old people, driving licence removal
Discussion
lowdrag said:
I'm one of your oldies. 73 shortly, still drive the E-type and XKSS as fast as I can, can still handle myself on a track day, so I am wondering at what age you suggest we oldies should be persecuted. Incidentally, while the law has now changed, we with older french licences are not required to undergo any medical tests or even fill in the triennial questionnaire. I'll go and have a snooze now.
I think the issue here is not 'all' elderly drivers (I don't think 73 is elderly), but 'many' elderly drivers. There are many elderly drivers who perhaps shouldn't be driving any more and, as the OP suggests, persuading them out of their cars is very difficult. My MiL (90) should definitely not have been driving and it wasn't until she had a fairly serious accident that we persuaded her to stop driving.
It's not persecution, but a genuine issue.
I've said this before when the subject has come up, I'm not opposed to the idea of regular retesting, even applied universally regardless of age, but there's the question of the logistics/resources and cost of doing it, plus I'd only support it if it was truly a safety evaluation. Whether people are doing things to the exact letter of what they should isn't really an issue as long as they are generally safe and competent.
NDA said:
I think the issue here is not 'all' elderly drivers (I don't think 73 is elderly), but 'many' elderly drivers. There are many elderly drivers who perhaps shouldn't be driving any more and, as the OP suggests, persuading them out of their cars is very difficult.
My MiL (90) should definitely not have been driving and it wasn't until she had a fairly serious accident that we persuaded her to stop driving.
It's not persecution, but a genuine issue.
From your perspective, which is an ageist one. My MiL (90) should definitely not have been driving and it wasn't until she had a fairly serious accident that we persuaded her to stop driving.
It's not persecution, but a genuine issue.
Changing the question for a minute. If a young driver is dangerous on the road, how is that discerned, and what happens to them?.
Before we spend tens of millions of pounds on retesting, refresher courses and the like, shouldn't we be looking at the actual statistics around serious accidents, rather than just going on anecdotes and individual hunches about the nature of the problem.
How many KSI accidents are the fault of the over 80s? How many are the fault of the under 25s.
Find the answer to those questions, and we may have a better idea about who should be retested, if we're going to do it at all.
How many KSI accidents are the fault of the over 80s? How many are the fault of the under 25s.
Find the answer to those questions, and we may have a better idea about who should be retested, if we're going to do it at all.
Derek Smith said:
Given accident stats, the much more dangerous option would be to have a 25-year-old driving the Zafira.
Actually the accident stats show the opposite, because per mile the elderly are more likely to be involved in an accident.Let's not even count the unknown number of accidents they get involved in where they leave the scene and don't report it (car park dings).
The only reason young drivers pay higher insurance is because they're more likely to be involved in an expensive accident.
Perpetuating an old myth helps the insurance companies to justify extortionate premiums, it's "yes we know that seems expensive, but look how much a young driver has to pay".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2008/09/some_statis...
"people once they reach the age of 75 are as dangerous, on average, as newly qualified 17 year-old drivers"
"Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group."
Edited by lyonspride on Friday 14th December 10:02
I would rather have an 85 year old hit me at 25mph than an 18 year old hit me at 50mph.
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age."
"
"The Department for Transport (DfT) says there is no evidence older drivers are more likely to cause an accident, and it has no plans to restrict licensing or mandate extra training on the basis of age."
"
lyonspride said:
Actually the accident stats show the opposite, because per mile the elderly are more likely to be involved in an accident.
Let's not even count the unknown number of accidents they get involved in where they leave the scene and don't report it (car park dings).
The only reason young drivers pay higher insurance is because they're more likely to be involved in an expensive accident.
Expensive accidents (usually high speed, resulting in major damage, injury or death) are the ones we need to tackle. We shouldn't be spending millions on eradicating low speed bumps. Let's not even count the unknown number of accidents they get involved in where they leave the scene and don't report it (car park dings).
The only reason young drivers pay higher insurance is because they're more likely to be involved in an expensive accident.
If retesting the elderly is not going to result in a significant drop in the number of KSI accidents, then we shouldn't do it. We should put the time, effort and money somewhere where it will.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Expensive accidents (usually high speed, resulting in major damage, injury or death) are the ones we need to tackle. We shouldn't be spending millions on eradicating low speed bumps.
If retesting the elderly is not going to result in a significant drop in the number of KSI accidents, then we shouldn't do it. We should put the time, effort and money somewhere where it will.
And how many high speed expensive accidents are caused by frustration at getting stuck behind dawdling Doris?If retesting the elderly is not going to result in a significant drop in the number of KSI accidents, then we shouldn't do it. We should put the time, effort and money somewhere where it will.
Don't try to tell me it's the drivers fault for not controlling their emotions, because if I kick a large dog in the nuts and I get bitten, that's MY fault, not the dog.
The fact is, if someone is generating agro either through intention or incompetence, then they shouldn't be on the roads.
Also how many accidents does Doris see in her rear view mirror? How many bikers lose their lives when Doris pulls out of a side road without looking?
lyonspride said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Expensive accidents (usually high speed, resulting in major damage, injury or death) are the ones we need to tackle. We shouldn't be spending millions on eradicating low speed bumps.
If retesting the elderly is not going to result in a significant drop in the number of KSI accidents, then we shouldn't do it. We should put the time, effort and money somewhere where it will.
And how many high speed expensive accidents are caused by frustration at getting stuck behind dawdling Doris?If retesting the elderly is not going to result in a significant drop in the number of KSI accidents, then we shouldn't do it. We should put the time, effort and money somewhere where it will.
Don't try to tell me it's the drivers fault for not controlling their emotions, because if I kick a large dog in the nuts and I get bitten, that's MY fault, not the dog.
The fact is, if someone is generating agro either through intention or incompetence, then they shouldn't be on the roads.
k me, you're an idiot. And very aggressive too. Maybe we'd all be safer if everyone had to undergo an anger management test in order to have a licence. 
surveyor_101 said:
That is the usual argument and I accept the stats to a certain degree.
However, there are quite a few points as we already have schemes in place to tackle young drivers>
1. Most 17-25 -their driving will improve with experience and their risk profile in most cases goes down.
2. They suffer high insurance premiums and many opting for trackers so their driving is monitored.
3. There are driver improvement schemes the police can refer them to in some cases.
4. There is a probation period in place for new drivers of two years with retesting for those who have issues.
The elderly on the other hand won't improve and in most cases, they only get an assessment if they volunteer!
So there is nothing to tackle the problem of elderly drivers and they don't tend to get better like young drivers.
Yet they still have considerably more accidents per mile driven than those in their dotage. I could dig out the stats, but I assume there's no argument over them. However, there are quite a few points as we already have schemes in place to tackle young drivers>
1. Most 17-25 -their driving will improve with experience and their risk profile in most cases goes down.
2. They suffer high insurance premiums and many opting for trackers so their driving is monitored.
3. There are driver improvement schemes the police can refer them to in some cases.
4. There is a probation period in place for new drivers of two years with retesting for those who have issues.
The elderly on the other hand won't improve and in most cases, they only get an assessment if they volunteer!
So there is nothing to tackle the problem of elderly drivers and they don't tend to get better like young drivers.
I'm for regular testing of abilities for everyone: from 2 years after the issue of the first licence until they finally snuff. If there are any advisories, there should be a system of referrals and annual or more frequent, appraisals. The use of removal of driving licence until a test is passed should also be increased in scope.
What happens is that old people tend to drive within their limits, hence 40mph in a 60. The reason youngsters have so many accidents is that they don't. Whilst I accept that what they lack is experience, using roads as a method of finding out where they are deficient means that everyone else has to drive more carefully. After all, the next driver might be someone who is 17-25.
Someone who is registered as blind can, in certain circs, still drive. Their accident rates per mile, like those of the old and infirm, are considerably lower than 17-25 year olds. That's because, in the main, they drive within their limits. So someone doing 40 in a 60 is a safe driver. It might well inconvenience you. Yesterday, like most Thursdays, I drove the 15 miles to a big M&S. I used back doubles in the main and became irritated by those driving at 40 in a 60. However, if I did try a risky overtake that did not pay off, I would be the one at fault, and not them. They are driving within their limits.
Derek Smith said:
So someone doing 40 in a 60 is a safe driver. It might well inconvenience you. Yesterday, like most Thursdays, I drove the 15 miles to a big M&S. I used back doubles in the main and became irritated by those driving at 40 in a 60. However, if I did try a risky overtake that did not pay off, I would be the one at fault, and not them. They are driving within their limits.
Exactly right. Someone who has an accident due to their own impatience, and then tries to blame the person who held them up, is probably too stupid to have held a licence in the first place. I'm not sure this thread is really about "old people are/aren't st drivers" (shurrup grandad etc).
More "some people become st drivers as the get old, how do you address that with them?"
My dad is a perfectly safe driver in his 70s. His dad was too. His mother was fking awful. I mean, she always was, she just got worse.
It's about how you have that "your driving is getting rather dodgy, please stop" conversation.
t drivers" (shurrup grandad etc).More "some people become s
t drivers as the get old, how do you address that with them?"My dad is a perfectly safe driver in his 70s. His dad was too. His mother was f
king awful. I mean, she always was, she just got worse.It's about how you have that "your driving is getting rather dodgy, please stop" conversation.
carboy2017 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Except DVLA will have probably got the spelling of licence correct.
Nope he is not wrong in his spelling as that's American English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License) 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Derek Smith said:
So someone doing 40 in a 60 is a safe driver. It might well inconvenience you. Yesterday, like most Thursdays, I drove the 15 miles to a big M&S. I used back doubles in the main and became irritated by those driving at 40 in a 60. However, if I did try a risky overtake that did not pay off, I would be the one at fault, and not them. They are driving within their limits.
Exactly right. Someone who has an accident due to their own impatience, and then tries to blame the person who held them up, is probably too stupid to have held a licence in the first place. s off other drivers and be free from any consequences.EVERYONE has a responsibility to drive in a considerate manner, and by considerate I mean not taking pleasure in winding people up, think about the potential innocent parties that could end up hospitalised when your pet project races off and ploughs into a bus stop full of children.
It takes two, it always takes two, and there are too many passive aggressive morons out there just looking for their next victim.
Funny how when it's cyclists winding up drivers it's always the cyclist at fault, yet when a driver is being wind-up merchant, it's totally different.
Regarding OAPs, I used to assumed it was always just incompetence and age, but I came to realise that old people can be c-nuts too, and often with total impunity.
Edited by lyonspride on Friday 14th December 13:47
lyonspride said:
Derek Smith said:
Given accident stats, the much more dangerous option would be to have a 25-year-old driving the Zafira.
Actually the accident stats show the opposite, because per mile the elderly are more likely to be involved in an accident.Let's not even count the unknown number of accidents they get involved in where they leave the scene and don't report it (car park dings).
The only reason young drivers pay higher insurance is because they're more likely to be involved in an expensive accident.
Perpetuating an old myth helps the insurance companies to justify extortionate premiums, it's "yes we know that seems expensive, but look how much a young driver has to pay".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2008/09/some_statis...
"people once they reach the age of 75 are as dangerous, on average, as newly qualified 17 year-old drivers"
"Department of Transport statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents per mile than any other age group."
Edited by lyonspride on Friday 14th December 10:02
And before anyone asks, £180 is less than my excess so no point claiming on insurance and having a claim against me, a lose, lose situation.
I have no doubt he would have just driven away if I had not got back to the car when he did.
gottans said:
And I have just had my car repaired after being crunched by an eldery chap in the car park at the GP surgery, seems to think £180 to repaint half a rear bumper and rear quarter panel is expensive, car is a metallic as well. He even said he went for the wider space when parking and still hit my parked car.
And before anyone asks, £180 is less than my excess so no point claiming on insurance and having a claim against me, a lose, lose situation.
I have no doubt he would have just driven away if I had not got back to the car when he did.
Same happened to mine at Tesco's, hit my car, decided to try a different space and drove off but someone got his plates and left me a note.And before anyone asks, £180 is less than my excess so no point claiming on insurance and having a claim against me, a lose, lose situation.
I have no doubt he would have just driven away if I had not got back to the car when he did.
I went through insurance purely because he drove off, he completely denied doing it, even with witness statements. His response was "i've been driving 40 years and never had an accident". It was at this point that I realised that age in some people doesn't equate to wisdom, it equates to arrogance.
I find it really odd that in this day of testing and certification and qualifying etc for almost everything work related or home related we just allow everyone to continue driving a lethal piece of machinery in populated public places without any retesting until some half hearted check by a GP at 70 years old.
Everyone should be retested at regular intervals.... no matter what their age.
I appreciate it would cost money and would take some years to implement.
Everyone should be retested at regular intervals.... no matter what their age.
I appreciate it would cost money and would take some years to implement.
33q said:
I find it really odd that in this day of testing and certification and qualifying etc for almost everything work related or home related we just allow everyone to continue driving a lethal piece of machinery in populated public places without any retesting until some half hearted check by a GP at 70 years old.
Everyone should be retested at regular intervals.... no matter what their age.
I appreciate it would cost money and would take some years to implement.
its a point of view but not a very well thought out one.Everyone should be retested at regular intervals.... no matter what their age.
I appreciate it would cost money and would take some years to implement.
You've got to balance the relative costs of the number of accidents a relatively safe but obviously annoying age group of motorists are causing
And balance that against the enormous cost in time and money for a whole new tier of tests which would undoubtedly scoop a few grannies off the road, but in the same net catch large quantities of 'just past their tests' teenagers and early twenties, a good dollop of working family drivers and 'just making it through life' 'barely scrapping by' working types. All of which would likely lose their jobs and then be supported by the state until they could get back into employment. Completely ignore the fact you push a larger and larger group of people toward illegal driving as they realised they couldn't get insurance so didn't bother.
So all in all as a 50% taxpayer I'm not too fond of your poorly thought out social experiment at my expense.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff