Denial of Freedom: More Tests for Drivers over 70?

aliasojo

peterbaker wrote:

.........That is why older drivers might intuitively know how recognise and to drive on many different road surfaces and conditions when many younger drivers brains fly headlong into doubtful conditions and then just give up the moment they start to skid and slide because they often know little worse than wide tarmac dual carriageways and fully functioning ABS.

Peter, we've found something to agree on. (Mind you, this is the only bit I agree with you ) I do think in this particular situation the older driver will very likely be more knowledgeable and careful.

However, I believe the younger (note I did not say young, only younger) driver will always outperform in a situation where fast reactions are required.

peterbaker wrote:

I think talk of weapons and potential killing machines is a bit irrelevant to the discussion. Are we saying that younger people can be trusted with such things but senior (and generally wiser) citizens cannot? If so, why?

With complete respect Peter, I believe your arguments are too simplistic. I don't expect you to agree with me but I find it difficult to understand why you feel the point above is irrelevant? I also made it perfectly clear which groups of people I was referring to.

'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.'


Btw, in my haste to quote your post above, I accidentally clicked the 'thanks' button instead.

aliasojo

peterbaker wrote:

Driving is not a skill that requires a test or retest to create fluency. It is a skill that becomes better with practice and the use of a wise head.

Technically you could be right.

Surely though retesting for the elderly is not about the putting their driving skills as such under the spotlight? It's more about a person's fitness and ability to drive safely?

An older driver may well have slower reactions than he did at age 30, perhaps less confidence in fast flowing traffic etc, possible failing eyesight etc. Is it not this type of thing that will be tested?

I honestly don't see the problem, if an person is tested and found to still be able, then they continue to drive. If they are found to be not as safe, then surely it's a good thing they would be off the road?

dougk_2

Just a few points Peter Baker,

Speed does NOT Kill - excess speed compared to road condition kills.
(otherwise we would have no racing drivers, becuase they would all be dead)

The older we get the more our reactions slow (hence why F1 drivers are of a young age).

Driving slow can be more dangerous than driving fast - maybe not to you but others. You may have less accidents but cause more.

Just because you have "served the country" does not give you exemptions from the law and health and safety of others. Respect for what you have done is different and there is no argument on that.

Rural transport is a different issue and perhaps the money raised from the "tests" could be put towards providing a better service.

dougk_2

Do you think it is wrong to have to take a medical to fly then?
If not , what is the problem with doing the same for a car?
The potential of an accident in a car is the same as that of an accident in a plane.

I was not suggesting that we all drive at F1 speeds or pretend to be race drivers , but just trying to point out that speed is not the only cause or accidents and deaths.

I am not aware of any studies but would expect that if analysed properly slow speeds cause more accidents than excess speeds (when you take into account accidents involving vehicles overtaking slower vehicles - i.e. lorrys, over cautious drivers etc).

Dave_G_5

I'm just new to these forum's, but I am quite suprised at what I've just read.

Peter, are you upset at the fact that this has been aimed at the over 70's instead of everyone or do you really think that once you have learn't to drive, that should be it?

I agree that their should be some sort of testing brought in, but for drivers of all ages. Like others have said a test every 5 or 10 years or so should improve the driving standards of everyone, we all pick up bad habits over time!!

Like others I have witnessed bad driving of young and old. I was once behind an elderly driver who saw a painted white arrow on the road for turning right into a junction, except he saw the arrow and decided that it meant that he had to drive on the right side of the road, which he did (luckily nothing was coming the other way) he then continued until he came to a roundabout, and then went around it the wrong way, only stopping when he noticed a bus coming towards him!! I was in disbelief by this stage. Luckily no one was hurt and he carried on.

My Granda has recently decided to give up driving and I'm pleased he has, because it means he will probably be around a bit longer!! He was having problems with his blood pressure which was causing him to get confused at times, but he scared my younger brother when he suddenly drove on the wrong side of the road!!

I'm not saying youger drivers are perfect, hence why I said we should all be retested regularly. No one wants to take away anyones freedom, but we would all like to be safe.

jaimeo

when you get to a certain age, reaction time increases. Thus a re-test for the license to perform tasks that rely on reaction speed is not unreasonable.

peter you should be banned from driving. for pete's sake you cant drive properly (or at least choose not to) and you have all your faculties still!

btw- enough about pilots!

jaimeo

I'm not convinced they want to ban more old people so as to free-up road space.

of course, the % of people passing their driving test in the first place is falling, so maybe you are right.

It does sound like you are a poor driver. "I really don't know what else I could have done to avoid the accident except take a better look round before I got into my car"

classic.

dougk_2

Peter,

If you retook your test today do you think you would pass?

How long ago was it when you took your last (or first) test?

andy88_2

I'd just stick with medical fitness issues instead of subjective remarks about ability, which after all also applies to all ages.

As a pilot, Peter is well aware that medical certification requirements are more stringent in aviation. I don't think he objected too much to my suggestion about a GP declaration for drivers; after all he said he would take advice there himself. The only problem would be the GP's fee of say £20; perhaps the government could persuade doctors that the fees be waived (I mean waived, not billed to public funds)

dougk_2

Ability and Medical fitness are too closely linked to divide the two.

The ability to try is often determined by medical fitness , but medical fitness is often found to be a problem after the ability to drive has been noted (i.e. after an accident).

Perhaps it should be a requirement that everyone has to have a medical every couple of years regardless. As to payment we have no "Given right" to be able to drive so it is only fair we pay if we want to do so. A sensible solution would be for driving licences to be combined with the ID card being proposed and to renew it you need current photos and a medical?