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?

OP is asking for testing not banning older drivers. It sounds totally sensible.

I think there should be a ‘refresher’ test every 10 years.
What happens if someone fails the refresher? They can’t drive to work and it’s not accessible on public transport so they lose their job. Then they can’t pay their mortgage so they lose their home. They can’t take their kids to school because it isn’t within a reasonable distance without a car. Then multiply this by thousands of families across the country. It’s simply not sustainable to remove people’s mode of transport.

Sure there are less accidents because there are less octogenarian drivers, I'd be interested in seeing stats based on percentage of people driving at that age though and it will be a growing issue with an ageing population.

I'm not sure the stats would be very accurate sadly. Of all the near misses, minor accidents and unsafe driving I know about from my neighbour none of them have been officially reported. This is mostly because they were not serious or because they didn't do a lot of damage but many of my other neighbours have not reported them simply because they don't want to restrict his freedom. I

t's terrifying how much he gets away with because he's an old man not a 19 year old lad and I genuinely believe the only way he will stop driving is if he causes a major accident that potentially kills someone or he dies.

Yes!! And I’m getting closer to that age from when I took my test and I still think yes!

Got nearly mown down on a zebra crossing by an old boy yesterday. He just didn’t see us or slow down for it beforehand and I guess slow reflexes.

Another vote for regular retesting on drivers of all ages, eg every 5 or 10 years after you pass your test or your license is revoked.

To a pp who asked what if people don't pass the refresher: then they shouldn't be driving. I can't understand why you don't think ensuring drivers are as safe as possible on the roads wouldn't be a good idea.

Ask any insurance company which age group causes the most accidents. Ask them why my car insurance (age 65) is ten times cheaper than it would offer an 18 year old.
I am incensed by some of the unthinking nonsense spouted on this thread.
Yes, I passed my test over 40 years ago. Yes, the traffic is busier now, roads have changed.
But here’s the thing. I didn’t spend those 40 years in a damn cupboard - I was out driving 12,000 miles a year, adapting to those changes as they happened.
I have regularly driven at over 100mph as an emergency doctor.

And I have never had an accident at any age - my 40+ years no claims bonus is fully intact.

The road accident patients I took to theatre and treated in ITU were rarely elderly - they comprised young men, drunks, and foreign tourists driving on the wrong side of the road.

Rather than a test I think a refresher course, similar to the speed awareness course, taken every few yeas, the course should be a nominal fee and the insurance companies should offer a discount for taking it.

The content should be updated to account for changes eg smart motorways, changes to the highway code etc.

I know everyone likes to bash young drivers as being crap (and there is some of that on this thread)

But the over 65s are TWENTY FIVE times more likely to have points on the license as teenage drivers. Source: Institute of Advanced Motorists study.

@Babdoc driving at 65 is very different to driving at 80+. My DPs were absolutely fine in their 70s as well, but I do think something every few years from 80+ is sensible.

Don't think lockdown has helped either as people will have lost their unconscious competence to drive after not doing it for several months. Older people more likely to be impacted as they'll be more likely to have avoided going out.

And I also think the responses on this thread also show the truth in the joke statistic "more than half of people believe themselves to be an above average driver"!

It's just not feasible is it?
People are expected to work until almost 70 now. No car no job for many people. Not everyone lives in a eutopia of limitless, cheap, plentiful, safe public transport. I'm always amazed when posters think we do. It's laughable really. The government won't bring in mandatory testing for those over 70, these people are a heavy proportion of their voters they just won't do it.

I think every driver should have to periodically take tests. The amount of awful driving that goes on is terrifying, and it's not specifically old people - there's dangerous driving going on across the board.

All cars should be fitted with the same black box new drivers are required to have, that would stop an awful lot of speeding and bad driving. Insurance premiums go up or down depending on how you drive, and if incredible bad or consistent speeding then license taken away.

@PoTheDog

I know everyone likes to bash young drivers as being crap (and there is some of that on this thread)

But the over 65s are TWENTY FIVE times more likely to have points on the license as teenage drivers. Source: Institute of Advanced Motorists study.

As points can stay on your record for up to 11 years, it would be very surprising if older drivers didn't have more than younger drivers.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists says that older drivers are safe and that compulsory re-testing is not required link

In contrast, it recommends greater controls on/support for younger drivers link

Re test at 80. Too many old people thinking they can drive at 20 mph to the supermarket or the post office and that is safe driving. Reactions slow as we get older and good reactions are essential to driving.

That said, the number of posters on mumsnet who say they won't drive on a motorway, won't drive in a city or can't parallel park etc is alarming - that all suggests you can't drive properly.

YOUNG drivers are statistically over represented in RTAs, not older drivers.

The facts are very clear, no matter what your prejudices are OP.

This 2015 report uses 2013 data, but I'm pretty sure the facts remain the same. Facts matter.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448039/young-car-drivers-2013-data.pdf

"https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ more graphs"

But the over 65s are TWENTY FIVE times more likely to have points on the license as teenage drivers. Source: Institute of Advanced Motorists study.
But according to american data the 60-70 band are the least likely to be in a crash and a lot less than young drivers. and as others have said older drivers have a lot longer to build up points

Here are more up to date statistics (ie facts) confirming that the group who need more testing, who cause more accidents, are those in their 20's.

toptests.co.uk/driving-statistics/

Anecdotes about granny needing to stop driving are all fine, but the reality is that our young adult children are more of a danger to themselves and other than our aged parents are.

@ClearMountain

I think there should be a ‘refresher’ test every 10 years. What happens if someone fails the refresher? They can’t drive to work and it’s not accessible on public transport so they lose their job. Then they can’t pay their mortgage so they lose their home. They can’t take their kids to school because it isn’t within a reasonable distance without a car. Then multiply this by thousands of families across the country. It’s simply not sustainable to remove people’s mode of transport.

Presumably if people need their car for work or general mobility in an area with poor public transport, they would have to be very careful to pass the refresher?!

Is it any more acceptable for a person who hasn't had their skills tested since passing their test (could be 5, 10, 50, years ago) to potentially end the lives of others with poor driving habits or their judgement affected by underlying medical conditions?

@PoTheDog Very selective choice there - "Overall, there are more drivers in their 30s with penalty points than any other age range (575,029), closely followed by those in their 40s (572,238) and then by those in their 50s (568,511). The highest single age with the greatest number of people with points was 49 (63,248)."

For me the issue is that there's a lot of near misses and minor prangs that don't get reported, and many of these that I've witnessed have been older drivers - from the old gentleman who drove straight through a red light on a crossing and nearly hit my pram despite other cars beeping to alert him to the old lady who smacked into a bollard in the supermarket car park and then just drove off when I went to check she was ok. You'll only ever have anecdotes on these because they're not really reportable.

I think a better system of regular testing and requirements for regular eye tests would benefit all drivers. You have to ensure your car is road worthy, we as drivers should be too.

Penalty points are generally issued for speeding through- aren't they?
As others have said elderly driving issues are more likely to be going too slowly, erratic indicating and general lack of spatial awareness which are all a bit less concrete to prove than exceeding a set speed limit.

A couple of years ago DF managed to total a hire car on holiday in UK. Police didn't charge him or give him and penalty points so I also suspect with elderly drivers they may be less comfortable with applying penalties and hope that having a word might do the trick instead. It didn't.

@skirk64

Testing older people is a good step but there are plenty of other things that should be brought in more urgently.

1. Require multiple tests as you buy bigger and more powerful cars, in the same way we have with motorcycle licences. If a 17yo wants to ride a motorbike you can't immediately jump on a 1000cc superbike, they have to start with a small capacity bike and gain experience first. The same should be the case with larger cars like SUVs and powerful cars.

1. Newly-qualified drivers should not be able to carry passengers for three years.

1. Newly-qualified drivers should be restricted to 50mph in their first year, and 60mph in their second.

Someone please reassure me this is a wind up comment?

For me the issue is that there's a lot of near misses and minor prangs that don't get reported, and many of these that I've witnessed have been older drivers - from the old gentleman who drove straight through a red light on a crossing and nearly hit my pram despite other cars beeping to alert him to the old lady who smacked into a bollard in the supermarket car park and then just drove off when I went to check she was ok. You'll only ever have anecdotes on these because they're not really reportable

I've witnessed young mums doing the same

Retesting is stressful and expensive, so it should be focussed where needed: after traffic infractions. But mandatory refresher training is an excellent idea, probably every year from 18 to 21 and perhaps every 5 years after. This could be an hour's lesson with a driving instructor, booked and paid for privately, following a curriculum set by the DVLA. If the instructors notice a problem, they could flag it for a follow-up.