I’m sorry this ends up sounding like a persuasive/argument paper for a high school English class

When I was 18, I bought my first car.  It was a piece of shit but I didn’t know it at the time.  In hindsight, I guess the $500 price should have tipped me off.  But I was 18.  And it was my first car.  Did I mention it had four tires and an engine?  Obviously, I had stumbled upon a once-in-a-lifetime deal.

A few weeks after the purchase, I discovered that my sweet little bargain was actually the piece of shit everyone else already knew it was.  It happened about half a mile from my house.  I had just left and was driving down a narrow dirt road when the accelerator got stuck.  The engine revved up to rod-throwing levels and I was absolutely scared shitless.  As soon as I realized what was happening, I quickly put the car in neutral.  After pumping the gas pedal a few times, it unstuck itself and everything was fine.  Luckily, it never happened again.

So that was a cute little story.  Here’s the part where I piss some people off.

Yesterday, on the northeast side of Indianapolis, an 80-year-old driver had a wreck:

IFD says Feeney was leaving a hair salon when she veered back towards the salon building, shearing the gas meter and striking the building.  From that point, Feeney drove through a bush, hit a fence, turned her car and hit four cars on her way out of the parking lot.

Feeney then drove across Ferguson Ave. and struck DEA Inc., an architecture firm across the street.  According to the report, Feeney backed up but went forward, hitting the house for a second time and striking two additional vehicles on Ferguson.

In case you lost count, that’s a hair salon, an architecture firm (twice), six cars, a gas meter, a bush, and a fence.  Amazingly, nobody was injured.

Of course, the driver claimed that her accelerator got stuck.  I’m not sure I believe that and even if I did, I still think that’s way more damage than was necessary in that situation.

I know it’s a touchy subject but there really should be a law addressing this a little better than the one Indiana now has that requires drivers 75 and over to renew their licenses every three years instead of every four.  And I know that some people get offended when you question their driving ability (because I’m one of them).  And there’s the age discrimination issue.  But we place all kinds of restrictions on teen drivers so why aren’t we admitting the truth when it comes to elderly drivers?

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under News, Random

2 responses to “I’m sorry this ends up sounding like a persuasive/argument paper for a high school English class

  1. I concur. But I guess you knew that. Because we like, live together and stuff.

    Anyway, old people suck and everyone knows it.

    Muhaha.

  2. In my state, renewing a license consists merely of paying a fee and getting a new photo taken. I have no problem with having drivers of all ages being re-certified or retested periodically (including vision and medical checks). Cars are giant, heavy, fast and potentially deadly pieces of equipment that it takes more skill than most people would like to admit to operate properly. Hell, I’m less than half that woman’s age but sometimes I think I could use a driving refresher course myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s