RE: Elderly to get mandatory tests?
Monday 13th February 2006
Do we all need this?Elderly motorists aged 75 and over could face five-yearly cognitive and eyesight tests to assess their ability to drive safely. But why should these tests be strictly for elderly drivers?
Elderly to get mandatory tests?
Periodic driving test for over-75s only
Do we all need this?
The Driving Instructors Association (DIA) said it believes these types of tests should be made available or even compulsory to all drivers.
DIA general manager Eddie Barnaville said: "We support the idea of tests for the over 75’s but why restrict them to just this age group? With 41 million licence holders on our roads today it is vital to ensure people are roadworthy and safe.
"There are 3,500 road deaths every year in Britain, surely if we assessed the ability of motorists at least every ten years, this figure could be reduced."
If the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) proposals are given the go-ahead motorists aged 75 and over would have to visit an assessment centre and complete a half-hour paper-based test designed to examine their fitness to drive, they would then have to pass a sight test before obtaining a five year driving licence.
Under the current system all drivers must renew their licences at the age of 70 and then every three years; there is no independent verification of ability, unless the DVLA is contacted by relatives or doctors to say the person is no longer fit to drive.
There are more than 1.5 million drivers aged 75 and over on our roads -- a figure that is rapidly increasing.
And the proportion of people aged over 70 with a driving licence rose from 15 per cent in 1975 to 47 per cent in 2004.
The number of drivers over 91 is also very high; there were nearly 23,000 licence holders in this bracket in November 2005.
Research by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has indicated that elderly drivers are more likely to be involved in collisions causing death or injury as they have slower reaction times, take longer to spot hazards and are more likely to become confused by traffic rules and road layouts.
The DVLA has stressed that no final decisions have been made yet, adding: "This is independent research and it will be fully considered and consulted on in due course."
Could common sense prevail and we'll see periodic testing for all?
Discussion
Depends what they want to assess on the test if it extends to all age ranges. If it's just about the level of vigilence/control/safety displayed when driving the vehicle, and not HOW that's achieved, it might not be that bad a thing. But if we're to be condemned for not using a 'push and pull' grip on the steering wheel at '10-to-2', which everyone stopped doing within a fortnight of passing their test, then not so good.
MarkoTVR said:
Depends what they want to assess on the test if it extends to all age ranges. If it's just about the level of vigilence/control/safety displayed when driving the vehicle, and not HOW that's achieved, it might not be that bad a thing. But if we're to be condemned for not using a 'push and pull' grip on the steering wheel at '10-to-2', which everyone stopped doing within a fortnight of passing their test, then not so good.
Given that that's just a requirement of IAM testing that's unlikely to be the case. Unless they decided to make the Advanced Driving Test compulsory (which would be a good idea all round).
JJ
MarkoTVR said:
Depends what they want to assess on the test if it extends to all age ranges. If it's just about the level of vigilence/control/safety displayed when driving the vehicle, and not HOW that's achieved, it might not be that bad a thing. But if we're to be condemned for not using a 'push and pull' grip on the steering wheel at '10-to-2', which everyone stopped doing within a fortnight of passing their test, then not so good.
I couldn't agree more. It's no good retaking a test thats flawed in the first place.
I agree this would be a sensible option, retaking the test, but the only problem is the government will over price it as usual, and the driver will get shafted.
I can only agree to a test every couple of years if it is at a sensible price, I have to pay enough at the moment for the right to drive, and what do I get for it, crap potholed roads, with bloody scameras littered every 50 yards.
Why don't the government just ban the car, as they like banning things.
I can only agree to a test every couple of years if it is at a sensible price, I have to pay enough at the moment for the right to drive, and what do I get for it, crap potholed roads, with bloody scameras littered every 50 yards.
Why don't the government just ban the car, as they like banning things.
mightymouse said:
A paper based test - that'll make the roads sooooo much safer
I was getting interested until I read that bit!
+ What about a complete re-test for anyone banned BEFORE they are allowed back on the road.
I'm not so sure about the banned bit, since 4 unfortunate speeding convictions and you are banned. If you get my jist.
I do personally believe that a good 1/4 of drivers probably shouldn't be driving.
Dare i day.. Periodic realistic tests for all.
A propper realistic driving test that is.. Not testing 10 to 2 steering wheel stuff etc.
I bet it would cut accidents a darn sight better than those grey (& yellow) boxes stuck on the side of the road.
said:
Under the current system all drivers must renew their licences at
the age of 70 and then every three years; there is no independent
verification of ability, unless the DVLA is contacted by relatives
or doctors to say the person is no longer fit to drive.
I think this is disgusting.
The very idea of self certify for the over 70s is just asking
for trouble.
Time to start weeding out the liars and the hopelessly unrealistic ?
It could be a nice way to encourage more train and bus use,
which the UK Gov is always telling us is a good thing.
After having a "Old Gent" drive into me on a roundabout at the end of last year in a disable vechicle and another one roll into the front of my car this morning, scratching the brand new paint from the first accident, 
I can only say anything is better than nothing.
The chap this morning couldnt even walk when he got out of his car.
I think they should MOT the owners aswell as their cars!! Dont put the new clinics in Asda I want them at all MOT stations!
I can only say anything is better than nothing. The chap this morning couldnt even walk when he got out of his car.
I think they should MOT the owners aswell as their cars!! Dont put the new clinics in Asda I want them at all MOT stations!
Propsed and Rejected Question from the test (add more please!!!)
Question 1 - To get the smoothest departure from rest, you should: -
- A. Engage first gear and lift up the clutch pedal until the biting point is reached, getly increase the engine speed as you gently lift the clutch pedal so as to ensure smooth depature from rest and ensuring that the engine does not stall. Once in motion accelerate gently and repeat the process through the gears.
- B. Put the car into top gear (as you don't really need any other), rev the B*LLOCKS out of your little 1.4 engine and slip that clutch like B*GGERY. Once the smell of rotting fish enters the cabin (don't worry, it isn't you this time!) and you are starting to move at a snails pace, keep focussed dead ahead, and ignore fervantly the tooting and shouting you get from delayed and frustrated drivers behind you. They will clearly be in the wrong as they never did anything for their country like you did.
- C. Buy an Automatic and occasionally get the pedals mixed up and take out shop fronts and petrol pumps every 2 to 3 years.
>> Edited by bridgland on Monday 13th February 15:21
>> Edited by bridgland on Monday 13th February 15:24
Question 1 - To get the smoothest departure from rest, you should: -
- A. Engage first gear and lift up the clutch pedal until the biting point is reached, getly increase the engine speed as you gently lift the clutch pedal so as to ensure smooth depature from rest and ensuring that the engine does not stall. Once in motion accelerate gently and repeat the process through the gears.
- B. Put the car into top gear (as you don't really need any other), rev the B*LLOCKS out of your little 1.4 engine and slip that clutch like B*GGERY. Once the smell of rotting fish enters the cabin (don't worry, it isn't you this time!) and you are starting to move at a snails pace, keep focussed dead ahead, and ignore fervantly the tooting and shouting you get from delayed and frustrated drivers behind you. They will clearly be in the wrong as they never did anything for their country like you did.
- C. Buy an Automatic and occasionally get the pedals mixed up and take out shop fronts and petrol pumps every 2 to 3 years.
>> Edited by bridgland on Monday 13th February 15:21
>> Edited by bridgland on Monday 13th February 15:24
Would have been nice to know the percentage of drivers in various age groups involved in accidents. Its one of theese how longs a piece of string questions to me, whats worst, 70 year doing 40 on a dual carriageway holding everyone up, or boy racer in his nippy whatever, roaring around cutting people up, undertaking etc.
I see, as I am sure we all do, younger drivers whom we say to ouselves, "Shouldnt be on the bloody road", retaking a test or whatever over 75 is probably a good start, but first we have to prove the over 75's present the biggest danger to our road users, otherwise it will be another waste of money. Statistically are there sufficient drivers over 75 to make all this worthwhile, wouldnt have thought there are many?
If they were to retest every 5 years from the date of your first test, we would need an awfull lot more test centres and examiners, and what happens to say someone who fails the 5 year test, is he automatically banned from the road, loose job etc etc.
From what I see on a daily basis, an awful lot of drivers would fail, by far the most common fault I see is LACK OF INDICATION, you wait at a T junction, along comes a car, you wait until they pass so you can pull out safely, and the buggers turn down your road. And a vast number of drivers seem to have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the rules governing a box junction .
Anyway enough of my little rants, but an interesting thread nevertheless, not sure what the answer.
>> Edited by vipers on Monday 13th February 16:27
I see, as I am sure we all do, younger drivers whom we say to ouselves, "Shouldnt be on the bloody road", retaking a test or whatever over 75 is probably a good start, but first we have to prove the over 75's present the biggest danger to our road users, otherwise it will be another waste of money. Statistically are there sufficient drivers over 75 to make all this worthwhile, wouldnt have thought there are many?
If they were to retest every 5 years from the date of your first test, we would need an awfull lot more test centres and examiners, and what happens to say someone who fails the 5 year test, is he automatically banned from the road, loose job etc etc.
From what I see on a daily basis, an awful lot of drivers would fail, by far the most common fault I see is LACK OF INDICATION, you wait at a T junction, along comes a car, you wait until they pass so you can pull out safely, and the buggers turn down your road. And a vast number of drivers seem to have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the rules governing a box junction .
Anyway enough of my little rants, but an interesting thread nevertheless, not sure what the answer.
>> Edited by vipers on Monday 13th February 16:27
Is that a proposed or rejected question though ??
bridgland said:
Propsed and Rejected Question from the test (add more please!!!)
Question 1 - To get the smoothest departure from rest, you should: -
- A. Engage first gear and lift up the clutch pedal until the biting point is reached, getly increase the engine speed as you gently lift the clutch pedal so as to ensure smooth depature from rest and ensuring that the engine does not stall. Once in motion accelerate gently and repeat the process through the gears.
- B. Put the car into top gear (as you don't really need any other), rev the B*LLOCKS out of your little 1.4 engine and slip that clutch like B*GGERY. Once the smell of rotting fish enters the cabin (don't worry, it isn't you this time!) and you are starting to move at a snails pace, keep focussed dead ahead, and ignore fervantly the tooting and shouting you get from delayed and frustrated drivers behind you. They will clearly be in the wrong as they never did anything for their country like you did.
- C. Buy an Automatic and occasionally get the pedals mixed up and take out shop fronts and petrol pumps every 2 to 3 years.
>> Edited by bridgland on Monday 13th February 15:21
>> Edited by bridgland on Monday 13th February 15:24
A short practical test drive would be much better than a paper test. I know when I have left suffucient braking distance behind the car in front for the speed and conditions when I am travelling without having to remember a numerical distance for several speeds. After 48years driving I think I can use that experience to drives safely. The big problem is with young racers and macho women who are out to prove that they are better than men, my solution is to pull over let them go then pick up the pieces further down the road.
Yes I do see some older people struggling to get into their vehicles but its sometimes a physical, not degenerative mind problem.
Yes I do see some older people struggling to get into their vehicles but its sometimes a physical, not degenerative mind problem.
Whilst I greatly support the idea of a regular retest for ALL drivers I fear it may not help.
I was shocked to discover on a recent training course only 2 out of 12 drivers could draw a simple stop sign. The figure was slightly higher for a give way sign but still below half. Now I do admit there is only one stop sign on the Isle of Wight and it is not in a commonly visited location but how do these folk cope when they visit the mainland? Is there a whole section of society which drives by following the car in front? A paper based test would at least encourage drivers to brush up on the basics every so often but remember these people have already passed a test.
I am also frightened that driving standards progress from that of test standard. I was admonished for keeping the car in third gear at 40 and 50 mph, on twisty roads with a poor surface. Apparently to pass a driving test now you must use 5th gear under these circumstances. Well I was having to drive a Ford Focus rather than my lovely TVR and it was quite frightening having no acceleration!
I was shocked to discover on a recent training course only 2 out of 12 drivers could draw a simple stop sign. The figure was slightly higher for a give way sign but still below half. Now I do admit there is only one stop sign on the Isle of Wight and it is not in a commonly visited location but how do these folk cope when they visit the mainland? Is there a whole section of society which drives by following the car in front? A paper based test would at least encourage drivers to brush up on the basics every so often but remember these people have already passed a test.
I am also frightened that driving standards progress from that of test standard. I was admonished for keeping the car in third gear at 40 and 50 mph, on twisty roads with a poor surface. Apparently to pass a driving test now you must use 5th gear under these circumstances. Well I was having to drive a Ford Focus rather than my lovely TVR and it was quite frightening having no acceleration!
I don't buy into this retest stuff.
Firstly - this 3,500 figure. I think that figure is miraculously low, when you think of the millions of individual vehicle journies that happens each day. (At this point someone will jump in with the cliched "Do you know how many jumbo jets that is a year?" To which I point out, however many jumbo jets it is, its a whole lot less jumbo jets worth than other causes of death.)
I reckon well in excess of 99.9% of vehicle journies or movements each day does not end in disaster. Now do we really want to put the nation at great inconveniance to improve that figure?
Furthermore, the UK has the lowest accident rate, I believe. We are already the safest drivers on the planet, for which we recieve no thanks. Yet the UK has possibly the worst health care in the western world. Isn't it about time we got our priorities right? If we were to forget road safety for a bit, and concentrated on straightening our health care up, we could possibly save thousands, tens of thousands, hunreds of thousands maybe instead of a few hundred that retesting MAY - and I don't think it will even do that - save.
Passing tests is one thing. Having the right attitude or personality to be a safe driver is another. I'm sure we could all pass tests all day long if we applied ourselves.
Furthermore, the young can pass tests more easily than any other age group, so compulsory tests may see to it that more unsafe drivers take to the roads, whilst removing drivers who have been accident free for decades.
just one more point about safety and stats etc: It is statistically proven beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever, - the insurance companies have all the evidence - that those with the sharpest reactions ie the young, have the most prangs. Yet STILL people reckon good reactions are paramount for road safety. Even though there isn't any evidence to back that up, and all the evidience in the world to show otherwise. Just playing devils advocate here, but I like to highlight this when people are talking about what is important for good driving, etc.
Firstly - this 3,500 figure. I think that figure is miraculously low, when you think of the millions of individual vehicle journies that happens each day. (At this point someone will jump in with the cliched "Do you know how many jumbo jets that is a year?" To which I point out, however many jumbo jets it is, its a whole lot less jumbo jets worth than other causes of death.)
I reckon well in excess of 99.9% of vehicle journies or movements each day does not end in disaster. Now do we really want to put the nation at great inconveniance to improve that figure?
Furthermore, the UK has the lowest accident rate, I believe. We are already the safest drivers on the planet, for which we recieve no thanks. Yet the UK has possibly the worst health care in the western world. Isn't it about time we got our priorities right? If we were to forget road safety for a bit, and concentrated on straightening our health care up, we could possibly save thousands, tens of thousands, hunreds of thousands maybe instead of a few hundred that retesting MAY - and I don't think it will even do that - save.
Passing tests is one thing. Having the right attitude or personality to be a safe driver is another. I'm sure we could all pass tests all day long if we applied ourselves.
Furthermore, the young can pass tests more easily than any other age group, so compulsory tests may see to it that more unsafe drivers take to the roads, whilst removing drivers who have been accident free for decades.
just one more point about safety and stats etc: It is statistically proven beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever, - the insurance companies have all the evidence - that those with the sharpest reactions ie the young, have the most prangs. Yet STILL people reckon good reactions are paramount for road safety. Even though there isn't any evidence to back that up, and all the evidience in the world to show otherwise. Just playing devils advocate here, but I like to highlight this when people are talking about what is important for good driving, etc.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff