RE: OAP drivers: a liability?
Discussion
julian64 said:
However IMHO the whole thread is anecdotal rubbish. If you want a sensible discussion about targeting retests for the most appropriate to benefit, you should insist on a re-test for anyone involved in an accident. Doing this would get the tests to the people who really needed them.
That's stupid. You're suggesting we wait for people to have accidents before taking any action when these accidents (which could be fatal) could have been prevented. Agreed that some measure may have negative effects on some but on the whole it could save lives. ZakTroy said:
julian64 said:
However IMHO the whole thread is anecdotal rubbish. If you want a sensible discussion about targeting retests for the most appropriate to benefit, you should insist on a re-test for anyone involved in an accident. Doing this would get the tests to the people who really needed them.
That's stupid. You're suggesting we wait for people to have accidents before taking any action when these accidents (which could be fatal) could have been prevented. Agreed that some measure may have negative effects on some but on the whole it could save lives. WCZ said:
old people on the road scare the crap out of me, it's an absolute joke just how bad some are at driving, they are such a danger.
Well, some 'young people' (as the PC saying goes) scare the s
t out of me too! Not too much though, cos I just press the sport button and leave them wondering where all the bloody stone chippings hitting their screen and bonnet have come from!
(I jest, allegedly!).Just remember, one day you'll be 'old' (IF you're lucky enough to reach whatever you determine 'old' age - looking around me most will be dead from obesity and high drug levels).
Keep this sort of legislative process ageism crap against 'oldies' and you younger lot will be lucky to be still driving at 40, let alone 60, 70 and beyond. There are plenty of all 'age' groups who shouldn't be driving. Discrimination on an age basis will work against you in the long run, remember that.
Of course you'll get the occasion where the one 90 year old fool is driving up the motorway the wrong way, just the same as you'll get the young idiot stealing a car and driving at high speed (high in the head as well probably) through a built-up area. One will be banned from driving for the rest of his remaining (short) life, and rightly so, the other will spew up crap, get assistance and help, spit defiance at the legal process and thanks to this pc country, more than likely get away with it, then do it again.
cris9964 said:
ZakTroy said:
julian64 said:
However IMHO the whole thread is anecdotal rubbish. If you want a sensible discussion about targeting retests for the most appropriate to benefit, you should insist on a re-test for anyone involved in an accident. Doing this would get the tests to the people who really needed them.
That's stupid. You're suggesting we wait for people to have accidents before taking any action when these accidents (which could be fatal) could have been prevented. Agreed that some measure may have negative effects on some but on the whole it could save lives. BTW the M3 accident post, was entirely the sort of anecdotal rubbish I was referring to. While I'm not trying to belittle the obvious affect the accident had on your health and wellbeing, the number of posters here who don't understand the difference between statistics and 'I was once hit by an elderly driver so I agree they should be tested' makes this thread the daily mail equivalent of a discussion.
I'm off, this threads just a complete waste of posting time.
The two scariest trips I've had have been elderly relatives, purely because of their lack of awareness of what was going on around them. I've been a passenger in a car with plenty of idiots but at least their "risks" have been calculated ones where they were aware of all the aspects of the situation.
I was a fully paid up advocate of old people driving until their dying breath until my grandfather took me out years ago. After nearly pulling straight out of a side road into the path of an oncoming artic (doing 40mph, my grandfather only stopped when I shouted I think), he then proceeded to the shops and then parked by reversing into the car behind, then driving into the car in front and settling half way between the two of them. This was in a plastic bumpered Maestro, those who know them can only imagine how smashed up the bumpers were after such treatment every week.
To be fair my Gran was 100% in control of her faculties but she gave up at 90 out of choice.
My Grandfather used to accompany me when I was a learner, he slept for most of his time in the passenger seat.
I was a fully paid up advocate of old people driving until their dying breath until my grandfather took me out years ago. After nearly pulling straight out of a side road into the path of an oncoming artic (doing 40mph, my grandfather only stopped when I shouted I think), he then proceeded to the shops and then parked by reversing into the car behind, then driving into the car in front and settling half way between the two of them. This was in a plastic bumpered Maestro, those who know them can only imagine how smashed up the bumpers were after such treatment every week.
To be fair my Gran was 100% in control of her faculties but she gave up at 90 out of choice.
My Grandfather used to accompany me when I was a learner, he slept for most of his time in the passenger seat.
julian64 said:
PaulMoor said:
gck303 said:
There will come a day when you, and I, are those 'doddering old biddies'. I hope that no one to carry political favour tries to take our right away.
To anyone who is feeling that older drivers should be forcibly removed from the road, I hope that you one day have your license removed for the very excuse you are saying are 'valid reasons'.
If you don't like old people on the road? Take the train. Simple as that.
So noone should loose there licence no matter how unsafe they are?To anyone who is feeling that older drivers should be forcibly removed from the road, I hope that you one day have your license removed for the very excuse you are saying are 'valid reasons'.
If you don't like old people on the road? Take the train. Simple as that.
Elderly doesn't equal unsafe.
Your link quoted earlier is another ill informed opinion.
The only link I can find to the statistics regarding driver safety and age, were american crash statistics showing the most likely people to die on the road were the 15-24 age group and the over 75. The theory behind this was the recklessness of the 15-24 age group and the relative frailty of the over 75s.
If you want to age assess driving you should start it on the 15-24 and >75.
However IMHO the whole thread is anecdotal rubbish. If you want a sensible discussion about targeting retests for the most appropriate to benefit, you should insist on a re-test for anyone involved in an accident. Doing this would get the tests to the people who really needed them.
Young people are already targeted time and again, and the danger of older drivers is not looked at at all. People are already looking at young drivers... Oh, and the work by the AIB clearly shows that the over 70s are as likely to cause an accident than the under 30s. Nothing to do with deaths due to being frail:
http://www.abi.org.uk/Publications/24940.pdf
AIB research dosn't seem like ill informed opinion or anecdotal rubbish to me...
cris9964 said:
This is something that is very close to my heart....
December 23rd 2011, I was traveling to one of our offices in Bristol on my motorbike, following an M3 on a dual carriage way.
A 90+ year old gent in a fiesta, went to cross the carriage way (at a crossing point) when the M3 was around two seconds from impact. I missed the first impact between the two cars, but the fiesta was spun toward me and I went in at about 40 mph.
I received a broken shoulder, wrist, 5 ribs, punctured lung, severed ACL within the knee, serious liver laceration, kidney and adrenal gland damage.
I'm genuinely sorry to here about this incident but to be harsh, so what? I suspect you could find someone who was walking along the pavement when they were hit by an idiot on a motorcycle!December 23rd 2011, I was traveling to one of our offices in Bristol on my motorbike, following an M3 on a dual carriage way.
A 90+ year old gent in a fiesta, went to cross the carriage way (at a crossing point) when the M3 was around two seconds from impact. I missed the first impact between the two cars, but the fiesta was spun toward me and I went in at about 40 mph.
I received a broken shoulder, wrist, 5 ribs, punctured lung, severed ACL within the knee, serious liver laceration, kidney and adrenal gland damage.
You can't decide legislation on the basis of what happend to you or me or my Autie Elsie. You have to look at the overall picture and the statistics. And that shows beyond doubt that the elderly are not the problem on our roads, the young are!!
Julian
You fired that (slightly condescending) one off and left, but as a point of note;
The annecdote, and it was that, was there to offer up the impact that impaired driving from a certain segment of drivers (the segment this post is about) can have on individuals. To personalise it, because this is not just a stats thread....
I fed back that the police investigators in my area have stated that the problem of impaired older driving is getting worse, attending officers being called to more incidents like mine (I hope you would not dismiss this informal feedback arbitrarily)
Being in touch with other victims of this type of incident has led me to a belief that the retesting of the elderly is a good thing if it limits incidents like mine occurring more frequently as our population gets older.
Should someone produce stats that point to elderly people being a minor and stable or decreasing part of the road incident problem, then I would happily look at them...
Chris Bates.
Agree - you cant retest the deceased gent that drove into the M3 and me.....Just suggesting something much more likely to be statistically significant than age. Previous accident history. Oh my I think the insurance companies may have twigged that one already.
BTW the M3 accident post, was entirely the sort of anecdotal rubbish I was referring to. While I'm not trying to belittle the obvious affect the accident had on your health and wellbeing, the number of posters here who don't understand the difference between statistics and 'I was once hit by an elderly driver so I agree they should be tested' makes this thread the daily mail equivalent of a discussion.
I'm off, this threads just a complete waste of posting time.
You fired that (slightly condescending) one off and left, but as a point of note;
The annecdote, and it was that, was there to offer up the impact that impaired driving from a certain segment of drivers (the segment this post is about) can have on individuals. To personalise it, because this is not just a stats thread....
I fed back that the police investigators in my area have stated that the problem of impaired older driving is getting worse, attending officers being called to more incidents like mine (I hope you would not dismiss this informal feedback arbitrarily)
Being in touch with other victims of this type of incident has led me to a belief that the retesting of the elderly is a good thing if it limits incidents like mine occurring more frequently as our population gets older.
Should someone produce stats that point to elderly people being a minor and stable or decreasing part of the road incident problem, then I would happily look at them...
Chris Bates.
julian64 said:
cris9964 said:
ZakTroy said:
julian64 said:
However IMHO the whole thread is anecdotal rubbish. If you want a sensible discussion about targeting retests for the most appropriate to benefit, you should insist on a re-test for anyone involved in an accident. Doing this would get the tests to the people who really needed them.
That's stupid. You're suggesting we wait for people to have accidents before taking any action when these accidents (which could be fatal) could have been prevented. Agreed that some measure may have negative effects on some but on the whole it could save lives. BTW the M3 accident post, was entirely the sort of anecdotal rubbish I was referring to. While I'm not trying to belittle the obvious affect the accident had on your health and wellbeing, the number of posters here who don't understand the difference between statistics and 'I was once hit by an elderly driver so I agree they should be tested' makes this thread the daily mail equivalent of a discussion.
I'm off, this threads just a complete waste of posting time.
Edited by cris9964 on Tuesday 13th March 15:39
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You have to look at the overall picture and the statistics. And that shows beyond doubt that the elderly are not the problem on our roads, the young are!!
Oh for... The facts are right above your post...http://www.abi.org.uk/Publications/24940.pdf
PaulMoor said:
Young people are already targeted time and again, and the danger of older drivers is not looked at at all. People are already looking at young drivers...
So, that'll be,- annual re-test for the under 25s
- maximum 50 bhp engine for the under 25s
- no driving after dark for under 25s unless accompanied by someone who's held a full licence for 10 years
- no passengers for under 25s unless accompanied by someone who's held a full licence for 10 years
- dink/drive limit of zero for under 25s
But the threads not about bikers on pavements. My incident got me closer to people that see this sort of thing everyday... its just a view , but like drink drivers, if you are impaired to the point where you are not safe, you should not be driving...
You can't decide legislation on the basis of what happend to you or me or my Autie Elsie. You have to look at the overall picture and the statistics. And that shows beyond doubt that the elderly are not the problem on our roads, the young are!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
cris9964 said:
This is something that is very close to my heart....
December 23rd 2011, I was traveling to one of our offices in Bristol on my motorbike, following an M3 on a dual carriage way.
A 90+ year old gent in a fiesta, went to cross the carriage way (at a crossing point) when the M3 was around two seconds from impact. I missed the first impact between the two cars, but the fiesta was spun toward me and I went in at about 40 mph.
I received a broken shoulder, wrist, 5 ribs, punctured lung, severed ACL within the knee, serious liver laceration, kidney and adrenal gland damage.
I'm genuinely sorry to here about this incident but to be harsh, so what? I suspect you could find someone who was walking along the pavement when they were hit by an idiot on a motorcycle!December 23rd 2011, I was traveling to one of our offices in Bristol on my motorbike, following an M3 on a dual carriage way.
A 90+ year old gent in a fiesta, went to cross the carriage way (at a crossing point) when the M3 was around two seconds from impact. I missed the first impact between the two cars, but the fiesta was spun toward me and I went in at about 40 mph.
I received a broken shoulder, wrist, 5 ribs, punctured lung, severed ACL within the knee, serious liver laceration, kidney and adrenal gland damage.
You can't decide legislation on the basis of what happend to you or me or my Autie Elsie. You have to look at the overall picture and the statistics. And that shows beyond doubt that the elderly are not the problem on our roads, the young are!!
Thanks for that Paul. It's another dimension....
http://www.abi.org.uk/Publications/24940.pdf
PaulMoor said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You have to look at the overall picture and the statistics. And that shows beyond doubt that the elderly are not the problem on our roads, the young are!!
Oh for... The facts are right above your post...http://www.abi.org.uk/Publications/24940.pdf
Ozzie Osmond said:
PaulMoor said:
Young people are already targeted time and again, and the danger of older drivers is not looked at at all. People are already looking at young drivers...
So, that'll be,- annual re-test for the under 25s
- maximum 50 bhp engine for the under 25s
- no driving after dark for under 25s unless accompanied by someone who's held a full licence for 10 years
- no passengers for under 25s unless accompanied by someone who's held a full licence for 10 years
- dink/drive limit of zero for under 25s
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you stopped everyone over 70 from driving, it would have virtually no effect on the numbers killed and seriously injured on the roads.
On the other hand, if you increased the minimum age for driving from 17 to 25, you'd reduce the death and injury toll by 75%.
We all laugh at the occasional old biddy on the news who goes the wrong way round the M25, but on a day to day basis older drivers aren't the problem, younger drivers are.
If you're going to spend money on retests and extra training, spend it on the cause of the problem!!
I agree with this to an extent, I took my driving test last April and the fact that I had to drive a car for under 30 minutes to pass, performing one manoeuvre on a warm sunny day is ridiculous. This then gives me access to drive on motorways, in rain, dark or snow, all of which I would have had no experience of. On the other hand, if you increased the minimum age for driving from 17 to 25, you'd reduce the death and injury toll by 75%.
We all laugh at the occasional old biddy on the news who goes the wrong way round the M25, but on a day to day basis older drivers aren't the problem, younger drivers are.
If you're going to spend money on retests and extra training, spend it on the cause of the problem!!
However increasing the minimum age is not the way to tackle the problem, the increased injuries and crashes is due to lack of experience not merely age. Persecuting young drivers is not a sensible way forward as much as persecuting elderly drivers is. I have covered nearly 20k miles on the road since passing, for most of these I was aged 17, (18 last month). I act sensibly and (touch wood) have had no incidents. Further education/training before passing is key.
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
julian64 said:
Soo..... we are on a website for young enthusiastic drivers who think the elderly should have routine manditory testing.
This is despite the fact that insurance quotes for the elderly are much lower than almost any other age group.
This is also despite the fact that anyone over the age of 10 will have seem legislation like this start with a group we can all poke fun at, and then roll out to the rest of the population.
Okay..... For those of you liking the above idea, please answer the folling multi choice
1) I think the elderly should have routine testing because:-
a) Their lower insurance premiums are pissing me off.
b) I think it would be fun for everyone to have routine repeat driving tests in ten years time, and the elderly can pilot it, and then call it ageist if it isn't rolled out.
c) I love the extra beaurocracy cos that'll create a new tier of non jobs.
I find it comforting that by the time I get to be called elderly, the elderly will be by far the largest and most important voting population in this oountry. At which point we'll see a complete reversal of legislation which favours the elderly and penalises the young enthusiasts.
^^ - ThisThis is despite the fact that insurance quotes for the elderly are much lower than almost any other age group.
This is also despite the fact that anyone over the age of 10 will have seem legislation like this start with a group we can all poke fun at, and then roll out to the rest of the population.
Okay..... For those of you liking the above idea, please answer the folling multi choice
1) I think the elderly should have routine testing because:-
a) Their lower insurance premiums are pissing me off.
b) I think it would be fun for everyone to have routine repeat driving tests in ten years time, and the elderly can pilot it, and then call it ageist if it isn't rolled out.
c) I love the extra beaurocracy cos that'll create a new tier of non jobs.
I find it comforting that by the time I get to be called elderly, the elderly will be by far the largest and most important voting population in this oountry. At which point we'll see a complete reversal of legislation which favours the elderly and penalises the young enthusiasts.
Its' dangerous to penalise older people without some hard facts. Some of the worst drivers I've seen on the road have been some really incoherent bids riding the clutch at 7000rpm, or really mis-calculating approach speeds of other vehicles., or just not seeing / appreciating other traffic.
I wouldn't agree without some hard facts first though as I'll be 'old' at some point and probably just as passionate about cars / driving. This shows that 20-24 years olds are twice as likely to have an accident / fatality as 65-74 year olds: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables...
There will be no new legislation for OAP, it will be Ageism won't it!!!!!
Another thing is OAP's never speeds, so to joe public they are the safest driver on the road.
For decades, people have brain washed into thinking speeding is dangerous, and never gave a thought on driving ability and ability to drive.
Another thing is OAP's never speeds, so to joe public they are the safest driver on the road.
For decades, people have brain washed into thinking speeding is dangerous, and never gave a thought on driving ability and ability to drive.
Will7 said:
However increasing the minimum age is not the way to tackle the problem, the increased injuries and crashes is due to lack of experience not merely age.
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.
PaulMoor said:
You joke, but these ideas have been suggested, and at least two of them are likly to come in to force some time soon (passengers and drink/drive), people are pushing for a limit for cars the same as bikes and the other two have been dismissed as impractical.
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".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff