Reporting a old age driver?

[Derek Smith]

sospan said:

Johnnytheboy said:

In before the whataboutery...

I live in Dorset. If I reported every substandard elderly driver I saw I'd have to give up work to make time.

I firmly believe we should ALL take a mini test every ten years; if you fail you have to take a full test again.

I agree with this. No pass/fail though, just an assessment and advice “test”. It is amazing how many bad habits can creep in.
When I worked in our police ops room I took 101 calls about suspect drivers and there was a positive response to checking them out whenever possible by having a VRN to trace or intercept sensibly. Also calls asking how to stop an elderly driver using the car for their and others safety.
Same with vehicles causing long tailbacks behind them due to their slower driving and not pulling over to allow following traffic to pass. GRRR!

I think that if you are involved in three accidents in three years you should take a test.

Mind you, that will mean that people under the age of 25, who have the most accidents, and more accidents per mile driven than those over 65, will be inconvenienced as well.

[lord trumpton]

Get the old biffers off he road!

70 or over? Well GTF off the road

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Johnnytheboy said:

Or you could just test everyone every ten years.

35 million licence holders means and extra 3.5m tests a year. Or an extra 14000 tests for every working day of the year. Not including further tests for those that fail. Now you've come up with the plan, can you let us in on how you're going to carry it out? Assuming you've not just said "retest every 10 years" without thinking it thru.

[IroningMan]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

35 million licence holders means and extra 3.5m tests a year. Or an extra 14000 tests for every working day of the year. Not including further tests for those that fail. Now you've come up with the plan, can you let us in on how you're going to carry it out? Assuming you've not just said "retest every 10 years" without thinking it thru.

We have an emerging employment crisis, probably not the last one we will face in the next few years: train some of those people to be driving examiners.

I went through a very long and difficult process ensuring that my Grandmother didn't take to the road once she was no longer safe to drive; taking her somewhere quiet to practice for a bit every couple of weeks for more than a year until she finally recognised that it wasn't going to work.

Meanwhile a couple of years ago a group of five cyclists were skittled just down the road from here by an elderly driver. PH, inevitably, blamed the cyclists, but the reality was that when the driver was eventually pulled over by a witness (who chased him down) he wasn't even aware that he'd hit anything.

A year or two before that I was clipped from behind while cycling, the driver smashed his nearside mirror completely off the door on the end of my handlebars - and didn't notice or, at least, didn't slow down. By the time the Police tracked him down some weeks later he had died - he was 84.

There is no robust mechanism for taking unfit drivers off the road: there should be.

[Pumpkinz]

Slow said:

Going abit off topic from my original post here.

The issue with resits is EVERYONE would fail. The overly exaggerated mirror checks, holding the wheel at 10/2, handbrake every time you stop etc. Not one person I know does any of these things so the chance of them remembering what they had to do for a test 10 years ago?

If it was just a quick 15 minute drive to a shop and back as the test and ignored the pretty anal things from the test that could work.

Ah the old driving test myths... these are not true and never have been true (certainly not for a good 40-50 years to my knowledge).

Exaggerated mirror checks not required - instructors and examiners alike can discern the faintest of glances (doesn't make it a good mirror check, but it counts as a mirror check provided you don't cause other traffic a problem). Indeed examiners also take account of what you might be able to see in your peripheral vision and how you interact with other traffic on the road. It really isn't difficult with a little practice.

Wheel at 10/2 or 9/3 not required. All you need to do is maintain control of the car and correct position on the road.Some steering grips and techniques are more prone to causing problems, and examiners may be extra alert to those kinds of problems if you look like a candidate for them, but if you control the car properly, however you achieve it, no problem.

Handbrake likewise. Have had a 0 fault pass where the only 'negative' comment made by the examiner was 'the handbrake came off at the start and went on at the end, and never in between'. He went on to advise they at least thought about using it on steeper hills (although she had done one start on a really steep hill without in the test). Strange thing was she normally used the handbrake pretty much every time she was at a complete stop - driving tests do funny things to people. The car didn't have hill start assist (well it did, but I had turned it off).

ETA: Some driving instructors love to make out that you would fail if you do various things like crossing hands, not applying handbrake etc., but they are basically just crap instructors. Some genuinely think it, because they have never bothered to actually find out the real situation. Others like to use the threat as a way of ensuring compliance. Neither reason suggests they are especially good at their job...

Many people retaking tests would fail, but not for the reasons they think. It is because far too many drivers have piss poor awareness, lane discipline, road position etc., and don't see them as important.

The reason we don't have mandatory retests of any kind, either regularly during a driving career, or post a certain age is simply down to the incredible bureaucracy and manpower (sorry, personpower) required to implement it.

Edited by Pumpkinz on Friday 10th July 23:07

[Tigger2050]

[b]"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.

There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in 2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving 17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving 20-to-24-year-old drivers.

Young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).

Research by the RAC Foundation suggests drivers aged 75 and over make up 6% of all licence holders but account for just 4.3% of all deaths and serious injuries. By contrast, drivers aged 16-20 make up just 2.5% of all drivers but 13% of those killed and seriously injured"[/b]


There is no doubt, younger drivers are more dangerous than older drivers. They have more accidents, they kill more people, I think that adds up to them being worse drivers. The point of good driving is to get somewhere without hitting another vehicle or injuring someone. Getting somewhere faster but more dangerously, does not add up to 'good driving'.




Insurance companies know this, compare premiums for a seventy year old and a twenty year old.

Edited by Tigger2050 on Saturday 11th July 01:15

[Slow]

You grow out of the 20-24 range in 4 years where you improve every year, you can easily stay in the 75+ range for 20 years and get worse by the week.

Comparing younger inexperienced people with people who are now rapidly declining in ability isnt really a good comparison. I would say everything a 20-24 year old is more dangerous other than age related health issues.

[NGee]

Slow said:

The issue with resits is EVERYONE would fail. The overly exaggerated mirror checks, holding the wheel at 10/2, handbrake every time you stop etc. Not one person I know does any of these things so the chance of them remembering what they had to do for a test 10 years ago?

What a load of bks. Pumpkinz has summed it up perfectly below.

Pumpkinz said:

Ah the old driving test myths... these are not true and never have been true (certainly not for a good 40-50 years to my knowledge).

Exaggerated mirror checks not required - instructors and examiners alike can discern the faintest of glances (doesn't make it a good mirror check, but it counts as a mirror check provided you don't cause other traffic a problem). Indeed examiners also take account of what you might be able to see in your peripheral vision and how you interact with other traffic on the road. It really isn't difficult with a little practice.

Wheel at 10/2 or 9/3 not required. All you need to do is maintain control of the car and correct position on the road.Some steering grips and techniques are more prone to causing problems, and examiners may be extra alert to those kinds of problems if you look like a candidate for them, but if you control the car properly, however you achieve it, no problem.

Handbrake likewise. Have had a 0 fault pass where the only 'negative' comment made by the examiner was 'the handbrake came off at the start and went on at the end, and never in between'. He went on to advise they at least thought about using it on steeper hills (although she had done one start on a really steep hill without in the test). Strange thing was she normally used the handbrake pretty much every time she was at a complete stop - driving tests do funny things to people. The car didn't have hill start assist (well it did, but I had turned it off).

ETA: Some driving instructors love to make out that you would fail if you do various things like crossing hands, not applying handbrake etc., but they are basically just crap instructors. Some genuinely think it, because they have never bothered to actually find out the real situation. Others like to use the threat as a way of ensuring compliance. Neither reason suggests they are especially good at their job...

Many people retaking tests would fail, but not for the reasons they think. It is because far too many drivers have piss poor awareness, lane discipline, road position etc., and don't see them as important.

The reason we don't have mandatory retests of any kind, either regularly during a driving career, or post a certain age is simply down to the incredible bureaucracy and manpower (sorry, personpower) required to implement it.

Edited by Pumpkinz on Friday 10th July 23:07

[djc206]

Tigger2050][b said:

"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.

There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in 2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving 17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving 20-to-24-year-old drivers.

Young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).

Research by the RAC Foundation suggests drivers aged 75 and over make up 6% of all licence holders but account for just 4.3% of all deaths and serious injuries. By contrast, drivers aged 16-20 make up just 2.5% of all drivers but 13% of those killed and seriously injured"[/b]


There is no doubt, younger drivers are more dangerous than older drivers. They have more accidents, they kill more people, I think that adds up to them being worse drivers. The point of good driving is to get somewhere without hitting another vehicle or injuring someone. Getting somewhere faster but more dangerously, does not add up to 'good driving'.




Insurance companies know this, compare premiums for a seventy year old and a twenty year old.

Edited by Tigger2050 on Saturday 11th July 01:15

Older drivers often cover very small distances thanks to not having to commute so per mile I’d wager the statistics wouldn’t look so pretty.

Go to any garden centre or supermarket car park and have a look around the cars that the proper doddery old folks are getting out of. Most are covered in small dents and scrapes, that’s because spatial awareness and motor functions begin to fail as you get older. Older folks do hit a lot of stuff particularly when parking or manoeuvring that’s undeniable, it’s also largely inconsequential unlike the spectacular accidents that teenagers are prone to having. Yes younger drivers are more dangerous but older drivers are on the whole not very good drivers whilst simultaneously being safer if that makes sense.

I wouldn’t want to take anyone’s licence off them if they’re capable of driving to an acceptable standard but equally there are plenty of people on the roads who should have long since hung up their driving gloves. Young drivers can get better, older drivers in decline can only get worse, that’s an important difference.

[sim72]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Our next door neighbour, in her 70s, freely admits that her sight is generally OK but her night vision is terrible, which is "a real annoyance in the winter when it gets dark early".

[A1VDY]

lord trumpton said:

Get the old biffers off he road!

70 or over? Well GTF off the road

That's your days driving over then..

[otolith]

Pumpkinz said:

The reason we don't have mandatory retests of any kind, either regularly during a driving career, or post a certain age is simply down to the incredible bureaucracy and manpower (sorry, personpower) required to implement it.

And because the most dangerous group of drivers on the road recently passed it, and would pass it again.

I don’t think we need anything as heavy as a full driving test to pick up people who need advice or modifications to continue driving or really to hang up their keys.

[lord trumpton]

A1VDY said:

lord trumpton said:

Get the old biffers off he road!

70 or over? Well GTF off the road

That's your days driving over then..

Im under well under 70?

[Derek Smith]

djc206 said:

Tigger2050][b said:

"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.

There were 10,974 accidents involving drivers over the age of 70 in 2011, says the DfT. That compares with 11,946 accidents involving 17-to-19-year-old drivers and 24,007 accidents involving 20-to-24-year-old drivers.

Young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the road," says Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).

Research by the RAC Foundation suggests drivers aged 75 and over make up 6% of all licence holders but account for just 4.3% of all deaths and serious injuries. By contrast, drivers aged 16-20 make up just 2.5% of all drivers but 13% of those killed and seriously injured"[/b]


There is no doubt, younger drivers are more dangerous than older drivers. They have more accidents, they kill more people, I think that adds up to them being worse drivers. The point of good driving is to get somewhere without hitting another vehicle or injuring someone. Getting somewhere faster but more dangerously, does not add up to 'good driving'.




Insurance companies know this, compare premiums for a seventy year old and a twenty year old.

Edited by Tigger2050 on Saturday 11th July 01:15

Older drivers often cover very small distances thanks to not having to commute so per mile I’d wager the statistics wouldn’t look so pretty.

Go to any garden centre or supermarket car park and have a look around the cars that the proper doddery old folks are getting out of. Most are covered in small dents and scrapes, that’s because spatial awareness and motor functions begin to fail as you get older. Older folks do hit a lot of stuff particularly when parking or manoeuvring that’s undeniable, it’s also largely inconsequential unlike the spectacular accidents that teenagers are prone to having. Yes younger drivers are more dangerous but older drivers are on the whole not very good drivers whilst simultaneously being safer if that makes sense.

I wouldn’t want to take anyone’s licence off them if they’re capable of driving to an acceptable standard but equally there are plenty of people on the roads who should have long since hung up their driving gloves. Young drivers can get better, older drivers in decline can only get worse, that’s an important difference.

Go to any motor insurance company and look at their statistics. They will show that, per mile driven, drivers aged 65 and over - I accept it is a big, and getting bigger, group - have fewer accidents than women under the age of 45 and men under the age of 35. Their accidents tend to be less 'serious', serious here is judged on cost to the insurance company.

The safest drivers on the road per mile driven are males between the ages of 35 and 60, with a slight tailing off towards the upper end. Men have fewer accidents per mile driven than women at any age up until 65 when, sadly, old men drive like old women.

Women have more accidents that are unreported, and hence on no one's statistics, than men. However, women drive more in towns, where there are more vehicles, more decisions, more junctions (and more women, the ones most likely to have accidents remember). The reason their premiums are so low is that the accidents they have are generally at low speed and they don't claim on insurance for them.

Offending rates again are somewhat skewed by sex. More males are convicted of speeding, although the difference dropped dramatically with the introduction of speed cameras - this from stats around 2010. There was an increase in male speeding when speed cameras were introduced onto motorways, dual carriageways and roadworks. It was not as great as you'd imagine, given the preponderance of males driving on such roads.

Dangerous driving used to be the preserve of men, but one of the reasons is speed. Given the catastrophic injuries and damage that can be caused by speeding cars, it tends to mean that the offence charged is 'higher'.

The quickest learners in a police driving school in my old force were females. These are experience women licence holders going for graded tests. The point was, the instructors told me, was that they listen to the instructors and don't think they know better.

[Castrol for a knave]

Completely anecdotal and unscientific, but in the rural shire where I live, the youngsters tend to kill themselves.

The old codgers tend to kill other people, T boned motorcyclists being the victim of choice.

[The Mad Monk]

otolith said:

Pumpkinz said:

The reason we don't have mandatory retests of any kind, either regularly during a driving career, or post a certain age is simply down to the incredible bureaucracy and manpower (sorry, personpower) required to implement it.

And because the most dangerous group of drivers on the road recently passed it, and would pass it again.

I don’t think we need anything as heavy as a full driving test to pick up people who need advice or modifications to continue driving or really to hang up their keys.

But - but, if we took the most dangerous group of drivers, by age, off the road it would be the 17 to 25 year olds!

[Johnnytheboy]

The Mad Monk said:

But - but, if we took the most dangerous group of drivers, by age, off the road it would be the 17 to 25 year olds!

Yes, but they will improve with time.

[Slow]

Johnnytheboy said:

The Mad Monk said:

But - but, if we took the most dangerous group of drivers, by age, off the road it would be the 17 to 25 year olds!

Yes, but they will improve with time.

Due to lack of experience. If you banned driving till 25 then 25-30 would become the most dangerous age group.

[otolith]

Slow said:

Johnnytheboy said:

The Mad Monk said:

But - but, if we took the most dangerous group of drivers, by age, off the road it would be the 17 to 25 year olds!

Yes, but they will improve with time.

Due to lack of experience. If you banned driving till 25 then 25-30 would become the most dangerous age group.

I’m not sure that’s true. Experience is a factor, but age related general attitudes to risk taking and reward are more the problem.

[The Mad Monk]

otolith said:

I’m not sure that’s true. Experience is a factor, but age related general attitudes to risk taking and reward are more the problem.

Yes, I think I agree with that.

It's less a question of experience, more a question of maturity.