Forum menu
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78w1znxdlyo
31 year old, driving a Ferrari. I wonder what his eyesight was like.
another case where lack of fitness to drive should have been apparent to those around him and it seems none of the healthcare professionals involved saw it as their responsibility to alert DVLA.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrv1g2yl0xo
TBF I think there’s a lack of clarity as to what you can and can’t do. While I don’t see outpatients my understanding is that it’s OK to say to people ‘you need to disclose this to the DVLA and if you don’t by the time you come next, I will’. Problem is that there’s not (AIUI) a statutory duty nor is there any way of following through.
In at least one case described there, the driver told everyone he’d stopped when he hadn’t (which IMO shows premeditation which should have affected charges/sentencing).
The staff at my hospital reported a driver to the police. He had dementia and had had his license revoked. He still was driving to the hospital to visit his wife.
He was clearly unsafe
My mother in law continued to drive while registered blind she had some sight
Could there be a system where everyone who has a driving license has to have a box ticked on their record to say they're medically fit? If a GP/Optician logs in to the system and unticks the box the DVLA and insurers are notified.
we need regular retesting and yes that means incompetent drivers who “need” their cars may be significantly inconvenienced.
or maybe they will make the effort and learn to drive a bit better.
@NewRetroTom That would require joined up IT systems, and there’s no real prospect of that.
The problem with healthcare providers reporting is that by the nature of it, it’s only those who actually go to the optician/GP who will be picked up. There will be plenty out there who (due to lack of perceived or true alternative, fears of loss of independence etc) will not go anywhere near an optician as even though they know they’re unfit they don’t want this to be picked up.
Needs to be a mandatory certificate of fitness for renewal. And also increased investment in active travel and public transport to give people choices.
TBF I think there’s a lack of clarity as to what you can and can’t do. While I don’t see outpatients my understanding is that it’s OK to say to people ‘you need to disclose this to the DVLA and if you don’t by the time you come next, I will’. Problem is that there’s not (AIUI) a statutory duty nor is there any way of following through.
In at least one case described there, the driver told everyone he’d stopped when he hadn’t (which IMO shows premeditation which should have affected charges/sentencing).
I had this issue with my dad, ended up going to the GP surgery and 'having a word's with the doctor (who is a long-time family friend) and figure out what to do. He essentially said he won't report any of his patients to the DVLA for medical issues as A: he doesn't have to legally and B: as soon as he does one then he would be blacklisted by a lot of patients who would just refuse to come in for genuine issues and their health would deteriorate.
Nothing will change until it's law to have an optician sign a form declaring your eyesight to be ok every 10 years or when a new license is applied for. I have to for my HGV part, why not for the whole thing.
Shirley the solution must be to increase cycling.
My mother has to be regularly tested due to glaucoma, the biggest problem hasn’t been passing the test but getting it done promptly when required…
she’s certainly close to the end of driving, I didn’t enjoy the last time she drove me. But she only does slow local journeys in broad daylight and the car is still unscraped so I don’t think she’s a serious danger.
Age discrimination is alive and well on here again.
For info when I had to renew my license at 70 I had my eyes tested prior to submiting the form.
I shall probably do the same in a year or two when I need to get another license.
I don't feel safe on a bike due to all the brain dead driving gods on the roads, but I cycle most days for erands and fun.
Maybe curbing car use in general and enforcing traffic laws might also be useful.
Part of the solution is to increase cycling, yes. In the Netherlands/Denmark people keep going well into their 80s as there’s safe infra to allow this, in the UK there’s little alternative to driving, so loss of license = loss of independence.
Of course treating public transport as an essential utility and enabler of economic activity rather than an expensive luxury also helps.
Nothing will change until it's law to have an optician sign a form declaring your eyesight to be ok every 10 years or when a new license is applied for. I have to for my HGV part, why not for the whole thing.
Funnily enough my wife’s uncle had a LGV license so he could drive old military trucks. He lost this due to his diabetes, appealed and lost his car license as well…
My mother has to be regularly tested due to glaucoma, the biggest problem hasn’t been passing the test but getting it done promptly when required…
she’s certainly close to the end of driving, I didn’t enjoy the last time she drove me. But she only does slow local journeys in broad daylight and the car is still unscraped so I don’t think she’s a serious danger.
Same for me with the MIL. Her doctor is getting more insistent on her having the DVLA eye test done
It’s not age discrimination to recognise that everyone lucky enough to live a long life, eventually gets to the point where their faculties are insufficient for safe driving.
Many of us have seen this in our relatives.
Of course lots of people die before they get to that point too. But those who don’t, need to stop driving at some point.
Part of the solution is to increase cycling, yes. In the Netherlands/Denmark people keep going well into their 80s as there’s safe infra to allow this, in the UK there’s little alternative to driving, so loss of license = loss of independence.
This.
My grandad (the other side of the family to the one I've previously referred to in this thread) was cycling to the village long into his 80's, well after he'd given up driving. He had a little 3sp shopper bike, basket on the front and a small rack and top-rack / box pannier on the back. There was a nice traffic-free route into the village through the park, maybe 1.5 miles each way, nice and flat.
Admittedly this is back in the 90's but it being small-town rural, everyone knew everyone. He even had someone call round his house one morning to check he was OK cos they hadn't seen him cycling through the park as normal!
He'd buy the paper, stop at the little cafe, chat to people in the park as he rode through. It was his independence.
It’s not age discrimination to recognise that everyone lucky enough to live a long life, eventually gets to the point where their faculties are insufficient for safe driving.
Correct, mil just hung up her keys after crashing through a fence, luckily no one was hurt. We all need to take responsibility & plan for not driving as our capabilities decline.
And yes I also acknowledge that there are lots of other reasons for poor driving, particularly in young inexperienced drivers but this thread is about how to tackle the decline in driving ability/eyesight in aging drivers.
Needs to be a mandatory certificate of fitness for renewal. And also increased investment in active travel and public transport to give people choices.
Carrot and stick
Maybe curbing car use in general and enforcing traffic laws might also be useful.
Agree but sadly that's looking less and less likely with Keir - I'm on the side of drivers - Starmer. Labour are just Red Tories, just as useless and pandering and dithering.
There were the beginnings of promising steps with Louise Haigh but then she was swiftly removed from office.
The thing is, you can legislate all you want, but you can’t legislate against stupidity! Here’s a case in point:
The red Hyundai was being driven by a colleague of mine, from a storage facility up to the main site, along a straight piece of road that had a roundabout, with the main site just the other side. As she approached the roundabout, a big milk tanker came around it, so she pulled in behind a parked van. Meanwhile, another colleague was coming up behind her, in the silver Zafira, with a fogged up ‘screen, no seatbelt on, and was exceeding the 40mph limit. He didn’t see her or the truck, and drove straight into the rear of her car, forcing it into the rear of the van. Fortunately, the van driver had looked in his mirror, anticipated what was about to happen, and released his handbrake, so her car was twisted sideways into the van, instead of straight into the path of a 40 ton tanker.
She was badly shaken, but not seriously injured, but couldn’t drive that stretch of road for months after, he was dismissed immediately. He was in his late 20’s, early 30’s, IIRC, so age had no bearing on the circumstances, only total stupidity.
The outcome could have been the death of someone who was a very precious member of our staff at the time.
The van driver also had his own vehicle written off as well, he was a service engineer for a refrigerated goods company, and was out on a call when the incident happened, so that just compounded the situation.
The thing is, you can legislate all you want, but you can’t legislate against stupidity!
You can however legislate against driving without due care and attention, which this is.
You can however legislate against driving without due care and attention, which this is.
Hmm, difficult to legislate against poor attitude to driving but it should be possible to make sure legislation against defective capabilities of driving is adhered too or strengthened.
Honestly 95% of the close passes I have had on a bike have been someone over the age (visually) of 65 (or older)
Thankfully my parents have given up driving but you can fill in the blank as to why they stopped (thankfully no one hurt)
Not saying that young males aren't a problem (one almost wiped me out this morning in his Corsa doing 50+ in a 30) but I really do think that there needs to be a testing program to check for both eyesight, coordination and mental facilities as well as knowledge of the highway code changes. On this last point I really believe that the UK gov does a terrible job of informing drivers of the HW code changes. The numbers of people who don't know about the 1.5m rule or that people crossing at junctions
Q
On this last point I really believe that the UK gov does a terrible job of informing drivers of the HW code changes. The numbers of people who don't know about the 1.5m rule or that people crossing at junctions
There’s a good argument we should all have to re-do the written every 5 years. There are a lot of people out there who’ve not opened the HC since they passed their test 40+ years ago.
Statistically, the most dangerous drivers on the roads are the really young ones and the really old ones, it's an inverse bell curve.
Age discrimination is alive and well on here again.
Huh?
Statistically, the most dangerous drivers on the roads are the really young ones and the really old ones, it's an inverse bell curve.
My Mum (mid 70's, very frail) was complaining to me that her insurance premium is going up and up.
It didn't help when I said that mine (mid 40's, full NCD) had dropped again and is now less than £250 fully comp.
But she's far higher risk than me; she's using her car multiple times a day for short journeys in an already congested area (she's too frail to walk much, completely reliant on the car).
Whereas mine does occasional long journeys mostly on motorway (statistically far safer) and is otherwise parked on a private road.
This is what finally stopped my grandfather from driving, the sheer cost of his premiums due to him being such a high risk.
You can however legislate against driving without due care and attention, which this is.
How exactly could you "legislate against driving without due care and attention"?
You can "legislate" them after they've done it AND get caught but not before...
You can "legislate" them after they've done it AND get caught but not before...
I'm a bit confused what you mean here. You can legislate (ie. pass laws) against things, and as described you'd have thought there was a good case here:
Meanwhile, another colleague was coming up behind her, in the silver Zafira, with a fogged up ‘screen, no seatbelt on, and was exceeding the 40mph limit
Thread bump.
https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-elderly-careless-driver-jailed-killing-cyclist-313981
A combination of a tragic case (with the victim's daughter subsequently campaigning for mandatory eye tests for older drivers) and a derisory jail sentence although I guess there's the argument that the driver is 75 and at least had the decency to plead guilty.
I'm never clear on whether the ban and prison sentence run consecutively or concurrently, but either way I don't see a 77yo who's not driven for 2½ years+ passing an extended retest so I don't think this chap will drive again. May be wrong, of course.
derisory jail sentence
You say that, and I guess it is taken at face value- but don't underestimate the effect even a short sentence would have on a typical 'upstanding' citizen.
I'm 55 and have never been in trouble with the law since I was pulled over for riding drunk with no lights as a student and did a runner from the police...now if I was to receive even a short jail term today it would be a catastrophe. I'd lose my job, I'd be mortified at how to explain it to my family, I'd probably spiral into depression, I might lose my marriage, I might lose my house.....my kids might disown me....I mean who on here wouldn't have their life properly screwed up by going to prison for 6 months? Obviously most of us would also be tortured by the fact we had killed someone. but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
Now if it was a premeditated act like robbery or fraud etc, I guess the argument would be 'well you should have thought about the consequences before you stole all that money or fudged the books etc etc' but I'd assume that driver didn't think the net result of his drive home that day would be a 10 month jail term. I guess what I'm trying to say is these type of sentences should be widely publicised - that way Kevin who speeds 'a bit' and fiddles with his phone whilst driving might think hmmm actually my life could be really screwed up by that - perhaps I better take a bit more care. Everyone would be a winner then.
at least had the decency to plead guilty.
What tends to happen is that they're charged with death by dangerous driving but then offer a guilty plea to death by careless driving (a lesser offence).
Yeah.
We've covered this sentencing outrage before. The Prosecution want to present a charge which is likely to stick or it's a waste of everyone's time. That charge will carry a standard sentence. That sentence can then be adjusted depending on various factors (eg, showing genuine remorse) but the courts can't just throw the book at them because they look like a wrong 'un or let them off because they're one of the boys. Any deviation from the baseline has to be (ahem) justified.
Source: I used to know a bloke who took early retirement but couldn't sit still so became a JP. He used to bring example cases home as part of his training. How would you sentence this > how you should sentence this? It was fascinating and not always what you'd expect.
if I was to receive even a short jail term today it would be a catastrophe. I'd lose my job, I'd be mortified at how to explain it to my family, I'd probably spiral into depression, I might lose my marriage, I might lose my house.....my kids might disown me....I mean who on here wouldn't have their life properly screwed up by going to prison for 6 months? Obviously most of us would also be tortured by the fact we had killed someone. but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
I think this is often overlooked when we talk about "lenient" jail sentences for these kind of offences. Destroying one family by your actions is one thing, for the state to destroy a second is a more complicated issue.
I guess defective eyesight is a borderline deliberate/non-intentional act, so not a good case to debate on.
I seem to recall we are towards the top of the European table for jailing people but also towards the bottom on rehabilitation. I understand the desire for "justice/vengeance" but I'm not convinced our live of jail sentences serves any other purpose, for a variety of offences.
I'm never clear on whether the ban and prison sentence run consecutively or concurrently, but either way I don't see a 77yo who's not driven for 2½ years+ passing an extended retest so I don't think this chap will drive again. May be wrong, of course.
He won't be driving again legally. I'm not sure that means he won't drive again.
I'm never clear on whether the ban and prison sentence run consecutively or concurrently,
The ban comes into effect once the person is released. Jail term first then when that has been served and they're released, any other restrictions (driving ban, curfew, etc) comes into force.
He won't be driving again legally. I'm not sure that means he won't drive again.
That's a fair comment.
@crazy-legs Thanks!
[this isn't a dig at any one poster in this thread btw] One of the things that I find annoying is the idea that as soon as the driving licence goes, the non-holder is confined to the house and they lose their job and everything - note that I apply this to all ages not just the elderly - because it isn't true
This is a cycling forum
Walking is possible, there is public transport, lots of jobs operate from home and taxis exist, as does ocado;
so if a licence is taken away a person can still live their lives - and I'd wager that if a licence was taken away from someone at the age of 60 they'd probably have better late life physical health than someone emotionally welded to their carkey until the age of 82
If the govt were really serious about KSI reduction there would be investment in mass transport infra, and we could easily apply speed limiters on cars the same as we do for lorries, the tech exists. The idea that you can kill someone with a car and then get a licence back 18months later is pure madness
Autonomous vehicles aren't the answer either, they are just cars and another set of complexities on the roads
A lot of what @edhornby says is quite true but it depends where you live. Loosing access to a car is fairly trivial if you live in a city or urban area but if you live somewhere rural it could impact a lot more.
I have recently had a hand op and could not drive for a couple of weeks. where I live it's easy to get about as there are trams buses and walking. I have missed the car a lot less than I have missed my bike as we do most errands and shopping by bike where we can.
If I could not drive I would not suffer that much but my partners mother might as I drive her to most of her medical appointments.
If you're an 80 year old living somewhere rural then you're a disaster waiting to happen anyway.
Depends on the 80 year old.
Depends on the 80 year old.
Exactly. There are people much younger who I wouldn’t trust with a shopping trolley! One came close to killing one of my work colleagues through thoughtlessness and crass stupidity. He did write off three vehicles including the one he was driving, my colleague’s car, and a contractors van. He’s, I think, in his 30’s, or thereabouts.
Apart from a disabling illness or injury, I see no reason why I shouldn’t be driving in ten years, which makes me 81…
I see no reason why I shouldn’t be driving in ten years,
...but that's the issue with this entire thread. It's drivers' sheer entitlement that's the core problem. You may be safe at 81. You may be unsafe right now. Any driver of any age is in exactly the same position as you, so mandatory retests (theory and or practical) every n years keep the playing field level-ish.
Mum is late 70s and said she'd stop driving at 80. We've been encouraging her to stop driving when she feels like she should, rather than being determined to make it to a certain age, or giving it up because she's set an internal parameter. Apart from driving a bit too far from the kerb, she's ok at the moment. And we do feedback to her about it.
I posted a bunch of links on this thread of old drivers causing issues, but I'm a huge proponent for new drivers (I e., any new licence holders getting their first UK licence of any age) being issued a 5/10yr licence (preferably graduated, like motorbikes) and having to be re-licenced, then rolling that through the driving population.
The cost of this is borne by the licence holder.
But old drivers shouldn't also be allowed to independently self certify their own safety and suitability to drive, so I'd be a fan of mandatory retests over 7n years, with reassessments.
That way, we deal with the U shaped risk curve mentioned above.
But old drivers shouldn't also be allowed to independently self certify their own safety and suitability to drive, so I'd be a fan of mandatory retests over 7n years, with reassessments.
This. But I’d bring it forward, even if it’s just a health certificate from, say, 50.
Tell me I'm wrong but we've got far more older people than we ever had, far more people & drivers than we ever had yet the death & injury rates are pretty near the lowest they've ever been.
Am I missing something about this thread?
I'd start with mandatory eye tests for everyone every 5 years, the number of people of all ages driving with bad, uncorrected eye sight is significant. Easy to implement, people should really have an eye test every 2 years anyway for health reasons. The only people who won't like it are the ones we most need to test.