drinks while driving like he'll never die is more dangerous than most old folks. Someone smoking dope, eating his lunch or putting on makeup whilst changing lanes without a signal is infinitely more dangerous.
A quick ten question test could weed out a lot of drivers who have forgotten or ignore basic rules of the road. Questions related to merging, tailgating, yielding, one way streets, 4 way stops and highway courtesy would be failed by a lot of people.
Cherish wasn't on this forum the last time we discussed this. Maybe a brief recap is in order.
Same points coming up again. Some are safe at older ages. Some are not safe at any age.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 28, 2009, 11:25:45 AM
Cherish wasn't on this forum the last time we discussed this. Maybe a brief recap is in order.
Same points coming up again. Some are safe at older ages. Some are not safe at any age.
Yeah, I just tried to summarize. Life is just not safe anymore anywhere.
No skid marks means no one knows just how fast that rig was going.
Quote from: patric on June 27, 2009, 12:18:04 PM
And we can only wonder as to why the OHP categorized the trucks apparent failure to even slow down as "unsafe speed for traffic conditions".
He wasnt speeding, he just didnt stop.
Because, the statute and the section on the collision report form use this language. If you don't like the language, I suppose you could petition the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety and have him change all the forms.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 27, 2009, 12:54:56 PM
Trucker fell asleep at the wheel, I reckon. Traffic cops I've talked to say it happens a lot more often than you'd think.
Without skid marks or witness accounts, does "unsafe speed for traffic conditions" have any more credibility than "falling asleep at the wheel", or did they need to tie it to "speeding" for statistical (grant$) reasons?
Quote from: patric on June 28, 2009, 03:53:25 PM
Without skid marks or witness accounts, does "unsafe speed for traffic conditions" have any more credibility than "falling asleep at the wheel", or did they need to tie it to "speeding" for statistical (grant$) reasons?
Since neither you, nor I, have any first hand knowledge of this investigation, we don't know. Because there were no skid marks does not mean he did not try to stop. All the truck driver would have to say is "I tried to stop" and that makes it fall into that statute. It will also be the easiest one to prove at trial.
With the 80,000 collisions each year in this state, this is the 'most popular'. Failing to stop with a clear distance ahead (rear-ending the dude in front of you) is considered a speeding violation. Sorry. But your state representatives and your city council put it there, not the police.
Tulsa ordinance: Title 37 Section 618
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/17866/Title37_000.pdf
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 28, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
Beginning of what? Driving "career", age group,...?
When you first get your driver's license. Qualifying to pilot 1-3 tons of steel on crowded roads near pedestrians shouldn't be easy.
I think what brought me to that view was when I was taking my written test in Arkansas. As with most multiple choice exams, I passed easily without even bothering to think about it. As I was getting ready to leave, a girl says to her mother upon finding out she had failed the test, "I've taken the test
five times already, why don't they just give me the stupid permit?!"
The sense of entitlement was palpable, and there was absolutely no concern about the safety of herself or others.
So yeah, a driver's license is something you should earn, not just have handed to you on a platter as is done in this country.
As far as what to do with elderly drivers, I have no concrete opinion. Regular retesting seems advisable, but I'm also sensitive to concerns of age discrimination.
When it comes to certain industries, standardized testing should happen at certain intervals. As the pilot said he has tests, why not truck drivers, tow drivers, anyone with a commercial license should be tested as pilots are which should INCLUDE physical examinations at ANY age with a more involved physical after a certain age. The military requires physicals done and when you reach a certain age you have a more INVOLVED physical which includes a cardio stress test. I don't hear any older sergeants or officers complain about this test, would it be age discrimination to get a more involved test at an older age? I mean I'm 26 should I sue the government because they claim females over 40 should get mammograms, is that age discrimination? Come on, this is a truck driver we are talking about. He is in an industry that should have more regular driving tests and physicals. They do DOT standard drug test for this industry but not a more rigorous physical and driving test????
Quote from: Cherish on June 28, 2009, 08:53:44 PM
When it comes to certain industries, standardized testing should happen at certain intervals. As the pilot said he has tests, why not truck drivers, tow drivers, anyone with a commercial license should be tested as pilots are which should INCLUDE physical examinations at ANY age with a more involved physical after a certain age. The military requires physicals done and when you reach a certain age you have a more INVOLVED physical which includes a cardio stress test. I don't hear any older sergeants or officers complain about this test, would it be age discrimination to get a more involved test at an older age? I mean I'm 26 should I sue the government because they claim females over 40 should get mammograms, is that age discrimination? Come on, this is a truck driver we are talking about. He is in an industry that should have more regular driving tests and physicals. They do DOT standard drug test for this industry but not a more rigorous physical and driving test????
If this guy had a CDL he would be required to have a physical once a year as part of the conditions of his remaining as a CDL AND as a DOT requirement, IIRC.
Quote from: Hoss on June 28, 2009, 10:20:16 PM
If this guy had a CDL he would be required to have a physical once a year as part of the conditions of his remaining as a CDL AND as a DOT requirement, IIRC.
Or is it every 2 years? Is it in depth or bend over and cough physical with a blood test LOL.
Quote from: Cherish on June 28, 2009, 08:53:44 PM
When it comes to certain industries, standardized testing should happen at certain intervals. As the pilot said he has tests, why not truck drivers, tow drivers, anyone with a commercial license should be tested as pilots are which should INCLUDE physical examinations at ANY age with a more involved physical after a certain age.
Private pilots (my rating) are not allowed to charge for flying, only share expenses. It is the approximate equivalent of a drivers license for a car. To impose the private pilot requirements on car drivers would be to have every driver ride with a certified driving instructor every two years. This would be you, the kid down the street, the Little Old Lady From Pasadena, ......
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 29, 2009, 08:25:03 AM
Private pilots (my rating) are not allowed to charge for flying, only share expenses. It is the approximate equivalent of a drivers license for a car. To impose the private pilot requirements on car drivers would be to have every driver ride with a certified driving instructor every two years. This would be you, the kid down the street, the Little Old Lady From Pasadena, ......
It would also require recertification every six months to fly at night, if memory serves me correctly. Or at least to fly once every six months at night and do full stop landings as well as touch/go and low approach. You can tell it's been a while for me anyway.
Quote from: Hoss on June 29, 2009, 09:31:19 AM
It would also require recertification every six months to fly at night, if memory serves me correctly. Or at least to fly once every six months at night and do full stop landings as well as touch/go and low approach. You can tell it's been a while for me anyway.
I think it was every 90 days for night currency to carry pax. I've not flown in over 10 years, I'd like to do a BFR (actually whatever it would take to be "proficient", not "legal or current") and get my medical current maybe next year. Whole lot of dead "current" pilots out there.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 29, 2009, 08:25:03 AM
Private pilots (my rating) are not allowed to charge for flying, only share expenses. It is the approximate equivalent of a drivers license for a car. To impose the private pilot requirements on car drivers would be to have every driver ride with a certified driving instructor every two years. This would be you, the kid down the street, the Little Old Lady From Pasadena, ......
Well I wasn't talking about the average driver. Only the one's with commercial drivers license.
It's a bit off topic but in order to let folks know how much they don't have to do to keep their driver's license current...
Pilot Currency includes:
3 take-offs and landings within the preceeding 90 days to carry passengers. If carrying passengers at night, the 3 take-offs and landings must have been at night to a full stop. Touch and goes are allowed for day in tricycle gear (one wheel in front, two main gear wheels behind) but not for taildraggers (two wheels in front and one under the tail). The take-offs and landings must be in the same kind (Category & Class) airplane, ie. single engine, multi engine, land plane, sea plane and a few other options.
To fly in instrument conditions, assuming you already have an instrument rating:
6 instrument approaches, a hold, and an intercept to a VOR (electronic navigation) within the preceeding 6 months will make you legal but probably not proficient. After 6 months, you may practice in simulated instrument conditions by wearing a hood to restrict your vision to inside the airplane with a safety pilot. After a year you must fly with a Certified Flight Instructor with an Instrument add-on (CFII) to get an Instrument Proficiency sign-off.
You must have a current Biennial Flight Review (BFR) that I mentioned earlier in the thread.
If the FAA requires a medical certificate for the aircraft you want to fly, you must have a current medical certificate.
There are a ton of more rules for aircraft pilots that would probably keep most people from driving (legally) if they had equivalent rules for driving the family car.
Back on topic, sadly, a tenth victim died yesterday in a Joplin hospital.
Absolutely horrific that the woman who just passed may have lived only to wake up to the news that her family was dead.
I don't know what's better to hope for...that the driver's brakes failed (prob not) or that the rig was great shape, but driver inattentive. So scary...my parents used to drive that turnpike weekly.
More in depth:
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_179224309.html (http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_179224309.html)
Now I want to cry for that poor little girl airlifted to KC who lost BOTH parents. :'(
Quote from: Wilbur on June 28, 2009, 05:13:22 PM
Failing to stop with a clear distance ahead (rear-ending the dude in front of you) is considered a speeding violation. Sorry. But your state representatives and your city council put it there, not the police.
I think we both know that much "public safety" language is either drafted by police unions or at their "urging".
As for OHP's speeding claim;
OKLAHOMA CITY — The truck driver involved in a June 26 accident on the Will Rogers Turnpike that left 10 people dead had his cruise control set at 71 mph in a 75 mph speed zone, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority was told Wednesday.http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090716_16_A1_OKLAHO472846
I believe that "too fast for conditions" is used by many states. Oklahoma? If you hit something in front of you, you were going too fast for conditions regardless of your speed. The condition(s) being someone stopped or too slow in front of you.