Driver, 86, has license revoked after car hits pedestrian

I would like to know how fast she was driving for the poor man to break her windshield.

The Registrar is grandstanding. On what basis did she revoke the driver's license. On the basis of her age? The police have not determined fault in this accident. The driver has an unblemished record. Let us get the facts before assessing blame..

The old folks should have a vision test and a test to check their reactions every 6 months. This needs to change NOW before the demographics in America shift to huge numbers of ancients; their sheer numbers will prevent lawmakers from changing things. Fogeys on the road are negligent- and so is the DMV for allowing this to go unchecked. But ultimately it's the stubbon elderly people who are at fault. They should not drive if they can't see or react as well as everyone else. Period.

The commonwealth should not be targeting old the elderly in such a discriminatory manner. How else are we going to make out doctors appointments, or other important engagements if not by car. Taking licenses away from older citizens, many of whom are veterans, will only put those citizens' lives in jeopardy because we will not be able to visit a doctor, go grocery shopping, or even make it to the pharmacy.

I cannot recall how many times I have almost gotten into a dangerous accident due to the negligence of an elderly driver. I’m talking about just barely missing a deadly accident, while the elderly driver had no clue what was even going on. Now I am a 28-year-old resident of Melrose and I was walking on Main St. during the time of the incident. That very well could have been me in critical condition. What is it going to take for something to be done? Innocent people are dying by the fault of people who can hardly walk, let alone drive. I see no difference between some of these elderly drivers and a driver under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Please, if you are or know some one who is an elderly driver; please think twice before getting behind the wheel. You are putting yourself and others at risk.

So let me get this st8 a bill by a MIlton Democrat says an Eye test and Road test at age 85 then every five years after that. Does anyone see the stupidity in that!!!!! Lets say they pass it and no test until there 90!! How about this Mr. Milton Democrat start at 70 and test every two years till 80 then test every year there after. If you actual make 90 and can drive then God bless ya you da man!!!! Hey Milton Democrat don't forget you can charge a fee for these exams and test kaching!!

Road and eye test starting at 85? That's just not enough. Start it earlier, and allow the police to issue citations that require a retest if they see something that they think is unsafe. Hell, just go to your local supermarket and count how many people can't park their cars in the luxury wide handicapped spaces. If you can't park a car, how can you expect to avoid something that is in the road when your doing 25, never mind 65 on the highway.

At this point it's probably better to be a drunk driver than an elderly driver. I can't remember the number of stories where the registry has STRUGGLED to revoke licenses from drunk drivers but apparently can do it within hours for a case that hasn't even yet been investigated in any serious way.

The magic of MA.

We were downtown Melrose shopping when the accident happened. Based upon how the scene was laid out it appears as if she hit him while he was using the crosswalk in front of Mexico Lindo. If any driver, regardless of age, can't abide by crosswalk laws, especially in a crowded shopping district, their driving privileges, at the very least, should be in jeopardy.

Morty, though I appreciate your argument. Perhaps the $$ put into maintaining and insuring the cars of unfit drivers might better be put into services to help get these individuals around town. Not only will it be safer for other drivers it will be safer for those drivers who need the service. Also, please explain what a veteran status as to do with driving fitness?? My dad is an elderly decorated veteran and isn't fit to drive. He knows this and we provide him with the support he needs. Though we understand he would be in a bind without us, that doesn't mean he should be on the road.

Sorry..but what good will a bill that requires testing every 5 years for those 85 and older do? Test earlier and test on an annual basis. The loss of eye sight and reaction time can be very rapid. My grandma went from a decent driver to being unable to drive in the course of a few months when she was about 80 years old. Test at 70 and test every year!

Is that a typo? Testing every 5 years once they hit the age of 85? Seems a little off to me...

Morty - you ask how you will get to the doctor and the store, if not by car. Here are your options a) have a family member drive you b) have a younger friend or neighbor drive you c) take a taxi - there are special discounts for seniors. The MBTA provides "The Ride" service for the elderly as well.
My grandparents live in a small apartment next to the T and plenty of buses and my family drives them places as well.
It is a bit silly for people in their 80s to be living in the suburbs anyway, where everything, including doctors and hospitals are far away.

Just noticed that some young teenagers were in a crash on the Cape. No seatbelts and driving too fast for the wet conditions. Maybe we should retest teenagers every year as well. Most of the elderly drivers that I see may be poking along, but are not weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds, tailgaiting, speeding, or ignoring stop and yield signs, running red lights, etc.

Just yesterday I had to jump out of the way for a senior driving through a Target parking lot going 40mph. She pulled out of her parking space with out even looking behind her and hit the gas. I was lucky to have about 20 feet of reaction time or I would have gone through her wind shield. I see the majority of driving negligence from seniors. I understand seniors are likely survivors of various wars, depressions, and all sorts of horrific life events that the youth of today do not comprehend. That does not give them the right, however, to endanger innocent lives every day.

Perhaps Morty can tell us how making senior citizens prove they're not a menace on the road is "targeting" anyone, discriminatory or not? If you can't pass a road test, you're a danger to all the rest of us. What you being a veteran or not has to do with this I have no idea, but if you need to go places anyway, move somewhere where there's public transportation, avail yourself of the senior carpool options many towns have or take taxis.

In MA, as in most states, a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk clearly has the right-of-way over vehicular traffic. In this instance, signs warning of pedestrians crossing were also posted. Therefore, on the face of it, the RMV had clear justification to revoke that driver's license until she is able to demonstrate that she's competent to operate a motor vehicle safely & responsibly. I make this statement as a "senior" driver, even though my driving habits make it unlikely that I'd ever encounter this driver on the roads or in a parking lot. It only seems appropriate that these circumstances should put the burden for proving her driving competency squarely on her shoulders. What seems far less-fair to me, is that the RMV appears to be applying a secret sliding scale in these cases, as when a youthful driver recently stuck & killed a pedestrian under similar circumstances, & the matter was tossed-off as merely "regrettable."

In this Nation, every person has a Right-to-Know what standards are being applied to their conduct; to know the reasons for those standards being applied; and to know that those standards are applied uniformly & without prejudice. I welcome any increased surveillance & accountability that will make our roads safer for both drivers AND pedestrians -- providing that they're applied uniformly!

Meanwhile, it was reported today on Boston.com that a 21 year old crashed his car in Bourne killing one passenger, on her birthday, after leaving a bar, and seriously injuring two other occupants of the car as well. The driver claims they weren't drinking (even though they were celebrating a 21st birthday in a bar - yeah, right) and just lost control of the car because he was driving too fast. Where is the outcry?!? If it had been a 70 year old driver who killed a passenger and injured two others, it would have been a banner headline on boston.com but it wasn't, the article wasn't even open for comments to be posted. I don't demonize every young driver who "partied" and wrapped their car around a tree and killed someone, so why do we demonize some elderly person who has an accident? Is it really any worse to have drivers in the road who may have slower reactions or more impaired eyesight than young people who take too high a risk in driving (drinking and driving or driving too fast) and who show serious lack of good judgement? Both can be tragic. Let's have some balanace

Senator Joyce is joking, isn't he? He's going to BEGIN testing at 85 years of age? And then re-test every FIVE years?

Senator Joyce is wasting his and our time. Testing must be done when the aging process begins - not delayed until someone is 85.

And, as important, test and regulate drivers with poor driving records. These are drivers of all ages that are just as much of a danger on the road.

i guess multiple choice joyce feels there will be less backlash if the age is eighty five it should start at seventy and go every five years ,that's reasonable . the elderly aren't the only problem pedestrian bare responsiblity also "just because the sign says " vehicles should yield to you when your in the crosswalk" doesn't mean when the traffic light is green for the cars that you can just walk out in front of a car doing thirty and expect to majically cross the street.....if you do then you desrve to test the laws of physics......enjoy your thirty foot trip through the air because you earned it.....the children of these people need to accept responsibilty for mom and dad, tough luck if you have to drive them around.......unless you want to see your inheritance go to the person they just killed......but we know one thing our reps don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with this.....and if they do it'll be another useless law on the books.....it's the families responsibilty to deal with......

Morty,
I understand where you are coming from and your concerns. The problem is that just because someone needs to get somewhere doesn't mean that he or she should be driving a car if they are no longer able to do so in a safe manner. Nobody is going to just take away your license. What the public is calling for is more frequent testing, beyond the basic eye test, to improve the public safety.

If you want to start testing people it should be age 16 to 25 every year 26 to 45 every 2 years 46 to 75 every 4 years and 76 to 100 every 5 years. Statistics show the first group to be the worst drivers and the second group not far behind after that they seen to learn how to drive. The insurance companys know who the safest drivers are that is why the big discount in the cost of insurance after 65.All you young people who are crying to get the old people off the road will be old someday as everyone gets a turn.The reason there are so many complaints about the older people is most are driving the speed limit no over it by 25 MPH and they are not talking on the phone or texting!!! They should be reminded that in this year alone there have been many more deadly accidents with younger people. Why not test them every 6 months!

Aging, for most people, results in a degradation of motor skills. That's simply the truth. Sure it's discrimination to say everybody at a specific age can't drive because we all age differently. That's why they should do testing every so often for people over a certain age. If you fail the test, then you have no business driving to see your pharmacist or doctor at the expense of public safety. Get outside help! The elderly you see as poor and dangerous drivers on the road should be the ones who fail this test.

she was probably text messaging

I fully support a bell curve of sorts for testing and/or fines for both young and old.
I'll be the first to admit that I was a dangerous driver when I was a teenager and into my mid-twenties. I drove very aggressively and dangerously. Anybody else ever test the top-speed limiter on their cars???? Being an inexperienced driver at the same time as you are experimenting with alcohol (and now cellphones and text messaging) puts you in a dangerous situation. Same goes for being elderly. For many elderly persons, their reaction times and physical capabilities are duller. The decades of driving experience may be nullified if your memory is failing. Of course there are responsible young people. Of course there are older citizens that are still sharp as a tack. But far too great a percentage of both groups are not.
Both young and old drivers should be scrutinized more closely.

My mother is 85 and suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. It took many months to get her to give up driving. (Three days later, I receive constant angry telephone calls from her expressing fury at me for "taking away her keys".) She had a number of hair-raising experiences behind the wheel, (like being stopped by a taxi driver while driving up a down-ramp) but absolutely refused to stop driving. During the painful process of getting her off the road, I discovered that the Mass RMV can do virtually nothing to prevent an impaired elderly driver with a clean driving record from operating a motor vehicle, even if a relative begs them to. There is a program at a major Boston hospital that will put someone through a driving competency test--for a fee of around $500. However, even if the results show the person should not be on the road, there is no legal way to prevent it. Sadly, many impaired elderly drivers believe they are completely competent to drive. The automobile represents their independence, and they are not going to give it up without a fight. There should be some public sector help for relatives who know their loved ones do not belong on the road, but can do little to stop them--until something tragic happens.

The Registry is unfairly targeting the elderly. The police haven't even determined the cause of the accident yet the registry feels free to revoke the license of someone with a clean driving record. Yet, we have many, many young people out there with horrible driving records and have caused more death and destruction and you don't see the Registry revoking those licenses anywhere near as quickly. Also, we have many readers and posters on this website who have chosen to convict and condemn this woman before knowing all the facts. Shameful.

Morty - I also understand where you re coming from. My grandmother used to say the same thing (she passed away last year). She had given up her car about a year and a half before she passed away because she had been having health issues and didn't feel fit to drive. About a year later she was feeling a lot better and really wanted to get a new car. No one in the family would take her car shopping. She was in her mid 80's and to be honest she probably should have stopped driving in her 70's. Her reaction time was slow, her sight wasn't great, she was an accident waiting to happen.

I realize giving up a car and a license means a loss of freedom but that is better than an accident and a loss of life. There are alternatives as other people mentioned including family, taxis and other servces that will provide rides.

To those who mentioned accidents by teenagers or younger people in their twenties drinking and driving - I agree it is a problem that should be addressed as well. But, it's a separate issue and doesn't negate the fact that people's reaction times slow as they age and eye sight worsens. Standards should be put in place that routinely test people as they age, hopefully it would help to avoid accidents like this.

The quickest and easiest first step is not to allow anyone over 65 to renew their driver's license online. If they can't get to the registry to stand in line and take a vision test, they shouldn't be driving. The fear of failure might make a few people think twice.

I am over 65 myself and woulkd gladly take a road test as part of my renewal.

Let's just test everyone, every two years. Problem solved, no age discrimination needed.

OK, there are several comments here lambasting the RMV for taking away the license of a woman with a "clean driving record". I'm sorry, but once you hit a man IN A CROSSWALK and put him into critical condition, your record isn't "clean" any longer!! I agree with Nathanael - just test everyone every two years and be done with it. And stop comparing kids with the elderly - they BOTH cause problems, and there are numerous rules for kids that are intended to make them safer drivers. There are currently NO rules related specifically to older drivers.

It is unfair to target the elderly based on a few accidents. I wonder what the overall percentage of accidents are for each age group? How many elderly accidents are a result of impairment and not for some other reason? How many accidents to younger people have because they drive like fools, should we take their license? Will the kid in Bourne lose his? Just because the media sensationalizes accidents involving the elderly does not make it a problem until we see the data and remember, it is NO small thing to take away someone's ability to be independent and should not be done just because they drive slower than you like. When it's you, you'll feel differently and if you don't die young - you will be in their shoes.

II just read a study showing accident rates by age....the graph starts out high for teenagers and then drops. Accidents are fewest for drivers 30 to 60...and then the graph starts going up again to levels as high as teenagers.
Let's face it: your physical and mental faculties can deteriorate with age, so drivers should be tested at, say, 60 and up. Towns probably need more elderly shuttle buses for those who are unsafe behind the wheel.
BTW, I'm 60.

Joe Russo, better to play it safe and take her license now before she hits someone else.

There is much chatter here about a double standard between teens and the elderly. True, stats bear out similar accident rates but let's not forget to dig deeper to the reasons behind the accidents. Too many teen drivers are in accents do to judgment issues and lack of experience and maturity. The elderly are more frequently in accidents due to lack of driving fitness. Teens and young adults are trending towards better drivers while the elderly are trending towards less safe drivers. Teens and young adults might need remedial instruction and time for maturity but most will get there. You cant train or wait for youth to return to the elderly. There is much more at stake than their independence. No child's life is worth their driving privileges.

Here we go again. I said this before but I will say it again. Testing older drivers is to see if they are physically able to drive. This is not the case with younger drivers. They know what they are doing and would pass a test when they had to take it. It is the older driver who is physically imparred that the test is for. It is to see if they are ABLE to drive safely. Can they still see, can they react in time. Can they remember who they are and what they should be doing. Just because you need to get somewhere doesn't give you the right to kill someone on the way there.

In addition to "death and taxes" we may now add greater scrutiny of senior drivers in the future as a certainty. Nationwide. For those who want to pass the road test, there's a free video ROCK KENDALL'S ROAD TEST TIPS linked to YOUTUBE at www.dmv-law.com
While this video is aimed at Californians, much of it probably applies elsewhere. Stop driving? Yes. But do it on your own terms.

Their idea to start testing at age 85 is just to shut the public up.I just read depending on the blogger this comment may not be added here .This is a great example how they are terrified of the truth.

Those blasting teen drivers are missing one crucial element. It's not just that they're young that they are poor drivers, its the inexperience behind the wheel. If the driving age were to be raised to 18, 21, whatever, the first age group after eligible age would be a high risk group.

I would suggest nearly 10% of all drivers are unqualified, regardless of their age!

Main Street is narrow, and people walk out in front of cars all the time. Seriously, even if you're in a crosswalk, you should take a moment to make sure oncoming cars can see you before you stroll on out!

Just the day after this accident, the driver of the bus I was on had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a woman who walked out from between parked cars and into the street -- she didn't even glance up at traffic. I think this was just a horrible accident.

portiaperu in case you didn't notice, the aging process starts a birth. Regarding some of the other comments, you can't arbitrairly take someone's license to operate when they haven't even been cited for doing something wrong. We have a thing in this country called due-process and this woman has a strong case against the RMV and State for agism (age discrimination). That being said, i agree that there does need to be increased testing, and not at age 85. I think EVERYONE should be tested, road tested that is, EVERY 2-3 YEARS. Not only will this increase the safety of all concerned, it will create jobs, boost the economy and keeps taxes from being raised due to the fees that will surely be charged. Another idea is to require periodic refresher driver's education courses for everyone each five years after they receive their initial license. Again, stimulate the economy and create jobs.