# Should drivers over 70 be retested



## Tashyboy (Nov 10, 2015)

There is a story on the BBC Site asking if drivers over 70 should be retested.
A guy who is now a widow has started up a petition because his wife was killed by an 85 yr old driver who mistook the accelerator for the brake. At the mo 130,000 have signed the petition.

So quite simple, should drivers over 70 be retested.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 10, 2015)

Yep,I quite often see older drivers that obviously shouldn't be driving.


----------



## drdel (Nov 10, 2015)

Just wait until you're 69, fit and healthy ! The statistics don't support the argument

How often will they get tested ? every year, every 5 years ?

Not enough testers/facilities


----------



## Waitforme (Nov 10, 2015)

Yes but it'll never happen , what party would try and bring that in ? Vote loser for sure.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 10, 2015)

drdel said:



			Just wait until you're 69, fit and healthy ! The statistics don't support the argument

How often will they get tested ? every year, every 5 years ?

Not enough testers/facilities
		
Click to expand...

Just ban them then.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 10, 2015)

I would say so. See so many OAP drivers that drive way too slow and are as dangerous as a result. Many struggle to follow simple road instructions. There again plenty of other age groups who have poor drivers. However I think 70 is a reasonable age to test again


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 10, 2015)

Nope......to make the roads safer you would be better off testing the 18 year olds every year for seven years.
Statistics prove this.

My 85 year old MIL has just passed her 'fit to drive' test with flying colours.


----------



## Tiger man (Nov 10, 2015)

I don't think their should be a retest because that could seriously impact their standard of life, however I think their should be at least a compulsory refresher course to bring them up to scratch


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Nope......to make the roads safer you would be better off testing the 18 year olds every year for seven years.
Statistics prove this.

My 85 year old MIL has just passed her 'fit to drive' test with flying colours.
		
Click to expand...

If they pass the test at 17 I'm sure they'll be able to pass it again at 18,19,20......
Still won't stop some of them driving like idiots in between tests.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 10, 2015)

Reading this earlier and as much as I sympathise with the guys loss of his wife. The driver was over 80. So don't know why the 70 age was put forward.
Just had a heated discussion with my lad who is a Class1 Lorry driver who said he has to have a medical at 65? That's not the point a medical is differant to a re test, and has been proved in the case of the Dustbin driver in Glasgow, Medicals are easy to cheat on.
Re re testing at 70, it has been proven that car insurance is high because of younger drivers. So do we retest them. Spending kills more than elderly drivers?
Think I have more of an issue with younger drivers than older drivers at the moment.


----------



## Odvan (Nov 10, 2015)

I've been sat in a car with a 73yo driver who nearly wiped out 3 generations of his own family purely down to speed awareness, road awareness and poor reaction time.

Ask him to hang a door, lay cement or fit a kitchen - no problem, he was as fit as a fiddle at the time.

Definite retest for me at 75, or at least an 'assessment' whereby compulsory sessions may or may not be applicable from. If, like DFTs MIL, they're' fit and switched on enough to continue at an older age (and fair play!) , then the old folk have nowt to worry about, have they.

And if the kids want their insurance to come down then they'd be happy to be retested or drive with a black box but that wasn't the question.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Nov 10, 2015)

Yes, yes and yes.


----------



## garyinderry (Nov 10, 2015)

Ban kids from driving for 5 years if caught excessively speeding or driving dangerously.   tighten them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 10, 2015)

Yes people should be retested at some stage


----------



## Imurg (Nov 10, 2015)

Every driver should be retested/reassessed every 10 years in my opinion.
The tools are partly in place.
Make the Photocard licence compulsory - there can't be that many who still have just the old paper one and its not a big deal to make the change
These need to be renewed every 10 years
6 months prior to the licence expiring, send out a reminder and included a form.
Some kind of retest/reassessment needs to be carried out and the form duly signed by the Authorised assessor.
Send off form for renewal - no form=no renewal=no licence

I put that to the Chief Exec of the Driving Standards Agency 7 years ago.
Their reply?

Can't do it as it would cost too much and put too many people off the road. I can understand the first part but I couldn't see a problem with the second part

The will to do it simply isn't there.
What we do isn't sufficient. And it won't change.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 10, 2015)

garyinderry said:



			Ban kids from driving for 5 years if caught excessively speeding or driving dangerously.   tighten them.
		
Click to expand...

Why not ban anyone if caught speeding excessively or dangerously?


----------



## garyinderry (Nov 10, 2015)

The thing is, you won't be able to catch elderly people's mind wanders during a half hour test when they hit their 70's. 


Most will pass a driving ability test just fine.   also, hoe many of us would pass an actual driving test tomorrow?  so many little bad habits that would fail a test in there but perfectly safe driving.


----------



## garyinderry (Nov 10, 2015)

Pin-seeker said:



			Why not ban anyone if caught speeding excessively or dangerously?
		
Click to expand...

Why not?  fine by me.  I got three points now drive like a granny.   I've learnt my lesson.  Many others don't seem to get the message.


----------



## dewsweeper (Nov 10, 2015)

Pin-seeker said:



			Just ban them thn.
		
Click to expand...

Why stop there!
Shoot all us old beggars and be done with it, will also cure slow play issues.!!!!
As 76 year old I actually agree we should be re-tested.

Dewsweeper


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 10, 2015)

As a 69 year old I don't have a problem in having a compulsory a driving retest at 70.
 My driving is fine, but i'm afraid my bunker and fairway wood shots would fail.


----------



## AMcC (Nov 10, 2015)

Absolutely, but not sure what age it should be set at ?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 10, 2015)

AMcC said:



			Absolutely, but not sure what age it should be set at ?
		
Click to expand...

All ages; as Imurg says every 10 years, it's a test of ability, not age.


----------



## Tiger man (Nov 10, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			All ages; as Imurg says every 10 years, it's a test of ability, not age.
		
Click to expand...

No way there should be a re test every 10 years. Motoring costs enough without this and the impact it could have on people's jobs etc is not practical.


----------



## RollinThunder (Nov 10, 2015)

I drive lorries, and for an LGV licence you need an initial medical, and then a medical every 5 years when you're older than 45. I find faults with younger drivers to be mainly related to overconfidence, going too fast and being arrogant. With elderly drivers, it's the opposite, as they lack confidence, tend to drive too conservatively, and are very hesitant. 

There is terrible driving within every generation, but the younger drivers are mentally and physically capable of doing something about it, and they drive badly because they're idiots. Unfortunately, for the elderly drivers, age has taken it's toll on their mind and body, and they're not capable of doing a anything about it.

As much as I agree that driving standards amongst the elderly can be very poor, I can't imagine that retesting them will work. There could be social issues, such as if they revoke someone's licence, they could be removing any form of socialising that the person has. People would just complain that they can't survive without a car, and they need it for hospital appointments, etc. Retesting and recertifying elderly drivers would be very difficult to do. With the amount of CCTV cameras I see on our roads, it would be much easier to use it to reprimand drivers for dangerous incidents, and act or ban accordingly.


----------



## the smiling assassin (Nov 10, 2015)

There is definitely a point where age should be considered. It will be different for everybody. My wife's 87y/o grandparents both still drive and really should be told to stop. I dread the thought of them tootling about, past nearby schools etc... The reality is they could easily offset taxi costs to all their social engagements against the cost of running a car. There is a perceived 'failure' complex to giving up one's car...somehow it is  thought as giving up your independance. The real failure is that most people will probably drive beyond their safe limit due to either stubbornness or lack of self awareness, or a bit of both. Poor driving of younger generations is a completely separate but equally important issue.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 10, 2015)

In wanting 70yr olds to be re-tested you have to accept that many (the majority?) will fail - even although they may in general be OK drivers.  And for a lot of older folks the loss of independence that would result would be a very serious blow and very isolating.

I'll add that my mum was driving up to the point she was admitted to hospital aged 84 after confusion got the better of her- and she should not really have been driving for at least a year before.  I'm afraid her lane awareness and concentration over that last year was seriously degraded - and bluntly she was a danger to other road users and pedestrians.  Sad but true,


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 10, 2015)

My wife's 84 year old cousin drives like a teenager...........work that one out?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			My wife's 84 year old cousin drives like a teenager...........work that one out?
		
Click to expand...

Eh? She's Whatsapping as she drives?


----------



## Robster59 (Nov 10, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Every driver should be retested/reassessed every 10 years in my opinion.
The tools are partly in place.
Make the Photocard licence compulsory - there can't be that many who still have just the old paper one and its not a big deal to make the change
These need to be renewed every 10 years
6 months prior to the licence expiring, send out a reminder and included a form.
Some kind of retest/reassessment needs to be carried out and the form duly signed by the Authorised assessor.
Send off form for renewal - no form=no renewal=no licence

I put that to the Chief Exec of the Driving Standards Agency 7 years ago.
Their reply?

Can't do it as it would cost too much and put too many people off the road. I can understand the first part but I couldn't see a problem with the second part

The will to do it simply isn't there.
What we do isn't sufficient. And it won't change.
		
Click to expand...

I'm in full agreement with this.  I do 30K+ miles a year and most of the issues I see are not with the 70+ but with those in their 30's, 40's and 50's who think they know it all and last took a test when they were 18.  They've forgotten half the rules of the road, couldn't remember 10% of the highway code and don't drive with awareness.  

If people fail the re-assessment then that's their lookout and I don't believe it would be costly, in fact they could get revenue from re-testing.  It would make the road safer and if it takes some of the dangerous, unsafe, unfit people off the road surely that's a benefit.  

I used to be a motorcycle instructor (voluntary but Police trained) and I can certainly vouch that drivers who take to riding 10-20 years after passing their test have forgotten most of the highway code and a lot can't even identify the most rudimentary road signs.

Other countries at least have compulsory eye tests after a certain age.  We don't even do that.  All a driver has to do is complete a form confirming they're still fit to drive (whether they are or not)


----------



## chrisd (Nov 10, 2015)

I've seen, like you have, drivers of all ages and both sexes who are awful drivers and I've seen very good ones too. Possibly over 80 might be a point where I would agree that a test could be appropriate but an eye and hearing test would be more important. 

I'd then test all drivers up to 30 years old, any women who do the school run in a Chelsea Tractor who haven't got any idea how long and wide their cars are, and also, any immigrants who are clearly driving on a pub purchased Moldovian driving license!


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 10, 2015)

My dad drove lots of miles through work. Never had an accident in 50+yrs of driving. A great driver, right up until his last 5 years when he became slow/tentative and over cautious. Bearing in mind when that kicked in, i.e. 75, I'd say there is a need to do something about driving standards in the elderly.

As for youngsters; there failings are not being cautious enough. Different issue.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 10, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Eh? She's Whatsapping as she drives?
		
Click to expand...

Speeds down country lanes, missing cars by inches.
I have to make quite an effort to stop my right foot from breaking when I am in the passenger seat.

When she was 18 she bought a moped and from Sheffield [on her own] she traveled on a fortnights camping holiday in the Lakes and Southern Scotland.
She does not lack confidence.:lol:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 10, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			As for youngsters; there failings are not being cautious enough. Different issue.
		
Click to expand...

Hell of a lot more dangerous though.


----------



## HDID Kenny (Nov 10, 2015)

Food for thought to get older drivers of the road. Age 75 revoke licence replace with:
Free bus pass - unlimited travel
Free trains - 25 mile limit
Free taxi - 5 mile limit

Don't see it happening but it is my view :thup:


----------



## Snelly (Nov 10, 2015)

No.


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 10, 2015)

HDID Kenny said:



			Food for thought to get older drivers of the road. Age 75 revoke licence replace with:
Free bus pass - unlimited travel
Free trains - 25 mile limit
Free taxi - 5 mile limit

Don't see it happening but it is my view :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Free taxi - 5 mile limit sounds good , the rest we almost have . But Kenny, surely you're entitled to  all these concessions already.  :rofl:.

 So bye bye my game at Glenbervie then  , :smirk:


----------



## HDID Kenny (Nov 10, 2015)

williamalex1 said:



			Free taxi - 5 mile limit sounds good , the rest we almost have . But Kenny, surely you're entitled to  all these concessions already.  :rofl:.

 So bye bye my game at Glenbervie then  , :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Lol William not quite there yet but need to start campaigning now for when it happens  no worries about getting a game at Glenbervie 3 strikes and your out 

Ps for the townies I would add trams & tubes to bus category. :thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 10, 2015)

HDID Kenny said:



			Food for thought to get older drivers of the road. Age 75 revoke licence replace with:
Free bus pass - unlimited travel
Free trains - 25 mile limit
Free taxi - 5 mile limit

Don't see it happening but it is my view :thup:
		
Click to expand...

On the last one - some groups of like-minded folks already do this for the elderly in their midst.  A simple act of caring for our elderly.


----------



## HDID Kenny (Nov 10, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			On the last one - some groups of like-minded folks already do this for the elderly in their midst.  A simple act of caring for our elderly.
		
Click to expand...

Nice to hear there are still caring folk about :thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 10, 2015)

HDID Kenny said:



			Nice to hear there are still caring folk about :thup:
		
Click to expand...

It's just not that difficult to organise.  Drivers just have to make themselves available in the event that an 'oldie' calls in need of lift.


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 11, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It's just not that difficult to organise.  Drivers just have to make themselves available in the event that an 'oldie' calls in need of lift.
		
Click to expand...

Are you free to take me to Tesco anytime this week :smirk:


----------



## bobmac (Nov 11, 2015)

While you're at it, can you teach the under 30s that texting should be quite low on the list of things to do whilst driving.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 11, 2015)

williamalex1 said:



			Are you free to take me to Tesco anytime this week :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

I thought you were more of an Aldis man


----------



## Smiffy (Nov 11, 2015)

I've lost 2 good mates, (one was a policewoman who was a _*very *_good rider), due to motorbike accidents.
In both instances, the drivers concerned were elderly (over 70).
I don't like elderly drivers.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 11, 2015)

As I work from home I see a lot of elderly drivers pottering around during the day.  Some are fine, a bit steady but they mostly keep up.  But some are pretty awful and seem to either go 37 mph no matter what speed limit they are in (anywhere from 30 to 70).  Or they slow down/brake for everything and seem to think a car will not go round a bend over 20 mph.

I don't think retesting them on the same test you take to begin with is sensible.  But there should be some kind of test regarding the things that are most likely to go once you get old and you need for driving.  So eyesight, hearing and reaction speeds really.  Fine having speed limits worked out on average stopping distances, but if there is such a difference in reaction/processing times then it doesn't work.  

Also I think there should also be some kind of test to see if they can basically 'keep up' with the traffic in all the speed limits.   I know the speed limits are just that, limits, but pithering along at 37 in a 60 and slowing down to 15 mph to go round a bend is not conducive to a smooth flow of traffic.  And you then get people doing silly overtaking maneuvers leading to more chances of nasty accidents.   

But I secretly feel the government do not mind all the old drivers on the roads. As all they do is bring the average speed down.  Its been mentioned on here before that the speed limits seem to be coming down on a lot of roads. So they are no longer based on the ability of a middle aged driver in a modern car, but on what some coffin dodger in their Honda jazz thinks the limits should be.  I suspect Saga have some kind of working party that comprises of Doris and Albert Jones, both aged 74, who advises the government on what the limits should be based on how fast they dare take their Jazz up to


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 11, 2015)

williamalex1 said:



			Are you free to take me to Tesco anytime this week :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Depends where the Tesco is  

When we convinced mum that she shouldn't drive the sums were easy.  She could afford a short taxi journey just about every day for a couple of years for the cost of running her car and the money she'd get from selling it.


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Nope......to make the roads safer you would be better off testing the 18 year olds every year for seven years.
Statistics prove this.

My 85 year old MIL has just passed her 'fit to drive' test with flying colours.
		
Click to expand...

In SW Scotland maybe....but you have her drive in a busy town. the place would grind to a halt.


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 11, 2015)

bobmac said:



			While you're at it, can you teach the under 30s that texting should be quite low on the list of things to do whilst driving.
		
Click to expand...

LOL...well its' not really.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 11, 2015)

Classic don't fix it if it ain't broke. There are always incidents that can be quoted to back up any argument like this but realistically, the current system works very well. As others have said, if we want to reduce road deaths significantly it's the other end of the age spectrum we need to be concentrating on. The test only proves that you are capable of driving from A to B safely.....if you choose not to there's no amount of testing that will alter that choice.


----------



## AMcC (Nov 11, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			So they are no longer based on the ability of a middle aged driver in a modern car, but on what some coffin dodger in their Honda jazz thinks the limits should be.  I suspect Saga have some kind of working party that comprises of Doris and Albert Jones, both aged 74, who advises the government on what the limits should be based on how fast they dare take their Jazz up to

Click to expand...

I drive a Jazz !!  At least a generation away from that :ears:


----------



## Smiffy (Nov 11, 2015)

If you want to have the fear of God put up you, come and spend a day driving around Bexhill on Sea, especially in the vicinity of the local Sainsburys store.
I have never seen so many old duffers that should not be on the road driving around with scant regard to what is going on around them.
Seriously, it's frightening.


----------



## pbrown7582 (Nov 11, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Every driver should be retested/reassessed every 10 years in my opinion.
The tools are partly in place.
Make the Photocard licence compulsory - there can't be that many who still have just the old paper one and its not a big deal to make the change
These need to be renewed every 10 years
6 months prior to the licence expiring, send out a reminder and included a form.
Some kind of retest/reassessment needs to be carried out and the form duly signed by the Authorised assessor.
Send off form for renewal - no form=no renewal=no licence

I put that to the Chief Exec of the Driving Standards Agency 7 years ago.
Their reply?

Can't do it as it would cost too much and put too many people off the road. I can understand the first part but I couldn't see a problem with the second part

The will to do it simply isn't there.
What we do isn't sufficient. And it won't change.
		
Click to expand...

This its not just young and old drivers who cause accidents there are so many inconsiderate drivers on the roads, a regular refresher retest for everyone would be the way to go IMO too.


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 11, 2015)

bobmac said:



			I thought you were more of an Aldis man 

Click to expand...

I refuse nothing but blows :smirk:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 11, 2015)

Actually I think the easiest way is to just make drivers go over a mini roundabout every 5 years. If you can cope with the fact that it is just like a bigger one and the rules of who has priority are the same, it's just a bit smaller, then you are fine.  If when you reach it, you just stay there looking all confused and not going, even though it is your right of way or the car approaching is still over 100 yards away, then time to get the bus.


----------



## Smiffy (Nov 11, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			If when you reach it, you just stay there looking all confused and not going, even though it is your right of way or the car approaching is still over 100 yards away, then time to get the bus.

Click to expand...

Ladies under 70 do this anyway, don't they????


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 11, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Actually I think the easiest way is to just make drivers go over a mini roundabout every 5 years. If you can cope with the fact that it is just like a bigger one and the rules of who has priority are the same, it's just a bit smaller, then you are fine.  If when you reach it, you just stay there looking all confused and not going, even though it is your right of way or the car approaching is still over 100 yards away, then time to get the bus.

Click to expand...

This !

The rules are the same, if your exit is not clear then you wait until it is. We have one that was put when some houses were built on the corner where the road used to go round a 90 deg bend. Most just sit in the middle of it in a morning blocking the exit to the new houses. (Nowt to do with the thread, i just need to get if off my chest :sbox


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 11, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Actually I think the easiest way is to just make drivers go over a mini roundabout every 5 years. If you can cope with the fact that it is just like a bigger one and the rules of who has priority are the same, it's just a bit smaller, then you are fine.  If when you reach it, you just stay there looking all confused and not going, even though it is your right of way or the car approaching is still over 100 yards away, then time to get the bus.

Click to expand...

LOL. Absolutely correct, was behind one just like that this morning. Appraching mini roundabout and going to turn left. Car approaching from right about 50 yds away so car in front stopped. the car on the right slowed right down because there was a car from the left turning right across it. Still, the one in front didn't go while all that was going on. What makes me laugh is that if you get three at the same time they all give way to each other and nothing moves! Has to be a spacial awareness thing if you ask me.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 11, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			LOL. Absolutely correct, was behind one just like that this morning. Appraching mini roundabout and going to turn left. Car approaching from right about 50 yds away so car in front stopped. the car on the right slowed right down because there was a car from the left turning right across it. Still, the one in front didn't go while all that was going on. What makes me laugh is that if you get three at the same time they all give way to each other and nothing moves! Has to be a spacial awareness thing if you ask me.
		
Click to expand...

There is truth in this - the most dangerous aspect of my mum's driving was her loss of lane awareness when negotiating roundabouts,


----------



## dewsweeper (Nov 11, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Classic don't fix it if it ain't broke. There are always incidents that can be quoted to back up any argument like this but realistically, the current system works very well. As others have said, if we want to reduce road deaths significantly it's the other end of the age spectrum we need to be concentrating on. The test only proves that you are capable of driving from A to B safely.....if you choose not to there's no amount of testing that will alter that choice.
		
Click to expand...

Best reply on this subject I think.
Dewsweeper


----------



## drdel (Nov 11, 2015)

I don't know if anyone has noticed but if, as the underlying message suggests, you take the right to drive from those over 70 there will be a significant impact on spending as retirees have both the money and time and are an increasing proportion of the population.

There are numerous studies quoting how the 70 years olds of tomorrow will enjoy the health benefits of the 50 year olds.  The NHS would incur more ambulance costs ferrying people to visits.  The bus costs for local authorities would increase and spending in many local centres would fall.

The accident rates for the older driver are low as is the average severity of the accidents in which they are involved.

The odd serious accident is a tragedy but pretty rare and laws made in haste usually suffer from the 'law of unintended consequences'.

Nobody seems to have mentioned much about the impact on Golf Clubs if significant numbers of senior members are prevented from driving.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 11, 2015)

Should I be lucky enough to reach 70 I will be hoping, by then, I'd have dispensed with the need to drive...

Think there are plenty of other groups of road users that need a closer look at before 'dealing' with the over 70's...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 11, 2015)

drdel said:



			I don't know if anyone has noticed but if, as the underlying message suggests, you take the right to drive from those over 70 there will be a significant impact on spending as retirees have both the money and time and are an increasing proportion of the population.

There are numerous studies quoting how the 70 years olds of tomorrow will enjoy the health benefits of the 50 year olds.  The NHS would incur more ambulance costs ferrying people to visits.  The bus costs for local authorities would increase and spending in many local centres would fall.

The accident rates for the older driver are low as is the average severity of the accidents in which they are involved.

The odd serious accident is a tragedy but pretty rare and laws made in haste usually suffer from the 'law of unintended consequences'.

*Nobody seems to have mentioned much about the impact on Golf Clubs if significant numbers of senior members are prevented from driving.*

Click to expand...

Slow play would be eradicated??


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

drdel said:



			I don't know if anyone has noticed but if, as the underlying message suggests, you take the right to drive from those over 70 there will be a significant impact on spending as retirees have both the money and time and are an increasing proportion of the population.

There are numerous studies quoting how the 70 years olds of tomorrow will enjoy the health benefits of the 50 year olds.  The NHS would incur more ambulance costs ferrying people to visits.  The bus costs for local authorities would increase and spending in many local centres would fall.

The accident rates for the older driver are low as is the average severity of the accidents in which they are involved.

The odd serious accident is a tragedy but pretty rare and laws made in haste usually suffer from the 'law of unintended consequences'.

Nobody seems to have mentioned much about the impact on Golf Clubs if significant numbers of senior members are prevented from driving.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone has suggested taking away the right to drive - more asking people to show they are still capable of driving safely


----------



## hovis (Nov 11, 2015)

Out of all the car crashes i have attended the elderly are overwhelmingly the biggest offenders.


----------



## delc (Nov 11, 2015)

I believe that over 70 drivers are generally far safer drivers than recently qualified teenagers, so why not make them take a retest a year after qualifying?  As a private pilot, I have to take a skills test every couple of years, regardless of age, so retesting drivers every few years is not such a bad idea, but I suspect it would cost too much money.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

delc said:



*I believe that over 70 drivers are generally far safer drivers than recently qualified teenagers,* so why not make them take a retest a year after qualifying?  As a private pilot, I have to take a skills test every couple of years, regardless of age, so retesting drivers every few years is not such a bad idea, but I suspect it would cost too much money.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to provide a basis for that ?


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you have anything to provide a basis for that ?
		
Click to expand...

The price of my insurance at 69 is a fraction of what a teenager would pay. So the insurance companies must think kids are a greater risk.


----------



## delc (Nov 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you have anything to provide a basis for that ?
		
Click to expand...

Government statistics and insurance claim rates.  Older drivers do not generally try to show off to their mates, and have years of driving experience on their side.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

williamalex1 said:



			The price of my insurance at 69 is a fraction of what a teenager would pay. So the insurance companies must think kids are a greater risk.
		
Click to expand...

I would suggest they are both a high risk - one group are immature drivers and capable of mistakes due to arrogance and lack of expirence on the road and the other group due to reduced reactions , eyesight , concentration levels - all things that decrease through the years. 

Both IMO risks on the road - as opposed to one being "far safer"


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

delc said:



			Government statistics and insurance claim rates.  Older drivers do not generally try to show off to their mates, and have years of driving experience on their side.
		
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the government statistics please :thup:


----------



## delc (Nov 11, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Slow play would be eradicated??

Click to expand...

Unlikely, as some of the slowest players I know are quite young!


----------



## ger147 (Nov 11, 2015)

An interesting read...

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/downloads/IAMOlderdrivers.pdf


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I would suggest they are both a high risk -
		
Click to expand...

 Do you have any statistics to back up that both are "high" risks, implying fairly equal levels of risk?


----------



## delc (Nov 11, 2015)

ger147 said:



			An interesting read...

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/downloads/IAMOlderdrivers.pdf

Click to expand...

I hope Liverpoolphil will read this!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

ger147 said:



			An interesting read...

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/downloads/IAMOlderdrivers.pdf

Click to expand...

Cheers :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Do you have any statistics to back up that both are "high" risks, implying fairly equal levels of risk?
		
Click to expand...

Implying ? 

Nope just think they are both high risks on the road and no don't have stats.


----------



## Fish (Nov 11, 2015)

drdel said:



			I don't know if anyone has noticed but if, as the underlying message suggests, *you take the right to drive from those over 70 there will be a significant impact on spending as retirees have both the money and time and are an increasing proportion of the population.*

There are numerous studies quoting how the 70 years olds of tomorrow will enjoy the health benefits of the 50 year olds.  The NHS would incur more ambulance costs ferrying people to visits.  The bus costs for local authorities would increase and spending in many local centres would fall.

The accident rates for the older driver are low as is the average severity of the accidents in which they are involved.

The odd serious accident is a tragedy but pretty rare and laws made in haste usually suffer from the 'law of unintended consequences'.

Nobody seems to have mentioned much about the impact on Golf Clubs if significant numbers of senior members are prevented from driving.
		
Click to expand...

They can afford a taxi then or get on the half empty buses that go to & from the city centres everyday if they "have the money & time", or they can use the Ring & Ride services which can pick them up from their homes and take them almost anywhere, so, I disagree that we would isolate the elderly and especially those that can afford to run a vehicle as there are many services they can use for free or at a fraction of the cost of running their own car!

Its not picking on the elderly, it's a method of ensuring that those on the road are capable of driving and more so understanding how much things have changed on our roads over the years, so that for me goes for everyone, do away with road tax or dilute it significantly and test everyone every 5 years, hows that for radical thinking :smirk:


----------



## dewsweeper (Nov 11, 2015)

delc said:



			I hope Liverpoolphil will read this!
		
Click to expand...

Doubt it delc, he probably wrote it!

Dewsweeper


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

delc said:



			I hope Liverpoolphil will read this!
		
Click to expand...

Yep I'll read it 

Do you have the government stats you mentioned ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

dewsweeper said:



			Doubt it delc, he probably wrote it!

Dewsweeper
		
Click to expand...

Bit snidey don't you think ?


----------



## delc (Nov 11, 2015)

dewsweeper said:



			Doubt it delc, he probably wrote it!

Dewsweeper
		
Click to expand...

No, it written by the Institute of Advanced Motorists, and it does include the stats he asked for.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Implying ? 

Nope just think they are both high risks on the road and no don't have stats.
		
Click to expand...

So why is it ok for you to base an opinion without stats, but if DelC professes an opinion, you leap straight on demanding them?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			So why is it ok for you to base an opinion without stats, but if DelC professes an opinion, you leap straight on demanding them?
		
Click to expand...

I just asked if he had the stats that's all ? Didn't say it wasn't ok to do anything ?


----------



## delc (Nov 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			So why is it ok for you to base an opinion without stats, but if DelC professes an opinion, you leap straight on demanding them?
		
Click to expand...

Because he is Liverpoolphil!


----------



## RGDave (Nov 11, 2015)

I think everybody should have a driving check-up now and again. 
3/4 hour with an instructor (or suitably qualified person).
Too many minors or majors (or whatever they're called) and you should have to go back in a set period of time. 3 strikes and you have to completely re-sit the proper test. 
Yes. Older folk should be retested. So should people like me....
Funny how people complain about the 'cost' of such a scheme. We all pay a fortune to buy, run (fuel and fix) and insure cars. A test of some sort 3 or 4 times in a lifetime would hardly stop 99% of people doing it and proving they are safe. They might even get a discount on insurance.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

delc said:



			Because he is Liverpoolphil!
		
Click to expand...

Let's not get snidey Delc - I just asked you a question that's all.


----------



## dewsweeper (Nov 11, 2015)

Now, now children.
Dewsweeper


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 11, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I just asked if he had the stats that's all ? Didn't say it wasn't ok to do anything ?
		
Click to expand...

I get that, but when other people offer an opinion, you seem to demand statistics or support for it. This is a common theme. When you have an opinion, you are happy for this to be unsupported, as it's "just an opinion". At the end of the day isn't doesn't bother me much, i just thought i would point it out to you, in the hope you may see the light


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I get that, but when other people offer an opinion, you seem to demand statistics or support for it. This is a common theme. When you have an opinion, you are happy for this to be unsupported, as it's "just an opinion". At the end of the day isn't doesn't bother me much, i just thought i would point it out to you, in the hope you may see the light 

Click to expand...

People are more than happy to ask me for any evidence that I use to back up my opinion - if it's stats then I'll post that - I'm happy either way. But it does appear to bother you so next time you would like to know where I base my opinion then just ask - that way you won't have to worry 

A few statements were posted on the thread and it appeared Delc was posting from a level of authority so wondered if he had some stats that I could see because so far no one had posted anything - thankfully Ger posted the report for me to read. :thup:


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 11, 2015)

You still driving with your headphones in Phillip? 

Just Bants :thup::thup:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 11, 2015)

At approaching 70 my fully comp insurance is less than Â£200.
A neighbours teenage son pays Â£1200 for 3rd party.

Has anyone any idea why there is such a difference in price?

BTW I would love to see the 30 years old's opinions to this thread in 40 years time.:lol:


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			BTW I would love to see the 30 years old's opinions to this thread in 40 years time.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

How about if I think everyone is too dangerous to drive? I cannot wait for automated cars - the sooner people aren't trusted behind the wheel of a speeding metal box, the better for everyone.


----------



## hovis (Nov 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I get that, but when other people offer an opinion, you seem to demand statistics or support for it. This is a common theme. When you have an opinion, you are happy for this to be unsupported, as it's "just an opinion". At the end of the day isn't doesn't bother me much, i just thought i would point it out to you, in the hope you may see the light 

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head there


----------



## Imurg (Nov 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			How about if I think everyone is too dangerous to drive? I cannot wait for automated cars - the sooner people aren't trusted behind the wheel of a speeding metal box, the better for everyone.
		
Click to expand...

Cheers Mate - I'll be one of the great unwashed unemployed then....


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			At approaching 70 my fully comp insurance is less than Â£200.
A neighbours teenage son pays Â£1200 for 3rd party.

Has anyone any idea why there is such a difference in price?

BTW I would love to see the 30 years old's opinions to this thread in 40 years time.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Good point well put. ðŸ‘ðŸ˜„


----------



## hovis (Nov 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			At approaching 70 my fully comp insurance is less than Â£200.
A neighbours teenage son pays Â£1200 for 3rd party.

Has anyone any idea why there is such a difference in price?

BTW I would love to see the 30 years old's opinions to this thread in 40 years time.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

According to what the chap at Staffordshire safety road partnership said.  Young people's premiums are higher because they are statistically more likely to cause damage to another vehicle than an old person.   However guess what age-group have the highest rate of single vehicle accidents?

In 9 years of being in the fire service i have attended 2 fatalities from drivers below the age of 20.  i have lost count of how many fatals I've had with 60 +  

Only last week did we have a old chap that had a stroke behind the wheel, accelerator was then put to the floor and into a tree he went. The outcome was not good


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 11, 2015)

Tiger man said:



			No way there should be a re test every 10 years. Motoring costs enough without this and the impact it could have on people's jobs etc is not practical.
		
Click to expand...

The costs in relation to the costs of a lifetime's motoring, the impact on peoples lives in not addressing the lack of ability or consideration in all ages is incalculable. 



hovis said:



			Out of all the car crashes i have attended the elderly are overwhelmingly the biggest offenders.
		
Click to expand...

Out of all the fatals & SPI's I attended, the young were statistically over-represented, the elderly statistically under-represented.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Nov 11, 2015)

hovis said:



			According to what the chap at Staffordshire safety road partnership said.  Young people's premiums are higher because they are statistically more likely to cause damage to another vehicle than an old person.   However guess what age-group have the highest rate of single vehicle accidents?

*In 9 years of being in the fire service i have attended 2 fatalities from drivers below the age of 20.  i have lost count of how many fatals I've had with 60 +  
*
Only last week did we have a old chap that had a stroke behind the wheel, accelerator was then put to the floor and into a tree he went. The outcome was not good
		
Click to expand...


Have you considered that it may be because there are many more drivers over 60 than there are under 20.


----------



## hovis (Nov 11, 2015)

doublebogey7 said:



			Have you considered that it may be because there are many more drivers over 60 than there are under 20.
		
Click to expand...

Are there?  I wouldn't know.   I would have thought it was even.  No idea


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 11, 2015)

As an older driver i now only clock up about 6000 miles a year. The good lady clocks slightly more , due to the numerous attempts at parking a car thats too big for her IMO . 
As you can guess she's not on the GM Forum, Phew !.


----------



## delc (Nov 11, 2015)

I hit the big 7 - 0 next year and don't fancy losing my mobility by car.  The alternative bus service is pretty poor round here, and getting my golf clubs, trolley and other golfing bits and pieces on them would be pretty awkward.  For the record I still hold a private pilot's licence with a Class 2 medical (one down from a Airline Transport Pilots one), which involves a very thorough medical examination, including eyesight and hearing tests and an ECG. The only restriction on me is that I wear correcting lenses and carry a spare pair of specs with me.  I can still manage 27 holes of Golf in a day, carrying my clubs if necessary, so I am quite fit.  I am sure there are a few elderly drivers out there who shouldn't be on the roads due to medical problems, but these are probably a very small minority of them.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 11, 2015)

hovis said:



			In 9 years of being in the fire service i have attended 2 fatalities from drivers below the age of 20.  i have lost count of how many fatals I've had with 60 +
		
Click to expand...




Blue in Munich said:



			Out of all the fatals & SPI's I attended, the young were statistically over-represented, the elderly statistically under-represented.
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea of what the statistics actually are but interesting to see such opposing views from two people that (I'm assuming) both work in jobs that involved attending road accidents.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 11, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I have no idea of what the statistics actually are but interesting to see such opposing views from two people that (I'm assuming) both work in jobs that involved attending road accidents.
		
Click to expand...

You assume correctly on my part, I believe correct on hovis's part as well.

From this report; www.parliament.*uk/briefing-papers/sn02198.pdf*

Of the 6,029 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2012: 8% were aged 17 to 19; 25% were aged 20 to 29; 42% were aged 30 to 59; 9% were aged 60 to 69; and 13% were over 70. Although the legal minimum age for car drivers is seventeen, 5 young people aged under 17 were killed or seriously injured â€˜behind the wheelâ€™ during 2012

From Brake, the road safety charity; http://www.brake.org.uk/safedrivingreports/15-facts-a-resources/facts/488-young-drivers-the-hard-facts

Young drivers (17-24 years old) are at a much higher risk of crashing than older drivers. Drivers aged 17-19 only make up 1.5% of UK licence holders, but are involved in 12% of fatal and serious crashes [1].

I don't remember knocking on many doors to tell people that an elderly member of the family wasn't coming home again, I remember more than my fair share of youngsters.

I'm not saying hovis is wrong, it's his personal experience, but it may come down to nothing more than "luck of the shift"; his counterpart on another watch may have only been to RTA's involving young drivers.  Our department worked closely with the Accident Investigation Units and their experience tended to be similar to mine.

One thing I do find interesting is Brake's suggestion for staged licences for young drivers. It's current applied to motorcyclists but not car drivers.  Marc Marquez at age 22 has been World MotoGP champion twice, yet is too young according to our driving regulations to take a direct access test to ride a similar class of motorcycle on our roads to the one on which he won his two world championships, yet any 17 year old can drive any car unsupervised after passing a test.  

Personally I think there are plenty of other places to look first to improve road safety before we demonise drivers purely on grounds of age.


----------



## dewsweeper (Nov 12, 2015)

hovis;14in 1858 said:
			
		


			According to what the chap at Staffordshire safety road partnership said.  Young people's premiums are higher because they are statistically more likely to cause damage to another vehicle than an old person.   However guess what age-group have the highest rate of single vehicle accidents?

In 9 years of being in the fire service i have attended 2 fatalities from drivers below the age of 20.  i have lost count of how many fatals I've had with 60 +  

Only last week did we have a old chap that had a stroke behind the wheel, accelerator was then put to the floor and into a tree he went. The outcome was not good
		
Click to expand...

Hovis I find this an amazing statistic.
I did 31 years as fireman, 14 yearsin LFB and then17 in CheshireFB.
My experience  was at odds with yours.
I have been retired since 1994 and that maybe the difference but I feel sure ,in fact know that RTA's in London were less likely to be fatal than in Cheshire (M56, M6) due tothe usually higher speeds 
Dewsweeper


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 12, 2015)

Two rta incidents which I have a personal involvement with.

1, I found a guy in his early 70's dead in a car on the A1, he had come off and hit a tree. I had to go to the coroners inquest and give evidence. verdict, accidental death of which alcohol was a contributing factor. He was just over the limit because his son had died two? Years earlier to the day in similar circumstances.
2, estranged daughters partner who is 22 ish was driving a car. Not his, no tax , insurance, Not passed his test. He hit another car and did a runner leaving his pal who had broke his arm. he handed himself in two days later. Three days after that the woman In The other car he hit died.

my point is, there are drivers at both ends of the age scale who are excellent drivers and there are people that should never drive again irrespective of age.


----------



## hovis (Nov 12, 2015)

Perhaps its just an isolated area.  Perhaps its also no coincidence that Staffordshire collect more revenue from speed cameras than all but one county.  Perhaps the young uns leave the county and crash elsewhere.    It is a possibility that this is the reason.   I know that Tamworth has a massive boy racer gang /group. But the Tamworth police are very good at deterring them from racing in the area.   they probably crash elsewhere


----------



## Smiffy (Nov 13, 2015)

delc said:



			Because he is Liverpoolphil!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2015)

The local tv news headline story yesterday was a family house in the town I live that was wrecked when a car careered up the garden and smashed through the living room narrowly missing the house owner and very lucky that his pregnant gf had just gone to bed as the car wrecked the sofa she had just vacated. 

The occupants did a runner but police later arrested and bailed an 18 year old !


----------



## Oddsocks (Nov 13, 2015)

Re the OP.  To me yes without a doubt although I would make it 65 for men and 60 for women.  My grandad drove all his life including in the war and bless Helios soul but he was a danger to other road users and a complete liability!


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2015)

Oddsocks said:



			Re the OP.  To me yes without a doubt although I would make it 65 for men and 60 for women.  My grandad drove all his life including in the war and bless Helios soul but he was a danger to other road users and a complete liability!
		
Click to expand...

The trouble is though, there are drivers of both sexes and ALL age groups that fall into the group of absolute ***** on the road.  It certainly doesn't apply exclusively to 65+year olds and no reason that at 65 you should be obliged to take a test more than an 18 year old boy racer or a woman in a 4x4 who can't see over the bonnet and doesn't give way to anyone or anything.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

Two drivers at our place have both had their licenses removed due to causing accidents and investigations found they were both unfit to drive - one due to sight and the other it seems due to the onset of Alzhimers. One is 72 and the other is 71. Both if retested at the age of 70 would have been unable to pass a fit to drive test


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Two drivers at our place have both had their licenses removed due to causing accidents and investigations found they were both unfit to drive - one due to sight and the other it seems due to the onset of Alzhimers. One is 72 and the other is 71. Both if retested at the age of 70 would have been unable to pass a fit to drive test
		
Click to expand...

I also see 18 year olds, middle age people, women etc etc who wouldn't pass a fit to drive test if they drive on a test like they do normally. There becomes a point where every driver shouldn't be driving any more but it isn't exclusive to 70+ year olds, of which, there are many competent drivers.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I also see 18 year olds, middle age people, women etc etc who wouldn't pass a fit to drive test if they drive on a test like they do normally. There becomes a point where every driver shouldn't be driving any more but it isn't exclusive to 70+ year olds, of which, there are many competent drivers.
		
Click to expand...

It's not exclusive and ideally the best would be to have a quick fit to drive test every ten years - but at the moment there is a driving test early in life then because one every ten years isn't workable, one later in life when people's reactions and eyesight etc do start to drop naturally would be a start.

If someone is fit to drive still then there is no issue

But if they are found to be a danger then you do at least start to reduce the risks on the road


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 13, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I also see 18 year olds, middle age people, women etc etc who wouldn't pass a fit to drive test if they drive on a test like they do normally. There becomes a point where every driver shouldn't be driving any more but it isn't exclusive to 70+ year olds, of which, there are many competent drivers.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that there are drivers of every age, sex creed and colour that are bad drivers.  But the fact is that they have (mostly) passed their test and according to the law are able to drive. In the vast majority of cases their poor level of driving is not caused by their physical condition.  However with the over 70s statistically the physical attributes you need to be able to drive safely will start to diminish. 

So if there is an opportunity to remove drivers from the road that physically can not drive safely then why should we not do it?  Very few drivers will voluntarily do it and I bet every one on here has a story of an elderly relative who insisted on driving but was a liability to themselves and other road users.

Yes we should be doing more to tackle bad drivers of all ages and stop being obsessed by fining speeders to just mostly raise revenue. As we are getting to the stage where someone doing 80 on motorway in the middle of the night is demonised and much more likely to be fined more that some pensioner who has poor eye sight and the reaction times of a sloth. But that does not mean we should not tackle drivers who do not have the required level of sight, hearing or reactions to safely drive. And statistically that will be the elderly.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2015)

So basically, we take the 70 year old off the road who isn't fit to drive but we leave the 18 year old on the road although he's just as much a menace?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 13, 2015)

62 year old recently caught doing 122mph on the A96......hope his reaction time was good.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

chrisd said:



			So basically, we take the 70 year old off the road who isn't fit to drive but we leave the 18 year old on the road although he's just as much a menace?
		
Click to expand...

If the 18 year old is a menace ( whatever you mean by that ) and he causes an accident then yes he would get taken off the road 

And you take off the 70plus year old who isn't "physically fit enough" to be able to drive anymore

Yes it's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If the 18 year old is a menace ( whatever you mean by that ) and he causes an accident then yes he would get taken off the road 

And you take off the 70plus year old who isn't "physically fit enough" to be able to drive anymore

Yes it's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction
		
Click to expand...

and the 35 year obese guy who won't wear glasses and smokes pot?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

chrisd said:



			and the 35 year obese guy who won't wear glasses and smokes pot?
		
Click to expand...

Chris we could sit here all day and go through every single scenario known to man the answer will still be the same 

A driving test at both ends of the age spectrum is one step forward - it's not perfect or ideal and it won't catch all the bad drivers just as speed cameras and drink driving tests don't catch all the speeders or drunks 

But naturally through age your reactions and eyesight does drop and a compulsory quick fit to drive test would be a step forward


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Chris we could sit here all day and go through every single scenario known to man the answer will still be the same 

A driving test at both ends of the age spectrum is one steTttp forward - it's not perfect or ideal and it won't catch all the bad drivers just as speed cameras and drink driving tests don't catch all the speeders or drunks 

But naturally through age your reactions and eyesight does drop and a compulsory quick fit to drive test would be a step forward
		
Click to expand...

I can assure you Phil, when you get to my age (63 soon) and its suggested that you have a test at 65 you'll be the first to complain that you're as good, if not better, driver than you were at 20. I do agree that there are menaces on the road and a 10 year short driving test would be a good idea


----------



## bobmac (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			a compulsory quick fit to drive test would be a step forward
		
Click to expand...

Who would carry out these tests?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I can assure you Phil, when you get to my age (63 soon) and its suggested that you have a test at 65 you'll be the first to complain that you're as good, if not better, driver than you were at 20. I do agree that there are menaces on the road and a 10 year short driving test would be a good idea
		
Click to expand...

But if you are fit to drive then what's the problem with doing a quick fit to drive test ? 

It wouldn't bother me if at 70 I was asked to do a medical and a fit to drive test


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Who would carry out these tests?
		
Click to expand...

Driving examiners possibly ?


----------



## bobmac (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Driving examiners possibly ?
		
Click to expand...

''There are currently an estimated 10.37 million people in Britain over the age of 65' 


They are going to need some more then.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 13, 2015)

The price of insurance premiums for young and old isn't derived from a finger in the air method. Let's be honest, insurance companies wouldn't structure their business to not take the money/mitigate the risk in the wrong area. For me, its that simple. 

Yes there's some anecdotal, headline breaking news that there's the odd horrific accident involving an oldie. How many horrific accidents involving youngsters are there?

And as an anecdotal comment from the police sgt that visited me in hospital, post failed pedestrian incident, said youngsters lack experience. They get themselves into a position through lack of forethought and experience. Someone who has been driving for 40-50 years doesn't tend to lack experience.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But if you are fit to drive then what's the problem with doing a quick fit to drive test ? 

It wouldn't bother me if at 70 I was asked to do a medical and a fit to drive test
		
Click to expand...

My only gripe is that I think singling out people on age is wrong, there are many drivers who are just as dangerous on the road as, say, a 65 year old may be. 10 year tests of competency would be fine for me because you Phil could be a much more dangerous driver than me!



Liverpoolphil said:



			Driving examiners possibly ?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, say 30 minutes of normal driving and proof of eyesight would be OK


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

bobmac said:



			''There are currently an estimated 10.37 million people in Britain over the age of 65' 


They are going to need some more then.
		
Click to expand...

Thankfully I'm suggesting over 70 :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

chrisd said:



			My only gripe is that I think singling out people on age is wrong, there are many drivers who are just as dangerous on the road as, say, a 65 year old may be. 10 year tests of competency would be fine for me because you Phil could be a much more dangerous driver than me!



Absolutely, say 30 minutes of normal driving and proof of eyesight would be OK
		
Click to expand...

10 year tests just isn't workable - yes would be ideal 

People reaching the ages of 70 and above will naturally have slower reactions and eyesight issues and possibly illnesses etc 

As in said - it's just a possibly first step to looking at possibly making the roads a tiny bit safer 

I also think new drivers should have a fit to drive test a year after the pass


----------



## ger147 (Nov 13, 2015)

Why are 10 year tests not workable?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Why are 10 year tests not workable?
		
Click to expand...

Because the idea would get thrown out 

Cost , time , administration etc


----------



## ger147 (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Because the idea would get thrown out 

Cost , time , administration etc
		
Click to expand...

Thrown out by who?

And those issues are the exact same ones you would encounter by starting to test 70's and over so I fail to see how one is a good idea and the other is unworkable.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Thankfully I'm suggesting over 70 :thup:
		
Click to expand...

That's different, brings it down to a measly 7.1m


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Thrown out by who?

And those issues are the exact same ones you would encounter by starting to test 70's and over so I fail to see how one is a good idea and the other is unworkable.
		
Click to expand...

Because the frequency will be far less with one retest later in life as opposed to 5 for example


----------



## ger147 (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Because the frequency will be far less with one retest later in life as opposed to 5 for example
		
Click to expand...

You didn't say who would throw it out?

And we'll have to disagree as intorducing more than 1 test would cause all the issues you outlined no matter when it is carried out, and I personally think if it's about removing unsafe drivers from the road it seems odd to start targetting the safest drivers on the road first.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 13, 2015)

ger147 said:



			You didn't say who would throw it out?

And we'll have to disagree as intorducing more than 1 test would cause all the issues you outlined no matter when it is carried out, and I personally think if it's about removing unsafe drivers from the road it seems odd to start targetting the safest drivers on the road first.
		
Click to expand...

Government I believe would throw it out 

And having 1 more test at any age is more workable that have 5 tests at ten year gaps


----------



## ger147 (Nov 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Government I believe would throw it out 

And having 1 more test at any age is more workable that have 5 tests at ten year gaps
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they would throw it out.

And both would cause issues as the current system isn't set up to deal with either at the moment, and both could be workable if that is what is wanted.

As I said above, we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 13, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I agree that there are drivers of every age, sex creed and colour that are bad drivers.  But the fact is that they have (mostly) passed their test and according to the law are able to drive. In the vast majority of cases their poor level of driving is not caused by their physical condition.  However with the over 70s statistically the physical attributes you need to be able to drive safely will start to diminish. 

So if there is an opportunity to remove drivers from the road that physically can not drive safely then why should we not do it?  Very few drivers will voluntarily do it and I bet every one on here has a story of an elderly relative who insisted on driving but was a liability to themselves and other road users.

Yes we should be doing more to tackle bad drivers of all ages and stop being obsessed by fining speeders to just mostly raise revenue. As we are getting to the stage where someone doing 80 on motorway in the middle of the night is demonised and much more likely to be fined more that some pensioner who has poor eye sight and the reaction times of a sloth. But that does not mean we should not tackle drivers who do not have the required level of sight, hearing or reactions to safely drive. And statistically that will be the elderly.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent post hacker, when the pit shut a lot of lads went back to previous employment and in mutt mutts case (he was mutton deaf) he went back to being a class one driver driving 40 tonners &#128563;.
 In essence what I am trying to say is that hearing would not be a safety requirement to be considered when driving, Seeing as most elderly have natural hearing loss.


----------

