By Kyle Jorrey
Opinions Editor
Last Wednesday at 3 p.m. tragedy struck an elementary school in Eagle Rock, just south of the city of Glendale. Fifteen children and three adults were injured, and four of them of the injuries were life threatening.
At first glance the above description would lead one to believe that another senseless school shooting had occurred, but these students and teachers were not hurt by guns, knives or bombs, and the culprit was not an angry classmate.
This tragedy was the result of a senior citizen, reportedly in her 60s, behind the wheel of her car on the way to pick up her granddaughter from school.
Kae Hak In had no criminal intent (she admitted she had hit the gas pedal instead of brake) when she left 18 people injured that day, many of whom were dragged underneath the car. She will not be charged in the case. And while this may be a fair legal decision, the incident brings up a larger problem that the federal government is long overdue in doing something about.
And that is the issue of senior citizens and driving.
We’ve all made jokes about the “granny” driving 45 down the interstate, or poked fun at “grandpa” putting on his turn signal a half a mile before he plans to turn. But this tragedy shows us that this issue is more than a butt of jokes. Facts shows that senior citizen drivers put the rest of society at risk, not just for being late to work, but for accidents.
In 1999, people 65 years and older made up 16 percent of the driving population and were involved in 14 percent of fatal motor crashes. Also, people over the age of 80 have more motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 people than any other age group, except people younger than 25.
Per mile driven, drivers 75 and older have higher rates of fatal motor vehicle crashes than in any other age group except teenagers, and per licensed drivers, statistics shows that fatal crash rates rise sharply at age 70 and older.
Most of these crashes occur at intersections, where drivers know it is the most crucial time to stay alert and be aware of one’s surrounding. In fact, half of fatal crashes involving drivers 80 years and older occur at intersections and involve more than one vehicle, compared to less than 30 percent among the rest of the driving population.
The facts alone tell us that something must be done, not just by individual states, but by the federal government. Right now these decisions are left up to the states.
Here in California the government has taken only minor steps to help the problem, requiring that once drivers get past the age of 70 they must arrive in-person to renew their licenses, but this is not enough.
There is as of yet no policy of accelerated renewal, meaning that senior citizens, just like the rest of the population, must renew their licenses every five years. In fact, only 12 out of 50 states have instituted accelerated renewal.
For all of us who are lucky enough to still have grandparents, we know that at that age, the difference between 70 and 75, or 80 and 85, can be a huge leap. When I knew my grandmother at 79, she was a fully functional woman, quick-witted and responsible. However, by the time she hit 83, a stroke and the onset of Alzheimer’s left her unable to recognize the faces of her own grandchildren.
The sad truth of aging is that when people start to lose hold of their five senses there’s no telling how quickly they will go, and yet right now there’s no way of the Department of Motor Vehicles to find out.
Unless the elderly go in themselves — and many senior citizens are too stubborn to admit their hearing or vision may make them a risk on the road — there’s no way of knowing if they should be allowed behind the wheel.
We need a government standard for reviewing a person’s fitness to drive, and shortened renewal cycles. People over the age of 65 should have to come in once a year, or at least every two years, to ensure that they are equipped to deal with the wide array of dangers and awkward situations that they are faced with on the road.
The review doesn’t take longer than a couple hours, but could be the difference between living and dying, both for the senior citizens and for the person in the other vehicle.
These tests don’t necessarily mean that senior citizens are stripped of their rights to drive, but maybe a few simple provisions need to be implemented, such as prohibiting nighttime driving, requiring additional mirrors for added vision, or limiting driving radius.
I don’t know if these changes would have prevented last Wednesday’s tragic crash, but I know they wouldn’t hurt.
It’s time for the federal government and the rest of society to recognize that just as some people are too young to drive, the same goes for those that are too old, and that’s no laughing matter.
February 07, 2002