Reporting a old age driver?

[Johnnytheboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It does, but not as much as people think. A 50 y/o who passed yesterday will pay more than a 50 y/o with a full licence for years. A 21 y/o with a full licence since 17 will pay less than a new 21 y/o driver.

But a new 50 y/o driver will pay far less than an experienced 21 y/o. Age is a far bigger factor.

So elderly drivers' declining motor skills are not tempered by gains in experience?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Johnnytheboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It does, but not as much as people think. A 50 y/o who passed yesterday will pay more than a 50 y/o with a full licence for years. A 21 y/o with a full licence since 17 will pay less than a new 21 y/o driver.

But a new 50 y/o driver will pay far less than an experienced 21 y/o. Age is a far bigger factor.

So elderly drivers' declining motor skills are not tempered by gains in experience?

Perhaps more so. You don't get many people in their 80s passing their test, so I doubt there's much data.

My general point was that there's this myth that is commonly believed, that if you raised the minimum driving age to 40, then newly qualified 40 year olds would be as bad as teenagers are now. It's bks. 50 year olds who pass their test tend not to be egged on to go faster by three 49y/o hotties in the back who he's trying to impress, on the way home from the nightclub at 3am.

[Johnnytheboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Johnnytheboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It does, but not as much as people think. A 50 y/o who passed yesterday will pay more than a 50 y/o with a full licence for years. A 21 y/o with a full licence since 17 will pay less than a new 21 y/o driver.

But a new 50 y/o driver will pay far less than an experienced 21 y/o. Age is a far bigger factor.

So elderly drivers' declining motor skills are not tempered by gains in experience?

Perhaps more so. You don't get many people in their 80s passing their test, so I doubt there's much data.

My general point was that there's this myth that is commonly believed, that if you raised the minimum driving age to 40, then newly qualified 40 year olds would be as bad as teenagers are now. It's bks. 50 year olds who pass their test tend not to be egged on to go faster by three 49y/o hotties in the back who he's trying to impress, on the way home from the nightclub at 3am.

This is one of the rare occasions that I agree with you!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Johnnytheboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Johnnytheboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It does, but not as much as people think. A 50 y/o who passed yesterday will pay more than a 50 y/o with a full licence for years. A 21 y/o with a full licence since 17 will pay less than a new 21 y/o driver.

But a new 50 y/o driver will pay far less than an experienced 21 y/o. Age is a far bigger factor.

So elderly drivers' declining motor skills are not tempered by gains in experience?

Perhaps more so. You don't get many people in their 80s passing their test, so I doubt there's much data.

My general point was that there's this myth that is commonly believed, that if you raised the minimum driving age to 40, then newly qualified 40 year olds would be as bad as teenagers are now. It's bks. 50 year olds who pass their test tend not to be egged on to go faster by three 49y/o hotties in the back who he's trying to impress, on the way home from the nightclub at 3am.

This is one of the rare occasions that I agree with you!

Christ...perhaps I've got it wrong then!

[otolith]

At the beginning and - if we are lucky - at the end of our lives, we aren't fit to drive cars. We control the beginning bit much more effectively than the end bit, but I think in both cases we allow people to drive who are not cognitively at their best for the task.

It would be safer to make people wait for their brain to finish developing in their mid twenties before we let them drive and to make them stop when or before their physical and mental abilities start to deteriorate, but both options come with a lot of social and economic cost attached.

[Marlin45]

Johnnytheboy said:

I was already to disagree with you until your last line.

Threads about old drivers always end up with staggering whataboutery; I suppose that is indicative of PH's changing age profile.

However, it's hard to argue with the fact that it is amazing you can drive all your life after one test.

Ten-yearly mini-tests for everyone.

10 years would make sense (IMHO) but the problem would be the creep of the snowflake effects that have already worked their way into the current driving test. Any renewal test would have to be very different to the current one and be based on safety to drive for you/your passengers and other road users. Not whether you can use a GPS; unable to reverse park; and preserving fuel/gearboxes and brakes.

[Johnnytheboy]

Marlin45 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

I was already to disagree with you until your last line.

Threads about old drivers always end up with staggering whataboutery; I suppose that is indicative of PH's changing age profile.

However, it's hard to argue with the fact that it is amazing you can drive all your life after one test.

Ten-yearly mini-tests for everyone.

10 years would make sense (IMHO) but the problem would be the creep of the snowflake effects that have already worked their way into the current driving test. Any renewal test would have to be very different to the current one and be based on safety to drive for you/your passengers and other road users. Not whether you can use a GPS; unable to reverse park; and preserving fuel/gearboxes and brakes.

If someone gives you a lift five minutes up the road you can immediately tell if they are really incompetent.

That's the level of test I am imagining.

[otolith]

Johnnytheboy said:

If someone gives you a lift five minutes up the road you can immediately tell if they are really incompetent.

That's the level of test I am imagining.

And that level of assessment and consultation could lead to several outcomes including no action, referral for further training, referral for help with vehicle adaptations, referral for help with medical issues, referral for a more serious driving assessment. You don't have to call it a "test" and make it adversarial.

[Johnnytheboy]

otolith said:

Johnnytheboy said:

If someone gives you a lift five minutes up the road you can immediately tell if they are really incompetent.

That's the level of test I am imagining.

And that level of assessment and consultation could lead to several outcomes including no action, referral for further training, referral for help with vehicle adaptations, referral for help with medical issues, referral for a more serious driving assessment. You don't have to call it a "test" and make it adversarial.

[anonymous-user]

Johnnytheboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Johnnytheboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It does, but not as much as people think. A 50 y/o who passed yesterday will pay more than a 50 y/o with a full licence for years. A 21 y/o with a full licence since 17 will pay less than a new 21 y/o driver.

But a new 50 y/o driver will pay far less than an experienced 21 y/o. Age is a far bigger factor.

So elderly drivers' declining motor skills are not tempered by gains in experience?

Perhaps more so. You don't get many people in their 80s passing their test, so I doubt there's much data.

My general point was that there's this myth that is commonly believed, that if you raised the minimum driving age to 40, then newly qualified 40 year olds would be as bad as teenagers are now. It's bks. 50 year olds who pass their test tend not to be egged on to go faster by three 49y/o hotties in the back who he's trying to impress, on the way home from the nightclub at 3am.

This is one of the rare occasions that I agree with you!

I often disagree with Twig, but not when it comes to insurance questions, he’s always right IME.

[PistonBroker]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

50 year olds who pass their test tend not to be egged on to go faster by three 49y/o hotties in the back who he's trying to impress, on the way home from the nightclub at 3am.

Brilliant line Twig!

Re: the OP - I remember looking out over the shopping centre service yard from my office window in the early noughties and seeing my wife's Grandad circling it in his Mk1 Fiesta. God knows how he'd got there. A few more incidents like that - neighbours phoning my father-in-law about him driving on the pavement were the final straw I think - and they finally managed to get him off the road.

I seem to recall the Police having zero interest though. In fact, I think there was a suggestion that taking his keys from him could constitute theft!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them.

[Johnnytheboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them.

Nor is modesty!

[Sticks.]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

50 year olds who pass their test tend not to be egged on to go faster by three 49y/o hotties in the back who he's trying to impress, on the way home from the nightclub at 3am.

The only way I'll be up at 3am is for another pee.

[donkmeister]

Marlin45 said:

Any renewal test would have to be very different to the current one and be based on safety to drive for you/your passengers and other road users. Not whether you can use a GPS; unable to reverse park; and preserving fuel/gearboxes and brakes.

We have tests that are probably suitable already.
Victims of various medical issues often have their driving licence suspended, and have to sit an assessment before allowed back behind the wheel. The onus is on safety, not whether or not they can do various things that are really ancillary to driving.

My dad had one a year after a stroke. I thought he would run into difficulty as reading was an issue for him post-stroke. Someone at the assessment centre explained that it was more about his motor skills and hazard perception. These were more than adequate, so he passed the assessment.