Denial of Freedom: More Tests for Drivers over 70?

nearlyrich

aliasojo wrote:

I think that ANY group of people whose driving skills come under question (elderly, very young, people who drink and drive etc) should all have to prove their roadworthiness.

Edited to add: I also think that people who drink drive should be banned for life immediately, with no second chance!

You can all shoot me if you like, but how hard is it.......oh I'm driving today, so I wont drink, at all, end of! Simple!

I absolutely agree with zero tolerance on drink driving, and on people driving under the influence of drugs. I would make it a ban for life too but there are lots of people driving around with no licence and they seem to get away with it.

andy88_2

peterbaker wrote:

, but there is no way I would give up driving until I was persuaded by my own gut feeling, my trusted GP, my family and my friends.

I rather suspect you'd listen as well to them as to people here

tonys_3

Peter, I am not altogether surprised by the responses to your original posting.After
all,it is only mirroring what already happens with cars viz the MOT test.Undoubtedly,
there are many excellent aged drivers on our roads.But are you seriously suggesting that those whose faculties or abilities have deteriorated to below a certain standard should be allowed to carry on driving just because they live in the country?

On the other hand,had you complained about young drivers travelling too fast,you would perhaps have received a greater number of replies than for your actual posting.
After all,it is no accident [no pun intended]that insurance companies place much higher premiums on young drivers.

andy88_2

My driving licence expires the day before my 70th birthday. This has been true since 1978 when it was issued.

I imagine everybody's is similar. At that time the renewal will be subject to certain conditions. Currently that is a self-certification of fitness to drive, including eyesight.

Clearly some people are not aware of, or stubbornly refuse to accept, their unfitness. In random testing about 30% fail an eye-test, therefore many of those declarations are incorrect.

I have no objection to anybody proposing that the certification should be done by the licence holder's GP, as is required in other fields. Without having seen the programme Peter objects to, I slightly wonder if the IAM made such a modest proposal, and we are seeing an over-reaction.

aliasojo

peterbaker wrote:

That is your view, but because I see driving motor cars as a right of freedom much like the US consitution recognises the right to bear arms and the right to fly your private Cessna up and down the Hudson River next to the WTC (or did).

Peter, we will obviously have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think perhaps our difference in opinion stems from our views on what a car actually represents. I hope I'm not putting words into your mouth, (and I apologise in advance if I am), but it seems to me that you see a car as simply a vehicle to convey people from A-B, and and should be treated as a basic purposeful utility, especially in the case of an elderly driver.

I see a car as being a weapon with the potential to cause harm to people other than only the car driver. I realise that there are many other things in life that could fall under this heading, but this discussion is not about which is worse, weapon A or weapon B, it is about purely driving.

I don't think anyone has the right to do anything if their actions run a higher than average risk of affecting others, in a harmful way.

Used carefully and properly, this 'weapon' aspect will lie dormant and the basic function of the car, i.e to transport will be uppermost. However, there's a very fine line between the two and within seconds a car can cause untold damage.

The groups of people who are most at risk of crossing this fine line are, as I mentioned in my above post, the elderly, drink drivers, young etc.

Surely we should do ALL that is necessary to ensure (as much as we can) that the roads are as safe as possible?

Nile

Hello Peterbaker


Not everyone will have personal experience of dangerous elderly drivers but I've just posted in The Arms about my FIL. I was prompted by Edinburghlass to look here.

I strongly agree with the proposals to improve the testing of elderly drivers. I believe that they should be tested annually for driving/eyesight/reaction times and their license should be taken off them if they fail.

It's a miracle my FIL didn't injure or kill someone but he still wants to drive after his third accident.:mad: :mad:

Sterling_827

Nile wrote:

Hello Peterbaker



I strongly agree with the proposals to improve the testing of elderly drivers. I believe that they should be tested annually for driving/eyesight/reaction times and their license should be taken off them if they fail.

Personally, I feel that starting with drivers aged 70 and over is as good a start as any, but the idea should be extended to include all drivers of whatever age, possibly on a five yearly basis. As it stands at the moment when you take a driving test you must prove your competance both to drive and to read a number plate, something you may well never have to do again. Clearly a crazy idea given that you are in charge of a potential killing machine.

Edinburghlass_2

You seem to be forgetting a basic point regarding older drivers in that when they first passed their test and started driving there was very much less traffic on the roads than they are having to cope now they are older.

andy88_2

peterbaker wrote:

We can all quote anecdotes of senior citizens making mistakes, but you don't see reports that the Police or Ambulance service or anyone at the sharp end of motoring damage reckon that senior citizens are an out and out problem.

andy88 wrote:

Eye tests would be a good start; apparently about 30% couldn't see properly in random tests near here a few years ago.

Hampshire Police quoted on BBC's South Today programme after extensive tests in the area

peterbaker wrote:

I just don't see it (pardon the pun!)

I won't forgive the pun as I did see it. Either you are misled or the Police are.

andy88_2

... and I did know someone who carried on driving for some time while suffering multiple vision when terminally ill. Fortunately, on the occasion of travelling along the A34 at 170-190mph he was a passenger