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

Let’s hope you are a safe driver in later years and have the good sense to spot when it’s time to stop driving.
My 89 year old neighbour has written off 2 cars in the last 3 years and pranged his current car at least 3 times. He had a stroke last year and was not allowed to drive for 6 weeks on his return home. He promised he wouldn’t drive and on day 2 drove to the shop in the next town, totally unconcerned that if he had an accident he wouldn’t be insured and hence putting others at risk. We told him he shouldn’t be driving and he did not drive again until he was proved medically fit (whether he really is is debatable).
Self righteous and entitled behaviour. He has no kids to take his keys but he shouldn’t be driving. He’s a menace.

I think teenagers shouldn’t be allowed to drive. They are overwhelmingly responsible for most death and destruction on our roads.
There’s a reason insurance is so expensive for that age group.

Fewer deaths maybe, but elderly drivers cause a large proportion of crashes, dangerous incidents that a competent driver would not cause which evasive action from competent drivers manage to prevent turning into crashes but should not have to do, and they regularly cause obstructions and delays through hesitation, slow reactions, being too scared to observe proper lane protocol, driving hugely below the appropriate speed in clear conditions thereby holding up other drivers or causing hazards or traffic jams.

My dad in his late 80s keeps driving, even though recently he has had a few collisions bumping into stationary objects. It is frustrating that he refuses to stop. This is the problem - people are not good at self-policing themselves and recognising when they should stop. He could afford to take taxis and it would be safer for everyone, but he still keeps driving. I’ve decided not to live rurally or in the suburbs with nothing close when I’m that age.

The younger drivers thing is whataboutery. Everybody knows about that risk which is to do with inexperience (but everyone had to learn…) and poorer risk assessment in under 25s for neurological reasons, particularly males.

That does not change the fact that elderly drivers are far more dangerous and cause far more issues on the roads than the general population as a whole, and that no measures are currently taken to address this despite the data showing it very clearly. And sadly, unlike young amd inexperienced drivers, their driving gets progressively worse.

So many are in denial and their families let it continue despite knowing they are a danger to other drivers and pedestrians, far more so than people who are a little over the alcohol limit. It needs to be made equally sociably unacceptable to continue driving if you can’t do so without normal reaction times or hesistation or inability to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions thereby causing a hazard.

The data does not support your “feeling”.

My brilliant neighbour is 82 and he's just came back from a month in Australia and a cruise around Singapore/Dubai. He's as fit as a lop and puts me to shame. My dad is 69 and we're just about the take the keys off him.
It should be an individual case by case decision.

Yanbu - most elderly drivers I come across are completely oblivious to what's going on around them. They are usually rigid at the wheel which completely slows down their reaction time. Thankfully more competent drivers watch out for them and as a result there are less crashes.

What? Car insurance and driving licensing is obviously “ageist” already: that’s why there is a minimum driving age. If you wish to remove “ageism” are you suggesting 10 year olds should drive? 5 year olds? Or do you only cry “ageism” when people raise perfectly valid concerns about the need for reasonable testing of competence and restrictions where required at both extremes of the age spectrum (where there are valid, well-evidenced safety concerns)? This would actually mean you are the one being ageist: young drivers who are more dangerous should be restricted in your view, but not the older ones who have also been proved to be more dangerous on average. Why do you think older people should be allowed to pose proven additional risks to others beyond those posed by an average driver, without extra checks to ensure safety?

Likewise, I think you’ll find car insurance premiums vary based on sex because there is data proving a different level of risk because men are less competent drivers than women on average. Courts have ruled that this it is therefore vslid for men to pay higher premiums because it is verified and factual that they pose a higher risk so this is not discriminatory at all: discrimination is an unwarranted prejudice with no evidential, factual basis.

It’s not “sexism” or “ageism”, it’s statistically validated data.

Trying to point at another group (young people) which is known to be problematic because they pose more danger than average when driving doesn’t change the fact that elderly people do as well so it’s perfectly reasonable for other road users - given this data evidencing very clearly the increased risks posed by elderly drivers - to expect checks to be done to minimise this risk and confiscate licences from those elderly people who are unsafe but recklessly and selfishly continue to do so anyway (there are many).

Make a thread proposing extra measures to restrict young drivers if you like. It doesn’t change the fact that, per this thread, elderly drivers are on average far more dangerous than an average driver and currently the restrictions needed to limit this risk to acceptable levels are not in place and it’s ridiculous to claim that stating this fact is “ageist”. Such restrictions wouldn’t affect any elderly drivers who are in fact competent to drive because they could pass any tests imposed, presumably?

Have you heard Sheila Hancock (92 and recently passed her advanced driving test again) on the subject?

So what? There will always be outliers. The data is clear that on average elderly drivers pose much more risk than an average driver. If she’s a fantastic driver then why would she object to regular retests of elderly drivers to remove the unsafe ones that the data proves are causing unnecessary risks to other road users? Presumably she’d be happy that roads were safer because incapable drivers had their licences confiscated so she could continue to drive in greater safety than before, and with fewer hazards.

The data is clear that on average elderly drivers pose much more risk than an average driver

Could you point me at that data?

The younger drivers thing is whataboutery. Everybody knows about that risk which is to do with inexperience (but everyone had to learn…) and poorer risk assessment in under 25s for neurological reasons, particularly males

So that's OK, is it? You acknowledge the reasons why young men are accident prone when the implication is that they physically unsuitable to drive. How is that different from, say, an older person's diminished capacity due to Ana aspect of ageing?

Don't know where the Ana came from.

Depends on the individual. My dad is 80, still driving, and still competing in long range rifle shooting competitions, where he is often placed in the top 3. He's also pretty good at clay pigeon, so I'd guess his visual acuity and reaction times are not a cause for concern.

I was completely with you until your last sentence. No one has a right to drive, lifeline or not.

Well you couldn't be arsed giving evidence so hope this helps:

https://www.simplyquote.co.uk/insights/what-age-group-causes-the-most-car-accidents-in-the-uk/#other-risk-age-groups

Oh, and you're wrong.

The whole system needs an overhaul.

elderly people should have to submit eyesight test results every couple of years from age 75 onwards and should have to retake a short form driving test every five years with the driving licence being revoked for everyone after age 85.

teens should not be allowed to drive until they are 20. Nobody should be allowed to sit their test until a year after they start to learn and without a minimum number of hours of driving instruction on actual roads. This would effectively make 21 year olds the youngest on the roads.

There should be a specific motorway driving competency test.

Nobody should be allowed any passengers in their car after passing their test for a period of one year unless that person is giving them additional driving instruction.

Learner and new drivers should only be accompanied by experienced drivers with more than five years’ experience.

Speed limit on all roads other than motorways should be reduced to a maximum of 50mph. Narrow country roads should be a maximum of 30mph

In that case people shouldn't drive until 25 when their frontal lobe has developed.

You will probably change your opinion once you are 80. And if you are going by stats, then you should be looking at banning all teenage boys….

My friend is 85. He drives all over Europe a couple of times a year. He's a far more capable driver than I am , I feel extremely safe. He walks 5 k every day , he's fit as a fiddle. My mum is 83 and quite honestly is dreadful , however she's has always been like that so no deteriorating in my opinion.
I do think the health checks should be more robust abd include a hazard perception test like we take in Spain as I think that is the concern , the reflexes not being quick enough

If you are going purely on statistics. It is young male drivers who shouldn't drive.

I've seen driverless cars being tested in London recently, so that could solve the problem in the long run.

I think we all should have medical and virtual tests (hazard perception nd theory) every 5-10 years, with every year after a certain age.

I witnesses how quickly my elderly neighbour s driving deteriorated.... and that was just getting on and off his driveway. I was about to ring his son to tell him what I was seeing when the car disappeared... he had had the sense himself to the realise regularly bumping into his fence and house while parking probably meant he wasn't safe.

I think anyone using stats as the basis of their argument should include and reference them so posters can check for themselves. Too many people throw the term around too easily.

I think young men should be the first target of driving restrictions.

Northern Ireland is introducing Graduated Driving licences.
The suggestion seems to be if ots successful there, the rest of the UK will follow.