[Marc]

What do people make of the proposal that drivers aged 65 and over should be regularly 'reviewed' to test their motoring skills and general health?

It's not a suggestion that's come from a government minister but from a not-for-profit organisation called the Older Drivers Forum.

The BBC has reported that the proposal comes following Department of Transport data showing a 45% increase since 2010 in the number of motorists aged over 70 who have been hurt or killed in accidents in the UK.

What should the regular reviews include? I guess eyesight and reaction speeds for starters?

[TC1474]

I examine a lot of older drivers either at advanced standard or some who just want a check run t make sure that they are still driving at a suitably safe standard and I have to say that there is not much of a problem with drivers up to the age of mid to late 70's, (although there are always exceptions to the rule) it seems once they get to 80+ that problems start to arise such as declining eyesight, slower reaction times, lack of awareness and such like.

However the real issue is with the younger drivers who think that having passed their test there is nothing further to learn, and because they are young they think they are indestructible .

But the real problem is the issue I covered a while ago when statutory retesting was considered for all licence holders.

The problem is that you cannot make for a mandatory re-test because it cannot be applied retrospectively, it would have to be introduced for new drivers on or after a certain date in the future so the effects would be longer term but do nothing for the shorter term.

The other side (although given the attitude of this current Government towards the elderly) is that it would/could be a massive vote loser especially given how motorists are currently being hit so hard.

One way around it, would be possibly to stop making a self declaration of health and fitness to drive when your licence comes up for renewal at age 70.

To retain a D1 licence you have to go through and pass a medical, maybe that could be applied for an A and B licence. Might not catch everyone but it might also deter some from renewing as well as filtering out a few who fail the medical?

[Drivingforfun]

We have a relative who is in their late 70s and they do around 500 miles a year, and in the last year / 500 miles I can't remember how many knocks they had. I remember 2 which is the number of accidents they deemed serious enough to involve the insurance companies

Being in the car with them is quite an event, I won't go into details as it would just be rattling stuff off for comic effect but no respect for cyclists and spacial awareness are the 2 main things for me, but just about every other area of their driving is affected as well

I've seen issue with family having problems having "the conversation" and it is a genuine struggle. Any professional in any field knows it's different dealing with family than with any other people, I'd say if someone doesn't find it hard they probably are some kind of AI, not a human

I dealt with it by telling her the facts: I have no power to tell her not to drive, but if she doesn't inform the DVLA she's driving illegally and probably isn't insured if she has any more crashes. What she does with that info is up to her

I know I'm just talking about one person here, so it's not necessarily a reflection of society, but I'd happily hazard a guess that the situation I've just described is far from rare

[Drivingforfun]

To add something else

I think an often unrecognised issue is that elderly people usually give up driving on top of having to give up lots of other things as well. If a young person had to give up driving they could still walk or get public transport or whatever else and be independent... but for someone who is very frail, driving isn't just giving up "one thing", it's the last nail in the coffin, like giving up the last inch of ground and just surrendering completely to dependence on others

Hopefully that makes sense

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

To add something else

I think an often unrecognised issue is that elderly people usually give up driving on top of having to give up lots of other things as well. If a young person had to give up driving they could still walk or get public transport or whatever else and be independent... but for someone who is very frail, driving isn't just giving up "one thing", it's the last nail in the coffin, like giving up the last inch of ground and just surrendering completely to dependence on others

Hopefully that makes sense

I understand exactly what you are saying.

Many of my passengers are people who have had to or have chosen to give up their licence for one reason or another and in many cases they recognised they were becoming a risk before they actually did.

But the common theme they all say is that since giving up their licence and their car, the level of independence they once enjoyed has gone because they can't just pop down the shops or pop along for a Drs appointment or just visit friends, for the reasons you mention in that they are incapable, so they have to plan their journey's and a reliant of community transport operators such as ours which is then dependent on having the time slots they want available and therefore has to be planned well in advance.

And as they all say, a Taxi is not practical mainly because of the cost.

So you can understand their reluctance to give up their licence to a degree, especially in the more rural areas.

[Rolebama]

I would not have a problem retaking a test or having a medical and eye test.
There used to be a lady on this Forum, went by the name of FickleJade, for any who remember her, who passed her Driving Test on the Isle of Mull. No roundabouts, dual carriageways or traffic lights and single track roads. I imagine it's the same today, so I question the Test as to whether it is fair. I live in an area which is used by seemingly every driving school for miles around, and am no longer surprised when I see students under instruction, in clearly marked school cars, using brakes before indicators, and question whether they use mirrors. Occasionally I sit behind them at junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights and I can see quite clearly their mirrors are not aligned properly. Yet the majority must be passing their tests.
I think a good shake-up of driving schools would be of greater import.

[onestitchloose]

There's cleverer people than me to decide this, but it does scare me when I see someone with their eyes scrunched and face up against the windscreen going at 15mph. I do appreciate how important a car is for accessibility and every day life, but on the same hand safety must come first.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

.
I think a good shake-up of driving schools would be of greater import.

With you on that along with a complete shake up of the driving test.

My brother in law is an ADI and is allowed to take learners onto the Motorway. He does not have a clue but is allowed to charge silly money to explain to new drivers about something he has absolutely no understanding of.

I spent 3 hours educating him on the M4, and he still cannot grasp some of the basics, but there he is daily giving lessons. That in my opinion is totally wrong.

The trouble is the current driving test is not fit for purpose because the bar has been set so low, which is one of the reasons I let my ADI qualification lapse.

When the DSA took over control of the register of advanced driving instructors and examiners I had to examine a couple of local driving test examiners to make sure that their skill level and knowledge was in keeping with the standards we look for at advanced level.

On both counts I terminated their tests within 10 -15 minutes because the standard of driving was so poor. When I debriefed them on what they had shown me to that point they were gobsmacked at the difference between what they are looking for and what we look for, and I think it was at this point they understood what many of us have said for a long time, to get a full licence you have to pass a test, drivers are told to drive by the numbers and are not taught the skills for life, there lies a big part the problem.

So lets get the basics right before we start looking too far ahead, and I think I have mentioned before on another thread, the chances of mandatory re-testing are not going to happen anytime soon as the meetings I have attended with various Government depts have confirmed.

[olduser]

I agree with all the points above.

One big problem is the level of aggression, impatiens, lack of concern for others, and just downright bad driving seen on the roads today.
As cars have become safer, drivers in general have pushed that safety to the limit, and do so all of the time.

Many older drivers, are adjusting their driving to compensate for their ageing but if an old driver leaves a gap younger driver will have to fill it, old driver has the experience to see a hazard and slow, younger driver again must force their way in even making a dangerous overtake to do so.

The driving test doe's not help, I am told candidates are failed for not making progress, if the test was for a racing driver it would make sense but it is fundamentally wrong for driving on the road.
The driving test is setting the foundations of the candidates driving for life, progress must be made whatever!
Surely the theme should be safety whatever.

As cars have develop more safety features, and separated the driver from the machine, the, 'natural limiters' (like engine noise, tyre noise etc.) have to be replaced by more driver discipline.
This, I think, needs a driving test to a higher standard.

As to older drivers stopping driving, what is missing are the fully trained traffic police or enough of them.
I wouldn't expect them to dash round banning drivers on the spot but I do think if they were there to stop drivers who were a danger (young or old) and tell them just what they were doing dangerously, many elderly drivers would workout for themselves it was time to pack it in.
The police perhaps might order a medical check but that could only work if we could get an appointment to see a GP.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

As to older drivers stopping driving, what is missing are the fully trained traffic police or enough of them.
I wouldn't expect them to dash round banning drivers on the spot but I do think if they were there to stop drivers who were a danger (young or old) and tell them just what they were doing dangerously, many elderly drivers would workout for themselves it was time to pack it in.
The police perhaps might order a medical check but that could only work if we could get an appointment to see a GP.

I am not disagreeing with you on what you say, but having been there, done it, seen it and I am now wearing the T shirt there are all sorts of issues that come into place.

Firstly, without a re-write of the Road Traffic act and specific legislation, a Traffic Policeman (or any copper for that matter) cannot dish out an instant disqualification on the spot, that can only be done by a court.

But it goes further in that (and I apologise if I have covered this before) many senior chief officers of Police do not see traffic as front line policing despite the fact that it is traffic only that deal with fatal and catastrophic RTC's, it is Traffic only that are involved in pursuits and are trained to put TPAC or stingers into operation, it is often traffic cops that are seriously injured or killed doing the job they love but get no support from above (similar to firearms officers).

As a result, budgets, equipment and more importantly training (especially driving courses) have been cut to the bone so an advanced driver is no longer a class 1 or 2 but just advanced at one level and has completed a 3 week course unlike the 12 weeks I had to do with a 2 week refresher every 2 or 3 years, and the 12 week traffic law course that my generation had to do (and pass an exam every week with an 80% or more pass mark) is no more. Now it is 5 days.

So many traffic cops do not themselves understand traffic law (as I have found out myself) but they are given licence to comment on other peoples driving when their own standard is in itself not much better than the public they are policing.

My old crewmate of many years finished his time on the driving school and in his opinion 80% of those passing through were not of a sufficiently high standard to actually obtain an advanced qualification so they dropped the bar so they could get more through.

That is when he decided his time had come to retire as standards were being compromised, and this was a recurring theme around the country.

Watch something like Traffic Cops or Police Interceptors and I rest my case. I wince at the standards applied sometimes, but they are the best we have.

Sorry to rabbit on, but it is something that boils my P..s, so I will get off my soapbox, but I hope you get my drift?

[NMNeil]

My license is up for renewal next month (I turn 71) which involves a trip to the local $1 dollar store to buy a pair of very cheap reading glasses, as the only requirement is that I pass an eyesight test using one of these at the DMV.
https://www.stereooptical.com/produc...ptec-1000-dmv/
After the test the glasses go in the bin, so in reality the test is worthless.

[Mark07]

Hypothetically, if all UK licenses lasted 10 years (for example), I wonder if there would be some interesting patterns in the data.

For example, which age bracket would have the highest failure rate? And, would that reduce the number of accidents in overconfident young drivers?

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Mark07

Hypothetically, if all UK licenses lasted 10 years (for example), I wonder if there would be some interesting patterns in the data.

For example, which age bracket would have the highest failure rate? And, would that reduce the number of accidents in overconfident young drivers?

Based on tests I conduct, older drivers tend to develop the bad habits, but drive a lot on instinct, whereas the younger drivers rely on bravado and youth to get them out of trouble.

I was head of driver safety for a few years at a major energy supplier and we had 14,000 drivers.

We started assessing every driver from the CEO down, and we used the DSA driving test as the base standard given that was the standard that every driver had to attain in order to obtain their licence. (It was a low baseline, but a base that should have been attainable)

We had assessed about 6,000 by the time I left. A combination of older and younger drivers were assessed and the standard was pretty similar across the board.

Complacency was the biggest issue, along with a lack of knowledge when it comes to the Highway Code and traffic signs and of course the bar room lawyers and armchair racing drivers who thought they knew the law or could drive to an expert level, but actually just showed themselves up to be total idiots. You get this in every big organisation.

But what was interesting is that the crash rate did start to show significant reductions, especially in cases where it was the fault of our drivers. I guess the threat of losing a company vehicle also had a bearing, but a drop non the less was welcome.

So not exactly rocket science or a definitive poll, but a fairly broad idea f what might happen on a national basis if the same rules were applied and a retest was introduced which I have already said is not going to happen in our lifetime.

[Mark07]

@TC1474 that's really interesting.

[NMNeil]

Just an update.
I just renewed my license on-line. No eyesight test or anything, just $36 on my credit card, it's in the mail and valid for another 8 years. After that I have to renew every year as I'll be 79, but it'd be for free.
Bit of a joke really.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by TC1474

Based on tests I conduct, older drivers tend to develop the bad habits, but drive a lot on instinct, whereas the younger drivers rely on bravado and youth to get them out of trouble.

I was head of driver safety for a few years at a major energy supplier and we had 14,000 drivers.

We started assessing every driver from the CEO down, and we used the DSA driving test as the base standard given that was the standard that every driver had to attain in order to obtain their licence. (It was a low baseline, but a base that should have been attainable)

We had assessed about 6,000 by the time I left. A combination of older and younger drivers were assessed and the standard was pretty similar across the board.

Complacency was the biggest issue, along with a lack of knowledge when it comes to the Highway Code and traffic signs and of course the bar room lawyers and armchair racing drivers who thought they knew the law or could drive to an expert level, but actually just showed themselves up to be total idiots. You get this in every big organisation.

But what was interesting is that the crash rate did start to show significant reductions, especially in cases where it was the fault of our drivers. I guess the threat of losing a company vehicle also had a bearing, but a drop non the less was welcome.

So not exactly rocket science or a definitive poll, but a fairly broad idea f what might happen on a national basis if the same rules were applied and a retest was introduced which I have already said is not going to happen in our lifetime.

I think, these assessments demonstrate that the driving test standard is too low, and it's intention is misguided.

When people are learning new skills, (on average) they have a period of disbelief, 'I can never do this', then when they get it right, there is almost euphoria, 'I can do it!'
While the trainee is in the early stages some of the foundations can be put in place but when the, "I can do it!", stage is reached the real training can start.
At this point the foundation needs to be started again, and expanded on, because the mechanics of driving is trivial, what needs to be engraved in the mind is, a vehicle is just a machine, it cannot think, incorrectly used it can, and will kill you and/or those nearby, the only person who can prevent that happening is the driver.

Knowing the Highway Code, and the motoring laws is irrelevant (not breaking laws may save some money or your right to drive though) but understanding what the Highway Code means, and why the laws are there is the important part.

How many drivers understand what the stopping distances actually mean?
If someone steps into the path of a car inside the stopping distance they will be killed or injured or if the car in front is closer than the stopping distance, and it stops there will be a crash.
If this is understood it follows, as the driver it is my responasbuility to be aware of what is happening around me, including the footpaths, and I must adjust my speed and spacing accordingly, and if the car behind is put out by me slowing I must ignore the flashing lights, horns etc.

The instruction and test should include some work on a race track and skid pad, aimed at getting the feel of the zone between in control and out of control.

Not understanding these details should be a fail on the driving test, almost understanding will not do.
The current driving test doe's not touch many if any of these points.

I understand it would take more time and therefore more money to instruct new drivers to this standard, and many would never pass a test.
But if we don't, we are putting a price on life, 'we can't do anything about the casualty rate because it'll cost too much'.
And, in the present circumstances, is it reasonable to (in effect) charge a driver with murder when they kill?

As an aside, with the tests you were making there would be the effect noticed by Taylor and the Gilbreath's (they developed Time and Motion study in the work place).
When they studied a group, they found just the act of studying improved the performance of that group, without making any changes.
They argued, this was because someone was showing an interest in them (the group), their performance improved.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

I think, these assessments demonstrate that the driving test standard is too low, and it's intention is misguided.

Those of us involved in post test training have argued that the L test has not been fit for purpose for a very long time.

The point has been long made that the driving test is just that, a test over a 40 minute period where providing you drive by the numbers to the low standard set by the DVLA then you will pass. They are not interested in a higher standard where a driver has shown a higher level of competence and been taught the skills for life, they want everything done at a basic level.

The DVLA would not accept that there is a higher standard even though they were charged with taking over the national register of advanced instructors and examiners.

To this end, we advanced instructors and examiners said that they (The DSA )would only have any credibility if they showed that they understood the difference between the L test standard and the advanced standard, so fair play to them, their two top instructors were invited and booked into do a 4 week intermediate advanced course at Devizes (this is the first of the advanced courses and is at a more basic easy to understand level)

By day 4 of a 4 week course they were spent and done for and packed up and went home. They could not get their heads around the difference in standards simply because we do not drive by numbers but that went over their heads.

So the low L test standard remained.

A year or so later we were asked to conduct advanced tests on various L test examiners on both bikes and in cars.

I had 2 bike tests and within 10 minutes I had to terminate because they were so bad bordering dangerous.

On a car test, I took over and gave a demonstration drive on commentary. The candidate sat there wide eyes open as he could not believe the difference at what I was looking and how we positioned our vehicle on the road and only gave 50% of the signals they look for, he was quickly won over.

And there lies the problem. Whilst the standard has to be set at the lowest common denominator, it is still far too low and really still dates back to the days when vehicles were more basic, slower and there was much less traffic on the road.

Technology and vehicles have moved on, driving standards have stagnated.

My Brother in Law is a driving instructor. He has no idea of the content of the Highway code as his attitude (and in keeping with many other instructors) is that since the introduction of the theory test, they do not need to teach it despite the fact that students may and do ask questions of their instructor as their first point of expertise.

He was quite embarrassed when I showed him how little he knew and reckoned if a question was asked he would just tell them to read the HC. Disgraceful.

He is allowed to take and teach learners how t use the Motorway. Again he does not have a clue. He charges a lot of money and they are being taught cr*p. I gave him a 3 hour lesson on Motorway driving and you could see that it was above his comprehension, and this is what is teaching our new drivers and is just an example of the standards out there.

I could go on, but the basic fundamental issue with driving in this country lies with the L test standard we currently have and the unprofessional level of instruction which I could fill a book with examples of bad training.

[Beelzebub]

As well as the standard of the practical driving test being too low, the same applies to the eyesight standard.

And don't get me started on the theory test.