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

Not so, after a certain age premiums start to go up again.

The comparison with young drivers is bogus. It isn't about who is a better driver, it is about the nature and cause of the risk. They need different solutions.

The risk posed by young drivers is largely behavioural (inexperience, willingness to take risk) that can be tackled by additional training (speed management courses etc.) or by criminal sanction. Behaviour can be addressed and driving improved.

Given that reduced driving skill in older people is often caused by irreversible physical and mental decline (slower reactions, the onset dementia, sight difficulties) it isn't possible to address these changes. You can't send someone on a course to stop them having dementia (or a host of degenerative illnesses associated with age). As such we need to be more willing to remove licences and insist on more vigorous medical examinations for those who want to keep driving beyond a certain age.

I agree with ComposHat about the older drivers.

I'm keeping an eye on my dad. He's 71 and has health problems, but so far his driving is fine. But I wouldn't hesitate to suggest to him he stops driving if that's what it came to.

He's reduced his driving anyway because the health problems make it uncomfortable to drive at times. It's not because the mental capacity isn't there, and I think an adapted car would be a solution.

On the other hand, my grandad was a terrible driver, and everyone was trying to persuade him not to drive, and would find reasons for him not to be the designated driver, etc.

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.

Pretty much all the minor incidents, near misses, etc, that I've experienced were caused by older drivers. And near misses don't get reported.

I think we should all have regular re-tests. Driving today is nothing like the driving experienced by these older people when they had their tests.

I can't find statistics on whether "over 65" car accidents are increasing. Perhaps they are because there are more older people.
Logically there should be a trend towards less accidents as technology is making cars easier to drive and safer with assisted parking, sensors that prevent collisions etc.
And of course eventually we'll have driverless cars.

It shouldn't be made political. Shouldn't be allowed to be made political either

Everything is political.

I think this is a really difficult one. On the one hand, older drivers would lose a lot of their precious independence and ability to get out of the house if they were unable to drive. This would be terribly sad for some people who are already lonely and isolated.

On the other hand, safety should always come first.

Rather than making it a driving test as such (they are already stupidly difficult to pass and it could turn into administrative chaos), what about a standard health check at a certain age for eyes, reacts, medications that make you drowsy etc? If someone has been driving for 50+ years I doubt it is their driving skills that would be the issue, as opposed to their health.

And of course eventually we'll have driverless cars

Will we ? If you know you can call a driverless car to your door within 5 minutes, to go where you want, would you want the expense of keeping a car on your drive doing nothing for 22/24 hours a day ?

Has anyone suggested mandatory retesting to Dave and Gideon? I thought they'd be overjoyed by this easy way to raise extra money and they can claim the moral high ground in the number of lives saved because of people not having regular vision checks as well as fewer accidents because of people wearing glasses.
I would bring the retesting (of sight and reaction at least) at a younger age- 10 years after initial test perhaps.

You should be retested/refreshed 5 years after you pass. Then every ten years. Then back down to five years after maybe 70 years.

When we are younger our driving ability should get better with experience and is not impaired by anything physical (generally), also with the statistics I suspect there is many more young people on the road than elderly (many elderly give up when they realise they are not as safe as they were)

Whilst it does appear ageist, sadly we do deteriorate faster when we are old. people often don't realise the rate of our own deterioration.

Dmil is an example for me, I hate being in the car with her. Is she a bad driver? probably not yet but she's definitely not as sharp and on the ball as she was, simple things like not being able to turn her body as she once could make a difference.

There should be a mandatory assessment of some kind every few years.

I was hit head on by an 83 year old with a sight problem who came round a bend on my side of the road. He sustained serious injuries, whilst I walked away (big car). His family knew he shouldn't have been driving, but he claimed it was my fault even though everyone else knew he was at fault. In order to remove his licence the police had to prosecute him, so they could force him to have a medical which they knew he would fail and they could take his licence away.

The police said that often older drivers voluntarily surrender their licence, but if they do this, unless they are certified as being medically unfit to drive there is nothing to stop them just reapplying for a replacement after the dust has died down. The only way to force dangerous older drivers off the road at present is to prosecute.

I can't find statistics on whether "over 65" car accidents are increasing.

One of the problems with almost everything regarding ageing is that, as a product of past generations' life expectancies, someone aged 66 is lumped in with someone aged 86 or 106, when their needs and experiences are wildly different. If you average together the driving statistics (or health statistics more generally) of those aged 65, who are simply ordinary adults with perhaps thirty or forty years ahead of them, with those aged 95, who aren't, you will conceal huge variations. It's like political analysts who see those aged 65 (born 1950, teenagers for the Beatles) and those aged 95 (born 1920, adults during the second world war and quite likely to have been either bombed or shot at) as homogenous because they are "pensioners".

anecdotes do not a major age problem make
as I said upthread - the main culprits are men who feel not being able to drive is some reflection on their 'masculinity' ( not being sexist)
most women are far more practical and pragmatic to recognise when they cannot drive.
mitzi you still have not clarified whether the 'elderly gent (see)' was on a single track , i.e. narrow country lane, when he was doing 15 and you felt he should have been doing nearer 60 (OK until you meet someone coming the other way doing 60) - that would have been suicide even if theoretically not against the law. Just because it isn't posted with a speed limit does not mean that every road is a 60 mph fast road

I wa speaking to a local traffic policeman about this , he said that the crashes with young drivers are numerically smaller but involve much more serous injuries . A lot of older drivers have many small crashes but there are fewer injuries . Also many older drivers do not report these incidents to their insurance companies for fear of losing their no claims bonus .

I live in an area with many older drivers , most are fine but there is a significant minority of ones who are dangerous . Most cars have many small dents in them and one carpark locally is renowned for people driving into each other .

Recent incidents have included a car left on a hill with no handbrake on while the driver collected their pension ( it slid down the hill narrowly missing a pedestrian and pushchair ) , drivers regularly ignore the one way system ( it wasn't like that in 1950) , a lady in our village drive the wrong way down the local A road and we followed someone going 35 mph on the A14 . There is a slip road to our village and another older gentleman stopped to have tea from his flask ??

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.

I wonder if a study of accidents per milse driven would reveal a different picture.

95 year old driving instructor

The woman who hit me side on at 30mph only surrendered her licence because the police told her if she didn't they would have to prosecute her for driving without due care and attention - she was 93.

The chap who drove into the front of the GP surgery where I work because he got his brake pedal and accelerator pedal mixed up had already been reported to the DVLA by the GP. Whilst waiting for their decision he managed to drive across the surgery car park, mount the wide paved frontage (approx 12 feet deep) and continue into the building at speed. How nobody was seriously injured or killed I don't know. He was 90.

I've had patients come into my treatment room that can hardly walk. When I discover that they have driven to see me I'm aghast. They can't put one foot in front of the other without difficulty yet seem to think it's OK to drive.

It's not ageist to suggest that elderly people (who are statistically more likely to suffer immobility, visual reduction, hearing deficit and reduced cognitive functioning speed) should be tested or retested before being allowed to drive a half ton vehicle capable of travelling at speeds up to 100mph on roads that have become significantly more busy and complex over the last 30-40 years.

Driving too slowly can be as dangerous as driving too fast - you annoy other drivers to the point where they take risks to get past you that they shouldnt be taking. I wonder if any injuries from "had to emergency brake to avoid hitting oblivious driver" or "overtook on a bend and overshot after being stuck behind them for 5 miles doing 25 in a 50" would be counted against the true cause of the accident? I suspect at least some of them arent. Theres a difference between having an accident and being the cause of accidents of other people.
I live in an area where there are a large number of oblivious drivers of all ages, I'm always driving on high alert around where I live because I know one or more drivers will do something like this on every journey.

Im in favour of retesting to at least a basic level every 10 years for everyone, there are already costs for MOT, insurance etc, it would just be another motoring expense as part of owning a car.

limit not target.

Round here we get lots of tractors (because, y'know, food doesn't come from Waitrose) and they do often do 30 or less in a 50 because that's as fast as they can go. Most of the drivers will pull in to a layby as soon as possible to let the queue overtake - but those laybys are not that frequent. You just have to wait, or get your lazy arse out of bed sooner.

impatient dickheads who simply must overtake when dangerous are not the fault of these people. If you get that annoyed when driving, do us all a favour and go get annoyed with a tree.

I agree that being an 'oblivious' driver is not good - but the stereotype of the 30mph OAP with the engine roaring in bottom gear is rare. The tailgater, speeder and phone user are much more common.

Actually my driving instructor told me that I should try and get up to the speed of the other cars on the road as long as it was within the speed limit and it was safe to do so. Entering a dual carriageway at 30 when the general flow of traffic on it is doing 60 is not safe.

I was also born in the deep country and am aware that tractors have a top speed, but cars are not similarly limited to 30. Ive also seen many tractors pull over to let traffic overtake them when possible, Ive never seen a slow car driver do it.

Yanbu, perhaps at least eyesight testing after a certain age at least

Agree that some older drivers are a worry; a chap in his late 80s here recently drove on the wrong side of the road through a tunnel, then the wrong way along a one-way road, and ended up almost parked in a fountain in the middle of a public square. His family had apparently been trying to stop him for a while, but after this they forcibly removed his keys, and sold his car.

However, the worst drivers in our area, IMO, are school mums in 4x4s they have no idea how to negotiate down our country lanes (where a LOT of pulling in and reversing back to passing points or field entryways is required) and youngsters speeding & not paying attention.

october so agree driving on country lanes does require being aware of passing places, driving round blind bends with caution (as there may be an oblivious driver driving at 60 (NSL after all) ) coming the other way with which you may collide head on and be killed.
oh - and not to mention those on their mobiles because there is no-one to see them
it does seem that many of those who drive these big humungous 4x4 seem unable to put it into reverse gear
rant over - but I live amongst narrow country lanes and meet these types very often - and no not all of them are young or old - just poor drivers.

limit not target.

Within reason - you'd fail your test for not reaching the speed limit if there wasn't a good reason for not doing so.

If there were no obstructions on the road, then you'd expect a certain speed to be achieved - if the driver in front is not confident enough to drive at a suitable speed for the road/conditions then you have to question if they should be on the road in the first place.....

IKIABWAY exactly, I actually got a minor on my driving test for Hesitation because I didnt leave a junction when there was room to do so.