Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

47 replies

PiperIsOrange · 22/09/2014 19:51

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.

OP posts:
AMumInScotland · 23/09/2014 10:57

MrsPnut Needing a zimmer frame to walk doesn't automatically mean someone is incapable of driving though. If she has sufficient control of her feet to hit the brake and gas pedal as required, then a weakness in her legs or back need not mean she's a bad driver. It takes a lot less force to do that than to support your bodyweight in an upright position.

echt · 23/09/2014 11:16

How this has turned into an automatic age-related thread.

Eyesight's the thing across ages. Licenses should be renewed five-yearly on production of a sight test certificate from an optician. The need for specs could then be coded into the licence.

PiperIsOrange · 23/09/2014 11:56

Why are people against this.

Don't you want every road user to be medically fit to drive.

OP posts:
PiperIsOrange · 23/09/2014 11:56

Why are people against this.

Don't you want every road user to be medically fit to drive.

OP posts:
abigamarone · 23/09/2014 12:10

The law is already there about being "fit to drive". You have to report changes to your health that may affect your driving. You're also guilty of an offence if you're unable to see properly.

ginnybag · 23/09/2014 12:18

The way to do this is to make a 'Driving Competency' certificate an Insurance break, just like the pass plus is.

Then, a few years later, after people are used to hearing about it and some people are doing it for the perk, make it mandatory for anyone more than xxxx years from passing their test.

It's not about age, it's about safety and awareness.

A stripped down version of the theory test - for new rules and updated ones - plus a thirty minute guided drive to include a roundabout, a dual carriageway and/or motorway and a number of speed changes, including a school zone, plus say, a turn in the road or parking maneuver and an emergency stop, would do a lot to weed out those drivers who aren't safe.

And, yes, eye tests should be mandatory for all drivers and production of a recent test cert should be a part of the photo-card renewal requirements. I say this as someone who wears glasses, as does my DH.

Anecdotally, I can think of six people who are hazards behind the wheel. Two are under twenty-five, one is elderly, and the other three are mid forties.

Of the mid-forties group, one is a man who has no patience. The other two are women who just don't drive enough to maintain competence. They 'won't drive' on the motorway/on 'fast' roads, in the rain, at night.... you get the idea. That all comes back to poor skill, lack of confidence and car control, and yes, it makes them both a stereotype and bloody dangerous.

The fact is that the roads have changed a lot in the last twenty years and anyone who isn't used to or able to cope with the current conditions is likely to be dangerous. We're making the test ever more stringent, and upping the costs of insurance for younger, newer drivers all the time. A lot of policies now require good driver boxes, and that's no bad thing.

But surely, it's also time to start looking at all the bad habits/iffy eye sight/ lack of practice etc right across the board?

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 23/09/2014 12:32

MrsPnut - in addition to AMuminScotland's post, have you not considered that the car could be an adapted one? My friend is in a wheelchair and drives an adapted car with hand-controlled brake and accelerator.

I disagree with a 10 year medical test because:

  • you have to report health conditions and vision problems that affect driving anyway
  • most health conditions WON'T affect driving
  • no evidence that elderly or infirm drivers that cause disproportionately more accidents
  • expensive to implement
  • I also think there is an element of disablism in this view - being able to drive is crucial for many people who have mobility problems.

I also think there are lots of checks and balances in place already to weed out poor drivers - speed cameras, box junction cameras, no claims bonus, speed awareness tests, lower insurance premiums if you do Pass Plus / have a monitor put in your engine etc.

Agree with ginny that eye tests should be mandatory for drivers though.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 23/09/2014 12:34

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'm not seeing how this is a hazard?

charleybarley · 23/09/2014 12:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

charleybarley · 23/09/2014 12:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AMumInScotland · 23/09/2014 13:09

"Why are people against this. Don't you want every road user to be medically fit to drive."

It's about keeping things in proportion, a balance between making things safe and making people jump through hoops to prove that they're safe.

And you haven't said what you want to be tested.

The eyesight thing I can agree with - but there's still a question of what that test would be and who pays for it. As I said, when I asked an optician if my eyesight was ok for driving without glasses she said that was not something they were testing for, or could give a proper opinion on. So the test presumably needs to be one that isn't just 'getting your eyes checked by the optician'.

But what else? What makes someone 'fit to drive'? And who gets to decide that?

There are conditions and symptoms that you are legally obliged to tell the DVLA. Do you make GPs legally required to report them? GPs don't want to be 'policemen', as their responsibility is primarily to the patient, who maybe isn't going to come in and get a diagnosis and treatment if they are worried about losing their license.

I think it would be better to spend the time and effort in enforcing laws we already have, to make the roads safer. I see people on their mobiles every bloody day. I see people doing 40 through the 60 zone and then continuing at 40 when they reach the 30 zone, and even the 20 zone past the primary school. And they are not necessarily old or inform or suffering any particular medical condition.

Plus you have the 'disablism'.

I know someone who went on and on about how changing the wheel on the car ought to be a mandatory part of the driving test, because it was something that everyone ought to be able to do. Since he was young, male, and able-bodied he had no concept of how many people are perfectly good and safe drivers while not having the physical capacity to do that. And PNut upthread thinks that there's a problem just because someone struggles to walk. If you're not very careful with whatever 'checks' you implement, you end up with only the most able-bodied and young ever allowed to drive, not because the others are unsafe but simply because you put obstacles in that are not valid measures of safe driving.

PiperIsOrange · 23/09/2014 13:23

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351444/aagv1.pdf

The same as a HGV and the same doctor who does them could also do it for car/van users

OP posts:
PiperIsOrange · 23/09/2014 13:23

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351444/aagv1.pdf

The same as a HGV and the same doctor who does them could also do it for car/van users

OP posts:
Latara · 23/09/2014 13:31

I think that all drivers should have eye tests 5 yearly.

But also I think that drivers over 75 should have 5 yearly full medicals - especially on their cognition. Things can change so quickly at that age.

In hospital anyone over 75 automatically has a CQUINN which is a test for dementia. It's because the govt is really pushing for early screening for dementia in order to treat it properly medically.

Yet someone diagnosed with poor cognition & memory loss aka dementia is allowed to keep their car keys - it doesn't make sense.

Latara · 23/09/2014 13:35

Can I add that I don't drive because I have Epilepsy. I only have fits that last for seconds, as I'm on lots of meds, but I'm responsible enough to not get a driving licence, instead I have a free Disabled bus pass.

My best mate has a false leg and she drives a car that has been adapted to her disability.

Maybe it should be made easier for adaptations to be made to cars for people with certain mobility issues - as at present it's very expensive.

(and guess what - my friend can't get a blue badge!!)

charleybarley · 23/09/2014 13:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

charleybarley · 23/09/2014 13:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AMumInScotland · 23/09/2014 14:20

charleybarley Interesti9ng - they're the ones who said they didn't do that! Mind you it was a few years ago now. Not a problem for me now anyway - I started getting headaches and now I wear glasses fulltime!

OnIlkleyMoorBahTwat · 23/09/2014 17:02

I think its crazy that people are allowed to drive for decades after passing their test with no further training or competency checks. People are killed and seriously injured everyday by people who are reckless, have poor eye sight or are just incompetent.

Photocards have to be renewed every 10 years. Drivers should have to submit a recent eye test on renewal and there should be random retests for say 1 in 10 drivers at the same time. Even if you had to pay a higher renewal fee, the cost would be tiny compared with the overall cost of running a car.

sashh · 23/09/2014 17:51

Bearfrills

So he is driving around uninsured then as well as in breach of his licence.

This would cost a fortune, and who is going to pay?

You could 'pass' a medical with a Dr who doesn't know your medical history and not be fit to drive.

OnIlkleyMoorBahTwat

Which medical test shows up recklessness?

OrangeFluff · 23/09/2014 20:49

Having witnessed a woman recently who needed a zimmer frame to walk filling up her car at the petrol station

I am 30 years old, and due to an illness 10 years ago I now walk with a severe limp. I may eventually need support from a stick/crutch to walk. THIS IN NO WAY AFFECTS MY ABILITY TO DRIVE! I learnt to drive after my illness, in a normal manual car the same as everyone else. You shouldn't judge someone when you know nothing about them.

BackforGood · 23/09/2014 20:59

I don't think we all need a medical throughout our driving lives, but I do think people should have to re-take their tests, perhaps every 10 or 15 years. It's ridiculous that I can be in charge of what can be a very dangerous machine, and haven't been assessed as to my capabilities at any point in the 32 yrs since I passed my test.

Individuals would have to pay for the tests I suppose.

I do think people should have to have a medical to assess their eyesight, reaction times and strength (grip/wrists/hands/ etc) every 3 years or so though.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page