Parking and the elderly

[Ireallycantthinkofagoodone]

I recently attempted to renew a blue badge for an elderly (93 year old) relative. Despite him needing to use a walking frame or sticks, having had several falls, having stiff and painful joints, and a bit of confusion, he has been refused a blue badge.

I have lived in an area that had a ‘brown badge’ scheme, which were given to anyone over a certain age - I think it was 70 or 75. Now, not everyone needs to secure a space near to store entrances - I’m late 70’s myself and regularly walk 8-10k a day, but many people do need this, as they can’t confidently walk too far.

But aside from blue badge spaces, the only other close ones are parent and baby spaces. Why? I don’t understand why the latter can’t be further away, and wide enough to access car seats.

If my 93 year old relative is no longer entitled to a blue badge, I feel the only option is to park in a so called baby space, so that I can encourage his ongoing independence in choosing his food shopping. He just wouldn’t go if I couldn’t assist.

AIBU - Elderly people don’t need consideration in supermarket car parks

AINBU - If blue badges are being heavily restricted now, spaces in car parks should be set aside for the elderly, and parent/baby spaces moved further away.

It's very difficult* *to get an unsafe elderly driver off the road. When my dad's driving deteriorated through dementia he was in absolute denial. He believed himself to be an excellent, safe driver (which tbf he had previously been). We tried reasoning with him - didn't work. My mum reported him to the DVLA. I reported him to the DVLA. Nothing. Reported him again - they asked him to see his gp for an assessment. The gp asked "do you think you are fit to drive Mr Stuff?" he said "why yes, Im an excellent safe driver" and that was it - GP was happy to ok him to keep driving. We then had to write to the GP and explain quite forcefully why we thought that conclusion was wrong (and to say that, should there be an accident, we would make it very clear that they'd recommended him to keep driving against our advice). It took months and months and was very stressful for all of us and this was with a driver who had Alzhiemers and really wasn't capable of making a good decision any more. No wonder do many families go with hiding the keys or flattening the battery (we tried both of those w no success).

My fil (92) was going to give up driving when he thought he might have to be retested. But as he doesn't he's no doubt someone who'll carry on til someone is hurt or worse. It's so convenient you see and he and MiL would be quite stuck without it (ie they'd need to take taxis which they can easily afford).

There is on 5 Player a programme called Cause of Death - a one off where it shows elderly drivers who have knocked down and killed (unsure if anyone later died of injuries) and one of the drivers couldn’t read a number plate from a few feet away

I totally agree with every word. My husband is a police officer working on the traffic division. He has been to more accidents were the drivers were , young and middle aged, rather than the elderly. When an older person does have an accident it is plastered all over the news, to stigmatise them. Wish people would stop talking about things they know nothing about. One day they will become "old", if they make it. Wonder how they will feel if someone tells them, "l think you are too old to drive, because l said so"...wonder how they would feel?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5494487-to-think-rospa-should-make-it-clear-that-older-driver-assessments-might-result-in-a-loss-of-license?page=1

From the thread ive linked

StandingSideBySide · 23/02/2026 15:17
Following on from posters comments re using computers to complete the test
and this test does have a time limit so is even more relevant
Heres an investigation carried out re whether the use of computers discriminated against those who don’t use them.
‘ Online driving cognitive tests can introduce bias, and in some cases, act as a form of discrimination against individuals who do not use computers or have low digital literacy
While these digital tools are often designed to be accessible and efficient, they frequently rely on skills—such as navigating interfaces, using a mouse, or responding quickly to on-screen stimuli—that are not directly related to driving ability but rather to computer familiarity.
Wiley +3
Evidence of Bias Against Non-Users
Performance Discrepancies:Studies have found significant differences in test results based on "computer familiarity." Individuals with less experience (using computers "some" rather than "frequently") performed significantly worse on key domains like reaction time, complex attention, and cognitive flexibility, regardless of their actual driving capability.
Technical Anxiety: Older adults, who are more likely to have limited experience with technology, often face "technology anxiety," which can hinder their performance and engagement with the test, leading to potential false-positive results (being labeled "unsafe" when they are not).
User Interface Variations:Performance on these tests can be affected by the type of device used (e.g., tablet vs. desktop) and the user's familiarity with that specific interface.
Wiley +4
Counterarguments and Context
Good Validity for Users: Research on specific tools, such as the DriveABLE assessment, shows a strong correlation between in-office computerized tests and on-road driving ability, often acting as a high-accuracy, objective measure.
Designed for Simplicity: Some developers argue their tests are designed to be intuitive, requiring no specialized computer skills.
Practice Effects: Studies indicate that even when initial scores are low due to unfamiliarity, repeated use (practice) can improve performance, although this can also mask genuine cognitive decline.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) +4
The "Digital Divide" and Accessibility
The shift towards online assessments is generally driven by the need for better access to testing in rural areas and faster, cheaper, and more frequent monitoring for older drivers. However, this shift risks excluding those who are not digitally savvy, creating a "digital divide" where individuals are penalised for a lack of technology access or skill. ‘
So it seems that the only way for these online tests not to be biased is for anyone taking them to undertake significant practice ??
So every day for many many years to be equal to all others.??
There needs to be alternate ways to test that neither give an advantage to the computer savvy nor a disadvantage to the computer illiterate
As another poster commented, until all things are equal, losing one’s licence through this test could well, and should, end up in court

You absolutely cannot do that with every adult - try it with my Dad, whilst he does not walk well, definitely no longer understands the dangers of traffic, he will be off like a determined tortoise and by the time you've parked, you can kiss good bye to shopping and look forward to hunting for a confused old man who is looking for a pub, forgotten why he is there or where he is or who brought him!

Last time my sister tried it (before she had her own BB), she found him in the camping store telling a nice shop assistant how he hadn't seen his daughter in MONTHS (in fact, 10 minutes) and once explored Peru with the astronaut Neil Armstrong (inaccurate. It was Ecuador.) Quite fortunate he hadn't got himself run over as he'd managed to cross a carpark and feeder road to get there!

First appeal the decision, it is very unusual to lose the level of disability which entitles you to one in the first place.
Then drop him near the door, park and rejoin him.
Do not use parent and child spaces, it is virtually impossible to get a baby out of a car seat without opening the door wider than is possible in most car parks.

I honestly can't believe that pps are arguing that elderly drivers are perfectly fine on the road. I honestly can't.
It's nothing to do with stigma or agism and everything to do with the safety of other drivers, their passengers and pedestrians. There may well be some 80+ people who are safe to drive (although I remain unconvinced, despite what they think) but I am sure there are some 12-year-olds brought up on large estates who can drive and no one would want them on the road.
Every elderly driver I know (around six 80+) thinks they are perfectly safe on the road, yet I would not sit in the car with them. The once I did get in with one of my mum's friends, she mounted a pavement and hit a bin and it was the council's fault for putting it there!
We have to base laws on probability and I would suggest that someone who last sat a driving test decades ago, who has failing eyesight, hearing and reactions (please don't say not neccessarily - it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise) is not really fit to drive.
The elderly drivers can rarely see the problem, so the law needs to step in.

I wouldn’t say they shouldn’t drive but I do believe mandatory re tests should be in place at 75 because like it or not your just not as sharp as you age it’s a fact of life that we all face, I also think a mandatory lesson should be done every ten years when your license expires and if the instructor thinks you need a retest at any point it’s done. I’d be ok with this, there’s too many idiots on the road of all ages.

The thing is - what I don't understand about elderly drivers is that if you are younger and a doctor tells the DVLA that they don't think you are fit to drive - they act. For example, I know two men who had strokes in their 40s and couldn't drive for a while - both thankfully recovered well and got their licences back.

But if that is the case for them, why do the DVLA and GPs not act when someone has dementia?

I see my mum every 4-6 weeks or so and she's fine to drive. Her reaction times are excellent.

I think one of the issues is that elderly people are terrified of having an accident because they know people will say it must have been their fault and they'll have their licence taken away. So they do drive rather slowly. That doesn't mean they are dangerous or should have to rely on a once a week bus. What we really need to worry about is when they can't see properly and/or have cognitive decline.

There are plenty of younger people who appear to have no spatial awareness at all and I have no idea how they passed their tests.

Take no notice of anyone . The person who has been given the blue badge doesn't have to be the driver of the vehicle. People say things when they don't know what they are talking about. Obviously a chip on their shoulder...

Is this a serious comment?

Are you saying people with disabilities shouldn't drive?!

exactly ds has had a blue badge since he was about 9. Strangely he has never been the driver of the car it’s been used in!

That's a interesting point. There are some older people who drive, and some who don't. There are some older people who are safe to drive and some who aren't.

Short of regular driving tests, how would you identify which two groups individual drivers are in?

Appeal the blue badge decision.

Check the criteria, read the questions carefully, answer with your best evidence, making sure you hit the criteria and clearly answer the questions being asked.

Ask someone else to read over your application. Preferably someone who is good at exams, job interviews, does this sort of thing at work etc. so will spot any weak answers and can suggest how to sharpen them up.

Lots of people are not great at filling in forms, because they write what they want to say, rather than answering the question. Even good applications can be improved.

Younger drivers are more likely to get their cars written off or hundreds or low thousands in accidents. Whilst elderly drivers’ cars get smaller damages.

I think the younger drivers that cause severe damage to vehicles, road signs, lampposts are probably under the influence of alcohol, drugs - especially nitrous oxide. I have seen these large canisters strewn on roadsides and see them doing it at the wheel with the canister between their legs and inhaling the contents via balloons

Oh yes, I'm in agreement! I've had a total knee replacement, which meant I was pretty disabled, and would have been good to have the temporary option. Would be good if the hospital could approve a 3 month pass, or the like.

I think there should be a type of mandatory re-testing every 10 years, for everyone. Not a full test, but a kind of competency check. Yes, there would be logistical challenges with that. No, I don't have a solution to those.
There are unsafe/terrible drivers of every age. (Although a friend of mine has a theory on hat wearers; boy racers with baseball caps, and old duffers with tweed bunnetts....😂)

I know that my Mum has stopped driving at night, because her eyesight is such that she's legally allowed to, but she finds the reflection of lights too much. She also doesn't really do city centre driving any more. It's more likely she will hand me the car keys, or take the bus. All which are good options, as she's recognised her limits. Also, my sister and I have promised we'll take her license and keys away when we think it's time!!

If he is your passenger, in the mean time why not just drop him at the entrance, where there is usually a bench (at least there is at every supermarket in my area) then go and park up.

Please don't use P&C spaces. Its bloody hard work getting multiple young children out safely and it isn't like we can drop them at the entrance.

Its already been explained why elderly people may not be able to be left at the entrance either RTFT

I did a mock re-test for charity with a local driving instructor. And failed spectacularly! I was a fit and healthy and over confident 50 yo driver at the time.

it was a really useful exercise and I’ve sharpened up my act a little as a result. Certainly as far as urban speed limits are concerned

There are many reasons that older people can’t be safely left alone.

yes getting children in the car can be tricky. Getting adults in the car who have extra support needs can be a lot trickier