Should a 97 year old man be driving on a public road?

stockhausen

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,130
Some 97 year old man was driving a Range Rover and pulling out of a driveway onto the A149 when an accident involving another vehicle occurred. The Range Rover ended up on its side and the driver was reported as being conscious but "very, very shocked" and shaken but not seriously injured.

It is not clear at what speed the other vehicle was travelling or whether either driver was breathalysed or what the result was but I really don't think that any 97 year old man should be let loose on the public road.

What do the denizens of OcUK's General Discussion think?

ps - The occupants of the other vehicle, an unidentified saloon car, are reported as having been treated for minor injuries but are apparently not seriously injured either.
 
It's hard to argue against you really. My difficulty is, where do you draw the line? Is 96 year old OK to drive?
 
Absolutely not.

Anyone over the age of 65 should be euthanised.

Oh ****, I've only got two years left :(
 
Surely it depends on their competency not age?


I would prefer people require a retest every X time once they reach a certain age. To be honest it could be argued that retesting every so often for anyone is a good idea.
 
To be honest, probably not. But it depends and should be assessed on a case by case basis.

I am however in favour of everyone being restested at certain intervals to make sure they don’t get to complacent.
 
stockhausen said:
Why "age related"?

Shouldn't everyone have to retake a theory and practical driving test every five years? It would keep some incompetent drivers off the roads.
Click to expand...

Because there is a stage in life when your physical faculties start to drop off quicker than before. So you can assume a certain length of time after passing your test, if you don't want to be too onerous on the population, that you are still in the realms of physical compitency for driving .

And since you started this thread because of the age of the driver, a pretty high age at 97, then that seems to be the discussion point, no? rather than do some incompetent drivers pass their test in the first place.
 
It was not an accident, the police classify these incidents as crashes these days. There should be a competency test but I am not sure how you define when it should take place.
Andi.
 
Of course not, no-one aged 97 should be driving.

A compulsory annual driving test, an annual medical after the age of 75 and higher insurance premiums should discourage
coffin dodgers from driving.


I base this reprehensible and ageist opinion on no evidence whatsoever, but it will save lives, that's the most important thing.
 
I think that 96 is far too old to be driving as a general rule, however, I think the specific driver should be allowed to drive what and whenever he wants for as long as he wants no matter what the outcome.
 
I think it’s too old to be driving. I don’t care who you are, Prince Philip, the Queen, the prime minister or Arthur, the retired milkman from Swindon, you’re endangering innocent peoples lives and it should be stopped.

If the person in the other car had died and Phillip was found to be at fault, absolutely nothing would happen to him and that’s another bone of contention with me.
 
I suspect the lunatic involved would be exempt from any tests we peasants would be subjected to.
 
Yeah there's defo an age, somewhere between 70 and 80, where you need to be stopping driving. People should do this voluntarily as part of being a responsible driver. No shame in it.
 
The car is on its side, so I would guess it was T boned when pulling out. Lucky he wasn't killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom