|
Sadly it is not an isolated incident and often it is the result of arrogant elderly people who refuse to believe they cannot drive safely because of poor eyesight or just lack of ability.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086179/Colin-Hor...l
This is another case which resulted in the death of a young girl and also the death of the driver.
|
|
Also see daveyjp's post at Wed 3 Dec 2014 21:03:
I've just followed a dark grey Evoque for 4 miles on a 50mph road with no street lights. There was no lighting at all on the rear.
At a set of lights I pulled alongside and advised the silver surfer motorist that he had no lights on. His answer was 'yes I have, the dash is lit up' and drove off!
|
|
It is a diversion from the real issues to pillory a particular group of drivers. Mind you, nationally, many people are ready to blame minorities for all of the ills in the world.
In my humble opinion, standards of driving are not high enough in general for all age groups. There should be stronger enforcement of laws and those who disregard them taken off the roads. That would quickly solve traffic congestion problems.
In my view a basic fault, again in all age groups, is a poor attitude to driving considerately. It needs to be co-operation rather than competition on the roads.
We have heard it all before : nothing happens because there is no will to give road safety, in all aspects, the priority it merits.
No particular age group should be demonised.
|
|
People are being killed on the roads constantly and people are driving dangerously on the road everyday but unfortunately sensationalism sells and the papers are only interested if the culprit is under 21 or over 65. .
But in saying that......next time I watch an episode of Traffic cops and the TWOCer being persued across 3 counties in a stolen 1.0 Corsa by 8 traffic cars and a chopper is aged north of 65 I will let you know.
Edited by TedCrilly on 04/12/2014 at 05:21
|
|
My grandmother had parkinsons and was frail and very petite, she drove a 2.0S Capri (left by my grandfather who passed away years before) well into her late 80s. As young man at the time I thought she was a legend, and she got plenty of attention from other motorists, too. But I'd never get in the car with her, it was terrifying, she must have driven 10 years past her ability to do so safely.
And dont get me started about my mother-in-law who purchased a car at 75 after 40 years without driving. She was contacted by her insurer about having caused an accident on the A2 (reportedly changed lanes resulting in two following cars colliding) and she blamed it on me (I'd borrowed the car the week before) despite the fact I'd not taken her car anywhere near the A2 and having clear evidence showing that on the day of the accident I was abroad on buisness. She actually gave them my name, it took months to sort out. She still to this day thinks I somehow pulled a fast one.
|
|
|
|
It is a diversion from the real issues to pillory a particular group of drivers.
No particular age group should be demonised.
It what way is it a diversion from 'the real issues' or demonising a certain group of people? It's a news story about soemthing that really happened.
I do agree that better driving needs to be improved over all age ranges but won't be unless the governemnt does something and people themselves can actually be bothered to.
|
|
|
It is a diversion from the real issues....
In my view a basic fault, again in all age groups, is a poor attitude to driving considerately. It needs to be co-operation rather than competition on the roads.
No particular age group should be demonised.
Got to agree with that. In the last 24 hours three incidents alone have made me realise just how bad driving standards and attitudes have become. Bizarrely I wasn't driving for any of them.
Incident 1 - I was walking on the pavement of a narrow shopping street near where I live. It's at 90 degrees to a wider street and the crossroads is light-controlled. Traffic was queued at the lights. A (female, 40s) driver turned into the road in a black Range Rover, found that the queueing traffic was going to hold her up and drove for about 100 yards with two wheels on the pavement. Still, I am sure she was on time for Pilates or Artisan basket weaving.
Incident 2 - talking to a (male, 20s) colleague about the village I live in (which has a terrible accident record and is rightly subject to a 30mph limit. He told me that it was "fine to do 60 or 70 through there because there are no cameras".
Incident 3 - crossing at a pelican crossing around dusk, waited for the green man, started to cross and had to avoid a gargantuan blinged up 4x4 that shot the red light. Stream of abuse and invective from the (male 40s) driver and his passenger (female, 30s), largely based on the lights having only just gone red.
Trouble is, that's just pretty normal isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
If older drivers, generally, were more dangerous it would show in insurance claim costs - no such evidence is there.
Any regular tests and medicals needs to be applied to all drivers, not just over a certain age.
Older drivers aren't generally more likley to have an accident but are more likely to have health problems that affect their driving which can cause serious accident which would be less likely in younger people.
|
|
I have been trying to kill pedestrians for 48 years.. Failed so far.. And yes I am an OAP..
|
|
If it were such a serious problem the pavements would be littered with dead pedestrians and OAP's would be constantly in court for dangerous driving.
But neither of the above are in fact true.
Yes, there are occational accidents but the simple fact is no amount of new legislation will stop these.
The last case we had locally when a car mounted the pavement and hit a pedestrian was when a teenager was trying to kill his ex-girlfriend. How would new laws stop that.
|
|
|
|
If older drivers, generally, were more dangerous it would show in insurance claim costs - no such evidence is there.
Any regular tests and medicals needs to be applied to all drivers, not just over a certain age.
Older drivers aren't generally more likley to have an accident but are more likely to have health problems that affect their driving which can cause serious accident which would be less likely in younger people.
If they aren't more likely to have an accident, what's the issue?
|
|
Re Insurance premiums which group pays more, Under 25s or Over 65s? Does the Torygraph have better information that the insurers?
|
|
I stick with my previous post that it is a diversion from the real issues. Yes, it is something that actually happened but to extrapolate a condemnation of older drivers is mistaken.
The real issue, I believe, is that driving standards are not taken seriously enough. Attaching significant blame to a particular group is, to my way of thinking, taking attention from the fundamental problem.
|
I stick with my previous post that it is a diversion from the real issues. Yes, it is something that actually happened but to extrapolate a condemnation of older drivers is mistaken.
The real issue, I believe, is that driving standards are not taken seriously enough. Attaching significant blame to a particular group is, to my way of thinking, taking attention from the fundamental problem.
If I had my way, the minimum standard would preclude 50% of current drivers - problem is that however sensible it is, it would be political suicide to attempt it.
Retests, eyetests and medicals, all of them for everyone, would be sensible but a big financial cost - either directly to drivers or indirectly through taxation
|
|
I think we all understand that there is a point at which someone is no longer competent to drive. Currently, that's down to the individual - and generally people do hang up their keys before they start killing others. I guess in many cases they manage to scare themselves first.
But if you have ever tried to persuade someone that they really should not be driving, it's obvious there are some cases who need someone in authority (their GP is the obvious choice) to tell them point-blank.
Several councils offer test facilities for older (60+) drivers; without a fail/pass condition. The takeup is very low however.
|
|
I did the IAM 'elderly driver assessment' and then went on to take and pass their advanced driving test.
90% plus of these older driver incidents occur with automatic cars,so banning older drivers from having automatics (unless perhaps they had special instruction on how to drive them) would pretty much eliminate the problem.
|
I did the IAM 'elderly driver assessment' and then went on to take and pass their advanced driving test.
90% plus of these older driver incidents occur with automatic cars,so banning older drivers from having automatics (unless perhaps they had special instruction on how to drive them) would pretty much eliminate the problem.
Oh - I never had any instruction when I changed from manual to automatic in my late 30's - I figured if yanks can drive automatics, it must be easy!
|
|
|
90% plus of these older driver incidents occur with automatic cars,so banning older drivers from having automatics (unless perhaps they had special instruction on how to drive them) would pretty much eliminate the problem.
I don't think automatic or manual will make much difference, If the driver is stamping on the throttle pedal and thinking it is the brake!
|
|
I wonder if there are any statisctics on the ratio of automatics to manuals involved in "Runaway" accidents such as the recent one involving a Mercedes.
I recall in the 70's there was an accident involving a bus in a town centre which ran amok causing injury and damage to the infrastructure. Witnesses referrred to the engine screaming and the driver claimed brake failure.
It was generally thought that the automatic transmission, still relatively new on buses at that time, had a bearing on the accident. The theory was that the driver had stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake and when the bus took off, he just pressed harder convinced that he was pressing the brake.
Perhaps some sort of training is required when transferring from manual to automatics which many older people do. I am over 70 and still driving manuals but have owned automatics in the past. I would make myself very aware of the pedal locations and make sure that I was very familiar with them before driving an automatic nowadays.
|
Perhaps some sort of training is required when transferring from manual to automatics which many older people do. I am over 70 and still driving manuals but have owned automatics in the past. I would make myself very aware of the pedal locations and make sure that I was very familiar with them before driving an automatic nowadays.
The brake and accelerator are in the same place in an automatic as a manual - in many automatics, the brake pedal is "oversized" to fill the gap where the clutch pedal was.
Drivers pressing the accelerator instead of the brake have exactly the same effect in an automatic as a manual - it accelerates!
|
Perhaps some sort of training is required when transferring from manual to automatics which many older people do. I am over 70 and still driving manuals but have owned automatics in the past. I would make myself very aware of the pedal locations and make sure that I was very familiar with them before driving an automatic nowadays.
The brake and accelerator are in the same place in an automatic as a manual - in many automatics, the brake pedal is "oversized" to fill the gap where the clutch pedal was.
Drivers pressing the accelerator instead of the brake have exactly the same effect in an automatic as a manual - it accelerates!
The key difference is that if the accelerator is floored in an automatic it will kickdown and take off like arocket, a manual (depending on which gear you are in) could either stall or run out of revs, thus limiting speed.
|
|
A particular problem exists with older drivers in older automatics. These tend to lack certain safety features standard on newer models - e.g. a mechanism to prevent selection of Drive unless the hand or footbrake is engaged.
The sequence of events is that the driver is in neutral, often at traffic lights and, if on a flat road, without the handbrake engaged. With the right foot depressed, our driver selects Drive to move off. A well soundproofed car, a driver with some hearing loss and (in older automatics) lack of rev counter means that the high revs are not apparent.
As the right foot is pressed on the accelerator, the car accelerates violently. Thinking in the split second that s/he is already pressing the brake and that the car is "disobeying", a further jab on the pedal produces yet more acceleration and all manner of consequences, sometimes lethal.
The problem is particularly acute in older, more experienced drivers who are often sure of their abilities ("60 years driving without a scratch") and who have only recently changed to automatic, in order to save wear on joints and to enjoy more leisurely driving. It is probably easier for a younger (i.e. less experienced) driver to make the change to automatic without such often catastrophic results, but my guess is that automatics are more common amongst "mature" drivers and so this scenario is much more likely.
|
A particular problem exists with older drivers in older automatics. ...
The sequence of events is that the driver is in neutral, often at traffic lights and, if on a flat road, without the handbrake engaged. With the right foot depressed, our driver selects Drive to move off. A well soundproofed car, a driver with some hearing loss and (in older automatics) lack of rev counter means that the high revs are not apparent...
The moral of that being that they should not drive without their specs, OR their hearing aids :)
|
A particular problem exists with older drivers in older automatics. ...
The sequence of events is that the driver is in neutral, often at traffic lights and, if on a flat road, without the handbrake engaged. With the right foot depressed, our driver selects Drive to move off. A well soundproofed car, a driver with some hearing loss and (in older automatics) lack of rev counter means that the high revs are not apparent...
The moral of that being that they should not drive without their specs, OR their hearing aids :)
That applies at any age - far too many drivers don't get their eyes tested until they get free tests at age 60 - that's a lot of drivers under 60 with potentially defective eyesight.
|
|
|
|
|
My original intention when I started this thread was to discuss the court's lenient approach to OAP drivers who plead they "had an episode" behind the wheel. It will be interesting to see what the judge has to say in this case, where the driver initially told police he was in good health and the car wasnt braking, and now his defence is expected to plead he had "some sort of seizure".
I knew when I posted, that would provoke the resident oap fury, but I have witnessed first hand that old people often are arrogant and do not accept advice from others about not driving, prefering their own biased judgement over other independent views.
In the case of my deceased mother, the arguement could have been made that her driving became so bad, that other drivers could obviously see and gave her an extremely wide berth.
www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/safe-driving/older-...s
|
|
|
|
I think the stats show that you most likely to be run over by a driver over 25 but by a small margin 20% to 16%. On the basis there are far few <25 year old drivers, it suggests the older drivers are safer.
|
|
|
|
Attaching significant blame to a particular group is, to my way of thinking, taking attention from the fundamental problem.
Unless the fundamental problem is actually that old people can't drive properly any more. In which case it would be appropriate. The fact they don't crash much might be down to the fact they don't drive much, or drive very far when they do, as opposed to younger people who are driving for work, socialising etc far, far more.
|
|
Brum - yes, there is an issue about when to give up driving because it's not age-related but ability-related.
Being a petrol-head, I always assumed I'd be driving until the day I die - until I saw a TV programme a good few years back about the difficulties of families persuading older drivers to quit, because they'd become unsafe - so I sat down with my son and discussed it and agreed that if I don't recognise myself the time to quit, he'll have to be ruthless and force me to. I then went out and joined the IAM, passed their test and have regular "brush-up" drives. I know I'll have to stop driving at some point but I also hope that I'll know.
On the other hand, my wife suffers from eye problems so has given up driving - I hasten to add that her sight is still twice as good as the minimum for driving, which just shows what a pitifully low minimum standard it is.
More needs to be done, by way of educating people, that EVERYONE will need to stop driving at some point rather than going on to the bitter end - but it all relates to ability, not age - I know some 30-year olds that should quit driving!
|
|
Ban all 17 and 18 year olds and make roads safer.. MUCH safer.
The research also showed that drivers aged 17 and 18 were twice as likely to have a road accident as motorists in their 30s, three times as likely as those in their 40s and six times as likely as those over 50.
tinyurl.com/yjvtgbe
Talking about OAFs in this context is frankly aiming at teh wrong drivers.
Edited by madf on 04/12/2014 at 18:00
|
|
I personally think the minimum driving age should be 21 (I think this should be the 'becoming an adult for all age restrictions, including voting), as too many young people think they are more skilled at driving than they actually are - they may have far better reactions and physical ability than drivers older than them, but there's no substitue for both experience and wisdom that mostly comes with age.
That being said, I think a lot of older drivers need to think less selfishly and accept that they may not have the ability they once had just a few years ago, and possibly stop driving.
Some of the problem is down (as has been said) to health issues, which are unlikely to improve, and often can suddenly adversely affect driving; others such as a retrenchment into 'just driving to the shops' often means some older drivers lose a great deal of confidence driving away from their local area, on unfamiliar roads, motorways or at night/in poor weather. I've found this can make them very nervous drivers, either making poor or no decisions (e.g. maddenly dithering turning right across traffic or parking in busy car parks, annoying other road users and making them even more nervous), driving increadibly slowly, etc.
To be honest, everyone needs a brush up on road craft from time to time, but we all need to be mindful that we all can't be 'a bit above average' as regards driving standards.
|
|
|
|
The fact they don't crash much might be down to the fact they don't drive much, or drive very far when they do, as opposed to younger people who are driving for work, socialising etc far, far more.
Maybe it is because often they don't bother reporting their minor accidents? I live in an area where the majority of residents are past retirement. There is not a day that goes past without a car scraping a wall, Another car or having a head on collision with a building that jumped out infront of them.
I never park my car in the village car park as it would be a sure way of getting unwanted body damage.
I'm not ageist, Just there comes a time in everyones life when our eyesight starts to suffer and our thought process slows. Some of us will start to suffer from dementia etc.
I watched a program some time ago on TV where a woman refused to believe that she was not safe to drive, She arrogantly stated "every other driver on the road is worse than she was". She was asked to take an extended driving test to prove her ability and she failed. She then went on to protest "It was rush hour, It was raining , I don't know those roads" etc etc.
I'd like to think that I'll be smart enough to know when it is time for me to hang up the keys and call it a day.
As much as I like driving, I don't think I'll be wanting to drive past the age of 80.
|
g, I don't think I'll be wanting to drive past the age of 80.
I still drove when I reached 80. And still do.
|
I still drove when I reached 80. And still do.
Yes, but you are superman ma*** I expect nothing less from a man who treats running in the snow in shorts as a normal and invigorating pastime....
|
|
I remember writing a while back that I was no longer enjoying driving, and some suggested getting a car to put a smile back on my face (I can afford it too!) But youngrovergirl has relocated to Essex, ( apparently it's the only way) and I feel after a few experiences on the A12 that I need to trade in for a Sherman tank or somesuch.
I willbe 64 next time, (will she still love me?)
Looking for the hook to put keys on...... !!!!!!!
|
|
I still drove when I reached 80. And still do.
That's good Madf but, We can't say that every person of your age is going to be as capable as you are.
The main problem is people should be able to know and accept when they are not safe to drive. In the link I posted, That old man was in an accident 3 days before killing that girl and the police told him not to drive because his eyesight was so poor. If he wasn't so arrogant and had listened to the Police who attended his first accident, That young girl would still be alive today.
|
that old man was in an accident 3 days before killing that girl and the police told him not to drive because his eyesight was so poor. If he wasn't so arrogant and had listened to the Police who attended his first accident, That young girl would still be alive today.
There ought to be a way of temporarily banning drivers until a full sight/medical examination is done - after all doctors can do it, I had an instant temporary medical ban when they discovered my heart issue but lifted once my pacemaker had been fitted.
|
|
Alanovitch it is a problem that SOME older drivers are not able to drive properly. Some are exceptionally good drivers with ability plus experience.
The FUNDAMENTAL problem is that driving standards are not high enough across the age range. Simply removing older drivers would not eradicate the problems on our roads. They are not the fundamental problem.
I think the same as RT and agree 100% with Wackyracer. The police should have the legal power to stop people they consider unfit to drive. There should also be more unmarked police cars. There is much that should be done to improve the road system. However, it needs money and the will.
Edited by scot22 on 04/12/2014 at 19:10
|
Alanovitch it is a problem that SOME older drivers are not able to drive properly. Some are exceptionally good drivers with ability plus experience.
My father is 82, still driving, and to a safe standard. He knows the size of his car (Peugeot Partner Tepee) perfectly, and amazes me with his parking skills. He spent a long time as an HGV driver, and was at one time an HGV instructor for the MOD. It's only two years ago since he last drove down to Austria to visit us.
And not only that, he can relate the qualities of virtually every pub in Portsmouth (of which there are a fair number, while under way ;-)
|
|
g, I don't think I'll be wanting to drive past the age of 80.
I still drove when I reached 80. And still do.
It waa a( poor) joke. I'm not a year over 67...Delerium tremens has not set in..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If older drivers, generally, were more dangerous it would show in insurance claim costs - no such evidence is there.
Any regular tests and medicals needs to be applied to all drivers, not just over a certain age.
Older drivers aren't generally more likley to have an accident but are more likely to have health problems that affect their driving which can cause serious accident which would be less likely in younger people.
If they aren't more likely to have an accident, what's the issue?
The fact that there are some older folk who should not be driving due to their health.
|
The fact that there are some older folk who should not be driving due to their health.
So what? Some younger people shouldn't be driving because of their stupidity.
You/we can't go round banning people who are old, or young, just because SOME in that age-group are unsafe.
Now, if you want to suggest regular competency and medical at ALL ages, I'll go along with that.
|
The fact that there are some older folk who should not be driving due to their health.
So what? Some younger people shouldn't be driving because of their stupidity.
You/we can't go round banning people who are old, or young, just because SOME in that age-group are unsafe.
Now, if you want to suggest regular competency and medical at ALL ages, I'll go along with that.
Where have I said I wanted to ban people who were old or young? I don't want that.
I would be very happy with some kind of test and medical at certain periods to ensure people are safer on the roads. I don't expect it to ever happen but think it would be a good idea as it would help people to stay up-to-date with any new laws etc as well as ensuing people no get slack in how they drive day to day.
|
|
"On the other hand, my wife suffers from eye problems so has given up driving - I hasten to add that her sight is still twice as good as the minimum for driving, which just shows what a pitifully low minimum standard it is."
I have recently filled in the application form for an age related extension to the period of the driving license for the second time and have been granted the extension. Until a couple of years ago my eyesight was sufficient that I passed the optician's test each year, but then I mistook a 6 for a 5 in the numberplate test and the lady optician read me the riot act. I now wear prescription spectacles while driving although I don't 'need' them at other times. When I filled in the application form over the internet (I had done it by mail the first time) and I wrote in the box that I wore glasses the form paused and prompted me that my information had changed. So, it isn't quite as simple as people think.
|
|
Judges opinion today...
A judge has called for people to monitor the driving of elderly relatives and friends to make them give up motoring if they are a danger on the road.
Judge Stephen Holt made his plea after hearing how Beryl Hughes, 84, had caused a fatal head-on crash while driving her Audi A3.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-tran...l
Edited by brum on 04/12/2014 at 21:25
|
|
To quote the Judge in this case "We are seeing an increasing number of older drivers involved in such tragic cases as these in this court."
So I think that shows these are not an insignificant minority of RTC's.
It's easy to forget the many other events that have happened with elderly drivers who have driven the wrong way up motorways and around roundabouts etc. without causing deaths or serious injuries.
It did make me smile when I read that she is to be banned from driving for 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Much has been said in this thread about the standard of eyesight for driving.
The comment that the elderly driver who killed the pedestrians had been involved in an incident 3 days previously and had been warned by the police not to drive because of his sub-standard eyesight does not surprise me.
The legal position is that any police officer can ask any driver at any time to confirm that their eyesight reaches the minimum standard for driving by requiring them to read a standard number plate at 20 metres in good daylight.
But if that driver fails that test the police have no power to prevent that driver from driving off.
Compare this with a breathalyser test-you get found to be over the limit-you get arrested, you don't get to drive off.
Which would you rather be faced with as an oncoming car?
A driver who has had one too many and is over the limit, but has perfect eyesight?
Or a perfectly sober driver that can't see you properly, possibly can't judge how far away you are or your speed and may have limited peripheral vision?
|
|
I'm sure there are some older drivers who aren't really up to driving and should have given up but generally older drivers have a good safety record.
There are some people of all ages who drive when they shouldn't - people who are tired, stressed and overworked, for example. And then there are people of all ages who are psychologically or temperamentally unfit to drive - although they are perfectly capable of passing a test.
|
Which would you rather be faced with as an oncoming car?
A driver who has had one too many and is over the limit, but has perfect eyesight?
Or a perfectly sober driver that can't see you properly, possibly can't judge how far away you are or your speed and may have limited peripheral vision?
Wouldn't want either of those - both should be taken off the road.
|
|
Looked at from a medical perspective, there are many illnesses, diseases and conditions that are age-related - they only start having any noticeable effect at around 60-65.
There's one huge exception, huge in a driving context, and that is eyesight - it's generally accepted the visual ability peaks around the age of 18 and it's all downhill thereafter.
I'd worry far more about working age drivers with defective eyesight far more than elderly drivers with an undetected medical condition.
|
|
Well...I reckon I'm now an 'old' driver, in the above contexts....being 64 next birthday.
I've just renewed my LGV & PCV [vocational] licence categories...without issue, medically.
I am regularly assessed as part of my job, by DSA assessors, to remain qualified to instruct LGV & PCV [C+E, D+E, and so on]....yet I'm apparently 'old'.
I spend my working days training and asessing qualified drivers...on & off road, in a variety of vehicle categories....but I'm an 'old' driver.
I'm expected to 'practice what I preach', in driving terms..set an example, be able to demonstrate, etc...yet I'm an 'old' driver!
Indistinguishable from any other old driver, when sat at the traffic lights in my ancient Daihatsu 4-trak!
I don't intend to 'retire' for another 10 years yet..[to keep youngsters out of my job..]
If we're into pigeon-holing groups of drivers, I would like to see, totally banned from driving, all drivers who have little or no hair.
Having no hair allows the brain to overcool, making their driving standards erratic at best . [there must be scientific evidence to prove this?]
Secondly, the next group to be relieved of the licences should be all those who don't still have their own teeth. [there will be statistics to provide evidence that they present a greater risk to pedestrians, than those who still possess their own gnashers.]
Simple answer...spend billions on dramatically improving public transport that offers a viable, cheaper alternative to driving one's own personal travel box.
Could have been achieved if the government hadn't spent all that wasted money sorting out RBS. Should have left them to fail.
Then the incompetent drivers of all ages would be happy taking the bus?
|
|
You miss the point entirely though Alastairg, I'm not and never would say every 'old' driver should be banned.
Several of us on this forum hold various categories LGV + PCV, We are required to have periodic medicals and eye tests to renew our licence every 5 years. This proves we are fit enough (and safe enough physically) to drive these vehicles.
I'd feel alot happier if people aged 70 and above were required to prove that their eyesight was good enough to drive. Something as simple as having them send the results of a recent eye test would be a good start.
|
I'd feel alot happier if people aged 70 and above were required to prove that their eyesight was good enough to drive. Something as simple as having them send the results of a recent eye test would be a good start.
But why wait until 70? One you're over 45 eyesight can go downhil pretty quikly. I was 50 when I realised I couldn't do close detail wih my (short sight) glasses on! Anyway, the case outlined in the OP had nothing to do with eyesight - it looks more like brake/throttle mix up.
The facts are that we have an ageing population. Far more folks live beyond their seventies than was case in sixties and of those making 80 most are now of a generation who've driven since their teens. We're going to have to live with that.
|
But why wait until 70? One you're over 45 eyesight can go downhil pretty quikly. I was 50 when I realised I couldn't do close detail wih my (short sight) glasses on! Anyway, the case outlined in the OP had nothing to do with eyesight - it looks more like brake/throttle mix up.
The reason I said 70 is because that is the age at which a car driver has to re apply for their licence, At the moment they just have to tick some boxes and self certify that they are safe to drive with glasses if needed. In an idea world people would be sensible enough to be honest when they fill in these forms.
I agree that people should be sensible and have their eyes tested regularly.
The case of the OP seems that dementia maybe a possible cause but, The case I posted a link to was primarily that his eye sight was very poor.
The facts are that we have an ageing population. Far more folks live beyond their seventies than was case in sixties and of those making 80 most are now of a generation who've driven since their teens. We're going to have to live with that.
I don't have a problem with anyone of any age driving, Provided that they are physically and mentally suitable to drive.
|
I'd feel alot happier if people aged 70 and above were required to prove that their eyesight was good enough to drive. Something as simple as having them send the results of a recent eye test would be a good start.
Since eyesight starts deteriorating at around 18, lets start eyesight test then and stop demonising "old" drivers - if you're bothered by drivers with poor eyesight, as I am, then campaign to get regular eye tests made compulsory for all drivers.
|
I'd feel alot happier if people aged 70 and above were required to prove that their eyesight was good enough to drive. Something as simple as having them send the results of a recent eye test would be a good start.
Since eyesight starts deteriorating at around 18, lets start eyesight test then and stop demonising "old" drivers - if you're bothered by drivers with poor eyesight, as I am, then campaign to get regular eye tests made compulsory for all drivers.
I'm not demonising "old" drivers, It makes logical sense to start by requiring an eye tests results when they send off to renew their licence at 70. Practically very little extra cost to the government to administrate it and no cost to the drivers as they should be eligible for free eye tests at that age.
Rome was not built in a day, So lets start off with logical and sensible steps and yes, An eye sight test results should be sent off when a person first applies for a provisional licence too.
RT I'd campaign to get periodic driver retesting, Rather than just eye sight tests but, That is another issue entirely.
|
I'd feel alot happier if people aged 70 and above were required to prove that their eyesight was good enough to drive. Something as simple as having them send the results of a recent eye test would be a good start.
Since eyesight starts deteriorating at around 18, lets start eyesight test then and stop demonising "old" drivers - if you're bothered by drivers with poor eyesight, as I am, then campaign to get regular eye tests made compulsory for all drivers.
I'm not demonising "old" drivers, It makes logical sense to start by requiring an eye tests results when they send off to renew their licence at 70. Practically very little extra cost to the government to administrate it and no cost to the drivers as they should be eligible for free eye tests at that age.
Rome was not built in a day, So lets start off with logical and sensible steps and yes, An eye sight test results should be sent off when a person first applies for a provisional licence too.
RT I'd campaign to get periodic driver retesting, Rather than just eye sight tests but, That is another issue entirely.
Eyesight deteriorates gradually and slowly from an early age, and in many cases with slower deterioration as time goes by - so age 70 is little different to age 60 or age 80, or indeed age 40 come to that.
It's a fact that users of screens, IT, PCs, tablets, etc are recommended to have regular sight checks as it can/does increase the rate of deterioration - it can be argued (so I will) that older people have been less exposed to screens over their life time than younger people and it's not the older people who should be subject to regular sight checks but the young and middle-aged.
There is a simple solution, albeit with a cost to the government and thus the taxpayer - make a free eye test available to everyone every 5 years AND require drivers to have that sent to DVLA every time.
IMO there are three parts to all of this, none of it age-related - regular eye tests - regular health checks - regular ability testing. The first two would actually reduce long-term NHS costs by detecting issues earlier, as they now try to with smoking and obesity. The third is a minefield, what with EU standardisation and the populist defence of freedom if large numbers of drivers had their licence withdrawn.
|
Eyesight deteriorates gradually and slowly from an early age, and in many cases with slower deterioration as time goes by - so age 70 is little different to age 60 or age 80, or indeed age 40 come to that.
I find that to be a ridiculous claim, I have a friend who is an eye specialist and none of what you have claimed is true.
It's a fact that users of screens, IT, PCs, tablets, etc are recommended to have regular sight checks as it can/does increase the rate of deterioration - it can be argued (so I will) that older people have been less exposed to screens over their life time than younger people and it's not the older people who should be subject to regular sight checks but the young and middle-aged.
I will agree that the use of computer screens does have an effect on the deterioration rate of a persons eye sight. In fact it is anything which requires the eye to focus on small things for long lengths of time. Some laboratory workers who use microscopes for long periods of time will also suffer the same and also people who spend alot of time reading documents or books can and do suffer similar problems. Generally these people become long sighted and that is why most people need to wear reading glasses when they get to their 40's.
|
|
I do wish RT would stop pushing his eyes start deteriorating at 18 myth. Any optometrist will confirm that presbyopia (affecting ability to focus on near objects, e.g. book reading ) usually develops in the 40's, other minor issues in the 50's and 60's, and more significant and rapid deterioration occurs at 70-80 plus.
Note: Presbyopia is very common amongst middle to old age people but does affect their driving ability or safety.
There is no arguement that many old drivers are still perfectly safe and healthy. However those that arent need to recognise when they become a hazard, the same as when other conditions may affect their driving, be it diebetes, mental health issues, drug regime etc.
Edited by brum on 06/12/2014 at 13:22
|
I do wish RT would stop pushing his eyes start deteriorating at 18 myth. Any optometrist will confirm that presbyopia (affecting ability to focus on near objects, e.g. book reading ) usually develops in the 40's, other minor issues in the 50's and 60's, and more significant and rapid deterioration occurs at 70-80 plus.
Note: Presbyopia is very common amongst middle to old age people but does affect their driving ability or safety.
There is no arguement that many old drivers are still perfectly safe and healthy. However those that arent need to recognise when they become a hazard, the same as when other conditions may affect their driving, be it diebetes, mental health issues, drug regime etc.
It's not a myth, according to the "optometrists" I've spoken to, including a Professor of Opthalmology. Much of the gradual deterioration can be taken care of by optical correction, ie glasses or contact lenses, but so many people, including drivers, don't have their sight checked regularly so never have the correction.
I wasn't aware that the young were any more immune to mental health issues and drug regimes than older people!
|
|
There's one disease that older drivers seldom suffer.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...3
|
|
Maybe not but they do get carried away....
news.sky.com/story/1348143/police-appeal-after-pen...h
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/road-rage-drivers-grapple-floor-8193253
Edited by brum on 05/12/2014 at 22:01
|
|
Wish this A6 had got carried away tonight. No warning slews accross my lane to do a u turn. Can't make it so backs up then roars off in front. No wave no apology its like i was invisible. Whats the point of hooting and flashing. I just thought Audi driven by a male chicken( four letters ends in K). Mile down the road at a roundabout I'm right behind him. So driving like a fool actually gets you nowhere. Good job my brakes are first rate. Oh for a machine gun option on the Yaris....
|
|
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-tran...l
Yet another old f*** mows down 8 pedestrians. 92 year old had a "medical episode" and "blacked out". Is that a valid excuse melord??
Time the law was changed.
|
|
Yes, of course it is time the laws were changed to improve safety.
Also include dealing with the young lady on one of the recent police documentaries driving at 96 mph on the M1. Even after being booked she said to the cameras that of course she was a good driver and in control - she had her two young children in the car so she was careful !!!!!!!
There are numerous examples of dangerous, arrogant driving. There needs to tougher enforcement and unmarked police cars.
|
Time the law was changed.
More people get killed by young drivers than old ones - which laws do you want changed.
An then there's all the drivers under 60 who won't have their eyes tested in case they fail.
|
|
80+ year old female going wrong way up one way street is the latest report.
|
|
So a 92 year old prone to "medical episodes", which I expect is to expected at 92, is perfectly safe to let drive in our town centres.
Usual twisting of topic on this forum by the older members.
|
|
I am not aware that I twisted the topic. Let me put it again, people who are medically unfit should not be able to drive. I am 67 and the moment I feel, or a responsible professional feels, I am beginning to become unfit to drive I will stop - not ifs or buts.
It should be applied to any age for any relevant reason. If they are not safe to drive - stop them.
I am unable to find any 'twisting' just the application of logical fairness. If I'm wrong please show me any post attempting to justify anyone unfit driving.
|
|
It was only a fortnight ago an 87 year old man drove down the M1 in the wrong direction and killed both himself and a young man in a transit.
These young drivers are definately the ones to watch.
|
|
There's around a dozen people killed on British roads every day. I don't have the figures comparing ages of those causing accidents against the percentage of the population they represent.
I do know insurance companies charge much higher premiums for new and young drivers. I expect they have good reasons for doing so.
Edited by bathtub tom on 24/10/2015 at 18:16
|
|
Cars are a deadly weapon in the wrong hands.
Those "wrong hands" can be any age.
Short of retesting all drivers at regular intervals you are never going to take some dangerous drivers off the road before its too late.
Even with testing there will still be accidents.
Quite simply there is no solution other than to ban the car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
