"And police statistics show that in the first eight months of 2006, 200 vehicle-drivers aged between 70 and 79 were killed in accidents compared to 189 drivers aged between 16 and 24."
Yes this may be the case but if you are 16 to 24 you have a better chance of survival because you are young.
Look at Richard Hammond - he was badly injured - a 60+ year old with the same injuries would probably not have made it - the younger you are the better chances of survival.
Many older peop survive accidents only to die from 2ndary problems - heart attack after accident, pneumonia, infection etc while recovering from the actual bone breaks from the accident.
|
A quarter of the convictions for causing death by dangerous driving are for drivers under 20, even though this age group represents 3% of all drivers
|
Compulsory testing is pretty pointless, as the elderly very often go down hill quite quickly when it happens. So unless you test them every three months; or whatever; it's pretty pointless.
Just you lot wait until you're 80 and the car is your only form of transport.
|
|
I wish the old boy who wrote off my wife's car last week had been subjected to a compulsory test. He was upset about it, as he told my wife that he had only just had his car repaired after his last shunt.
|
IMHO - ALL drivers should be tested every 5 years to a higher standard than our present test.
If we could get the worst third of all drivers off the road, we'd all be much safer. The problem is that these poor drivers are part of the electorate so no political party would do this unilaterally.
|
I do not know what would be fair with regard to testing older drivers, but some of the oap's you see getting out of cars and driving about, make you wonder if the unexpected happens, are they really gonna be able to get their foot off the trottle and press (even) reasonably hard on the brakes.
Some I've seen have trouble turning their head 90 degrees to look in the blind spot, never mind for reversing.
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
Whether admitted it or not theres a big issue here about the trust between doctor and patient - there are many older people who will come back and accuse their GP of 'grassing me up to the dvla' and of course there's a reaction the other way too as no doctor wants to aggravate a patient or end up destroying years of good work building up a trusting relationship.
I've always thought there should be a seperate clinician assesing driving ability - or even a version of the hazard perception test that new drivers today have to take with the theory test thats compulsory for all OAPs every 3 years or wtv. Problem is this is all expensive and could be politically red hot (grey vote and all that).
|
Get teachers involved too!
They can "grass up" all those fidgety ADHD seventeen year olds who'd be hitting the pedals 100 times a minute
|
|
|
|
Got to wear two hats on this one. Old(er) drivers can be a pain, but not all. Most, but not all youngsters are a pain. We had Moggy minors and Mk 1 Cortinas. They now have stuff that goes like sh off a shovel. Faster cars and brains that are no faster than we had = potential problems. Roads that are more crowded only exacerbate that problem. Older drivers that are clearly very cautious are often viewed as unsafe when in fact they may be just cautious, but I suspect that we all moan, "Come on come on, get on with it" when they take up our space. Taking away their licences can actually mean end of 'life' especially where there is no decent Public transport and or assistance in knowing how to use it.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Your parent anybody??
VBR........MD.
|
|
Should it be 3 points for trying to change your bag whilst on the move?
|
Should it be 3 points for trying to change your bag whilst on the move?
Why is your Hoover in your car?
MD
|
|
>>... .. but some of the oap's you see getting out of cars and driving about, make you wonder if the unexpected happens, are they really gonna be able to get their foot off the trottle and press (even) reasonably hard on the brakes.
>>Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
>>
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6168330.stm
|
>>news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6168330.stm
A much more detailed report that makes one ask a few big questions!!!
tinyurl.com/yczww9
|
I think this whole issue is hard to solve. We are an ageing population and people are having to work longer and longer. I am sure there will be many people who will have to continue to work into their seventies just to survive and a car will probably be a key part of their lifestyle and income.
My mother is 72 and I am not convinced her driving skills are what they were, but she loves having a car for going to the shops, meeting friends and generally leading an independent life (but she hardly ever ventures out of town). She recently bought a new car and I have an intention when it comes to the replacement time (she usually keeps them 7-8 years so she will be 80) to have the "time to stop talk" then
I think Germany withdraw licences at 70, but they also have no limit autobahns. I think we certainly should with draw licences at 80. Yes there will be some who have all their faculties by then, but a majority will be lacking some aspects of sight, hearing, reflexes, judgement, etc.
|
|
|
|
"Any statisticians in the Backroom?"
Not a professional, but still interested.
Those numbers (200 vehicle-drivers aged between 70 and 79 were killed in accidents compared to 189 drivers aged between 16 and 24) are pretty meaningless on their own.
How many drivers are there in each group? How often do they drive? How many hours/miles do they rack up per annum? How many accidents were they involved in (not just deaths - is age affecting their likelihood of dying)? Whose faults were the accidents in each group? is this a typical eight month period?
etc, etc.
V
|
I think Germany withdraw licences at 70, but they also have no limit autobahns. I think we certainly should with draw licences at 80. Yes there will be some who have all their faculties by then, but a majority will be lacking some aspects of sight, hearing, reflexes, judgement, etc.
Germany does not ,I have relations well over eighty still driving daily on the autobahns
|
Some people writing here, and on previous threads overlapping this subject, seem to have a very inflamed idea of what middle age means. They seem to think you're half gaga at 70. It can happen, but then it can happen young too, or haven't any of you noticed?
Better not spout any of that carp around me. I don't have a ready size 11 steel toecapped boot like DD, but I can be quite staggeringly rude when the spirit moves me.
|
With current legislation we cannot descriminate by age so lets have annual reviews for ALL drivers!
Problem with current system is Gps do not do that part of their job so we have people driving who are not fit to do so. Just wait for an injured party to sue a doctor under tort.
My wif'e car was written off in July by a pensioner who should probably not be driving, she was younger than my father who at 77 still drives around 15-20k a year in the UK and Europe, I would put a significant amount of money on him doing better in a driving test than anyone contributing here, including me.
|
>>Just wait for an injured party to sue a doctor under tort.
Can't see it myself. What does a GP know about driving? Some of them don't even have driving licences, what makes them qualified to ban somebody from driving?
Much better requiring all young drivers under 30 to be accompanied by somebody over 60 who has access to a brake pedal. That would reduce accidents.
|
|
|
We do in fact already discriminate by age in driving as you cannot get a provisional licence until a certain age due to immaturity - I assume?. The reverse also seems apparent. We will all start to lose faculties as we get older (I am starting to get deaf at 44), but like all things it is gradual. I agree with earlier comments in the thread that it will happen so gradually that you will need regular testing to manage it.
The whole issue appears contentious yet with an ageing population and an increasing number of vehicles on the road, the chances of accidents will increase. I assume some medical body could easily profile adults by age and identify a cut off point where the average faculties ceases to meet the needs. This is not ageist but a fact. This would be unfair on some but if roads became safer as a whole, that must surely be the priority.
I am aware of two adults who both waited until bad accidents in their 80's before stopping driving (one drove at 30-40 mph into the back of a skip (he just did not see it)). The shock itself took a long time to get over. It may seem politically correct to espose universal faculties and abilities across all age groups but it is not the case.
I recently had a call with an insurance company as they kept on increasing my mothers car insurance without claims being made. Apparently insurance companies view those between 35-60 as the safest drivers. Outside that range, they consider them more risk. As you get into your seventies, they start upping the premiums due to that risk.
|
Very true - so when are we going to get a decent public transport network which deals with some of the reasons why people want to drive in the first place -
i.e - Regular, reliable, efficient, clean, no risk of unsociable behaviour etc
we've got to stop trains and buses etc as being the 'loser cruisers' that they currently are
Livingstone has just given kids free transport on all London buses - all the time
So who are the biggest users of public transport at the moment - the poor, the mentally ill, the poor mentally ill, kids (good and bad) and johnny pensioner - it's not something I look forward to
|
Very true - so when are we going to get a decent public transport network which deals with some of the reasons why people want to drive in the first place -
I guess when the baby boomers who are just starting to retire now start to lose their licenses. That's the generation that did away with the idea of viable public transport, moved shopping centres away from established cities and fuelled a property boom that now means people live miles away from their work places, struggle in traffic for hours each day and need two jobs to pay for a place to live. Funny how things come back to bite you, isn't it?
|
Spot on!
Douglas Coupland is great on the 'evils' of the babyboomers
the use it, chuck it, generation who leave nothing but problems
|
|
|
|
With current legislation we cannot descriminate by age so lets have annual reviews for ALL drivers! Problem with current system is Gps do not do that part of their job so we have people driving who are not fit to do so.
>>
What part of a GPs job do you feel they are not doing?
There is no requirement whatsoever for GPs to routinely assess drivers of any age.
The only ways in which they can get involved are.
1. If a patient develops a condition such as Epilepsy where they should, and usually do, advise the driver that he/she should not drive and inform the DVLA - it is the driver's duty to inform NOT the GPs.
2. Where a - usually professional - driver is required to have a medical assessment as a part of theor licensing requirements
3. Where the GP believes that driver in 1) is continuing to drive and presents a danger to the public and has advised them that unless they stop the DVLA will be informed, only then can a GP directly inform the DVLA.
For many years insurance companies used to require an annual medical for older drivers - age varied but mostly at 70 or 75 - but this practice seemd to cease a few years before I retired, don't know why - not cost cutting by insurance companies as the patient paid for the examination.
I certainly failed a few elderly patients, mainly on poor/appalling vision!! One I recall carried on driving and I discovered he had just changed companies!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
