I think I have posted before, but regarding my eyesight.. My consultant optometrist, my optician and GP are all aware of my wishes that if they feel my vision and health is too poor for driving THEY must tell me to stop and MUST also inform DVLA.

All of you and us can make that choice too.

On the other hand, not 2 miles from my house 1 colleague was left with life changing injuries when a drugged twerp lost control at what was estimated by the old bill a 3 figure speed and flew across the central divider, the only reason my colleague survived is due to him and his wife being in a Disco.

A friends daughter's life is changed forever following anothe twerp hitting them head on having lost control at some 80mph in a 30 limit, again drugged to the eyeballs.

Both druggies killed outright.

Me? i'll take my chances with a few older drivers (i'm one myself) who can control their stupidity because they arn't out of their heads on substances.

When condemning all older drivers in the one size fits all current fashion be careful what you wish for, you'll all be old one day and if the trend to rampant unpoliiced criminality continues will you be happy having to get about in many towns/cities by public transport when your time comes because the younger gen (and recent govts) see no further use for you.

But I'll bet most older drivers are on prescribed drugs?

And you certainly won't be able to control your actions when you get to a certain age.

This is what we are talking about.

A retest is no good, we need medical intervention.

Age alone is not enough to withdraw a licence - some 90-year olds can drive better than some 40-year olds - just as some 17-year olds are sensible drivers while some 25-year olds aren't.

<< However, when your young child is lying dead in the road, none of the above will matter one bit. >>

Of course it will 'matter', because someone (or several) will be looking for an explanation and then someone to blame. More frequent tests may have a limited effect in reducing such tragic accidents, but when humans get inside self-propelled boxes weighing a ton or two, now and then things go wrong.

I hope you are not writing having suffered from this scenario - if so, I understand your suggestions. But if we all demand these modern conveniences, there are always downsides, and quite often misuses.

<< Driving when you have a propensity to 'momentary confusion' is as irresponsible as drink driving, surely. >>

I suspect that few of us could honestly deny we have ever suffered momentary confusion about something or other. Maybe we should all stop driving ? :-)

I know my reactions are not what they were.

When I was 20, I drove on those reactions. I needed them. Now, I put all my experience and old man's cunning into staying out of those situations by allowing myself and others plenty of space and time.

I reckon anybody can improve their safety by at least 100% by looking twice at junctions instead of once, as some do and as I did before I realised I didn't know everything.

If they want to check that I still have all my marbles then I suppose that's OK.

"I reckon anybody can improve their safety by at least 100% by looking twice at junctions instead of once"

I tend to do that on the motorbike and just instinctively do it in the car. On the bike I'm constantly scanning the road for potential dangers both other motorists and road surfaces.

Ditto when I'm cycling. Though if I were you, I'd also keep an eye (and ear) out for the weather (sudden gusts of wind can have a big impact of what road users can do), unusual sounds that may indicate something unseen is approaching or an impending failure with the car/bike, plus the highly variable factor of humans going about their business in various ways and, of course animals.

I've personally had a kamikaze pheasant or similar run straight across my car's path on a busy rural road near me, managing to go under the front bonnet and emerge unscathed between front and rear left wheels, disappearing into a hedge.

Another time a muntjac decided they wanted to sprint in front of my bicycle (after seeing me 200m away from a field) before jumping across into another field on the other side of the country lane.

Keeping watch and listening at all times is a must. More than just defensive driving required. When I was a novice driver, you don't really think of such things that much.

The problem is when you get so old and you start to show the very early signs of senility, you don't realise you've lost some abilities, not just physical ones, but those involving anticipation and judgement.

Probably what happened to that old lady I spoke of earlier - it probably never occurred to her at that moment she shouldn't be going the wrong way around that roundabout, only that she needed to turn right and this was the quickest way to do so. That scares me just as much as the reckless young driver.

... , some people shouldn't be on a bicycle, motorbike or driving a car.

Perhaps, but which ones in particular ?

I think cycling can certainly keep your faculties sharp. I am late 60's but still do a lot of road and mountain biking. I find that you have to be more aware of what other road users are doing because you are so much more vulnerable on a bike.

Well you say that, but I'm frequently aghast at the amount of times I see cyclists* on the roads wearing all dark (usually black) clothing.

Seems looking cool/stylish is more important to many cyclists than making themselves as visible as possible.

I wouldn't say that the faculties of these witless numpties are working at all well.

And I am saying this as someone who also cycles. When I bought my bike, there was a choice of two colours, black or white. I didn't particularly want a white bike, but I figured that would be more visible than a black one, so that is what I went for. And I always have a high visibility top on when out cycling.

*Runners too

Sorry, I think my cycling post pulled this off topic. All I will say is that it is ultimately up to the cyclist do do as much as possible to keep himself safe. This includes clothing, lights and actually riding in a safe way. It won't guarantee you not having an accident but it will certainly help.

Back on topic. I am a keen driver who luckily will have given up well before fully autonomous cars are the norm. However, the gradual move toward autonomy and ride hailing etc will hopefully take away the issue of unfit drivers and we can look forward to an accident free future!!

Edited by davecooper on 09/02/2025 at 10:30

<< I was once told by an experienced programmer that it is almost impossible to write completely error free software for complex systems. >>

Having been contracted (almost 30 years ago :-( ) to enlarge and debug a small local database system for United Utilities, I know that it is not that easy to produce error-free software for quite small systems. Part of the problem - which I think could affect autonomous vehicles - is that no-one wanting a system knows completely what they expect from it. They start to find out when the first version goes live.

As one of my erstwhile colleagues put it - no-one knows what they want till they've got one.

It will happen sooner than most think.

Hopefully after I stop driving, which is probably not too far off :-)

Bug free autonomous vehicles should be the goal. They will be preceded by bug ridden software - approved for roll out because it is far better than flaw ridden human beings.

Human flaws - poor eyesight, heart/stroke, drugs, alcohol, unstable, tired, made redundant, argument with wife, emotionally unbalanced, to name but a few.

Autonomous vehicles will function as an aircraft black box. Accidents will be analysed in far better detail than existing - which rely upon limited hard evidence and the probably skewed testimony of any survivors or witnesses. Hard evidence can be used to rapidly improve the software.

It will happen sooner than most think.

I have to say I don't agree with your assessment of the autonomous vehicle versus human driver.

No computer system or software has yet been invented that can match or replace the ability of the human brain to take in, assess and compute the reactions required in any given driving situation on the road.

"Tesla's struggling semi-autonomous driving efforts have been in a rut for years now, with both Full Self-Driving and Autopilot being the center of countless lawsuits and investigations. Neither system has surpassed Level 2 autonomous driving capabilities, meaning they still require humans to take over, as Levinson alluded to"

futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-rages-criticize-te...d

Tesla on Full Self-Driving Mode Plows Through Deer Without Even Slowing Down.

futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-self-driving-deer

I rest my case.

Edited by focussed on 10/02/2025 at 01:12

For the simple and obvious reason that it can only respond to events it has been taught by humans. It can do that much quicker than a human, provided it has received all the necessary signals from its sensors.

I think this was true a few years ago - computers are great at analysing data.

The digital world has moved on - AI increasingly means it can take data and identify that which is anomalous or inconsistent within the data, and that which is inconsistent with accepted other wisdom (eg: scientific papers, economic theory etc)

A human has the same problem, but also has auditory sensors, which can be useful in anticipating a problem.

Auditory signals can be fed into a digital process. Other signals otherwise indetectable can be identified with precision - eg: vibrations, component wear, light levels, infra red etc.

I think foolproof fully autonomous cars are a long way off, and are yet another grandiose notion dreamt up by nerds to earn a living.

Of course we have been beta-testing some of the basic parts for some time now, and no doubt someone is working on a car with built-in AI so that it can learn from its mistakes ?

The capacity to learn from mistakes is both human and machine, applying the lessons consistently and immediately favours machine over human for whom behaviours are often well established and difficult to change.

Apparently drivers over 70 in Japan display a sticker on there cars to inform others of there age...

No computer system or software has yet been invented that can match or replace the ability of the human brain to take in, assess and compute the reactions required in any given driving situation on the road.

Disagree completely. Humans for instance can't:

- fly military jets deliberately unstable to promote manoeuvrability need digital assistance

- track and hit incoming missiles moving at speeds in excess of sound

- analyse and summarise millions of bits of information in seconds

- even grandmasters can't beat the best supercomputer chess programs

Human reaction times are slower - autonomous braking will have analysed an impending hazard and applied the brakes before Mr Average has even lifted his foot from the accelerator. Drinks, drugs, tiredness make human performance much worse.

"Tesla's strugglingsemi-autonomous driving efforts have been in a rut for years now, with both Full Self-Driving and Autopilot being the center of countless lawsuits and investigations. Neither system has surpassed Level 2 autonomous driving capabilities, meaning they still require humans to take over, as Levinson alluded to"

Mercedes and BMW already have level 3 certified cars. The market is moving in one direction only.

futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-rages-criticize-te...d

Tesla on Full Self-Driving Mode Plows Through Deer Without Even Slowing Down.

futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-self-driving-deer

I rest my case.

If you want to base your argument on one small team of journalists - then you are right to rest your case. I personally prefer a rather wider and more thoughtful approach - fully accepting there is some way to go to achieve level 5.

If the computerised autonomous car cannot recognise a deer and drives straight through and over it, autonomous cars have a long way to go

To judge from the road kill lining most country roads, humankind hasn't yet mastered the art either - despite practising for 130 years at driving powered vehicles!!!

Sadly that's mostly the results of concreting/building thereby destroying hundreds of years of wild animals known habitats...Northamptonshire (well the bits the important don't live in) is a prime example of this, every day deer lie mangled at the sides of the road or after being struck drag themselves off to die painfully in what's left of the woodlands they lived in for countless generations...this is apparently progress or so our betters busily destroying everything that was good for the benefit of their wallets would have us believe.

On the subject of autonomopus vehicles, they've been telling truck drivers we have 5 minutes to learn to code (remember that?) for years and i'll guarantee you they'll still be telling truckies the same bullshine in 30 years time...because some unfortunate is always going to be there in the vehicle to point the fingers at when their electronic wet dream fails, its not going to be the maker (witness weasel wording concerning AEBS in the drivers manual) and its not going to be the operator.

AEBS i should add is little short of dangerous in too many applications, if this is basis of autonomous travel we'll all be dead and gone so will our children and it'll still be a nothing burger.

I didn't particularly want a white bike, but I figured that would be more visible than a black one,

My pet hate is in dark winter nights pedestrians wearing black dresses crossing side at middle of the road.

Why do people like black dress so much??

I was recently in Cardiff for a few days. All the food delivery riders seem to be on black e-bikes', wearing all black, including hoods, no lights and pretty much ignoring any rules of the road! Trouble is, if you hit one you would probably be the one in the wrong.

Tried finding some objective data on accident rates and car colour. The subject is more complicated than I first thought.

Black, for obvious reasons is often quoted as worst, although other dark colours are nearly as bad - eg: red, blue.

Bright highly visible colours are also quoted as having a bad accident rate - canary yellow being an example. It seems the user who chooses a bright colour may psychologically be more inclined to drive with "enthusiasm" and hence have a higher risk anyway.

Colours often chosen by the sedate - white, light blue/ green etc - seem to have a fairly low accident rate, possibly due to those that drive them rather than colour perceptions.

Could better analysis separate the impact car colour from the driver to make some sense of it all. Perhaps more accidents would be avoided if:

• dark coloured cars banned as they are more difficult for all to see in the dark
• bright coloured cars banned - forcing risk takers into less visible statements of intent encouraging less risky behaviour

Perhaps all cars should be painted BLMC beige or harvest gold - if you can remember that far back!! Would it save lives or simply send the motoring public to sleep at the wheel.

I walk most mornings before 8am - along country roads with about 60 vehicles/hour, no pavements and if you drive at 30mph in the wet you will crash.. In snow or ice , it is very dangerous: lots of crashes.

I wear a reflective hi vis vest, a lit head torch and am ready to hurl myself into the hawthorn hedges for safety. (do it every walk).

Not been hit (Yet), fallen on ice a lot and see about 4 accidents a year.

I didn't particularly want a white bike, but I figured that would be more visible than a black one,

My pet hate is in dark winter nights pedestrians wearing black dresses crossing side at middle of the road.

Why do people like black dress so much??

Gothic death wish thing

Black has always been a fashionable colour, plus pre WWII the vast majority of the non-rich (i.e. most people) wore black coloured clothing because it was cheaper whilst conveying a semblance of smart dress.

I still think that drivers should pay more attention when driving and not drive so fast in poor weather / lighting conditions than they do, probably because they either don't care or mistakenly believe their own 'innate skill' (the average driver thinks they are of above average skill level) and modern safety tech will 'get them out of trouble', when it's more likely this arrogant or naive belief will lead to the opposite.

Bright highly visible colours are also quoted as having a bad accident rate - canary yellow being an example. It seems the user who chooses a bright colour may psychologically be more inclined to drive with "enthusiasm" and hence have a higher risk anyway.

My car is yellow - only because it was default option and choosing any other color meant paying £650 more. I guess many people chose that option and hence manufacturer stopped offering this color and now offering red as default.

Insurers will use any excuse to raise prices. They rarely share the "data" upon which their claimed quotes are based at.

Some time around 1980 stats were published proving the greater visibility of bright cars, causing makers to produce them for a year or two. My last BL Maxi was buttercup yellow, but when I came to sell it on a few years later I was always told that no-one wanted them !!

Independence is the dominant reason together with self preservation. Mobility scooters are probably the most dangerous means of transport on the road.

In 2023 16 mobility scooter riders were killed in accidents - compares with 87 cyclists. But there are several times more cyclists than scooter users, cyclists include the young and foolish, scooter users tend to be older, risk averse and often use pavements.

Being honest with myself - I would likely carry on driving until it was abundantly clear I was incapable, or insurance claims meant that I effectively became uninsurable.

Independence is the dominant reason together with self preservation. Mobility scooters are probably the most dangerous means of transport on the road.

In 2023 16 mobility scooter riders were killed in accidents - compares with 87 cyclists. But there are several times more cyclists than scooter users, cyclists include the young and foolish, scooter users tend to be older, risk averse and often use pavements.

Being honest with myself - I would likely carry on driving until it was abundantly clear I was incapable, or insurance claims meant that I effectively became uninsurable.

When I was walking back from my town centre earlier this morning, I saw yet another OAP riding their electric disability scooter in the road, avoiding the pavement. Not crossing the road, but as if they were a car or bicycle.

Many of bigger scooters are road legal and can do 8mpg legally on the roads so not sure what the issue is?

Independence is the dominant reason together with self preservation. Mobility scooters are probably the most dangerous means of transport on the road.

In 2023 16 mobility scooter riders were killed in accidents - compares with 87 cyclists. But there are several times more cyclists than scooter users, cyclists include the young and foolish, scooter users tend to be older, risk averse and often use pavements.

Being honest with myself - I would likely carry on driving until it was abundantly clear I was incapable, or insurance claims meant that I effectively became uninsurable.

When I was walking back from my town centre earlier this morning, I saw yet another OAP riding their electric disability scooter in the road, avoiding the pavement. Not crossing the road, but as if they were a car or bicycle.

Many of bigger scooters are road legal and can do 8mpg legally on the roads so not sure what the issue is?

Surely if they are 'road legal, they must include a number plate, lights and indicators and it needs to be VED registered, even if it is 'exempt'. I saw no evidence of any of that.

No - road-legal mobility scooters don't need to display their registration plate nor do they need to be insured - you can't see evidence of "VED-registered" - they do though need a front and rear light and indicators with a requirement to use hazard flashers if on a dual carriageway. They also have a switch between the 8mph on-road mode and 4mph pavement mode - as well as a variable "throttle".

I have such a mobility scooter although haven't needed to use it for some years - I disliked using it on roads and only did so when necessary.

I do get annoyed at mobilty scooter riders who use the 8mph mode on pavements with little or no regard for pedestrians

Surely if they are 'road legal, they must include a number plate, lights and indicators and it needs to be VED registered, even if it is 'exempt'. I saw no evidence of any of that.

If they are scooters for the road then they will have indicators and will be VED registered, no need for a licence plate. Also for the 8mph no need for headlights/tail lights. See the info below:

www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchai...d

Not sure many people would want to use them on a dual carriageway even with the amber flashing light!

<< Even if movers and shakers in the drug and refugee smuggling gangs were all teenagers (unlikely) the economy, laws, and their enforcement are the province of the relatively elderly. The young are entirely justified in blaming oldies for their predicament - even though they clearly fail to help themselves!! >>

Don't agree. The 'predicament' is not caused by the oldies - you are complaining about their inability to prevent it, which is a different problem !