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.

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

Actually, it doesn't. It shows that their risk multiplied by the number of miles they drive is the lowest, which isn't the same thing. Someone whose driving consisted of driving from Hounslow to Heathrow once a year whilst blind drunk is statistically reasonably safe: their risk per mile is hundreds of times higher than a sober, safe driver, but they're doing hundreds of times fewer miles.

Older drivers tend to drive fewer miles on road where the energy involved in an accident is lower, are less likely to be driving at night and are less likely to be driving in very bad weather. That makes them OK as an insurance risk. But for any given mile that they're driving, the progressive loss of hazard perception is a concern, partly because of eyesight, and partly because they're not driving as much. Their danger to other road users should be considered as a function of when they are on the roads, not when they're sat at home watching TV.

I've dropped down from driving 25000 miles a year to about 5000 miles a year, and I'm acutely aware that the skills I built up during half a million miles of accident and conviction free driving are atrophying, to the point that I intend to go on one of the defensive driving courses to get back up to date. That's partly lack of practice, partly just getting older.

as an 'older driver' I think that 80 should be the cut-off point and this is not ageist
I am nowhere near 75 and having driven safely for over 40 years I am not yet ready to hang up my driving gloves (as it were) but it seems men are more likely to refuse to stop driving when they really should (I saw the documentary about older drivers!) while women are a lot more pragmatic and realistic about their capabilities.

not being sexist but most men see driving as a badge of masculinity even if they are not petrolheads
I will admit that my night driving is poor even though I pass the eyesight test - so I rarely drive at night, ditto in foggy conditions
I too am appalled by some of the young drivers (tailgating, dangerous overtaking and speeding) and old drivers (peering over the steering wheel and not using mirrors/signals when they should) - both categories are bad drivers and should be sent for 're-education'

I think a lot of ideas about older drivers are an outdated stereotype. I remember going back to the 70s you did get some terrible older drivers, people who'd learned to drive when there was little traffic on the roads and no motorways who'd never really adapted their driving who thought pootling along St 15mph was okay, as was stopping on roundabouts to look at the signs and that the hard shoulder was for the use of nervous drivers.

You just don't get that anymore.

The elderly pp I know are all terrified of losing their licences.
It's basically the road to sheltered housing.
Consequently they drive VERY cautiously.

I think they need to fill in a form every so many years but easy to lie on that.

I appreciate that new drivers cause more accidents but my sister and I have been crashed into by elderly drivers. I let it go but she made sure that hers lost his licence. (She was on a bike; near miss)

In my area school run mums are by far the worst (and everyone who thinks it's ok to drive onto their drive. If your vision is in anyway restricted reverse please then drive off preferably not whilst trying to deal with the two dc in the back seat). I had two thankfully minor prangs distracted by my dc when they were younger.

Another concern I have is that some older drivers appear to have no understanding of the vehicles they drive. Just as my grandmother laboriously double-declutched on a car with synchromesh on all four forward gears (ask your grandparents to explain) my great uncle gave me chapter and verse on how he would control a sliding car (this when I suggested that with ice on the road he might get a taxi to the social club) which proved he quite obviously had no idea that his car was (a) front wheel drive and (b) had anti-lock braking (lots of crap about cadence braking, again, ask your grandparents). Until they switched to an auto my parents slowed down on the gears, 1960s style, rather than using the brakes: again, completely inappropriate for modern cars.

This isn't just about "the old". I'd be interested to know how many people who passed their driving test in the 1980s or the 1990s have the slightest idea of how to drive a car with ABS properly, and what to do if the brakes do trigger. My gut feel is that a lot of people dimly remember the idea of releasing the brakes when they think the wheels are locking, and some refresher lessons wouldn't go amiss (hell, for people who passed their tests in the 1980s and before, there's still the "steer into a slide" nonsense, which for the vast majority of cars is about the worst thing you can do, as most modern cars, even rear wheel drive ones, understeer rather than oversteer under most circumstances).

Double-declutching also saves wear and tear on a synchromesh ...

I'd be interested to know how many people who passed their driving test in the 1980s or the 1990s have the slightest idea of how to drive a car with ABS properly,

It's probably similar - if not related to - the number of drivers who can actually use a sat nav properly.

"Another concern I have is that some () drivers appear to have no understanding of the vehicles they drive"

Fixed that one too

One thing that should be re looked at is the sight testing. I recently had to have several eye operations but was told that legally I could drive. When he told me this the optician said to me ' frightening isn't it'. So a few days later I got into the car and drove as I was entitled too. I got as far as the end of the road and came back. There was no way I was safe to drive. The sight test is not vigorous enough and there must be many people on the road young ,middle aged and old who 'officially' can see but in reality can't see well enough.

I think a passplus course should be mandatory for all new drivers too, however old they are!

Double-declutching also saves wear and tear on a synchromesh ...

If done properly, but at the expense of more wear on the clutch. If we're all living in 1973 and filling our gearboxes that have all the manufacturing swarf in them with crap oil, then it's worthwhile, but when was the last time a remotely modern car had a gearbox wear out?

It's like the "slowing down on the gears" thing. Aside from the dynamics issue (in a front wheel drive car it's dangerous as the last thing you want to do is do the braking with the front wheels, and it bypasses the ABS) it wears the clutch, which is expensive to change, in order to save wear on the brake pads, which are dirt cheap. When cars were rear wheel drive and had drums brakes of dubious quality this made sense, because swapping brake shoes in drum brakes is labour intensive, setting them up is even harder, they overheat as soon as you look at them and braking with the rear wheels at least means you slow in a straight line. But slowing on the gears instead of using modern disc brakes with ABS is just silly, but you'll still get older drivers lamenting the way modern drivers use the brakes.

Glacinda, a driver who's passed their test in the last ten years will be taught to brake to the speed they want and then select a gear, will be taught to deal with a slide by letting off steering and brake inputs and taught to deal with locked wheels with some variation on "stomp, stay, steer" (which is the American dictum, but none the worse for that). They simply won't have the reflexes that were taught to older drivers, so it actually is a product of age.

"Roadcraft" changed "the system" from slowing on the gears to slowing on the brakes and then selecting a gear in the 1980s, but it's taken a very long time for the message to get over.

I think everyone should do some sort of re-test every 25 years. I passed my test at 17, I doubt if my driving skills/standards will be the same when I am 77 as at 17, or 37 or 57.

It's like the "slowing down on the gears" thing.

Until you come to a very steep downhill, and discover what brake fade is ... or have they replaced those "use low gear signs" ?

I learned to drive without a clutch at all ...

when I learned to drive - many years ago - my instructor said slow down using the brakes then change down the gears as brakes are cheaper to replace than a gearbox - I have still had this questioned when I mention it by people who have been driving for years.

I don't think it's ageist to be worried about older drivers although I think in most cases 75 is too young to worry. From 85 it's a different story. If you see someone driving far too slowly, 99 times out of 100, they will be elderly. If you see simple bad driving, that's usually a mum in a car that's far too big for her. But both of those are generally low speed accidents. It doesn't make it right though.

I was interested in the comment further up about Parkinsons. My father has Parkinsons and finally gave up his car at 90. That was two years ago. You're right, he saves money by not running a car. But will he get a taxi? Nope. Too tight-fisted (and he's really not hard up by the way). For a while he got a lift to his local supermarket with a guy who lives in the same sheltered housing complex, but then there was something wrong with his car and he decided to give it up. So I said I'd organise a Sainsburys shop each week for him. But he wouldn't do that after a while because he'd never order enough for it to be free delivery. You'd have thought £6 for the luxury of having it delivered to your kitchen and no hassle would be ok, but no. So now he phones his local Coop and they deliver for free but he doesn't like their products as much as Sainsburys, sigh. I digress slightly but just wanted to make the point that an elderly person can effectively housebound themselves, even though they don't need to.

My mum has a friend who is well under 90 and he didn't need to take a test and never has. Does it show? Not really. He did get caught doing more than 20 in a 20 limit but frankly anyone could do that, it's nothing to do with age. He went on a speed awareness course.

I did my test in 1990 so I didn't have to do reverse parallel parking, but I can do it. In fact I can reverse much better than my DH, who did have to do it. Ultimately you learn this stuff after the test.

As for satnav, I never use it. Looking up the route on Google Maps before I go and keeping a road atlas with me works fine and I don't get sent down narrow lanes under low bridges. That's another category of dangerous driver actually. The ones who realise they've gone the wrong way and slam their brakes on, or crawl along. If you have gone the wrong way, that's the worst that can happen? You need to turn round somewhere. Not so easy on a motorway but still not the end of the world and anywhere else you'll find somewhere within a mile or so. But don't crawl along paying no attention to the road.

I don't think we need retesting but a regular refresher would not go amiss. And maybe everyone should target doing the advanced driving test at some point.

Why is it only those who passed their tests in the 80's and 90's who wont understand their vehicle? What a huge assumption!

It's misplaced to worry about 'older' drivers, when all the stats show they're a lower risk group.

Yabvu op but it doesn't matter. Do the maths about how many extra examiners and test centres would be needed. Also what happens if they fail? Can they keep on trying until they pass like younger people?

Lots of terrible drivers managed to pass a test somehow.

I know people of all ages that quite frankly should not be driving, so it seems ageist to focus solely on elderly drivers.

Why is it only those who passed their tests in the 80's and 90's who wont understand their vehicle?

And 70s, and 60s, if you want.

Up until the 1990s, the driving test's implicit style of driving assumed a rear wheel drive, oversteering, drum-braked car without ABS. These days that's a minority sport, to put it mildly.

Until you come to a very steep downhill, and discover what brake fade is

But that's not slowing down, that's maintaining a constant speed. Yes, you should select a gear such that your car will maintain the correct speed. But the way to do that is to brake to the speed you want to maintain and then select an appropriate gear. In the 1980s and before you'd fail your driving test for changing from 4th to 2nd, for example.

Bolograph what you say may be true. But that group is involved in more accidents that the older age group.

And not driving well, through suboptimal understanding of the vehicle, or any other cause, is not age linked. Or rather, if (the deeply unsentimental) insurance industry's views are worth anything, it is age linked and the younger the more dangerous.

Of course the rationale behind gear braking is that it delivers an equal force to both wheels thus reducing the chances of the car sliding out of control.

Anyone who has put a car on a rolling road will know brakes are never evenly matched across the axle, and that up to 10% variation in braking force is allowed. Which is nothing on dry road, but could be a lot on ice. (Modern cars have systems to prevent wheelspin, so it's less necessary these days)

Correctly applied gear braking also allows a driver to accelerate out of a curve faster and smoother (i.e. rally driving). (As Fangio famously said, the trick to winning races is not to drive fast on the straight, but drive fast on the bends ....)

I just checked my license, apparently it expires/gets revoked when I am 80. I think that's too far away, perhaps a refresher course, not a test, every 10 years would be better?

I found this strange the other day, an 18 year old friend of the family attempted to drive my 10+ year old car. She was flummoxed and gave up as it was 'too hard and stupid'.
She had learnt to drive and passed her test in one of these new cars with autostart, so if you stall the engine starts up again with no input from the driver. It tells her went to change gears etc. Dangerous she has a license to drive cars self described as 'too hard' for her to drive.