CANBERRA (Reuters) - An elderly man who went out to fetch a morning newspaper ended up driving nearly 400 miles after getting lost and taking a wrong turn onto a major Australian highway, police said on Wednesday. The man, 81-year-old Eric Steward, eventually stopped and asked for directions after driving for nine hours, from the New South Wales country town of Yass to Geelong in the southern Victoria state. Steward, who did not know where he was, eventually approached a policeman at a petrol station and asked for help late Wednesday. "This little old man came up to me saying he was lost. He handed me his mobile and asked if I could speak to his wife," said Victorian Police Senior Constable Clayton Smith. Steward, who was reunited with his family on Wednesday, said he took the wrong turn and just kept on going. "I just went out on the road to have a drive, a nice peaceful drive," he told reporters, adding he did not need a satellite navigation device as he'd only been lost once. Source ---- Because everyone would know if the driver was a women, she would been in a car accident in 9 mins ^^ and that would be the title instead
EXCUSE YOU? I don't think so. A woman would have been smart enough to get help before she got lost 9 hours into the drive. OKAYYYYYYY
^ i have to agree with buglar, only a man with dementia can get lost for nine hours and not run someone over in the confusion, he must have had a full tank though.
i agree, i been in a car with an elderly driver and i was very scared, especially when the windows are foggy. im close to saying "ill get out and walk"
lol i remember when i was in a cab and an old man was driving and he was driving too recklessly and i smelt alcohol form his breath.. luckily i arrived home safe
[1] Age has nothing to do with it; it should be performance based. The idea of driving tests is to demonstrate that you can operate a vehicle safely. Instead of automatic renewal, EVERYONE should be made to demonstrate that they can safely operate a vehicle every few years (say every ten years). That way, any driver that lacks competence will be weeded out. [2] Again, age has nothing to do with this; I've seen young drivers that I could say that about, and that's even when the sun is shining. Younger people tend to drive recklessly, especially with speeds in excess of road conditions. [3] Drunk or intoxicated driving is not age related. Older people may drink and drive, while younger people drink, AND take drugs, and drive. [4] Nah, that's just being a man. We never ask for directions... :laugh: Most older people are safer on the roads in regards to texting, phoning, and driving; they tend to focus solely on the driving and not allow distractions...
TRUE, my grandpa (70+) drove me to places many times, tho he drove slowly (compared to my unlce & aunt), i actually felt safer tbh, no crashes gurantee, i def have experienced the danger of teen driving...that was remarkable, i rather trust grannys & gpas
Maybe the elderly shows they can drive safely however the elderly has the reputation of forgetting or memory loss because... (I don't know the scientific proof, but it happens) i did not mean it that they shouldn't drive in the context of them being dangerous, it's in the context of their memory. Yes, not all old people suffers from the memory loss but it's jsut the stereotypes that I have towards them. The old man in this thread is luck that he had found his home somehow but not everyone is as fortunate... Also I would add that yes young drivers are more reckless and less careful when they drive. However the way you said it that every young driver has experienced driving intoxicated or going through the distraction with our mobile phones, but not every driver has.
Personally, I wish that the government does more in terms of driving tests. Most driving road tests today take place in some obscure remote isolated low traffic area where even a cold corpse could easily pass the requirements. My version of a driving test would be two fold; part A would be the usual brain dead ten minute test course like we have now, then part B taken at least six months later would be a drive onto and off a high speed highway, and across several blocks of dense city traffic with multiple left hand turns. Of course Part B would probably eliminate about half of all first time drivers and many marginally experienced drivers (remember my other idea of every ten years mandatory testing). Your part A permit would then expire after a year so that you cannot be on the road at all until you pass part B. Further each part B exam would subsequently cost more each time to pass. That is, if you don't pass it the first time, then the cost of the exam will double with no limitations. That way, if you keep failing, then at some point you will realize that it would be too costly to even apply for a license anymore, so that you're never issued one, and never be allowed to drive. Eventually just about all lousy drivers will be weeded out by such a system. Further, my personal belief is that a second drunk driving offense should serve mandatory jail time, with mandatory incremental sentencing for subsequent offenses. That is each subsequent sentence is doubled from the one previous. If drinking and driving is so important to you that you're willing to go to jail for it, then you should. That way, you won't be on the road to hurt anyone. BTW, you can have memory loss without being too old, and Asians have a reputation for being lousy drivers to begin with, LOL... Stereotypes aside, the best way to judge is to be objective, with defined parameters, such as a road test.
poor old man shouldn't be on the road at all. he could be danger to himself and others. get the newspapers deliveried. and we all safer.
I do genuinely like your idea of the 2 part objective driving test, BUT, what about the people who has not got the money to pay for driving tests? As it is already, in UK it costs like £31 per theroy tests that you book, and about £62 per practical test that you take. So by increasing the amount each time wouldn't that be unfair. Some people do just have bad luck with their tests, like I did on my first one where I did not notice or even know that the bike box even existed at that part of the traffic light spot, hence i failed. Also every instructor differs on whether they would take you through densed traffic areas or not and whether they are willing to take you down the highway. OI admit I was taken down to use a highway, maybe not as densed but pretty densed with cars, quite a lot of time, but that was coz my home is based right next to the highway. I also remember my 2nd driving test that i passed on, i was taken to a heavily trafficed places which for some reason i passed on that than the first one where there's not a lot of cars about =/, i guess its more chance of making errors when you think that there's not a lot of cars about so you let your guard down a bit.
