Should car drivers have a medical every 10 years [title edited by MNHQ]

[PiperIsOrange]

I think to renew your licence ( which has to be done every 10 years) a person should have a medical.

To pass the medical you have to have a recent eye test and other things.

I have a long term health condition so my driving licence is restricted to 3 years and they request medical evidence I'm fit to drive before they will renew it.

Pisses me off no end since my condition doesn't actually affect my driving ability.

So imo yanbu - but only because I think if I have to suffer everyone else should too .

(and possibly because it might make the roads safer)

I think it makes a lot of sense.

I drive and I agree. My dd was nearly hit by a woman the other dat, the lady said 'I'm sorry, my eyesight isn't what it used to be especially in the bright sunshine' wtf?!

Absolutely, yes.

My Grandad drove well into his 80's, repeatedly drove into things (bollards and walls etc, fortunately never a person), and only gave up after he developed Dementia. He absolutely refused to give up his car for several years, and my DM and Aunt tried everything to stop him, and even went to his GP + DVLA, who both told them they couldn't do anything.

If nothing else, at least an eye test and a reaction test should be mandatory every 10 years.

I have no problem with this at all.

after a certain age - yes. there is no difference between mine when I passed my test at 17 and 27, will probably be ok at 37 so would be a waste of money unless for a specific reason then but older than that, yes definitely, my grandmother is bloody awful. I have physically puller her over on the hard shoulder and forced her out her car and if I ever end up behind her I make sure I overtake her to get in front and away from her - she is that bloody awful.

Yes absolutely after a certain age. Maybe 50+? My elderly neighbour drives when she can barely walk and talk due to being so frail. It scares me as I'm sure she's a bad accident just waiting to happen.

Are we really considered that old at 50? How depressing. I drive for a living and very fast some of the time, I would rather drive with my older colleagues than the 20 somethings who have an inflated opinion of their driving abilities.

I do think it should be easier for GP's to report someone whose friends/family have expressed concerns about their driving and for the DVLA to do something.

I think it's about more than a medical test. Road rules are constantly changing. Having to resit your test every ten years would mean having to keep up with, and review the road rules regularly throughout your driving life, and for your skills to be reviewed and minor errors corrected. A licence is a privilege, not a right.

Older drivers usually get bashed on threads like this. Despite evidence from say, insurance premiums, which are lower for them. And that's not based on generosity, respect for age or anything other than accident rates.

But yes of course, those with symptoms of conditions disallowed for driving - including use of certain drugs (prescription, recreational and alcohol) - should not be on the roads. But they don't take 10 years to arise.

But if you want to reduce the number of accidents, it's the younger drivers who should be targeted, and I don't think a medical a decade will do it.

All drivers should in my opinion (not all car users!)

YANBU.

FIL has two medical conditions (amongst various other conditions) that should be reported to the DVLA, one of these can potentially affect his eyesight and he's had eye surgery for it. He hasn't told them because he doesn't want to go on a medical license

I don't think it's a case of testing at 50+ because 50 is considered old, although typically age can begin to affect eyesight around about that age. Maybe for younger drivers there should be a random sample selected each year then once a driver gets to age 50 it should be every ten years then more frequently after age 70.

I don't think drivers should have to resit their test at regular intervals as a matter of routine but that their skills should be refreshed when new rules and regulations come in. For example, several changes to motoring laws/regs are brought in over the course of a year, drivers then have x - amount of months to complete an awareness workshop (1 or 2 hours?) on the changes.

I'm struggling to think of any new regs that would lower the accident rate but there probably are. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of RTC's caused by medical condition versus lack of knowledge and sheer stupidity. Unfortunately you can test for stupidity.

I agree that there are elderly drivers out there who may be putting themselves and other at risk, but many will limit this by only doing occasional short local journeys.

By contrast just yesterday trying to cross the road with my preschooler - young male whizzed past music blaring doing well over 40mph in a 30 zone. Woman my age looking at her lap checking her phone.....

I can't help feeling that speeding and drugs/ drink and poor attitude ( mobile phone use) are a more significant problem on the roads. I guess the predominant type of risky driver varies with time and place.

You are right OP but unless you are willing to take away the vote from older people and the middle-aged relations who would be pressed into service as chauffeurs if they lost their licences you are spitting inot the wind!

I completely agree - and you have just reminded me that my license needs renewing next month.

I would say every driver.

I wear glasses and even at the tender age of 28 i alway need adjustment to my prescription.

There are many people who don't bother to have eye test.

Driving's expensive enough without the prohibitive costs 10 yearly checkups would incur.

And it's only the photocard that needs renewing at present.

just be another way to get more money out of the drivers .

Yabu

Who's going to pay for this? It would be very expensive

Majority of accidents involve people under 26. So it's not the elderly or infirm or disabled who are involved the most.

To say it's about 'getting older' is just age prejudice and not a true reflection of whose actually causing the accidents.

We already have reporting systems in place to stop people driving when their infirmities prevent them.

When I first got my eyes tested by an optician I asked them if I was ok to drive. They said they were not in a position to make that judgement.

So what 'eye test' would you require?

And what 'other things' would you include? Plenty of people have medical phobias so they present with very high blood pressure, can't bear the idea of blood tests etc. None of which makes them risky drivers.

I agree that when anyone is diagnosed with a condition that is likely to affect their driving it ought to be flagged up - but then you get the problem that doctors don't want to discourage people from getting treatment just because of that worry. So would GPs want to get involved in this?

And who pays? The GPs surgeries are full already, and don't want to spend their time issuing certificates to well people. So does the motorist have to pay a charge just to state that they are not sick and have ok eyesight?

I agree this makes sense.

Eyesight, for example, can deteriorate gradually so that if people don't have regular eye tests, they may not realise that they're falling below safe limits for driving.

I guess one of the main issues would be practicality - what would such a medical need to include, other than eyesight, and who's going to test people (GP? Special doctor at DVLA office?) and so on.

Having witnessed a woman recently who needed a zimmer frame to walk filling up her car at the petrol station, I would say YANBU.

I live in a village where a vast majority of the population are elderly and we regularly have them doing 30mph on the stretch of road between our village and then next one when it is a long wide straight stretch with a 60mph limit.

I think yanbu op.

My fil has to practically have his nose in his dinner to see what he is eating but is "perfectly fine" to drive.

I think it would be sufficient to just make sure people are getting their eyes tested. And then perhaps that certain medical conditions are checked, so dementia gets highlighted and thus the driver shouldn't really drive with that condition.

My grandparents both used to drive and very well, they are in their 80's. Since my grandad had a mini stroke he lost partial sight and and such no longer drives. So I think it's common sense and with those conditions where you lose the ability to assess yourself then there should be more GPs and the DVLA can do by sharing information.