Old age and Driving

spookywillow said:
Yes, I see people nearly cause accidents everyday. I myself was nearly crashed into just yesterday at an island because the person just didn't look.
Click to expand...

I see this on a regular basis on roundabouts where left lane is straight on/left and someone is going right so is in the right lane (yes they are two lane roundabouts) - and you always get some numpty go straight over the roundabout cutting across both lanes.

The people who do this are of all ages/sexes and race - driving anything from a smart42 to a BMW/Audi/Volvo {XQVR}7 series, plus, of course, white van man in his silver van!
 
I've always believed that vision, hearing and reaction tests should be compulsory and regular (for example, every ten years over 30 and 5 years over 60). Although I'm aware that this could be prohibitively expensive.

Having seen how drastically reactions slow with age and considering that poor reaction times are the primary reason given by safety organisations promoting anti-drink driving legislation, it fascinates me that nothing is ever put forward on this subject.

Whilst I'm not condoning drink driving, I don't touch a drop I'm driving and I refuse to drink more than a few units if I have to drive within 12 hours. I firmly believe that a 20yr old after a few pints still has better reactions than the average 70 year old. If one is deemed unsafe, why isn't the other?
 
Last edited:
Vehicles need to pass the MOT test to be roadworthy. Those that operate them should too. I would support retesting every 5 years.
 
All up for assessments and makes even more sense after a certain age, doesn't even have to be a full driving test just something to test reaction times and basic vision/hearing stuff. If alarm is raised at those then do a driving competency test.

I was sitting in a car eating my sandwich in a Morrisons car park, then saw this old chap barely walking and looking rather confused thinking if he actually lost but he then gets into a car behind me. Takes off his handbrake, rolls into the back of me, doesn't even notice and then takes a good half a minute to back out the space in what is a rather quiet and spacious car park. Now it was just a foot that he rolled from into my car and I'm probably scrapping it in a few months so I don't care but I was genuinely worried about someone like that driving close to a tonne of metal on a road.

EDIT: Just to back up what has been said earlier, there is no infrastructure for this in the country and it will be hugely unpopular to the common man. We can go to wars, create severe austerity measures, have expenses scandals but do something that actually can prevent accidents and save lives and the voters will remember that you making them sit a test.
 
Last edited:
You can go from quite capable to full retard in only a couple of years, there's no good age or period for this test. You can also loose it much younger, early on-set parkinsons etc..

The current system of referring people anonymously isn't that bad.
 
Like many above, I feel we need to be re examined every 5-10 years.
Its crazy to think that people are driving today having passed a test over 50 years ago. Not only have the roads changed significantly, but more has been added to the test to ensure drivers not only know how to drive better,but have a limited ability to quickly diagnose common car faults.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
Like many above, I feel we need to be re examined every 5-10 years.
Its crazy to think that people are driving today having passed a test over 50 years ago. Not only have the roads changed significantly, but more has been added to the test to ensure drivers not only know how to drive better,but have a limited ability to quickly diagnose common car faults.
Click to expand...

I agree. The person in question in my OP actually never sat an official test.

He was in the military and his CO apparently just asked him if he could drive and issued a licence when he said yes.
 
I don't think the test is worth anything! Older people need sight and reaction tests, along with the theory test to make them read the highway code.
Too many people drive inconsiderate and only concern themselves with the few meters in front of them. No idea of limits or what's behind them.
Andi.
 
Resident said:
I agree. The person in question in my OP actually never sat an official test.

He was in the military and his CO apparently just asked him if he could drive and issued a licence when he said yes.
Click to expand...

Same deal with one of my grandfathers. Got his license through the military probably around 50+ years ago now. He was actually a really good driver, he drove me somewhere recently though and now, not so good. Not enough for me to want to report him though.
 
bazzabear said:
I think there are probably two main blockers to the government putting in place periodic re-tests.

1) They don't have the facilities or personnel to run them. I believe in some places you already have to start booking your driving test months in advance. Imagine how much demand would increase by with this.

2) It will not be popular. They're going to lose a lot of goodwill from the majority of people who simply don't want to have to go through it again.
Click to expand...

1. It would still have to be paid for and with higher demand, they could afford more staff

2. Tough ****... the ones who are really afraid of that are the ones who shouldn't be on the road...
 
ScottiB said:
I've always believed that vision, hearing and reaction tests should be compulsory and regular (for example, every ten years over 30 and 5 years over 60). Although I'm aware that this could be prohibitively expensive.

Having seen how drastically reactions slow with age and considering that poor reaction times are the primary reason given by safety organisations promoting anti-drink driving legislation, it fascinates me that nothing is ever put forward on this subject.

Whilst I'm not condoning drink driving, I don't touch a drop I'm driving and I refuse to drink more than a few units if I have to drive within 12 hours. I firmly believe that a 20yr old after a few pints still has better reactions than the average 70 year old. If one is deemed unsafe, why isn't the other?
Click to expand...

Vision would be relatively simple.
You enclose a copy of a report (1-2 years old max) from your optician with your photocard renewal, at most it would require the optician to print out a new form and keep a note on their system.

It's worrying how many people don't take care of their eyes, whether they drive or not (we had to ban my mum from her mobility scooter until she got an eye test, she was "it's fine I don't need new glasses" whilst the optician was "well you need a cataract removed, i'll send a note to your GP" sort of thing).

Hearing isn't so important given that you can be deaf and drive.
 
Werewolf said:
Vision would be relatively simple.
You enclose a copy of a report (1-2 years old max) from your optician with your photocard renewal, at most it would require the optician to print out a new form and keep a note on their system.

It's worrying how many people don't take care of their eyes, whether they drive or not (we had to ban my mum from her mobility scooter until she got an eye test, she was "it's fine I don't need new glasses" whilst the optician was "well you need a cataract removed, i'll send a note to your GP" sort of thing).

Hearing isn't so important given that you can be deaf and drive.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why this isn't a standard practice. They "test" your vision at the start of the practical test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom