To think older drivers should be re-tested

[katedan]

I have just read a SM discussion about older ( 70+) drivers and if they should be retested or have medicals to keep their drivers licences. It got quite confrontational on the discussion as those who were older felt it was unfair to generalise. This is an issue close to my heart as my dad now early 80s does not understand the risks associated with age around slower reflexes and impact of impaired memory on driving. Surely most people over 70 will consider themselves still as sharp as before and sadly people with dementia etc are not aware it is happening as it is the people around them that notice first so compulsory medicals and re testingg every 5 years over 70 would ensure drivers on the road were still safe to themselves and others. So AiBU?

@DoThePropeller

I agree re the stats around elderly drivers not really stacking up, so many will already be regulating their own driving it is hard to compare.

Young people aren’t having more accidents because they are young though, it’s inexperience. Changing the age wouldn’t change the stats, you’d just have more 25-30 year olds causing accidents.

Old people are having accidents because they are old.

That isn't true. Young people have more fatal accidents because they are (on average ) more impulsive and prone to dangerous behaviours like speeding than older drivers. There is also a big peer pressure issue: the risk of an accident goes up massively if young drivers have a passenger of the same age, but not with older passengers.

Yes! Test at 70 and also for reaction times every 5 years (this is what you need to pass the current test). Anyone who is a reasonable driver has nothing to worry about, those who are bad drivers have plenty of grounds for concern.

It isn't about age or inexperience. This simply feeds in to how you asses it. The threat scenario. It's about likelihood and impact. Being old or inexperienced gives the same result. You could kill someone. You need to look at the likelihood. I think the stats would suggest we improve the driving ability on younger drivers to reduce deaths. As that is the outcome we want to achieve? Reduce road deaths?

[quote wingsnthat]@Kazzyhoward I thought my point was clear but I’ll spell it out for you, it’s an example to show that today’s drivers are tested in additional categories compared to older generations. Us young adults jump through more hoops to be considered safe on the road. Meanwhile…[/quote]
Meanwhile, you as a group continue to cause more than your share of accidents...

@Icenii

It isn't about age or inexperience. This simply feeds in to how you asses it. The threat scenario. It's about likelihood and impact. Being old or inexperienced gives the same result. You could kill someone. You need to look at the likelihood. I think the stats would suggest we improve the driving ability on younger drivers to reduce deaths. As that is the outcome we want to achieve? Reduce road deaths?

I think the issue is that you cannot do very much about inexperienced drivers. However, you can certainly mitigate relative risks of older drivers who are medically unfit by introducing a compulsory eye test from the of 70, if not a bit younger, because eyesight declining is the real issue, and self certification is not cutting it.

@Tinydinosaur

Or just introduce the ability to report someone as being an unsafe driver. You can report to dvla that they shouldn't be driving for medical reasons but not ability. You should be able to report someone's name and address as being an unsafe driver and they get called to retake their test.

Great idea. I’ll report the neighbours that I don’t like, and my boss, and the woman I had an argument with 10 years ago. With a few months wait for a retest, I’ll be able to get lots of people off the road

And what would happen in the mean time if they fail? Do they have their license taken off them until they pass? I'm pretty certain most people wouldn't pass again first time, no matter how long you've been driving, the test is hard! Public transport would be an absolute nightmare so a lot of money would need to be invested in improving this first.

@00100001

Why just 70+

I think we should be tested every 5-10 years form when we pass.

I agree, at my workplace (rail) we get three riding assessments per year, covert monitoring and a theory exam every three years. For drivers they regularly examine the data on the black boxes. Any incidents are taken very seriously.

Drive a car though and you can get 15 minor faults in your test and still be allowed out on the road for the rest of your life. As long as you don't get caught maiming too many people, you'll never ever be asked for another assessment of your competency.

It’s nothing to do with age. I’ve got younger friends who are shocking drivers. Both my parents are well into their seventies and both excellent drivers. My sister in law is early 50’s and the worst driver I’ve ever been in a car with. Everyone should be retested, regularly. I also think the driving age limit should be raised to 18, and the limit for riding a moped raised to 18. I watched a load of young lads yesterday on mopeds. I was gobsmacked, acting like idiots, trailing their feet on the floor etc.

@Justanticipating

And what would happen in the mean time if they fail? Do they have their license taken off them until they pass? I'm pretty certain most people wouldn't pass again first time, no matter how long you've been driving, the test is hard! Public transport would be an absolute nightmare so a lot of money would need to be invested in improving this first.

Yes, conveniently forgotten in these threads which come around often enough. Fortunately it will never happen. I say fortunately because, as someone else said so poetically,

Considering that half the twats I see doing twattish things every day presumably passed a test I think it would be a colossal waste of time and money... it would inconvenience the law abiding and considerate whilst the twats would carry on being twats.

Still, if people are insistent on doing this, let's stick with those who have caused accidents, followed by those who have gotten tickets.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Older people account for 10% of all drivers, but only 6% of all road accidents.

If we want to reduce road deaths, the age group we should be targeting is young people.

25% of all fatal road accidents involve drivers under 25, even though they only account for 7% of drivers and, on average, drive less than older people. Of these, three-quarters are male.

Funny how I never see SM posts demanding that young men are banned from the roads, or subjected to re-testing.

It would be more effective to just fit limiters to cars.

@CuthbertDibbleandGrubb

Everyone at least every ten years, and a separate category of licence for Chelsea Tractors. If you want to drive a Range Rover, take your test in one.

I took mine in a Land Rover ! Oh and passed.

@midgedude

My Mam did some additional driving lessons after various family members decided she was too old to be driving

The instructor was quite happy with her driving , she just doesn't drive those people any more

I think other people were stressing her out telling her what to do etc rather than letting her get on with it

Please tell your Man she is fantastic! What fabulous way of handling such nastiness. Truly amazing!

All over 70's have to renew their license everythree years, pages of medical questions and if there's anything that triggers the DVLA they will seek specialist medical exam
There are various health issues common to older people, like TIA;s and glaucoma, heart conditions and surgeries and treatments,, which automatically require them to stop driving pending medical review.
Since dementia has usually been medically diagnosed, the treating DR has the responsibility to review with patient if they are safe to drive, or when to stop; and if the patient doesn't comply the GP will notify DVLA. That has happened to a few people I know.

   It's a pity  drivers under  70 aren't subjected to as  much  supervision and  enquiry about their  fitness to drive.

@wingsnthat

Yes definitely

I think the driving test has changed significantly since older generations were tested. Eg isn’t it mandatory to use a sat nav at some point during a driving test now

No, it’s either sat nav or navigating road signs. 4/5 tests will use the sat nav, I believe.

I think maybe everyone should have to have a short refresher course of lessons every 5/10 years rather than a (frankly terrifying) test. This could be undertaken by a driving instructor (so no need for many more examiners). You could then be updated on current driving practices. For instance, I learnt to drive fairly recently and was taught not to indicate when overtaking cyclists etc. It’s also now acceptable to cross your hands when steering.

The instructor could then issue a certificate and confirm to the DVSA that you have completed your course. If the instructor has concerns about your driving capabilities, this could be raised as well, and maybe give them the right to flag it up with the DVLA.

As frustrating as it is to be kept behind a 15mph elderly driver in a 30 zone, or ha e one pull out slowly but a little carelessly, it is worse to have middle aged drivers not indicate, tailgate, cut you up and generally act abusively behind the wheel. If we are resting the elderly then retest everyone
Not sure it would stop certain drivers being during the test then acting deathly stupid after though...

Well you’d have to produce some data that said we’d have significantly fewer crashes if we retested, otherwise not worth the horrendous administration.

If it was justified then I don’t think it it should be over 70s only because you get twatastic driving at all ages, but maybe every ten years till 70, and every 5 after that

Arh right Lex, it doesn't matter about younger or inexperienced drivers causing accidents and deaths, it's just down to their inexperience. Let's let them be. Bless them. That's too hard a problem to solve. Let's tackle the easier, less concerning one first.

It's a pity drivers under 70 aren't subjected to as much supervision and enquiry about their fitness to drive.
With younger drivers it's not so much their fitness, more their judgement.

A 70 year old goes through a red and kills someone and everyone recognises it as an accident. The solution is to retest to ensure that a person is still capable of handling a vehicle.

A 17 year old kills three of his friends in a 100mph smash. Nothing wrong with his eyesight, nothing wrong with his knowledge of the rules - he knew full well that 100mph is illegal. But he had the invulnerability of youth so he did it anyway. Shame that his passengers weren't so invulnerable. Retesting or an opticians visit wouldn't have stopped that, the solution is to remove temptation by restricting the performance of his car.

For instance, I learnt to drive fairly recently and was taught not to indicate when overtaking cyclists etc

Good god, why wouldn’t you indicate when you are overtaking cyclists, given that you should be pulling onto the other side of the road to pass with sufficient room?

Exactly Goch. Different controls for different scenarios. If the less experienced or younger drivers are the biggest threat then restrict their cars, use a black box, curfew or driving hours. What ever control is proven to give results. Once that is tackled, look at the next category or treat them all as one. Drink drivers? It also isn't just the over 70s with health issues or medication that impacts their ability to drive or react. I have no idea on the stats, but I know the over 70s are a MN bane. People like to target them based on opinion with little thought to the real issues. If there is data to back it up, then fair play.

I think everyone should have to retest - both written and driving - every licence renewal.

I don't agree with any retesting at all. It's too damned expensive. There are bad drivers of all ages on the roads. At least older drivers drive slowly

BBC 2011: content://com.android.chrome.FileProvider/images/screenshot/16171467176131132413063.jpg

Statistically it's young drivers who are the most dangerous because they think they are invincible