Should drivers over 70 be retested

[delc]

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]

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 +

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

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]

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.

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 ‘behind the wheel’ 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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Because he is Liverpoolphil!

 

[chrisd]

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]

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]

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!

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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?

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]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

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]

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

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