MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I was just reading about the schoolgirl killed by the 87 year old driver who mounted the pavement three days after being asked by police to hand in his license.
Makes you wonder if the older end of society who wish to keep driving should have re-tests every five years or so. You don't half see a lot of doddery old drivers on the road.
Yes yes, there are some bad drivers from all other age groups but it seems that their driving is reckless and when caught, do face a punishment of some descrption. The older end seem sort of oblivious to their surroundings.
No, I'm not ageist. My Dad is 82 and still driving happily so good for him.
Makes you wonder if the older end of society who wish to keep driving should have re-tests every five years or so.
Nah, just the bad drivers. Make the test harder and insurance more expensive.
I would say every two years. However I feel that boy racers are more of a menace as are neds in their company vehicle. Not naming any makes of cars naturally. 😉
Yes!
could argue that all drivers should sit a refresher test every few years. Road signs do change, speed limits seem to be forgotten, the number of drivers who seem to have problems with lane discipline on motorways, on how to use a roundabout, etc.
The best people to work out who are the safest/worst drivers are the insurance companies who have to fork out the costs of any damage.
Now then - who has the highest premiums?
If you want to instantly make the roads safer, ban anyone under 25 from holding a license.
what druidh said but I dont actually object to retests for all tbh every decade with a licence renewal so we can all remember how we should be driving
Agree mrmo, but administering this would be a massive job.
I was more thinking for when age becomes an issue, the senses naturally diminish and health could cause a problem.
Having said that, shouldn't a GP report to the DVLA if he has a patient he feels isn't fit to drive?
Makes you wonder if [s]the older end of society[/s] [b]all drivers[/b] who wish to keep driving should have re-tests every five years or so.
FTFY.
Maybe not a re-sit but an assessment every few years once past 70 would be a very good idea.
Doctor/patient confidentiality comes into play.rockhopper70 - Member
Having said that, shouldn't a GP report to the DVLA if he has a patient he feels isn't fit to drive?
tankslapper - I thought you'd flounced a while ago?
The insurance argument doesn't really hold true, older (pensioner drivers) on the whole drive a lot less so their total risk of an accident is lower. I'd bet their accident rate per mile is higher.
Personally I think they should be retested, I think there are probably quite a lot of older drivers who would let the licence go rather than sit a retest as well.
Once that's in place it's time to sort out the 5 year retest for everybody.
but druidh....
don't you find that the older drivers lose their sense of spatial awareness but do drive slow so they can usually be avoided. Maybe that is why they have less bumps but it doesn't make them safe?
Agree wi the youth problem but that could possibly be addreses with a rising limit on BHP in line with experience.
but that won't stop them doing 50 in a 30....bad idea of mine there.
Old people vote.
When you're that old you have enough problems getting around without someone taking your licence with no good reason.
And as has been noted the elderly are not the most dangerous people on the road.
Nice theory, but do you have any proof whatsoever?stumpyjon - Member
I'd bet their accident rate per mile is higher.
That's a bit of a self-defeating argument. If they're driving slower, doesn't that make them immediately safer?rockhopper70 - Member
but druidh....
don't you find that the older drivers lose their sense of spatial awareness but do drive slow so they can usually be avoided. Maybe that is why they have less bumps but it doesn't make them safe?
I'll just repeat it - insurance companies load the premiums of the most risky drivers.
no it isn't.
I meant that if they are driving badly, it is usually at a slow speed. Doesn't make them a safe driver, driving badly but slowly.
Their accident rate per mile is irrelevant IMO, what matters is their absolute accident rate.
I have to pay extra on my insurance because I have a high mileage, which puts me at more risk of an accident.
I'll just repeat it - insurance companies load the premiums of the most risky drivers.
This is an unarguable fact but I would like to see a requirement for compulsory eye tests for over 50's and a competency test every 5 years from 70.
Far more important than that IMO would be a much tougher driving test, as the most incompetent and dangerous drivers I see are those who have recently passed their test. Attended one only yesterday, where the driver (passed test a week ago) had clobbered a motorbike after driving straight onto a roundabout.
...and insurance more expensive.
...and more people choosing to drive without
>but I would like to see a requirement for compulsory eye tests for over 50's<
Why stop there - eyesight starts to diminish long before that.
IME the vast majority of the problem driving is with the under 50's. The OP's case whilst very tragic is statistically rare.
...and more people choosing to drive without
The police have the equipment to identify who is driving without insurance. With a bit of ficus and effort...
Bearing in mind the theme of the original post I wonder which type of driver cause the most damage to others. These are the one we need to remove/hinder not the ones who just write off their own car . ( well them as well but you see what I mean)
Most of the cycling and pedestrian fatalities seem to be caused by older drivers or lorries.
Whilst there can be no doubt that the world would be a better place with the lorries gone no government will have the balls to make any attempts so we can only have a go at the others.
In principle retesting older drivers is fine but as usual realism means it wil be hard for a government to do so without yelps of discrimination.
Id agree with the OP on this. I was taken out on my bike by an 83 year old who "didn't see me" while pulling out of a junction and writing my bike off & almost me in the process, almost destroying my career just weeks before I was due to pass out.
Fair play to the guy though, he admitted liability straight off the bat & handed in his licence but it shouldn't take a near death to prompt it.
Compulsory retests for everyone.
The police have the equipment to identify who is driving without insurance. With a bit of ficus and effort...
But are considerably more interested in things that don't need policemen to catch them.
ANPR has been about for quite a while, I'm not sure that driving without insurance has stopped.
A much better option would be what the Aussies do. Your 'car tax' also includes 3rd party cover.
Don't agree with OP,
please see link, I'm afraid it is a US document but it's the only thing I can find with what I think is relevant factual data and it agrees with all the UK statments I can find (tried - dft and ons - sites, both of which I found unhelpful and difficult to search)
In a nutshell (*my possibly incorrect interpretion) is that it's a U curve with young to left, age 35-64 at the bottom, old to the right, however the right U leg is a LOT lower than the left..........
Can somebody graph this ?
same as TJ, everyone should take a retest. I reckon about every two or three years should do it.
Kev
Compulsory tests for all road users - to be renewed every two years.
how many driving licenses are there, I wonder - maybe 10-20M, or more ?Compulsory tests for all road users - to be renewed every two years.
That'd be around 20-40,000 extra tests every day (assuming 52 5-day weeks)
Given he shouldn't have had a licence anyway, it probably wouldn't have prevented the accident?
I can't see anything happening anytime soon anyway. Current government seems very much in favour of the car. 30bn for new roads (nothing for cycling!), 80mph speed limit, fuel duty rates on hold, Boris has just announced he will reduce congestion in London by building a new tunnel (yeah right!), lots of speed cameras already switched off etc.
Not a full retest but a basic competency test.
Yeh but look on the positive side - you could reduce unemployment with 5000 new examiners and when you add on the administrative burden you're looking at 15000 inefficient, over-pensioned, lazy public sector employees off the dole and reduced insurance premiums by getting stopping these lethal pensioners driving. I haven't even begun to think about how many extra buses and taxi drivers would also need to be employed ......................
It's a win win 😉
You already need to reapply for your license every 3 yrs after 70. You need to inform DVLA or relevant medical conditions. I don't think your GP is normally consulted if you tell them you are in good health, but if your GP (or other doctor) has told you not to drive and you do, or has advised you to inform DVLA about a medical condition and you don't you will be breaking the law.
Whilst there is anecdotal evidence of dotary old drivers there seems to be little evidence that they are causing or involved in lots of accidents.
We will all be old one day - and whilst I don't object to simple measures to make life genuinely safer for all, complex steps which bring little benefit and significant cost aren't really a good idea.
Given that there is a good chance a significant proportion of people here will be working until they are 70 - suddenly treating them as on the scrap heap at retirement probably isn't a good idea.
I'm sure in many cases where someone is driving and the shouldn't be there are family who are aware and who could if they wished intervene. I'm sure GPs don't really want to spend their time filling in DVLA forms.
no the police have the ability to spot vehicles which have NO insurance, not to identify easily if the person behind the wheel is actually insured on that vehicle.The police have the equipment to identify who is driving without insurance. With a bit of ficus and effort...
I don't see how that is a better system. You can't purchase Vehicle Excise Duty (tax disk) in the UK without proving you currently have Insurance in place for somebody to drive the vehicle. In the UK system the cost of insurance is paid by those with the highest actuarial risk, presumably in Oz everyone pays the same - so "safe, responsible" drivers are subsidising the reckless? Uninsured vehicles just become untaxed vehicles in an Oz based system. There could be an argument for aligning expiry dates of Insurance, VED and MoTs but it does mean you are loading all the cost at one time which will disadvantage the poorest.A much better option would be what the Aussies do. Your 'car tax' also includes 3rd party cover.
from the standard of the "driving" daan here in the saaaf, (which is one of if not my biggest pet peeve you may or may not know) I honestly believe people should have to be reassessed every 5 years.
i reckon they must give licenses out in Christmas crackers by the way people tear around completely oblivious of other cars, bikes, pedestrians, red lights, pedestrian crossings.... around them.
also, if anyone does feel the need for "how to use a roundabout without killing someone" to be explained to them feel free to PM me.
I'll just repeat it - insurance companies load the premiums of the most risky drivers.
I quite agree. That's why insurance premiums rise from about 65 even though most peoples mileage goes down. When I used to work at direct line I had access to their accident stats and it was quite noticeable how the number of accidents increased as people got older. The average claim cost was much lower than young drivers though.
I'd be happy of much harsher testing, retest every 2 years for the first 8 years of holding a license, 5 years there after, and back to 2 years after 70. It'd probably help with congestion as well so we don't need to build more roads.
my father is 77 mums 72 both happily still driving and caravanning. i and they would probably happily re sit driving exams in fact a licence isnt a right so i think that many people should have to re sit the exam.
drivers convicted of non speeding offences should sit advanced driving exams. they held a licence and abused it and need to learn the most, re tests for all at 65 and bi annually post 70.
the greatest irony is that you only have to pass the test to drive a car and your away, ferrari or clapped out fiesta it should be structured like the motor bike test 5 yrs experince before you can have something over 100bhp..
and as for the point regarding notifying the dvla.. i have had several health issues which have fallen into this.. ( heart surgery, stroke) i have notified dvla and what happens.. nothing nana zero zilch not even a thanks for letting us know.. you then 'dont drive' for time specified by quack and jump back behind the wheel..
Agree. Re test or a 'revision' test at 50,60,70,75,80 etc.
Ditto for anyone accumalating a point at anytime, or a light revised test.
Then again I'm a nazi here. No to;
Drive - thrus
Alcohol at garages
Mobiles in cars unless wired in i.e bluetooth same with sat navs
Restrictions on ICE dbs
Car parks at pubs
Uninsured or cars with no MOTs crushed without question
Then I get petty;
Wearers of sunglasses at night....Shot
[b]ALL[/b] road users.scaredypants - Member
> Compulsory tests for all road users - to be renewed every two years.
how many driving licenses are there, I wonder - maybe 10-20M, or more ?
That'd be around 20-40,000 extra tests every day (assuming 52 5-day weeks)
Cyclists too ?ALL road users
Pedestrians ?
Passengers ?
😯
"A much better option would be what the Aussies do. Your 'car tax' also includes 3rd party cover."
I don't see how that is a better system. You can't purchase Vehicle Excise Duty (tax disk) in the UK without proving you currently have Insurance in place for somebody to drive the vehicle. In the UK system the cost of insurance is paid by those with the highest actuarial risk, presumably in Oz everyone pays the same - so "safe, responsible" drivers are subsidising the reckless? Uninsured vehicles just become untaxed vehicles in an Oz based system. There could be an argument for aligning expiry dates of Insurance, VED and MoTs but it does mean you are loading all the cost at one time which will disadvantage the poorest.
A simpler solution is just to put the 3rd party insurance and VED onto fuel tax. Cars work perfectly well without insurance and tax, but they don't work so well without fuel.
Massively simplifies the nonsense of VED depending on engine size: it would now depend on how much fuel you use, which is a much better indicator of how much pollution you generate.
Also means you can get rid of a large part of the DVLA. The savings there, plus the fact that tax payers no longer have to subsidise non tax payers (through the uninsured drivers scheme) would probably cancel any savings that would be lost by safe drivers through loss of risk-based 3rd party premiums.
Of course, it'll never happen. Increasing fuel duty is completely unacceptable politically, even if it meant savings overall for the vast majority of law abiding drivers.