to think drivers should have to resit their driving tests aged 75+?

[coffeeisnectar]

I'm not 100% certain what age is appropriate but I live in area with a high number of seniors and some days I feel like I take my life in my hands navigating the local roads.

Instances include the driver who pulled out in front of us today without looking and was oblivious to our emergency stop behind her. The driver who drove into my car on a roundabout (because she didn't see me), the driver in an automatic car who hit the accelerator instead of the brake narrowly missing me whilst shooting into a car park mouthing "sorry!" as a small child in the back looked terrified. The driver who didn't see my partner and knocked him off his motorbike causing major injuries who turned out to have been sent on two driver awareness courses in the previous year.

My own parents are in their 70s and are good drivers but I wouldn't hesitate to suggest they give up if they started driving around like some of the people I see here who quite frankly terrify me.

Completely ageist.
Personally I think everyone could use some sort of refresher course every couple of years.
Don't people have to have a medical or something regularly once they pass a certain age? That seems sensible as eye sight etc could change with age. But this sort of ageist crap is ridiculous.
Arent most deaths on the road young males,and caused by young males?

Yanbu. The majority are fine but there are s few that should not be on the road. What annoys me even more is that most often their children know it but won't encourage or force them to give it up as then they will have to pick up the slack.

Most deaths on the road are young drivers but there are an awful lot of 'minor' accidents and near misses...

I think everyone should have to retake their test every 10 years but the system at the moment is not working. Families and Drs can know that an elderly driver is unsafe but hesitate to act on it as it is the difference between independence and housebound immobility.

How would they force their parents to give up?

I agree. But there are younger people who probably should as well. I've had so many near misses recently. The majority of them on roundabouts

YANBU.

But ask me again when I'm 74....

Young drivers (17-24 years old) are at a much higher risk of crashing than older drivers. Drivers aged 17-19 only make up 1.5% of UK licence holders, but are involved in 12% of fatal and serious crashes

Come back and write the same thing when you are approaching 75. YABU

I'm sure I saw on a tv programme about this that a concerned child can speak to the parents gp regarding any concerns over their driving ability. The gp can then call them into asses them and inform dvla. Force was maybe the wrong word.

Last year, I had to attend a speed awareness course (40 in a 30 and ).

There were 24 of us. I was the youngest. I'm 48.

One person there had never taken a test - go figure how old they must have been.

And this: Research by the RAC Foundation suggests drivers aged 75 and over make up 6% of all licence holders but account for just 4.3% of all deaths and serious injuries. By contrast, drivers aged 16-20 make up just 2.5% of all drivers but 13% of those killed and seriously injured.

Shall we stop this ageism?

Insurance premiums show that drivers in that age bracket are the safest on the roads.

And they're dealing with the cold hard cash of the costs of claims.

The riskiest drivers are the young and the newly licensed. Perhaps there should be a second test at a set period after passing the first?

(The last time you could get a licence without a test in UK was, I think, if you were in the post WW2 backlog when testing was suspended for the duration. You could convert a provisional to a full licence or just get one if you had driven as part of military duties. To be eligible, you'd have to have been at least 17 at end WW2, so over 87 now).

we should all have a retest every 10 years. Why are the courses only for those who break the law?

as repeatedly mentioned, older drivers are not more dangerous per se. A test pass has been compulsory for anyone who started driving after April 1934 (says Wikipedia). So assuming 15 is old enough to reach the pedals, anyone still driving without a test pass must have been born in 1919 or earlier. Still possible but I bet there aren't many around and they must have fun getting insurance.

and you can actually report an unsafe driver to the DVLA - I think you may need the help of the GP but it can be done and you can get them off the road. Pity you can't do it for the tailgaters, drivers in silly shoes, mobile users and so on.

The bad driving around these parts isn't the older generation, they seem quite sensible.
Middle aged Men and school run Mums that could do with a refresher IMO.

Perhaps there should be a second test at a set period after passing the first?

Why penalise the innocent ? Just say any accident in the first two years after passing require a retest. And any motoring conviction should require a mandatory retest.

Won't happen though. Truth is, we're a tad complacent about road safety in the UK. Clearly our roads are acceptably safe.

highwaysmagazine.co.uk/uk-pushed-off-top-place-in-road-casualty-rankings/

I quite agree young drivers are worse but they already face an immediate ban with six points on their license instead of 12. But maybe they should have to be in speed restricted cars for a number of years or have advanced driving courses. The majority of young drivers killed seem to be in out lying areas on country roads which combined with inexperience and speed is an accident waiting to happen.

But the much older drivers who literally have their face pressed against the window, don't seem to be aware of other road users and quite simply don't have the confidence to drive on such congested roads are a hazard. The woman today didn't even look. She just pulled out in front of us and when the road split into two lanes and we went past her she was utterly oblivious to us, hadn't looked in her mirrors once, just face 3 inches from the wheel and staring out the front.

I'm not being ageist.

I think that people should be checked every 5-10 years. The number of drivers whose vision has deteriorated since their test worries me.

I've always said you should sit a refresher test every 10 years. I see awful drivers of all ages everyday and the road conditions change and not everybody adapts.
My mum has been a terrible driver for 10 years + but isn't quite old enough to have to renew her licence yet. She has no medical reason for being a bad driver she just is one so there isn't anybody to refer her to. I just try to encourage her to do anything that means she drives less - sorted out her bus pass, railcard & booked her on the plane to see us (without directly telling her why as she doesn't accept that she's a dreadful driver and gets offended and defensive ). She wouldn't pass even a reduced test these days and that would be better for everybody.

My mother had to take steps to stop my grandfather from driving, he was 86 and in the early stages of dementia. We were terrified that he was going to cause an accident and she had to go through the GP to get his licence removed.

The problem I can see is that my grandfather would have probably passed a retest at 75 with no issue, it wasn't until he was well into his eighties that he became obviously unfit to drive. The only way that would have been picked up would have been by yearly testing which I can't see as a viable thing.

I don't know what the answer is, if my grandfather hadn't had relatives who could see how bad he was getting he would have continued until he caused an accident I'm sure, but I don't think blanket testing at 75 is it.

I don't think age should be a factor alone but I do think that there are certain conditions which the elderly are more at risk from that can make them more dangerous on the road which should be under closer review from GPs and be subject to stricter guidelines from the DVLA.

We have an elderly neighbour with Parkinson's and he was set for a review after two years regarding his driving but during this period his condition deteriorated and this was not reported by the GP to DVLA. He was still driving when his tremors were so bad that he could barely face forwards. His kids (one of whom was a policeman so you'd have thought he would have known better!) wouldn't let him drive their kids about as he had become so unsafe but no one was prepared to do anything to step in and take action as it was seen as depriving him of his independence. In the end he crashed into a parked car (the tremors had made him unable to break quick enough) and the police were called and they got involved with the DVLA and his licence was finally revoked. Thank god it was 'only' a parked car and not a pedestrian.

The crazy thing is that if he had sold his car he would have freed up cash that he could have used for taxi fares to wherever he wanted so it wouldn't have any real impact on his independence or left him housebound in any way.

I think older drivers don't tend to cause so many major accidents/deaths (compared with under 25s) because they tend to drive slowly, and over short distances in familiar places, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily safe.

My mother is in her late 70s, and has been cleared to drive again after having a stroke and cataract operations. She even took a few refresher lessons before getting back behind the wheel, which is more than many elderly drivers. But she is nervous in traffic (particularly at roundabouts), doesn't have great peripheral vision, her reaction times are way slower than a young person, and due to arthritis her physical strength is a fraction of what it used to be, so I would worry that she would not be able to slam on the brakes or swerve out of the way to avoid an accident. I suspect that she would fail a test, and it would probably be safer for everyone that way, even though she has followed all the correct procedures in terms of medical fitness.

"But any drivers who literally have their face pressed against the window, don't seem to be aware of other road users and quite simply don't have the confidence to drive on such congested roads are a hazard."

Fixed that for you.

(How would that sentence look if you had said 'black' or 'female' instead of 'older'? Yes, you were being ageist)

I can't imagine how it must feel to be told you are never driving again when you have driven forever.

Basically that's it-no driving ever again in your life, never to own a car again. And it is massively significant for elderly people to lose their independence and their lifeline. It must be really horrible.

I don't think you can retest an a certain age, I do this after 65 if you have an accident, you should be suspended and asked to retest.

They are not as dangerous as the teens though, my neighbour is 21, stoned most of the time and drives like a dick! He had points and a crash in his first 6 months of driving.... Ban the bugger I say.

It would be interesting to apply some filtering to the trope that "younger drivers are more risky", and look at some other metrics. I have a sneaking feeling that it's more experience that makes older drivers less risky.

This being the case (mythbusters mode ) then looking at older drivers who have just passed might reveal a disconnect - they would be as risky as a younger just-passed driver.

Oh, and despite being quite cynical and down on the speed awareness course, I have to confess I found it interesting and helpful, so I have no problem with the idea of enforced refresher courses.

lets do some elder bashing eh?