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.