• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Too old to drive ?

Why not just make it simple and retest everyone periodically

I totally agree, I do mine every 3 years for RoSPA advanced and Mortorsport Instructors, Including medicals and eyesight.

Think this may be a lttle excessive but maybe every 5 years isn't ?
 
I would have thought any kind periodic testing would make a greater contribution to road safety than the mass of "safety" cameras that infest our country
 
My old dad had his lience renewal form sent to him recently and we tore it up.
At 89 he is too old to drive, and if he doesn't kill himself, he might kill someone else.
Basically this form asks the driver if he/she is ok to drive, no medical, no doctors certificate, nothing. A farse
 
The ONE SHOW take on it.

A short piece on tonight's ONE SHOW ( I know:o) Stirling Moss was in favour of a compulsory test at 70. :thumb: Three older drivers were "profiled" and tested on the road. The 2 younger ones passed with flying colours with the proviso that the woman driver should attempt to keep her speed up with normal traffic a bit more ;) - but was deemed quite safe otherwise. The third driver who was over 90 :eek:patently should not have been on the road and was an accident waiting to happen. :doh: The spokesperson from the IAM mentioned the "self regulation" exercised in the main by older drivers and the independence issue was also addressed. No firm conclusion then but did cover quite well most of the issues raised here. If anyone's interested its probably on the BBC iPLAYER Website.
 
Of course safety is the top priority here, but before banning someone how about limiting where and when the elderly can drive if reasonably competent.

I'm thinking here of those who live in remote areas with little or no public transport. Effectively turning their home into a prison would do nothing for their health and well being so should be considered a last resort.
 
But the "credit card" driving licence specifies if a driver needs eyesight correction.

On the back there is the section 12 - Codes. Code 01 here shows that the driver needs eyesight correction.

Additionally, the counterpart of the licence when folded is no bigger than a single credit card - surely not a problem.

Didn't know that -- does anyone admit to needing glasses?? I can't remember filling in any form asking that. A photo wearing glasses would quickly sort that one.

As for the paper part - what a farce..all could easily be put on a chip same as a credit card has....
 
Nobody is talking sbout banning anybody just ensuring they are fit to drive, mandatory testing every 5 years or so would catch all ages. But just because someone is remote does not mean they should be allowed to drive if not fit, irrespective of age.
 
I think everyone should have regular re-tests / assessments young an old.
Perhaps even an insurance approved rating system.
Then if the old codgers, are a menace to others on the road they find out in a safe controlled way, and know its time to move in to a nursing home. Likewise with boy racers, or the three F's, though young enough to change and learn new skills.
 
I think everyone should have regular re-tests / assessments young an old.

Possibly if correctly structured.


Perhaps even an insurance approved rating system.

No! Never, ever seek or wish for the participation of big business in areas like this! They would absolutely die for further controlling access into this huge market. It would as sure as the day dawns lead to profit opportunism through categories of "safety-asessed" drivers. Everyone except for ex-athlete, ex-fighter pilot, ex-Police advanced driver, hearse drivers of between 38 & 39 years old would pay MORE.

The Lemmings in various parts of the world currently testing pay-as-you-drive insurance will soon realize the patronizing little crumbs of discount now will count for nothing in a few years.
 
Well the current testing is done by Dep. of Transport or whatever they call themselves now.
Training is by independent DoT approved instructors as well. Either could issue a grading insurers would have to comply with. Might stop all this 'switch to us and get it cheaper' anyway, and the farce of NCB.
They would be compelled to offer discount to those who might otherwise not get one, and like wise an old codger like on the one show but with fifty years no claims and still drives the wrong way down a motorway. Or do you believe in natural selection and those unfit should wipe themselves out on their own?
 
I watched the One Show last night and found it very interesting. The older Gent should not be driving imo. Having said that, most drivers of his age usually drive to the same places every day, the supermarket, doctors, chemist, etc He was taken onto a strange road in a car that was not his, maybe a little unfair, and maybe the reason he selected reverse instead of first. The one comment I did pick up on by I think Mr Childs(?sp) was that the standard of driving on the road today is appalling. To a point I have to agree with him. I know its a sore point, but speeding is the main problem as is the number of indicators that appear to be inoperative, either not working or unable to be turned off.
 
As for the paper part - what a farce..all could easily be put on a chip same as a credit card has....

Spot on! I was dumbfounded when the 'new' DL system came into being. How could the replacement of a single piece of paper with a card PLUS an even larger piece of paper be considered a good idea? :dk: Absolutely mental.

Especially since you effectively have to produce BOTH parts if you ever receive a producer, want to hire a vehicle, etc, etc...

A chip in the card would have sorted that out in one go... Doh! :wallbash:
 
Or do you believe in natural selection and those unfit should wipe themselves out on their own?

Of course not, where did you get that idea? Not from anything I said. I said big business with vested interests should not be allowed near.

There is a slight problem, that may become more so with an ageing population. There are not by any means however, great swathes of older people wiping themselves (or others) out. An ordinate and realistic response is needed, not vast and unnecessary oppressive and complex restructuring.

Our road system is essentially very safe by comparison with anywhere on the planet, but on the edge of starting to lose its workability. Knee-jerk agenda remapping is not required.

Well the current testing is done by Dep. of Transport or whatever they call themselves now. Training is by independent DoT approved instructors as well. Either could issue a grading insurers would have to comply with.

Now something like that could work... providing the testing is leant towards ensuring genuine suitability to continue driving, and not towards exclusion, or worse, safety at a monetary cost.
 
I read somewhere that it costs, assuming proportionally, about 45,000 per serious accident with all the services, nhs etc.
If someone doesn't make the call and pull some of these dangerous drivers off the road, then natural selection IS what your leaving it to.

If a young boy racer type, with lightening fast reflexes can cruise at forty through a town center or past a school with thump thump music so loud his eye balls rattle and not feel any remorse about their attitude, along with a young mum battling three kids, slapping on make up in the mirror and either one hits an old boy of 90 struggling to figure out what lane to steer round a roundabout who's to blame AND PAY ! ?
 
I read somewhere that it costs, assuming proportionally, about 45,000 per serious accident with all the services, nhs etc.

I feel you're rather falling for the recent hype. It is not possible to control everything into some marvellous utopia. The supposed political intention to do so is being used to turn most activities of life into complex onerous arenas of bullsh*t. This inevitably results in annoyingly reduced functionality at increased cost.

Look at the road system in comparison to 15 years ago. When you're next thumping over speed bumps or waiting in queues at traffic lights every 300 yards, ask yourself: is it better? Do you feel safer now?

I care about deaths and injuries: I don't give a damn what it costs "the NHS". It is our money... it always was and it always will be. If people need treatment they need treatment, and we pay well enough for it. I have no time for being whipped with figures telling me how much of my money they might have to spend on me as I go about essential travel.

If someone doesn't make the call and pull some of these dangerous drivers off the road, then natural selection IS what your leaving it to.

If a young boy racer type, with lightening fast reflexes can cruise at forty through a town center or past a school with thump thump music so loud his eye balls rattle and not feel any remorse about their attitude, along with a young mum battling three kids, slapping on make up in the mirror and either one hits an old boy of 90 struggling to figure out what lane to steer round a roundabout who's to blame AND PAY ! ?

Make the call?! Congratulations... you have amply displayed your absorption of all the New Labour era PR re. the roads, complete with sweeping generalizations of the remorseless boy racer, absent-minded mum and struggling old guy. They're everywhere aren't they? Of course the dangerous word featured. You missed "clamping down" and "something must be done".

It's a road system, not a war zone. A sense of balance works best. The original theme of the thread was about older drivers. There might be a problem as there become many more older drivers, including you & I. A realistic approach to achievable and workable improvements is needed, not the usual OTT scaremongering.
 
So why does anyone even bother with a test to begin with? Registration purposes?

If life's all about roaming free in the wind and sod the consequences, why does anybody or organisation bother with any type of standard.
Remember that when you next visit a nice Michelin star restaurant in Henley. Except I've worked in a few and if it wasn't for health inspectors constantly helping and advising them, they wouldn't even be there. Even then there's a few kebab shops I'd feel safer eating in.
There must be standards.
 
There must be standards.

There were. Plenty of them for almost a century, mostly appropriate and it worked fine. Now it has become silly and oppressive, and is going more so.

My point is about degrees of response and legislation. The answer to such problems as exist or arise on the roads is not to demonize and dramatically exaggerate the reality.

If there is a problem with a small amount of older drivers on the roads, then let's address it in a safe, fair and genuine way... not allow the authorities or big business carte blanche by falling for the "we're all gonna die" philosophy. It just isn't that bad, but we're all being constantly hit over the head with it. We used to pay reflective, compensatory fees to use the roads; now the system has been commercialized... business.

Of course if you personally feel the roads have become so dangerous, you can always stop using them.
 
This thread has certainly spread it's wings.... Over regulation is no substitute for core skills. The roads are too full, covered in useless ( suspension destroying ) 'calming' measures and so many signposts you need passengers just to help you read them.......

My fundamental question remains .... do we all get to an age where our ability to drive within safe ( acknowledging driving is inherently unsafe ) limits must be measured and restricted?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom