Hope all are well. Dilemma. ?.... Is it up to me to inform government department in regards to elderly driver who may be a hazard due to their erratic driving? Who am I to pass judgment? Comments encouraged. .....
Why single out elderly drivers? I see P platers doing absolutely ridiculous things like, burnouts in suburban streets, speeding well over their speed limits, drive whilst on the phone etc. Why not say ANY DRIVER that drives erratically?
i don't disagree with reporting stupid behavior but it is important to distinguish the difference between immaturity and inability. Youthful stupidity can be modified with time and intervention, elderly inability will simply get worse as time goes on and driving facilities degrade until the inevitable mistake that sometimes costs some one's life
It's not being singled out, there are heaps of news reports/ topics regarding young stupid hoon drivers. In this instance it's focused on elderly drivers, as most people have a bad habit of feeling sorry for them because they are old and turn a blind eye. Maybe it's someone close to the OP and they feels somewhat responsible to do something. But if anyone knows a young person that often heavily drink drives or drives at very high speeds on public streets then they should be reported too. But for this topic lets stick to the question the OP asked.
I want to die quietly in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
boneyard - My TL: DR advice is: If you have a problem but your solution to your problem poses another problem or problems, see if there is another way to solve your problem without causing you a subsequent problem or un-acceptable trade-off to you. Don't lock yourself into first solution you find. Do what you feel is right to resolve your issue, in your situation. Extrapolating past that or discussing what is yours or anybody elses responsibility is an exercise in futility and will not solve your problem (not here anyway). Now.. Who are you (or I) to pass judgement? Nobody (no offense). You're just a dude, who has an issue with another dude or thing. Suppose a person is engaging in dangerous behaviour X, and that behaviour presents a probability/possibility of risk Y from occurring. If you feel this risk and its probability of occurrence is too great for you to accept - You may wish to remove or mitigate the risk. How you do that is up to you. But.. Then suppose the first way you think of mitigating that risk poses an internal quandary (read 'dilemma') to you. In other words, the mitigation to your original risk poses new risk Z. Meaning - to remove Y, you have to accept Z. To your case: A specific person near you drives dangerously, which could foreseeably result in injury or death to you or somebody else. You have internally assessed that the likelihood of this happening is high enough that you are legitimately concerned for your safety and/or that of others. The first mitigation (or at least the first one you are discussing here) you have found to this risk is to report the dangerous driver to 'government department' who might take away their license to drive, removing your risk. But, should you do that, you pose a new risk to your mental well-being which could be negatively impacted (this is suggested by your use of the word 'dilemma' and concern expressed that; by extension of reporting this person, you are 'judging' them). So there is your trade-off. Can you accept the exposure to the risk of your mental well-being in exchange for removing the risk of the dangerous driver? If yes - report them. If no - take a beat and think about another way to remove or mitigate the risk posed by the dangerous driver that either has no trade-off or has an acceptable trade-off. Discussion of alternative ways to find an acceptable outcome might be when you reach out to friends, family and peers, or even a place like this forum... if you want to.
Thanks for the great replies. I will make the phone call today. The story is as follows. This car is driven by an elderly person who does the local morning newspaper deliveries. The car is the same make & colour as my own car! He came on my radar around 5 am one morning as I noticed him asleep at the wheel in the middle of my very quiet road. I have seen the car parked near the shops/newsagents a few times. Here are 4 photos of the car. As you can see by the rust that this must have been going on for a while. I also wonder what he has hit to do this damage and if he took ownership of any damage he has caused to other cars/ property. All four corners of the car have damage.
Definitely looks like a high risk danger. Unless he purchased the car like that, but i would think in that condition it's not road legal.
That car would never pass the yearly safety rego check in NSW. Doesn't Tassie have mandatory safety checks?
boneyard, you're facing a moral dilemma. I think it's wise to list the facts, this may help you come to some conclusion that puts your mind at some ease. The facts as I see them: he drives an old car, he is elderly, he was asleep in the car. There you go. Everything else is just conjecture. Some data that may help you (or not lol), of all fatal crashes in Australia, 17% involve an older operator (65 years or older) of a vehicle. That being said 80% of those crashes involve the death of someone in the car, are more likely to be multi-vehicle crashes and occur mostly at intersections. https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/is_50_amended_2016_III.pdf
Shiney- it's well and good to present 'facts and data' but thats falling back into that trap of 'responsibility' and 'obligation' or presenting a view of 'whats normal and should be adhered to'. Every individuals situation is just that, 'individual'. And each individual should do what's right for them, from their perspective, that they can live with. Taking exemption to following the exact letter of the law to be 'being technically right in the eyes of society' is exactly what brought boneyard here in the first place. boneyard- you just do you mate. Sounds like you have made the decision to make the call - and there's nothing wrong with that if you're okay with that.
