Should drivers over 70 be retested

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?

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

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 :)
 
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 :)

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:
 
At approaching 70 my fully comp insurance is less than £200.
A neighbours teenage son pays £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:
 
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 :)

You hit the nail on the head there
 
At approaching 70 my fully comp insurance is less than £200.
A neighbours teenage son pays £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:

Good point well put. 👍😄
 
At approaching 70 my fully comp insurance is less than £200.
A neighbours teenage son pays £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:

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
 
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.

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.

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

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


Have you considered that it may be because there are many more drivers over 60 than there are under 20.
 
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 :D.
As you can guess she's not on the GM Forum, Phew !.
 
Top