I agree. It seems that this lady was just beyond the age she should have been to drive, she is still at fault no matter what her age and she did take someones life. There are many people that are elderly who have done this same thing, did this not happen in California where a man ran into several people at a farmers market, he got charged. Age should not be a matter in this case. This is why at a certain age individuals should be given a driving test every 6 months at the least.

They very well may have revoked her license. It just states charges weren't filed. Given that she will have to live with this the rest of her life, they may have decided in THIS case, based on her driving history and circumstances, injuries, cost of prosecuting and benefits of locking up an eighty year old in prison.

It is disconcerting once more however, to see another case of an elderly person hitting the gas pedal instead of the brake so soon in the news once more. This time with a fatality. I realize with over 300 million people in this nation we are bound to see some. It is sad to see someone lose their life however.

i cannot believe there arent gonna be any charges filed. i bet if they looked into it, her doctors recommended years ago that she shouldnt be driving. unreal. at what age do we just let people get away with everything?

Most old people drive until they die, accidents and killing other people is just a by product that is to be expected and doesn't affect them as long as it doesn't interfere with their freedom to drive. And in this case it doesn't appear to be illegal.

If sex offenders have to be registered you would think a senior citizen that kills people with their car should at least have to have a red dagger or something similar indicating their history painted on their car so people can look out for them and run.

License revoked is not enough--the car should be impounded so that she gets the message that she is not to be driving. Just take away the license, and she can still stick the key in the ignition as if she'd simply left her wallet on her dresser.

Hey, folks, I think you're not reading the article right. The woman who died is the one who buried her husband a week ago, not the driver. The driver should not be able to drive ever again. Her license should be pulled and car keys(for what's left of the car) should be permanently withheld from her. It hardly seems fair that the person who caused all the heartache is not going to face justice. Maybe she SHOULD be told that the lady in the restaurant has died.

Jean, I think YOU'RE not reading the replies right. Nothing in the comments above implied it was the driver's husband who died. I agree she should have her license revoked and her car impounded, if these things have not already happened.

"The woman's car hit a pole and a minivan, then jumped the embankment and slammed into the restaurant, trapping three people under the car, police said."

... that's more than a matter of simply hitting the gas instead of the brake. Not pressing charges?? Seriously???!!!

This is a regular occurrence in my home state of Florida. It is not tolerable. I have prevented more accidents by maintaining a constant vigilance of elderly drivers than I can count. The heartbreaking fatalities caused by these drivers are far too numerous.

A few suggestions; In situations where there is more than minimal damage, personal harm or fatalities (due to disabilities caused by advanced age), the driver should face charges of reckless driving at the minimum.

Conviction should entail permanent revocation of driver's license, automobile tag and registration. The driver should be demanded to pay a fine, all court related costs and full restitution for resulting damages. That threat alone would keep many of them off our highways and roads.

I would propose that every driver over 65 face medical reviews at least once a year. An independent doctor must certify their physical and mental ability to properly control a motor vehicle. The doctors should be trained specifically for this purpose. Insurance companies can offer this service for those able to pay and a sliding scale of payment could be provided for those unable to pay by charitable organizations.

I am just 3 years away from 65. Nobody wants to take Grandpa's license. Mobility and independence is very important to him. Many families neglect this responsibility until tragedy strikes. My heart goes out to the victim's and the driver's families. It's time for the state to step up to the plate to prevent these useless deaths.

To all of you who are ragging on this woman for making a mistake: Can you, HONESTLY, say that you have never made a mistake while driving? I didn't think so. Maybe your error(s) had little to no repercussions or, possibly, you caused an accident. Errors can be made at ANY age. Whether the cause was inattention, distraction [read: texting or talking on the cell] or merely thinking about your route for your next errand.

I have made mistakes while driving, just as ALL of you have. Unless you personally know this woman, you are in no way in a position to condemn her.

There is a reason for them being called ACCIDENTS.

Whats with the so many old geezers "hitting the gas pedal instead of the breaks", running over people lately?

Whats even troubling is statements like "the car ran over an embarkment, hit a pole and still kept going running over people"...seems like some of these oldies are on suicide a mission.....

Isnt there a rule that if grandma starts to wear her underware on top of her pants its a good time to take the car keys and driver license?

Even my dog gets scared riding with grandpa...says alot

If they are not willing to take elderly drivers licenses away, they should limit the size and horse power of the vehicles they drive. It just makes sense, the same should be applied to young and new drivers.

I agree, standards to keep a drivers license should be raised after you retire (at what ever age), but are all you people sick?

It seems like every one of you want this woman in jail. "burn her... burn her...she's an evil witch.."

Ever hear of an accident?, OH, that's right, we don't have those any more thanks to Lawyers and Idiots.

YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME.

It is not "just geezers." People make mistakes all the time. I know that I do. The driver is an elderly woman who might not take the news that she killed someone very well. The police of Anna, Texas, know her better than anyone posting here. I believe they are doing what they believe is the best course of action.

Cheetah, you know nothing. My husband died at age 37, I'm now 41 and I would give anything for it to have been me instead. Life isn't worth living and we weren't married anywhere near 64 years. If I didn't have little kids I would be dead now and finally out of pain.

@ F Walsh:

Try working on your reading comprehension.

Cheetah was quoting the dead woman's neighbor.

The driver should have charges filed. If she was 30, not 80, and did this it would be vehicular manslaughter or similar. I understand that this wan't intentional, but when is this ever intentional? If someone, regardless of age, accepts responsibility by driving they inherently accept consequences. If it makes sense to throw the book at a 16year old for something similar, why not an 80 year old? They both have disregard for their limitations - one is inexperienced, one has lost reflexes - but both ignore their limitations.

When my mother reach the age of 82 my brother and I refused to let her renew her drivers license. That did not go over very well with her but we were not going to let an incident like this happen with our mother. At the same time we both made a commitment to her that we would drive her anywhere she wanted to go pretty much any time she wanted to go there. We kept that promise and though it might have been inconvenient for my brother and me to drive her around when she wanted the ride, we never had to worry about getting the phone call that she had hit the gas instead of the brake and had run down a bunch of school children. (As had happened to an elderly man in our community.)

There really isn't a criminal case here, but there will certainly be civil liability and a review of her driving record. If she is so fragile that she hasn't been told of the fatality, she probably won't be driving again anyway. Of course, such accidents have happened to people who are younger and in full possession of their faculties so it could simply have been a tragic accident. That's what an investigation is for, not for all of us saying, "I'll bet that ...)

I am afraid that trying to set an age when an elderly person can no longer safely drive would be very discriminatory to the vast majority percentage of such drivers who do drive safely. The problem is that levels of dementia and senility progress very differently in different people. It is entirely possible for early-onset dementia to make driving an unsafe task by the time some people are in their mid-60s, and other luckier/healthier older people can still safely drive into their late 80s and in rare cases beyond. Mind you that taking a senior's driver's license away is the same thing as severely restricting their ability to live on their own too.

Older people do lose reaction time as they age, often vision issues become manifest too, and perhaps motor skill management issues can hinder safe driving too. One way that I can see to greatly reduce these incidents where an older person hits the gas rather than the brake would be the installation of a somewhat greater distance between the gas and brake pedals, which could easily be made available by the auto aftermarket as a retrofit. Older people need to realize that the demands of high-speed driving and heavy traffic will increasingly become beyond their declining abilities, and to drive accordingly.

I still feel that using local streets that an older person is familiar with can be driven safely-enough by seniors that still have the necessary mental and physical acuity well into late adulthood, and the idea that older drivers need to be discriminated against as their abilities decline is not only unfair, but also not based on sound science either. Certainly older people will have accidents, just as younger people also will, but we are a human society, one with human problems too, and we are also a society where everyone is an individual, with individual needs and individual rights too. I am worried that some of us would strip older Americans of their rights on a blanket basis as a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate single incident rather than to allow older Americans the same individual rights that we all enjoy.

We need license renewal testing for anyone who may be losing their sight/reflexes/mental acuity due to age, medical conditions, and/or medications.

Most States do test older drivers for declining vision anyway, and many States also mandate more-frequent testing of older drivers too. Perhaps a reaction time test could be devised and some safe standard established too. Some States also have graduated driver licenses where some drivers can't drive on freeways too.

As for medications, is it safe for anyone to drive home from the dentist when their mouth is full of Novocaine? How about under the influence of over-the-counter pain medications? Where do we draw the line? Aspirin is OK but Vicodin is not? What about 222's in Canada, which are essentially a #1-size Tylenol with codeine sold without a prescription there? Where do you draw the line Todd?

What, your State doesn't retest the vision of older drivers at the time of license renewal? Your State would be in the minority of States if that is true.

hdrider-1765193

To all of you who are ragging on this woman for making a mistake: Can you, HONESTLY, say that you have never made a mistake while driving? I didn't think so. Maybe your error(s) had little to no repercussions or, possibly, you caused an accident. Errors can be made at ANY age. Whether the cause was inattention, distraction [read: texting or talking on the cell] or merely thinking about your route for your next errand.

I have made mistakes while driving, just as ALL of you have. Unless you personally know this woman, you are in no way in a position to condemn her.

There is a reason for them being called ACCIDENTS.

Sure everyone have made mistakes like minor fender benders but doubt killing someone.

It takes alot of gas to hit a pole and a minivan before hitting a restauraunt before trapping people under the car and killing someone. In that case, that is called murder.

Most competent drivers would have stopped after hitting a pole and the minivan. Not drive through both and hitting a restaurant.

There is a big difference between minor fender benders and killing someone....... maybe you didn't get the memo?

There is a big difference between minor fender benders and killing someone....... maybe you didn't get the memo?

There is not a whole lot of difference, believe me. You can kill a pedestrian in a parking lot at 5 mph if they suddenly pop-out from behind a van without looking. You are also mistaken calling this event murder rather than manslaughter, as there is a level of culpability and intent involved too. It is entirely possible that the woman in question, once her car did not react the way that she was expecting, to have pushed harder on the gas pedal thinking that it was the brake pedal. I would have to see the distance involved, but most likely the distance involved was under 50 feet, and it would easily have been possible to hit the minivan, the pole, and run into the store within just 15-20 feet too, depending on the locations of each.

Perhaps some of the fault lies in a building design standard which allows cars to park nose-in in front of buildings too, which is a rather common design in America, but one which also carries with it a much-greater chance of this kind of event occurring too. Perhaps if the owners and or lessors of such buildings want to increase the level of safety involved, they should install protective concrete or steel posts, or even concrete planters, so that out-of-control vehicles do not jump the sidewalk and end-up inside their businesses too?

To all of you who are ragging on this woman for making a mistake: Can you, HONESTLY, say that you have never made a mistake while driving?

hdrider - did you miss the part about

The woman's car hit a pole and a minivan, then jumped the embankment and slammed into the restaurant, trapping three people under the car, police said.

How does one mistakenly hit a pole, another vehicle, hop a 7-8 inch curb, drive through the wall of a building and park it on top of three people? I'm willing to bet the only reason she stopped then was becauwse she COULDN'T drive it any farther.

There is a reason for them being called ACCIDENTS.

Accidents are not the result of a single action but the result of a series of events that, if any single action were avoided, the "accident" wouldn't have happened. I suppose that you think drunks driving over people are acceptable also since those were also "accidents".

Anna police do not expect to file any charges against the 80-year-old driver who crashed into the restaurant.

Who wanrts to be tthat if this had been a teen-ager that had done the same thing that there would be vehicular manslaughter charges already filed.

As of late Friday night, investigators said they haven't even told her about the death because they didn't think she could handle it.

She is mentally healthy enough to drive a car but she is not mentally healthy enough to tell she drove over three people? Hey Anna police, where is that magic dividing line?

How does one mistakenly hit a pole, another vehicle, hop a 7-8 inch curb, drive through the wall of a building and park it on top of three people? I'm willing to bet the only reason she stopped then was becauwse she COULDN'T drive it any farther

Believe me, you can do all of that and more in two seconds flat from a standing start if the locations of all of the above are within a certain distance.

I have over 4 million miles of driving experience and I am well-qualified to make such statements too!

Sometimes, the family must step in and intervene, not only to protect others, but to protect their elderly loved one too. Chronological age isn't always the benchmark though. Some people can start to deteriorate earlier than 65 and become hazardous behind the wheel. About 10 years ago, I had to take my mom's keys from her. Mother was (and still is) stubborn, independent, and in denial of her disability (MS). But when she had an accident with my daughter in the car, I put my foot down and she finally stopped fighting everyone. It took the state 7 months later to revoke her license permanantly. Mom was only 56 at the time. My grandmother is 86. She took a drivers test recently and passed. Even though she passed, we still limit and monitor her driving activities. She can drive herself to the senior center, to her hairdresser, and her church functions. If she has to go anywhere over 10 miles away, we drive her, because she could potentially fall asleep while driving. When our parents get old, we have to accept some of the responsibility in taking care of them. That includes becoming a chauffer. Not everything can be prevented, but we can try to reduce the quantity in which these events happen. We are not discriminating against our eldelry family members at all. We love them and want them to get to their destination without incident.

Vehicular homicide is legal after the age of 79.

Families and neighbors need to confront their loved ones about driving. I was a caregiver for someone who was blacking out while driving at the age of 83. I spoke with relatives, then I asked the eye doctor not to fill out the form giving permission for a new license. It worked, and I drove my friend wherever he wished to go.

hdrider, I do not call them accidents. I call them collisions.

She should definitely be charged. To not charge her, simply because she is old, is ridiculous. To not tell her she killed somebody by driving recklessly, simply because they are afraid she couldn't handle it, is ridiculous.

To have caused so much damage indicates panic and inability to control the vehicle. If I were a member of the victim's family I would demand that charges of vehicular homicide be brought against that 80 year old menace.

@ DumbFarmBoy

"I agree, standards to keep a drivers license should be raised after you retire (at what ever age),"

I retired at 48, does that mean I need a special permit to drive? Go Fu(k Your self.

If the police, who were at the scene, did not charge her, there must have been circumstances that were not included in this article. Don't any of you wish to offer condolences to the woman whose parents died a week apart? I do. May you have peace and comfort. My parents, who were married 56 years, died 13 days apart. It gets less painful. Blessings and LOVE.

The bulk of auto accidents are caused by two age groups, the young and the elderly. But the larger amount of auto accidents and especially those that result in deaths occur most from drivers who are between the ages of 15 - 24. So maybe driver's licenses shouldn't be issued to people until they are 25 and then people can no longer receive a license after the age of 75.

"Ever hear of an accident?"

No such thing... there are mechanical failures, mental failures of all types, there are people who tailgate and cause a chain reaction collision, and people who pull out without checking to see if they are clear to do so - but there really is no such thing as an "accident".

"Accident" implies that it was an "act of God" and let's just say that's hogwash... there's always a cause - and the cause of this was an old lady who probably should not have been driving. She was somehow able to ram a pole, a minivan, a curb and THEN proceed to smash the people in the pizza parlor. Accident... yeah right!

First and foremost, this case is a case where an accident resulted in three deaths; absolutely no way did the elderly driver intend to kill anyone. That accident most likely resulted from some combination of diminished reflexes, memory, and cognitive skills. The driver certainly did not have the reflexes to adjust once the car started to escape her control. Her memory and cognitive skills may be at a level where she has problems distinguishing drive from reverse. The key point, which makes a difference when you talk criminal charges, is that there were no intentionally reckless actions of any kind by the driver which resulted in death.

This case meets the criteria for reckless endangerment but fails to meet any criteria beyond that, even reckless driving. You have diminished capacity which could be to the point where the driver did not even realize she was a danger to anyone once she got behind the wheel; she's undertaking a dangerous action without really understanding what she's doing. Reckless driving is a totally different set of criteria. Reckless driving requires the act be intentional, stupid, one where a reasonable person can conclude that death or injury will result, and one where the person is sound enough to know better but chooses to do it anyway. Charges ranging from manslaughter to murder are absurd. Murder requires a clear intent to kill, which is absent here. Manslaughter requires an act that is dangerous in nature, the act be done with blind intent, and the act be one where a reasonable person can foresee someone ending up dead as a result, all of which are absent here; blind intent encompasses things such as spring guns in doorways or deadfalls in trees to deter intruders or trespassers, and there's nothing of comparable nature in this case.

My own belief is that elderly drivers are more of a risk on the roads than teenage drivers; the reasons are slower reflexes and not recognizing road conditions. Faster flow of traffic combined with slower reflexes equals less time to respond to road conditions; fractions of a second really do matter. When I say not recognizing road conditions, I refer to elderly drivers who are on the highway and are 20 to 30 mph slower than the flow of traffic. If you are driving that much slower than the flow of traffic, that traffic will be on top of you very quickly. Those vehicles can't stop on a dime, and some of the people driving them do not care if they barrel-ass you into the woods. For the elderly driver, it's worst-case scenario where they're driving too slow to get out of the way and their reflexes are unable to help them get out of the way.

How do you fix it? Mandatory vision and hearing tests every year for elderly drivers. Pass and it's on to the driving simulator, fail and it's cancelled license. Pass the driving simulator and it's on to closed-course test, fail the simulator and it's cancelled license. Pass the closed-course test and it's on to a live road test, fail the closed-course test and it's cancelled license. Pass the live test, keep license for another year; fail and it's cancelled license.

You do not have to intend to hurt someone to be charged with vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter. A person only has to be found grossly negligent or, alternatively, negligent while under the influence.

We take for granted that in most places in this country you have to drive to get anywhere. It should not be that way. We should not be so dependent on the private automobile and leave everyone without a car or without the ability to drive stranded. There should be adequate public transit so people without the ability to drive can have mobility. The development of total car dependence and peoples' blindness to the problem is a national shame. These elderly drivers drive because they know and have no other way to get around.

When my parents were still driving, they both were given driving tests. My mother passed with no problem, and had no problem finding her way home, but she couldn't remember what she or others had just said for five minutes. My father also passed, but he couldn't remember his way home from a store 5 blocks from home that he had visited for 50 years. My father (with more cognitive skills) was convinced that neither of them should drive. My mother kept forgetting that she wasn't supposed to drive; it was necessary to hide the keys.

Elderly people should move close to younger family members if they have either cognitive or mobility issues, before they are too frail to be moved and then are isolated from family.

My mom was one of those old ladies who still went to the beauty salon when she was 80yo...why?

If we are going to keep people alive well into their 80's, we need to have more social services for them so they are not still driving at that age. I have to walk 3 blocks to catch a bus, you say "what's wrong with that?" You try and carry stuff for 3 blocks in 105 degree heat.

@ S&W 45 #1.34

"I agree, standards to keep a drivers license should be raised after you retire (at what ever age),"

I retired at 48, does that mean I need a special permit to drive? Go Fu(k Your self.

Well aren't we just a belligerent A##HOLE!!

My intent was for those who retire after 55 or 60 up to 70, you are an outlier. (Most people do not retire before 55). Also, once most people retire, they tend to drive less, thus getting less "practice" so to speak.

Nor did you ask me to clarify what or how I would change those standards. I would suggest that those who are over 65, be required to seek renewal every 2 years instead of 4, or perhaps even annually at 80. Or implement requirements similar to CDL or pilot licenses, a Medical, and a Bi-annual check ride. (no new license, just a check ride with a DMV officer, which should be free) That way, if you can show you can still drive safely, then you can drive...safely.

Actually, I would suggest this for all people. Most of you urban born idiots have no idea of how to drive, with any courtesy, awareness or discipline. Nor do most of you know how to handle unusual or emergency events. Many times, the last thing you should do is slam on the brakes. and in a few instances, the best thing to do is slam on the gas. And if the animal is small enough to go under the car...you drive over it! Don't swerve or brake to miss a cat or dog, and endanger my life with your idiocy.

My biggest pet peeves are those people who try to merge with high speed traffic at 15mph below the prevailing traffic, remember the people behind you need to get up to speed too, and it is difficult trying not to re-end the idiot in front of you while still trying to get into the lane at the same time. (IT is called the ACCELERATION lane for a reason)

And people who drive next to a Semi, for what seems like miles. (every seen what happens when a semi tire explodes or comes unraveled?) Don't drive next to Semis, if the cruise is on, just step on the gas a little and get passed them, let off the gas and the cruise will pick up where you left off) Also, it annoys the hell out of truck drivers.

"As of late Friday night, investigators said they haven't even told her about the death because they didn't think she could handle it."

She probably couldn't handle being told she couldn't drive anymore either. That's too bad, because she killed someone because she couldn't handle the inconvenience of responsibility.

@chouse #1.37

before I go any further, my deepest sympathies go out to all involved in this incident.

"Ever hear of an accident?"

No such thing... there are mechanical failures, mental failures of all types, there are people who tailgate and cause a chain reaction collision, and people who pull out without checking to see if they are clear to do so - but there really is no such thing as an "accident".

"Accident" implies that it was an "act of God" and let's just say that's hogwash... there's always a cause - and the cause of this was an old lady who probably should not have been driving. She was somehow able to ram a pole, a minivan, a curb and THEN proceed to smash the people in the pizza parlor. Accident... yeah right!

1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>

2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation

3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

NOPE, I don't see it. but somewhere in here it says or implies "Act of God". All I see is unforeseen, unintended, unplanned, unfortunate, carelessness, ignorance and unexpected. All of which are human frailties.

But to prove negligence, one would have to prove that by the simple fact of her getting into a car could reasonably lead to someone's death.(an over simplification of liability laws) Not sure about you people, but I am not sure this qualifies. She obviously drove to where ever she was without incidence. Of course this does not mean there should be no civil litigation. But from what was reported, I can see(at least in my opinion) no criminal negligence. You should know that I manufacture construction equipment, and am aware of the liability of such.

But you are correct, there is always a cause, but that does not equate with fault. Example: A tailgater hits a car. The cause; the car in front slammed on the brakes to for no apparent reason. The Fault: the second car for following too close. or perhaps, The front car for performing an illegal stop on a highway.
You see fault isn't always so clear cut. In your example, your are incorrect, the tailgater is not the CAUSE of the 'collision'. For if tailgating (or speeding for that matter) CAUSED wrecks, there would be no auto racing, because once a car got so close to another, there would be a collision. As a side note, maybe you should watch Day of Thunder, they had a couple good driving tips in it, Like drive to where a car is (if it is moving sideways to you, say if someone turned in front of you), and it should be out of your way when you get there

so let's just say your argument is hogwash.

My guess is, she got in the car, stepped on what she thought was the brake, and instead was the gas. She was surprised by the unexpected acceleration, panicked and froze, with foot on the gas and was overwhelmed the following events. (Thinking her foot was on the brake, she kept pressing harder to get the car to stop, not realizing her mistake in the heat of the moment) And therefore was an unplanned or unintentional event.

So I reiterate, thanks to Lawyers and Idiots.

"your are incorrect, the tailgater is not the CAUSE of the 'collision'"

Wrong... they were tailgating - which is illegal in every state. If somebody hits the brakes to avoid running over some geese and they get rear ended, the person who rear ended them is at fault, 100% of the time... in every state.

Nice try... but sorry - every "accident" comes down to a machine or a person screwed up... which is why it is a BS word to use in a case like this. An old lady (who possibly should not have been driving anymore) may have put the car in the wrong gear, but she certainly stomped on the gas not the brake... that is a *bleep* - not an "accident".

Because of her *bleep*, somebody is dead and others are injured.

@chouse

"your are incorrect, the tailgater is not the CAUSE of the 'collision'"

Wrong... they were tailgating - which is illegal in every state. If somebody hits the brakes to avoid running over some geese and they get rear ended, the person who rear ended them is at fault, 100% of the time... in every state.

Nice try... but sorry - every "accident" comes down to a machine or a person screwed up... which is why it is a BS word to use in a case like this. An old lady (who possibly should not have been driving anymore) may have put the car in the wrong gear, but she certainly stomped on the gas not the brake... that is a *bleep* - not an "accident".

Because of her *bleep*, somebody is dead and others are injured.

I am sorry, but I cannot discuss things with people who do not or will not understand the English language. You are either incredibly STUPID or you suffer some form of learning disability.

But you are correct, there is always a cause, but that does not equate with fault.

CAUSE and FAULT ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. True, the Tailgater is at FAULT, (unless it can be shown that the braking car did so illegally) and tailgating is illegal. HOWEVER, the CAUSE is the one who changed the circumstance, the EFFECT, the tailgater collided with them. WERE you not paying attention? as this is basically what I said.

And did you not read the part where I said, if the animal is small enough to go under the car, you drive over it? even if it is a cute little squirrel. I don't know how many people I have heard about being involved in these types of incidents, swerving to miss a cat or some stupid animal, not only endangering their own lives, but others as well. (even though yours was a hypothetical situation, the lesson is the same)

And again, in your stupidity, (I went and got the definition from Webster's, so you are no longer ignorant) you fail to understand the language being used here. (You are obviously using the NEW POLITICALLY CORRECTED version of the English language, and I don't speak PC)

An "accident" doesn't automatically diminish ones responsibilities or culpability, but neither does it automatically denote criminal activity. Further investigation, may very well show that this woman has a history of such events, and if this is the case then, yes she should be charged with negligent homicide.

But my point was and still is, thanks to lawyers and idiots we no longer have accidents. We are no longer forgiving of someone's human short comings. We no longer look at intent, just results. Trust me, I understand your argument. But it is becoming an awfully silly and backwards society that we live in.

But what the hell, let's throw the book at ol' granny, let's spend hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting a woman, who, in all honesty, will never forgive herself, and suffer far worse than probably any of the victim's family. Let's take up a prison cell for ol' granny, and let some drug using, low life thieving, and perhaps violent, criminal out to make room for ol' granny, cause ol' granny is a murderer and that trumps a drug packing mule, or thieving forger.

I still say you people disgust me.

"I am sorry, but I cannot discuss things with people who do not or will not understand the English language. You are either incredibly STUPID or you suffer some form of learning disability."

Says you after that psychopathic rant?

Clearly you haven't read the Terms of Service here, as you're flaming like nothing else - on top of not having a clue what you're talking about in any way, shape, or form.

You might want to open up a law book before you pull that sort of crap out of your butt like you have here. Wow...

Well said Jack/Jax..

Some people will romanticize anything. Nothing says "LOVE" like getting killed by an auto. Give it a break, she didn't die in her sleep from a broken heart... she was killed in a one horse town's pizza joint.

Platitude of the day: At least she died doing something she loved.

God works in mysterious ways

A friend of mines grandparents had been married about the same amount of time and they died within 3 days of each other. Each was just holding out for the other to pass on.

Savy Shopper

Perhaps you did not understand compassion with your statement

Nothing says "LOVE" like getting killed by an auto. Give it a break, she didn't die in her sleep from a broken heart... she was killed in a one horse town's pizza joint

My question to you, is who pi$$ed in your cornflakes today or do you pi$$ in them yourself. Guess you never heard the adage - "when it's your time to go...." It is truly sad you have a chip on your shoulder rather than compassion for your fellow human beings.

To quote Mad Dog in Kelly's Heroes, "what's with the negative waves..."? Hope you start seeing the positive signs of love, life & death soon.

Got to agree Savy. She was killed. Maybe she had plans for the remainder of her life. Maybe she had things to do.

Jack does that adage work for murder victims? When its your time, Gary Ridgeway will drag you into the woods? Or a reckless driver will smash through a window and kill you? Really?

My parents were married 62 years and they died within seven years of each other.

Jack, I applaud you for your heartfelt comments. Unlike the rest of these commenters, you show that you have heart and love for your fellow human beings. You are to congratulated. Thank you.

May God have mercy on the elderly driver, bring eternal peace to the victim, and conso;ation and blessings to her family/friends.

I guess that this goes with the conversation about "natural" going on in political debates. Some people want everybody to live a natural length of time, but seem to include as natural auto accidents, death from crimes, death from wars, death without medical insurance. (Sure, you will be treated in an ER for a heart attack, but not for ongoing cancer treatments, COPD treatments, etc.)

While we might transform something into a feel-good moment, it is wrong to have a negative reaction to those who do not think that a violent death equates to natural death. Of course the couple is reunited, but from a religious point of view, people are eternally together in spirit whether or not one is living and the other is dead, so why harm the survivor needlessly? Does our society expect women to fall on the funeral pyre of their husbands? Nobody would agree with that. Life that is emphasized as eternal, not death; God is the God of the living, the resurrection and the life.

Did you read the story? The grandson said very clearly that the death of his grandmother is only beginning to sink in. Shock does weird things to a person, especially when the event is as sudden and dreadful as this one does. Do not ascribe negatives to the son. Believe me, he will feel the loss,actually is beginning to now.

Besides the son and his mother were both injured also and were dealing with that.

The law must be applied equally, as you said. This is not a "natural" death but a violent one.

john-2120624

If you lucky you might make it to eighty...I hope you can walk real good after they take your license away for being to old to drive.

@Joe66. Old people should not be allowed to drive. Get a carer to help you, or walk.

I would like to see a law passed that drunk drivers go to jail for 5 years on their first offense.

Nice try on your argument, but teens can still drive. I mean you could try to put a curfew on them, like some states have when teens get their permit/first drivers license.

Those of you saying Elderly people shouldn't drive, I could make the argument that any person below 25 shouldn't drive. Why? Because I'm pretty sure more deadly vehicular accidents happen when someone below 25 is at the wheel than when an elderly person is.

Chowchig,

Young people still have a chance to improve their driving skills. The driving skills of the elderly peak and depreciate. There is no improvement there.

It has nothing to do with age - it has everything to do with WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN DRIVE SAFELY.

At any age,driving skills can be imprvoved by retraining and teaching safer operation within the drivers range of physical abilities.Your uninformed theory sure wouldn't apply to Mark Martin and Jackie Stewart if you're aware of them.Oh yes,the current age of the most successful commercial truck driver is 67,accident-free for over 50 years employment as a commercial driver.Lacking fact for baseless conclusions is often a real problem for youth and Fox news.

I comletely agree. We don't allow 14 year olds to drive. Why on earth should the elderly be allowed to drive past their ability to respond quickly?

When a teenager drives recklessly believing they'll never get in an accident, how is that really different from an 80 year old driving recklessly because they refuse to acknowledge they've lost the ability to handle their car? Both are reckless, both are irresponsible, and both cause accidents that would not have happened to a 30-50-60 year old driver. When its a teen, people say they were irresponsible and careless about the lives they effected etc and should be fully punished. If someone is 80 and driving, knowing they are not as quick to respond, them they too are irresponsible and careless of the other people they will impact.

At any age,driving skills can be imprvoved by retraining and teaching safer operation within the drivers range of physical abilities.

As one who teaches motor vehicle safety, I will argue that point. Skills can be improved to a point but that doesn't make the operator safer. There are such factors as vision, hearing, reaction times, etc that are directly related to age. To use your analogy, why do you think that race car sponsors no longer hire 40-50 y.o. drivers?

Lacking fact for baseless conclusions is often a real problem

I will agree with part of your assertion. But as you've demonstrated, it isn't limited to youth nor a particular biased media outlet.

@BYS2

Old people should not be allowed to drive? Old people are safer drivers than young people. That is a fact. My grandfather is 93 and still drives. He is a retired truck driver who is a safe driver because he knows his limitations. He chooses not to drive after dark, because of diminished vision that comes with age, and he does not drive long distances where fatigue might become a factor. He gives himself plenty of time to react by driving more cautiously than is required.

16-20 year olds cause far more collisions than 75+ year olds. More 75+ year olds die as a result because their bodies are more frail than a young person's.

http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/1007/2/83596.0001.001.pdf

The above graphs are a little outdated (1990) so they don't include the increase in crashes caused by drivers who text. Old drivers are the least likely to text and drive beacause they are the least likely to do any texting period.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1045_age_of_driver_and_number_in.html

The above statistics are 1996 and 1998 and still show that elderly drivers are safer drivers than young drivers.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1114.pdf

Finally, based on accident rates per number of drivers, the above graphs for 2009 establish the same facts. Older drivers are safer drivers. 25-54 year olds are twice as likely to be involved in an accident than a 75+ year old. 20-24 year olds are three times as likely to be involved in an accident and 16-18 year olds are five times as likely to be involved in an accident.

As for the article? The woman should definitely be charged with vehicular homicide and left unable to drive again. She couldn't take her foot off the accelerator? pfft...

Also, my grandmother voluntarily surrendered her license this year because she no longer has the ability to drive with due care.

People should have the right to be able to get around, but not drive. I was taught that driving is a privilege, not a right, way back when I first applied for my first driver's license.

How much does it cost to drive every month? Let's take that cost, and apply it to transportation services for the elderly. They need more doctor's appointments, and just like everybody else they to go to the grocery store and other stores sometimes. They might want to see a movie sometimes or go to other special events. Let's invent something large enough to take several people at once: a bus! But maybe a 21st century bus that is given pick-up and destination requests so that it doesn't run empty or too full, and actually goes where people need it to go. It might be so convenient that younger people take it too, and maybe a whole lot of fuel would be saved.

Asanine stuff like being killed by a reckless driver? Nice of you to troll.

You know the lawyers are already lining up. It is part of the American mantra - it's your fault I'm an idiot.

Of course they are going to sue. The family of the killer granny are also going to sue - because that just isn't like "our Nana." There has to be somebody to blame for her killing people while driving.

subdoc

Sad news to lose someone in this manner. Sue the car manufactuer, the gas station that sells her fuel, the beauty parlor and the restaurant for something! In today's society you can get rich sueing for asanine stuff like this.

So sue everyone but the driver eh? It's everyone's fault BUT the driver eh? Car manufacturers because the gas petal and the brakes are too close together? Gas station for giving the car gas? The beauty parlor for doing the driver's hair? And the restaurant for being in the way of the car when it plowed through?

Idiots like you are one of the reason why prices are so dam high. Stupid and useless lawsuits.

had enough: This is just a troll trying to rile you up. Nobody is going to sue the hairdresser or gas station, and they would only sue the car manufacturer if it is truly the fault of the car, not close pedals. Remember those cars that would suddenly accelerate for no reason a few years ago?

Completely agree, Nita. It is really that simple. Reflex testing and response time testing are fairly simple and should be implemented.

The dangerous past-time; is it pizza, or drive in parking?

I agree with this statement " Tell her about the death she caused. Maybe she'll have a heart attack and keal over thus saving the rest of civilization from her future trips out in the car."

POS.

I don't agree with the keeling over of the driver etc, but I do think if she felt she was capable of driving - she is capable of handling the consequences. Very simple.

I guess now all she has to do to find out about it is read the newspaper.....

While she is recovering, she'll see it on the news in the hospital. It would be much kinder if she was told directly and calmly, even if this involves charging her.

As to her keeling over, while that is cruel, it is more "natural" than expecting a woman to die on a pyre after her husband's funeral just so she can be "reunited." I wouldn't want her to "keel over," but this entire argument belongs in the story "The Loved One" by Evelyn Waugh.

There was no mercy for the dead women trapped between the car and a wall.

RockDoctor

I can't believe that you people "not believing charges are not being filed" have never heard of the word MERCY!

I can't believe that you think that "filing charges" and "mercy" are mutually exclusive in a case like this. Filing charges necessary to insure she never drives again would be appropriate. Filing charges merely sufficient to insure she never drives again (i.e. not negligent homicide) would be mercy.

F--K mercy!

If this was a 30 year old driver would you feel the same way? That in the name of mercy, no charges should be filed?

Go tell that to victims grandson an daughter.. She should be punished for manslaughter.. if it were anyone else at any other age they would be. If the hag is well enough to drive she is well enough to take punishment like everyone else! NO DOUBLE STANDARDS HERE!

Mercy means that she will turn on the TV (or pass the TV when she leaves the hospital or goes to a nursing home for rehabilitation) and sees the full report of what really happened, and she will be alone with her thoughts. That is not mercy. Or if she doesn't happen to pass a TV set or radio or newspaper anywhere, then her loving merciful family will tell her that she can't watch TV anymore or read the paper (something that my elderly parents loved to do). If she has half a brain cell, she will wonder why.

The term "justice" or "justify" means to straighten out a situation. The best way to straighten it out is for a judge or their representative to visit her, and tell her exactly what she will be charged with, and give her a few minutes to be able to grasp the situation and ask questions. She may not need jail time, but that doesn't mean that she is scot-free, or shouldn't be doing community service. After all, if she feels that she was able to drive, then she should be able to do some service to her community at the very least.

I hope the next person killed by an elderly driver is someone you love.

I think you fail to understand. It's called negligent homicide.

License revoked is not enough. Impound the car.

If she was pulling out of a parking space, she didn't mistake the gas pedal for the brake. You don't step on the brake "to pull out". Especially considering everything she hit before hitting the restaurant.

Louie, Elk, just, et al: See post #1.11

What the crap was that babbling BS all about???

and as a reflex slamming her foot down to stop could easily have caused the momentum of the body to be unable to take her foot off the gas.

WRONG! If she had her foot on the gas, the vehicle would want to surge forward thus causing her body to go backward until it was fully compressed into the seat which would also make her foot go in a backward motion in relation to the vehicle. If she were stomping on the brake, the car would slow down and then her bodyy would try to continue forward and thus push on the brake even harder. But the difference in the actions of the gas vs. brake pedals affect the conservation of momentum in the opposite manner.

We had a relative in my wife's family who began suffering from Alzheimer's, and was no longer competent to drive a car. We at first took away the keys, but he found them and went driving, and got lost, and had to be brought home by the police. We next disabled his car by removing the distributor cap and rotor, and that solved the problem, particularly since the nearest auto supply store was too far for him to walk. These are simple solutions to a very complex problem, and anyone who willfully allows an incompetent parent or spouse to drive, despite the knowledge of their incompetence to do so, should be held civilly liable.

Bravo!

Liable, yes, criminal, no. The DMV can revoke her license, her family can prevent her from driving, her car is probably totaled and won't be replaced and she will probably be sued for causing the lady's death. That should be enough punishment for an accident; it's not like she meant to do it! Plus, she will probably be heartbroken when she learns what happened.

Liable, yes, criminal, no.

When does the criminal element to vehicular manslaughter lapse? You can bet your sweet @$$ that if this were a different form of impaired driving (drunk/high/cell phoner/texter/etc) there would be criminal charges filed.

When did becoming old provide an excuse for killing?

Apparently, in this country, because they vote as a block, becoming old, incompetent, and blind is still a license to kill by driving over other people. It happens all the time in Florida, and other locales where the coot population is a majority. Their complaint is that it would be "taking away their independence", which seemingly trumps someone else's right to not get run over and killed by a nearly blind, deaf, and cognitively impaired senior on their way to getting lost. Mistaking the gas for the brake is a sure sign of mental deficiency that should preclude driving ever again, but I'm sure they will probably try to blame the car manufacturer once the lawyers get involved. They'll claim that the manufacturer should have made their car coot-collision-proof by installing pizzeria-sensing technology that will apply the brakes for the coots before they run over and kill someone sitting inside a pizzeria having a meal with their family.

Not to mention more people than that are people killed by teen/early 20's drivers. I'm getting older, and I don't think it would be excessive to have an annual written/driving test for both drivers over 75 and drivers under 25.

I am a great driver, but I can tell my reflexes are slowing. Teens have lightning quick reflexes...if they are paying attention, not on the phone or texting, and not screwed around talking to the fool in the back seat. I am confident that I can outdrive anyone under 25. Experience can kick quick reflexes like a mule. Doesn't matter how quick your reflexes are if you have to think for a minute to decide what to do. But when I get to the point that I can't tell the brake from the gas, my daughter has my car.

Steve, I don't really doubt your statement about teens vs elderly drivers but I would like to see the statistics and citations for that. I'm not arguing, but I'd really like to know if that is a truism or fact.

The state of Maine requires license renewal every six years with a vision test every other renewal (12 years). However, they require a vision test every renewal over 62 and license renewal every 4 years after 65. There is obviously some supportable data for the state of Maine to take on the greyhairs.

Whille there is a lot of good that AARP does for senior citizens, the major negative they have going for them is that they refuse to accept that as they age there are physical changes and limitations associated with their aging. Their senior clout isn't always a good thing.

maybe she was on meds that affected her driving. that is as bad legally as driving drunk.

Sheesh! Money does not compensate for the loss of a loved one! I know that for a fact!

You really think so?

LightStar - well...ok - fine, you said loved one - but had you stuck with just family member - I would have to look at how much and who I would have to trade in...:)

Is it just a tragic accident when a teen does the same thing? I am really asking you if you think that. Because the driver chose to drive, disregarding her limitations, much like teens drive disregarding their limitations. Essentially both the elderly and young cause fatal accidents by disregard for their limitations.

yingspring--or else she didn't think she had any limitations...

packinp40

Remember what you just said if you lucky enought to reach age 75 and get use to walking ever where you want to go.

Gee, maybe then AARP will lobby for public transportation taxes.

A little extreme, I think, especially since not all 75 year olds have family to drive them to necessary places such as the the grocery store and doctor. How about, starting at age 65, a doctor has to sign off on their driver's license renewal every year. At 75, it can go to every 6 months, and at 85, it goes to every 3 months. We hear of many tragic accidents such as this caused by an elderly person, but they are still not the highest risk age group. Teenagers are...

As far as charges, even if they had no intention of every jailing her (and using taxpayer money to lock up someone with little chance of reoffending), just the trial would cost taxpayer money. I am in full support of impounding her car (if its not already totalled) and banning her from driving for the rest of her life.

Ban me from driving???

I'm 73 and in better shape physically and MENTALLY than most fifty year olds and a lot of forty year olds.

I work as much as 16 hours/day and, occasionally, 7 days/week in a very demanding (both physically and mentally) occupation.

A month ago, I hired a 32 year old man who was in good shape [he said]. He didn't even last one whole day.

P.S.: Read my post #1.11

That is great that you are doing so well. Being retested should be no problem for someone like you.

As for many seniors, not only have reflexes declined but many are on a combo of drugs that could affect their ability as well. My mother was 85 and had terminal cancer. She was taking drugs and had diminished feeling in her legs. She insisted on driving despite having a husband who could have driven her around. She hit 4 parked cars in a single blow one day and drove through their closed garage door and part of the structure a week later. She did not report the garage door to the insurance because she did not want to lose her driving privileges. We tried to see if we could do something as her family, but there is no way to report someone or ask that they be tested in NY. She died a few weeks later (this summer) and it was sheer luck that she did not kill someone before she died herself. She was selfish long before she became elderly and this was just a continuation of her diva-ness. Not every old person is a cuddly grandma. I don't think she would have been devastated to have heard she killed someone either. Some people will not voluntarily give up driving and there needs to be safeguards in place such as doctor reporting or family/friend/neighbor reporting that work to make our roads safe. My mother had people who could drive her, could afford taxis or even a driver and could have ordered most items on the internet. There are also options in our area for senior buses that help people get to doctor appts if they have no ride that are operated by the town. She just did not want to be curtailed and lose any freedom nor would she admit that she was old enough not to drive. She was too vain and not concerned about others.

hdrider - You have the same reaction as most other seniors. Ban me from driving??? While there are a lot of capable seniors, there are many more who should not be driving. But denial is the first reaction of all.

the thinker: I dare you to try to keep up with me on one of my easy days!

The only medication I take is my daily vitamins and many, many 40 year olds would love to have blood pressure like mine.

AND my reaction time is excellent- a couple of months ago, the waitress knocked a bottle of catsup off the table and I caught it before it hit the floor.

And you say that I'm too old to drive!

broad based statements are often incorrect. There is no way that a law should be passed banning anyone from driving after a specific age.
Aside from the discrimination factor, it would be prudent to enact laws to require more frequent examinations and road testing of the person's actual driving ability.

The elderly man was wearing dark clothing, walking in the road instead of the sidewalk.

Knowing the state of our sidewalks, I understand about the road. I've tried to buy a reflective vest, but haven't found a store yet that sells them, so I wear something light colored. All that said, it reads like he was walking with his back to traffic. Put it all together and is it an unconscious wish for suicide, or just not thinking?

Bet your co-worker wasn't 80...

In Kansas, a driver's license is good for six years. When a driver reaches 65, it lowers to every four years. My next license will be a four year license. Maybe the limit should be lowered to three years.

Totally different circumstances! Your co-worker didn't keep on plowing thru other objects like this old woman did. He manned-up and took responsibility. His was an accident. Hes topped after hitting the other man.

This old lady never stopped, the restaurant stopped her. After checking the accident report-public record, she finally came to a stop, after traveling over 100 ft!!!

Wise words, Anita, but obviously went right through these people.

Steve- I've never accidently pressed the gas instead of the brake, but it's amazing how long it takes for people to figure it out and STOP. But I hope you're implying her driving skills were abysmal, and not implying that there was malice here.

I've tried to buy a reflective vest, but haven't found a store yet that sells them,

Many walmarts carry them. You obviously have access to a computer - google them. They are everywhere.

That is a good story but I am guessing your friend was not impaired when he was driving and the accident could have happened to any other good driver. It is not relevant to this story.

What is relevant is that the driver was not evil and the family of the victim was not vengeful.

your co-worker was not negligent, that was truly an accident caused by the victim's behavior. No jury would have convicted your co-worker even if he had been sued.

In the TX case, the driver was negligent. if she pushed the gas instead of the brake, she should have noticed the car wasn't slowing down. And for as much damage as she did, she must have had the pedal to the metal. I say she is guilty of negligent driving and vehicular manslaughter as defined by TX law.

Is it a sacred cow not to be touched for fear of offending somebody?

Yeah, especially when Granny can--and will--write you out of her will.

Lowes carry bright NEON yellow vests and T-shirts! I have 2 of each. Also, never walk with traffic, always against.

A person's ability to drive is tied directly into their current state of health. A family member was able to drive up until he was 90 years old. Was an excellent driver. When he started hitting the side of the garage backing out, and running stop signs, we had the "talk" and he reluctantly gave up his drivers license and car. He lived until he was 98 years old and for the last 8 years constantly brought up the fact that stopping driving when he did was the right thing to do.

It's going to be different for everyone. Clearly, if this poor lady can't handle even being told someone has died in a collision she was in and ultimately responsible for, probably should not have been driving.