A30 in cornwall

being from there i can safely say that only muppets ride on that road

Massively tragic event. A driver with cataracts has no place behind the wheel. If true and she didn’t inform the DVLA of her condition, she should be charged with death by dangerous driving regardless of age.

I’m a supporter of compulsory evaluation for suitability to drive after a certain age. Not necessarily a full test but an eye sight check (both in daylight and simulated night time conditions) plus a hazard perception/reaction test.

I also feel that GP’s, hospitals and opticians should have a legal responsibility placed up on them to inform the DVLA of circumstances which would exclude a driver whether it’s poor eyesight, epilepsy, brain tumour etc. At present it’s too often down to the driver to be honest and responsible.

One of my grandad’s, god bless him, was driving into his 90’s. I remember seeing him drive in his late 70’s. I was shocked at how bad his driving had become and hoped I was never on the road at the same time. His reactions had slowed to such an extent it was terrifying. He also had developed a total lack of spacial awareness when driving. I’m all for independence for the elderly but at what cost.

simulated night time conditions

very important with the number of people who have laser eye surgery which impacts night vision

but testing (skills and eyesight) is not going to happen, too many lazy knee jerk reactionaries involved and even if it did happen people will ignore it as those who have no tax, insurance and valid DL do every day

chronological age is no guide at all – biological age is.

Very true TJ and I’m in total agreement with neninjas’s comments above, especially “I also feel that GP’s, hospitals and opticians should have a legal responsibility placed up on them to inform the DVLA“

I made my Father go for an eye test last year (he’s 81) just to be sure he was ok to still drive. IMO both he and my Mother are safe drivers, who use their cars daily and are considerably better drivers than a very high proportion of the total muppets a fraction of their age. I would have no compunction in stopping them driving (by whatever means) if I felt they were a danger to themselves or others.

In response to the ‘ageists’ reactionary comments, you only have to look at the fatal accident figures to realise that banning under 20’s would have a far greater effect than banning over 75’s.

Very sad story.

I’m pretty sure white people are involved in most of the accidents in the UK.

Maybe we should ban them.

Prejudiced discriminatory policies are ridiculous.
not as ridiculous as your example unless of course you want to argue performance does not decline with age.
Loads of knee jerk reactions and stupid comparisons ,which ignores this self evidently true point that performance declines with age.
We dont let 10 year olds drive …when that is also age discrimination.
I know they are not the sam ebut we do use age to define when and if you can drive at the lower end i see no reason why we cannot use it at the higher end for retests and other performance checks tbh.

Tragic story as is any death cyclist or not. I don’t know the circumstances so I’m not going to lay blame with anyone. My condolences to all who know the couple.

Like i always say kill or hurt my loved one, accident or not, i will kill you.

Stupid thing to say and if it came to it I’m quite sure you wouldn’t have quite such an idiotic attitude.

Let’s take an example, ‘loved one’ trips and breaks leg, so they get ‘hurt’ and you kill someone for that?

I also feel that GP’s, hospitals and opticians should have a legal responsibility placed up on them to inform the DVLA of circumstances which would exclude a driver whether it’s poor eyesight, epilepsy, brain tumour etc. At present it’s too often down to the driver to be honest and responsible.

It is impossible by the bedside after illness or injury to be able to determine if someone can drive competently. The only way to do this is a formal driving test which simulates the driving conditions. Therefore such responsibility must lie with the DVLA. People with all manner of disabilities are legally allowed and competent to drive but they are tested in their vehicle with the necessary modifications.

I support regular testing of high risk groups which includes the elderly. I agree that young drivers are probably a higher risk group, but I doubt that driving tests would diminish that risk as their problem is probably more behavioural rather than physiological. A different strategy is needed there.

hugor – Member
I am surprised insurance companies haven’t placed conditions on elderly drivers.

Damn right! You’d think that they would employ people to work out what the risk and consequences of accidents was across all age groups and charge for insurance accordingly. Oh……

neninja – Member
A driver with cataracts has no place behind the wheel. If true and she didn’t inform the DVLA of her condition, she should be charged with death by dangerous driving regardless of age.

If the drivers eyesight was so bad, how come she saw the cat?

Damn right! You’d think that they would employ people to work out what the risk and consequences of accidents was across all age groups and charge for insurance accordingly. Oh……

They do. You ever tried to insure an 18 year old new driver. Pop over to gocompare and get a quote!

Why is it ok to prejudice against one extreme of the driver age group but not the other?

druidh – Member

If the drivers eyesight was so bad, how come she saw the cat?

Excellent 😆

hugor – Member
Why is it ok to prejudice against one extreme of the driver age group but not the other?

Whoosh!

interestingly Druidh the only stats I could find were american and showed a sharp rise in accidents over 75 yrs old

It is impossible by the bedside after illness or injury to be able to determine if someone can drive competently. The only way to do this is a formal driving test which simulates the driving conditions. Therefore such responsibility must lie with the DVLA. People with all manner of disabilities are legally allowed and competent to drive but they are tested in their vehicle with the necessary modifications.

You’ve missed my point. Someone with a registered disability is very different to someone who has just had a brain operation, got severe epilepsy, been diagnosed with cataracts etc. How can the responsibility lie with the DVLA when they are blissfully unaware of it. I know of people who have been advised by the surgeon or consultant to refrain from driving or inform the DVLA of their condition but it is totally reliant on the individual concerned to actually do the right thing.

stevewhyte – Member
> druidh – Member
> If the drivers eyesight was so bad, how come she saw the cat?

Excellent Semi-serious point though. One might question her reactions and/or judgement but if she saw a cat then there’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t have seen two stationary cyclists.

neninja

That can never be a medical professionals role – gross breach of confidentiality and of the ethics of the professional relationship

Junkyard – Member
“…Prejudiced discriminatory policies are ridiculous.”
not as ridiculous as your example…

Exactly. It was intended to be ridiculous. Just like basing an argument on a characteristic which has nothing to do with driving skills.

the full sentence

not as ridiculous as your example unless of course you want to argue performance does not decline with age.

The issue is whether it is severe enough to warrant removal of the driving licence not whether it is happening.
It seems an odd partial quote to use that addresses none of the points I made.

One might question her reactions and/or judgement but if she saw a cat then there’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t have seen two stationary cyclists.

What evidence do we have that there was a cat?

That can never be a medical professionals role – gross breach of confidentiality and of the ethics of the professional relationship

“If the patient continues to drive when the doctor says s/he is unfit, the guidelines say that the doctor can inform the patient’s next of kin, and should disclose the relevant medical information immediately in confidence to the medical advisor at the DVLA. If the doctor does do this s/he should inform the patient of the decision to do so, and write to the patient confirming it.

The doctor’s duty to notify the DVLA about someone’s health may override his/her duty of confidence to the patient.”

nick1962 – Member

……………..

The doctor’s duty to notify the DVLA about someone’s health may override his/her duty of confidence to the patient.”
I am surprised. Every days a school day on STW – whats the source?

http://www.mind.org.uk/help/rights_and_legislation/fitness_to_drive

TJ
Didn’t want to get involved in in a debate about the semantics/pedantry vis a vis chronological age.physiological age or biological age etc as it seemed inappropraite considering the circumstances.
I’m guessing you saw the research from Florida about older drivers abilities ?
BTW I wasn’t calling for any blanket bans because of chronological age but licenses should be dependent on capability…..and the older you get the more your faculties diminish

Sound.

Edit: deleted after crossing with post ^^

“I am surprised. Every days a school day on STW – whats the source? “

DVLA website has a link to a PDF quoting GMC Guidelines as follows.

“If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop driving, or you discover that they are continuing to drive against your advice, you should contact the DVLA immediately and disclose any relevant medical information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.
5. Before contacting the DVLA you should try to inform the patient of your decision to disclose personal information. You should then also inform the patient in writing once you have done so.”
(*Reproduced with kind permission of the General Medical Council) “

From Page 6 of “At A Glance” PDF

http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/ataglance.aspx

More here
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/confidentiality.asp
Not had a chance to read it all but does seem there are a lot of popoular misconceptions about doctor/patient confidentiality. Probably the same with legal relationships too?
Back to the OP.
It is a terrible tragedy for the victims and their families.
If some of the earlier posts are accurate then it may well have been avoidable and the driver may have been at fault.We are not in possession of all the facts so caution is needed and I know this may be hard for some to accept but I strongly suspect that the driver is devasted by what happened and probably witnessed first hand the aftermath of her actions.This will haunt her to the grave. This was not some wreckless maniac “joyriding” in a stolen car with scant regard for other road users but as other posts have said much more likley a misguided elderly relative who may genuinely not have realised that her capability had deteriorated to a possibly dangerous and in this case tragically fatal, degree.This is why a robust system of checks is needed rather that the current “self regulation” which various posts have already highlighted as inadequate.
From a cycling perspective I feel that we should have dedicated traffic free ,segrated cycle lanes running similar routes to popular high speed roads and if these were in place would be happy to see cyclists excluded from such roads and any further such tragedies avoided.