Elderly drivers should be tested

[HeidiHoNeighbour]

91 year old killed a 3 year old in Edinburgh.
She’s been arrested.

Where I live (NW London) lots of elderly drivers are scarier than the teens racing.

A woman was killed in Sainsbury’s car park near me and the 80ish year old was upset he’d be late!

I think everyone should be retested every ten years.

Isn't that what we pay our MPs and civil servants to grapple with ?
Yep, and it's why this stupid impractical idea hasn't happened yet.

If there's enough ill-informed clamour though, they will have to "do something" even if it doesn't save any lives.

@netflixismysidehustle

I think all drivers should be forced to have an eye test every 2-5 years. It's standard practice in many countries and it makes sense from a safety POV

No objection to that - if properly administered.

Isn't that what we pay our MPs and civil servants to grapple with ?

Yep, and it's why this stupid impractical idea hasn't happened yet.

Maybe. Or maybe there just aren't enough bungs in it to interest them. The outcome is the same.

So having read the thread there seems to be a strong contingent of nope the elderly should never be retested because young drivers

Enforcement would be no different to how police currently tackle unlicensed drivers

In other words not at all.

In this country a driving licence is almost viewed as a right not a privilege. It would not just be those with poor health of retirement age who would not have a licence if it were my decision.

Unfortunately a death on the road is viewed as an 'accident' when most are avoidable.

None of the barriers to periodic retesting seem remotely difficult to overcome. You pay for your retest. If you fail you have to sit a refresher course. You can retake in 6 weeks. Over and over until you're actually competent at driving. How is it draconian to ask you to prove your ability to drive to the required standard? If you are a safe enough driver to be on the road you will pass. If not then you shouldn't be on the road and you'll get no sympathy from me in whining that this inconveniences you.

Maybe such a system would result in more pressure to ensure public transport networks are decent and affordable to use.

@zingally

My mum is 65, and while her driving still seems fine, I have made it clear to her (many times), that I WILL tell her as soon as I don't think she's safe any more. And WILL dob her in if she doesn't listen.

Does she have a degenerative eye condition, or early onset dementia? If not why on earth would she put up with that sort of patronising shit?

Why are we comparing the elderly to young drivers? Has anyone suggested that dangerous driving should be allowed to continue for the sake of independence for young drivers but not elderly?

You can fail a driving test by failing to make progress, causing a near miss, not understanding road markings etc. They don't say 'oh well, some people speed so you deserve a license anyway'

If the elderly as a whole are just as competent as ever, then surely the 70-90 range would have less accidents than eg the 40-60 range. Of course you'd have to calculate it on a per mile basis to allow for the lower mileage of the older group.

Trainspotting, the statistic I vaguely recall is that drivers over 75 or 80 are four times more likely to be the cause of a crash than the victim of another driver's error.

That said, I've skimmed the report one of the PPs mentioned which seemed neutral about age as a risk factor. It mentioned slowing of decision making in complex circumstances in part mitigated by avoiding night time driving and staying local. It might be by this that the accident rated for the elderly are eclipsed by the young.

The drivers I'm most concerned about with dementia or macular degeneration significantly affecting sight wouldn't need retests by DVLA examiners, I don't think they'd pass any test. The signal for me is that they won't let DVLA know - presumably if they were confident nothing was wrong, they'd be happy to show off their physical and driving competence to an examiner.

If the elderly as a whole are just as competent as ever, then surely the 70-90 range would have less accidents than eg the 40-60 range. Of course you'd have to calculate it on a per mile basis to allow for the lower mileage of the older group

Table 1 from the link below is interesting. It does exactly as you suggest. You might find it surprising.

aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/

I have not read the whole thread but i had a close call with an elderly man two days ago. He was just rolling in and out across two lanes. I'm very glad i gave him a very wide berth and I have to say he was going super slowly - like 12 mph in 30 zone. I guessed it was an older driver.

I saw him at the supermarket carpark later and had a chat. Mentioned his driving and his car! He was lovely. Very apologetic and complained about boy racers. I'll be him one day...accepting I'm too knackered to drive.

My dad was a dangerous menace in the car, but because he could self-certify as being fit to drive, nobody could stop him
Older drivers should be tested

No, you and all the other posters making comments like this should have reported him to DVLA. Its your responsibility to do this just as much as its the driver's responsiblitiy to accurately fill in the renewal form.

Wanting mass testing based on age to save you filling in an anonymous online form or having an awkward conversation is ridiculous. The cost an logistics alone result in the proposal being thrown out every time it comes up (even for non age based ten yearly testing).

Their eye sight at 70+ surely can’t be as good as when they were 25?

And what makes you think those in their 20s have the eyesight to drive? Hence my suggestion that after any RTA a compulsory sight test, change in licences details if they need aids and a thumping fine for not wearing them.

I agree op.

However I think pp’s who are saying nobody of that age should be allowed to drive, are being ridiculous. Elderly people, just like young ones, are not a homogeneous group. Some will be more than safe to drive at 80+, other’s won’t.

My partners grandmother is in her early 80’s, can confidently and competently drive from Portsmouth to Aberystwyth and back to visit family. I’ve been in many cars with much younger drivers and felt less safe. My own grandmother who is the same age, was in her 60’s before she learnt to drive so has a much more modern take on driving than most her age.

However I see plenty on the roads who just aren’t safe anymore. I had an elderly man drive into the side of my car because “he didn’t come to the city often and the road markings had changed recently”. The road markings had been in place for over 10 years. He was a lovely man, his age affecting his memory and therefore ability to drive didn’t make him a bad person but really he shouldn’t have been driving.

We reported a 90 year old neighbour to the police and DVLA but she kept her licence.
She was drinking 3 bottles of gin a week.
Had to replace her garage doors 3 times in 6 months because she didnt hit the brakes hard enough and smashed right through them. In the end she had a bumper installed to stop this and she crashed into that instead.
Ran over a nieghbours cat and denied it was her (cat was stuck to her tyre).
Stopped on a dual carriageway to answer her phone. I saw her and went to help as I thought she had broken down but No she was chatting to her friend.
Repeatedly left the car doors wide open and the sunroof down in the pouring rain.
Car covered in bumps and scrapes that she blamed other people for.
On a shed load of psyche meds and sleeping tablets.
How the hell she kept that licence is beyond us.

If you have a private pilots license you have to have a flight with an instructor/ examiner every 2 years to maintain your privilege to fly.

I dont see why a similar system could not be implemented for drivers - say 90 minutes with an instructor every 7 years and perhaps 5 years over 60 and 3 years over 70. Not a test as such but it would show up those that were totally clueless who would then have a month to retake their test.

@Zilla1 I'd make it a compulsory part of every insurance policy that all named drivers had to provide licence details and an eye test a minimum of every 2 years. Whether it's the onset of dementia or motivated by selfishness, I can't imagine the majority of dangerous elderly drivers would be doing so without any form of insurance. If the dvla rules on medical conditions were tightened up, it would simply be a case of ANPR picking up uninsured vehicles. And a system to test response times etc regularly beyond a certain age would rule out those gradually declining through age, rather than a specific condition.

@VinylDetective. Not really. The fact the 60-69 year old range shows a decline would suggest the lower mileage has a large influence. (Working on the basis that's the retirement age group where mileage will reduce) I bet if the figures were broken down and you compared people 35-70 with similar mileage to each other there wouldn't be much difference between them. In which case you'd expect the 70+ group to continue that decline if they were an essentially safe group.

Or there's another explanation for the decline at 60-69, in which case it should plateau instead of rising after 70. Unless we admit driving ability declines on a population level beyond 70.

I do sometimes ponder whether the statistics for young drivers and minor accidents are entirely correct. Dsd was driven into by some pompous prick in a luxury saloon. It was a low speed, no injury bodywork only collision. Luckily she was in my car because her tiny fiat, and more importantly her, wouldn't have got off so lightly. If it had come down to Mr wanker and his years of no claims versus a 17yr old in a powerful 4x4, I suspect his version would have been believed. As it happened, there was a witness with dash cam footage showing he literally pulled out into her. It makes me wonder just how often young drivers are incorrectly presumed to be at fault in minor accidents that don't warrant police investigation.

The fact the 60-69 year old range shows a decline would suggest the lower mileage has a large influence

The figures were adjusted for miles driven.

It makes me wonder just how often young drivers are incorrectly presumed to be at fault in minor accidents that don't warrant police investigation

Most accidents involving young people are major accidents at high speed.

@DGRossetti

Wasting millions testing every driver every ten years is unnecessarily draconian

Here's a radical idea ... why not make the drivers pay for it ? Like I had to pay for my SAC. £10/year seems a snip for the privilege of driving. That's £100 every ten years by my reckoning.

I think this too! The driving where I live is bloody awful - there are clearly people who need more lessons or to be off the roads tbh but unless/until they cause an accident this won’t happen. I think you should have to pay to retake it every 10 years or so. I think we need to see driving as a privilege not a right.

I dont see why a similar system could not be implemented for drivers - say 90 minutes with an instructor every 7 years and perhaps 5 years over 60 and 3 years over 70. Not a test as such but it would show up those that were totally clueless who would then have a month to retake their test.

What so based on statistics if you want to reduce the frequency at 60 presumably you’d agree it should be every couple of months for 17-20 year olds and what, annually for 20-25 year olds?

in most of these cases the elderly driver was driving an automatic car.
i was nearly squashed by one years ago, while on the pavement.
the driver insists it was mechanical fault; in every case no fault is found.
the driver presses the gas instead of the brake.
if it was a manual transmission, it would stall, so cause less injury.
there was a sad case near here a few years ago. mum drove car into front yard, daughter started unloading shopping from boot. mum decided to park closer to wall. car reversed at speed, pinning daughter against wall, who died.

Yes, I'm aware they were adjusted. But that doesn't make them directly comparable. If for arguments sake we say someone drives 100 miles a week, and has an accident every year, that's 1:5200. If they then retire and only drive 10 miles a week, a calculation such as the one in the study would make it one accident every 10yrs. However it doesn't take into account that someone only driving 10 miles a week will mainly be on very familiar roads and less likely in rush hour traffic.

But however you interpret the 60-69 range, the 70+ range should follow the same line, and they don't.

And most accidents involving elderly drivers are minor/ moderate accidents at low speed. In many cases because of the quick reaction of those around them.

What is needed (beyond better public transport) is a cultural change, have a look at any MN thread discussing non-drivers and you can see how they're mocked and labelled as useless adults .

The same people who have this attitude are unlikely to give up their licence when they're unable to drive as they can't even conceive having to use public transport.

Same as people like my neighbours who drive to the corner shop and my mum would rather walk. It's faster!

Also, elderly people should be discouraged from retiring to places without public transport as sooner or later they will be stuck and it's one thing to give the convenience of a car but still be able to get around or give up the car and any possibility to socialise or have a life in general.

The thing about those figures is the number of accidents falls in 60-70 year olds, then rises slightly after 70 back to the same level as 30-59 year olds. They then rise slightly over 80 and dramatically over 90.

It can be argued ad infinitum but the fact remains that until people reach 80+, the stats don’t support the theory that they’re worse drivers than any other age group. And better than young drivers, as demonstrated by insurance premiums.