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.

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.

Although that's less true for a car with an ordinary differential.

But braking with the front wheels only is bad practice, particularly on ice: unless the centre of gravity of the car is precisely aligned with the centre of braking effort and the steering is dead straight, it's a recipe for a spin. All those Peugeot 205 GTIs embedded backwards in barriers because of their lift-off oversteer spring to mind. As I say: these are the tropes of the age of rear wheel drive, but the vast majority of drivers now will go through their entire lives without driving a rear wheel drive car, and even those that do will find that the dynamics have been made a lot more front-y (ie, your BMW might oversteer on power, but it will steer understeer the rest of the time).

Correctly applied gear braking also allows a driver to accelerate out of a curve faster and smoother (i.e. rally driving)

Saab cleaned up in the late 1960s by doing the precise opposite: the two-stroke 95s and 96s have no engine braking worth talking about and the four-stroke ones have a free-wheel setting, fitted to all the road-going cars for homologation purposes and rather exciting when engaged. Most rally technique is still about FWD and 4WD vehicles and anyway, if you get your car sideways around motorway exits the old bill will want to talk to you

I don't see why it would improve acceleration, though: whether you brake on the gears or brake on the brakes and then select an appropriate gear, you should still be in the optimum gear before you apply the power either way.

so if you stall the engine starts up again with no input from the driver.

Which car is that? Sounds exciting...

If you are a first aider then you have to refresh your certificate every so many years by going on a training course etc. surely, driving on the roads warrants at least this - regular re-testing.

we could all do with a bit of a refresher couldn't we? I am not sure it should be age specific but perhaps something you have to do regularly if you want to retain your licence.

You cannot compare the number of vehicles on the road, the speeds and the complexity of the cars with when I passed my test 40 some years ago.

tackling the issue at the other end of the scale why not make it 21 to learn to drive. or limit the size/CC of the vehicle or the speeds. vans cant go as fast as cars so why not use the P plate for the first 2 or 3 years after the test has been passed and limit the vehicles etc. that having been said the biggest menace on the roads are the young drivers on provisional licences with no insurance and all of the above makes no difference to them.

Most rally technique is still about FWD and 4WD

Most rally technique is still about RWD and 4WD.

I definitely think over 75s should have to retake their test and thereafter every 5 years.

YANBU

Which car is that? Sounds exciting...
Not sure but I rented a car a couple of weeks ago and with the same system. It was somehwat bemusing.

Why not re test anyone who causes an accident. Putting an age on re test is discriminatory and not to be tolerated.

for those of us who have to pay to fix their own cars, brake pads are cheaper than gears and engines so we brake with those.

although I find anticipation works even better, then you don't have to use either except in an emergency. The brake-accelerate-brake that so many do to get there a whole minute earlier is horrific.

BTW the two crashes that this household has received were both 100% the fault of the other drivers; one in her 30s, one in her 50s. Small sample I know but quite enough!

Putting an age on re test is discriminatory and not to be tolerated.
Well they already do, age 80.

I don't think it's ageist at all.

The people claiming ageism, are you saying that reaction times and eyesight don't deteriorate with age? Maybe you're saying these things don't matter? As for older drivers being the lowest risk group for having an accident, well I don't think that's surprising, I doubt they would be driving 12,000 miles a year and during the rush hour every day.

Well they already do, age 80.

There isn't a retest at 80. Once you reach 70, you have to renew your license every three years, signing a declaration that you're not medically impaired. That's it.

What needs to happen is people need to take a more proactive stance in reporting unsafe drivers of ANY age. At my kids school there has been a spate of insane and dangerous driving. A few of us have started to keep our phones out to take photos of reg plates. If several people see the same thing and report it to the office they pass it on and the police go and have words... It seems to have worked to some extent.

Eyesight may or may not deteriorate with age.

However, exactly as things are now, this does not make the older population worse drivers as demonstrated by the attitude of the insurance companies.

Now, are the insurance industry likely to fly against the facts?

Or is thie demonisation of a group, against accident statistics evidence, a clear example of ageism?

Older drivers (80+) do cause as many accidents and pose as much risk to other people per mile driven as drivers in their 20s - but they drive fewer miles so the actual number of crashes they cause is lower.

Extract taken from study on vehicle crashes in relation to driver age:
"Mileage-based crash rates were by far the highest for the youngest drivers, decreased with increasing age until ages 60-69, and increased slightly thereafter, such that drivers in their 70??s were involved in approximately the same number of crashes per mile driven as drivers in their 30??s, drivers ages 80-84 had mileage-based crash rates similar to drivers ages 25-59, and drivers ages 85 and older had mileage-based crash rates similar to drivers ages 20-24. Rates of driver injuries, and injuries and deaths of other people outside of the driver??s vehicle (occupants of other vehicles, pedestrians, etc.) tended to follow patterns similar to those of overall crash involvement. Drivers ages 85 and older had the highest rates of (their own) death per driver and per mile driven; however, this was largely due to their diminished ability to survive a crash rather than to their increased crash rate. In relation to the amount of driving that they did, drivers aged 85 and older posed about as much risk to other people outside of their vehicle as drivers in their early 20??s did. In relation to their share of the driving population, fewer other people were killed in crashes involving drivers ages 85 and older than drivers of any other age."

Link to full study - it is from the US, but I expect the patterns would be similar everywhere

So basically, older drivers do become more risky, but limit the amount of damage they cause by driving less.

However, exactly as things are now, this does not make the older population worse drivers as demonstrated by the attitude of the insurance companies.

Older drivers, as a group, drive fewer miles. They do so on lower speed roads, and they are less likely to drive at night. The main factors for expensive accidents are speed and visibility, and the main scaling factor for risk is miles (drive twice as far and, all other things being equal, you'll have twice as many accidents).

That makes older drivers a better insurance risk.

However, if it's 3pm on a sunny Thursday afternoon and the roads are full of drivers of various ages, then the older drivers are most certainly not safer than the middle-aged ones. Older drivers' insurance rates don't drop remotely as much as their mileages do.

Older drivers' risk per mile of accidents is higher.

The overall effect of those accidents is lower, because they are (on average) lower energy.

The overall number of accidents they have is lower than their fifty year old neighbour, but not as lower as the difference in mileage implies.

In summary, they are more dangerous per mile, but drive fewer miles.

Research work (US, but there's little reason to believe it's different here). It's very complex to unpick all the possible factors, as this shows.

www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/older-drivers/qanda

"Older drivers have low rates of police-reported crash involvements per capita; their per capita fatal crash rates begin to increase at age 70. Per mile traveled, crash rates and fatal crash rates also start increasing at about age 70. Some caution should be used when comparing crash rates per mile traveled of different age groups. Older drivers generally travel fewer annual miles than most other age groups and, similar to low-mileage drivers of other ages, they tend to accumulate much of their mileage in city driving conditions. In contrast, drivers who accumulate more miles tend to drive more on freeways or divided multilane roads, which generally have much lower crash rates than other types of roads. Hence, the elevated crash rates for older drivers when measured per mile traveled may be somewhat inflated due to the type of driving they do. 15

Insurance claims provide another view of crashes of all severities. Property damage liability claims are filed when an at-fault driver damages someone else's property. Collision coverage insures one's own vehicle against loss caused by a crash. Drivers ages 60-64 have the lowest rates of property damage liability claims and collision claims per insured vehicle year. Rates start increasing after about age 65, and rise above rates for middle-aged drivers at about age 80. However, older drivers' insurance claim rates are much lower than rates for the youngest drivers."

Yy Bolo. Just because their premiums are lower doesn't make them "safer" than younger drivers. Those who are still driving into their eighties might restrict themselves to short familiar routes, drive at lower speeds and resist driving at night, during bad weather or on motorways. Those things don't make you an inherently safer driver, you're just reducing the risk factors.

As well older drivers are more likely to have the funds to pay for repairs out of pocket and are often resistant to lose things like no-claims bonus (even if it's just to make the point, "I've been driving forty years and never made a claim!"). These often don't apply to younger drivers. The lack of claims makes them an attractive market, but again, it doesn't mean they're safer.

So, as a population, they drive within their capabilities, and have fewer accidents than other age groups. That really doesn't sound like a problem.

Even mileage adjusted, they are no more 'dangerous' than any other age group. Again, that really doesn't sound like a problem.

Young and inexperienced drivers, on the other hand, are a problem.

Hell yes. 65 plus even. My gran is 68 and incapable on a road. She's had 10 accidents since she retired. The of them she was blameworthy and if I'm honest the rest are questionable as to how big or small a part she played and frankly she's a liability.

Seven of them even. Stupid fone

I personally thin that all road users should have to pass a test and subsequent retests, that is four wheel, two wheel and non motorised vehicles.

I found the posts about breaking systems interesting. I had an accident at the beginning of this year, icy road, braked, everything locked up and I slid into the car in front. Only doing about 15mph so no damage to the other car although mine was written off by the insurance. I kept kicking myself thinking I should have braked, released and then braked again but seemingly not the case? So now I'm not sure if I did the right thing in keeping my foot on the brake or not!!

I do think I'd like to do a re test or refresher course at some point. I am careful to not drive when I'm dosed up with codeine and in a lot of pain and if I was told to no longer drive then I'd quit.

My only accident (that was my fault) in 27 years of driving.

We were sat at a red light today and a cyclist shot through and was narrowly missed by cars coming from the other side turning right. I was nearly sick with fright!

YABU.
And you really are ageist

My mother is 89, still driving and is a nightmare. Unfortunately when she was 40 she was a nightmare too, but still passed her test and has not been in an accident and has only had 3 points for speeding in all that time.
Whilst in theory it seems like a good idea there are plenty of younger people who drive like maniacs.

I've mixed feelings about this.

We live in an area with no public transport having a car is essential. This means people drive when they shouldn't - last week I followed an elderly gent who was driving down a single track country road (speed limit 60) at 15 mph. Overtaking would have been very dangerous and it was 2 miles before he turned off.

My parents are in their 80s and recently took a driver assessment test (and passed). The only accident my father has ever had was when a young driver coming the opposite way overtook someone on a blind bend and hit my DF head on.