Revive I-5 returns: Northbound I-5 in Seattle closed this weekend

Woman dies when car crashes into office building

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

RENTON, Wash. — A woman died Wednesday in Renton after an elderly driver crashed through the wall of an office building and hit her with the car.

The incident occurred shortly after 11 a.m. in the 100 block of Logan Avenue South.  The car crashed through the window of a Farmers Insurance agency, killing the woman inside.

According to police, the driver of the car was relatively unhurt.

This story will be updated as more information becomes available.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


  • Dave R.

    When we will wake up and start mandating yearly testing of older drivers? I propose that at 65 we make all seniors take written, eye, reflex, flexibility and cognitive tests yearly. It is too dangerous for people that don't know or have forgotten how to drive, that can't see well, are slow to process, brake, swerve and basically can't process quickly to be in charge of large weapons on our roads! Make it 70 but make it happen. I am not proposing ever taking someone license based on age, but I am based on abilities.

  • kkw

    I agree with Dave. I stopped allowing my father in law to drive my children anywhere after he had a fender bender when he was 70. He tried to make a right turn from a left lane. I don't want to advocate taking freedoms away from our older population, I just want to make sure they are driving safely. Heck- I would even go through the process each renewal year myself if folks are worried about unfairly singling out the elderly. I have seen quite a few "under 60s" drivers who shouldn't be allowed to drive either.

  • Dave R.

    I'm 47, and I know that I don't have as quick reflexes as I used to. As a country, we are in denial. Facts are what they are. I agree with the under 60's comment as well. It isn't about years, it is about abilities. Unfortunately they go hand-in-hand as we get older. I see all too often older people backing up without clearing the rear, it isn't that they don't look behind them, they no longer CAN LOOK. Testing needs to include the ability to look behind you! Yes, I would take a yearly test if that meant being safer on the roads. It would be an arbitrary age no matter where we set mandatory testing but for the love of God, set one! However, here is an inside tip – politicians will never set one because older people vote more than younger ones.

  • Tara

    I don't think that more people over 60 vote than people under 60 and I think a lot of over 60's would agree with being tested. I agree that there are a lot of younger people on the road that shouldn't be. Maybe when we get our licenses renewed every… what is it, 5 years? – we should have more than just a vision test. The problem is funding and time. The DOL is already backed up every time I go in there, so I can't even imagine if everyone had to do testing each time they renew, but I do think something needs to be done.

  • Dave R.

    Elections are decided by the people who show up at the polls. In the United States, the oldest citizens are the most likely to cast their ballots, which gives them political clout beyond their numbers alone.

    Some 61 percent of citizens age 65 and older voted in the November 2010 election, the best turnout of any age group. More than half (54 percent) of those ages 55 to 64 also cast a ballot. People under age 45 are much less likely to vote. Just 37 percent of 25- to 44-year-olds made it to the polls in November 2010. And not even a quarter (21 percent) of the youngest citizens—ages 18 to 24—entered a voting booth in 2010

  • Dave R.

    Agreed on difficult funding but somethings (our safety) are worth paying for. It could be paid for many ways, like charging $5 for the privilege of driving to cover the cost. I know I will hear about how that is against lower income people etc. $5 is about what a McD cost. The actual testing could be outsourced to private companies and you have to show up to the DMV with your certificate, I am sure we could fine a way if we have the political will. Bottom line, from what I hear the group saying is that we all agree that something more than an eye test is needed and that the problem will only grow as our population gets older.

  • David

    All good comments we also need to do something about the cell phone use. People driving around like zombies, almost blind to whats really going on around them, a complete distraction and los of respect for sharing the road safely, people on cell calls, text or even just looking for it is like driving intoxicated, the responce time is slow unpredictable and dangerous. Should be the same as a DWI

  • Ms.Bert

    I'll bet there are some very upset people on Mercer Island tonight. Q13 Fox News at 9 said the car crashed into a State Farm office. It was Farmers. Oops.

  • Jan O

    Yes, there should be an specified age (i.e. 65) that for ALL drivers should be tested (and followup testing, i.e. every 3 year thereafter) for physical, mental and response reaction to normal AND emergency situations in daylight/darkness, rain, and ice/snow.

    AARP conducts classes for older drivers to educate (and make aware) how his/her driving is impacted by physical and mental aging changes and what steps should be taken to improve driving safety. Why would AARP conduct classes for older drivers and how our aging impacts our driving skills and safety if there was not an aging issue impacting our driving?