A 73-year-old Griffith man who died in The Canberra Hospital following a collision in Fyshwick on Friday, May 13 will not be counted towards the road toll.
The man was transported by ACT Ambulance to The Canberra Hospital where on admittance his condition deteriorated and he went into a coma. He died on Tuesday, May 17.
A post-mortem revealed the man had a heart attack which caused the collision. As such his death will not be included in the ACT’s road toll.
The road toll remains at seven for this year.
[Courtesy ACT Policing]
Loading ...
The road toll from medical conditions is competing well with the general accident kind. Makes you wonder whether there’s a speed camera for that or whether the Government might need to review the rules for drivers licencing for people with medical conditions.
bd84 said :
Good point. Fits with one of the other threads on this same thing. Better monitoring of elderly drivers and people with these conditions is important. Costly – but important.
Another less round of ammunition in defence of speed cameras.
Maybe the next generation of speed cameras will be able to do a cholesterol check, cardiac monitoring and blood glucose levels!
(P.S. be gentle with me – this is my first post!)
ScienceRules said :
100% agree. It’s not just drugs, alcohol and fatigue that are dangerous on our roads. Impairment of driving skills can come from slow reaction times due to the person being way too old. Some of the elderly drivers I’ve seen around the place are more dangerous than learners and drunk drivers, but I bet if they ever get pulled over for doing 30km/h below the speed limit, the” but I’ve been driving for 40 years without a ticket” defense will come into play. No, this is not a blanket statement for all the over 65s out there, in know individual circumstances are different. My own grandfather of 90+ had his license taken away at the bequest of his own family for the community’s safety and our own peace of mind. Some people don’t realize how bad they are behind the wheel and the traffic authorities rely on doctor’s advice on renewing licenses for the elderly. Do the doctors actually get in the car with these persons? Do they test how fast they can react to a red light, or how close to the speed limit they can drive? No. It’s one thing to be healthy enough physically, but another to be mentally fit.
wildturkeycanoe said :
Bequest? They were dead??
wildturkeycanoe said :
From your admissions about your own driving on previous threads, this appears to apply to you far more than it applies to the elderly.
Totally true, WildTurkey. For all their lack of experience, at least the young ones have eyesight, health and reflexes in their favour. The oldies on the other hand have decades of deteriorating senses, increased confusion and are usually on a cocktail of meds.
Unfortunately they also have effective lobby groups and financial power so the situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. Being signed off by their GP is essentially meaningless since the doc doesn’t want to be responsible for restricting their travel options and the social isolation that often goes with it.
There are few things more terrifying than “my Gran still drives herself around and she’s 87. Isn’t that amazing?” No, it’s irresponsible and dangerous.
When I become Leige Lord of Everything (TM), I shall decree that your driving licence is whisked away as a 75th birthday pressie. Or maybe 70, depending on my mood at the time…
ScienceRules said :
Age per se should not be the defining factor. I work with a guy who is 75 and would give a 20 year old a run for their money when it comes to awareness and reflexes. Maybe an actual test after a certain age would be a better solution.
A major issue with this stuff is that older drivers are less likely to get into crashes, not because of good skills or reflexes (and stiff necks with age are a real problem for head checks) but because they’re incredibly cautious.
But when they do get into a collision they’re much more likely to die because of their frailty.
So road safety experts hate the extra fatalities blowing out their misapplied KPIs.
But really they’re not generating much extra danger out there on average.
johnboy said :
I had a very elderly gent come within about an inch of running up the back of me on the Monaro Hwy this morning.
To be fair, I’ve had far more close calls with young drivers doing anything but driving (texting, talking, preening, fiddling with the stereo, etc).
Although the elderly don’t always look or give way, they do tend to drive very slowly, so with awareness and defensive driving they aren’t hard to avoid.
ScienceRules said :
Oh for heavens sake …. my mother is 82 and still drives as well as most other people I know. Stop generalising.
jadie360 said :
My grandmother is in her 80s and has never had a prang, however I know she’s a terrible driver!
Mr Gillespie said :
Yes and another less round in the amunition in defence of breathalyzers.
Seriously what are you on about? How do you turn every post about traffic/driving/accidents/heart attacks into another example of your Jihad against speed cameras?
What hapenned to you? One speeding ticket too many?
wildturkeycanoe said :
I very much doubt that Road Carnage will ensue from people driving 30 km/hr below the magical limit.
Besides, you can fix this by tailgating them, which is a safe and legal driving practice employed by all the good drivers.
jadie360 said :
Well of course it’s a generalisation and there are exceptions. But just because she’s your Gran doesn’t mean she’s a good driver. And sorry, at 82 she shouldn’t be on the road.
not sure i see the point of this thread, though – isn’t the road toll there to count the deaths attributed to road trauma, not just the location of the death? if the man was whisked away by his god into heaven as a result of disease and not impact of a collision, then there shouldn’t be any issue to brook with the road toll ‘not counting one’ – like, if he had a heart attack while crossing the road, should that somehow be counted?? didn’t think so…
Mr Gillespie said :
*Jethro blinks eyes in astonishment”
Old people have heart attacks when driving, therefore police shouldn’t enforce traffic laws.
Wow. Your contributions to rationale debate are…. just… wow.
So the next time someone has a heart attack and dies at the wheel, strays to the wrong side of the road and kills the poor bugger in the oncoming car they hit, will the innocent person be included in the road toll??
astrojax said :
I think the issue was that old people are much more likely to just drop off the perch than normal folk and hence shouldn’t be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle even if it is only going at 50km/hr down the Parkway
Just curious re counting road toll deaths – what if a person has a heart attack in a car and crashes into someone else and kills them. Does the person who has a heart attack get excluded but the person they killed get counted towards the road toll?
colourful sydney racing identity said :
I think the point he is making is very valid. Every year the government justifies more speed camera’s on the road toll rather than actually looking at the toll and sorting out the underlying issues that are causing said toll. Speed is clearly an easy target and money earner.
Sciencerules – I’m sorry but dictating an age such as 82 when people should not be on the road is a bit arbitrary and punitive. What age is acceptable to you for people to drive? I also think that claims like they are more dangerous than drunk or speeding drivers is a bit rich too. Logically, there would be a higher likelihood of people falling off the perch as they age but I don’t think it is so extreme that you should expect them all to cark it whenever they get in a car. Some drivers are assessed to drive with limitations (eg, within a certain distance from home, in daylight hours only and presumably subject to lower spped limits)
Also, extending this logic, should all drivers be tested for heart attack or stroke risk before they get in a car? There are probably plenty of candidates, obese, heavy smokers, heavy drinkers etc in their forties plus who have an even higher likelihood of croaking it.
However, I do think that that more rigorous assessment of older drivers is needed – although introducing it at any age is a bit arbitrary. As far as I can tell, fitness to drive depends solely upon the Dr’s annual assessment and this is clearly not enough.
Since crazed tailgating P Platers are clearly more dangerous that oldies shuffling along, we should look at the age at which people are safe to start driving as well. In terms of sheer danger to others on the roads, it’s pretty hard to argue that the wrinklies are worse than testosterone-poisoned/attitude-afflicted boys and girls.
I would much rather share the road with the oldies, at least they DO share.
JC said :
SO what are you suggesting? Heart attack warning cameras?
aronde said :
i’d suspect that that is what happens as it seems to be entirely logical. q. what killed this person? a1 road trauma (old heart attack victim car runs into me, f’rinstance) so counted in road toll or a2 heart attack, so not counted in road toll, notwithstanding my vehicle then whizzed across lanes and collided with other traffic… no?
and you can’t police this – like let’s not let anyone alive drive as they may die while driving. it can happen, of course…
ScienceRules said :
Based on your logic, people could also argue that young drivers are responsible for a higher percentage of accidents and should also not be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle ….. just saying
Jethro #17
You got the wrong end of the stick *again*
What I am saying is pretty much like what JC (#21) says about the Government using speed/the road toll as an excuse to justify deploying yet more speed cameras. Then when someone dies on the road, they are all too keen to jack up the magic number aka the “road toll”, blaming speed to bolster their case for more heavy-handed speed enforcement, before the post-mortem later on finds the single-vehicle fatal was as the result of nothing more a medical condition/heart attack.
Mr Gillespie said :
Take the tin foil hat off for a minute and read the origianl post ‘As such his death will not be included in the ACT’s road toll.’
Based on your logic, people could also argue that young drivers are responsible for a higher percentage of accidents and should also not be in charge of a 1.5 tonne vehicle ….. just saying
Not so. The young ones by and large will get better with more experience, after all we have to start somewhere. The oldies, only worse…
Mr Gillespie said :
My goodness navigating life must be difficult for you.
The OP is about the fact that the death has NOT been counted towards the road toll (and fair enough.. cause of death was a heart attack so no real reason to count it as a road death).