To think ROSPA should make it clear that Older Driver Assessments might result in a loss of license?

[sprucinitup]

An elderly relative was recently diagnosed with a medical condition which does not result in automatic loss of driving license, but nevertheless, his GP recommended that he undertake a free Older Driver Assessment, saying he thought it might be "helpful". He gave my relative a leaflet which also described the assessment as "helpful". My relative booked an assessment. It consisted of online cognitive tests and a practical driving assessment. At the end of this, my relative was told he was driving too hesitantly. But rather than offering the "re-training" mentioned in the leaflet, they removed his license.

He is understandably very upset about this, because he wasn't warned that loss of license was a potential outcome.

This is the website: https://www.olderdrivers.org.uk/driver-assessment/ . If there is info on there about loss of license then it must be well buried because I can't see it.

He is very responsible, and will of course accept the decision, but aibu to think that there should be a more transparent process, so that elderly folk don't feel tricked into giving up their license by stealth?

https://www.gov.uk/renew-driving-licence-at-70#more-information

wrong wrong wrong https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-mandatory-eyesight-testing-for-older-drivers

The process needs to be fully transparent. People need to understand that losing their licence is a possible consequence of engagement.

The difficult thing is when people are not really able to understand, though, isn't it? That's the whole point.

Some people who are losing capacity are also losing capacity to understand the ramifications of what they are doing. So they don't realise that it's serious when someone suggests their driving needs to be assessed, or they come back from the GP under the impression they've had a friendly suggestion they might cut back, rather than a direct instruction to stop. Or they simply stop being able to recognise that what they're doing is genuinely dangerous rather than mildly eccentric.

You can make the process as transparent as you like, but the fact remains that you are always going to come up against people who can no longer understand why they're not allowed to drive.

But what I’m hearing is that the written information about this process is not clear. That should be put right.

And we don't know what happened during this assessment, and clearly something isn't quite adding up, but IME there can be an enormous gap between what someone tells you happened, and what actually happened. When my grandmother was starting to struggle, she reversed at speed into her garage door. No understanding she'd done anything anyone else might not have done. No recognition that it could have been very dangerous in a situation like a car park. To her, it was a little prang that wasn't worth worrying about.

I have to wonder if that sort of thing happened during this assessment, and the OP's relative simply isn't able to recognise that he did something frightening enough to warrent someone getting straight in touch with DVLA rather than recommending refresher lessons.

How clear can it be made?

If I were to go off and do pass plus - which is another course explicitly intended to brush up your driving skills - and I drove off the road and into a wall, I would expect the instructor to feel the need to contact the DVLA.

I would not be coming back saying 'hey, that's not fair, I only wanted a refresher course!'

I don't know what happened here, but we all seem to be accepting that a person who hasn't been deemed competent to drive, is somehow competent to report what happened during the assessment, and I think that's a pretty questionable assumption.

Far too many older people, men especially, would simply avoid the assessment if they knew there was a chance of losing their license. I wish something like this had existed when my grandfather was elderly.we really struggled to get him to stop driving.

Quote from the website OP

However, the time may come when it is simply no longer possible for you to continue to drive safely, and for your own sake, and the sake of other people on the road, you must stop driving, and give up your driving licence.

that does not say that they will contact DVLA or that they have any authority to enforce their opinion decision.

Contacting the DVLA is something anyone can do - you don't need particular authority.

It is possible the OP's relative isn't able to understand the point about authority ... but again, honestly, if you're sufficiently confused that you're not sure who is and is not formally allowed to revoke your licence, there is an issue, isn't there?!

Are we absolutely sure that this wasn't communicated verbally to him by the assessor, something like " in the event that we view your driving to be a danger to the public we will have to report this to the DVLA" I work with families around family and parenting support I always have to let them know verbally before working with them that I am mandated to inform child protection if I have any concerns I would imagine it is similar here.
What would happen if the assessor felt that the driver could endanger lives and did nothing with that informatuon and then an accident did happen? The assessor would be fired

its simple.
DVLA? yes
Police? No although they can temporarily suspend your driving privileges
Anyone else? no although anyone can contact the DVLA.

As I keep saying, I don't think the OP is giving us the full story and maybe her inlaws didn't give them the full story.

If that was the case, you'd think it would be somewhere on their website? The Driver Assessment centres which are NOT RoSPA. put on the form, that people sign before the assessment, that the signer agrees to the organisation's reporting assessment results to the DVLA. Even they, who operate in dual control cars only and have facilities for on site testing, can only report to the DVLA and not actually remove licences.
I find your clinical comment interesting. I was also a mandated reporter when i worked in elderly care and we were not required to inform patients or their relatives of this or of any intention to make a report. This was intended to safeguard us as we used to lone work. The reason was that it was considered that in extreme circumstances this disclosure might cause a practitioner to be threatened or attacked.

I agree with the op though this should be clear on their website too otherwise it's really disingenuous

I am very much support the idea that people should not drive if they are not fit to do so, and it really frustrates me when people will drive when they probably know they should not. But that doesn't mean a website should be all cheerful and " we're just here to help you" if in fact that is a misrepresentation of the potential outcomes

This, and it really does seem that for some, this should be acceptable, and that it’s worse for someone to be told they’re unsafe to drive, than keeping unsafe drivers off the roads.

If it's a test of fitness to drive, surely it's obvious that one outcome could be that you're not fit to drive - in which case losing your licence is the best course?

They are there to help you! If you realise or are told that you're not fit to drive, taking away your licence is the best way to ensure you don't endanger yourself by driving. Some people erroneously believe they are safe to drive despite evidence to the contrary, causing danger to themselves and others.

I hope that in the near future, these assessments become mandatory. We should also be having medicals too. HGV, bus, train drivers and pilots have to have them. Every 5 years up to the age of 65 and annually thereafter (60 for pilots).
What did the relative expect from an assessment? "We think your driving is awful/dangerous and suggest you have some more lessons but we can't force you to do this? Now on your way and try not to drive into anyone". I think it possible that something was said in the assessment that the relative has chosen not to disclose because something serious must have happened for an immediate revocation.

There has not been an immediate revocation. I do agree though that the OP doesn't have or isn't telling us all the story.

Irrespective of how " obvious " it is to you or should be to others it's not acceptable for the website to be as misleading as it is. It's all chirpy and we are here to help you. That's really disingenuous of them.

And I say that as somebody who is currently not driving because I don't believe it would be safe even though the doctor has confirmed I am fine to go back to driving. We all have a huge personal responsibility to decide when and if we should drive. Not only as we get too old but also if we are too tired or injured or otherwise unwell or distracted.

But organizations also have a responsibility to be honest and transparent and not to create palpably misleading websites

The test is specifically to see if people should still be driving. It offers an opportunity for them to prove that they are. The alternative is that the GP writes to the DVLA and recommends that the licence is revoked due to unfitness to drive.

There might be better solutions but that shouldn't include letting people continue to drive who shouldn't be on the road.

It's very difficult to get a test date right now.

Not sure how the system could manage everyone being retested every five years. Where are the instructors and examiners coming from?

this and also where are the doctors coming from, also who will fund this. If its going to be mandatory, I'd also like to see it extended to all drivers of all ages.....

I agree. If a test is needed it should be administered fairly and openly, people shouldn't be tricked into doing it by being told it's just to help them.