UKC

Yet another tragedy involving elderly drivers.

We are aware of the problems with young drivers and take precautions to stop them killing themselves and others.
Should we do more for elderly drivers ?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3032408/two-women-die-car-ploughs-pedestrians...

Googling 'elderly driver' brings up many other tragic incidents involving serious injury and death, today this was yet another one.

In our local car park an elderly woman actually reversed on top of a car parked on the other side of a hedge with a pavement between the two cars.
Thankfully no one was injured.

I tried to stop my own father from driving when he was only 69, as I believed he was a danger to others.

We need more frequent medical checks to renew licences for the elderly as a minimum, as medical related accidents become much more likely with age.

In reply to Jim C:

The mother in law's sister is registered blind, has a pace maker, suffered from faints and falls, but had to be (legally) made to give up her license. She said she "didn't want to lose my independence."

In reply to Jim C:

A terrible tragedy. For both sides. Possibly preventable but who knows.

IMHO there should be annual checks after 70. Not necessarily a full test but some sort of driving assessment and a check of knowledge of the highway code. Someone who's been driving 50 years may be unaware of so many modern road rules and laws.

Still surprises me that of older drivers the highway code says to make allowances for the fact their reactions may be slower.

Unfit elderly drivers are a danger to themselves and others and the introduction of any preventative measures on top of those in place would be very welcome.

In reply to Jim C:

Nope, there most certainly shouldn't be. What I would like to see however is a requirement like with flying, where as (for example) a private pilot flying single-engined aircraft, you need to fly a certain number of hours within the two year validity of the class rating, and fly at least one hour with an instructor (or failing any of those, sit a skills test). More frequent medical checks above a certain age would also be a very good idea.

I don't really understand why we set the bar so low with the standards required to obtain and keep a driving license. It's as if we consider it a right to be able to drive, rather than a privilege that only those with the aptitude and sense can obtain.

There are too many dangerous people of all ages on the roads, from senile pensioners to idiots who just don't drive with any sense.

In reply to Jim C:

I've seen such a wide variety of abilities that I'd say no, but mandatory retests every few years after 65.

Actually, can we make it after 25?

As with all these driving things, self driving cars are the eventual solution.

In reply to Big Ger:

I imagine independence is a big factor for many of them, and I can understand that.
Girlfriend's parents are older than mine, her dad's now in his 70's and a less confident driver than he once was. They live in rural Aberdeenshire and public transport is non-existent in their area. He does joke about getting a driver when he feels the time comes to hang up his driving gloves.

In reply to Jim C:

If I am such a bad risk at 65 or even 75 I'm pretty sure my insurers will drop me a hint.
Like bookmakers, they seem to know the score.
When it gets too punitive I'll throw in the towel.

In reply to nathan79:


What about a check of everyone every 5 years to weed out the fat f3ckers that can barely get in or out of the vehicle and can't properly work the controls?

There is no end to the possibilities with this. The fact is that there is a system in existence that enables medical practitioners to make a qualified contribution to the DfT's knowledge of driver health and that system works in a huge number of cases, whether age-related or disease-related. One accident and one newspaper headline about a person that slipped through the net and goes on to cause a serious accident does not change the fact that there is an existing system. Perhaps the medical profession will have a wee word with the DfT as a result of this but that should cover it.

Especially under a Tory government, with their record of expensive and pointless authoritarian extravagance, we do not need more useless authoritarian rubbish thought up by unqualified people.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I'm not sure if taking measures to prevent injury/death counts as useless authoritarian rubbish. If there's already a system in place to flag up people no longer fit to drive that's good, but maybe an objective test where they can see for themselves they've become a danger is more likely to focus people's minds rather than just being told they're not good enough anymore

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I'd be more worried about reaction time and eye sight, than their physical size.

In reply to Jim C:

I certainly notice that a really high percentage of drivers who nearly kill me when I'm cycling are old.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


How about a check of everyone every five years to ensure that they're actually still able to drive a car sensibly, regardless of age?

In reply to Jim C:

By the time I'm 75-80 I hope driverless cars will be common.

In reply to Jim C:

Only with medical conditions such as dementia, failing eyesight etc
The roads are a lottery anyway.

In reply to summo:

That's what I'd have test for. Something once made me not cross a mini roundabout when a car didn't seem to be slowing while I was a cycling, and an elderly lady shot across it and only seemed to have seen me once have way around it. I looked, and looked again, and decided it wasn't worth the risk on a final look. A lesson to not assume things will happen as they should do I guess, I hope she hasn't gone on to have an accident.

In reply to Jim C:

indeed - you should have ti turn your licence in at 50 and reapply for a test every 5 years

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

actually, 2 cars passed through our village doing at least 50 this morning, both driven by youngish women, one on her way to the local stables. This would be at the time loads of kids are going to the school bus stop.

In reply to tehmarks:

Whilst agreeing with and understanding your sentiments, a slight adjustment is required:

In reply to FesteringSore:

Are we using juvenile here to mean childish, rather than pertaining to young people? I'd say the middle-aged idiot in their shiny German car is an equal threat to both health and sanity as the 18 year old in their old banger that sounds like it has a hole in its exhaust.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Don't worry, they do just that! My dad is now 86 and his premiums have increased dramatically overt the past 2-3 years. He's never had an accident or made a claim on his policy in all his years of driving but the insurance folk must now think he's a major liability. At least he had the sense to 'self-restrict' his driving and hasn't driven at night for quite a few years now, but you do see a lot of older drivers behind their steering wheels who clearly should be nowhere near a public road.

In reply to tehmarks:


Accidents can be caused by ANYONE irrespective of age and I do not think that it is fair to single out any particular category in ignorance of the contributory factors. Plenty of accidents are caused by childish drivers, plenty are caused by irresponsibly minded 18 year olds and, yes, plenty are caused by middle aged drivers although I fail to see the relevance of a "shiny German car"

In reply to FesteringSore:

I was just clarifying which meaning of juvenile you intended - I agree with you entirely, age has nothing to do with stupidity. The shiny German car reference was poking fun at the stereotype that people in expensive new Audis and BMWs drive like tw*ts. You are right, it has absolutely no relevance to the current topic.

I think we're on the same page.

In reply to Jim C:

Yes.
And...there should also be restrictions on learner drivers. They should only be allowed on the road between 0200 and 0400.
Also, the elderly should not be allowed in supermarkets

In reply to Jim C:

Re test everyone every 10 years dropping to every 5 at 70 and every year at 80.
Its far to easy to get a driving licence so I would significantly increase the difficulty of the test as well.
Also learners would have to use a registered instructor following a standard syllabus and log X amount of hours.
Finally 3 tests and your out for a year or so.
Anyone who takes 5 or 6 goes to pass a test passed on luck rather than merit.

In reply to Jim C:
Should there be a maximum age? No, everybody is different.

Should there be stringent checks and potentially re-testing? Yes, probably.

FWIW I have quite slow reactions and drive accordingly (leaving large gaps and keeping speed sensible, and have a reasonably good safety record as a result, though nobody is perfect and it's dangerous to get complacent). But I expect there are 60 year olds who have faster reactions than me. Should they be banned just because they are 60? I doubt it.

In reply to Dax H:

Why not apply the reverse?
Re test everyone every year from 17 till 27
Then pro rata as in your example.

In reply to wercat:

Well that is a proposal, do you have some data that there is a good case for this, if so this would apply to me, and if the stats show above 50 are a particular danger then that should be considered.
I have just had a full check up with my doctor and optician, and if there was a case for doing that check up every 5 years (up to 70 perhaps, ) then more frequently , I would be fine with that. But there has to be agreement with the GPs too.

In reply to Jim C:

I think trying to get elderly people off the roads is short sighted Rather than trying to ban them we need to make it safer for elderly people to use the roads by more automation and safety systems in cars and by better engineering of roads. Apparently there's so many old people in Florida they started looking at ways of changing the traffic signals with longer gaps between red/green because oldies were too slow to react.

We live in an aging society, many elderly people aren't as able to walk and use public transport as young people and if they are stopped from driving are quite likely to be cut off from the last few things they can do by themselves like going shopping or to church and be stuck alone in the house. There are traffic accidents involving old people but there are also lots of old people dying before they need to because of depression and loneliness. Lots of old people are poor drivers but they also generally use their car for short trips on routes they know well close to home and are slow and cautious so they can handle it even though they couldn't deal with more complex journeys or motorways.

In reply to birdie num num:


At last , some common sense suggestions

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Really?
OLD , like Methuselah?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Boom boom.

>Rather than trying to ban them we need to make it safer for elderly people to use the roads by more automation and safety systems in cars and by better engineering of roads.
Agree.

>Apparently there's so many old people in Florida they started looking at ways of changing the traffic signals with longer gaps between red/green because oldies were too slow to react.
That could be a good idea, this could be done locally by councils if they have a lot of elderly people.

>We live in an aging society, many elderly people aren't as able to walk and use public transport as young people and if they are stopped from driving are quite likely to be cut off from the last few things they can do by themselves like going shopping or to church and be stuck alone in the house.
Very true, and there are mobility scooters that can help with some in that scenario.

>There are traffic accidents involving old people, but there are also lots of old people dying before they need to because of depression and loneliness. Lots of old people are poor drivers but they also generally use their car for short trips on routes they know well close to home and are slow and cautious so they can handle it even though they couldn't deal with more complex journeys or motorways.

I totally agree with these sentiments , I spend a lot of time in our local care home, and often the only visitors some people get are elderly relatives ( wives/ husbands) that need to drive there due to mobility problems of their own. Without being able to get out to visit will make loneliness worse. However, it seems to me that it is not just complex journeys that are a challenge to some elderly drivers( going wrong way along motorways, taking the wrong slip roads or whatever through confusion) , but there are incidents involving close control, and the elderly , for example in car parks as in the example, confusion with accelerators and brake resulting in sudden and rapid change of speed in a confined space with high density of pedestrians.

A quick internet search reveals that this is a worldwide problem. Perhaps we can look around the world for Soloutions ( or at least for mitigating actions, if no Soloutions is possible)

My mother had a heart attack at 60 ,the day she retired as a distinct nurse , up until then she drove every day , but she self disqualififed herself from driving , and never drove again, but my father in later life refused to give up driving, leaving me with sleepless nights that he might kill someone .
(Nb. he was dying with cancer at the time and on lots of medication, but the doctor did not step in, but I was in the car with him, and he was in my opinion, NOT safe)

Perhaps part of the answer could be if there are technologies that are available, that can be fitted to cars of people over a (certain age ) before they are allowed to continued to drive ?

In reply to summo:


Eyesight is one issue, but I took the Op's comment that he was alluding to to Weight related narcolepsy.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


I think that if there was an objective test available ( perhaps virtual reality could be useful) then that should be used.

I would like to think I would avail myself of that test , to check for myself that I am safe, and would not wait until I am forced off the road.
(But , as I know from my own father, some people will need to be made to have such a check made)

I think that initially such a virtual reality check/ test could be developed with willing elderly drivers, and if successful , thereafter made compulsory at whatever age the stats point to, ( or as directed by a doctor/ Traffic officer (at any age) .

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Dementia and eyesight problems are not specifically related to age, but I agree that those suffering for 'severe' conditions such as these should be prevented from driving.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think the steps you have taken are very sensible.

I'm not thinking that an age related limit would be appropriate at 60 , but 90 possibly.
However, the concensus on here seems to me to be, that where statistics indicate problems, that on a sliding age scale, more stringent checks ( or even re-testing) could be appropriate, but not an age 'limit' .

In reply to Dax H:

By the time they've got to 5 tests surely they're being passed out of pity as much as anything else? I should know, I've seen my mother's driving and she failed 8 times!

In reply to Jim C:
I would prefer that our government used a better measure of risk than googling "elderly drivers" to see what comes up. Accidents involving elderly people driving the wrong way up the motorway are always well publicised but it doesn't have any relation to prevelance. There are over 4m drivers over 70 and there are half a million 17-19 year old drivers. Younger drivers cause more accidents than any other group yet they only account for 1.6% of the driving population. There's a ton of research into drivers at risk and elderly drivers come pretty low down it's just that the papers like to jump on any story involving an elderly driver beacuse the rest of the population enjoy being able to do the "shouldn't be on the road" routine.

I live in a rural town, yes they're annoying, yes they can't see, hear or react as well as I could after (theoretically) downing 3 pints but statistically they dont cause many accidents. If we take elderly peoples licences away just because they're not as fit to drive as they were then in rural areas especially we'll need to put a huge amount of investment into elderly care so that these people don't rot away in their homes with no contact, no excercise and a decreasing level of independence and self esteem. Depression, isolation and not getting out of the house cause real health problems with older people and starting that journey at 70 potentially leaves 30-40 years of an increased level of care for the state to provide. Elderly people driving is to me a great solution to a lot of the problems we have as an aging population.

As a side note, I keep coming across people telling me how dangerous the roads are and how we need more legislation and rules to save lives. Quite laughable for anyone whose driven abroad I'm sure.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Yes. Old like 60+.

And van drivers.

In reply to Jim C:

Whilst this is a tragedy, letting an 89 year old vote in an EU referendum is far more dangerous.

Wally

In reply to Bogwalloper:

You could always issue them with PlayStations then they will sit on their arses and not bother to vote

I remember discussing this with my dad when he was in his late 70s and reluctant to stop driving. He must have been borderline for being stopped on medical grounds but no single specialist thought 'their' condition was bad enough to stop him driving & his GP didn't put the pieces together.

Eventually we persuaded him to stop when we pointed out that for the few journeys he made (once a week to the supermarket, once every other week to see family in a nearby village (circa 10 miles each way)) it would be cheaper to take a taxi.

In reply to Jim C:

statistically the most dangerous drivers are young male drivers, on the same basis then would you be in favour of a lower age limit of 2o for men? The United States Census Bureau calculates 12.2 percent of car accidents are the responsibility of teen drivers while 7.5 percent of accidents are caused by drivers over 65. (https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/blog/who-causes-accidents/)

As for an upper age limit....that Joe Brown. he's 80 and clearly barely capable of walking down the street unaided. And as for Fauja Singh, who retired from marathon running when he was 101, the man was clearly an enfeebled menace to society. And as for that Joss Naylor...shouldnt be allowed on the roads. You do notice slow and nervous old drivers, iimho they are far less of a danger than stupid and reckless ones, but in any case I think the perception of old drivers as typiucally slow is probably subject to confirmation bias. If you get frustrated by a very slow driver and as you finally pass them notice white hair and specs it confirms your existing opinion, whereas if you pass them and the driver is a 30 something bloke you probably dont give it a second thought.

oh, If you google for any group and accident statistics you're clearly going to come up with lots of results. I even experimentally googled "unicorns" and traffic accidents and came up with a genuine result http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/runaway-unicorn-darts-in-and-out...

In reply to Jim C:

On retirement everyone should have their licence revoked :-p

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


In which universe is 60 considered old? I'd have thought you're not old until at least 75.

In reply to Fraser:


Fixed that for you.

In reply to Dax H:


Hate to think what my local roads would look like during the day if that came in. They're already congested with 17-18 year-old learners during the day!

In reply to Jim C:

I turn 70 later this year. I'd be more than happy to have to take an eyesight test and medical in order to renew my licence. Re-testing on a regular basis would be a burocratic nightmare.

I'm an advanced motorist, and like to think I'm very aware of my capabilities ( full licence for over 50 years and still 'nil points' despite being a sales rep for most of that time). I'm in very good health and have good eyesight albeit when wearing glasses. As soon as I feel that my powers of observation and reactions are not up to scratch I'll happily give up the car.

I've a few relatives approaching their 80's whom I'd happily be driven by - and some relatives who are much younger that make me cringe whenever I'm in with them.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

my comment was tongue in cheek rather than ageist - I'm 60. Agreed that an eyesight test would be good as perhaps it could be done in such a way as to catch other problems as well (eg cataracts etc) when someone hasn't visited the optician before/for a while.

In reply to Jim C:

There are dangerously incompetent drivers of all ages and both sexes.
However I consistently observe certain groups to be far more prevalent in the "dangerous " groupings. They are;

Older drivers (both sexes) -
Some are so dopey that they drive straight across zebra crossings and pedestrians have to jump out of the way.
Whether this is because of senility or blindness I'm not sure.
It really concerns me that there is no requirement to have a sight test on a regular basis.

Younger drivers (mainly 18-30 females) -
A strange fascination with mobile phones, whether that be phoning or, more worrying, actually texting. This tends to happen in traffic which is moving bit by bit, and then becomes increasing dangerous when the traffic finally gets going and the plonker hasn't finished their message so has to continue whilst picking up speed and manoeuvring.

Parents (mainly but not exclusively female) -
Far too concerned with what's going on in the back seats, rather than the road in front of them. Tend to park on the pavements, double-yellows and zig-zags. Believe that the roads are far too dangerous for their little jennys and jeremys to walk anywhere.
However if they didn't meander around next to schools, park on pavements and so forth, then it would be safe, not only for their children, but for everyone else's.

As I ride a motorcycle (and also live right next to a school) I get to actually look down and into cars, so I see all this going on. It's rather depressing.
I also drive a car, ride a bicycle, and walk, as and when each are appropriate.

I'm 61 and had my latest eye test yesterday - all OK just like last time.
I just wish eyesight tests were mandatory, along with medical tests including reaction tests when people get to 50 - yes 50, as some people are effectively senile far earlier.

I'd also like to see cameras on traffic lights and yellow boxes rather than the simplistic speed cameras, as there are far more acts of danger in those locations.

In reply to fred99:


Of course you have missed out the most dangerous group on the road - young males "younger drivers are killed in more crashes, and alcohol-related fatalities peak for those aged 21 to 34."


Chris

In reply to nathan79:


Why, it's just reality? We don't all have to be the best driver, just good enough.

It's no different to accepting an inexperienced driver may not notice hazards a more experienced one would and may not respond as promptly or appropriately even when they do. Again, that's just life, we've all been there and we're all slowly getting older too. Road safety in Britain is pretty good (really good comparatively). There is more to do and potentially the fitness of older drivers deserves some attention but we should be careful not to over react in light of individual tragedies.
jk

In reply to Chris Craggs:


There are 2 reasons I missed out that group;

1) They kill themselves generally, not innocent bystanders or other road users, particularly because of where and when they drive dangerously.

2) Everybody demonises this one group, and, as a motorist of over 40 years, I can attest that the other groups are far more dangerous to other people.

I frankly don't care if someone wants to commit suicide - it is after all their legal right nowadays - though I'd rather they didn't do it rather messily on the roads for someone else to clear up.
I do care most strongly about someone murdering other innocent people. Please note, I use the word MURDERING, as I'm fed up with the misuse of the term ACCIDENT.

In reply to fred99:
"as a motorist of over 40 years, I can attest that the other groups are far more dangerous to other people."

glad youve cleared that up for me, good to have some truly authoritative evidence at last.

In reply to Jim C:

My Grandpa finally hung up his keys aged about 92, I think. By then, he was only driving a few miles to get to the church and shops and decided himself it was time to call it a day.

On the other hand, I had to do an emergency stop recently to avoid an old dear that pulled straight out of a side turning and just drove off oblivious to my horn. I followed them home to check she was ok and she said she'd never even seen me.

It's a difficult one to judge, but regular testing seems to be the best solution.

In reply to Jim C:

Just stumbled accross this thread as I calm down having been nearly mown down on a zebra crossing by an elderly gent in a Micra.

If cars are subject to an MOT to be roadworthy after a certain age then so should the driver too. Ultimately it is the driver in charge of that vehicle who can do the damage regardless of whether it has an MOT or not.

In reply to fred99:



WRONG, they don't just kill themselves. One of the managers where I worked had his baby killed by a young male driver while they were taking the baby to see his grandparents.

Round here there have been several terrible multiple fatality accidents where teenage drivers have killed themselves and a carful of other people's kids. I don't want that to happen to my sons, still at school.

In reply to wercat:

I live in Shropshire. The roads around here are used for population control, mostly males between 18 and 25.


The Shropshire Star is just a collection of road crashes being scraped up and Telford based paedobiles being nicked.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Are the bad drivers killing the paedophiles?

In reply to Jim C:



In what way do you believe the existing medical questionaire/checks for drivers over 70 is wrong? How would you improve it?

In reply to wercat:


I am already doing that for last 16 years for LGV.

In reply to Jim C:

Maybe a minimum age instead. You don't get a chance to have a license till you're 50. That'd weed out all the f*ckwits who jump in cars when just out of school and drive like its death race 2017

In reply to wercat:


True, but they're NOT THE MAJOR KILLERS.
Last week someone was killed by a tree in the high winds, but I don't see anyone demanding that all trees within range of roads should be cut down.

Whatever group you pick, you will find evidence that they can and have killed other road users, just as you will find evidence that someone in that group has gone doolally and stabbed someone.

However to demonise one particular group for killing innocent bystanders, particularly when that group normally kills only themselves is not only wrong, but lets the real killers get away from the blame.
Please note I say innocent bystanders - passengers in a car driven by someone high on drink or drugs had a choice - not to get in the car. However when you actually look at the incidents in question, you normally find that the passengers were just as drunk and/or drugged as the person behind the wheel.

I remember a classic local to my house;
A car full of (4) male teenagers - all killed when it hit a tree (at about 5 or 6) in the morning.
Police blamed excessive speed as the cause - put it all over the front page of the local paper.
6 months or so later the inquest came out;
The car had no MOT, 4 bald tyres, and ALL the occupants were high on a combination of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine - nicknamed speed - the only thing reported by the Police/Paper as being half right.
The report was hidden in about page 10 of the paper.
My neice was at school with them, and told me what they were really like long before the truth appeared.
But at 5 or 6 in the morning at least they only killed themselves.

The groups I've listed earlier pretty well exclusively carry out their dangerous driving when the rest of us are out there being vulnerable.

I'm fed up with people blaming easy targets for the ills of the world, and trying to blame whichever group they personally have an axe to grind with.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


The problem with them is that mummy drove them to within an inch of the school gates up until they got their licence, probably parking on the pavement so they wouldn't get hurt by the nasty drivers.
If they'd actually been pedestrians or cyclists then they'd have some road sense.

In reply to fred99:


You sound like a proper wally. The 'problem' with young people is they're young with all that entails.
jk

In reply to Jim C:

Top Gear solved the problem a few years ago.

http://topgear.wikia.com/wiki/Rover_James

In reply to Jim C:

The DVLA have very clear rules and a report line if someone is really concerned about a person. The Scum is hardly a good link for basing such a discussion.

https://emaildvla.direct.gov.uk/emaildvla/cegemail/dvla/en/drivers_med_03.h...

I support some kind of regular driver focused health check beyond a certain age but forced retests would be very intrusive and expensive.

In reply to jkarran:

He may have been a proper wally but I remember my Dad reckoning me passing my driving test first go but my sister taking 2 or more attempts was largely due to me having cycled a lot & her almost never - she picked up the mechanics of driving as fast as me but just didn't have the awareness of how traffic behaves, etc

In reply to Jim C:

Yes the age limit should always be one year older than me..

In reply to Jim C:

Should there be a lower limit on the IQ of drivers?

In reply to wintertree:

Dear wintertree,
As a keen driver and one who takes pleasure in handling a car I strongly, but freaking strongly, disagree with this sentence of yours; "As with all these driving things, self driving cars are the eventual solution."

They may be a solution, IMHO, to idiots who can't drive safely and competently but they are no solution to me as they would remove a considerable source of pleasure and satisfaction from my life.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Wintertree has rather an obsession with driverless cars.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You are Methuselah Tom

In reply to fred99:

You say "I can attest that the other groups are far more dangerous to other people" but I think I prefer to rely on statistical evidence rather than your attesting.
Sorry.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


By "all these things" I meant any problem involving death or injury or general incompetence on the roads, I though that was obvious.


Like it or not, things are going to change.

Mind you, you seem to be over reacting to what I said a bit. I never said anything about capable human drivers being banned. Self driving cars might improve the roads for you as driving moves from a de-facto right to a privilege and bad drivers get forced out of the drivers seat. I imagine manually driven cars will be on the UK's roads for at least another 25 years.

In reply to aln:


I didn't realise you were following me so closely Aln, I'm privileged.

The OP was about old people driving. It seems pretty clear that self driving cars are a bloody obvious solution to the problem of old people needing to get about yet becoming bad at driving. Pardon me for mentioning it.

Self driving cars will be one of the biggest changes of quality of life for the elderly in a long time. And the disabled. And the young. And those who love country pubs, linear walks, not hunting for parking spaces every day and myriad other things. I'm very excited about the day in the future where I can go cycling without any cars passing me far to close at speed then cutting me up to turn left.

In reply to Jim C:

My father was 80 in August last year and he is still driving regularly and often considerable distances. Fortunately he has the means to own a very new E Class Mercedes which has a huge range of safety features such as automatic braking/collision avoidance etc. which helps me worry a bit less about him.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Are you worried about your father or everyone else on the roads, pedestrians, cyclists etc?

The features of the car mentioned, relies on the drivers mental faculties being in good order, with increasing age these deminish.

My own father was not particularly old (69) when I tried to get him off the road, not because I was worried about him killing himself ( he was dying with cancer) I was concerned he would take another's life.

In reply to Mark Edwards:


Are there stats on IQ of drivers involved in accidents, that support that case?

However, there ARE some restrictions already, notifiable’ medical conditions or disabilitities, epilepsystrokes,other neurological and mental health conditionsphysical disabilities,visual impairments, all can stop people obtaining a licence at all, and can lead to it being revoked if they develops after having a licence.

In reply to wintertree:


Oh FFS are you another stroppygob? I'm not following you at all but on this forum I've seen you expressing your enthusiasm for driverless cars many times.

In reply to pebbles:
Several people have mentioned younger driver, but that is NOT the subject of the tread .

I deliberately said up front "
" We are aware of the problems with young drivers and take precautions to stop them killing themselves and others.
Should we do more for elderly drivers ?"

So no one is saying they're are not problems with other age groups ( or even all age groups) but the thread was about older not younger drivers( that I already identified as a problem group)

In reply to Jim C:
I'm not particularly worried about him actually. He is very active for an 80 year old . Of course I have concerns for every road user and if I thought he was a danger to them I would persuade him to stop driving. The clever car is just an extra safety measure, as it is for everyone who drives one regardless of age.

In reply to Jim C:
Also, automatic braking doesn't rely on the driver's input, that's the point.

In reply to Jim C:


Is Googling for random phrases a credible process for assessing risk?

In reply to Jim C:
I stuck to the subject, but you didn't answer my question(s).

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


Statistical evidence, at least the coarse version that we (joe public) are allowed to see, lumps everything together, with no information regarding time/location.

If you think of the evidence of your own eyes, NO-ONE can do 70 through town past schools etc. during the (so-called) rush hour - you're usually lucky if you reach 20 m.p.h., and 15 would be more likely as a TOP speed..
Hence drivers doing stupid speeds are not a real danger when the vast majority of us are on the roads, but the numerous variations on inattentive driving are.

For this, and going back to the original OP, older drivers ARE one of the major dangers due to either senility, prescription drugs, or just plain lack of concentration.

In reply to aln:


I don't know. Is stroppygob someone who you take time to post about in a mildly derogatory way without adding a single thing to the conversation?

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Clever stuff, I wish my own father had had that, I might have slept better.

In reply to Trangia:
Sorry, there were a lot of responses, I missed that you asked questions, alas I don't have the answers, I raised the thread to find out what others thought.

For me, my unscientific suggestion would possibly be an increasing rate of medical checks as drivers get older, with perhaps use of some new tech virtual reality, cognition,reaction tests.

However, if drivers fail that, there may be options for them to continue to 'drive' mobility scooters or such like, so not everyone is stuck at home.

In reply to timjones:

I'm assuming the DVLA have better data, but stats does not highlight the personal tragedies that occur right across the world, which Googling does bring up. I picked the Sun story , because of the headline suited the purpose in this occasion.

In reply to Jim C:

I think the existing system of having to surrender your licence and submit to a comprehensive medical questionnaire at 70, repeated thereafter every 3 years and backed up by specialist tests on anything revealed in the questionnaire is pretty good. You have to in effect renew your licence every 3 years and have to disclose any deterioration in your health/eyesight etc and give the Licencing Authority consent to contact your GP, consultant or optician for further details. Failure to meet the required standards may result in immediate withdrawal of your licence.

In reply to Jim C:


So what age are wanting to refer to as elderly, over 80 , over 90?

In reply to fred99:



There are children walking through our village to and from school buses morning and afternoon. We live on a crossroads. I can assure you that very few vehicles pass through at 20mph. A good few travel at 40 or so and a few come through at that time at 50 or more. We have had a car emebedded in our railings on the crossroad with trapped and bloodied (but fortunately not critically injured) teenagers as a result of them driving from a side road into the path of a speeding vehicle.

You can tell the really fast ones, not infrequent, as they are no longer fully in contact with the road or on a totally steady cours as they pass over the uneven surface at the crossroads (in a slight dip). They have been clocked by the parish council at 50-60mph using calibrated measuring equipment supplied by Cumbria Constabulary. So, sorry, schoolkids here are greatly at risk from speeders

In reply to Jim C:

Don't be daft Do you really expect the more active old farts to "drive" 100 or 200 miles for a week's walking somewhere on a bloody mobility scooter? Fancy a week in the Lakes; I'll just charge my scooter up.

In reply to mypyrex:

They might have to curtail their journeys somewhat , and for the scooters they will make do with the local shops, and just visit nearby friends only. Longer journeys will then need to be by public transport, or lifts from friends/relatives.

I know a few old folk with scooters , they can easily beat me around the one way system in town, as I get stopped at lights etc.
And they make good progress as they scatter ( mow down) pedestrians on the pavements , and can also take shortcuts. They also gave them in the home where my mother is due to her dementia. Looks like fun going along the corridors.

In reply to Trangia:

My Grandpa was subject to this system, and was still allowed to drive with no sight in one eye and partial sight in the other. He managed to take the car door off its hinges by reversing out of the garage with the door open. He confused the brake and accelerator pedals in a public car park and accelerated into a bush. He was an absolute liability and extremely lucky that he never hurt anyone. We all tried to get him to stop driving and he refused. The system in place was not robust enough to stop him. Eventually my uncle disabled his car when he was ill one time and never 'fixed' it for him.

I think everyone should be retested regularly. Driving is not a right!

In reply to Jim C:


Notwithstanding the dangers that SOME older drivers pose - and I agree some are a danger to themselves and others - your comments, I think, fail to take account of the inadequacy of public transport. I frequently visit Snowdonia, often visiting the Ogwen Valley and Capel Curig. The options to do so by public transport are more or less zilch. Also, not everyone has friends and/or relatives who are able or even prepared to provide transport. I agree that the loss of the independence of not having a car and needing to travel in an urban environment does not have too much of an impact but you cannot say the same about rural living.

In reply to Jim C:

more deaths and accidents in general are caused by young drivers than elderly drivers, under 35 probably.

In reply to cragtaff:

I covered that in the intro.

This thread was about elderly drivers.

In reply to mypyrex

...your comments, I think, fail to take account of the inadequacy of public transport. I frequently visit Snowdonia, often visiting the Ogwen Valley and Capel Curig. The options to do so by public transport are more or less zilch. Also, not everyone has friends and/or relatives who are able or even prepared to provide transport.

All true, but, where elderly people may not be safe to drive anymore, the decision on that cannot be dependant on how inconvenient that will be to them, or the relatives they have, that can or cannot drive them, or how good the local bus service is.
Great if they can get lifts, or have a good bus service , or a mobility scooter, but even if none of those are available, then that is no good reason to let a person unfit to drive, to continue to hold a licence.

In reply to girlymonkey:
That was my experience, I tried to get my father off the road, I spoke to his doctor, my father resisted, and the system , in my view, was not robust enough to get clearly unfit drivers off the road, quickly. Alas my father was a car mechanic, and was able to keep his car on the road, disabling it , in his case, was not possible

In reply to mypyrex:

If someone is diagnosed with epilepsy (for example), we all accept that it is sad that they have to lose their independence but I have never heard anyone suggesting that an epilepsy sufferer should be allowed to drive. What's the difference? If someone is a danger to themselves and others, they shouldn't be on the roads.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Rolandic epilepsy?

In reply to girlymonkey:


I understand that, in the UK , IF your seizures are controlled (for over a year), or meet specific criteria, you may be able to apply for some types of driving licence.

In reply to Jim C:

OK, I was using it as an example of a medical condition which generally stops people driving. The point was that we readily accept people being stopped from driving for medical conditions, but argue that older drivers should be protected from the same outcome.
Regular repeat tests are really the only way to take it. My Grandpa would certainly have failed a test, and it would have saved him falling out with the whole family over the issue.

In reply to Jim C:


You make a very valid point there. I agree with Girlymonkey that there are older drivers who might be "medically fit" but are still a menace and unsafe through old age. "Old age" is of course a very subjective milestone. There are 90 year olds who a good safe drivers, and 50 year olds who are awful. As Girlymonkey says, more regular testing might be an answer, although it's difficult to assess at what age this should be introduced?

Maybe after first passing their test everyone should have to be retested every 10 years to the age of 40, then every 5 years to the age of 70, then every 3 years to the age of 80, thereafter annually? I've picked these figures randomly out of the air, but at times I wonder if most bad 80 year old drivers were also bad drivers when they were 40? My step mother who died aged 80, 5 years ago was a terrible driver, and we tried hard to get her to stop. But looking back she had always been a bad driver, I remember driving with her when she was in her 40s and being terrified!! Age sometimes just enhances a pre-existing fault, the only difference being that old people tend to drive slower, meaning that the consequences of a crash are less likely to be as severe, than in the case of a faster bad driver.

Anyway, getting back to your point, old people need transport and if we are going to take away their right to drive society has a duty to ensure that there is an alternative and good public transport system. At the moment public transport is generally not good and getting worse apart from in cities. The average age of the population is increasing as the baby boomers pass through. Providing good public transport, particularly in rural areas is essential if we are to stop the old from driving.