AIBU to think drivers (more so elderly) need to be retested?

[ayonoosh]

I know I'll probably get lumped with being ageist here. I want to preface I think all drivers should be tested after perhaps 10 years but once at retirement age or 70s, every few years?

I live in a town that's predominantly one way. In the past 7 days I have seen 2 elderly drivers run red lights. One elderly driver go the wrong way up a very well signed street, with other drivers beeping and flashing and they just kept going, one elderly driver driving on the opposite side of the road going onto a short duel carriage way (!!) and an elderly driver drive down the middle of the bollards in Tesco.

this isn't an unusual amount of it too, there are so many posts on the local community pages with cars and registrations and people posting about it. It is so incredibly dangerous. We have a uni in town too and have our fair share of young drivers, I do see them hurtling around town at stupid speeds but they aren't as common as the elderly drivers reported.

I know young drivers cause more crashes, but elderly people tend to have low mileage bias, I think if they drove mile for mile the stats may differ. Elderly drivers responsible for deaths have increased by 42% in the last decade.

AIBU to think mandatory testing for all, especially for elderly should be implemented? I know the money, time, stubbornness, etc etc make it unrealistic, and there are terrible drivers of all ages of course. But if age related reaction times are something that doesn't apply to you, then surely it's a tick box activity and back to driving?

im seeing increasingly more elderly pootling at 50 in the middle lane on the M25, as well as stupid taxi drivers doing it too. they ought to be retested too.

what's everyone's thoughts?

Mobility scooter rider, 105, dies in crash in Uckfield - BBC News

so sad, for all involved,
my own dm only gave up her car at 86 and became more and more nervous

Given the inability to get even first tests it’s unlikely to happen. A simple step would be to insist on an eyesight test from an optician to be a requirement when renewing your licence at 70 and thereafter every three years.
it would not deal with reduced reaction times etc but would stop people driving round who can’t see where they are going.

The reinstatement of an effective bus service and more local shops instead of giant supermarkets 10 miles away would solve that problem.

I think we should all have to pass a theory test to be able to renew our driving licences. We already have to renew every 10 years so it wouldn't take much to have to submit a test result at the same time. It would help people to learn changes to the Highway Code or be reminded of rules they've forgotten.

As a cyclist I sometimes report close passes. I don't want motorists fined but I think some genuinely need to be reminded how much room they are meant to give other road users.

Since eyesight deteriorated typically in peoples 40s - why not just an eye test for everyone every 10 years when they renew their license? oh I get it - it’s a bash the old thread not a serious how can we make driving safer thread ?

I think that family/ friends/ doctors have a role to play here.
So many times I hear people say I'm not going if X is driving or X is an awful driver now but not one of them will say it to their face in case they get upset. The problem is that decline happens so slowly and insidiously that we can't judge how bad it has got until too late.
It's not just older drivers either. A friend was very unwell but she insisted she could drive because the Dr had only said that she should maybe consider avoiding driving. As soon as the consultant told her she couldn't drive she stopped. Because the doctor hadn't had the guts to say stop driving (probably because they knew how much it would affect her life) my friend took it that she was fine to drive.

Loads of people can't see properly much younger though, you do very well if you get anywhere near 70 without defective eyesight.

I think everyone should have to do a hazard perception test every time they renew their licence - not just older people.

Yep, 17-24 year old males are the most dangerous group of drivers.

Younger drivers (should) get better with experience. There are already mitigating factors such as higher insurance premiums, black boxes and a lower cap on penalty points considering their risk level, and more could follow to deal with specific risks.
I can still remember some cringey errors I made in my early months of driving, but I did learn from them and improved my hazard awareness and skill from that (part of it was that I was driving in areas very different to the ones I'd learned in so it was a totally new skill)

The challenge when older drivers' health affects their driving is that it's generally a deterioration process. If your vision, reactions or cognitive ability are impairing your driving, you may not even notice that you've had a near miss to learn from the experience. Society shouldn't be relying on everyone else to avoid an unfit, hazardous driver and saying "it's ok, we avoided it this time" or "it was only a scrape"

One of the early signs of a friend's father developing dementia was the sudden appearence of scuffs and dents on his once pristine car. The condition was picked up at an early stage and is being treated and monitored. The concern for my friend is that father is the only driver, wife never drove and they did the classic retire off to a rural area with one bus a day which leaves them in a very vulnerable position.

In the last few years there's been a marked number of drivers on routes such as dual carriageways driving well under the speed limit and road conditions. Merging into 60-70mph traffic behind someone pootling along at 38mph is a death wish and it's no longer rare. I'm increasingly finding lorries forced to lane 2 to overtake someone doing 49mph which obstructs the traffic flow for all and is dangerous, especially if there's an ill-timed moment with a boy-racer type.
I don't know if aging population is a factor, but it's a very unconfident driving style. There are more people being affected by poor health at younger ages too, so can be people behaving in a more elderly stereotype despite being "middle-aged".

Sufficient resourcing in road policing to deal with a multitude of poor driving behaviours from any age group would not go amiss.

I think retest at 75 or 80. It's a well known fact that your eyesight and cognitive abilities begin to decline as you age. I also don't think 17 is old enough to be responsible for a machine that could kill people and we should put the driving age up to at least 18. Possibly 21 but that might make it difficult for college/uni leavers to find jobs so 18 would be better than nothing.

I don't think engine size limits would really help tbh. Even my little 1.2 vauxhall can reach speeds in excess of 100mph, although it takes a bit of time to get there. It handles well at speed too, considering. I don't think it would put them off speeding at all

She's a fucking dick then if she damages property and doesn't stop.

Middle aged male drivers in Audis and fords and 18-25year olds need to have something done about them first, also slightly off topic but special mention for angry mums on the school runs in the morning, there’s some lunatics out there!!! I think we should all have to be retested every ten years or so. While I’m sorry for your loss op and elderly drivers should be looked at, I wonder how many issues are because someone decides to pass out or preempt an elderly person, because I don’t know which the problem is, an elderly person driving slowly, or the line of crazies that can’t wait a few minutes and decide to pass out

I think everyone should be tested every 10 years, old or not. When you do get to 75 it should be every year.

I lived near to an elderly guy for 10 years and he drove his car half blind, crashing it into fences regularly etc. One day he went in the river. He's dead now.

It's defective eyesight not corrected by glasses/contact lenses. Obviously loads of us have vision correction and meet the standard to drive. However some eye conditions outside basic short/long sight are more common with age and can't be corrected the same way, these are the concerns. Or people who don't wear their glasses, I guess.

For people who’ve already passed, you could do some other sort of assessment that doesn’t require a proper examiner. Eg even just a mandatory reaction times test, and eyesight test, along with some basic rules of the road/Highway Code/meanings of signs questions. Wouldn’t be perfect but I bet there are people who shouldn’t be driving due to bad eyesight, and they just ignore it.

Where are you getting this information?

From your OP:

"I want to preface I think all drivers should be tested after perhaps 10 years but once at retirement age or 70s, every few years?”

You then proceeded to make multiple sweeping statements about “elderly” drivers with no modifier about elderly drivers who are not fit to drive. You are making blanket claims about “elderly” drivers based on anecdote and prejudice. The actual data, collected over many decades and analysed to death by actuaries contradicts you substantially.

Younger drivers are still much more dangerous and more likely to cause and participate in accidents which is why their insurance is more expensive. Up until the 80s for most people the slightly slowing in reaction times compared to young drivers is significantly outweighed by the value of driving experience and accuracy in predicting road behavoiur. Around about the mid to late 80s (again on average) that experience advantage starts to be outweighed by reaction time loss which is why late 80s is the point at which insurers typically start to charge more. In absolute numbers you are statistically far more likely to be knocked down or in an accident with a young driver. Everyone of whatever age is required to declare health which may restrict the right to drive (which includes sight).

Persisting in making negative claims about a group in the face of vast amounts of actual data is pretty much the living definition of irrational prejudice.

Who do you think is going to do all this testing, haven't you seen the news today. Young people waiting months for tests

85+ is the group statistically most likely to be involved in a fatal accident actually. No matter how much you'd like to blame the youngsters.

"We should acknowledge that, for many young people, learning to drive is a significant milestone and a source of immense pride. But it is one that exposes them to significant risk. Men aged 17 to 25 have higher rates of fatal road collisions than almost any other age group—they are second only to over-85s."

That's from the Parliament website.

Well you are wrong there, look at the stats.

😂

I agree OP. My dad could not walk more than 5 steps, was deaf and had very little movement or strength in his shoulder and was still driving at 85, encouraged by my mum.
He had two minor accidents in about six months (minor as in no one was hurt) and his car was written off. We thought that would be it (myself and my brother had been saying he should give up driving but my mum was adamant he was safe) but no, he wanted to buy another. We put our collective foot down and refused to take him to look at cars. Much sulking and annoyance later, they gave in and he didn't drive again.My mum is still adamant it's 'marvellous' that her 90-year-old neighbour is still driving and regularly meets a 95-year-old who is still driving and causing mayhem, which my mum thinks is down to everyone else on the road.
We tend to indulge old people generally and roll our eyes kindly about old drivers, but we really shouldn't. A woman in our town was in ICT for six weeks after she was mown down by an elderly driver, who 'didn't see her' on a zebra crossing. That driver was cut a lot more slack than a newly-qualified 17-year-old would get and was never charged.
I get the independence argument to a point, but at the end of the day, although many 15-year-olds may well be capable of driving, they are not allowed to because they are too young. I think the cut-off should be 80 and beyond that you are not allowed to drive, no arguments.

Totally agree. Last month l had to signal to an older driver he was trying to drive the wrong way down a dual carriage way -he made clear he thought l was going the wrong way! So all other drivers including me were the wrong way AND the signs?! The guy was a total menace plus lacking in any observation skills and common sense

You will note my post made exactly the point about increasing risk (on average) in the late 80s which last time I looked was 85+.

The actual numbers of drivers over 85 is a lot smaller than the number of drivers aged 17-25 so in absolute terms you are still more at risk from a young driver. I’d like to see the source data behind that claim - its not consistent with other UK data I’ve seen which shows the rates levelling out around about 88/89+ which also matches insurance models built on real accident data.

Then of course there is the failure of adult children or relatives to report or address the driving issues of a family member if they arise due to poor health (in any age group). That is also an evasion of responsibility. All these flocks of terrifying elderly drivers have relatives busily looking the other way instead of acting.