Could this lead to tougher tests for older drivers

Think the logic is that the number of young driver accidents during that period is higher than the baseline but could be wrong

Doubt it, it’s not like it’s something that hasn’t happened before ?

Has there been a FAI (or Inquest) that recommended age based cognitive testing?

The more appropriate option would be to simply require re-testing at intervals.

It’d need some evidence base, i.e how frequently does it need to be to discover enough bad drivers that it was worthwhile, or how quickly do people decline.

I only skim read the FAI report but I think they heard evidence but concluded that the immediate need was for >80’s and the SoS should consider it for >75s.  Expert evidence seemed to suggest that whilst actual driver testing would be the gold standard – cognitive impairment testing could be a more realistic step.

I just love this, another kick the elderly thread.

Not at all.  But an elderly woman killed a toddler because she appeared to have reached a point where she should no longer be driving, and was no longer able to make sensible decisions about her own or other people’s safety, even after the accident she seemed to have no appreciation of what was going on.  Should society ignore the fact that some people are a potential hazard to others because those people are old?

You can all do one, I really resent having to keep reappliying for my license every three years while being subjected on the road to all the dangerous behaviour on other road users.

I’m not sure why you resent having to renew your license every three years.  My wife has to for a medical condition – its a minor inconvenience but anyone could see that its a necessary safeguard against deterioration of her health to the extent it affects driving.   Now I do think there also needs to be a better mechanism for her clinical team to raise a concern before the three years, just as there should be for old folk – but the point here, if you bother to read the judgement before dismissing it, was that the lady involved actually appeared quite lucid and had obviously had her license renewed multiple times, so the current system didn’t work.

This is one quite rare incidence but some 17 year old kid can kill 3 of his mates and himeself and none of you even commented.

Well I was responding to a press story about the fatal accident inquiry.  If there’s an FAI on a teenager killing his mates then I’ll happily discuss the outcomes.  My point (which to be fair most people seem to have missed) was that this wasn’t just some road safety organisation claiming we should be more thorough, or a driver training place with a vested interest, or the bereaved family.  it was a fatal accident inquiry.  They are relatively uncommon in the first place, but even less common to make formal recommendations.  My question was do those recommendations carry any real weight?

I am sick of close passes , cars doing red light plus three or four in the all England light jumping championship, The idiot in Rusholme who passed me at speed in the straight on lane to turn right in front of the the cars in the process of turning right, the person in the Audi who overtook me in the 20mph zone when I was obeying the speed limit.

You are 100% right, we should not even consider doing anything about the license renewals of people with dementia until all those other issues are resolved 😉

For the record my partner has promised to tell me the moment my driving is no longer safe so I can give up before getting to the point of being dangerous.

What if her judgement goes first or the same time? What if you won’t listen at that point (dementia isn’t great at helping sound judgements)? What if she thinks, as many do in those circumstances, he’s not the worst and it will affect our lifestyle if we cant get about and surely the Dr would have said something…

By the way, I think it is telling that the body representing GPs essentially refused to take part in the FAI.  I understand if they don’t think they are the right people to make that decision etc, but attending the inquiry and saying that, or raising concerns about impact on workload etc would have enabled the Sheriff to take that into account in making his recommendations.

Most cases of dementia are diagnosed between the ages of 40 and 65.

I think you have misquoted something there…  Under 65’s with dementia are known as early onset dementia – the clear implication being that “normal” dementia is not diagnosed until 65+!

Parents’ friend (late 70s) informed them that he’d recently stopped using his sleep apnea mask. Seemingly, the continued validity of his driving licence was conditional on his maintaining this treatment.

Needless to say, he’s still driving. Tellingly, his son hasn’t allowed him to drive his grandchildren in years.

Instead of fussing over this 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. The personal car is probably incompatible with widespread human survival in the centuries to come anyway, and is at the epicentre of a current public health crisis which includes premature cognitive decline. Most of the cars I see on the roads around me every day just don’t need to be there and our lives would be better if they weren’t.

Not sure a 45mph limit (assume thats a legal limit relying on an officer clocking them, not a physical restriction on the car?) and a sticker would help here

Same as any speed limit really then.  There was nothing stopping them trying to take the bend at 100.

OTOH it might have put them off going on the road trip at all and got the train instead.

And any measures are inevitably going to have to be assessed based on the bigger picture, a 45mph limit would do nothing to prevent deaths around most towns, it might have an impact out of town.  Yes it relies on enforcement, but that’s the same as the motorcycle restrictions which are largely stuck to and workable (e.g. no pillions, I’ve seen the police pull over riders and pillions on small capacity bikes to check licenses etc).

What if testing was run at a profit?

This. Absolutely this.

Petrol currently at 1.35 ish a litre. Way too cheap. My litmus paper is the school run. When petrol was 1.70 a litre, there were very few who’d leave the engine running while the parents sat there. Now, there’s a few. QED petrol is too cheap.

It’s back to the entitlement thing. “WHY should I, a driver, have to pay?”

Oh, and I did enjoy the comments about regular retesting likely having no impact on safety.  Some people drive like incompetent buffoons through choice. Most people drive like that because of habit.

If you change the habit, you change the output. So retests work by constantly reminding people of how they need to drive, so they do it better & more often… Which forms a habit.

Pilots don’t often crash aeroplanes. Why is that? Because they aren’t tested often? Or because they are?

Instead of fussing over this 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.

Indeed.
But carnormativity runs deep.
(As do challenges in rural areas).

Pilots don’t often crash aeroplanes. Why is that? Because they aren’t tested often? Or because they are?

I’d hypothesize because they have a crew and ATC looking over their shoulder constantly?  If a pilot did something stupid it would get noticed and investigated.  I’d say that’s a better argument for black boxes universally than regular testing.

Indeed.

But carnormativity runs deep.
(As do challenges in rural areas).

Nothing changes, until it does.

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.

I haven’t read the whole thread so don’t know if this has been mentioned already. 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.

If we want not only old people to consider their impact on road safety but just make our own environments nicer and more traffic free then the concept of the 15 minute city is the way to go, make living without a car a realistic lifestyle choice bring most of the facilities and services we need in life within walking distance or a short trip on an efficient public transport.

I didn’t own a car from about 2012 until 2023, but arthritic knees meant using public transport had become an issue for me, I had already set my life up so I could have relatively quick and easy commute to work on bike or public transport, but I still found I needed a car. So at 55 now, and I am having thoughts now about what my life will be like when I get older, with services getting more centralised, friends being quite geographically distributed, local high streets dying etc would I be able to survive without a car?

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.

Nothing will happen yet again because the car is still king.

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 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2023/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2023

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) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/d4-medical-examiner-report-for-a-lorry-or-bus-driving-licence

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 rural transport is shit and I’d hate to be forced into moving somewhere busier.

Which is why the carrot of public transport needs to be in place first.

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:

Young onset dementia: facts and figures

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.

@thecaptain

Info from NHS website and Altzimers society websites.

Not conspiracy monthly.

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.