OAPs and the driving test

04-09-16 05:49

This is suggested at regular intervals.

I haven't seen statistics to support your assertion - can you point us to the source?

BTW the test was introduced in 1933. Any remaining drivers who did not have to take a test will be at least 100 years old.

04-09-16 07:22

Yet another bite at the now mouldy cherry. I took my test in 1953, passing first time. The test was nowhere near as 'thorough' as the present test. So, why do I see much younger drivers showing blatant bad driving instead of me feeling that they were teaching me something to learn from?
I still tow a caravan and take it to France every year, and from my pass date it isn't difficult to approximate my age. The suggested 5-year retest is a ridiculously uneconomic idea, and statistics indicate that the roads would be no safer because the vast majority of accidents involve much younger drivers. If there was any credence in the question, motor insurers would already be campaigning for such retests.
I would concede that there are some elderly drivers who probably could do with a retest, but they are a minority to the number of younger drivers who daily display their intention to NOT drive correctly, and with total disregard to the law.

04-09-16 08:27

Giving a little more thought to this, what about the law being changed as follows?
On conviction for the more serious traffic offences, a driving licence could be suspended until the offender had retested satisfactorily.
In the event of RTCs, the driver(s) found to be at blame could have their licence(s) suspended pending a retest. It could be subjected to a 60% or higher blame, so as to avoid innocent drivers being caught in 50/50 blame by insurers who opted for quick settlements of this nature.
The advantage of this approach would be to encourage drivers to be more sensible, by being aware of the consequences. More than the financial costs, drivers hate nothing more than losing their freedom to drive. The law would have to be mandatory, regardless of status, so that certain factions did not act stupidly on the assumption that they could manipulate the courts.
Apart from changing the law, there would be no economic costs to the authorities, and no extra policing to make the law effective. A few additional test inspectors might be needed, but this could be self-financing by all costs being charged to the offender.

04-09-16 09:24

Originally Posted by Snowball

Giving a little more thought to this, what about the law being changed as follows?
On conviction for the more serious traffic offences, a driving licence could be suspended until the offender had retested satisfactorily.
In the event of RTCs, the driver(s) found to be at blame could have their licence(s) suspended pending a retest. It could be subjected to a 60% or higher blame, so as to avoid innocent drivers being caught in 50/50 blame by insurers who opted for quick settlements of this nature.
The advantage of this approach would be to encourage drivers to be more sensible, by being aware of the consequences. More than the financial costs, drivers hate nothing more than losing their freedom to drive. The law would have to be mandatory, regardless of status, so that certain factions did not act stupidly on the assumption that they could manipulate the courts.
Apart from changing the law, there would be no economic costs to the authorities, and no extra policing to make the law effective. A few additional test inspectors might be needed, but this could be self-financing by all costs being charged to the offender.

Snowball

The law already provides for those convicted of serious offences to have to take a test, usually an extended test. For some offences this is automatic.

So far as RTCs are concerned, the sheer numbers involved would make this impractical. There are about 4 million insurance claims p.a., so we would need at least three times as many test examiners as we currently have.

It also seems contrary to natural justice for someone to be subject to what is effectively a criminal sanction without the protection of the "beyond reasonable doubt" test, and effectively at the whim of unaccountable bureaucrats. Most accidents are fairly minor, and a compulsory retest is a draconian punishment for a momentary lapse which, under the criminal system, would be subject to a fixed penalty or a low-level fine.

04-09-16 10:09

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

Snowball

The law already provides for those convicted of serious offences to have to take a test, usually an extended test. For some offences this is automatic.

But it is not implemented enough, then.

So far as RTCs are concerned, the sheer numbers involved would make this impractical. There are about 4 million insurance claims p.a., so we would need at least three times as many test examiners as we currently have.

All cases would not necessarily be liable to retests. The examiners seem to have coped readily with the mushrooming of driving schools, so I don't accept that this amount of additional testers would be required.

It also seems contrary to natural justice for someone to be subject to what is effectively a criminal sanction without the protection of the "beyond reasonable doubt" test, and effectively at the whim of unaccountable bureaucrats. Most accidents are fairly minor, and a compulsory retest is a draconian punishment for a momentary lapse which, under the criminal system, would be subject to a fixed penalty or a low-level fine.

I certainly would not class the police and the courts of being "unaccountable bureaucrats".
Over time, the readiness of people to break the law has increased significantly. Anarchy cannot be allowed to rule, so we must all tolerate conditions that might seem to impinge on our freedom.
Is the answer to do nothing? 600 extra, armed police have been deployed in London, to combat what is perceived as an increase in risk of terrorism. But far more people die or are seriously injured on our roads annually than are killed/maimed by terrorist activities.
The loss of life due to road deaths is no more tasteful to relatives than death from a terrorist's bomb, and is just as final for the victims.
It does worry me that road deaths/injuries seem to be becoming evermore acceptable as a natural event on our growing abundance of vehicles on our roads.

Sorry, but where any form of lawlessness exists, I have always believed in the fear of consequence. In my formative years, that fear started with my dad, and not because he wasn't a good parent - I was taught that doing wrong carried a suitable penalty. Today's kids are protected from corporal punishment, resulting in people reaching adulthood with no qualms about committing a crime (including driving in a way that threatens lives), so someone has to take over the big stick to keep order.

04-09-16 10:28

Originally Posted by Snowball

But it is not implemented enough, then.

All cases would not necessarily be liable to retests. The examiners seem to have coped readily with the mushrooming of driving schools, so I don't accept that this amount of additional testers would be required.

I certainly would not class the police and the courts of being "unaccountable bureaucrats".

1. Implemented when the courts, who are in possesion of the evidence, think it necessary.

2. How would you determine which cases would require retests? Bear in mind that only a minority of RTAs are reported to the police, so a new bureaucracy would be required to administer your scheme.

3. Driving schools may have mushroomed, but the number of pupils and tests has not (tests have been fairly steady around 1.5 million annualy). More instructors are competing for pupils, which has depressed the price of driving lessons.

4. Fault in most RTAs is determined by the "unaccountable bureaucrats" at the insurance companies, not the police or courts.

britishbutch

04-09-16 11:49

I'm new to this forum and did not search this posh prior to posting, so apologies for repetition. I'm not in a position to sort the location of my research as I've got a cat on my chest lol, but will try to find where I found it later. Good debate guys

04-09-16 12:18

The argument is too complex for any hope of agreement, but I can tell you this. When I first started to drive, the whole attitude to driving was different. Yes, there must have been offences of driving without insurance or a driving licence, just as happens today. But drivers generally showed consideration for others on the road. And I think the then belief that women drivers were more careful than men (which was obvious and which, in my opinion, had something to do with a stronger maternal instinct than that of modern women).

I would not argue that, in those days, road deaths were higher as a percentage than they probably are now. There did seem to be some improvement as car design improved, but it again appears to be moving in the wrong direction, not because of the vehicles themselves, but due to rapidly increasing congestion, the speed capabilities of vehicles, and drivers seemingly believing themselves to be invincible, and using vehicle technology to push their cars to the limit rather than taking advantage of the improvements and not pushing their safety margins to the edge.

My own feeling is that too many drivers are getting out of control, and the law falling behind in dealing with it. I drive with the intention of staying within the law at all times, so am not nervous about any new legislation to place drivers under greater discipline.
Coming back to the topic, anyone can pass a test - the problem is in ensuring that the required level of ability is maintained by habit after passing.
I see many drivers taking risks on a daily basis - not because they cannot drive safely, but because they WILL NOT drive safely.
So, what other than the big stick is left to bring them to their senses.

britishbutch

04-09-16 12:26

I have to agree. I have a dash cam and what I've recorded so far is shocking, unbelievable, and quite funny too

Santa

04-09-16 13:53

Testing older drivers? I don't think that would be cost-effective.

I have said for years that any driver who loses his licence for six months or more, ('loses' as in has it taken away by a court) should have to take a retest at their own expense. It would be possible to allow a suspended driver to drive as a learner, so that if they plan properly, they will not have to extend the penalty the court imposes.

04-09-16 17:35

Can't see the point of a driver with a suspended licence (taken away by a court) being allowed to drive as a learner. Too easy to get around it by friends/family with driving licences being prepared to cover the gap. Also, under the rules of learner driving, the "supervising driver" carries some of the responsibility if an accident occurs. A ban suggests a level of inability to be trusted, so I for one would not put my driving licence at such risk.

smudger

04-09-16 19:54

I would like to know where the original poster got his figures from, where it says that "a lot" of accidents are caused by elderly drivers?.......... ............... ..........Most accidents I attended were caused by or involved younger drivers, 17- 24 year olds, and as speed was one of the main causes, the damage to drivers and cars, was extensive?.................. ................ .............Any accidents, I attended, where elderly drivers were involved, were not quite as serious, as speed wasn't the main culprit or cause.......... ..............I suppose now that I'm a pensioner, I am now classed as an elderly driver, but I don't consider myself and more dangerous as a driver, than when I was gaining all those years of NCD?

98selitb

05-09-16 07:08

I find most elderly drivers to be safe. I find most drivers of any age to be safe - there are a minority of terrible drivers of all ages. But the safety issues caused by dangerous elderly drivers are different from other age groups.

There are a minority who are endangering lives by their stubbornness to continue behind the wheel. I feel it is totally unacceptable and reckless that all you have to do once past 70 is to fill a form every three years, all by yourself, with no third-party assessment of any kind. How many people lie on this form because they know that if they had an optician's test, the optician would tell them immediately that they shouldn't be driving? Imagine that was all that people with revoked licences had to do to get behind the wheel.

I don't believe there should be a practical re-test - the expense, and also most would pass it, including the bad drivers who would just behave themselves during the test and then go back to their old ways.

I do believe there should be a compulsory medical and eye test with a doctor and optician that you don't know personally, and their decision should be final, although of course an appeal should be possible.

When I see a news article about a wrong-way motorway driver, it is usually an elderly person. The same applies when someone has put their foot on the wrong pedal and caused carnage on a pavement. I do accept that this is purely anecdotal and non-statistical evidence of me regularly reading the news, and is not proof of any sort.

My bugbear is that when an accident like this is caused by an elderly driver who should have not been allowed to be behind the wheel, they are treated with sympathy by the police. If a driver of any other age did this, there would be strongly worded police statements, anger and a prison sentence. If the reason for the sympathy is that they have dementia, then why on earth is someone allowed to drive who doesn't know where they are and what is going on around them?

Being older means you have more life experience and know the difference between right and wrong better than anyone else. Yet once you're past about 60 or 70, the older you are, the more leniently you are treated by the law. I think this stinks.

Santa

05-09-16 09:27

I mostly agree with the above. HGV drivers have to pass a medical every 5 years after 45 and every year after 60. I think that this would be too onerous for car drivers, who don't spend up to 10 hours a day driving heavy vehicles; but a simple sight test like the one you take when you take your test and maybe five minutes in a simulator, for the 0ver 70s, would weed out the worst examples. It could be done at the driving test places and needn't cost very much.

05-09-16 10:38

The government will always apply a balance between what is acceptable in terms of road accidents and what budget they will allow for change. If elderly drivers were really a problem in their own right, surely motor insurers would be applying pressure, purely on the basis of commercial economics.
In many cases, family members will pressurise an elderly driver to give up if they think he/she is unsafe. I must say that the last time I saw an article on the TV, where drivers of my age (I'm 81) were put through a test, I was appalled when one or two were classed as being fit to drive when, from what I saw, I thought they clearly were not.
My wife is not a driver, and is what I would describe as a nervous passenger - mainly brought on by my being hit in the rear by a hit-and-run in a stolen car in April 2009. My car was then less than 2 months old.
If I showed any signs of not being fully in control of my car (and car-and-caravan when I am towing), my wife would be the first one to insist that I call it a day. Our children would also back this up.

If the police are sympathetic on grounds of old age (ref 98selitb comment), where they might otherwise give a driver a verbal hammering, if this is true I do not approve of it. When we get behind the wheel we have a legal and moral responsibility to meet a minimum standard of driving - a standard which demands being safe on the road.

Santa

06-09-16 15:21

This is relevant:

Older motorists are neither doddery nor unsafe on the roads and preventing from driving could speed up their death, researchers claim.

Swansea Universityâ€™s Centre for Innovative Ageing has been carrying out tests to determine whether elderly drivers cause more accidents, by timing their responses during tricky manoeuvres and checking police crash data.

Although over-70s are more likely to be injured or die in accidents compared to the general public - because they are frailer - they are no more likely to cause a crash, say researchers. In fact they are around four times less like to be involved in an accident than 17 to 21-year-old men.

My bolding

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ving-could-ha/

ficklejade

08-09-16 08:15

Why assume older drivers are the only ones who have eyesight problems? I've had to wear glasses since the age of seven when I nearly died of measles. I have my eyes tested annually and always have up to date spare specs in the car - how many of the not older drivers get their sight checked at the recommended 2 year intervals?

As for hearing - yes, you do get hearing loss as you get older but I'm not driving around with blaring music or have earphones in!

08-09-16 08:46

Without fail, I have my eyesight checked every 12 months. Last time, I was advised that my prescription had changed so little that new specs were not necessary. However, even if the change is still only very small, this year I will go for new specs.
Regarding hearing, yes, I am aware that there has been a slight loss, but I can still have my car radio at low volume without it being detrimental to my driving.
I have never been one to have exceptionally loud music, nor go to venues where this is the case. Whenever I have ventured into such a venue, I have speedily exited. And I have never used earphones.
It does make me wonder how much the younger generation are damaging their hearing with prolonged exposure to loud music, and what this may mean for them in later life.

08-09-16 12:02

Originally Posted by ficklejade

Why assume older drivers are the only ones who have eyesight problems? I've had to wear glasses since the age of seven when I nearly died of measles. I have my eyes tested annually and always have up to date spare specs in the car - how many of the not older drivers get their sight checked at the recommended 2 year intervals?

As for hearing - yes, you do get hearing loss as you get older but I'm not driving around with blaring music or have earphones in!

I don't think anyone is assuming only older drivers have eyesight problems - just more likely to have a problem. And I think a lot of people young and old don't get their eyes tested as often as they should do. Although as far as vision goes it's never properly tested even when you go to pass your driving test. It's certainly something that could do with being tightened up on.

08-09-16 15:22

Before I started my test, the examiner pointed to a car and told me to read the number plate. I suppose it is still done the same way?

08-09-16 15:45

Originally Posted by Snowball

Before I started my test, the examiner pointed to a car and told me to read the number plate. I suppose it is still done the same way?

Yes, you are asked to read a new-style number plate at a distance of 20 metres.

You are also required to have a visual acuity of at least 6/12 on the Snellen scale, and adequate field of view, but those are not tested as part of the practical driving test.

The number plate test is sometime criticised, but it has the advantages of being simple, accurate, and pretty well unarguable. It is also the test that would be used at the roadside by a police officer if he had reason to suspect your eyesight.

08-09-16 19:02

I wouldn't mind it being made compulsory to have a proper eye test when you are learning and a test every 10 years when you renew your photo card licence.

smudger

08-09-16 20:06

Well if that was adopted, they would probably make you pay for it, the same way they brought in that charge for renewing your driving license every ten years........... .......... ............No government would let a chance like that slip by them, if they can make money out of it, they will.

08-09-16 20:15

If you are having your eyes tested regularly as you should do then it's only a cost you would be paying anyway though.

I'm happy to pay the cost of a driving licence renewal - why should it be free? Although it is only Â£14 online or Â£17 if you need to supply the photo - and free if you are over 70 anyway so free or Â£1.70 a year!

08-09-16 21:50

Originally Posted by smudger

Well if that was adopted, they would probably make you pay for it, the same way they brought in that charge for renewing your driving license every ten years........... .......... ............No government would let a chance like that slip by them, if they can make money out of it, they will.

If you're one of the people who don't qualify for a free eye test, then you pay the optician, not the government. And the NHS pay him too, because it's subsidised.

09-09-16 11:45

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

If you're one of the people who don't qualify for a free eye test, then you pay the optician, not the government. And the NHS pay him too, because it's subsidised.

I don't pay for eye tests as I just wait for the local SpecSavers to have a free voucher that they put out now and again.

09-09-16 15:48

Over 65's are entitled to a free eye test every 12 months. I have mine checked annually and buy new specs if the optician deems this necessary.
Regarding the driving licence, from the age of 70 you are required to renew it every three years, and renew your declaration of being fit to drive. From this time on, the driving licence renewal is free

Bleeder1

20-08-24 18:06

@britishbutchwhere are you coming from?? The driving test came out in 1935.I think that would make anyone that didnt take a test is at least 89!!!!