https://chicago.cbslocal.com/v...izen-from-the-wreck/
Driver was disoriented and drove onto the tracks. Good Samaritans pulled her out just minutes before a Metra Commuter train arrived.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Glad to see a young guy spring into action. You hardly ever read about a young person doing something good. He opened the door of the car and and lifted her onto his shoulder, who rah! !
Dave
It almost seems redundant to say a 96 year old driver is lucky to be alive.
Curt
Nice auto. Well, was.
sad she survived to possibly hurt/kill a driver/ passenger in the future...why is someone 96 years old behind the wheel in the first place....
Jim Berger posted:sad she survived to possibly hurt/kill a driver/ passenger in the future...why is someone 96 years old behind the wheel in the first place....
My sentiments also! Wonder how she passed the driving test?
Test for growing old? Nobody told me there was going to be a test!
mark s posted:Nice auto. Well, was.
It was her father's Oldsmobile! 
Wait until you get 96 years old and have places to go and things to do. True, there should be tests for ability and cognizance but age isn't half as dangerous as potheads, boozers, and texters on the roads.
96 alone should not disqualify a driver, there are 21 year thru very old who should not be driving because they drive drunk, texting or both or drive careless, aggressive so age my friends ant the problem.
Doug-Sr posted:96 alone should not disqualify a driver, there are 21 year thru very old who should not be driving because they drive drunk, texting or both or drive careless, aggressive so age my friends ant the problem.
Well, in a way it IS part of the problem. Yes, some older people are still pretty good drivers, however at THAT advanced age, I know from personal experience that night vision is drastically reduced and overall awareness and reflexes are seriously reduced.
Vision is also reduced when drunk or texting it weather you can pass the test or not and as we get older we learn to restrict our self, there is a point where people should stop driving but it should be based on medical and physical ability and not age
That's what happens when you text and drive!
I'm 72, haven't had a ticket since 1985 and one chargeable accident in 1966, and I can renew my license for six years one more time. After I hit the age threshold, I will have to renew yearly in person, not by mail, and, if I continue living, the second threshold will require an annual driving test. That is not unreasonable. As we age, some of us should stop driving, and others remain quite competent. Some take the responsibility to quit when it's time, some don't. Annual testing is a prudent way for the state to assure that older licensed drivers remain competent to drive and that those who can no longer safely drive, but will not voluntarily surrender the privilege, will no longer be licensed. It is a fair and prudent policy.
My dad voluntarily stopped when he was about my age because his vision was beginning to degrade and he did not want to take a chance on injuring anyone. My aunt should have, but did not. She pulled out from a stop sign, right in front of an approaching trash truck, wrecked her car (but fortunately avoided serious injury) and had the end of her driving days imposed on her. They did not have the annual driving test then, but it would have stopped her before there was an accident.
The family usually knows whether the senior should still be behind the wheel.
My father passed away a year ago at the age of 91 but, we had to have his driver's license rescinded when he was 87 or 88 after several unrelated minor incidents led to an accident that could have been much worse. Even though we all KNEW this was the right thing to do; we had to go about it behind his back as he was adamant he wasn't going to quit driving. We had to contact multiple doctors and obtain affidavit's from each that Dad no longer had the ability to drive. The paperwork had to be submitted to Harrisburg and eventually Dad received a certified letter advising him to surrender his license. Even then; he was hard headed and didn't want to do it. I remember him asking me what I thought would happen if he just refused to send his license in as required. I told him I guessed I'd be visiting him in jail.
We were fortunate that Dad believed this was a result of the aforementioned accident. He went to his grave never knowing it was his family who had instigated the process. I can't imagine the schism that would have resulted had he known WE were the ones who were responsible for his license being revoked.
I reckon this is a doorway that each of us will have to walk through if we live long enough...
Curt
I'm not sure what texting or driving under the influence has to do with this discussion. These are dangerous things to do at any age and are not an argument for defending the continued driving by someone with severely and permanently diminished faculties. Intentional behavior is a whole different problem from unintentional behavior, requiring being dealt with in different manner. Family is not always in the picture and when they are, their intervention is often easier said than done, as many of us can attest to. Voluntary handing over of keys likewise doesn't work at an age when faculties decline and stubbornness increases. Testing is the only way to identify those who can no longer safely drive. There is no need to automatically restrict driving at a specific age, but there are no reasonable arguments against re-testing. The only reason it hasn't become more widespread is that seniors have the largest percentage of voter participation of any voting block, and politicians place much higher priority on votes than they do public safety.
Just a thought, I wonder if she had her "Handicap" placard hanging from her rear-view mirror, as most of the elderly do here in Illinois? Such practice will interfere with forward vision, and the placard plainly states NOT to drive with the placard hanging in front of you.
Well, she was a spring chicken...Prince Philip of Blighty just managed to clobber his vehicle, but he was only 97. If they set out to yank his license, and the Queen disagrees? Of course, he was driving on the wrong side of the road! Heh, heh.
German posted:I'm not sure what texting or driving under the influence has to do with this discussion. These are dangerous things to do at any age and are not an argument for defending the continued driving by someone with severely and permanently diminished faculties. Intentional behavior is a whole different problem from unintentional behavior, requiring being dealt with in different manner. Family is not always in the picture and when they are, their intervention is often easier said than done, as many of us can attest to. Voluntary handing over of keys likewise doesn't work at an age when faculties decline and stubbornness increases. Testing is the only way to identify those who can no longer safely drive. There is no need to automatically restrict driving at a specific age, but there are no reasonable arguments against re-testing. The only reason it hasn't become more widespread is that seniors have the largest percentage of voter participation of any voting block, and politicians place much higher priority on votes than they do public safety.
Lighten up it was a JOKE!
My folks still live there. I grew up walking distance from that crossing which is at St. Charles and Grace street. I hate it. I can remember what seemed like always getting stuck waiting for a C&NW, metra or later UP train. The worst crossing I can think of. No way to fix it as it's basically a 5 way intersection with a rail crossing cutting through it. Stupid thing resets every time a train goes through and seems like you wait forever. I'm sure others in the Villa Park/Lombard/ Glen Ellyn area would concur. Not surprised it could confuse a much older driver. Glad others jumped to action.
Side note: 50 yards north of that intersction lay the old Chicago Great Western tracks. (Now the Prairie Path). I spent many summer day adventures walking along that line before they pulled up the rails.
I was in a DMV once getting my license updated and there was a lady well into her 80s there. She had to ID some lights for her peripheral vision but couldn't see them at all. The DMV guy was practically yelling, "NO, THE LIGHT ISN'T TO THE LEFT, IT'S EITHER TO THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT. BUT NOT TO THE LEFT!" She still didn't get it and they gave her a license anyway. Everyone sitting down waiting looked at one another, completely aghast.
Elderly folks have some powerful lobbyists such as AARP and nobody wants to mess with them.
As Curt pointed out, when the family starts the process to have a elderly driver's license yanked, and they find out who is was, it gets very ugly. A friend of mine got disowned by his elderly father when he found out, along with his all his siblings. The father never talked with them again and went to his grave many years later, still hating them for it to the end.
I'm in the insurance field, handling auto accident claims and actually, it's not the 90+ or teen drivers you have to worry about. The worst drivers I see accidents from are usually men and women in their late 50s to early 60s. I'm still not sure why, after over 16 years handling that...
Like l said in another post, l learn stuff on here! Surprised neither teens nor elderly are the most crash prone. In this area, per the nightly nooze, it APPEARED to be teens followed by drug/alcohol? of varying age. Is that the national picture, when teens get hit with highest insurance? Prince Philip is back on the road with a new Land Rover, and no seat belt. Not the place to preach, but l installed seat belts in a new 1960 car, and was glad a '62 had them a few years later when blowout totaled car and belted passengers, me included, walked away unscathed.
Jim Berger posted:sad she survived to possibly hurt/kill a driver/ passenger in the future...why is someone 96 years old behind the wheel in the first place....
I do not think "sad she survived" is a very nice think to say. If that were your Mom you would be happy she survived.
NOW, will someone explain how this whole thread relates to O gauge.
Jim, "Sad she survived" are you serious? She already has survived stuff you and I have only read about. Granted she needs to go through a serious qualification process to continue driving, but "Sad she survived"???? All life is precious, you will understand when you are that age, if you make it.
If you were that 19 year old kid would you have sat back with a bag of popcorn and watched??
That "Sad she survived" statement, if serious, is scary.
Melvin P posted:NOW, will someone explain how this whole thread relates to O gauge.
Well, if you look closely, you'll see that this thread/discussion is posted on the Real Trains Forum, which has nothing to do with "O gauge" anyway.
Melvin P posted:Jim Berger posted:sad she survived to possibly hurt/kill a driver/ passenger in the future...why is someone 96 years old behind the wheel in the first place....
I do not think "sad she survived" is a very nice think to say. If that were your Mom you would be happy she survived.
about 20 years ago ,both my parents were nearly killed by an elderly woman that had her license yanked....she drove anyway, so you'll forgive my dim view towards people that drive impaired or illegally.
This has to do with O gauge, because if you look at the average age of York attendees, who mostly got there from some distance in their own vehicles, York would dry up if train collectors had to move to England to keep driving. Most are not chauffeured. Most people who get licenses yanked around here flunk breathalizer tests, and are not geriatrics. There are always exceptions. In other laws, of course, there is the demand that the many should punished for the transgressions of the few.
Jim, I am really glad your parents survived and I am glad the 96 Y/O lady survived. if she should not have been driving that is just plain wrong.
Never the less, saying it is "Sad that she survived....." well, that is just someplace I can not go.
I bet among others, the engineer is glad she survived. Few folks would want to participate in another person's step into eternity. What if it was your parents who were disoriented on the tracks? How would you feel then?
I am just appealing for compassion.
A family of mom, dad and their two children were killed on a CSX crossing near my home. I was told the father driving was running late and sped around other cars stopped at the crossing. He was wrong and effectively a killer. However I am very sad that he (and his family) died.
I had to disable my father-in-laws truck, as he kept driving without a license or insurance. He wasn't able to take the truck somewhere to fix it, and I just kept putting off "fixing" it. It had a bad water hose, and he would drive it until it steamed, then park "until it cooled off." We lived about an hour away and would go up every week to take him shopping, etc.
Speaking of grade crossings, when I was at the Portola Railroad museum, we had a back road for members, that also led to the trash collection area. During a big event one time, I stopped at the crossing as the excursion train was approaching. The Trash collection truck came up behind me, and proceeded to pass me until he realized (I assume!) he was about to plow into the side of the engine! I suspect it was a case of "There's never any train here when I'm here" thinking. People get locked into habits and that sometimes results in big problems!
I don't remember the exact statistic, but I understand that a not-insignificant percentage of grade crossing accidents result from motor vehicles running into the side of a moving train.
People drive into trains at night. May be why there are reflectors on RR cars??
