Over-70s face driving ban for failing eye tests

[Werewolf]

Yup your eyes only get worse as you get older, and you are increasingly much more likely to have a serious issue.

"Bad eyesight" at 30 might mean "wear your glasses you idiot" and that you can't read the number plate at the required distance, bad eyesight at 70 is much more likely to mean you can't read the number plate if it's at the end of your bonnet and you've got major issues that cannot be corrected easily with glasses (and some cases even surgical intervention won't help do anything but slow the degeneration).
The former is not necessarily terrible, you can probably still see well enough to not be a major danger, at least at lower speeds, the latter means you're probably not safe even driving at 20mph.

I have no wish to be on the road with anyone who cannot meet the legal requirements for vision, I know exactly how bad people's eyes can get, and how fast once they hit around 60, I've seen it with my father (who was sensible about it), and with other older people, some of whom were exceptionally stupid about it.

As I've said, I wouldn't mind mandatory eye testing to be done every time you renew your licence regardless of age, beside the issues with driver safety it would also probably catch a bunch of eye conditions early enough for them to be effectively treated/prevented from getting worse. It amazes me how many people don't seem to realise your eyes cannot be replaced and the eye test is as much about spotting a problem before it becomes untreatable as it is about getting your new glasses.

 

[wonko]

I'm thinking that the whole discussion should really be about risk, which is inherently about percentages and likelihoods of things happening plus their consequences. If you go down the 'but think of the children!' route of creating a new rule to prevent every accident from happening again then there won't be any drivers of any age.

It's probably going off on a bit of a tangent to the main discussion here, but the first question is perhaps "what is our risk appetite?", i.e. how safe is safe enough, and for example:
- should we tolerate young drivers causing more accident fatailties on the basis that they might get better and there's an economic impact if they aren't mobile and able to get to work?
- should we tolerate elderly drivers causing more accidents if they tend to be at lower speed and lesser consequence, plus increased social care costs if stopping them driving causes loss of independence?

Managing safety should consider the cost-benefit of making changes that affect risk. If valid stats show that eyesight is a significant cause of risk on the roads then how much will the proposals cost and is the reduction in risk worth that cost? (effectively the ALARP principle). The article I read seems to jump to a solution without the stats to back it up.

I'm in favour of routine and particularly 'for cause' eye tests for all drivers BTW, but a bigger problem to me is driver attitude (lack of attention, aggression, driving tired/ill, excessive speed in the wet/fog, etc. etc.).

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I have had exactly the same experience from drivers of all ages. By and large the worst driving I see is from men in about their thirties or forties. I have no problem with the idea of frequent eye tests (I'm 64) but his looks like doing something very cheap that will have no effect, rather then employing a lot more traffic officers, that might actually do something but is expensive.

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Short term political move that costs next to nothing rather than actually doing anything about the appalling state of the policing of our roads. More low hanging fruit picking from this useless govt.

 

[OspreyO]

Why are you so riled up about this? No one is denying that young drivers have accidents. But although young drivers can improve with experience, it is a fact that overall your vision gets worse as you age and that driving with poor/uncorrected vision is dangerous. Got an eye condition that makes it dangerous to drive? You go on the list. Need glasses for distance but refuse to get them? You go on the list.

Arguing about percentages is no comfort to the relatives of someone killed by an OAP who refused to get an eye test, or carried on driving despite being told not to by their optician.

Why are you so riled up about younger drivers.

"....One in five young drivers say they have been unable to see road signs compared to one in 20 older drivers, while one in seven young drivers say they have trouble reading number plates on the car in front, compared to only one in 35 drivers over 55..."

Young drivers risking lives by `neglecting eyesight'

One in seven young drivers put themselves and other road users in danger because of poor vision and problems with eyesight, according to a new survey

www.kentonline.co.uk

 

[Mr Badger]

Why are you so riled up about this? No one is denying that young drivers have accidents. But although young drivers can improve with experience, it is a fact that overall your vision gets worse as you age and that driving with poor/uncorrected vision is dangerous. Got an eye condition that makes it dangerous to drive? You go on the list. Need glasses for distance but refuse to get them? You go on the list.

Arguing about percentages is no comfort to the relatives of someone killed by an OAP who refused to get an eye test, or carried on driving despite being told not to by their optician.

Why are you so riled up about younger drivers.

Your retort does not make sense.

 

[OspreyO]

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Short term political move that costs next to nothing rather than actually doing anything about the appalling state of the policing of our roads. More low hanging fruit picking from this useless govt.

Exactly...

 

[OspreyO]

I'm thinking that the whole discussion should really be about risk, which is inherently about percentages and likelihoods of things happening plus their consequences. If you go down the 'but think of the children!' route of creating a new rule to prevent every accident from happening again then there won't be any drivers of any age.

It's probably going off on a bit of a tangent to the main discussion here, but the first question is perhaps "what is our risk appetite?", i.e. how safe is safe enough, and for example:
- should we tolerate young drivers causing more accident fatailties on the basis that they might get better and there's an economic impact if they aren't mobile and able to get to work?
- should we tolerate elderly drivers causing more accidents if they tend to be at lower speed and lesser consequence, plus increased social care costs if stopping them driving causes loss of independence?

Managing safety should consider the cost-benefit of making changes that affect risk. If valid stats show that eyesight is a significant cause of risk on the roads then how much will the proposals cost and is the reduction in risk worth that cost? (effectively the ALARP principle). The article I read seems to jump to a solution without the stats to back it up.

I'm in favour of routine and particularly 'for cause' eye tests for all drivers BTW, but a bigger problem to me is driver attitude (lack of attention, aggression, driving tired/ill, excessive speed in the wet/fog, etc. etc.).

Also this exactly. You have to look at the big ticket items, the big wins for the least effort. The bang for buck.

Do they have some metrics on which campaigns had the biggest impact on safety.

"...Phillips et al. (2009, 2011) analysed the overall effect of road safety campaigns – with additional
effect calculations for various campaign themes e.g. drink-driving, speeding.

They thereby considered the results of previous meta-analyses. Phillips et al. (2011) reported an overall decrease of crashes of 9% as well as 8% for injury crashes and 11% for fatal crashes. The latter however was not significant. Considering different campaign themes it proved that especially drink-driving campaigns are yielding effects. Whereas, campaigns with a drink-driving theme resulted in a significant accident reduction (18%) anti-speeding campaigns led to no significant change.

Regarding behavioural changes, Phillips et al. (2009) reported a significant increase in seat belt
usage (25%) and yielding behaviour (37%) as well as a 16% significant reduction in speeding.
However, no significant change in drink-driving behaviour was found. It should be noted that
behavioural outcomes refer to observed and self-reported behaviour.

Road safety campaigns also positively influence risk comprehension (16% increase), while no impact was found for favourable road safety attitudes and knowledge. It is important to consider that both meta-analyses calculated effects of campaigns with and without
enforcement components.

Phillips et al. (2011) reported results adjusted for accompanied enforcement measures. The reduction for campaigns accompanied by enforcement is higher (13%) than campaigns only (10%). Both effects are significant, though...."

 

[OspreyO]

From what I've read safety aids in cars will have the biggest impact. Because the car will see the danger even if the driver doesn't.

 

[Werewolf]

From what I've read safety aids in cars will have the biggest impact. Because the car will see the danger even if the driver doesn't.

Which relies on every car having them, and them functioning...

Which might be a nice thing in say 20 years time, when every car on the road has had them fitted as standard and most of the cars without them have been scrapped, but that's a long way off.

Meanwhile a very simple change in procedure done now, can start having an effect within months or a couple of years.

 

[OspreyO]

"...motorcycle ABS reduces the risk of death in motorcyclists by 31 %..."

"...Assessment of thirty international studies shows that using a three-point seat belt reduces the risk of a fatal outcome or serious injury after a crash by about 60% for the occupants in front and by about 44% for the occupants in the rear of the vehicle..."

"...Statistics indicate that P-AEBs stopped vehicles in 63.6% of the cases and, on average, reduced speed by 33.12% for the crashes..."


"...Increment of 1 km/h impact speed increases the odds of a pedestrian fatality by 11%.

The risk a pedestrian fatality reaches 5% at an estimated impact speed of 30 km/h..."

 

[Meridian]

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Short term political move that costs next to nothing rather than actually doing anything about the appalling state of the policing of our roads. More low hanging fruit picking from this useless govt.

You do remember that it was the Tories that gutted police numbers, right?

 

[Resident]

Yup your eyes only get worse as you get older, and you are increasingly much more likely to have a serious issue.

"Bad eyesight" at 30 might mean "wear your glasses you idiot" and that you can't read the number plate at the required distance, bad eyesight at 70 is much more likely to mean you can't read the number plate if it's at the end of your bonnet and you've got major issues that cannot be corrected easily with glasses (and some cases even surgical intervention won't help do anything but slow the degeneration).
The former is not necessarily terrible, you can probably still see well enough to not be a major danger, at least at lower speeds, the latter means you're probably not safe even driving at 20mph.

I have no wish to be on the road with anyone who cannot meet the legal requirements for vision, I know exactly how bad people's eyes can get, and how fast once they hit around 60, I've seen it with my father (who was sensible about it), and with other older people, some of whom were exceptionally stupid about it.

As I've said, I wouldn't mind mandatory eye testing to be done every time you renew your licence regardless of age, beside the issues with driver safety it would also probably catch a bunch of eye conditions early enough for them to be effectively treated/prevented from getting worse. It amazes me how many people don't seem to realise your eyes cannot be replaced and the eye test is as much about spotting a problem before it becomes untreatable as it is about getting your new glasses.

I wear glasses for driving.

LEGALLY I don't have to, I just scrape in the legal minimums for PCV driving (visual acuity requirements are slightly higher than standard car) but because I only just meet those requirements I feel that it's safer for me and others if I do.

I am 110% for eye-sight testing, IMO it should be required to submit an eye-sight test result every 5 years as a minimum. No reason why an optician can't administer the test and then immediately upload your result direct to DVSA.