Forum menu
To answer the OP’s question.
There was a case a couple of years ago near me of someone with dementia pulling out – ended up killing a toddler in a pram on the pavement.
Nothing was done then, nothing will be done now. People who should not be allowed in a car will continue to be allowed to kill and maim.
do you know if there was an inquest/FAI with recommendations?
Instead of fussing over this
“fussing over” the preventable circumstances that lead to the death of a toddler on the pavement is quite an interesting characterisation
we should be aiming for a society where everyone can get where they need to by bicycle and/or public transport, and perhaps the occasional car hire.
you think 86 yr old women with dementia should be getting around Edinburgh by bicycle ? I am not sure how a hire car would have made her safer? Whilst I would like to see a world less reliant on the car - I’m not sure how realistic your aspiration is. Edinburgh is already fairly well served by busses but she continued to drive once a week. However your utopia is surely more, not less likely, to happen if certain types of driver who shouldn’t be on the roads anymore are unable to continue driving = more demand for public transport.
Nothing was done then, nothing will be done now.
This. It's like gun deaths in the US. There'll be some handwringing, some thoughts and prayers and - when it's particularly horrific such as the death of a toddler or a whole family in one go (like the incident on the M6 last week) - there'll be a few column inches about it before the nation goes back to watching old episodes of Top Gear where Clarkson slides a supercar round a bend going POWEEEERRRR! and we'll all feel a bit better.
Then the same thing will happen the following week, and the week after.
If it was trams or trains or planes the whole industry would be shut down in an instant. But cars (like guns) = freedom and occasionally freedom = death and there'll be a collective shrug and a sort of "isn't it tragic but what can we do?!"
They can attend in person like a theory test. Whether they can drive home afterwards of course…..
not only a problem for the driving home afterwards - but “attend a theory test centre” is a “city” centric approach which may not be reasonable for an 80 yr old in a rural area. The FAI finding was you can probably avoid these sort of accidents with a far simpler test requiring much less time/cost/inconvenience. Of course if you want to keep a lot of old people out just make it so to renew your license you need to do it online, with a Live Photo required so they can’t outsource the whole thing to their children.
She was already driving illegally so not sure how there been a ‘test’ would’ve stopped her driving.
that is an interesting question. Her car should have popped up on anpr for being uninsured and she should have been fined for not having continuous insurance. She may have continued to drive without a licence (a scary number of people with all their cognitive functions do), but perhaps it would have been the trigger to accept she wasn’t safe, and sell the car.
I think its a difficult one as others have said a car (or transport etc) is a lifeline for the elderly im many ways. (not just getting to waitrose but family etc)
I have noticed that over the years the cars have become much faster at accelerating. With the current super fast electric cars becoming more commonplace i can only imagine the potential for accidents increases as the 2T steel monsters with a sub 4 second 0-60 shoot off from the school gates in silence.
I strongly believe that anyone retaking a driving test that passed more than 20 years ago would probably fail a current test. However that said a rolling test would be beneficial. Like a test lite thats taken as a refresher every 5 years or so. If you use your transport for work (like a taxi) that could be halved. All professional drivers should be trained as such imo.
I dont think its about pricing people off the road as we clearly need transport but it has to be carried out at a good standard. At the moment its not.
I also think that we should have classes of license. i.e up to 100bhp class 1 up to 200 class 2 etc. For each you would have to take an advanced test to move up. There are far too many people (myself included) driving 400+ bhp cars without the ability to handle that sort of power in an emergency situation.
She was driving uninsured and cognitively impaired and thought she was still entitled to drive. What legislative approach are you suggesting? She died before she could be convicted of death by dangerous driving (which is a retributive nonsense which does little to prevent road deaths). The problem here is precisely a cultural one around driving and selfishness. It’s one that’s as visible on the zigzag lines outside my kids’ school daily as it is in this woman’s deadly actions.
Her car should have popped up on anpr for being uninsured and she should have been fined for not having continuous insurance.
Most estimates are that there are about 1.2m uninsured (and therefore presumably untaxed / un-MOT'd) cars in the UK although how many are on the roads at any given time is more difficult. In theory it's about 1 in every 35 vehicles in the UK.
And usually that'll flag up other issues like disqualified drivers, general criminals, dangerous vehicles...
It'd be an easy win to plug some of that apparent black hole of Government finances.
Im amazed there are still so many on the road with the technology that exists.
I'm in favour of tougher driving licence renewal, together with a change to the "totting up" rules
Make it a universal change in line with current rules for certain drivers, e.g. full medical on first licence application, full medical on renewal at age 45 years and every 5 years thereafter. It can be done by agencies employing GMC-registered doctors and renting a hotel suite, which is current practice for large vehicle drivers (you can use your GP too)
Reduce "totting up" to 6pp rather than 12pp, which is current practice for the first two years as a new driver
The problem with a wider range of measures is that statistically they can't be supported and politically there won't be the push
5 road fatalities per billion vehicle miles travelled in 2023, down 7% compared to 2022
Maybe we should concentrate on blokes...
in 2023, 75% of fatalities and 61% of casualties of all severities were male
GB stats
But if you look at the graphs older men are safer than older women.
People with a dementia diagnosid are supposed to tell the DVLA so their ability to drive can be assessed.
Maybe we should be doing psychological testing for all drivers to weed out the dangerous.
Maybe we should be doing psychological testing for all drivers to weed out the dangerous.
The medical at 45 years ^^ covers "Dementia or cognitive impairment" (form D4, section 4 on p5)
Stamp on the accelerator instead of the brake
Had one of those in our town recently. Straight through the wall of the mental hospital. The police have asked for his licence to be revoked.
As for no tests, my dad's test was twice round the parade ground in a 3-tonner, got a licence which allowed him to drive just about anything. That was on national service, but he's 91 now and was one of the last to do NS so they're can't be many more left like him. He agreed not to drive any more about 4 years ago, after my step mother asked me to have 'the driving conversation' with him.
It definitely worries me that I could be left without the ability to drive. At 66 next month, that day could be 10 years away, maybe more, maybe less. I'll not miss driving as a past-time - I've always viewed cars as a utility - but rural transport is shit and I'd hate to be forced into moving somewhere busier.
Won’t be long before the car itself will decide if you’re fit enough to drive and it and simply won’t turn on if you’re not!
But if you look at the graphs older men are safer than older women.
be interesting to see some really deep analysis of that. Is it in any way linked to the longer life expectancy of women? Or gender stereotypes that affect the miles driven by each (esp if in a relationship). In any case you need to be careful with those graphs they look just at the demographics of the drivers who got hurt (if the title is correct) not the driver who was at fault. In the OP she wouldn’t appear as she walked away with no/minor injuries.
People with a dementia diagnosid are supposed to tell the DVLA so their ability to drive can be assessed.
yes but this is the point the Sheriff is making. You can’t expect someone who has a mental impairment (diagnosed or not) to make the decision to tell dvla - so someone else should assess that. And it’s common enough in the over 80s that the sheriff believed without change the same thing could happen again.
Maybe we should be doing psychological testing for all drivers to weed out the dangerous
well I’d welcome that. Suspect it would be hard for any practical to delver mass scale test to tell who should not be trusted with a car and those who should not be trusted but have learned the bluff answers. Although maybe connect a blood pressure monitor and wheel a bike past them would be a clue!
When you are first diagnosed with dementia is at a point when you are reasonably rational. At diagnosis you can still drive if the DVLA says you can it's not a black and white situation.
I suggest so of you have look at the altzimers society website. Age is not the only factor with people being diagnosed in their 60s.
When you are first diagnosed with dementia is at a point when you are reasonably rational. At diagnosis you can still drive if the DVLA says you can it’s not a black and white situation.
I'm guessing this is why GPs etc won't touch this aspect of recommending people give up their licences. Not as definitive as a blood pressure test or diabetes test.
Besides the dementia angle, I got into a debate recently with an older driver who was adamant that the A road out of town was a 40mph limit throughout. She was convinced that there were signs painted on the roadway advising that there was a 40mph limit and that as there was no NSL signpost after then it applied all the way to the next town.
There are no 40mph signs. There are huge SLOW markings on the entry to bends.
Opticians also cannot disclose patient information to the DVLA.
The other factor in the number of people killed in cars is that older people are more frail and therefore more likely to die in a collision.
One person who kills one child is one to many, but this is not an individual with newly diagnosed dementia.
Won’t be long before the car itself will decide if you’re fit enough to drive and it and simply won’t turn on if you’re not!
Nah. The vehicle will just have a lot more control systems and emergency braking, lane departure etc.
These systems are currently generally crap, but far more achievable than proper autonomous systems. My old V70 had a very effective braking system if it thought you were hitting a wall, person, post, bike etc - but the VAG system in the Seat or Skoda are just appalling..
Most cases of dementia are diagnosed between the ages of 40 and 65.
Citation needed! That sounds like absolute nonsense to me. Under 65 is the threshold for "early onset" and that's only a small minority of cases:
DEMENTIAUK.ORG I got into a debate recently with an older driver who was adamant that the A road out of town was a 40mph limit throughout. She was convinced that there were signs painted on the roadway advising that there was a 40mph limit and that as there was no NSL signpost after then it applied all the way to the next town.
That's Donald Trump levels of denial right there lol!
Some people just refuse to accept that they are ever wrong.
Nah. The vehicle will just have a lot more control systems and emergency braking, lane departure etc
Yeah my comment was slightly tongue in cheek. My V90 has a pretty good early warning system and very useful adaptive cruise control, but, the obvious limitations of it are that it doesn't take into account anything other than what is directly in front of it, so a car braking 3 or 4 cars up etc which would normally get me ready to potentially take action has zero effect on the car.
but rural transport is shit and I’d hate to be forced into moving somewhere busier.
Better than driving when not even knowing who you are though isn't it. I am in same situation and would be reliant on taxis if I didn't want to use the bus that comes once a day at 11:00 and returns once a day at 17:00 whereas compared to my mum who live in very concentrated town she has a bus to pretty much anywhere with a 30 minute wait.
It doesn't even need full retests to make a difference, just have it so once you're 75+ you need to do one of those hazard perception/reaction time test simulations every year or two. If you fail you can opt to do a full retest or give up your licence. Would also be a requirement to have a functioning public transport system though so the elderly had a viable alternative.
@Bruce Like I said, citation needed. Please give a link where it’s stated not a vague claim that it’s out there somewhere.
That's More evidence than most of the claims on here.
Wild prejudice abounds in this thread with a witch hunt on older drivers. Which is not evidence based.
maybe but your claim doesn’t pass the sniff test. My wife and I have 4 late onset Alzheimer’s cases in our families (all post-75 diagnosis at least). Many of our friends have an Alzheimer’s parent. I don’t know of a single early onset case directly (though of course I read of a handful of celeb cases in the papers). They exist but are rare and no way a majority. It’s just a nonsense claim.
Assuming this image is correct (always a risk on the internet!) Alzheimer detection ramps up after 75:
(From:
My FiL had early-onset Alzheimer, I think he was 67 or so when it was detected. One of the first symptoms, incidentally, was that he was driving and couldn't work out how to get off a roundabout.
Better than driving when not even knowing who you are though isn’t it. I am in same situation and would be reliant on taxis if I didn’t want to use the bus that comes once a day at 11:00 and returns once a day at 17:00 whereas compared to my mum who live in very concentrated town she has a bus to pretty much anywhere with a 30 minute wait.
Taxis? You think taxis are available whenever you want them in rural areas?
And don't ever think you'll just ring up and get a taxi during either school drop-off (up to an hour before) or pick-up (up to an hour after).
The older folk I know (my Mum and her friends are all now 80's thru 90's) self-regulate their driving, they're slowly giving up and none of them drive at night (as in when it's dark - so their twice weekly afternoon walk & coffee meetup will start an hour early as of next week (clocks going back). It's also 'handy' that most of them drive equivalent-type cars, so when I come across an Aygo/Piccanto/Smart/etc etc doing 40mph on a NSL road with a driver I can barely see I pretty much know why, and they're easy to overtake.
This for me is the majority, as just like when they were younger they didn't break Rule #1.
We live rurally; bus services are only on the main roads between the main towns, taxis are limited (and expensive as they rarely get a return journey) and with lots of hills, single-track roads and often limited options between towns cycling is an enthusiast 'occupation' only - consequentially folk are car-dependent.
On the flip side, deaths attributed to the roads are at historically low levels and to put it into perspective, approximately 10 folk a month die on Scottish roads vs the 5,000 or so total deaths.
And I go back to the case the OP linked to, she was already driving illegally (as she'd purposely cancelled her car insurance).
Wild prejudice abounds in this thread with a witch hunt on older drivers.
I'm not sure anyone is out on a witch hunt. People are pointing out (sometimes anecdotally, sometimes with citations) that older drivers are more likely to suffer from cognitive or physical decline affecting their driving - be that Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or general frailty. There's nothing witch hunting about pointing out simple facts like that.
With my grandfather, it was his eyesight initially. Cataracts. He got pulled over once for driving too slowly, turned out that in the headlight glare and rain he literally couldn't see a thing. The policeman drove him home but for whatever reason that did not trigger a "holy shit, you shouldn't be anywhere near a car!" discussion.
After he'd had his cataract operation he was a lot better but then everything declined slowly again.
We're not happy about my Mum continuing to drive although she is so frail that she is totally reliant on her car. No diagnosis of Alzheimer's though (she's mid 70's).
Would also be a requirement to have a functioning public transport system though so the elderly had a viable alternative.
There is also an element* of choice as to where you live out your later years, shouldn't be just down to the public purse if you choose to live way out in the sticks.
* I am aware that proportions of the population don't have a choice in where they might live.
NHS.UK Who is affected?
Alzheimer's disease is most common in people over the age of 65.The risk of Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia increases with age, affecting an estimated 1 in 14 people over the age of 65 and 1 in every 6 people over the age of 80.
But around 1 in every 13 people with Alzheimer's disease are under the age of 65. This is called early- or young-onset Alzheimer's disease.
I'd start with insisting on an eye test every 5 years with The results formally submitted to the DVLA. If you need glasses it could be logged against your licence. Would also pick up peopke who shouldn't be driving due to other eye issues. Get caught driving without glasses on would invalidate your insurance on the spot.
Id then move to simulator based testing every 10 years reducing to 5 from 65.
Id also enforce speed limits and other rules of the road ensuring those caught pay for the service. Not difficult just wildly unpopular.
There is also an element* of choice as to where you live out your later years
this. People “retiring to the country” and *choosing* to live somewhere they are completely reliant on a car is mad.
You can’t expect someone who has a mental impairment (diagnosed or not) to make the decision to tell dvla – so someone else should assess that. And it’s common enough in the over 80s that the sheriff believed without change the same thing could happen again.….
We have built a society based on car travel for the past 50 years, it isn’t any wonder that the elderly are reluctant to give up their cars when that creates a level of isolation from the services they need and activities they can still enjoy.
two comments from posts above. You cant expect people to self assess their cognitive decline - as quite a few of us have mentioned in this thread our own parents have either been ignorant of or in denial about their health. Add to that a lifetime of being sold a car as a measure of status and independence (and in many cases a real, if sometimes self imposed by choice of home location, element of isolation without use of a car) the current self assessment approach is broken.
it’s becoming more of an issue because cars are more powerful, and people are living longer so more are affected by cognitive decline than before.
if a single airline pilot or train driver had done this there would be a major review and processes would change
if a single airline pilot or train driver had done this there would be a major review and processes would change
Absolutely.
Also of interest, and related to that ^^ comment.
BBC.CO.UK Police re-opening the investigation into the crash in Wimbledon where a woman crashed her Range Rover into a school, killing 2 pupils. The driver allegedly had an epileptic seizure and claims no memory of the incident. No info on whether or not she's still driving - claiming epilepsy means you have to stop driving immediately and notify DVLA although you can reapply for a licence if you've been seizure-free for one year.
Sadly it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she claimed epilepsy, gave herself an effective 1-year driving ban and then reapplied for a licence, no criminal record, no punishment.
Airline pilots and train drivers don't down a motorway texting
The older folk I know (my Mum and her friends are all now 80’s thru 90’s) self-regulate their driving, they’re slowly giving up and none of them drive at night
This for me is the majority, as just like when they were younger they didn’t break Rule #1.
those characterisations describe the lady in the OP right up until her disease started making her do irrational stuff, I actually wonder if self-regulating is a good idea - it means you are less practiced, less (recently) experienced. Those I know who have done that have done so following scares or minor bumps. Perhaps those closest to them (including me) should have said - if you can’t drive further than the shops safely you probably can’t drive there safely either. Lack of alternatives is a challenge but I don’t think we can use that as an excuse - well “she shouldn’t really be driving but how else would she get her shopping”… we wouldn’t let blind people, drunk alcoholics, epileptics/diabetics with very poor control of their condition etc drive just because it would be particularly inconvenient for them if they couldn’t.
There is also an element* of choice as to where you live out your later years, shouldn’t be just down to the public purse if you choose to live way out in the sticks.
this. People “retiring to the country” and *choosing* to live somewhere they are completely reliant on a car is mad.
Element of choice??? Retiring to the country? There are loads of people that have spent their whole lives living in one place in the country. Are you seriously suggesting someone who's lived in a village for the past 75 years, has all their friends there, all their life... they should just give all that up and move to somewhere with better connections? It's not going to happen. Rural areas need better public transport if we want the elderly to give up their cars.
BruceFull Member
Airline pilots and train drivers don’t down a motorway texting
Yep, but unless you inference is that big ramp on the right hand side of the graph is from the elderly driving down the motorway texting then there's something else going on that makes them 4x more lethal than those in the middle.
No one is saying take licenses away from the elderly specifically, we're saying take licenses away from people who are unable to drive.
Who is affected?
Alzheimer’s disease is most common in people over the age of 65.
The risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia increases with age, affecting an estimated 1 in 14 people over the age of 65 and 1 in every 6 people over the age of 80.
But around 1 in every 13 people with Alzheimer’s disease are under the age of 65. This is called early- or young-onset Alzheimer’s disease.
so Bruce whilst that is about Alzheimer’s not Dementia generally it seems to say the opposite from your previous post that most people are diagnosed 45-65… it also backs up the Sheriffs observation that the over 80s might be a particularly vulnerable group to cognitive function issues which merit a bit more scrutiny than assuming that if someone self declares they are still fit to drive then they are.