# Should OAP drivers be forced to take a retest?



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

An article I have read suggest's almost 150,000 people have signed a petition calling for older people to retake their driving test. This is based on an 83 year old driver killing a pedestrian by mounting a pavement. All motorists over 70 years of age should prove they are fit to drive every three years. Statistics show that they are over 4.3 million license holders in that age bracket. By law they can renew their license by simply filling out a self assessment form, but this doesn't go far enough IMO, I think they should have their driving skills and eye sight checked. After the tragic accident of that pedestrian, most definitely. What are your opinions on this matter? Yes or No?


----------



## phillipnoke (Apr 1, 2011)

No i have been driving 46 years never had accident or speeding ticket


----------



## HITMANVW (Apr 29, 2013)

I feel they should be made to retake it from 65 onwards. Health is one factor but some do not understand many of the road signs that have been introduced in the past 5-10 years. 
Also, around my area, the majority could use parking lessons. I don't think taking up 2 bays at the shops or parking 2 feet away from the kerb can be considered a pass nowadays.


----------



## Kimo (Jun 7, 2013)

Yup

So many make silly mistakes and driving too slow can be just as dangerous as driving too fast in some cases

All very well being the safest driver ever but 30 on main roads can get silly


----------



## SPARTAN (Nov 20, 2014)

Well yes it makes absolute sense that the elderly take some form of retest to ensure they are still fit to get behind the wheel. 

Let's be honest a vehicle is potentially a lethal bit of kit in the wrong hands !


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

Yes I am a big believer that people should have medical checks and a basic test every 5 year.
But without age discrimination so every driver.
You will be surprised how many drivers have reduced eyesight, or form a risk because of high blood pressure, heart problems or being general unfit. 

How many people who are daily on the road and have their license, do know the Highway Code (and practice it) 
A 5 year and after 65 3 yearly (probably after 70 yearly) medical and basic test would improve the road safety substantial. 

The excuse of older people; I never had an accident or speeding ticket, doesn't mean anything. 
There are statistics that older drivers while not involved cause more accidents.
Extreme reactions, and slow driving cause other road user to take invasive actions, or do overtake manoeuvres which would be unnecessary and sometime complete dangerous.

After 35 years on the road, mainly professional, driven anything from a 50cc moped to a 120 metric ton road train and PSV's, I still believe a refresher wouldn't do nobody any harm, not even me.

If you think that you are a "perfect" driver, you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you.
You will have become over confident and compliant.

But again on medicals and drivers test should be no age limit, everybody should be treated the same. 

By the way my other pet hate is that bicycles riders don't need any form of test, if you see them on the road you are not surprised, so many get killed or injured, they don't seem to respect any other road user or rules and regulations.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm afraid they really should be checked as there are lots that aren't safe enough anymore. 

I bet we all know people within our family that are too old to drive properly. Everyone knows it, but everyone is too scared to say anything.

Her mum is past it. She lives alone and would be a bit lonely without her car, so knowing what it means to her, everyone turns a blind eye so not to be the bad person. 

She had to reapply just the other month and visit the Dr. We were convinced the Dr would be the bad person to say enough is an enough and save us the awkward job.

However he's just deemed her fit to drive.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

It isn't that the older driver needs a retest so much as the system needs revamping. My mum god rest her soul, had heart issues, diabetes, dodgy feet and possibly the beginning of glaucoma before she died. Yet despite her age was deemed fit to keep her driving licence according to the governments criteria. 
So the whole system needs looking at.

However, on the subject of older people having slow reactions etc etc, whilst i agree with that we also have to consider the facts that younger drivers think they are ok because their reactions are quicker. I travel 60 miles a day for work and because my wife is not a good traveller, have tamed my driving style immensely. Yet i can pretty much guarentee every lairy moment i witness on the roads i use is due to a younger person in a hurry and driving like an idiot. Case in point, a guy who is probably in his 20's cut an hgv up to get off the A1M at the last second because he didnt want to wait in the line going along the slip road. Said hgv driver was less than impressed.

Yet i agree with the point about older drivers, some of them shouldnt be on the roads. As someone said, everyone should be retested regularly to improve driving standards.


----------



## turbosnoop (Apr 14, 2015)

I'm safe to drive (aged 32) but I doubt I could pass a test again. So I would imagine most oaps would feel the same and given their age would let the license slip away if it required a retest.
So as frustrating as OAP drivers are and yes some are dangerous, remember we will all reach that age one day (all being well) and practically all (I would imagine) loose our cars and with it - independence. 
Yes something should be done about the dangerous ones, but not by blanket bombing (IMO)


----------



## andy665 (Nov 1, 2005)

70 - why pick an age

Is there evidence to show that drivers over 70 are any less competent than drivers younger than this

Basing a re-test on age is ludicrous - many drivers of all ages are incompetent and picking out people based purely on age is completely wrong

I believe that there should be a compulsory theory test every 5 years - if you fail that you have to re-sit AND take a driving test


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

im kind of torn on the issue - yep we slow down and things go wrong more with your body when your older however young people still suffer from the same conditions - illness doesn't recognise age. for illness like blood pressure & heart problems - 1000s of people suffer from these conditions not just old people. general unfitness - I think older people are generally fitter than the younger generations - obesity affects more young people than old people nowadays.

90% of driving is common sense - its about being aware around you, reading the road, the traffic etc. etc. yep older people may be slower but I think its a stretch of the imagination to say they cause lots accidents - accidents are caused by people in too much of a rush to get somewhere 3 seconds quicker than they would have done if they didn't do a dangerous overtake, accidents are caused by people being careless and not paying attention most of the time


----------



## bradleymarky (Nov 29, 2013)

I have to have a medical every 5 years from the age of 45 for my driving job, i think at a certain age you start to lose your ability to "read the road" so my answer is yes.


----------



## nichol4s (Jun 16, 2012)

At whatever age you get your bus pass should be the age you have to retake some sort of driving test weather it be a full or part test even if it's just basics at least some sort of hazard perception and Highway Code

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...die-as-car-drive-wrong-way-down-motorway.html

This is just the reason why!


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

After the two recent accidents involving older people yes definitely. 
I have seen it first hand, a 80 year old woman asked me for directions one night at around 23.00, I ended up going 25 miles out my way with her following me as she simply should have not been on the road. She would jot go above 40 mph on a motorway and I had to slow down for her, I had flashing beacons on to alert other drivers, then proceeded to do 30 on a national speed limit Road. She then followed me exactly despite instruction on which junction she needed to turn of at, needing a u turn on a unlit Road.
Another instance, just pulling away from infant of my van, pulled away to quickly and kerb her wheels, as in up and back down, not a little scrape.
See it all the time.....


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

Steve8182 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...die-as-car-drive-wrong-way-down-motorway.html
> 
> This is just the reason why!


there must be 1000 articles which I can link to which shows drivers younger drivers causing accidents as bad if not worse than this.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

m4rkymark said:


> there must be 1000 articles which I can link to which shows drivers younger drivers causing accidents as bad if not worse than this.


I had a disagreement with my eldest step daughter about older vs younger drivers, her point being younger drivers will always be better than older drivers due to better reactions, less accidents etc.
Two days later some 21 yr old lad had the mother and father of all accidents. He wad doing approximately 100mph(according to police accident investigators) in a 40mph area, women pulled out of the local maccy ds and he hit her. Her mini ended up 200 yards down the road on its side. Her and her baby had to be cut out as did the driver of the van her mini hit. He had to be cut out too and if it wasnt for the fact he had a racing seat and harness, the police reckon he would have died. I saw his car, there wasnt a straight panel on it.

Funny but my eldest has gone quiet on that debate now


----------



## Laurie.J.M (Jun 23, 2011)

Whilst regular retesting for everyone sounds like a good idea on paper all that would happen is everyone would drive properly for their test and then just revert back to old and dangerous habits straight after being passed as fit. I think the only drivers who would get caught out are the ones who are just truly incompetent (you know the ones).

As for retesting for older drivers I'd do it on a teared system, so you'd be tested at 70, 75, 78, 80 and then every year after 80. Without some kind of formal assessment it's often left up to family members to persuade someone that they shouldn't be driving anymore and it can be very difficult.

My Grandad should have stopped driving several years before he finally did, at 85 his eye sight was really not good and he had very little feeling in his feet but no one could persuade him to stop driving. we thought a couple of years later when he started to get dementia he'd finally give up but he didn't (even though he'd told us he had), it got to the stage where we had to take his car away after he'd driven down to the local village and forgotten where he was, what he'd gone there for, where he'd left the car and how to get home.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

Absolutely, yes.

I've lost count of how many OAP's I've seen driving dangerously... One exmaple being pulling out on a roundabout without even bothering to slow down/look!!


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

I've always said to my wife, when i start to make dangerous judgement calls when driving or if i can't remember how i got somewhere, then that is the time she sends my licence back to the dvla with not required written on it. The things i see people do on the A1M, from drivers of all ages, young, middle and old aged is simply horrendous. I've seen all three groups pull manouvers that if i were traffic police, they would have been done for. All to save a minute or two.


----------



## davies20 (Feb 22, 2009)

100% yes!

Being an ex-wagon driver I've done plenty of miles on the road. Yes young boys and girls are bad & a bit silly at times.

BUT jesus Christ - old people are sooo dangerous its un-true!


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

General standard of driving is atrocious. I've said this on other threads regarding this issue:



1. Keep the current driving test as it is, BUT, this only qualifies you to drive on normal road & dual carriageways



2. introduce a compulsory 'higher' driving test that covers fast roads & motorways, to which you have to undertake a motorway driving course that teaches correct lane discipline, keeping motorway awareness, merging etiquette etc.



You can only drive on the motorway IF you pass both of the above tests



Optional retesting or optional additional instruction every 5 years (they could link this to offering lower insurance premiums for those that choose to get themselves re-tested periodically) which would encourage this



Compulsory re-testing for people deemed 'bad' drivers (based on accumulated speeding points/points & fines for using mobiles at the wheel/being involved in multiple accidents within a certain timeframe etc)



Basically, if you’re a good driver (no points/accidents/fines etc.) and choose to re-test you get extra discounts & benefits, if you’re a bad driver your accumulated actions means you HAVE to be retested to be passed fit & risk having your licence taken away due to habitual bad habits/driving/convictions.



People should be having medicals every year after 70 years old to ensure they are deemed medically fit to keep their licence & drive.


----------



## TonyH38 (Apr 7, 2013)

I think that any driver who causes an accident regardless of age should be assessed and retake a driving test.


----------



## PaulaJayne (Feb 17, 2012)

millns84 said:


> Absolutely, yes.
> 
> I've lost count of how many DRIVERS I've seen driving dangerously... One exmaple being pulling out on a roundabout without even bothering to slow down/look!!


FTFY.

It is all ages - mandatory test/ fitness test every 5 years for all drivers - retest if to blame for an accident and 3 instances of speeding.

Highway code written test every two years. (In English)


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

the difference between the arguement of young vs old if old should, is that yes young have alot of accidents, this isnt down to natural things but being billy big balls whereas elderly people cause problems not through choice but just how they are and their body works they have no choice in it.

thats alot of drivers of the road, theres a lot of consquences if you were to have a massive cull.

its a very tough argument? should the elderly be restricted to certain cars? roads? time of day driving etc..


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

I don't necessarily think it's restricted to the eldery as such, yes they might be getting on a bit and their reactions and judgments in cars are not great but hand on heart who here can say they have never witnessed someone their own age pull a dumb manouver on the road? I think standards have slipped greatly in the last few years. My eldest passed her test a year or so ago and she does that turn the steering wheel with her whole body thing and leans round corners. First time i went out with her i thought she had fallen over but apparently it's how they learn nowadays.

Driving standards in general need to improve in this country big time right across all age groups imho


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Yes.

An elderly geezer, John, who lives across the road from me started to drive a bit dodgy I noticed in the past couple of years, revving to high heaven, taking about 1/2 hr to park up.

He's stopped completely now, his wife had enough of it it was getting too dangerous.

Sad to see him deteriorate tbh I've known him for years and he used to be a really good driver.

For the best though.


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

I think every driver should have to undergo a driving competence assessment every few years. It shouldn't be a full test, more a gauge of whether the individual has adequate control of the car (information, position, speed etc) awareness of surroundings and hazard perception. This shouldn't be linked to age. However, if the driver falls below the expected standard, remedial training at their expense would be mandatory. 

That's my tuppence worth lol. 

Cooks


----------



## ffrs1444 (Jun 7, 2008)

Defo around the 70 mark to get a tick in the box


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

phillipnoke said:


> No i have been driving 46 years never had accident or speeding ticket


So you wouldn't mind doing a test for free, easy pass.

I do think it should be law once over 70. The only problem is the legal side of things...Ageism etc.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

The idea of everyone being retested every 5 years is comical, totally unworkable and a huge detriment to business and people in the UK.

Anyone could fail a test on a given day with the wrong circumstances. So you come for your test when you turn 45 with 2 kids and a sizeable mortgage.

Tester - "Sorry Sir, you've failed your test"
Employer - "Sorry Sir, a licence is required for your role"
Potential future employers - "Sorry, but there is no viable public transport to get work here"
Mortgage company "Sorry but no payment means we reposees your house"
Wife "Sorry, but your brother has a licence and can provide for a family"

Moral of the story? Introduce silly arbitrary times for retesting and people's wifes will run away with their brothers!

There's give or take 6 million drivers on the road who would need retested every 5 years? Who's going to do it? Who's going to pay for it? Are we really asking fro another effective tax on drivers?!

I was looking at some data....and estimating 33,000 new drivers per year get a licence, and 6Million drivers in total on the road you would need *36 times as many people & cars* to support this plan :lol::lol::lol:



Andyg_TSi said:


> General standard of driving is atrocious. I've said this on other threads regarding this issue:
> 
> 1. Keep the current driving test as it is, BUT, this only qualifies you to drive on normal road & dual carriageways
> 
> ...


Totally unworkable.

Regardless of what people say and think the standard of driving in the UK is exceptionally high, the risk is already very low in comparison to many places. How low do we target?

So the standard licence lets you drive on standard roads and a higher licence lets people drive on 'fast roads' Tell me what roads in the UK are faster than a Dual carriageway?? Why would you create a 2 tier system? Why not make the standard test include both aspects? Enforcement of a two tier licence would be a lot more complex......possibly leading people to disregarding the requirements. Should we adopt a 2 tier system? No way! Should we look at raising the standard required to pass a test. Yes, possibly.

The nearest motorway to me in over 80 miles away......in you live in Shetland it's hugely far. Why would you force people to travel hundreds of miles to drive on a motorway just to pass a test? If they don't do this to pass a test they're very strtricted holiday choices. Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports more or less require motorway usage.

In any case motorways are the safest roads to travel on.....if we're making a priority list additional training, motorway driving should be pretty low of the list!

We need to keep our eye on the objective! and how low we want the stats.....and the cost v benefit (and unwanted side effects) of any new solution.

If we wanted to reduce the risk to zero we ban cars. If we want the smallest possible risk do we say only people between the ages of 30 and 45 can drive? They need to have a sleep monitor recording a solid 8hrs sleep in the last 16hrs before they can drive, and have an eye test every month? Tacographs fitted in every car and limits on how much you can drive every day? Speed limiters/monitors in every car which automatically fine you if speeds are exceeded? Of course this is only possible assuming there is no family history of heart attacks or other illness that can affect driving at short notice.

There will always be a risk associated with driving.
Yes, we should look at reducing that risk. This should probably be a combination of technology, safety systems and driver training.
Do we need to accept a level of risk? Yes, even in 100 years time people will still be getting killed in transport accidents.

IMHO the cost and effort to implement a 2 tier licence system, and/or retesting after a few years is definitely NOT the way to do this effectively. Using the same pot of money, and effort in other areas could reduce the risk 2-10 times more!

Rather than a retesting which requires a massive increase in cars, instructors, testers, and test centres and WILL cause good drivers to lose their jobs. Why not do compulsory online course. Verify your ID then be updated on the highway code and recommended driving standards, things do change over time. This would be cost effective, simple, actually realistic and improve training/awareness.

The UK/Europe then set stricter safety standards cars need to meet. Again, relatively low cost, achievable, and realistic, of course the consumer will pay for it in the sales price, but tech improvements spread over many millions of cars woulld be a very low cost on a per unit basis.

I'm not saying I have the answers but there are definitely smarter routes to go than many mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Rebel007 (May 7, 2013)

If you want to reduce the risk on todays roads surely the first thing to do would be ban anyone drinking alcohol at all from the road, this is the law in some countries already I believe so it could be introduced and enforced here reasonably easily.

On the subject of enforcement instead of bringing in even more silly rules which are illegal according to international law (Age discrimination), lets start to enforce the laws we already have, how many of us have never seen another road user on a mobile phone whilst driving for example? Also how many of us have never seen someone driving at silly speeds ignoring the law of the land or driving dangerously in a million other ways?

That of course is ignoring people who are driving whilst under the influence of illegal drugs, I'm not talking of prescribed drugs here at least the risks there are known and considered prior to being prescribed, but the other commonly seen drugs all the TV programs talk about, and lets not forget the so called "legal highs" we keep hearing about on TV all affect peoples ability to drive safely.

Before we think about changing the law and discriminating against any group of law abiding drivers lets make sure the people that are NOT law abiding are caught and dealt with appropriately. 

People driving without insurance are flouting all the safety regulations we have and tend to be the most dangerous road users we have in the UK. Other people driving cars in a dangerous condition with faulty brakes or faulty steering, faulty suspension etc. even faulty lights are a danger to us all! 

These actions would, in my humble opinion make the roads far safer for everyone and make far more difference to road safety than just targeting older drivers!

Just because the media choose to sensationalise certain events like the OAP's mentioned above doesn't really mean that much they are so rare that those incidents are news because they are relatively uncommon, it is far more common for a drink driver or any number of those I mentioned above to have a fatal accident or an accident that causes serious injuries to innocent people.


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

Wile I agree with some of the points Bero has raised above, I'm not a fan of on-line learning. Yes, I'll admit that knowing road information and signage is a critical part of the driving equation. However, the driving risk can be mitigated by ensuring that drivers give suitable and appropriate information to other road users, travel at an appropriate speed, take up a suitable position on the road, and demonstrate control of the vehicle as dictated by road conditions. Those elements can only be learned through practice. 

I think we all generally agree that one test that could be as early as the age of 17, doesn't really work as it doesn't encourage drivers to maintain a high (or even adequate) driving standard. Again, this could only be achieved through a periodic competence assessment. 

What about if we used the existing network of driving instructors to conduct the competence assessment. Costs equal to the cost of 1 driving lesson. When it's completed, if you pass, you do nothing. If you fail, however, the instructor informs the DVA and a review marker is placed on that driver's license record. A further assessment is carried out 13 weeks later, after which the outcome will determine whether the user has to retake their full driving test. 

Just a stab at how it would work. There are probably holes in this but it gives an idea of how my weird mind works lol. 
I know I'd be happy to pay £20 every 2 years or so to make sure our roads were a bit safer. 

On a final note, Roadcraft sums it up nicely - Advanced driving*is the ability to control the position and speed of the vehicle safely, systematically and smoothly, using road and traffic conditions to progress unobtrusively with skill and responsibility. 

Cooks


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

No, just retest every driver in Cambridge and get rid of all the driving instructors therein.

Load of toss, relative in their 90s had never crashed far as I'm aware, daughter crashed pretty much every fricking month.

Idiots are idiots irrespective of age.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Laurie.J.M said:


> Whilst regular retesting for everyone sounds like a good idea on paper all that would happen is everyone would drive properly for their test and then just revert back to old and dangerous habits straight after being passed as fit. I think the only drivers who would get caught out are the ones who are just truly incompetent (you know the ones).
> 
> As for retesting for older drivers I'd do it on a teared system, so you'd be tested at 70, 75, 78, 80 and then every year after 80. Without some kind of formal assessment it's often left up to family members to persuade someone that they shouldn't be driving anymore and it can be very difficult.
> 
> My Grandad should have stopped driving several years before he finally did, at 85 his eye sight was really not good and he had very little feeling in his feet but no one could persuade him to stop driving. we thought a couple of years later when he started to get dementia he'd finally give up but he didn't (even though he'd told us he had), it got to the stage where we had to take his car away after he'd driven down to the local village and forgotten where he was, what he'd gone there for, where he'd left the car and how to get home.


So everyone who lives over 80 has dementia or very poor eyesight?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

muzzer42 said:


> I've always said to my wife, when i start to make dangerous judgement calls when driving or if i can't remember how i got somewhere, then that is the time she sends my licence back to the dvla with not required written on it. The things i see people do on the A1M, from drivers of all ages, young, middle and old aged is simply horrendous. I've seen all three groups pull manouvers that if i were traffic police, they would have been done for. All to save a minute or two.


This by far. Stupidity and obliviousness.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Rebel007 said:


> If you want to reduce the risk on todays roads surely the first thing to do would be ban anyone drinking alcohol at all from the road, this is the law in some countries already I believe so it could be introduced and enforced here reasonably easily.
> 
> On the subject of enforcement instead of bringing in even more silly rules which are illegal according to international law (Age discrimination), lets start to enforce the laws we already have, how many of us have never seen another road user on a mobile phone whilst driving for example? Also how many of us have never seen someone driving at silly speeds ignoring the law of the land or driving dangerously in a million other ways?
> 
> ...


Sorry, but prescribed drugs can be dangerous too.

Since you live in cambridgeshire, you'll know as soon as the weather changes all those fairweather cyclists turn to the roads, rarely ever driving normally. What happens?

Common sense / awareness isn't a thing in cambridge.


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

Rebel007 said:


> If you want to reduce the risk on todays roads surely the first thing to do would be ban anyone drinking alcohol at all from the road, this is the law in some countries already I believe so it could be introduced and enforced here reasonably easily.


I think the problem is that to enforce what you're suggesting requires a healthy number of active Police and there just aren't the numbers anymore. I go days and hundreds of miles driven without seeing a traffic or panda car.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with every driver having an assessment of safety and competence every 5 years, a resonable level of scrutiny that could quickly assess weather a driver was safe and good enough or needed further testing and then retraining/retesting or in some cases perhaps even revocation of the right to drive.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

uruk hai said:


> While I don't disagree with the general tone of your post I think the problem is that to enforce what you're suggesting requires a healthy number of active Police and there just aren't the numbers anymore. I go days and hundreds of miles driven without seeing a traffic or panda car.


I see them sitting atop bridges on the a14 all the time, but, all they do is sit there with a speed gun, just means all the idiots slow down even more and cause even more congestion.

Why should I pay to get retested every 5 years?


----------



## baxlin (Oct 8, 2007)

A couple of comments:

Insurance rates for younger drivers are generally higher than for older drivers, I would have thought insurers would rate those they thought to be the more risky.

At age 70, driving licences have to be reapplied for.

I speak as a 68 year old, just passed a health "MOT" with one advisory, to lose a bit of weight. I would be happy to take another test, but not because of my age, but because the only 'refresher' since I left the RAF over 40 years ago was a speed awareness course in 2012, which I looked upon very positively.

I have a motorcycle licence, held since 1963, but it's many years since I used it, yet I could quite legally climb aboard say a Yamaha R1. That's silly, IMO.

Malcolm


----------



## Loudandproud205 (Oct 18, 2015)

Every decade when you renew the photo on your licence you should have to have a refresher and get the supporting paper work signed by a driving instructor. 

Its not a test as such just a simple refresher course to remind us of bits we may have forgotten over the years, kind of like the pass plus the younger ones do. 

Just a standard driving instructor that appraises like they do if you attend a speed reduction seminar. 

Education will always be better than penalising the minority.


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

amount of cars on the road, can't go faster than 45 on major roads anyhows. Give it another 30 years when im nearing 70 and we'll all be flying cars in the sky wont we? or even on the ground aren't cars going to drive themselves?


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Graphic example of how driving standards have slipped across the board.
Twice last night i overtook vehicles who then refused to dip their headlights off main beam. First one was an old guy in a Range Rover but as i was doing the speed limit on the motorway and he was doing about 50(it was raining), i soon left him behind. Second one was a young guy who despite being flashed by every vehicle going the other way refused to dip his headlights. After i overtook him he sped up and sat one car length behind.
Sorry to say but my inner child got the better of me and i slowed right down forcing him to overtake me. I then sat behind him one car length on full beam until i turned off. He still hadnt got the message because a lorry going the other way flashed him as he went past the junction.


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

winter = light t***s every year whether it be, fogs, defective, misaligned, bulb gone (usually both dipped and side, main beam users


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Aaand then as if to prove the op's point, an old boy just went into the papershop near me. Deaf as a post, needs two walking sticks, glasses with jam jar lenses. Yep, he drove there and despite it being a double space for disabled drivers, he still parked across it diagonally and took part of the next one too. Why does this person have a licence?


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Rebel007 said:


> If you want to reduce the risk on todays roads surely the first thing to do would be ban anyone drinking alcohol at all from the road, this is the law in some countries already I believe so it could be introduced and enforced here reasonably easily.


It could be implemented easily (Scotland reduced their limit 11 months ago).

My views on this may be unpopular but I disagree entirely on the reasoning!

Is the DD dangers due to people with 1-80mg (or 50 In Scotland) of alcohol in their blood? IMO no!

Will the people who blatantly disregard the current law change? Nope, absolutely not.

Guess what if you use mouthwash in the morning? Many over the counter medicines have alcohol in them also....you have a bad cough/diarrhea/constipation etc and a colleague gives you something to provide relief....you get done for DD! What if you're the dedicated driver, but accidentally take a mouthful of Vodka and coke in the pub rather than your coke?

You're end up in court, banned for a year, have a 10 year criminal record and lose your job for potentially having 1mg of alcohol in your blood, despite NEVER being a danger to ANYONE. An utterly crazy proposition! You're branded exactly the same as someone who consciously drove to the pub, drank 12 pints, tried to drive home but fell asleep at traffic lights! :doublesho If you get sentenced to 29months in prison for rape you have a criminal record for 7 years....3 years less than someone who unknowingly ate a chocolate liqueur or trifle that had a splash of alcohol in it?!

Would zero tolerance make things safer? I don't think it would. Would safe drivers causing no danger get caught for 'Drink Driving'. 100% definitely!

No western country uses zero tolerance. Countries that have zero tolerance (almost?) exclusively have it for religious reasons, it has nothing to do with safety.

I agree with most of the rest...especially on enforcement of existing laws.

Be careful what you wish for with car safety inspections.......cars in the UK are IMHO a lot better than average for condition and safety, of course we could be better, everyone can. But the obvious ham fisted way to be more stringent is not sporadic police checks, which realistically check very little (Tyres and lights?) but to reduce the MOT validity period, i.e. another tax on road users, at a time where car safety systems reliability is improving, and will continue to do so.



Rebel007 said:


> ........lets not forget the so called "legal highs" we keep hearing about on TV all affect peoples ability to drive safely.


But, by definition, 'legal' highs are legal! :lol::lol:

I think what we really need is legislators to be more responsive to classifying and passing laws to criminalise new drugs. Then it all rolls up under the current testing and enforcement laws, nothing else needed.



Cookies said:


> ............Those elements can only be learned through practice.
> 
> ..............Again, this could only be achieved through a periodic competence assessment.
> 
> What about if we used the existing network of driving instructors to conduct the competence assessment. Costs equal to the cost of 1 driving lesson.


I agree with a lot of your post.....I'm not sure this aspect would be workable.

The current infrastructure is set up for 1.6 Million tests per year (an interesting trend there of a significantly lower pass rate over the last few years:thumb.

If the current 45.5 Million drivers needed to be tested every 5 years....and one in 5 needed a retest to pass there would be an extra 11 million tests per year. We would nearly need 7 TIMES the number of cars, the number of instructors and the number of test centres (or massive insrease in their size), this could not be done overnight.....especially as it's a quasi-govenmental function.


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

So to bring things back on topic - depends who it is (pretty difficult to implement I know)

My father in law is 70, has a Mini Cooper S (really odd choice of car for him IMO) and would probably own you all on a track lmao!


----------



## adamsalter2002 (Dec 5, 2012)

I think that's a good point. 
It does depend who it is and circumstances. Health being one of them.
There are as many Old bad drivers as Young bad drivers. 
For example my Dad is 74 and drives a S4 4.2 V8 and is the safest driver I know even though he drives it 'properly' and yet one of my best mates is 33 drives a Focus ST 225 and I wouldnt go to the paper shop with him in it! LOL!


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Rayaan said:


> So to bring things back on topic - depends who it is (pretty difficult to implement I know)
> 
> My father in law is 70, has a Mini Cooper S (really odd choice of car for him IMO) and would probably own you all on a track lmao!


Best keep him on the track then.... Seems to be too fast for the road:thumb::car:


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

I agree, that old people should be retested every couple of years.

Hopefully thsi post is now on track and won't be deleted?


----------



## baxlin (Oct 8, 2007)

fatdazza said:


> I agree, that old people should be retested every couple of years.
> 
> Hopefully this post is now on track and won't be deleted?


As has been mentioned above, old is subjective, so could you please give a watertight definition of "old", when referring to people.

(assuming the weather is OK, I'll be out in the JZR - see avatar pic - tomorrow)


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

baxlin said:


> As has been mentioned above, old is subjective, so could you please give a watertight definition of "old", when referring to people.
> 
> (assuming the weather is OK, I'll be out in the JZR - see avatar pic - tomorrow)


Anyone over 55 years and 4 months


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

fatdazza said:


> Anyone over 55 years and 4 months


Sorry, we've just reduced the age limit to 55 years, 3 months and 28 days on careful inspection of our metrics which suggest as soon as you hit that 4 month number, you're a considerably bigger risk to anyone on the road.

We have, however, decided to remove driving tests entirely until you become 55 years old and introduce the new prerequisite of driving with a brown paper bag over your head whilst having a mobile phone glued to your hands tied in front of your face.


----------



## ChuckH (Nov 23, 2006)

Perhaps young drivers should be made to take a test every year ? After all they are by an absolute mile in the biggest problem age group !


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

ChuckH said:


> Perhaps young drivers should be made to take a test every year ? After all they are by an absolute mile in the biggest problem age group !


They may have the most accidents but it's the old uns that cause them


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

andy665 said:


> 70 - why pick an age
> 
> Is there evidence to show that drivers over 70 are any less competent than drivers younger than this
> 
> ...


got to disagree here...
with age comes various factors that should be taken into account when you are driving.
1...eyesight starts diminishing when you are supposedly 19, so what will it be like when you are 70!, most people of 70 do wear glasses and their eyesight is only getting worse day by day.
Older eyes are also more susceptible to glare because the lenses of the eyes thicken and the pupils shrink as we get older
2...and in my eyes, probably the most dangerous of all is the reaction times, no doubt about it most people of that age have reaction times a lot slower that younger people, my dad for instance was a driving nightmare and I pointed out to him that he was seeing things very late, roundabouts and cars breaking in front of him caused a sudden breaking because he did not register them in time , thankfully he no longer has a license as Parkinson disease saw his driving days ended.
At some point there has to be a common sense approach to these decisions and 70 seems to be the right age in which to take some sort of test involving eyesight, reaction times etc, does not have to be a full test, but one which shows they can still drive safely.

Kev


----------



## Scrim-1- (Oct 8, 2008)

100% yes

Some oap's simply don't have a clue where they are going or what they are doing.

Very dangerous imo.


----------



## BrummyPete (Jun 10, 2010)

My grandad was 96 when he was deemed not fit to drive, unfortunately he passed away a couple of weeks later but to get to that age and still be driving is good going, unfortunately though he would have benefited from a refresher course or two as his ability had somewhat diminished the previous 20 years


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

Some of the stupidity happening on the road is from folk who are young and think they are good drivers.

As for not being able to read the road I take some offense at that. I see loads of things and stay well clear of what looks like accidents waiting to happen. To counter reaction time just means leaving a larger gap to the car in front.

Instead of re-testing which like any exam is a one-off event that you can get the correct answer on the day we should all have to take so many hours of tuition. This would benefit new drivers as well as old.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

spursfan said:


> got to disagree here...
> with age comes various factors that should be taken into account when you are driving.
> 1...eyesight starts diminishing when you are supposedly 19, so what will it be like when you are 70!, most people of 70 do wear glasses and their eyesight is only getting worse day by day.
> Older eyes are also more susceptible to glare because the lenses of the eyes thicken and the pupils shrink as we get older
> ...


Eyesight is fine for some, rubbish for others, so that's a nonsense for a start.

Also is a nonsense about reaction times, lots of dull plebs have the reaction time of a cruise liner.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

Andy from Sandy said:


> Some of the stupidity happening on the road is from folk who are young and think they are good drivers.
> 
> As for not being able to read the road I take some offense at that. I see loads of things and stay well clear of what looks like accidents waiting to happen. To counter reaction time just means leaving a larger gap to the car in front.
> 
> Instead of re-testing which like any exam is a one-off event that you can get the correct answer on the day we should all have to take so many hours of tuition. This would benefit new drivers as well as old.


Currently there are 4,018,900 drivers over 70 in the UK, a few hours on a test involving eyesight and reaction times works out a lot cheaper than the estimated 30 million drivers that you think should have a few hours tuition.
You really need to take a long hard look and realise that older people have more wrong with them, it's called ageing and will happen to us all.
Tarnishing everyone with a few hours tuition because you say that some oldies are great drivers just does not make sense


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

spursfan said:


> Currently there are 4,018,900 drivers over 70 in the UK, a few hours on a test involving eyesight and reaction times works out a lot cheaper than the estimated 30 million drivers that you think should have a few hours tuition.
> You really need to take a long hard look and realise that older people have more wrong with them, it's called ageing and will happen to us all.
> Tarnishing everyone with a few hours tuition because you say that some oldies are great drivers just does not make sense


Tbh I think people just learning to drive in areas where there are hazards such as London and not in the countryside where there isn't would be a far better start.

Personally, I disagree, the number of idiots seems to be firmly set above younger drivers, closer to middle age or middle age.

Eyesight or reactions won't help you if you're not paying attention to the road, instead of a meeting.

I don't think I said tarnishing everyone either.


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

spursfan said:


> Currently there are 4,018,900 drivers over 70 in the UK, a few hours on a test involving eyesight and reaction times works out a lot cheaper than the estimated 30 million drivers that you think should have a few hours tuition.
> You really need to take a long hard look and realise that older people have more wrong with them, it's called ageing and will happen to us all.
> Tarnishing everyone with a few hours tuition because you say that some oldies are great drivers just does not make sense


Are you one of the young guns that is invincible?

A suggestion is made that old people should take a re-test. That is not unreasonable, I will gladly retake my test if I have to but I make the suggestion that everyone can benefit from additional training and somehow that offends you.


----------



## Mugwump (Feb 17, 2008)

The highest risk age group is the under 25s - higher incidence of crashing and greater proportion involving death or serious injury. Perhaps this age group should not be allowed to hold a licence in the first place? 

Really, some of the twaddle on this thread is beyond belief :wall:


----------



## baxlin (Oct 8, 2007)

As I remarked in an earlier post, age is subjective, I have ridden with drivers young and old whose frankly scared me, as well as those with whom I felt perfectly safe.

What worries me about older folk driving is when they say "I only drive to the shops now, as I'm not confident on main roads"

These are the ones that add to the statistic that most accidents happen within a mile of home, and should really not be driving, and are possibly the 'old people' many posts on here refer to.

But for many people, to lose their car would effectively ground them. Not that that is a reason to put the rest of us at risk!


----------



## TonyH38 (Apr 7, 2013)

Not to worry soon you can be dead, but still be in control of a self drive car.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

Andy from Sandy said:


> Are you one of the young guns that is invincible?
> 
> A suggestion is made that old people should take a re-test. That is not unreasonable, I will gladly retake my test if I have to but I make the suggestion that everyone can benefit from additional training and somehow that offends you.


you obviously are not that bright mate, read my profile!!
:lol:
for a start it did not offend me, I made a suggestion purely on cost grounds, makes more economic sense to test 4 million with a simple eyesight test or something along them lines, rather than 40 million. 
you then start getting humpy because someone actually disagrees with your suggestion


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Guys, keep this civil please and if needs be, agree to disagree


----------



## shycho (Sep 7, 2010)

Mugwump said:


> The highest risk age group is the under 25s - higher incidence of crashing and greater proportion involving death or serious injury. Perhaps this age group should not be allowed to hold a licence in the first place?
> 
> Really, some of the twaddle on this thread is beyond belief :wall:


Actual OAP's are the highest risk group for being involved in a fatal accident. Perhaps we should just ban anyone over the state pension age from driving.

As for the whole age is subjective twaddle people are spouting why don't we allow 14-15-16 year olds to attempt their driving test if they believe they are ready? After all age is subjective and a 14 year old could well be a better and safe driver than an 18 year old.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

shycho said:


> Actual OAP's are the highest risk group for being involved in a fatal accident. Perhaps we should just ban anyone over the state pension age from driving.
> 
> As for the whole age is subjective twaddle people are spouting why don't we allow 14-15-16 year olds to attempt their driving test if they believe they are ready? After all age is subjective and a 14 year old could well be a better and safe driver than an 18 year old.


I thought teenagers were far more likely to have accidents as a percentage, even if more older people have licenses as less of them are driving:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/11/dangerous-drivers-how-old-uk-age-18

Also, probably, older people are more likely to have fatal accidents as they're more frail generally.

I'd presume they'd have to be able to actually reach the pedals and show some signs of maturity and no doubt legally you couldn't hold them for road offences.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

spursfan said:


> got to disagree here...
> with age comes various factors that should be taken into account when you are driving.
> 1...eyesight starts diminishing when you are supposedly 19, so what will it be like when you are 70!, most people of 70 do wear glasses and their eyesight is only getting worse day by day.
> Older eyes are also more susceptible to glare because the lenses of the eyes thicken and the pupils shrink as we get older
> ...


I think you're looking at this the wrong way, 60% of people wear glasses or contacts, and many of the remaining 40% should be/are in denial.

As you say, more people in their 70s wear glasses......but you could argue that once you're using corrective measures you're more likely to get tested and prescription revised.

I don't see getting eyes tested over an arbitrary age making any difference.


----------



## Natalie (Jan 19, 2011)

This just came up in my news feed on bookface - https://www.facebook.com/ThisMornin...81985202121/10153902989047122/?type=3&fref=nf

Reckon someone on This Morning team reads DW?:lol:


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Must have read this thread, I should charge for royalties.


----------



## SPARTAN (Nov 20, 2014)

This very subject just discussed on itv news meridian.

Ex rally driver Paddy Hopkirk backing the idea of older folk having regular driving assessments. He is now in his 80's took an assessment and passed...fair play to him.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

Bero said:


> I think you're looking at this the wrong way, 60% of people wear glasses or contacts, and many of the remaining 40% should be/are in denial.
> 
> As you say, more people in their 70s wear glasses......but you could argue that once you're using corrective measures you're more likely to get tested and prescription revised.
> 
> I don't see getting eyes tested over an arbitrary age making any difference.


pretty sure you have it wrong....40% should be/are in denial., if testing for over 70's came in, then that 40% that are in denial would be tested, leading to a safer road system, pretty sure that is what we all want?

Natalies post above gives some good points on that Twitter page


----------



## gordonpuk (Mar 14, 2010)

Give them a shopping list and send them off with a trolley around Tesco
with an assessor following.
Test their connotative, spatial awareness, agility, memory and eyesight skills.

The amount of old grippers I've seen there that have made me think "I hope to God they didn't drive here" Some of them look and act bemused, Only to see them struggling to get in the drivers seat later on.


----------



## R7KY D (Feb 16, 2010)

Yes , Yes and yes 

Sat behind a 400 year old druid tonight on the M25 doing 40mph in lane 1 coming off at J28 , Gets on the slip road to come off M25 and brakes hard for no reason causing a concertina of cars to brake


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

spursfan said:


> pretty sure you have it wrong....40% should be/are in denial., if testing for over 70's came in, then that 40% that are in denial would be tested, leading to a safer road system, pretty sure that is what we all want?
> 
> Natalies post above gives some good points on that Twitter page


Facebook? Good points? Wow.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

RisingPower said:


> Facebook? Good points? Wow.


very mature!!


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

R7KY D said:


> Sat behind a 400 year old druid tonight on the M25 doing 40mph in lane 1.....


At least old people appear to be able to run incredibly fast! 40mph for a 400 year old is pretty good in my book.

😁

Cooks


----------

