RE: OAP drivers: a liability?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PaulMoor said:
Oh for... The facts are right above your post...
http://www.abi.org.uk/Publications/24940.pdf
Those figures show over 70s still a lower risk than 17-29 y/olds. I'd like to see a chart for 17-24 y/olds, then you'd get the full picture of who is responsible for the carnage on our roads.http://www.abi.org.uk/Publications/24940.pdf
Ozzie Osmond said:
Indeed, that's what strikes me as the crazy thing. There are all different types of people over a broad spectrum. If only the excellent drivers were allowed out on the roads that would reduce traffic by about 99%! Wholly impractical.
What needs to be addressed are the "problems", however difficult to deal with. So often our society "does something easy" as opposed to "dealing with a problem".
I agree. We need to look at the whole probelm of bad driving, and I feel that this has been targeted at the young for too long. Yes, the young probably need more work, not less, than is happening at the moment, but there are other areas that need targeting too.What needs to be addressed are the "problems", however difficult to deal with. So often our society "does something easy" as opposed to "dealing with a problem".
Let us not forget, however, that the UK dose have some of the safest roads in the world already, dispite having some of the busyest roads.
http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm
Edited by PaulMoor on Tuesday 13th March 16:01
Taking tests again at 65-70 years of age seems reasonable, but I f
king hate theory test and hazard preception bullst. I'm revising for mine, and some of the questions are so stupid; 'At an accident someone is unconcious. Your main priorities should be; sweep glass, names of witnesses, stop any heavy bleeding etc'. My main priority would be to actually call the ambulance, if someone hasn't already. I wouldn't touch the persons involved in the accident, could accidently cause pain to them etc.
It's like they don't want young drivers to pass. And I hate people who say young drivers shouldn't be on road, or they drive recklessly, you were all young once too.
king hate theory test and hazard preception bullst. I'm revising for mine, and some of the questions are so stupid; 'At an accident someone is unconcious. Your main priorities should be; sweep glass, names of witnesses, stop any heavy bleeding etc'. My main priority would be to actually call the ambulance, if someone hasn't already. I wouldn't touch the persons involved in the accident, could accidently cause pain to them etc. It's like they don't want young drivers to pass. And I hate people who say young drivers shouldn't be on road, or they drive recklessly, you were all young once too.
The Austrian and German systems are very good for new drivers, not only are the driving tests ingredibly thorough in Austria/Germany (which i'll admit unfortunately makes them expensive, think 1500-1800 to get a lisence)you are on 2 years of probation from the get go. 3 speeding tickets, any alcohol at all in your system, or more than one serious offence (running a red light for example) and you dont get a ban, you will need to wait a while and retake your lisence from the start. The Austrian test also requires you to take a second exam after 6 months of driving to get rid of any bad habits you may have devealoped. Its a hassle, but with the speed of driving in Germany and the roads in Austria, its definitely neccesary.
I still dont know how to make older people better drivers, I guess just checkups every 1-2 years is all that is possible?
I still dont know how to make older people better drivers, I guess just checkups every 1-2 years is all that is possible?
It is probably right that we all have some form of periodic examination of our driving, eye tests should be mandatory for all drivers, every year as I know people who have poor eyesight but are to vain to go to the opticians for glasses !
there are so many reasons why someone driving could be impacted, a Diabetic with uncontrolled blood sugar, people with psychiatric issues or someone who reads Evo too much.
there are so many reasons why someone driving could be impacted, a Diabetic with uncontrolled blood sugar, people with psychiatric issues or someone who reads Evo too much.
I have been looking for the government to do something like this for a long time. Firstly let me say that young driver are and remain the highest risk group on the roads for accident, and i would never disagree with this. But for far to long the elderly have been ignored with regards to the hazard that they represent.
The effects of advancing age on reaction times, motor control and joint flexability are well documented, and it is a travisty that elderly drivers have not been made to show that they are still capable behind the wheel before now.
My only reservation is that i think starting the testing at 70 in my opinion is leaving it too late. Checks should be started at 60
The effects of advancing age on reaction times, motor control and joint flexability are well documented, and it is a travisty that elderly drivers have not been made to show that they are still capable behind the wheel before now.
My only reservation is that i think starting the testing at 70 in my opinion is leaving it too late. Checks should be started at 60
Wow, what a thread for ranting and being able to get away with it! love it!
I personally think that the 2 year probation should be followed by another test. I think everyone should take a car and bike test to get a good idea about how to use a road. Mandatory retest every 5 years and a retest every year when you hit a certain age.
What I don't want however, is to have to pay for these tests, as they cost too much as it is.
I have known drivers from the crazy blonde who like to turn around and talk to you face to face whilst she is driving, wondering why her topic of conversation had me sat with fear on my face. I have also known the elderly driver that could not see properly and managed to hit a cyclist and not even realise it, continueing to drive with other cars beeping like mad trying to get him to stop.
There are namy types of idiot driver on the road and every road user should be treated like an idiot until they prove themselves to be otherwise.
I am a bad driver myself, and anyone who says they are a good driver, is generally not. I have made mistakes, cut people up when not checking my mirror properly and doing a life saver check. Since doing my bike test I have improved, but will never stop learning how to drive.
Rant over lol
I personally think that the 2 year probation should be followed by another test. I think everyone should take a car and bike test to get a good idea about how to use a road. Mandatory retest every 5 years and a retest every year when you hit a certain age.
What I don't want however, is to have to pay for these tests, as they cost too much as it is.
I have known drivers from the crazy blonde who like to turn around and talk to you face to face whilst she is driving, wondering why her topic of conversation had me sat with fear on my face. I have also known the elderly driver that could not see properly and managed to hit a cyclist and not even realise it, continueing to drive with other cars beeping like mad trying to get him to stop.
There are namy types of idiot driver on the road and every road user should be treated like an idiot until they prove themselves to be otherwise.
I am a bad driver myself, and anyone who says they are a good driver, is generally not. I have made mistakes, cut people up when not checking my mirror properly and doing a life saver check. Since doing my bike test I have improved, but will never stop learning how to drive.
Rant over lol
in answer to the original question... yes. My gran is loosing it (mind wise) and there is no way she'll give up the keys without a fight. it's a big concern for us all but what can you do?? the doctors have been notified and so have the dvla but my gran lied on the re application thing and they never checked it out they just re issued the liecense... a retest by an instructor should be manadtory... the instructor would probably need to be in a car with a roll cage though... I'm sure there are many elderly people who can drive just fine and a retest should reflect this.
You have to remember that all these statistics that "show" that people over 65's are safer per million miles does not take into account the type of driving the older (and most likely retired) section of the driving public do. The high risk under 30 age group will be more inclined to have accidents because of where they live, for example, big cities and towns, whereas a lot of elderly and retired people move to suburbs or small villages (with a lower percentage of young drivers.
However, if you put a 22 year old and a 65 year old in the same car and ask them to perform an emergency stop, the younger driver will be better 9 times out of 10, nothing to do with driving experience, it is biology, hard science. As you age your reaction times slow down, maybe some will not be as badly effected, but it is still an indisputable fact that reaction times increase with age.
So, take driver experience out of the picture, do not do re tests or courses, as the cost and invasiveness is prohibitive, instead go down the reaction and eyesight test route as some people have already suggested. It would take 5-10 minutes, could be done cheaply and would rule out a lot of unfit drivers. I do not dispute the young are dangerous drivers in general due to their habits and such, but it is hard to test for someones attitude, whereas reaction times (a key part of road safety) can be easily tested for.
However, if you put a 22 year old and a 65 year old in the same car and ask them to perform an emergency stop, the younger driver will be better 9 times out of 10, nothing to do with driving experience, it is biology, hard science. As you age your reaction times slow down, maybe some will not be as badly effected, but it is still an indisputable fact that reaction times increase with age.
So, take driver experience out of the picture, do not do re tests or courses, as the cost and invasiveness is prohibitive, instead go down the reaction and eyesight test route as some people have already suggested. It would take 5-10 minutes, could be done cheaply and would rule out a lot of unfit drivers. I do not dispute the young are dangerous drivers in general due to their habits and such, but it is hard to test for someones attitude, whereas reaction times (a key part of road safety) can be easily tested for.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nonsense. That's why a 20 y/old with 3 yrs experience pays 5 times as much for insurance as a 50 y/old who has just passsed.
It's about attitude, maturity, levels of testosterone etc. New drivers in their 40s and 50s just aren't as stupid.
Comparing insurance prices is irrelevant as it's purely based on statistics. Apart from having no claims, bonus, the level of driving ability is not assessed by insurance. If i had not driven after passing my test, my quote would be identical to now, with 20k miles under my belt. I agree that some young drivers act stupidly, however it's unfair to deprive all young drivers of the ability to drive because of some. If you were to do this, what would the cut-off point be? I would say that most 25 year olds would act just as stupidly as you suggest upon passing their test. An extended test of ability is the way forward, possibly with period check ups after passing. It's about attitude, maturity, levels of testosterone etc. New drivers in their 40s and 50s just aren't as stupid.
Rev Limit said:
I live in an area with a high population of elderly folk and the amount of times ive had to perform an emergency stop because some old dear has pulled out of a road without looking or been stuck behind one doing 20 in a 40 is unreal!
I wrote off a car two weeks ago because an old man in a Honda Jazz pulled out on me from a side street and accelerated away like a snail at 3mph, I slammed on my brakes, skidded towards him but ran out of space so swerved to the left into a traffic light.The impact made such a loud noise that a nearby dog walker jumped up in the air, it scared the s
t out of him. The Jazz continued to crawl away at 3mph, slowly accelerating, completely oblivious to the fact it had just caused an accident, if the pavement hadn't been completely clear of people (the dog walker wasn't on my side of the road) then I'd of been left with no alternative than crashing into the elderly man's Honda and probably causing him a heart attack int he process.
The accident was my first in 10 years of driving, I was shaken up by it and didn't manage to get the numberplate, I just couldn't think straight.
julian64 said:
Unsafe people should be off the road.
Elderly doesn't equal unsafe.
nor does it mean safe.Elderly doesn't equal unsafe.
I'd be happy for us all to be re-tested every 5-10 yrs if we're trying to avoid ageism.
The elderly are generally good drivers but as you age generally your eyesight diminishes, your reaction speeds decrease and your mobility/motor skills reduce, this might be at 70 it might be at 107, but it generally does happen. The problem is that we legislate to stop the immature driving (17yrs old minimum) but have no system for catching the incapable until after it's too late.
As the author of the article says, legislation will stop a lot of arguments between those unwilling to accept their decline and those wanting to prevent an accident.
Interestingly a number of my mum's (72 yrs old) no longer drive at night as they struggle to see in darkness, at least they are being sensible.
scholesy said:
I do not dispute the young are dangerous drivers in general due to their habits and such, but it is hard to test for someones attitude, whereas reaction times (a key part of road safety) can be easily tested for.
Some might say that only bad drivers need fast reaction times.That probably overstates the case, but not by much.
Will7 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nonsense. That's why a 20 y/old with 3 yrs experience pays 5 times as much for insurance as a 50 y/old who has just passsed.
It's about attitude, maturity, levels of testosterone etc. New drivers in their 40s and 50s just aren't as stupid.
Comparing insurance prices is irrelevant as it's purely based on statistics. It's about attitude, maturity, levels of testosterone etc. New drivers in their 40s and 50s just aren't as stupid.
I don't car whether someone is a good or bad driver. A bad driver who knows they're bad is a safer driver than a mediocre driver who thinks they're brilliant (which is just about every bloke under 21).
All I care about is their likelyhood of killing me, and elderly drivers are a lot less likely to kill me than young drivers.
doogz said:
Unless her lapse in control/concentration was because she had one hand off the wheel, giving the examiner a handjob, i find it hard to believe she mounted the kerb twice in her test, and still passed!
Perhaps she mounted the examiner...? lolI think all elderly drivers should be forced off the road, therebye making more room for me..(oh...hang on, I'm over 60. Damn!!)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Errr..and where do you think the statistics come from. What happens on the road! Real life.
Yes, I agree with you entirely. So why do you not see that better training/education to help reduce the ability and therefore amount of accidents which young drivers are involved in would help? It's all well and good to point the finger, but something needs to be done. I believe that periodical testing should be put in place for drivers of all ages, the intervals of which would be smaller at younger age (statistically more likely to cause accidents), and also at the older end of the age structure.Also, from your posts, you clearly did not take your test until you were at least 30, however if you did not, would you like to have been deprived of your licence for several extra years?
I suggest that most of the problems of seniors driving, is poor eyesight.65,s and over get Free eyesight tests.Being a contact wearer, I get an annual check and test and also a biannual eye health check with reaction time checks--press the button when a bright spot appears--still 20/20 and able to lap the Nordschleife as I have for many years.
The Eye tests results should be copied to DVLA, and unless reaching a standard result, the driver would have to take a further test to keep their licence, or lose it-Simple and does Not cost many Millions to implement, and everyone knows the system.
The Eye tests results should be copied to DVLA, and unless reaching a standard result, the driver would have to take a further test to keep their licence, or lose it-Simple and does Not cost many Millions to implement, and everyone knows the system.
So we are back on this old chestnut again are we! I am 73 years of age and have been driving since the age of 18. Five years ago, I had to re-take my motorcycle test as the DVLA claimed I had never had a motorcycle licence! I passed first time and since then, all my friends and aquaintances who have been in my car with me, claim that my driving skills are better than ever. In the last 20 years, I have claimed twice on my insurance, one due to vandalism to my vehicle, the other when I skidded on black ice. No other vehicles involved on either occasion and four other cars left the road at the same point as me on the black ice. However, I have seen many incidents during my driving career involving foolish and careless behaviour by other drivers/riders and am sure that I must have made mistakes as well. The age of the drivers concerned, covers a wide age range with the vast majority being much younger than me! Yes, I feel periodic testing should be introduced at some time in the future but people should not be banned from driving or riding just because they have reached a certain age 
I used to have a mint E39 M5. It was my pride and joy. I liked it so much I owned it 3 times. Then one day an old duffer who couldnt drive anymore drove his Rover into it when it was parked neatly at the end of a row of parked cars on a wide road.
He killed my car, and was so out of touch with the real world that he thought I'd be prepared to accept a "few hundred quid" to sort it out for cash.
Meanwhile my 84 year old neighbour 'got confused' with the pedals and reversed off his drive at speed across the road, through a front garden and into the front room of a house.
events like this speak for themselves.....................
He killed my car, and was so out of touch with the real world that he thought I'd be prepared to accept a "few hundred quid" to sort it out for cash.
Meanwhile my 84 year old neighbour 'got confused' with the pedals and reversed off his drive at speed across the road, through a front garden and into the front room of a house.
events like this speak for themselves.....................
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff