I do remember many years ago being in the back of my granddad's car and him pulling on to a dual carriageway (at 70) without even checking his blind spot.
I know younger people with zero medical issues who don’t do that to be fair.
Over-70s face driving ban for failing eye tests
- Thread starter SexyGreyFox
- Start date
I know younger people with zero medical issues who don’t do that to be fair.
Explains the water in my shoes....if it was a spelling mistake
I do remember many years ago being in the back of my granddad's car and him pulling on to a dual carriageway (at 70) without even checking his blind spot
That is far better than joining a dual carriageway at 40mph without checking his blind spot. But seriously by the time you are on the 'acceleration lane you should have equalised your road speed to faster moving traffic and know what is behind you without turning your head. Constant mirror use.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,201
Reducing accidents on the road is always a good thing, however I don't see how this should just be an age thing, the issue with sight should be directed at all drivers.
17-24 year old's, still account for more road traffic accidents than any other age group. But that's not the narrative here.
Might as well change the driving laws, only those between the age of 25-69 are allowed to drive or own a car.
17-24 year old's, still account for more road traffic accidents than any other age group. But that's not the narrative here.
Might as well change the driving laws, only those between the age of 25-69 are allowed to drive or own a car.
Reducing accidents on the road is always a good thing, however I don't see how this should just be an age thing, the issue with sight should be directed at all drivers.
17-24 year old's, still account for more road traffic accidents than any other age group. But that's not the narrative here.
Might as well change the driving laws, only those between the age of 25-69 are allowed to drive or own a car.
Nice use of multiple logical fallacies there. I think I counted 3
The issue this policy is targeting does need tackled and there is a sharp correlation statistically with older people causing accidents. It’s not just anecdotal how a human being’s faculties deteriorate as they get older. So there is significantly more risk of an older person having dangerously poor eyesight than a younger person.
If you read the article there are also aspects around drink driving.
As for younger drivers having a higher statistical probability of causing or being involved in a crash, well that’s due to inexperience and an unwarranted sense of overconfidence in their abilities (especially the males). Mandatory eye tests are not going to fix this are they?
What would you propose to tackle the problem for 17-24 year old drivers? Maybe mandatory R plates (like in N. Ireland) for a year or more after passing your driving test? Maybe much more stringent driving tests like they do in Germany? A graduated license system?
Last edited:
I expected this thread to turn into an ageist thing, and it didn't disappoint.
Whilst there's no doubt that the accident statistics show an increase with age, I suspect this is due to much more than eyesight alone.
Surely what we want on the road is competent drivers, meaning that a driver presents an acceptably low risk to themselves and others. Unfortunately we seem to conflate competence with passing 'one-off' driving or sight tests. Attitude towards driving seems to be the bigger issue, and sadly you can't devise a test for that.
Whilst there's no doubt that the accident statistics show an increase with age, I suspect this is due to much more than eyesight alone.
Surely what we want on the road is competent drivers, meaning that a driver presents an acceptably low risk to themselves and others. Unfortunately we seem to conflate competence with passing 'one-off' driving or sight tests. Attitude towards driving seems to be the bigger issue, and sadly you can't devise a test for that.
The issue is why
The original article listed the statistics from all drivers and younger drivers, but then implies they are for older driver by mostly talking about older drivers.
It's a classic misrepresentation of data by the media to play on people's bias and the people who fail to check the actual statistics.
"...Research by the RAC Foundation suggests drivers aged 75 and over make up 6% of all licence holders but account for just 4.3% of all deaths and serious injuries. By contrast, drivers aged 16-20 make up just 2.5% of all drivers but 13% of those killed and seriously injured..."
"..."There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the road..."
And is actually falling for older drivers.
Compounding this misrepresentation is that these statistics are for those involved in accidents. Not those who caused accidents because they don't have the latter data.
If you have 3 passengers in a vehicle in an accident the older driver is probably the most likely to be hospitalised. So that distorts these figures even further.
There is no doubt getting older drivers who are incompetent off the road is an issue but it's completely over stated here. Doing more tests is never a bad thing. Unless it a deflection from something else.
Nice use of multiple logical fallacies there. I think I counted 3
The original article listed the statistics from all drivers and younger drivers, but then implies they are for older driver by mostly talking about older drivers.
It's a classic misrepresentation of data by the media to play on people's bias and the people who fail to check the actual statistics.
"...Research by the RAC Foundation suggests drivers aged 75 and over make up 6% of all licence holders but account for just 4.3% of all deaths and serious injuries. By contrast, drivers aged 16-20 make up just 2.5% of all drivers but 13% of those killed and seriously injured..."
"..."There's a stat that young drivers under the age of 24 have twice as many crashes as you'd expect, given the numbers on the road, and older drivers have half as many as you'd expect, given the number on the road..."
And is actually falling for older drivers.
Compounding this misrepresentation is that these statistics are for those involved in accidents. Not those who caused accidents because they don't have the latter data.
If you have 3 passengers in a vehicle in an accident the older driver is probably the most likely to be hospitalised. So that distorts these figures even further.
There is no doubt getting older drivers who are incompetent off the road is an issue but it's completely over stated here. Doing more tests is never a bad thing. Unless it a deflection from something else.
Last edited:
Many years ago… How many, far less traffic, do you remember everything he did, as he first entered the slip road maybe it was a clear road, maybe the angle of the slip road and correct use of his mirrors meant there was no need for a glance over the shoulder, maybe you were too young to notice he had a blind spot mirrorWhile I'm 39 and my eyesight has not changed for ~15 years (although I've been wearing glasses/contacts for that time) driving is fine. My wife has a slight astigmatism and I don't think that can be fully 'fixed', I believe lights at night look a bit 'starry' so not everything can be sorted. I do remember many years ago being in the back of my granddad's car and him pulling on to a dual carriageway (at 70) without even checking his blind spot
Last edited:
Now show me where I said younger drivers should not also be targeted specifically? None of the above makes the fact older drivers with poor eyesight are a liability and the current “self reporting” system is not fit for purpose. Tackling this does not mean the younger male driver issue shouldn’t be tackled separately.
The BBC article actually was fair and unbiased because it specifically stated younger drivers were statistically far more likely to cause an accident than older people.
You can have multiple unrelated problems that require different resolutions. You even conclude your own post acknowledging this is indeed a problem worth tackling.
Last edited:
As you age your eyesight declines naturally and it becomes a lot more pronounced as you reach 70 and beyond, its reasonable to therefor say over 70s should require regular testing whereas a 30yr old does not.
That's fair.
But there will be more younger drivers who need glasses on the road than older drivers because theres less older drivers.
Why not test are the younger people actually wearing their glasses or contacts.
Show me where I said you didn't say that.
I'm just pointing out the distortion of the statistics.
Last edited:
More of an issue is people with poor observation poor awareness than poor eyesight. But that should be picked up when they get points for doing something. So more enforcement and cops on the road will have more effect that eye tests. In my opinion.
You see this with cycling. So many drivers are not paying attention, trying to mess with a touch screen or on their phone.
You see this with cycling. So many drivers are not paying attention, trying to mess with a touch screen or on their phone.
My genius surprises even the cat.
17 - 23 year olds - good eyesight but has the patience and attention span of a pubescent nat so will get mad, punch the screen and give up! Car disabled!
24 - 55 year olds - eye sight fine but may require glasses. When the driver has no patience left it becomes increasingly unsolvable. Car disabled!
56 - 100 year olds - glasses required but if they don't have the mental dexterity for captcha then they can't drive a car. Car disabled!
Oh, how I joke....
17 - 23 year olds - good eyesight but has the patience and attention span of a pubescent nat so will get mad, punch the screen and give up! Car disabled!
24 - 55 year olds - eye sight fine but may require glasses. When the driver has no patience left it becomes increasingly unsolvable. Car disabled!
56 - 100 year olds - glasses required but if they don't have the mental dexterity for captcha then they can't drive a car. Car disabled!
Oh, how I joke....
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,612
- Location
- La France
A corner sofa and a Gucci belt?
Because you bringing up the statistics is irrelevant to the underlying issue being addressed. You can’t seriously think the argument about more young people needing glasses has merit? Young people are a lot less likely to have serious eye defects that even glasses can’t fix.
Problem: Older people with bad eyesight that in a significant number of cases can’t be corrected with spectacles, have caused multiple unnecessary deaths on the roads.
Conclusion: The self reporting system is not fit for purpose because many of these inconsiderate ******** refuse to self report or just refuse to stop driving.
Solution: Mandatory eye tests for over 70s and the results are reported and binding. No more relying on dear old Norris and or Dorris deciding their cataracts aren’t a big deal and going out and running some poor kid over.
You: But but youngsters.
It’s pure whataboutism and is a separate issue the government are already reviewing. They are looking at a graduated driving license system.
Last edited:
So many questions, don't even know where to start.
I think this might be a good place tho:
So many questions, don't even know where to start.
I think this might be a good place tho:
Ah, just ignore It.