RE: OAP drivers: a liability?

[toppstuff]

I do not agree with the central thrust of this argument. Essentially, we are asking the wrong question.

What group of drivers represents the largest section of motorists that get involved in accidents?

Is it:

A) People over 65
B) People under 30
C) Anyone called Nigel.

Now the simple, unequivocal, impossible to deny fact is that it is young people who are involved in more accidents per capita.

Before we focus on improving driving standards among the elderly, we should focus on improving driving standards among the group most likely to be in an accident. And that ain't the olds among us.

All the other debate here seems to revolve around a combination of ageism , youthful arrogance, naivety and apocryphal stories rather than the simple facts of the matter.

[otolith]

Will7 said:

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.

You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.

It would be better to require drivers to receive more training - either before passing their test or after it - than to just keep re-testing the same thing. The most dangerous drivers on the road have just been tested and passed.

[Xaero]

I don't think older drivers need to do a complete retest, that's a large cost in money and time for everyone.

However I think a reaction test and eyesight test would be useful. That's the killer bit about old people. They know how to drive, just reactions aren't quite there. Preempting problems is part of experience in getting around this, but still, if someone pulls out in front of you, you need to react quickly whatever your experience level.

It's no good people saying 'I've driven for xx years without accident' as it ultimately doesn't matter and won't stop you from having an accident tomorrow as some of the examples have shown.

My grandmother was an accident free driver until she stopped driving. She didn't have an accident, she had a stroke while driving (something not predictable). Fortunately, she was going slowly, and my grandad was passenger at the same time and pulled the car over to stop safely. So while we can't predict when we as drivers will fail, we can reduce it if people no longer have the ability to do so.

[GBB]

Fittster said:

There are now so many elderly (and the number is rising) it's vital for the taxpayer they remain independent. If that means there are some unsafe drivers on the road so be it.

That's absolutely mad, perhaps those who are old and incapable of driving (this is not the majority) should be using their free bus passes or paying for taxis (probably cheaper in reality than running a car for many). I'm not willing to be involved in a road accident because someone who should be behind the wheel couldn't be bothered to hop on a bus.

This is about being fit to drive from my opinion as well, not about being old, I don't care if 110 yr olds are driving as long as they are not going to injure someone due to their declining ability.

[Biker's Nemesis]

We need some input from an Insurance expert to give us some figures on which age group crashes the most.

Even then I suspect that the vast majority of younger drivers accidents wouldn't be recorded due to the cost of future insurance costs.

[Vladimir]

I think everyone should take a re-test at least every 10 years. But preferably every 5.

[Will7]

otolith said:

You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.

It would be better to require drivers to receive more training - either before passing their test or after it - than to just keep re-testing the same thing. The most dangerous drivers on the road have just been tested and passed.

This is what i'm suggesting. The current driving test is far too vague, and frankly easy, to show up defects in driving ability.

[Biker's Nemesis]

Vladimir said:

I think everyone should take a re-test at least every 10 years. But preferably every 5.

What would a test prove every 5 years other than the person was driving to an acceptable standard for an hour that day.

[M0BZY]

When everyone has had their say and the government has taken note,who will do these assesment/tests?
I have been assessed twice in the last few years,once voluntarily once not,on both occasions by qualified driving instructers and neither experience reflects well on the instructors.
First time was whilst driving a 38ton artic,whilst approaching a roundabout on a wet road,I went down the gears.The instructer went apoplectic,going on about replacing clutches and the cost of gearboxs,ignoring the fact that I had been driving since 1954 and have yet to bu***r a clutch or gearbox.Two weeks later he turned a trailer full of bottles over on the same roundabout.Laugh,I nearly wet myself(That comes with age)
After I had been a naughty boy I had to do another assesment,in a car. Things did not go well from the off,apparently I drive with the seat too far from the wheel, and then when I used the wind/screen washers,I was wasting the water.Things were not too bad until I turned unto a duel-track with a 50mph limit,up the road was a set of lights just turning red,so I trickled up to them at about 35,wrong I should have been doing 50.Whilst sat waiting for traffic to move in the city center I was too close to the vehicle in front,we were stationary,I am told I need tarmac and rubber to ensure I have room to pull out if the vehicle in front breaks down,I did a 360 to prove I had more than enough room,that did not go down well.When I refused to pull alongside an artic as we approached a roundabout,the lid blew off the kettle and I was accused of being confrontational.ME!!!!
Since passing my test I have had two accidents that I should/could have avoided.non involving more than dented pride and bruises.
So who is going to train the assesers???

[Vladimir]

Biker's Nemesis said:

What would a test prove every 5 years other than the person was driving to an acceptable standard for an hour that day.

It might root out a few truly awful drivers.

[InfoRetrieval]

toppstuff said:

Before we focus on improving driving standards among the elderly, we should focus on improving driving standards among the group most likely to be in an accident. And that ain't the olds among us.

You seem to be missing the point. It's not a case of focusing on one *or* the other group; we should be looking at both young *and* old.

The issue is that self assessment on whether you are safe to drive is a non starter - whatever your age. It's only when being checked by a qualified third party that you get the truth.

I had a crash over ten years ago. It was my fault. The police offered me a driver improvement course, which included two half days of on-road driving assessment. This was over ten years after passing my test. This course was a real eye opener for me and I can say that it permanently changed my attitude towards driving.

[otolith]

Will7 said:

This is what i'm suggesting. The current driving test is far too vague, and frankly easy, to show up defects in driving ability.

The biggest issue I have with the current test is that I don't think it is reliable. More than half of the people who take it - most of whom will have been judged ready by a professional instructor - fail it. That suggests to me that there is too much randomness in the test. I strongly suspect that if you took 100 people who took their test today, and retested them again tomorrow, you would have forty-odd passes on both days, but not the same forty-odd people. A good test should have a very high pass rate - because an instructor will be able to reliably assess whether the pupil is up to scratch - but also a very high standard.

[UnderTheRadar]

I'm not a long way off being a wrinkly myself and I think a comprehensive test should be essential. A classroom test a bit like the current computer-based test would be a good starting point and would be relatively cheap. The most dangerous place I take my young children is the local budget supermarket car park where the ancients drive around slowly as if no-one else exists.

[AlexiusG55]

German said:

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.

This is also true in the UK apart from the zero BAC- if you get 6 points in your first two years of driving then your licence is revoked and you have to start again. Speeding tickets are at least 3 points, as is running a red light and most other traffic offences that aren't more serious than that.
Drink driving is an automatic ban (apart from EXTREMELY exceptional circumstances) but I think enforcing a zero limit would be impractical and result in people getting into trouble who hadn't drunk alcohol. There's enough alcohol in some foods to be detected by a breath test!

On the retest front, I would support a mandatory eye test for drivers every 3 years regardless of age. People's eyesight can deteriorate at any time not just before they're 17 and after they're 70. Getting tested regularly would therefore improve safety- but it would also mean that some people would have developing problems caught before they otherwise would have been, which might well save their sight (and their licence!).

Edited by AlexiusG55 on Wednesday 14th March 01:33

[mikeyv]

toppstuff said:

I do not agree with the central thrust of this argument. Essentially, we are asking the wrong question.

What group of drivers represents the largest section of motorists that get involved in accidents?

Is it:

A) People over 65
B) People under 30
C) Anyone called Nigel.

Now the simple, unequivocal, impossible to deny fact is that it is young people who are involved in more accidents per capita.

Before we focus on improving driving standards among the elderly, we should focus on improving driving standards among the group most likely to be in an accident. And that ain't the olds among us.

All the other debate here seems to revolve around a combination of ageism , youthful arrogance, naivety and apocryphal stories rather than the simple facts of the matter.

Right on the money, thanks for saving me all that typing.

Quoting examples of "old duffers" getting it wrong is pointless when the stats suggest I could probably answer each one with ten examples of young drivers causing carnage.

Some of the very worst driving is by uninsured kids and holders of mickey mouse foreign licences.

I'm sure that will offend many, though few seem to object to rampant ageism.

[JohneeBoy]

mikeyv said:

toppstuff said:

I do not agree with the central thrust of this argument. Essentially, we are asking the wrong question.

What group of drivers represents the largest section of motorists that get involved in accidents?

Is it:

A) People over 65
B) People under 30
C) Anyone called Nigel.

Now the simple, unequivocal, impossible to deny fact is that it is young people who are involved in more accidents per capita.

Before we focus on improving driving standards among the elderly, we should focus on improving driving standards among the group most likely to be in an accident. And that ain't the olds among us.

All the other debate here seems to revolve around a combination of ageism , youthful arrogance, naivety and apocryphal stories rather than the simple facts of the matter.

Right on the money, thanks for saving me all that typing.

Quoting examples of "old duffers" getting it wrong is pointless when the stats suggest I could probably answer each one with ten examples of young drivers causing carnage.

Some of the very worst driving is by uninsured kids and holders of mickey mouse foreign licences.

I'm sure that will offend many, though few seem to object to rampant ageism.

Not arguing (yet) but does the measure consider mileage? Most old folk I know of, on average, do less than 3000 miles a year where as young people do as much as 10 times that. We also need to consider that with young people it is more often over confidence that leads them to a bump where as old folk tend to have lost the raw physical and/or mental ability. The latter won't improve.

[ruffstuff]

I absolutly agree that OAPs should be tested at least every 3 years max. I live in North Norfolk & we are inundated with wrinklies behind the wheel - some are a bloody pain. Thay will not drive up to limit even if the conditions are perfect & theres no other traffic about, sometimes as much as 20-30 below on a 60mph road! I have even seen a couple of cars doing no more than 15-20 on A roads. A classic happened a few months ago that was reported in the local rag about some old twerp creeping along a main A road, eventually turning off after causing a considerable back-log. Sitting behind was an off duty cop who was p****d off with it & followed the old man to his house. The cop went up to the guy & said that he had called an officer to come & talk to him. Turned out the old man was 90 plus & had failing eyesight. He had his license taken away. The laws are just too lax when it comes to old drivers; retests & health exams should be done for over 65 let alone 70. These should be at least £200 to cover the costs of employing testers & make people think twice about driving. Think of the jobs it would create.

[mikeyv]

JohneeBoy said:

mikeyv said:

toppstuff said:

I do not agree with the central thrust of this argument. Essentially, we are asking the wrong question.

What group of drivers represents the largest section of motorists that get involved in accidents?

Is it:

A) People over 65
B) People under 30
C) Anyone called Nigel.

Now the simple, unequivocal, impossible to deny fact is that it is young people who are involved in more accidents per capita.

Before we focus on improving driving standards among the elderly, we should focus on improving driving standards among the group most likely to be in an accident. And that ain't the olds among us.

All the other debate here seems to revolve around a combination of ageism , youthful arrogance, naivety and apocryphal stories rather than the simple facts of the matter.

Right on the money, thanks for saving me all that typing.

Quoting examples of "old duffers" getting it wrong is pointless when the stats suggest I could probably answer each one with ten examples of young drivers causing carnage.

Some of the very worst driving is by uninsured kids and holders of mickey mouse foreign licences.

I'm sure that will offend many, though few seem to object to rampant ageism.

Not arguing (yet) but does the measure consider mileage? Most old folk I know of, on average, do less than 3000 miles a year where as young people do as much as 10 times that. We also need to consider that with young people it is more often over confidence that leads them to a bump where as old folk tend to have lost the raw physical and/or mental ability. The latter won't improve.

I wouldn't argue with you either, there is no such thing as a one size fits all solution.

I've done over a million miles, and an ex driving instructor, but that would count for nowt if I had dementia or shockingly bad eyesight.

I do instinctively rail against yet more state intervention though - no prizes for guessing who will end up paying.

[Olivera]

Anyone got accident per-mile driven statistics for different age groups? I'm sure that would make interesting reading...

[tottacrolla]

OAP's a liability ?
Maybe.
But at least they are still alive.................