To think that maybe elderly drivers need to re take their driving test?

[lonelyonee]

Title is to grab attention although not far off my point. (Long post sorry!).
My AIBU is AIBU to think that if you are driving on the roads which are mostly 30 mph that you should be indeed doing or at the very least near to the speed limit?
I'm sure it is still classed as a minor on your driving test if you are going too slow in a particular speed zone right?

Driving on my way home just, I was stuck behind a car who was being driven by an elderly male. That's fine if he can drive safely (I've seen 100 year old drivers & am aware some are fantastic!). My issue is he was driving EXTREMELY slow, sporadically 25mph then slowing down to around 10mph at points where there was no need to slow down or go that slow. So as this is happening I'm obviously having to slow right down almost to a stop with tonnes of traffic behind me. That's fine, annoying but it's not forever as long as the person behind me is paying attention.
What really made me angry (and made me alert them to being dangerous with my horn) was that he sped up quite a lot on the approach and to go around a very small roundabout with very high visibility to then whack his breaks on as soon as he got around it (not indicating to turn into anywhere or pull over). Obviously I then had to also do the same, and so did the cars behind me.
Now I'm not being funny but it's very dangerous for me to be doing stops like that as I am currently pregnant and it worries me driving with the seatbelt being across my bump area (I do tuck it as far down as possible but it's still a worry for me).
I was not going excessively fast, in fact I was going fairly slow as I was now used to him also going very slowly & was taken aback when he sped up.
The response I had from him and what I presume was his wife was her waving her hand at me as though I was in the wrong.
I have a feeling he was purposely brake checking me here.

Now being pregnant and hormonal I'm aware I may be being unreasonable (hence this post) but to just pop the icing on the cake they had to little stickers in their back window. One read: "I hope your insurance is as good as your brakes" and the other something regarding tailgating.
Makes me wonder if he is a serial slow driver and often gets people alerting him to his dangerous driving? Or they do this for fun in rush hour traffic?

Final question off the back of this to stimulate debate, should pensioners have to re take their test when they reach a certain age? After experiencing this I believe they do indeed.
Thanks for reading. I look forward to your responses/thoughts etc...

@powershowerforanhour yeah this is what I was thinking. That maybe they do this a lot and just love to be the victim or something. Honestly felt like the wife's little hand wave was a patronising way of saying "we will do what we want thanks". I just hope other people are as cautious as I was behind them, else they might end up in that exact situation. I also think they knew exactly where they were going, he indicated at every turn ahead of time & like I've said he flew across the roundabout at quite a speed, you don't put your foot down like that if you're unsure where you are do you really?

The mind boggles but I've had my vent via Mumsnet and some of you lovely bunch!

YEP. Just a routine visit to my local hospital's outpatient car park will demonstrate perfectly why and just how many of them are at best a nuisance and at worse an accident waiting to happen.

@BrokenWing it's certainly sounds like you're insinuating that. Oh really, as in my experience it was VERY unusual. I've never once come across the behaviour they exhibited on the roads before. So the horn was overkill, what would you suggest as an alternative way to alert someone to them being a danger? I couldn't think of one at the time in any case, it was a quick "what are you doing" beep so to speak.
Yes my emphasis was regarding why I was so annoyed, it's not just about me and my safety anymore, and it was part of my explanation as to why I was so extremely cautious behind him as I find I'm more alert to what's going on now. Is that not okay?

@LolaSmiles yeah I was just being broad about the circumstances, people rely on dash cams now to prove fault and I'm seriously considering getting one after this. You do hear those horror stories of people not at fault but it's their word against the other person as no witnesses.

Driving isn't a right and people who can't drive safely should not be doing it. In which case, we should make it possible to live a full life without driving. At the moment, some people, who live in London and a few other fortunate areas, and who do not have interests that take them out of city centres, live a full life without driving. For everyone else, driving, or access to an affordable car with driver, is a necessity.

Or perhaps something similar to the speed awareness courses which are very useful and tailored to older drivers

How is the speed awareness course tailored to older drivers @StCharlotte?

(YOUR VEHICLE CAN DO SPEEDS OTHER THAN 40 MPH!).

And what does this mean?

Well the 40mph comment was an aside as in my experience there are a lot of older drivers who drive at 40mph in a 30 zone and stick at 40 in a 50 or 60 zone. Yes it's a generalisation but it's also true.

As for the course, it's not as a punishment but to "remind" them of stuff, bring them up to date - there were no yellow boxes when my MIL passed her test in 1969 for instance. Does she know what they're for?

I meant could be tailored to older drivers. Sorry!

This is such an ageist thing. Imagine someone turned round tomorrow and told you you couldn't drive. Actually imagine how your life would be affected. I know I'll get dozens coming on here with glib answers of how they have cycled everywhere for years but it is quite life changing - especially for those who don't have other family members able to drive you about.
People become virtually housebound except for maybe the kindly neighbour/ family member who takes them to doctors appts, a bit of shopping. It could be like a 10 /20 year prison sentence depending on how long you live.
Oldies are not the worst drivers according to the stats. Maybe we SHOUld use the stats and ban young people until they are say 25, Mum and Dad can ferry them until then - That would save more lives.

BTW I am not saying dont' test drivers regularly - but test them all and where does the money come for that?

We are already ageist when it comes to who's allowed to drive. It's a principle most people accept as being appropriate in some way.

And the independence and quality of life arguments have no fucking business in this discussion. If people can't drive safely they don't get to endanger others (and themselves) to preserve their independence. That's it. Any suggestion otherwise is pretty fucking monstrous. Driving isn't a right.

Now if despite the tendency across the species for eyesight to decline as we get old, older drivers are still just as safe, fine. But the only arguments applicable are those on that basis.

there were no yellow boxes when my MIL passed her test in 1969 for instance. Does she know what they're for?
If you mean box junctions, they were introduced in 1967.

And very very few people appear to know what they are.

If people can't drive safely they don't get to endanger others
If we had any Police this could be true.

Well, true. But that's not an argument for entertaining quality of life issues in a discussion that should only be about life and limb.

independence and quality of life arguments havenofucking business in this discussion. If people can't drive safely they don't get to endanger others (and themselves) to preserve their independence. That's it. Any suggestion otherwise is pretty fucking monstrous. Driving isn't a right.

Of course you are right. People should give up at the exact moment they become unsafe, or before. But they don't. Human nature being what it is- the strong desire to continue to live the expanded social life a car provides, the wish to retain independence for its own sake and "not be a burden", the overestimation of one's abilities, the magical thinking of "I don't want to have an accident therefore I won't- bad things happen to other people", the common denial to oneself and other people in the early stages of chronic illness (and especially denial where the big taboo, the bogeyman please-anything-but-that disease, dementia is concerned) and the inherent impairment of self awareness that dementia confers, all conspire to keep a lot of people driving longer than they should.

Putting in place any sort of systemic measures to help stop this happening- from awareness campaigns on TV to improving public transport to increasing fines to retesting- all gets costed. Quality of life effects as well as "deaths avoided" gets "costed".

that's not an argument for entertaining quality of life issues in a discussion that should only be about life and limb.

Of course quality of life gets considered. Is it because it is the quality of life of the "potentially guilty" that is being considered?

There should be mandatory retesting of everyone regardless of age every 5 years, which should include theory and eye testing. Dangerous drivers are from all age groups and sexes.

No, quality of life should not be considered. Driving isn't a right and either you're still safe to do it or you aren't. This has nothing to do with the impact it would have on your quality of life if you weren't able to do it.

That's not to say people aren't resistant to this concept, that there aren't plenty of drivers deluding themselves they're fine. Of course. Those points weren't wrong. It just has nothing to do with the question of whether we should factor quality of life into discussion about removing licences when a driver is no longer safe.

Oh ok. That is reasonable. I think, if a person is deemed unsafe then you are totally right- there is no restricted " tootling to the corner shop " licence and nor should there be. It's how you administer the scheme that matters.

I live in a seaside town and frequently get stuck behind elderly people doing 30 on a 60mph road or 15 on a 30 one. It's fucking dangerous.

The issue is, people can pass a test but start driving like a dickhead literally the following day. There are so many shit drivers on the roads of all ages, nobody drives to test quality.

I'm very torn, probably everyone should take a test every ten years or so, saying that I think parents at school run time are the most dangerous, the speeding/overtaking is horrendous.

As I said further up one of the biggest issues is people looking at/using their mobile phones while driving. Retesting won't sort them out, they'll drive perfectly during the test and get their mobiles out the next day.

For example, you could stop a lot of knife and gun crime and terrorist incidents if you poured billions and billions into policing and instituted Northern Irish troubles era security measures in every town and city in the UK. Bag searches going into every shop, no litter bins on the street, security checkpoints in the road so you could be pulled in to have your car boot searched and answer questions no matter who you were or where you were going. That would prevent some deaths and serious injury but have an effect on the quality of life of the population, cost a fortune and be a logistical nightmare.

I don't think there should be a re-test where you can lose your licence. When the courts even take into account people's personal circumstances when handing out driving bans, it would be wrong to take a licence from someone when they could lose their job, not be able to get their children to school or not be able to attend medical appointments without a car. It would also massively discriminate against people living in rural communities.

Where my mum lives, she is 4 miles walk from the nearest bus stop and that bus only goes twice a day. She is 78 and a good driver who doesn't drive slowly and has never been in an accident, but if she had a bad day, she would be effectively be under house arrest until she could re-take and pass the test.

What we should have is a compulsory refresher course. A 2-day course with part theory and rules of the road and then a lesson with a qualified instructor who can remind you of the basics. In addition, I think a basic first aid course and instruction on what to do in the case of an accident would also be sensible.

If the instructor thinks you are not safe to drive, then a process could be started at this stage but reckless drivers would no doubt drive like nuns for this period.

I also think that driving theory and road safety should be part of the syllabus at secondary school. It should be funded for Police officers to attend schools with 16/17 year olds and talk to them about driving safely. About the risks of doing stupid things and hopefully reduce the danger of the first period after they have passed their tests.