Cyclist dies after collision
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
ManBetterKnow said:
Anybody with common sense knows that old people generally have much poorer reaction times and observation skills than young people.
What's that got to do with it? The drivers with the best reaction times and eyesight have to pay enormous sums of money to get insurance - cos stats prove they're a liability.As far as Sir Stirling Moss is concerned he has only retired from racing because he no longer feels up to matching his peers. I'm quite sure that he would still give the vast majority on here a good thumping on the track, despite what they might tell you or believe about their driving god status.
£15? 
Don't think so. Take a look at how much it costs just to renew your licence.
Bringing the thread back on topic, as far as cyclists are concerned, I'd see it as money much better spent if road cyclists had to pass a formal test than the (optional, school based) proficiency, and there were better legislation to effectively punish cyclists who ride dangerously (either to their own risk or others').
Don't think so. Take a look at how much it costs just to renew your licence.
Bringing the thread back on topic, as far as cyclists are concerned, I'd see it as money much better spent if road cyclists had to pass a formal test than the (optional, school based) proficiency, and there were better legislation to effectively punish cyclists who ride dangerously (either to their own risk or others').
My dad is only 71 but has taken the decision to only drive when there is an emergency as he does not feel he is up to the task like he used to be. For the record he has only had one accident and he used to drive a lot in Africa.
Some individuals don't recognise their declining abilities, some do. However, drivers of older ages are in situations where there will be more accidents, but not entirely their fault due to the simple fact that there are more and more knobs on the road than I can ever recall.
Some individuals don't recognise their declining abilities, some do. However, drivers of older ages are in situations where there will be more accidents, but not entirely their fault due to the simple fact that there are more and more knobs on the road than I can ever recall.
10 Pence Short said:
If they never get pulled, it's because they're not causing accidents or committing offences. So what's the problem?
You can't be serious. If the Police were an omnipresent all-seeing being, I would agree but the fact is they are simply not there when these things happen and people drive badly when they know they are unlikely to be caught. It's a simple case of probability. As an example, an honest travel rep might be a great driver but gets a totting disqualification for four minor speeders but a myopic pensioner on rural roads causing all and sundry to swerve to avoid his/her incompetence can potter round until they are 100 applying 1939 driving skills.
If people were caught every time they broke the speed limit, nobody in the UK would have a licence.
It doesnt say in the BBC article that the elderly motorist was neccessarily at fault, we shouldnt just assume they were being careless and crashed into the cyclist, we dont know exactly what happened.
But on an unrelated matter i dont think eye tests neccessarily is whats required for the elderly driver (again, we dont know if they just ploughed into the cyclist and didnt see them or what happened) because many could pass an eye test and most have glasses. Its reaction time is the problem. The process of seeing something, reacting, deciding what they need to do and then implimenting that action.
Did anybody ever see the Traffic Cops with the 90 year old gentleman driving the wrong way on the motorway? He did miles and didnt even realise and when the officer was speaking to him it was taking him two minutes at least to respond to a simple question as he couldnt think fast enough. Thats too long, if it takes you two minutes to think of the name of the road you live in, how can you react to a cyclist appearing out of nowhere or a car in front braking suddenly?
I think at 65 there should be some sort of test, not particularly a driving test but something to test reactions. Even if it was on a simulator.
But on an unrelated matter i dont think eye tests neccessarily is whats required for the elderly driver (again, we dont know if they just ploughed into the cyclist and didnt see them or what happened) because many could pass an eye test and most have glasses. Its reaction time is the problem. The process of seeing something, reacting, deciding what they need to do and then implimenting that action.
Did anybody ever see the Traffic Cops with the 90 year old gentleman driving the wrong way on the motorway? He did miles and didnt even realise and when the officer was speaking to him it was taking him two minutes at least to respond to a simple question as he couldnt think fast enough. Thats too long, if it takes you two minutes to think of the name of the road you live in, how can you react to a cyclist appearing out of nowhere or a car in front braking suddenly?
I think at 65 there should be some sort of test, not particularly a driving test but something to test reactions. Even if it was on a simulator.
Sorry, I thought we were discussing the merits of how dangerous people are?
If pensioners are driving around without picking up disqualifications or causing avoidable accidents, it makes the whole premise of them needing additional training a moot point. They may be inconvenient and loom infirm sometimes, but at least it's inconvenient and infirm at a low speed.
I'd be more concerned with testing them, rather than their driving. Do they have physical means to operate a vehicle safely? Eyesight, hearing and ability to physically react should be tested- which can be done in a doctor's surgery rather than requiring a test of their Highway Code skills.
Isn't the current system set up to require a licence renewal at 70 years old? Then every 3 years after that. Part of that renewal is declaring you're fit to drive. It would be a better arrangement to enhance this to include a medical certificate to prove it.
People aren't saying it's the attitude to driving in older people that's the problem (research shows that actually improves with time behind the wheel), but their physical ability to do so safely. We can test that independently of being on the road.
If pensioners are driving around without picking up disqualifications or causing avoidable accidents, it makes the whole premise of them needing additional training a moot point. They may be inconvenient and loom infirm sometimes, but at least it's inconvenient and infirm at a low speed.
I'd be more concerned with testing them, rather than their driving. Do they have physical means to operate a vehicle safely? Eyesight, hearing and ability to physically react should be tested- which can be done in a doctor's surgery rather than requiring a test of their Highway Code skills.
Isn't the current system set up to require a licence renewal at 70 years old? Then every 3 years after that. Part of that renewal is declaring you're fit to drive. It would be a better arrangement to enhance this to include a medical certificate to prove it.
People aren't saying it's the attitude to driving in older people that's the problem (research shows that actually improves with time behind the wheel), but their physical ability to do so safely. We can test that independently of being on the road.
10 Pence Short said:
Isn't the current system set up to require a licence renewal at 70 years old? Then every 3 years after that. Part of that renewal is declaring you're fit to drive.
Yes it is but essentially you just sign a piece of paper saying 'im fit to drive, honest, really, no i am!' and they send you a licence. Of course if they later find out you werent fit to drive, when you car's on its side and three children are being swept up, you're in a very big trouble. But by then they've died so its a bit horse-stable-bolted.Johnnytheboy said:
I strongly believe all drivers should have to take a short retest every ten years or so.
Im not sure thats neccessary as theres nothing in any batch of statistics to suggest that people who've held a licence for 10 years and in their 30s for example (as most probably will be) are a particularly high risk of accidents. Actually the 30-50's are supposed to be the safest, lowest risk group of drivers according to the numbers. Its people who are relative novices and elderly drivers who are the main problem groups. Younger drivers, well you cant keep testing them you need to let them out there alone eventually as theres no substitute for experience.
Maybe there could be a system where if you've had 3 points you should take a small re-test before you licence renewal every ten years. If you've had 6 in that time then a normal re-test before renewal and so on. That'd probably clog test centres up too much though, the admin would be a nightmare!
martin84 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I strongly believe all drivers should have to take a short retest every ten years or so.
Im not sure thats neccessary as theres nothing in any batch of statistics to suggest that people who've held a licence for 10 years and in their 30s for example (as most probably will be) are a particularly high risk of accidents. Actually the 30-50's are supposed to be the safest, lowest risk group of drivers according to the numbers. 10 Pence Short said:
If pensioners are driving around without picking up disqualifications or causing avoidable accidents, it makes the whole premise of them needing additional training a moot point. They may be inconvenient and loom infirm sometimes, but at least it's inconvenient and infirm at a low speed.
A tonne of metal, is still A tonne of metal... Speed is irrelevant.J4CKO said:
My grandad gave up last year at 89, he was ok until then, ts a case of knowing when enough is enough and he decided his eyesight was not up to it and also insurance gets expensive, people can be very impatient and agressive with older drivers even when they are doing nothing wrong and are pretty much on the speed limit.
It is someones independance that they lose to a certain extent but they should not be selfish about it which I think a lot are, or potentially in the early stages of Dementia, so it is perhaps up to the families of older drivers (not old giffers, buffers or coffin dodgers) to suggest that if they notice anything that doesnt look safe to have a word with the person and persuade them that perhaps they should hang up the keys.
So, dont get dismissive about older drivers, most manage prefectly fine, some manage better than their younger counterparts, some people can be very alert when they are 90, not many but there are as least as many dopey 18 year olds.
Im 40, eventually we all get old, old people arent a different species and still have feelings and enjoy things and that should be supported but absolutely not at the risk of other people. I suspect at this rate I may get my E46 when I am 89 !
Bloody well said. As always, it's easy to make sweeping generalisations when it doesn't directly affect you.It is someones independance that they lose to a certain extent but they should not be selfish about it which I think a lot are, or potentially in the early stages of Dementia, so it is perhaps up to the families of older drivers (not old giffers, buffers or coffin dodgers) to suggest that if they notice anything that doesnt look safe to have a word with the person and persuade them that perhaps they should hang up the keys.
So, dont get dismissive about older drivers, most manage prefectly fine, some manage better than their younger counterparts, some people can be very alert when they are 90, not many but there are as least as many dopey 18 year olds.
Im 40, eventually we all get old, old people arent a different species and still have feelings and enjoy things and that should be supported but absolutely not at the risk of other people. I suspect at this rate I may get my E46 when I am 89 !
The problem is nobody in the family will ever want to be the bad guy and have to tell their elderly relative that they cannot drive anymore. Nobody wants to do that. Most people prefer it when a doctor or a police officer does that job for them, because then the doctor is the bad guy, not the son/daughter/grandson etc
10 Pence Short said:
Erm, is there a physicist in the house to explain...
At 30 mph the pedestrian will be killed and the car seriously damaged.At 20 mph the pedestrian will only injured and the car slightly damaged.
As 88 mph the pedestrian will liquidised and you'll only need a rinse off with the hose.
It is for this reason that I'm not allowed to teach my nephew to drive anymore.
Snowboy said:
At 30 mph the pedestrian will be killed and the car seriously damaged.
At 20 mph the pedestrian will only injured and the car slightly damaged.
As 88 mph the pedestrian will liquidised and you'll only need a rinse off with the hose.
It is for this reason that I'm not allowed to teach my nephew to drive anymore.
So at 88mph, running someone over causes less damage to your car? Silver lining i suppose At 20 mph the pedestrian will only injured and the car slightly damaged.
As 88 mph the pedestrian will liquidised and you'll only need a rinse off with the hose.
It is for this reason that I'm not allowed to teach my nephew to drive anymore.
Snowboy said:
At 30 mph the pedestrian will be killed and the car seriously damaged.
At 20 mph the pedestrian will only injured and the car slightly damaged.
As 88 mph the pedestrian will liquidised and you'll only need a rinse off with the hose.
It is for this reason that I'm not allowed to teach my nephew to drive anymore.
Would rather step out in front of a situationally aware speeding driver doing 50mph in a 30, than a tunnel visioned OAP doing 25.At 20 mph the pedestrian will only injured and the car slightly damaged.
As 88 mph the pedestrian will liquidised and you'll only need a rinse off with the hose.
It is for this reason that I'm not allowed to teach my nephew to drive anymore.
Snowboy said:
At 30 mph the pedestrian will be killed and the car seriously damaged.
At 20 mph the pedestrian will only injured and the car slightly damaged.
As 88 mph the pedestrian will liquidised and you'll only need a rinse off with the hose.
It is for this reason that I'm not allowed to teach my nephew to drive anymore.
At 88mph, you won't hit the pedestrian at all, but will end up crashing into a barn in the '50s.At 20 mph the pedestrian will only injured and the car slightly damaged.
As 88 mph the pedestrian will liquidised and you'll only need a rinse off with the hose.
It is for this reason that I'm not allowed to teach my nephew to drive anymore.
The low speed collisions with cyclists/pedestrians are certainly less likely to kill, but that often depends on the ability of the driver to recognise that they have hit something soon enough or at all. In my case (when cycling) I was hit whilst waiting at a roundabout, fortunately the forward impact, and me being slightly offset from centre, meant that I fell out of the path of the car. The elderly driver simply carried on (at the same slow speed) so I still wonder to this day whether they noticed and what might have happened.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff