Pensioner mandatory driving test

Buckie2k5

Ok what is it with pensioners passing you with about 2 cm to spare, are they oblivious to you being there or just plain ignorant and reckon its their road. Time and time again this happens to me with today being the closest yet, i could smell his hi-karate.

Mandatory tests for over 65's in my opinion. As it is now its up to the driver to judge wether they are fit to drive and quite clearly most of them are not.

Rant over, now off to clean my now brown white saddle.

GiantMike

I think it's more about enforcement. Some young drivers drive badly and they've just passed their test and haven't had a lifetime to develop bad habits. Some middle-aged drivers drive badly too. Some oldies are probably quite good, when they're not reaching into the glove box for a Wurther's Original.

random man

A white van deliberately passed too close to me today but I wouldn't say all van drivers should resit their test. You can't generalise about age groups or drivers of certain types of vehicle, there are just some idiot drivers about.

matt-h

We should all have to redo our test every 5 years if you ask me.
People's eyesight, attitude and skill all change over that amount of time.
It would give the birds a chance to practice parking :roll:

Matt

Buckie2k5

random man wrote:

A white van deliberately passed too close to me today but I wouldn't say all van drivers should resit their test. You can't generalise about age groups or drivers of certain types of vehicle, there are just some idiot drivers about.

The difference is when you reach a certain age as we know your body and brain slows down, You may not be able to react to certain situations. A resit at 65 would prove your ability and a further resit every 5 years.

From a quick google check this out
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166762/Pensioner-93-killed-motorcyclist-day-retired-family-calls-laws-older-drivers-changed.html

"he was fined £3,750 and banned from driving for five years"

How the hell can the government allow a 93 year old to drive without testing. Maybe he will be back on the roads now as his 5yr ban is up lol

MattC59

With out a doubt !!

My father in law has (thankfully) made the decision that he shouldn't drive in poor light at his eyes aren't good. Unfortunately it's only been a recent decision and Mrs C and I have refused to get in a car with him for a while !

Of course there's the argument that revoking a driving licence limits the individual's freedom, but it's quite simple, if your physical or mental state isn't up to driving a car, then tough, the safety of those on or around the roads is more important than your freedom of movement.

brianonyx

They brought in age related tests in Scandinavia and it increased the death rate on the roads. Pensioners stopped driving and pedestrian deaths rocketed.

Studies show that coffin dodgers are quite a safe age group for driving and tend to self regulate their driving and restrict to local daylight driving. Taking away cars also adds to SS support requirements for the elderly.

Of course there are exceptions like the old dears who drive up dual carriageways the wrong way but generally it would be more harmful to bring in new legislation. imho.

rolf_f

Would cost a fortune - and, as implied, only target one group of potentially problematic drivers. I'd favour something simpler. A mandatory licence renewal every ten years or so, applied for online, which as an application process that forces you to view every page of the highway code and answer a simple question on each page, before you could submit would do wonders (eg I sometimes think that nobody anymore knows what a box junction is and nobody knows that you aren't supposed to park right on junctions etc etc). This would be cheap and at least remind people of their bad habits.

edhornby

Rolf that is a brilliant solution !

capt_slog

MattC59 wrote:

With out a doubt !!

My father in law has (thankfully) made the decision that he shouldn't drive in poor light at his eyes aren't good. Unfortunately it's only been a recent decision and Mrs C and I have refused to get in a car with him for a while !

Of course there's the argument that revoking a driving licence limits the individual's freedom, but it's quite simple, if your physical or mental state isn't up to driving a car, then tough, the safety of those on or around the roads is more important than your freedom of movement.

If we're going to use that as the criteria then fair enough, it will get rid of about half the cars on the road overnight. But if it's ONLY going to be applied to those over a certain age then I'd be objecting.

BTW, did anyone else read the first few lines of this and wonder why a bloke of 93 has only just retired?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... anged.html

Pituophis

My old man is still driving at 77 and I wish there was compulsory testing for the elderly.
He's not had an accident yet, but it may be coming
He still has all his faculties, but his decision making rather than reaction times, are really slowing down now. He may wait overly long at a junction and then just as you think he's missed his slot, he's off!
We have almost convinced him to give it up, but the only draw back is he see's it as losing all his independence and I think he believes that once he loses his car, it's all over.
Yeah I know, not great for the person he happens to have his accident with either.

MartinGT

GiantMike wrote:

I think it's more about enforcement. Some young drivers drive badly and they've just passed their test and haven't had a lifetime to develop bad habits. Some middle-aged drivers drive badly too. Some oldies are probably quite good, when they're not reaching into the glove box for a Wurther's Original.

BelgianBeerGeek

Damn right. Too many old gits on the road. I was following some old dear the other day and her driving was dangerous.

They are given free bus passes for a reason. Since when has being independant meant having a motor vehicle?

MartinGT

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Damn right. Too many old gits on the road. I was following some old dear the other day and her driving was dangerous.

They are given free bus passes for a reason. Since when has being independant meant having a motor vehicle?

Bit harsh, one day we shall be "old gits"

MattC59

MartinGT wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Damn right. Too many old gits on the road. I was following some old dear the other day and her driving was dangerous.

They are given free bus passes for a reason. Since when has being independant meant having a motor vehicle?

Bit harsh, one day we shall be "old gits"

Yep, but if I'm not capable of driving safely, then I should have my licence revoked. Yes, it'll be inconvenient and I'm bloody sure I'll p!ss and whine about it, but not as inconvenient as running somebody over.

Bucksspeedyboy

Due to having some long rides booked in this summer, I have been keeping the training up by doing more rides round the lanes in the dark evenings than I have done in previous years. One of the reasons I don't like doing it is because of failure of some oncoming drivers to dip their lights. I have experienced the same problem over many years of running in the dark (and I know I can be seen as I have a headlight and hi-vis vest on when running and bright front light and hi-vis on when riding and the reactions of drivers coming toward me who do dip their lights shows I can be seen).

Now obviously I can't see the drivers of offending cars, but I suspect that many who don't dip their lights are elderly because they also tend to be the ones that are driving slowly in a cautious manner. I suspect they keep their lights on full because they can't see very well on dip. So my suggestion would be regular eye tests for older drivers.

Daz555

Buckie2k5 wrote:

Mandatory tests for over 65's in my opinion.

Without evidence, it is just an opinion. Opinion is irrelevant in such matters. We need evidence.

Looks like there isn't any.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489

There is no more reason to test people who are 65 than for any other age group.

If anything older people are just a danger to themselves in that as they become older and more frail they have a seriously impacted survival chance if an accident does happen - this does not mean they are driving poorly however - certainly no worse than young people for example.

debeli

I'd re-test all motorists every ten years. I am an enthusiastic driver and cyclist. The few problems I've had with poor behaviour by other road users have been where increasing age or unfamiliarity with road signs may have added unhelpfully to inattention or a lack of skill.

Similarly, I've caused a potentially dangerous situation through my own inattention or poor observation.

I am now teaching the second of my three children to drive and I continue to pick up little faults in my own driving (as do they). A re-test every decade would help to focus the minds of experienced drivers and would weed out those no longer capable of driving safely.

The cost would not be an issue. Petrol is now £1.30 a litre (almost £6 a gallon) and various other motoring costs are soaring. Safety is paramount. Sod the cost and introduce re-tests every ten years. And re-tests after a ban (something I ought to have been given after my own ban many years ago).

Guanajuato

With Debeli about retesting. Maybe the suggestion of an on-line refresher of the theory part every 5 years, as suggested earlier.
Had someone trying to drive in my boot on Friday evening as I slowed to avoid overtaking a cyclist on a bend with traffic coming the other way. :-/

keef66

My employer takes very seriously it's duty of care and recognises driving as the most hazardous activity we undertake as employees. Every 3 years we have a refresher course in which we're out driving for 3-4 hours with an advanced driving instructor, generally ex traffic cops. That really makes you concentrate on how you drive. It's taken me 3 goes to achieve a Low Risk rating. If you're deemed High Risk you get to do it every year!

Daz555

keef66 wrote:

My employer takes very seriously it's duty of care and recognises driving as the most hazardous activity we undertake as employees. Every 3 years we have a refresher course in which we're out driving for 3-4 hours with an advanced driving instructor, generally ex traffic cops. That really makes you concentrate on how you drive. It's taken me 3 goes to achieve a Low Risk rating. If you're deemed High Risk you get to do it every year!

I assume you drive as part of your job?

y33stu

A few years ago I worked for enterprise rent a car. They provide courtesy cars to customers via their insurance policies. I had an old guy come in, who'd caused a crash and written his car off. He was 85.

We had to take driving licence details when insuring every customer - his licence expired 15 years previously, and he never renewed it.

Which led to the uncomfortable conversation that he was at fault in an accident, without a valid driving licence, meaning his insurance company wouldn't cover the damage to his, or his victim's car. not sure what the police made of it all.

Personally I think a retest every 5/10 years for every driver should be mandatory.

pinno

I would ban vehicles apart from:
Taxi's
Buses
Fire Engines
Ambulances
Doctors/Medical staff vehicles.

I probably won't be able to because Stevo will tell me that the UK benefits to the tune of £xbillion because of cars.

'Orse and cart - jobs for farriers, Blacksmiths, Coach builders, joiners, cartwheel makers, bicycle manufacturers, bus makers, train drivers, steel industry, the coal industry...

veronese68

Can I apply for a mandatory retest for the doddery old git that drove into the side of my car on a roundabout last night? The old fool didn't stop, slow down or try to avoid me in any way. I don't think he had any idea I was there. Now got the hassle of sorting the repairs out. Deep joy.
Piña could you take taxis off that list? I don't see them as being any better than a private car. They don't carry any more people and are frequently driving around with no passengers touting for business.

keef66

Daz555 wrote:

keef66 wrote:

My employer takes very seriously it's duty of care and recognises driving as the most hazardous activity we undertake as employees. Every 3 years we have a refresher course in which we're out driving for 3-4 hours with an advanced driving instructor, generally ex traffic cops. That really makes you concentrate on how you drive. It's taken me 3 goes to achieve a Low Risk rating. If you're deemed High Risk you get to do it every year!

I assume you drive as part of your job?

I do, but nowhere near as much as I used to. They are considering doing it for all employees regardless of whether they drive on business.

dee4life2005

The problem is it's not just "old folk" that are a danger on the roads, it's all demographics.

The photo licence has a 10 year validity after which you have to submit a new photo, with a fee. Perhaps this is an ideal time to implement a re-test of some description. I think redoing the theory test should be compulsory, to make sure everyone knows the latest inclusions in the highway code. I also think that there should be some form of practical re-test as well, even if it's just a 5 minute drive round the block with an examiner next to you.

You'd then need to pass both before your licence gets renewed.

Probably impractical to implement in reality, but would probably make the roads a little safer.

random man

dee4life2005 wrote:

The problem is it's not just "old folk" that are a danger on the roads, it's all demographics.

The photo licence has a 10 year validity after which you have to submit a new photo, with a fee. Perhaps this is an ideal time to implement a re-test of some description. I think redoing the theory test should be compulsory, to make sure everyone knows the latest inclusions in the highway code. I also think that there should be some form of practical re-test as well, even if it's just a 5 minute drive round the block with an examiner next to you.

You'd then need to pass both before your licence gets renewed.

Probably impractical to implement in reality, but would probably make the roads a little safer.

I totally agree with this. I always thought I was a good, safe driver until I decided to train as a driving instructor. I realised I knew bugger all really. I passed my test first time in the 70s without any lessons :shock: After training as an instructor I knew there was no way I could do that these days as so much more is required of new drivers.

Maybe older drivers may seem poor purely because they did not have to pass such rigorous tests? There's certainly no excuse for younger drivers.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

I probably won't be able to because Stevo will tell me that the UK benefits to the tune of £xbillion because of cars.

Stop sulking Pinno...I always had you down as a bit more cheery.

pinno

Veronese68 wrote:

Piña could you take taxis off that list? I don't see them as being any better than a private car. They don't carry any more people and are frequently driving around with no passengers touting for business.

Okay, no problem. List amended.

@Stevo. Whos' sufferin'?

slowmart

Just because you can have children doesn't mean you should.

The same goes for driving.


The standards for both can leave a lot to be desired.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

@Stevo. Whos' sufferin'?

Probably someone who takes Vtech's tax knowledge as gospel