To think a cometency driving test should be done at retirement-ish age?

[hidinginthenightgarden]

A few weeks ago I read about a crash caused by an old lady who tried to over take a tractor but couldn't go fast enough and ended up knocking a lady off her bike. Her husband then ran over his wife and killed her. It was one of many incidents I have heard of where people of a certain age cannot drive fast enough (or safe enough) to be on the roads. Yesterday I saw a man on the motorway doing 50mph in a brand new landrover. My own Grandfather gave up driving on the motorway when he felt uncomfortable driving the required speed - sensible, but others will not want to lose their "freedom" so won't make such decisions.
Shouldn't there be some sort of competency test around age 65/70 to test you are still able to see far enough, drive fast enough on a motorway and so on? Or if deemed fairer, maybe we should all have to do one every 10 years until we reach 65 and then it becomes every 5 years?

Aren't caravans and trailers restricted to 60 mph

That was my point - the pp said they are usually held up on motorways by elderly people doing 60, and I was making the point that it's usually lorries and trailers doing 60. Not elderly people in cars.

There is a section of the M8 with a 50 limit so are you suggesting the speed limit is broken as you think that’s too slow? I had a ‘space saver’ spare wheel on my car with a 50mph limit ate you suggesting I put myself in danger because you think that’s too slow. You sound like the wanker who was up the back of me for driving at 50 in torrential rain on a national speed limit road. The visibility was poor, the car was slipping and he was trying to bully me to speed up.

I agree though that an eye test ehen you renew the photo card part of the licence should be mandatory to update your licence. I don’t agree with re-testing as you develop skills after your intosk test, it is just to ensure you can get around safely.

Should their be a 'cometency' test in spelling before posting on MN? There may be a case for some measure of retesting every 10, 15 years but if young, newly qualified drivers were under some restriction regarding the power of the car they can drive, the statistics regarding their accident level would change. At the moment a young driver can take a test in a 1000cc car then go out and buy any type of car the next day. Restrictions were brought in to control those tested in automatics, it should be possible to introduce further restrictions.

What is a cometecy anyway?

I don't think it's dangerous for some drivers to go under the speed limit, actually. A lot of rural roads are national speed limit, but there's no way I'd drive on them above 45mph or so unless it was a longish straight stretch. When I was younger, I drove faster on motorways, regularly well above the speed limit; that didn't make me a safer driver than I am now.

Having said that, I don't disagree with extra competency tests - maybe at 75?

I just report anyone who I catch on my dashcam being a shite driver tbh my local police let you upload dashcam videos of dodgy driving and they email you to say if they are charging/fining/whatever the driver or not.

I videoed a taxi driver doing some phenomenally dangerous driving once and they agreed with my dashcam and fined him/put points on his license I like to think he's learnt his lesson (or at the very least his insurance premiums have sky rocketed as afaik they are really strict with taxi drivers if they get any points?)

Personally I don't give a crap who you are, if you drive dangerously you shouldn't be on the roads. And I have experienced plenty of dangerous driving from every age and gender group - young men, middle aged women on the school run, elderly etc etc. There's shit drivers in every group.

What’s a cometency test when it’s at home?

I agree OP. Most of the shite driving I encounter is elderly drivers that have no clue what is going on. They should have to prove competence over age 70.

@LordPickle most of the incompetency I see on the roads is either very young drivers or Audi drivers.

I've just Googled, Car Crash Yesterday. I've had four deaths by dangerous driving came up, all Male, between 22-40. Likewise the HGV/Van crashes have been male, 25-40.

So are we just going to overlook our Equality Laws to apply ageism to this issue?

Because if we now can, I'd like to ban doormen/security under 40, they are mostly arseholes. What about a curfew for Men under 25, I'm sure a lot of the crime would disappear.

I'm sure there are lots of people who have opinions on what groups of people we should treat differently.

So the new policy wouldn't be based on statistics, how would you justify it?

What I think is wrong is that if you pass your test driving a manual car, you don't need to re-sit the test, or even taking driving lessons, if you then swap to an automatic. If someone needs to swap because they are no longer able to drive a manual car, they should be re-tested.

What I think is wrong is that if you pass your test driving a manual car, you don't need to re-sit the test, or even taking driving lessons, if you then swap to an automatic. If someone needs to swap because they are no longer able to drive a manual car, they should be re-tested

My FIL swapped because he had a knee replacement and it was easier for him not to use a clutch. It had no bearing on his ability to drive generally at all.

And you don't need lessons on an automatic if you passed on a manual. Obviously if you pass on an automatic you do need to retake your test on a manual.

This does need to be sorted out as the number of people with dementia is skyrocketing. Obviously any age can have dementia but the main risk is how old you are. Unfortunately I have had lots of experience with people with dementia. None of them would give up their driving licence. The GP didn’t want to be the one to tell FIL to give up his licence and in the end we had to steal his keys. He then found a spare pair. He lived opposite a primary school.
Look at this graph to see how many more people with dementia will be driving when your children are your age. Some of them might be us! I would hope I would have the sense to give up voluntarily but dementia is heartbreaking especially when people are so anxiously fighting it and their independence.

... which means a mandatory test at 75 would be better than anything voluntarily.

What I think is wrong is that if you pass your test driving a manual car, you don't need to re-sit the test, or even taking driving lessons, if you then swap to an automatic. If someone needs to swap because they are no longer able to drive a manual car, they should be re-tested

Say what?

I have an automatic now because I drive in shit loads of traffic stop/start/stop/start and the constant use of the clutch was aggravating my old ski injury in my knee. Why, exactly, would I need to be real-tested?

Jesus wept.

There was a significant issue in the rural area of the UK where I lived with drivers and it did just seem to be older drivers, driving everywhere at 40 miles ph. Long stretches of 60 speed limit where the overtaking was very limited and also a the 30/20 village areas. I am sure if you asked them they would say they were safe but they were a total menace. If you cannot maintain a reasonable road speed in relation to the current limit you shouldn't be on the road.
Older people regularly caused fatal crashes. However I do think appalling public transport was an issue, they didn't want to move from the villages they lived in and many no longer even have a shop.

If someone is competent to drive an automatic after years of driving a manual, then they have nothing to fear in re-taking a test.

Jesus wept for the woman I know who is now paralysed from the waist down by a driver who was no longer fit enough to drive a manual, swapped to an automatic and got muddled up.

@IncrediblySadToo Unbelievable isn't it?

PurpleWithRed
Like AuntieStella said, insurance costs tell you all you need to know about who is having lots of expensive accidents and who isn't.

But they don't tell you who is having the most accidents.

They also wouldn't highlight that it was someone driving at 40 for miles, with a huge line behind them that led to someone trying an over taking move that went wrong. It wouldn't be slow drivers fault but if they had been driving at a reasonable speed the whole thing could have been avoided. I saw that quite a bit.
In the US they have clear minimum speeds posted as well as maximum ones, which I like.

Should their be a 'cometency' test in spelling before posting on MN?

Do you mean "there"?

If someone is competent to drive an automatic after years of driving a manual, then they have nothing to fear in re-taking a test

No. I don’t have anything to ‘fear’ but neither do I have anything I need to prove. Changing FROM an automatic TO a manual, yes, the other way NO.

Your logic is incredibly flawed.

Jesus wept for the woman I know who is now paralysed from the waist down by a driver who was no longer fit enough to drive a manual, swapped to an automatic and got muddled up

‘No longer fit enough’ could mean anything at all. ‘Got muddled up’ makes no sense when moving FROM manual TO automatic.
The ‘got confused’ could be due to anything. A driving test would not stop someone ‘getting confused’.

Your logic is flawed.

Oh and obviously I’m very sorry for the woman who is paralysed.

I’m equally sorry for my godson who has a life changing brain injury (he will never live independently or even be able to dress himself) due to a young driver losing control of his car.

Anecdote =/= Data.

😖Flobochin totally. I’m really, after many many years, losing the will to post on MN due to the complete lack of comprehension, critical thinking & common sense these days.

Should their be a 'cometency' test in spelling before posting on MN?

Oh, the irony 😁😁😆😆😂😂😂🤣