To wonder how on earth they will sentence a 96 year old?!

[dreamer24]

news.sky.com/story/woman-96-admits-causing-death-of-pedestrian-after-she-panicked-and-mounted-the-kerb-13204265

A 96 year old woman killed a woman in her 70s after she lost control of her car. Due to be sentenced on Monday, apparently. It's obviously completely tragic that a woman has died, but I can't imagine a woman who is almost 100 will get a custodial sentence?

People need to retake tests after a certain age in order to keep driving

This is the case where I am in Australia. Can’t speak for all of Australia as driving requirements are not Federal but State based so it may not be the case in all States.

We get an eye test every time we need to renew license, 1,2 or 3 years (some people only have $ to pay for a year at a time) as standard. Then if you have been driving for a certain number of years and have not lost any points you can get a 5 year license (if you can pay for it) but you need to be under 50 for that. Even with a ‘clean’ record over 50 it’s 3 years at most.

Once people become elderly, forget the exact age (as I’m obviously not there yet🤣), then they need a doctor’s letter and test to retain their license. As you get older the frequency of this decreases to yearly. I seem to recall they need to foot the cost of this test as well, but I could be wrong about that bit.

We have to have a mandatory eye exam at 60 in my part of Oz if we want to keep our license,

Not doable, been told by a PP that some people use their licenses as ID even though they dont drive

Arh, we fix that by an Identity card. Anyone here who doesn’t drive for whatever reason, (can’t be bothered, medical reasons, age, license been revoked), are eligible for an Identity card which is issued by the same group that issues the driving license. Legally the Identity card must be accepted in all situations where the license would have been accepted. This system works well.

in New Zealand you need an eye and thorough medical examination at 85 then at 80. After that it is every 2 years.
it’s still hard to tell though , a bent old lady wire a stick can be a better driver at 80 than a farmer… who is also probably driving a bigger and more dangerous vehicle.

Nothing wrong with a 96 yr old driving if competency is good. My dad gave up driving for a year at 89 after some medical issues but wanted to get back the freedom of driving at 91 so we got a driving tester to check his ability. He passed no problem at all. Blanket statements based on age and ability shouldn't ever be used.

I agree, and have always thought so. It wouldn't be practical while driving test appointments are going for hundreds of pounds, though!

I like what the PP said about virtual re-testing in Spain. We could do that at any age.

Age discrimination should not affect sentencing.

Nothing will, so that's a pointless comment.

How do you stop an adult?

But it's not going to be a rule banning all older drivers. It'll just be a rule forcing you to retake your test. That seems fair enough. I think 80 would be a good age. Every 5 years after that. The driver only has to pay for the test - not lessons presumably!

Of course they're not. She's an adult, not a toddler. And have you tried to get an elderly person to do something they don't want to?

But giving up the independence that driving gives you is very hard
You have the arrogance of youth; you will feel differently even in 20 years time

The woman in Wimbledon had a seizure though didn't she? Not the same at all. No driving test (which checks your ability!!) would be able to predict a sudden unexpected medical occurrence unfortunately. However catastrophic the outcome might be.

The old are hated on MN
Whatever the topic, there will be an old person who spoils it/won't pay for it//thinks they own it/are 'spending my inheritance'
A person of 154 with the motor skills and coordination of an 18 year old could be driving, and they would be villified here

I don't think retesting is the way to go. Can you imagine the wait for a test?

I do think an eye test should be done and possibly some other testing. Reflexes maybe?

I'm sure a car simulation similar to those used by the airline industry could be created. But with that you have the problem of people who drive with adaptions.

My dad is a great driver. My mum was always crap, from the day she took her test onwards.

She also wanted to keep driving long after she shouldn't. She once told me that the Dr / nurse she had seen had said there was no reason she shouldn't drive.

I pointed out that the oncology department said it was OK but had she told them about her cataracts?

One thing about a prison sentence… when my grandfather was no longer safe part of the family’s conversation was about the impact of reduced independence. The conversation included that if he continued driving there was a risk his last few years could be in prison. His license was tactfully negotiated away from him (via a “driving centre” for the elderly which gives an objective assessment).

If there are no consequences for all elderly drivers in spite of the damage caused, who would choose to stop them?

I’m not likely to drive my parents around though, because despite discussions about this they have settled into a rural location for retirement. Their choice to have all services be a taxi ride away. I haven’t done this as a working adult because I don’t want to have to drive to get everywhere, so they can deal with the inconvenience and consequences.

A person of 154 with the motor skills and coordination of an 18 year old could be driving, and they would be villified here

Well they would be a medical marvel….

It’s not ageism to acknowledge that agility, reflexes, decision making all slow down as you get older.

You would like to think that whoever diagnosed cataracts would be obliged to notify the DVLA.

By the time I am in my 90s (god willing) I fully expect driverless cars to be common. (About 40 years away).

"The old are hated on MN
Whatever the topic, there will be an old person who spoils it/won't pay for it//thinks they own it/are 'spending my inheritance'"
Interesting. What I see is ridiculous claims of "agism" when people don't agree the elderly are entitled to more than everyone else.
And putting the independence of someone over the safety of everyone is a perfect example.
I don't agree there should be a blanket ban on elderly but of course they should have to retest.

And the "lack of independence" argument would be less of a thing if more people actually thought about the future rather than retiring to the countryside like so many do!

This happens too often, I think suspended sentences in these cases take away some of the risk of driving when you shouldn’t. Yes the case is traumatic, but the suspended sentence is never likely to be imposed as they will give up the liscence. A steady stream of these dangerous old drivers ending their days in jail may just put them off driving and save lives.

I do think that at 80 there should be a more comprehensive check of driving skills then at 85, after 85 i would like to see an annual check. I know really poor elderly (85+) drivers without families to lecture them in giving up their cars, they don't live in the countryside but without their cars they cannot visit friends or go to church because the bus network is poor, only goes down the Main Street with up to 2 miles of houses either side - the reality for those in towns rather than cities, and that service is threatened (to add insult to injury those needing physio or Covid jabs need to go to another town 15 mins max away by car but only accessible by public transport via the city taking 1 hour 45 mins!

The Wimbledon case is very different, that was a previously undiagnosed condition. The driver there could quite well have been a perfectly competent driver up to that point, who had no reason to think they shouldn't be on the road.

In cases where older (or not) people are knowingly dealing with health conditions that could impair their driving skills, they abolutely should be held to account and have some sort of oversight if they are putting themselves on the road.

I don't think it is any different to a "safe" driver who has temporarily impaired themselves with alcohol or drugs.

I think the difference is that the dangerous drivers who are younger know full well when they drive dangerously, and they choose to ignore the risk (eg driving 40 in a 20 zone, taking a right of way that isn't theirs etc). They would easily mask this in a retest. An elderly person who can't drive straight or see properly would not be able to mask that in a retest.