To think people over 80 should not drive

[TorridAntelope]

I don't care how bright and sparky they are, the stats show they are dangerous

This is true - there was an absolutely horrific case on the A1(M) in 2024 where a drunk driver was travelling at twice the speed limit and killed a baby and his aunt. The driver was jailed & received a long ban, but not a lifetime one. The victims’ mother / sister has a petition for lifetime bans in such cases.

With lesser driving offences, there’s also the problem of the exceptional hardship defence which can help drivers keep their licence - it’s easy to spot when you read local crime reports as the defendant’s lawyer will plead that they are a carer, will lose their job, are overcoming personal difficulties etc.

With the N Ireland case, the question is I think what should justice look like. Prison is a complicated issue with the lack of spaces & whether it works, & I can see why a judge might want to avoid sending an elderly woman of previous good character there. But the issue is that her driving did lead to someone’s death & what would be justice for the victim & her family who have lost a mother / grandmother? If the practical effect of a ban is that she will no longer be able to drive, why not just rule that? It feels a perfectly reasonable outcome, both in justice for the family and in protecting the public in future.

This is where I think reporting of road traffic collisions really isn’t adequate - if this type of incident happened on the railway, it would be headline news & there would be an enquiry. But on the roads, it’s normally just a piece in the local news with no investigation into what might have prevented the collision or examining how effective the legal process is.

This recent case in the US is horrific. To make it worse, the driver moved her assets to family members as the victims's family wanted to sue. The sentence is appalling- no prison term and license only removed for 2 years. What an insult to the poor bereaved family.

https://nypost.com/2026/02/14/us-news/elderly-calif-woman-who-fatally-ran-down-family-of-4-likely-to-avoid-prison-stint/

No need to be rude. I'm sorry for your loss. But you have no right to lump every elderly people together.

I agree that all elderly people should not be lumped together but equally there should be careful testing/retesting over a certain age. There would be no need to increase taxes. People can pay for a medical examination and a lesson with an instructor if necessary. I'm afraid the 'freedom argument' is not a relevant one. The safety of the general publice takes precedence over someone wanting to drive to Tescos to pick up their weekly shop.

I still disagree. There are people like me who already have their health checked every three years before they are allowed to drive.

Opticians also tell people they need to inform dvla if their eye sight falls bellow a certain threshold.

Why not just strengthen the rules we have and get Opticians to automatically report people after seeing the changes? Instead of making new rules.

How many people’s lives are we willing to make uncomfortable, cumbersome, and restricted? We have an aging population, and for many, a car isn't a luxury. It’s their only lifeline to the outside world.

I’m talking about basic freedom. Without a car, a huge number of people lose their independence and their quality of life drops drastically. Why are we stripping away the only reliable means of transport for those who need it most?

Instead of actually enforcing the rules we already have, it feels like the easy option has been taken: punishing everyone with more bureaucracy and "extra steps" that specifically hurt the elderly. Since when did mobility become something we penalize. In my mind that is what is being proposed here.

My biggest concern is this: Charities are closing left and right or becoming online only. If we bring in mandatory re-testing and complex forms, who is going to assist these people? I help others with their forms, so I know how daunting they are.

If you don't have family to help, and local charities are gone, you are basically being forced off the road by bureaucracy, not driving ability. Since when did mobility depend on how well you can navigate a mountain of paperwork

I believe in sustainability and humanity. We shouldn't force people off the road based on paperwork, not capability. Give the people who assess capability the power to instigate a review with dvla. Which they already have.

no we have the right to want safety over your supposed ideal of "freedom" which in itself isn't free at all.

If someone isn’t able to complete a form then I’d question whether they have the cognitive ability to make all the complex decisions that come with being a safe driver.

I’m not in favour of a blanket ban on older drivers, but I do think there needs to be more scrutiny / testing, I’d also support a rule that all drivers, whatever their age, should have a mandatory eye test every 2-3 years, with the results reported to DVLA.

How many people’s lives are we willing to make uncomfortable, cumbersome, and restricted? We have an aging population, and for many, a car isn't a luxury. It’s their only lifeline to the outside world.

In the long-term, people need to take responsibility for ensuring where they live is suitable for their life stage. If you live somewhere that's entirely reliant on having a car, how are you going to get to the shops etc when you can no longer drive? The problem is, because there is no automatic cut-off age, people just kick the can down the road, don't face up to reality and assume - if they give it any thought at all - they will just keep on driving forever.

It's basically weighing up inconveniencing people who have not taken steps to move somewhere sensible against the rights of every other road user not be killed or seriously injured.

Some of those who need a car most, may no longer be fit to drive one. If that's the case, tough luck! A solution will need to be found that doesn't involve them operating a piece of heavy, dangerous machinery in close proximity to countless others. Are you really advocating for the rights of the elderly, at the expense of the safety of all pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, of any age?

We need public transport which is easy to access and reliable. Better and more social than everyone driving.

We also need people to start to be realistic about where they are living at an earlier age. It's lovely living in the middle of nowhere when you are young and can get around easily and drive to shops etc.
But living there when you are older means you will at best be isolated and at worst be a complete burden on your family.
So many responses on this thread along the lines of 'my mum/dad/neighbour/aunt needs the car to get around and to the shops/buses are terrible etc
We all need to start having a good, hard look at our housing set-up when we are late 60s I think, when we are still fit enough to move.

My view is that regular eyesight and other tests should start at a much younger age, perhaps even the same age (is it 50?) that they are required for lorry drivers.

I would not automatically exclude people from any form of driving licence by virtue of age.

I think the arguments about people's freedoms etc fall apart when you remember that people's licences are revoked for medical reasons all the time.

Saw one today. Narrow humped back bridge. The car in front, myself and car behind were all over the "hump" and on the other side. Car coming the other way clearly didn't "notice" us and didn't stop where the road was wider/passing point before ascending her side of the bridge, then appeared utterly bewildered when she finally saw the car in front, and stopped within inches of hitting it, despite good visibility (no low sun etc). It was obviously she had to reverse back because by this time there were other cars behind us too. But first she tried pulling into the side verge, which anyone with common sense could see wouldn't work as the verge was too narrow to create enough space for everyone to pass her. Then she reversed back a bit but didn't know which way to turn her wheel and ended up scraping the side of her car on a stone wall. Then she pulled forward again, then tried to get herself more central to reverse, then fishtailed backwards veering left to right, again nearly hitting her side of the car against the stone wall. Must have taken 5-10 minutes in total for her to reverse probably 25 years to the passing point but she still couldn't reverse into it, so she reversed beyond it and then drove in, finally, clearing the road. By this time there were probably a couple of dozen cars behind her and probably more behind us. When we finally passed her, she looked completely dazed and I'd say she looked about 90 years old. Definitely shouldn't have been on the road as she clearly couldn't reverse and had no awareness of the car she nearly hit nor the stone wall she did hit.

Being able to drive is not a basic freedom. Don't be ridiculous!
Even if everyone agreed that it was, which they clearly do not, it never, ever trumps safety.
If people are unable to complete simple forms, see a medical professional and take part in a session with a driving instructor, they should not be on the road, at least in the majority of cases. The >75 are made to have medical examinations to be able to continue to drive in many countries.
If it saves even one family from moving mown down (see the horrendous case I linked to), it is worth it.

I have a medical licence and ensure that I live somewhere there are good bus and train links in case I can't drive.
I became unwell in pregnancy and wasn't safe to drive I arranged for others to drive me to appointments. Was it ideal? No. Was it better than becoming unwell at the wheel and causing harm? Absolutely

We all should remember that driving is a privilege not a right.

3 years is too long. It should be annual. The format could be that licences are stopped at 80 and the onus is on the person to prove they can still drive. They book a sight test, have a cognitive review with GP and pass that info along and DVLA decides fi they are fit to drive. Proportionally id say the overwhelming majority of over 80s I see are categorically not capable of driving safely.

There’s currently a consultation on the eyesight test for 70+ following fatalities by older drivers with poor sight.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-mandatory-eyesight-testing-for-older-drivers
Respond now if you feel strongly about this!
The fatality stories are horrific - one chap could only read the number plate when he was about 2m away (I think 20m is the distance you should be able to read a plate).
There are so many eye conditions that develop in older age, cataracts, astigmatism, macular degeneration to name a few.

Proportionally id say the overwhelming majority of over 80s I see are categorically not capable of driving safely

Wow, you're good. if you're so sure, why don't you tell the police?

Not astigmatism.
Astigmatism is a perfectly normal thing found in all age groups and correctible with glasses.
Pretty much everyone who wears glasses at any age will have some degree of astigmatism

There are so many eye conditions that develop in older age, cataracts, astigmatism, macular degeneration to name a few.

Many of which appear long before 80. I had cataract surgery when I was 64 and I’ve had astigmatism my entire life.

@BIossomtoes@7citupal
yes sorry astigmatism isn’t necessarily associated with old age I’ve recently been diagnosed with this and it’s quite severe and causing blurring but obvs varying degrees of this condition. I wasn’t able to drive until my specs were ready.
I’m in this age group and many of my friends have also developed vision problems, many correctible by glasses but if you don’t have regular vision checks some people may not be safe to drive.