Petition Elderly Drivers to retake test at 70

giant_man

There's 17 signatures on there. 17!! Not really going to have much impact now is it?

Cunobelin

liversedge wrote:

if they can't pass the vision test they shouldn't be on the road.

Another issue...and independent of age, but the test for eyesight is inadequate. It is possible to be registered as "blind" and still drive legally at any age!

IN a random test carried out by the RAC / Specsavers at the International Motor SHow att he NEC inn Birmingham they found that 25% of the drivers tested failed (3000 tested, 700 failed" a basic eye test and were driving with impaired vision!

So yes - I would fully agree, but let's get all the visually impaired drivers off the road and more importantly back the RAC and other motoring organisations with a campaign to have a compulsory two yearly eye test for all drivers:

Edmund King, Executive Director of the RAC Foundation, said:

"It is staggering that a quarter of motorists are willing to get behind the wheel when their eyesight does not meet even the basic legal standards.

"It is vital that drivers have their eyes tested at least every two years regardless of whether they wear spectacles and have an eye examination immediately if they have the slightest doubt about their sight.

"Having the car serviced is routine for most motorists and yet eyes are equally as important to motorists as good tyres or brakes. Most eye defects can be easily rectified with the correct prescription glasses while some medical conditions can be diagnosed at an early stage during a regular eye test.

"Employers have also got an important part to play by ensuring that their fleet drivers get routine check ups. There are also insurance companies who offer discounts to drivers who have regular tests. Sadly many drivers never seem to bother to have eye tests, and assume that their sight is as accurate as when they passed their driving test".

Cunobelin

liversedge wrote:

A few of the things I would do, thanks for asking;

1. Driving licences would be only be valid between the age of 17 and 80
2. Licences would expire at 65 and every 5 years thereafter.
3. When a licence expired the renewal process would comprise; i. GP fitness to drive assessment with formal cetification of cognitive and physical capability. ii. full driving test (written and practical).
4. Anyone (of any age) involved in a RTA would have a formal fitness to drive test
5. Any driving related conviction would result in a full retake of the test, including speeding
6. Serious offences involving dangerous driving and loss of life would result in a lifetime driving ban.
7. Insurance companies would be required by law to validate driving licence details directly with the DVLA (computer link) before insuring parties
8. Tax discs more visible.
9. Punitive fine for driving without tax and insurance (like the TV licence).

... lots more thought but this should be a starter for 10.

I certainly would not let the individual decide their fitness to drive, they are the LAST people I would trust. A bit like MPs and expenses..........

Not bad, but line 2 should read 22 not 65!

The problem with the concept of dealing with age is that it is only a small proportion of drivers, and not the most dangerous ones. The most significant groups when it comes to motoring offences are the under 25 year olds and the middle aged "reps" with company cars. (Even when the number actually on the road is corrected for)

We should be looking at a blanket advance in driving standards at all ages, selecting a particular group is not productive, and certainly in this case does not deal with the worst offenders.

eternal_headwind

Ok - maye this one isn't so ageist...

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/restrictlicense/

TheScouser on an Italian

What an appauling suggestion,my pension does not go far enough when it has been plundered to support my return to cycling.We have enough MP's paid with the taxes from hard earned wages and my little bit of investment interest to dream up STEALTH means of lighting our bank accounts, never mind an out & out call for the creation of a whole new department to lie in wait for the premature 70th birthday monies to Granddad & Grandma and the lift it from us.WAIT UNTILL YOU REACH 70yrs of age(if the car is still around,)what then will be you opinion?.Judging by my recent observations of some of the cycling fraternity THE HIGH VIS SPORTY WEAR appears to be a possible excuse for a claim; due to their neglegence at roundabouts and junctions with the BLEAT & EXPLEATIVES of are you bl**dy blind or something,followed by the cashtill eyes adding up the claim value for their own neglect.For what it's worth,some of those out there on the road(and illegally riding on the pedestrian sanctury)should revisit their CYCLING PROFICIENCY days, if they ever achieved the badge.Statements like the one that started the debate are often made by people in the same way as those that contribute to the club of:- PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES etc,etc.

KeithG

This is an outrageous and ill-thought out petition.
Typical of motorists and their blinkered selfish thought processes to think that everyone on the road is an idiot except them. This is a cycling forum and we are capable of much better than this. Shameful OP.
The elderly are much safer drivers than the young FULL STOP.
Ask the insurers and check out the premiums for age. Do a little bit of checking and find out who causes the most accidents. It is not the elderly driver.

It is also a nasty and unpleasant bit of discrimination (what used to be called prejudice), substitute black, female, Muslim, or most other minorities for the "Elderly" in the OP and you would be rightly accused of racism, sexism etc. Why is ageism acceptable?

I am 52 years old by the way, in case anyone asks!

liversedge

TheScouser on an Italian wrote:

What an appauling suggestion,my pension does not go far enough when it has been plundered to support my return to cycling.We have enough MP's paid with the taxes from hard earned wages and my little bit of investment interest to dream up STEALTH means of lighting our bank accounts, never mind an out & out call for the creation of a whole new department to lie in wait for the premature 70th birthday monies to Granddad & Grandma and the lift it from us.WAIT UNTILL YOU REACH 70yrs of age(if the car is still around,)what then will be you opinion?.Judging by my recent observations of some of the cycling fraternity THE HIGH VIS SPORTY WEAR appears to be a possible excuse for a claim; due to their neglegence at roundabouts and junctions with the BLEAT & EXPLEATIVES of are you bl**dy blind or something,followed by the cashtill eyes adding up the claim value for their own neglect.For what it's worth,some of those out there on the road(and illegally riding on the pedestrian sanctury)should revisit their CYCLING PROFICIENCY days, if they ever achieved the badge.Statements like the one that started the debate are often made by people in the same way as those that contribute to the club of:- PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES etc,etc.

I've read your post a few times now and am still unable to extract any argument against retesting the elderly.

liversedge

KeithG wrote:

Ask the insurers and check out the premiums for age. Do a little bit of checking and find out who causes the most accidents. It is not the elderly driver.

I have already cited a number of references in this thread. You need to cite some of your own to back up your claims.

liversedge

KeithG wrote:

It is also a nasty and unpleasant bit of discrimination (what used to be called prejudice), substitute black, female, Muslim, or most other minorities for the "Elderly" in the OP and you would be rightly accused of racism, sexism etc. Why is ageism acceptable?

Because as we get older our faculties deteriorate. That is why over 65s have to self certify under current law. But turkeys don't vote for christmas do they?

liversedge

Cunobelin wrote:

The problem with the concept of dealing with age is that it is only a small proportion of drivers, and not the most dangerous ones. The most significant groups when it comes to motoring offences are the under 25 year olds and the middle aged "reps" with company cars. (Even when the number actually on the road is corrected for)

We have an increasingly aging population. Believe it or not there are now more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 16 in the UK.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=949

Porgy

KeithG wrote:

This is an outrageous and ill-thought out petition.
Typical of motorists and their blinkered selfish thought processes to think that everyone on the road is an idiot except them. This is a cycling forum and we are capable of much better than this. Shameful OP.
The elderly are much safer drivers than the young FULL STOP.
Ask the insurers and check out the premiums for age. Do a little bit of checking and find out who causes the most accidents. It is not the elderly driver.

It is also a nasty and unpleasant bit of discrimination (what used to be called prejudice), substitute black, female, Muslim, or most other minorities for the "Elderly" in the OP and you would be rightly accused of racism, sexism etc. Why is ageism acceptable?

I am 52 years old by the way, in case anyone asks!

I have to agree - I mean apart from petitions being a waste of time and effort anyway - my own experience is that it's under 25s who are the worst drivers and cause most of the problems, if not accidents.

Has anyone else noticed all the flowery tributes appearing on lamposts on nearly every main road sometimes to motoryclists but usually to boy/girl racers in a stupid souped up Fiesta or similar with a load of their mates on board? There people are always young.

I'd say about 80% of aggressive/ dangerous drivers I encounter on the roads are under 25. The remainder are usually middle aged blokes in BMWs, black cabs or vans, and the odd bus too.

Elderly drivers on the other hand tend to be failry courteous if a little slow - but there's nothing wrong with that.

You don't often see them drving and talking on a mobile phone either.

And I'm 42 as if that matters.

liversedge

Porgy wrote:

Elderly drivers on the other hand tend to be failry courteous if a little slow - but there's nothing wrong with that. You don't often see them drving and talking on a mobile phone either.

Why do you think they are slow? Could it be that they are trying to compensate for poor vision and reaction times ?

And it is SO dull responding to a conflated argument about under 25s. YES THEY ARE A PROBLEM. But that is not relevant to this petition WHICH IS ABOUT THE ELDERLY.

I don't like knife crime but I'm not going to bang on about shotguns when discussing it.

liversedge

giant mancp wrote:

There's 17 signatures on there. 17!! Not really going to have much impact now is it?

Granted. its closed now anyway at the giddy height of 25 signatories.

Porgy

liversedge wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Elderly drivers on the other hand tend to be failry courteous if a little slow - but there's nothing wrong with that. You don't often see them drving and talking on a mobile phone either.

I don't like knife crime but I'm not going to bang on about shotguns when discussing it.

I haven;t been banging on - one post

it's a bad analogy as you are presupposing the elderly are a problem in the first place

knife crime= elderly and shotguns=under 25s i assume.
If that was the case then people would be being killed by elderly drivers left right and centre - but that just isn't the case.

Elderly drivers tend to stick to the speed limit for all sorts of reasons - mainly I would think that speeding isn;t nearly so exciting if you're old, nor is pointelss risk-taking, and with age comes some respect for other human beings - usually.

Porgy

TheScouser on an Italian wrote:

What an appauling suggestion,my pension does not go far enough when it has been plundered to support my return to cycling.We have enough MP's paid with the taxes from hard earned wages and my little bit of investment interest to dream up STEALTH means of lighting our bank accounts, never mind an out & out call for the creation of a whole new department to lie in wait for the premature 70th birthday monies to Granddad & Grandma and the lift it from us.WAIT UNTILL YOU REACH 70yrs of age(if the car is still around,)what then will be you opinion?.Judging by my recent observations of some of the cycling fraternity THE HIGH VIS SPORTY WEAR appears to be a possible excuse for a claim; due to their neglegence at roundabouts and junctions with the BLEAT & EXPLEATIVES of are you bl**dy blind or something,followed by the cashtill eyes adding up the claim value for their own neglect.For what it's worth,some of those out there on the road(and illegally riding on the pedestrian sanctury)should revisit their CYCLING PROFICIENCY days, if they ever achieved the badge.Statements like the one that started the debate are often made by people in the same way as those that contribute to the club of:- PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES etc,etc.

Mr Angry

what an impressive rant - i've rarely seen better.

liversedge

Porgy wrote:

liversedge wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Elderly drivers on the other hand tend to be failry courteous if a little slow - but there's nothing wrong with that. You don't often see them drving and talking on a mobile phone either.

I don't like knife crime but I'm not going to bang on about shotguns when discussing it.

I haven;t been banging on - one post

it's a bad analogy as you are presupposing the elderly are a problem in the first place

knife crime= elderly and shotguns=under 25s i assume.
If that was the case then people would be being killed by elderly drivers left right and centre - but that just isn't the case.

Elderly drivers tend to stick to the speed limit for all sorts of reasons - mainly I would think that speeding isn;t nearly so exciting if you're old, nor is pointelss risk-taking, and with age comes some respect for other human beings - usually.

The knife-crime/shotgun example was to demostrate how red herrings lead to invalid arguments. My post neither stated nor implied that you had been banging on, so I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion.

Just for the record, there is a significant body of evidence to show that elderly drivers are at greater risk to fatality than other drivers (and esp. at junctions and lane changes), I provided some references related to this and google will surely provide you with others. It might be worth checking it out.

Wrt under-25 year olds there is another petition -hereif you're interested.

Porgy

liversedge wrote:

My post neither stated nor implied that you had been banging on, so I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion.

you wrote:

I don't like knife crime but I'm not going to bang on about shotguns when discussing it.

Just for the record, there is a significant body of evidence to show that elderly drivers are at greater risk to fatality than other drivers (and esp. at junctions and lane changes), I provided some references related to this and google will surely provide you with others. It might be worth checking it out.

OK, I'll check them out. But unless the risk is significantly higher I don't think any measure that singles out older drivers is justified.

Wrt under-25 year olds there is another petition -hereif you're interested.

Doesn't it concern you that you;re getting very poor response to these petitions?
I have found in the past that getting people to directly lobby their MPs as part of an overall campaign gets much better response / results.

(Good to see you've got all the Sorfleets on board btw )

Maybe you could get together with some others (thopse who signed the petition?) and draft a paper or amnedments to existing legislation - try to get a sympathetic MP to put it through parliament.

Just a thought.

liversedge

Frankly, I'm not at all sure what a good response looks like on an internet forum.

My local MP Anne Milton has bigger issues with the south east plan meaning more homes and no supporting infrastructure investment. The "minor" country roads around my way are already becoming congested. That is rightly a priority, but for sure I can raise my concerns with her about championing a cause which will impact a segment of the voting population that is increasing in size quite rapidly and have time on their hands ... :?

Like most things, if this becomes an issue in the next few years then policy making will kick in after the fact. That is how government works these days. Show me any act of parliament and I'll show you the public event (and outcry) that triggered it. (Unless it is revenue raising of course).

Porgy

liversedge wrote:

Frankly, I'm not at all sure what a good response looks like on an internet forum.

My local MP Anne Milton has bigger issues with the south east plan meaning more homes and no supporting infrastructure investment. The "minor" country roads around my way are already becoming congested. That is rightly a priority, but for sure I can raise my concerns with her about championing a cause which will impact a segment of the voting population that is increasing in size quite rapidly and have time on their hands ... :?

You don't have to use your local MPs - use Hansard to find one that's likely to be sympathetic.

Like most things, if this becomes an issue in the next few years then policy making will kick in after the fact. That is how government works these days. Show me any act of parliament and I'll show you the public event (and outcry) that triggered it. (Unless it is revenue raising of course).

Yeah well that is true - but then that's why the MP lobbying apporach probably works best - builds up support for your changes within parliament - and with a paper already written and ready to put through whatever committees it needs to go through.

TBH it won;t be quick whatever route you choose - I work in the environment and legislation there lags behind about 20 / 25 years at least.

bikesdontfloat

Here' s a thought thats's bound to be unpopular, not matter how sensible it is. Let's have retesting for everyone (for a reasonable charge) every 5 years.
Why should the right to drive one or two tonnes of machinery only require testing once? If you want to keep your licence you need to show you can still drive to the standard to meet the (current) standard on a regular basis.

plowmar

I may have imagined this, but hasn't Stirling Moss just gone on record with this proposition; and I believe he used to drive a bit.

Slight difference in that he wanted it to start at 65 and 5yearly thereafter.

Sight and capability 'certificates' via doctor are required after 70?, so are the doctors being vigilant with all the extra tests, schemes and rules and regs to follow in recent years.

eternal_headwind

I signed the petition.

And one day I would like to be 70.

Then I will happily submit myself to retesting. The law should apply to us all.

Good luck to getting to 70 and beyond to all on the forum...

Mike Healey

liversedge wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Elderly drivers on the other hand tend to be failry courteous if a little slow - but there's nothing wrong with that. You don't often see them drving and talking on a mobile phone either.

Why do you think they are slow? Could it be that they are trying to compensate for poor vision and reaction times ?

Define slow. Are they, like me (68 going on 69) obeying the relevant speed limit and thus holding up those who are convinced that they "know" when it's safe to speed/overtake on blind bends/dips in the road, etc?

Poor reaction times? Mine have undoubtedly got slower with the years, but it's irrelevant - I haven't had to do an emergency stop in years (on bike or in car) - could it be that U25s have to use their swift reaction times to make up for their poorer driving skills?

By all means test us - cheap and effective way would be to check our NC discount - mine is 70%. Check our licences - never had a penalty point, nor been done for speeding (ah, but I'm slow ).

liversedge

Try the guys that go at 40mph every where. in a 60. in a 30. in a 50. driving to their ability and not the conditions or the speed limit.

its not just the old that do that btw.

TheScouser on an Italian

Right all you lot out there,TheScouser on an Italian has got the Gattling Gun loaded and squarely aimed.Check your statistics before you attempt to preside with a Kangaroo Court.As for the older ones that take their driving tests in later life, you don't see condemnatory figuers relating to accident statistics and wapping increases in insurance premiums,and then Mummy and Daddy bailing them out-if Mummy and Daddy are still alive and have perhaps escaped the lunatic antics of the younger irresponsible drivers.It is not only the over 70's &very elderly that should be re-tested,but those of all ages that give cause for concern.Those that persist in using hand held mobile phones or indeed doing anthing that is comparable or parallel should have; at their own expence-a brain scan to evaluate whether there is a malfunction in the motherboard.For the most part older people drive slower because:-A,They enjoy life,and wish to continue doing so.:-B,Value their hard earned very low premiums and wapping NCD and protected NCD status.:-C,Respect & value their hard earned possessions.These along with a list of other advantages that the younger driver has yet to attain(if ever)are earned with age and a full set of brains in the bag.Oh,by the way my other "fix" is my VERY RAPID 1997 Volvo V70 T5 CD Auto,my full comp' insurance for the year is less than most younger drivers pay per month for their pretend performance cars.I am soon to be 64yrs OLD,I had better make the best of what's left before the Court Sits in Judgement.I hope to God you don't end up with the power to weald euthanasia for a 70th birthday; non-returnable gift.

liversedge

And your argument against over 70s retaking their driving test is?

TheScouser on an Italian

My argument as such-is not an argument(see my previous input-8th June 2009)more of a protest/outcry about the very one sided view of those that wish to target those of us that reach 70yrs of age.The very use of the word ELDERLEY is DISCRIMINATION.Those that are like baying hounds ought to examine them selves & their driving history/habits.To throw this outrageous suggestion into the motoring melting put is as obscene as the attempt at retrospective roadfund collection/blackmail by our Peabrained Politicians;you know, those that can't see the results of killing the gifted goose,those that keep laying their Golden Breakfast Eggs.There are I am sure,there are far more below the age of 70yrs that should have had them removed and never regained than there are of 70yrs that put the retaining of them to question.Start the ball rolling with a re-test at 80yrs,unless a situation has brought about an earlier need to re-examine an individual driver.Then reduce the re-test age on a sliding scale over a number of years(this could produce a voluntary redundancy initiative).Then irrespective of age re-test every 3yrs(A Person MOT/Fitness to Drive Certificate).

spen666

liversedge wrote:

Try the guys that go at 40mph every where. in a 60. in a 30. in a 50. driving to their ability and not the conditions or the speed limit.

its not just the old that do that btw.

Its a speed LIMIT, not a target

TheScouser on an Italian

My late father aquired An Army Driving Licence,he learned in the UK before being shipped out to the Middle East on active service in the desert.Driving army trucks and a mix of staff cars he aquired a full licence.He drove untill a severe stroke took him off the road(Yes literally,down a ditch and into a tree at the age of 80yrs).ACCIDENT FREE,TOTALLY CLEAN RECORD(not even a parking fine)His attitude was:-TREAT EVERY OTHER DRIVER AS A POTENTIAL IDIOT,you don't achieve your licence by driving to a constant track record,don't loose it that way either.I do not object to re-tests,I am offended by the TARGETED-BIGOTED,TOTALLY NARROW MINDED PROPOSAL aimed at ONE AGE GROUP.

spen666

The Scouser on an Italian

Is this a reference to Heysel?