Should drivers over 70..........

[cee-dee]

Should drivers over 70 be required to take a test every 3 years?

I saw part of a discussion on TV on this subject so what do you think?

Really, it's drivers aged 17 to 24 who're most likely to have a crash and from what I've read it seems drivers over 80 are more likely to cause themselves an injury than other people.

Drivers have to renew their driving licence at 70 and then have to renew it every 3 years but a test as well?

[6969antony]

the having to renew their licences refers going to see their doctor who fills a form in and sends that to dvla, i feel it totally unreasonable that a doctor who has no experience of the ability of that person sat across the DESK from them to make a decision on if they are capable of making life and death processes in split second timings, i fully agree that once at the age of 60 everyone should have to resit a formal driving test,  i think that a doctor should not be the person to make this decision

some oap.s havent sat a test for the best part of 45 years, and boy look how the roads have changed

[bankhaunter]

 some oap.s havent sat a test for the best part of 45 years, and boy look how the roads have changed

And they will have been driving throughout the changes and adapting with them, it means nothing.

The statistics on accidents by age do not take the number of drivers of those ages into consideration, going by numbers alone, the 40 - 59 age group have most accidents.

70 isn't a magic age at which possible inability to drive suddenly rears it's head, if there is going to be a system for determining if a person is fit to drive, it should start younger than that.

My father died at the wheel aged 59.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

 some oap.s havent sat a test for the best part of 45 years, and boy look how the roads have changed

And they will have been driving throughout the changes and adapting with them, it means nothing.

The statistics on accidents by age do not take the number of drivers of those ages into consideration, going by numbers alone, the 40 - 59 age group have most accidents.

70 isn't a magic age at which possible inability to drive suddenly rears it's head, if there is going to be a system for determining if a person is fit to drive, it should start younger than that.

My father died at the wheel aged 59.

---

Ideally re-testing should take place for all ages but economics make this prohibitive.

Agreed that 70 is arbitrary age but there again so would 75, 55 or 80.  There is clear scientific evidence that both mental and physical abilities diminish as we get older, both of which have an impact on our ability to drive so age is a reasonable criteria to use for retesting and 70 is as good an age as any to introduce the requirement for retests.

Of course other ages may well be a greater risk on the road and you may well consider that economically they should be the priority - that doesn't make the argument that a retest should be introduced based on age any less valid.

I'm not sure that retesting for younger and inexperienced drivers is the way to make that group any safer on the road, other than perhaps as a penalty/deterrent.  Far better in my opinion to make their first test more stringent and to impose restrictions in respect of vehicles/speed/passengers etc. for the first few years after gaining a licence.

[soppysofty]

In an ideal world you would not be able to take your test until you where 21 as that is the age of 'maturity' when the hormones in your body settle down for the rest of your life and you would be retested at age 70 as that is the most common age at which various ailments that can effect driving start to show.

In an ideal world........

[cee-dee]

"Tests" are dependent on the tester and there's no taking in to account bias.

A young lady (20) failed a test because she went around a flood instead of through it (the only thing the examiner said failed her) and the next test was failed because "She went too close to a wall"?????

So how'd you take in to account overly strict examiners who "have a thing" about older people?

[bankhaunter]

I'm not sure that actual retaking the driving test is the answer anyway, much of likely problems are medical ones, eyesight, reaction time, etc.

It can't be beyond the realms of possiblity to devise quick simple tests for the major risks.

[cee-dee]

Let's say some sort of test was introduced on the first of January, how long would it take (and how much would it cost) to test all those who fell under the requirements not to mention those "new" people who fell under it in the meantime?

[bankhaunter]

Things like an eyesight test wouldn't have to be done at a particular place, an optician could do one in a few minutes.

Studies need to be done as to just what possible defects could be a problem to an older driver and are most likely not to be realised or recognised by those drivers, the mere repeating of the driving test may not reveal them.

I could easily pass the eye sight requirement of the test without wearing my glasses but I wouldn't consider I would be safe to drive without them, it takes the edge off as it needs greater concentration.

[cee-dee]

It's still a lot of work and people doing any testing expect to be paid.

There's the time-scale like I said, how long would it take for all those "qualifying" to be tested?

You might as well say that everyone qualifying should have a full medical which would entail a complete eye test, an echocardiogram, an electrocardiogram, a chest X-Ray and a body scan. Throw in a blood test for diabetes, kidney and liver function and blood oxygen level?

When that's done and if they pass that, next is an IQ test followed by a theoretical test. Then and only then would there be a practical test. Where would the line be drawn if the above were not done???

[bankhaunter]

I'm thinking of conditions which are more common among elderly people and are such that they are not always immediately apparent.

A suitable eye test could be a very simple affair, testing for night blindness, acuity and peripheral vision is all that's needed, the tester would not be looking to correct any faults only to see if they exist.

The time scale is not a problem if sufficient notice is given beforehand.

[cee-dee]

The tests I mentioned are all relevant for driving if any underlying conditions are undetected.

So what period of notice are you advocating?

[bankhaunter]

The DVLA have a long list of conditions that they are required to be informed about but it would plainly be a nonsense to test for them all and the large majority have little to do with age. I mainly mention eye tests because vision is known to be affected by age, creeps up slowly so can be unnoticed and is important for road safety.

As for warning time, I would have thought that once tests are designed, a year would be sufficient.

[cee-dee]

The test itself is designed to test the ability at the time of the test but some medical conditions "build up" before an event and if age is the criteria for any test, ability or vision, then the tests I also mentioned are relevant?

Do you think all those needing a test could really be examined in a year?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The test itself is designed to test the ability at the time of the test but some medical conditions "build up" before an event and if age is the criteria for any test, ability or vision, then the tests I also mentioned are relevant?

Do you think all those needing a test could really be examined in a year?

---

Again, in an ideal world with cost not being a problem, then yes, all the tests you suggested would be ideal - however we don't live in an ideal world but that doesn't mean that a far simpler range of tests aren't worthwhile.

A simple reaction and risk perception test can be carried out sat at a computer terminal in much the same way that the theory test for new drivers is currently organised.

The eye test can be carried out by opticians, it is already recommended that those over 65 have their eyes tested at least once every couple of years.

That would leave a short road test to be carried out which is where the greatest bottleneck is likely to arise but isn't insurmountable.

Testing could be phased in over a 5 or ten year period with the oldest being required to be tested and the age slowly being reduced.

[cee-dee]

That's the most sensible idea with it being phased in over time. I don't see how it could be done any sooner without a massive cost.

[suzieseaside]

Massive cost - to whom? Any testing won't be free to the individual Imo but around £85 per senior citizen over 70, and every 3 years for anyone agreeing to your OP, ceedee. If there was a massive cost I would rather see more effort directed at catching people using mobile phones.

For many people 70 is not that old to prevent them being perfectly able to drive well with good mental and physical ability, plus a lot of driving experience behind them.

Perhaps at 80 a test might be a good idea. My vehicle was smashed badly in the side last year by a guy who looked over 90 and was very.frail. He should not have been on the road imo and I expect the old booger knew it cos he drove off before giving me his details. So yes, maybe a retest late in life, say 80 plus would keep some of those unfit off the road.

[cee-dee]

A "massive cost" would be if it was a rushed idea.

Just who is going to be doing the testing? There's already a wait for people wanting a test so if there's a sudden influx of thousands of other people, who will do the testing and no matter who pays for it, it'll add up to a massive cost?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

A "massive cost" would be if it was a rushed idea.

Just who is going to be doing the testing? There's already a wait for people wanting a test so if there's a sudden influx of thousands of other people, who will do the testing and no matter who pays for it, it'll add up to a massive cost?

---

Cost really is the only argument against retesting and no matter what the system would be substantial as there are approximately 4 million over 70 licence holders.

Apparently there are about 200 centenarians who have declared themselves fit to drive.

[fallen-archie]

For those concentrating on the older driver perhaps this will give you food for thought;-

http://ind.pn/1mUQvSy

[cee-dee]

Going back to #65 and the young lady I mentioned, she's failed again.

The things she's failed on seem nit-picking items and it seems that the test now demands absolute perfection so on that point I wonder if every day, 10 drivers were pulled off the road and taken for an immediate test, how many would pass? Any? How about we have the examiners taken for a random test every now and again?

One thing comes to mind, prejudice. Are some examiners prejudiced about women drivers or those taking their test in their own car?

OK, so you could say it's sour grapes but you have to wonder whether there's also another ulterior motive, that of a money-making scheme.....?

Now, if the things I mentioned above were applied to testing "old" people, again, how many would "fail" on some nit-picking "faults"?