Half of Brits want elderly drivers banned from the roads - many back tests after 60.....

[ardm17]

MSN

Better buy some new walking shoes then ...

At least Ageism is still allowed by the PC brigade ...

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

MSN

Better buy some new walking shoes then ...

At least Ageism is still allowed by the PC brigade ...

Based on the cost of Motor Policies one could conclude that Insurers see the younger age group as a higher risk

 

[TheDoc]

The powers that be are more likely turkeys than spring chickens and turkeys don’t vote for Christmas so I feel safe for a while.

 

[ArunAlec]

Based on the cost of Motor Policies one could conclude that Insurers see the younger age group as a higher risk

Yep, great for us oldies! 4 cars including a Porsche and the Cali for around £500.

 

[soulstyledevon]

Can’t see a problem with that idea.
If you’re fit to drive with plenty of experience and a competent driver, should be a breeze to pass and might get rid of those dodgy few, who shouldn’t be anywhere near a steering wheel…

 

[WelshGas]

Can’t see a problem with that idea.
If you’re fit to drive with plenty of experience and a competent driver, should be a breeze to pass and might get rid of those dodgy few, who shouldn’t be anywhere near a steering wheel…

I wonder how many youngsters could past the Test 6 months after getting their Licence. Not as many as you may think.
Nowadays you learn and are taught to pass The Test. Your not taught to “ Drive “.

 

[Algor]

I wonder how many youngsters could past the Test 6 months after getting their Licence. Not as many as you may think.
Nowadays you learn and are taught to pass The Test. Your not taught to “ Drive “.

I passed my test 33 years ago, I wasn't taught how to park in a multistory car park, or how to parallel park, I wasn't shown how to fuel or do basic maintenance. We were all taught how to pass the test because it was the basic test to drive. This wasn't a problem as you pick it as you go along. Having passed my motorcycle test a few years ago I think youngsters actually have more hoops to jump through with the theory test etc.

 

[bvddobb]

Can’t see a problem with that idea.

Neither can I.

On the contrary, I would take it a bit further. I have a driving licence for LHVs and busses/coaches and a code 95 for professional use of those licenses (an EU thing). To keep that, every 5 years I have to have a medical and 5 days of mandatory retraining (could be on different subjects: e.g. update on new regulations, refresh rarely used techniques such as manoeuvering with a big trailer, a coaching session on your driving habits (have any unhealthy habits creeped in?), live saving techniques, icy conditions driving, etc). I learn a lot from it, every time again. With the ever increasing traffic, I would favour a like regime for all drivers!

I am always a little suspicious of people who say THEY don’t need any of it, they have been on the road for ages, they have all the experience in the world, it is the OTHERS who are bad drivers, etc, etc.

 

[Eber123]

Hello,

This idea seems to come up every 2 or 3 years regularly. I think those ideas are on thin ice.

First the age level - 60 years. We suppose to work until 66 or 67 (depending in which country you are in). We still suppose to do all sorts of things and only in few professions they implemented an age limit.

I think also the statement "... people over 60 have to re-sit a test..." is prejudice saying all elderly people are bad drivers. This is as you say all people from this or that country are bad. Or maybe implement different limits and restrictions not only for age, but for gender ....

Insurance companies have good statistics and I am sure that other age groups have higher accident rates than the more mature people.

As long as there are no clear data that proves otherwise it is simple polemic. Which I will, after disagreeing, ignore.

Happy 63 year old Grand California owner,
Eberhard

 

[Billywizz]

The voters against were probably thinking more on the ‘rate of Knots’ some older folk travel and not how dangerous they are!

 

[WelshGas]

I passed my test 33 years ago, I wasn't taught how to park in a multistory car park, or how to parallel park, I wasn't shown how to fuel or do basic maintenance. We were all taught how to pass the test because it was the basic test to drive. This wasn't a problem as you pick it as you go along. Having passed my motorcycle test a few years ago I think youngsters actually have more hoops to jump through with the theory test etc.

Maybe they do but it doesn’t seem to help much in the real world as the Insurers assess them as High Risk and their risk assessments are based on actual data.

 

[Wildcamper]

I have never understood why a test to operate a potentially dangerous machine passed when one 18-20 should never require updating when the machine itself is constantly being updated. In other walks of life, pilots, train drivers, those operating heavy industrial equipment etc retraining/updating is often mandatory. Companies can be and are fined heavily if operators are not sufficiently well trained. I have always thought a driving license should only be valid for a set period of time and then a retest required. I passed my test in 1968 but cars are road usage have changed out of all recognition between then and 2022. I have done a number of intermediary updates. When I fail an update I will hand in my license.

 

[ArunAlec]

With autonomous cars on the horizon maybe nobody needs a test!

 

[TheDoc]

If the accident rate is amongst the highest in younger drivers who will have recently passed a test then perhaps the whole system needs looking at…

 

[Algor]

The voters against were probably thinking more on the ‘rate of Knots’ some older folk travel and not how dangerous they are!

As has always been the case. Increased levels of

Maybe they do but it doesn’t seem to help much in the real world as the Insurers assess them as High Risk and their risk assessments are based on actual data.

As has always been the case. Increased levels of epinephrine coupled with a feeling of immortality often lead to bad decision making. Getting older carries it's own set of problems, omniscience is a common trait as are reduced reflexes and eyesight. Non of us are perfect. As vehicle technology and the Highway Code evolves perhaps a refresher course every 20 years or so isn't such a terrible idea.

 

[EddieEagle]

No retest for me, I’m not admitting to being a bad driver nor a bad lover……

 

[soulstyledevon]

I’m not sure how anyone can quote it being ageist. The simple fact is, as you get older the body has challenges.
I’m 43, and been driving since I passed my test in 97. By my early 30s I needed glasses for driving at night. At my mid to late 30s I need glasses for driving night and day.
Lately my spatial awareness has changed and I find myself just slight hesitant in some situations, in younger years I wouldn’t have been.

It’s a sad fact, but we’re all old. Regular medical and retest can’t be a bad thing for general safety…

 

[Vagophile]

Having driven farm vehicles since my legs were long enough to depress a tractor clutch and brake, I passed my car driving test aged 17. I had one lesson at the local driving school so the proprietor could assess my competence and arrange a test for me as their pupil using their dual control car.
45 years later, when I wanted to acquire a licence to drive a motorcycle, I had to initially attend a proficiency course to obtain a certificate to allow me to ride with L plates, then take a hazard perception test to ensure that I was alert to road hazards, then the actual motorcycle driving.
The whole process was vastly different from my car test, particularly the hazard perception test, where I identified so many hazards (in my view) that the controlling software stopped the test on the grounds that I was randomly clicking instead of identifying hazards. The supervisor re-started the test, but results up to the stopping point were discarded. Luckily, I managed to scrape a pass, but I wasn't impressed!
I would be in favour of regular proficiency tests, say every five years, provided that it didn't involve a massive bureacracy; let's face it, the present sysyem can't even cope with testing new drivers.

 

[vwsween]

The problem with tests is that they only measure ability on an occasion when you are being watched. In addition to lack of ability, poor driving occurs due to lack of experience and in particular due to poor attitude. Many drivers, and it seems to me, often younger ones think there is no need to stick to the rules as they are rarely enforced and they themselves are invincible. I would be in favour of banning all under 25 and all over 75.

 

[Borris]

That's fine as long as we can continue to drive until our test.

Given the current waiting times for a driving test most of us over sixty drivers would be dead long before that day comes up.

 

[Vagophile]

I would be in favour of banning all under 25 and all over 75.

With what justification?
Driving ability is dependent on a number of factors, of which age is only one. Competence can only be determined by observation of the driver under varying conditions.

 

[The Tall Luthier]

MSN

Better buy some new walking shoes then ...

At least Ageism is still allowed by the PC brigade ...

Your link sent me straight to a joke website.

There’s never been a true word written on that rag , just sick culture war baiting.

I hope it didn’t make you too angry.

 

[ArunAlec]

Your link sent me straight to a joke website.

There’s never been a true word written on that rag , just sick culture war baiting.

I hope it didn’t make you too angry.

Somewhat misleading headline too! It would have been more accurate had it said “over half of Brits DON’T want elderly banned”

 

[WelshGas]

With what justification?
Driving ability is dependent on a number of factors, of which age is only one. Competence can only be determined by observation of the driver under varying conditions.

And that’s the problem. They are not observed under varying conditions

 

[vwsween]

With what justification?
Driving ability is dependent on a number of factors, of which age is only one. Competence can only be determined by observation of the driver under varying conditions.

Driving ability or competence as observed in a test is to a standard to pass that test. The problem is that when not in a test everyone drives to a different standard dependent of a number of factors including age, health, attitude, drink/drugs, family responsibility etc. The point is accidents are mostly caused by how you drive, not by how you could drive if on best behaviour being observed. Depending on which stats you believe, drivers aged under 25 cause 85% of serious accidents. My reference to over 75's might be unfair since slow/dithering drivers are more often a niusance rather than deadly.