|
I am self employed. A few years ago i was nearly mown down by an elderly lady on her scooter doing about 8-10mph - way too fast on a town pavement.
I hold the opinion that all users of scooters should hold insurance - if that lady had broken one of my legs I would have had to sue her personally for the loss of income!!
However, I cannot and will not take away the right of the elderly or infirm to drive or ride. That's what insurance is for. Accidents will happen. And not just to the elderly.
Demonising one section of society is the sort of politics that Trump espowses.
|
|
These cases (and there has been quite a few in the last few years) are no different to the Glasgow bin lorry driver.
Self assesment of ones own health and ability is open to all kinds of abuse, there are many (young and old) who are willing and happy to lie or not declare conditions they have. They are selfish, they want to drive and they don't care that they may kill or injure others in the process.
Funny how everyone wants the blood of the Glasgow bin lorry driver and yet all these other cases ..... well, it's just an accident.
|
|
"Funny how everyone wants the blood of the Glasgow bin lorry driver..."
I wouldn't describe it as funny, in any sense of the word. The Glasgow bin lorry driver knew well he was subject to black-outs and deliberately concealed his condition.
Other elderly or not so old drivers who have been responsible for the death of injury of others may well not have realised they had a problem.
|
|
My point is that they often do know, they just refuse to admit to it. Just the same as the Bin lorry driver.
Take for an example the old man in Colchester who killed a young girl on the pavement. Just days before this he had crashed and was told by the police not to drive but, he continued to do so.
I believe the elderly driver in Guildford was also aware of their inability to drive safely and still decided to drive.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed - I wonder if some of us would be quite so forgiving it were applied to aircraft, or public transport.
If a driver (of ANY AGE) is not phyiscally (including skills) or mentally capable of being able to safely drive the vehicles for which they are licenced, then they should be immediately banned, licence revoked (this may be temporary if due to illness or, say, not being willing to wear appropriate glasses for driving [as some people I know have done]). A car, motorbike or van is a road death or ruined life waiting to happen, never mind all the huge financial costs associated with such accidents.
I'm afraid we need to be hard-headed when it comes to public safety, and the sooner such people are (politely) made to realise they are a danger to themseves and especially others, the sooner they can make changes (with help where necessary - far cheaper than spending £Ms on a life of care and rehab for a brain-damaged pedestrian) to their lives to cope with the loss of their driving licence. Having one is not a right, but a privilege which should never be taken advantage of.
Freinds and family and medical staff should not feel emotionally blackmailed to stay silent, and be encouraged to report such people to the DVLA/Police if they cannot persuade them to stop and/or get treatment (if possible/required).
|
|
under 25 males drivers a LOT more dangerous so maybe we ban them as well?
|
|
You obviously didn't read my post. I did not advocate taking away all older people's licences, but that those who do not even have the ability/physical/mental capacity to drive should, whatever their age (young, middle-aged or old). It must be said that sometimes something as simple as having regular eyesight checks works wonders. I suspect bad eyesight (other than confusion, which cannot be remedied) is often the reason we see elderly drivers driving down the wrong way down motorways/dual carriageways.
Young drivers are more likely to have accidents because they are less experienced and more likely to take risks/show off for friends, and yes, should be banned for long periods (if not life for very serious offences), but mostly have the ability to drive safely - they just choose not to. That's a far cry from someone, however experienced they were, just doesn't have it in them (however hard they try) to drive safely any more.
I personally would advocate new (not just young) drivers be on 'probation' for the first 5 years, and in that time cannot drive/own cars (or car-sized vans) over a certain bhp/torque level and/or 0-60 time, and can only progress up to other vehicles once they've passed the 5 year mark (say) with an umblemished record - they just don't have the combination of mature skills, experience and maturity to be at the wheel of more powerful/larger vehicles.
|
|
I think we should make everything harder, the test, the retests, the medicals, the penalties, etc - get rid of the worst 50% of drivers - but test everyone on the same basis, from 17 to 117.
The mere suggestion that simple classification, on any basis, to exclude people is a form of Nazism that cannot be tolerated - for well-documented reasons that don't need repeating here.
Edited by RT on 13/02/2016 at 17:47
|
|
The thing is RT, some of us do have medicals and eyes tests carried out by doctors to renew our licence. So I have no issues at all with doing that every 5 years (eyes every 2 years at opticians) the problem I have is with the self assessment where drivers can just lie.
|
|
I could not improve on Engineer Andy's posts.
Something to add. Quite rightly a MOT is a legal requirement to check a vehicle is safe.
Why not trial an annual medical ( age to be determined ) to check a driver is safe ? We accept paying for vehicle checks, driver checks equally important.
Perhaps place an obligation on doctors to inform DVLA if they think any driver is unfit. I think that is quite reasonable and would detect problems at any age ( obviously person would need to have decided to see doctor for treatment) Any idea is able to be developed.
However good something is, it can usually be better.
|
I could not improve on Engineer Andy's posts.
Something to add. Quite rightly a MOT is a legal requirement to check a vehicle is safe.
Why not trial an annual medical ( age to be determined ) to check a driver is safe ? We accept paying for vehicle checks, driver checks equally important.
Perhaps place an obligation on doctors to inform DVLA if they think any driver is unfit. I think that is quite reasonable and would detect problems at any age ( obviously person would need to have decided to see doctor for treatment) Any idea is able to be developed.
However good something is, it can usually be better.
Any medical/competence test must be at all ages - there is no age below which there are no issues.
GPs / Consultants do already have responsibility to inform DVLA - but DVLA's requirements are complex so not easy even when trying to do the right thing
|
|
The thing is RT, some of us do have medicals and eyes tests carried out by doctors to renew our licence. So I have no issues at all with doing that every 5 years (eyes every 2 years at opticians) the problem I have is with the self assessment where drivers can just lie.
Don't get me started!
The eyesight requirement for driving is pitifully low, in my opinion, it's set at 0.5 of the AVERAGE standard which is decimal 1.0, or 6/6, 20/20.
The problem is the urban myth, not helped by some opticians, that 6/6 or 20/20 is "perfect" eyesight - it isn't, it simply represents the general public's average eyesight.
SWMBO has major vision issues, with loss of sight from Uveitis and Advanced Glaucoma and gave up driving many years ago because of failing eyesight - but can still manage 6/6, 20/20 on the Snellen test which is TWICE as good as the legal requirement - this is a crazy situation which SWMBO's consultants agree but "not their problem".
I can manage decimal 1.5 with new glasses but over 18-24 months that drops to 1.0 and I know I need new glasses - remember that 1.0 is twice as good as the legal requirement of 0.5 decimal.
Frankly, all the minimum requirements for driving are set far too low - but if set at reasonable levels would mean a majority of drivers being banned - but since virtually all drivers are voters, that's a political impossibility.
Edited by RT on 13/02/2016 at 20:32
|
|
While there are some elderly drivers on our roads who are no longer fit to drive, there are plenty of younger and middle-aged drivers whose standards have lapsed or who have developed a bad attitude to driving.
Maybe all drivers should have to re-take their test at regular intervals - say every 10 years for car entitlement and every 5 years for lorries and buses.
|
While there are some elderly drivers on our roads who are no longer fit to drive, there are plenty of younger and middle-aged drivers whose standards have lapsed or who have developed a bad attitude to driving.
Maybe all drivers should have to re-take their test at regular intervals - say every 10 years for car entitlement and every 5 years for lorries and buses.
Some haulage companies have in house driving assessors that go out with their drivers from time to time and make sure that they are driving to a good standard.
|
Don't get me started!
The eyesight requirement for driving is pitifully low, in my opinion, it's set at 0.5 of the AVERAGE standard which is decimal 1.0, or 6/6, 20/20.
I agree with you it's a low standard but, none the less it is a minimum requirement and if people cannot meet this standard with or without glasses then they simply should NOT be driving.
The fact the standard is soo low proves that people who fail to meet this standard are without a doubt a real danger on the roads.
|
|
All I know is that as an elderly driver my insurance premium is the lowest it has ever been. Insurance companies are not not known for throwing money away.
|
|
My father (aged 81) has moved overseas to Israel. He was a good driver when younger and compared to most middle east drivers not that bad even now.
Sometimes it is clear he isn't as quick in his reactions as I would like him to be, but he remains confident, doesn't dawdle and so far has had no accidents.....
He now needs to swap over his driving licence and in Israel if you have a licence already, there is a 12 month window from the date of immigration to take a 'simple' driving test rather than the full one. The first stage for anyone of any age is a medical and formal eye test (which he passed).......wish they would do the same here - every ten years.
|
|
Copied and pasted here from my reply in another topic.
Followed a young lady in a golf this afternoon locally, she was all over the road fiddling with the radio or something. Then clipped a wing mirror on a parked car and swerved back out and nearly hit on coming car. She continued on through a busy shopper area with zebra crossing and hazzards everywhere. I have a dashcam and it's all recorded, is it worth reporting? No damage to other car but atrocious driving behaviour. Probably doesn't think she's done anything wrong.
|
|
I would report it, but, sadly, knowing how Plod will generally react, no action will be taken. My opinion is to take these idiots off the road before they cause the horrible acciendent described in the article in the DT, not after.
|
|
Elderly drivers are a menace occasionallyt but most locallt reported car deaths happen late at night /early in morning with drivers aged under 30..
Just saying..
|
|
The real 'menace' is drivers who aren't concentrating on their driving. It could be for example:
Young person, just passed their test, inexperienced, listening to blaring pop music
Kamikaze mum (or sometimes dad) taking kids to school, but thinking of lunchboxes / sports kit / what have we got for supper etc
Business exec concentrating on phone call from boss or client, even if it is hands-free
Elderly driver not reacting fast enough to a road hazard - or one who is losong mental capacity.
I'm sure we could all think of more.
So the elderly may indeed be a problem - but just one of many. And we all age differently: I've no doubt that Happy Blue Snr is still safe at 81 but others will be losing it in their 70s. Legislation is too much of a blunt instrument and yet more of it wouldn't help.
|
|
Having been a driving instructor, the first assessment of a new pupil was to check their eyesight with the statutory read the number plate test.
You would be surprised how many were borderline fails - these were 17 -18 year olds.
I used to get them to read one number plate with left eye covered and than another with right eye covered.
I always used to also do the statutory eyesight test a couple of weeks before their test - sometimes their eyesight had changed needing a change of prescription glasses.
|
|
I find as I grow disgracefully older, my eyes grow tire at night and I cannot read properly. What my driving vision might be when so tired, I shudder to thiink..
|
|
As we get older, our eyes are more easily dazzled by oncoming headlights. Has anyone any eperience of night driving glasses? I have some but through them everything looks a uniform yellow and I think there is a loss of clarity of vision.
|
|
I suspect it's millions of lumens lights, and millions more of them that are more of a problem, not just bombarded at night with the things we're now blinded by too bright and too camp by far fairy lights making the front of modern cars look frankly silly, in an accessory shop afterbling way, check out the front of any recent LR product for example...and don't get me started on the ever dafter rear LED's which in the case of Mercs on stop ligts are so bright that you can't possibly tell the rate of deceleration, which makes a mockery of any safety aspect.
The trend to ever more people buying higher seating cars such as MPV's, Crossovers and 4x4's might have something to do with this, driving in the dark in my old Landcruiser is a blessed relief compared to a standard height car, even that 2/3 ft higher position makes the world of difference to the amount of prism/spectrum edges flashing from modern headlights.
In a way that mid height seating position is better than being in a lorry, where following a line of cars in an affluent area you are assaulted by dozens of stupidly bright rear lights.
|
As we get older, our eyes are more easily dazzled by oncoming headlights. Has anyone any eperience of night driving glasses? I have some but through them everything looks a uniform yellow and I think there is a loss of clarity of vision.
Many drivers of all ages are troubled by dazzle - but equally some of all ages have no problems with dazzle. Regular sight checks, 2 years maximum, including a proper examination of the back of the eye by the optician are vital in avoiding issues. Not all opticians offer the full check.
If anyone is troubled by dazzle from high level brake lights in traffic on oncoming dipped headlights on wet roads, as many are, the problem is theirs not the cars in front.
|
|
Avant, I started a thread on night driving glasses a while ago.
I have Opticaid Night Driving Glasses (Amazon £11.75 4.5 stars 434 reviews) They fit easily over spectacles, mine are also treated ant-glare. For me they make a difference and, in my opinion, anything that improves things is worth having. My wife doesn't feel they make a difference.
Whilst you are correct about who has the problem RT surely the lack of consideration in design of lights is wrong.
|
If anyone is troubled by dazzle from high level brake lights in traffic on oncoming dipped headlights on wet roads, as many are, the problem is theirs not the cars in front.
So if you find high intensity brake lights when sitting directly behind them harsh on your eyes then it's your fault? Are you ure about that?
|
If anyone is troubled by dazzle from high level brake lights in traffic on oncoming dipped headlights on wet roads, as many are, the problem is theirs not the cars in front.
So if you find high intensity brake lights when sitting directly behind them harsh on your eyes then it's your fault? Are you ure about that?
How else do you explain that many drivers don't have a problem in those conditions?
I do know from listening to eye specialists during my wife's consultations that most people, of all ages, have evidence of cataracts starting to form - many of which will never become serious enough to require surgery but enough to cause dazzle.
It's a situation made worse by many younger people being too vain to get their eyes tested "in case" they end up needing glasses - ignorance is bliss for them!
|
How else do you explain that many drivers don't have a problem in those conditions?
Its not that we have a problem, its that the light wars are reaching a crescendo now and i can only see it getting worse.
To answer your question with another, why do drivers of modern cars needs 5 million lumens to drive along the M25 or in town, exactly what was wrong with 2 x 21w Lucas bulbs in your stop lights, i suggest so many modern drivers have become so dependent on their vehicle assisting their driving in all ways that many of them couldn't cope with a pair of sealed beam headlights and RWD with no ABS or Traction Control on a dark wet road.
In all this light pollution the poor old pedestrian and cyclist (and animals) increasingly vanish into an ever darker backround as peoples natural night vision becomes ever more destroyed by unnecessary light...oh i can't see now cos my night vision's destroyed so i'll raise your 3 million lumens by another 2 million, i win...exactly where is this all going to stop.
|
|
Spot-on, GB.
The ubiquitous foglights-plus-headlights combination and the high-intensity headlights with automatic levelling that doesn't react to speed bumps or hump-back bridges and the like are what's coming towards you all the time these days.
Then there are the drivers whose rear foglights are permanently on and who sit at the lights or wherever they've stopped with their foot on the brake pedal.
I'm fortunate - I can cope with all this, but it's highly unpleasant and unnecessary.
|
Spot-on, GB.
The ubiquitous foglights-plus-headlights combination and the high-intensity headlights with automatic levelling that doesn't react to speed bumps or hump-back bridges and the like are what's coming towards you all the time these days.
Then there are the drivers whose rear foglights are permanently on and who sit at the lights or wherever they've stopped with their foot on the brake pedal.
I'm fortunate - I can cope with all this, but it's highly unpleasant and unnecessary.
It is a fact that faced with bright light the pupils contract (regardless of age) and visibility of unlit objects (like pedestrians) is therefore reduced.
So the d***heads with every possible light ablaze unnecessarily are the problem, not those who find the glare unpleasant.
|
|
I love the phrase "Don't get me started on ..." because it usually turns out to mean "Don't hold me back ..."
Anyway, I've more or less managed to read the whole topic and found a little nugget by Focussed from his experience as a driving instructor:
"I used to get them to read one number plate with left eye covered and than another with right eye covered."
It made me take notice because I have what used to be called a "lazy eye". I'm over 70, wear specs and have my eyes tested every year. I pass the number plate test easily, but I certainly couldn't with my best eye closed. That tells me that I need to take particular care at junctions. Thankyou, Focussed.
|
|
My dad had a stroke in 2003 when he was 73 and his eyesight was affected by this, but his limb function fully recovered.
I cannot remember how long it after he was ill, (maybe 12 months), but his doctor told him he could start to drive "if he felt he was okay in himself" (or words to that effect).
My brother accompanied him on an initial test drive and was frightened to death as it turned-out his peripheral vision was almost non-existant. He sold his car the following week and never drove again.
I know for definite of several persons who would not have been so honest, (and I'm not trying to make a saint out my dad).
|
My dad had a stroke in 2003 when he was 73 and his eyesight was affected by this, but his limb function fully recovered.
I cannot remember how long it after he was ill, (maybe 12 months), but his doctor told him he could start to drive "if he felt he was okay in himself" (or words to that effect).
My brother accompanied him on an initial test drive and was frightened to death as it turned-out his peripheral vision was almost non-existant. He sold his car the following week and never drove again.
I know for definite of several persons who would not have been so honest, (and I'm not trying to make a saint out my dad).
As a petrol-head I always thought I'd drive until the day I die - but 10-15 years ago there was a TV programme about elderly drivers - some were still very capable but others weren't.
I accepted there and then that I'd probably need to give up driving at some point AND have the good grace to know when the time was right - but in case I don't, my son has my full authority to take any draconian action necessary in that event.
SWMBO gave up driving some years ago as she lost half the sight in her left eye - the left eye can still meet the legal standard and her right is 4x as good as required - hence my extreme views on the pathetic minimum standard for eyesight.
Edited by RT on 15/02/2016 at 22:09
|
|
I think your views are perfectly reasonable and probably held by most people.
|
|
|
I think we should make everything harder, the test, the retests, the medicals, the penalties, etc - get rid of the worst 50% of drivers - but test everyone on the same basis, from 17 to 117.
The mere suggestion that simple classification, on any basis, to exclude people is a form of Nazism that cannot be tolerated - for well-documented reasons that don't need repeating here.
Having been on the inside-so to speak-as an instructor- driving tests are carried out on the basis of the likely experience of the candidate.
In other words, a novice L-driver taking a test will not be expected to drive to the same standard as an experienced driver being re-tested for whatever reason.
The experienced driver will be expected to drive to a higher standard than the learner- as is only right.
The UK driving test as it stands is just about the hardest to pass in Europe, apart from Germany, if every UK car driver drove in the same manner as they were taught to get to test standard, by a qualified instructor, there would be very few accidents.
So there is no requirement IMHO to make the UK driving test harder, but there is a need to enforce decent standards of driving, which is not being done, as we all know.
A requirement for existing full licence holders to retake the driving theory test to retain their licence every ten years or so woud be a good idea.
But any Tom, Dick or Harriet can legally teach driving in the UK and pass on their bad habits to the learner as long as it is for no reward.
But unfortunately there is the popular culture of "you only learn to drive properly after you pass your test" - I've heard that said so many times, unfortunately by misguided parents of young pupils.
I am pleased to report that, so far, I have not seen any of my ex-pupils in the local news for driving offences or involved in a serious accident (touch wood) in the area that I used to teach in.
That could be a happy coincidence or the result of my teaching - I will probably never know!
|
|
|
|
|
under 25 males drivers a LOT more dangerous so maybe we ban them as well?
Young males under the age of 25 are also statisically more likely to fall asleep at the wheel, this has been known for many years.
|
|
"As a petrol-head I always thought I'd drive until the day I die - but 10-15 years ago there was a TV programme about elderly drivers - some were still very capable but others weren't."
A number of years ago a mechanic in the police garage told me of a case where a 72 years old driver had been asked to bring in his license after a minor infringement. That was standard procedure at the time, I don't know whether it is now. The desk sergeant recorded that the license was OK and closed the case. Shortly afterwards the sergeant heard a roar of engine and the sound of tormented tyres. He went out and found the driver had selected forward instead of reverse and had almost buried the front wheels in a flower bed. In trying to get the car out the driver had made things a lot worse. The sergeant seized the ignition keys and the license and ordered a taxi for the driver's trip home.
Regardless of that, all of my grandsons have written cars off, one severely.
|
"As a petrol-head I always thought I'd drive until the day I die - but 10-15 years ago there was a TV programme about elderly drivers - some were still very capable but others weren't."
A number of years ago a mechanic in the police garage told me of a case where a 72 years old driver had been asked to bring in his license after a minor infringement. That was standard procedure at the time, I don't know whether it is now. The desk sergeant recorded that the license was OK and closed the case. Shortly afterwards the sergeant heard a roar of engine and the sound of tormented tyres. He went out and found the driver had selected forward instead of reverse and had almost buried the front wheels in a flower bed. In trying to get the car out the driver had made things a lot worse. The sergeant seized the ignition keys and the license and ordered a taxi for the driver's trip home.
Regardless of that, all of my grandsons have written cars off, one severely.
The days of the "producer" - when stopped you had 5 days of grace to show your licence and insurance at a pre-nominated police station.
|
|
The word "elderly"needs to be changed to something like "untested". Driving for 60 years isn't the problem here; driving for 60 years without having eyesight, reflexes, hearing or knowledge of driving regulations* checked is the real problem. That is why I support a regular check-up, if not an actual test, so that deterioration of driving skills - regardless of the reason - can be picked up. This year I have to do a physical reflex test and have an eye test to renew my Spanish driving licence. IMHO this should be an absolute minimum in all countries.
*e.g.: Anyone know the new maximum speed for HGVs on a dual carriageway? Or the rules about smoking inside a car if children are inside?
|
The word "elderly"needs to be changed to something like "untested". Driving for 60 years isn't the problem here; driving for 60 years without having eyesight, reflexes, hearing or knowledge of driving regulations* checked is the real problem. That is why I support a regular check-up, if not an actual test, so that deterioration of driving skills - regardless of the reason - can be picked up. This year I have to do a physical reflex test and have an eye test to renew my Spanish driving licence. IMHO this should be an absolute minimum in all countries.
*e.g.: Anyone know the new maximum speed for HGVs on a dual carriageway? Or the rules about smoking inside a car if children are inside?
I think we should require a standard optician's eye test every 5 years maximum, copied to DVLA and an absolute requirement to wear corrective glasses, or contact lenses, as prescribed - at WHATEVER age.
New speed limits for HGVs on dual carriageways - depends which country - less than half of drivers know the speed limit for cars on dual carriageways - and many drivers think that dual carriageways have just two lanes in each direction!
Edited by RT on 17/02/2016 at 09:09
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-35622680
That's interesting because there was another accident near the Friary centre where pedestrians were injured. I wonder if there is some other contributing factor there such as poor road surface or excess surface water.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-35622680
That's interesting because there was another accident near the Friary centre where pedestrians were injured. I wonder if there is some other contributing factor there such as poor road surface or excess surface water.
Bridge Street is a totally different type of road. It has three lanes and makes up part of a major circulation like a large roundabout, where a number of routes meet in the town. It gets very busy, especially on Saturdays and there is a lot of lane changing happening as cars feed in and try to get in position to take their desired exit. You also get a lot of pedestrians in that area going to and from the Railway Station and several car parks. I was in Guildford earlier in the day and it was certainly busy then.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-35622680
That's interesting because there was another accident near the Friary centre where pedestrians were injured. I wonder if there is some other contributing factor there such as poor road surface or excess surface water.
Bridge Street is a totally different type of road. It has three lanes and makes up part of a major circulation like a large roundabout, where a number of routes meet in the town. It gets very busy, especially on Saturdays and there is a lot of lane changing happening as cars feed in and try to get in position to take their desired exit. You also get a lot of pedestrians in that area going to and from the Railway Station and several car parks. I was in Guildford earlier in the day and it was certainly busy then.
I used to drive through that bit going to and from Godalming (although I have no idea what the names of the roads are).
|
...driving for 60 years without having eyesight, reflexes, hearing or knowledge of driving regulations* checked is the real problem. That is why I support a regular check-up, if not an actual test, so that deterioration of driving skills - regardless of the reason - can be picked up... .
I fully agree.
I choose to commute cross country to and from work. Its astonishing just how poor some of the driving is. From people doing 35 in a 60 limit, and braking for every corner (I suspected eyesight issues in this driver), to highish speed extreme tailgating behind LGVs where the following driver had no way of seeing the road ahead and the people who are obviously on their phones.
|
A judge has called on the Government to "urgently review" the law on elderly drivers
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/judge-calls-fo.../
Other reviews have called to extend the 70 year old limit on original licences to reflect the ever-increasing age of the population.
Personally I support the idea of competency, medical and eyesight tests on a regular basis for ALL drivers, even 20-year olds.
I'd also like to see the minimum eyesight standard significantly increased - too many people think that 6/6 and 20/20 mean perfect vision -they don't, they mean AVERAGE vision and the standard is way lower than that - sadly too many people don't have their eyes tested in case they need glasses !!!
|
|
My father taught me the basics of car controll and road sense. He allowed me aged twelve to drive his car on private land, I passed my test at the first attempt without any lessons from driving instructors shortly after my 17th birthday in 1965 but I had gained road experience from the age of sixteen riding a motorbike. I endorse without reservation HJ's advice that all new drivers of automatics should be taught left foot braking, that is essential. My father drove until he was 87 but as he had never driven an auto I discouraged him from changing. I got my first automatic car in 1968 and my most modern car is an auto. Today I swap between a crash gearbox, 2 syncro, 3 syncro, all syncro, and automatic using left foot braking on the latter without any problems. I think that as drivers age they should change to automatics well before they are unable to cope with a manual box. However elderly driver's eye sight and reactions are certainly also a matter of concern and although I would be caught in this net agree that some sort retest is desireable.
|
|
As a farmers son, who was brought up to understand that a clutch should not unreasonably last the life of the vehicle, with proper use and operation, and many other very sensible mechanical tips, I simply simply cannot understand this fascination with left foot braking, unless for Rally drivers.
One is either "going" using the accelator, or "stopping" using the brake, IF one cannot master this simple either/or decision, one should NOT be driving, SIMPLES!
From someone accustomed to various hydrostatic vehicles where one may left foot brake, or not, also capable of tracking, slewing and reversing a tracked digger all simultaneously, so I got fine motor skills alright.
But i cannot cannot understand this left foot braking, which is to say, one is advocating allowing persons to drive, on the basis, that no matter they use both feet if at least one is on the brake pedal, it will be all right.
i.e. the power of the brakes will override the power of the engine.
regardless of the confusion or lack of cognative facilities of the driver.
These persons are not fit to drive.
simples
|
|
I am elderly, I drive an auto. Trying to teach elderly drivers left foot braking after decades of doing the opposite is so foolsih as to be risible. And for obvious reasons...
|
I am elderly, I drive an auto. Trying to teach elderly drivers left foot braking after decades of doing the opposite is so foolsih as to be risible. And for obvious reasons...
Completely agree Ma***
|
|
Can only agree with DDD.
Half the problem out there now is people buying cars far too big for them to cope with, and with poor visibility to boot, and the worse thing of all for some unfathomable reason buying into these automated manual and twin clutch horrors which to all intents and purposes are unfit for purpose for close maneuvering.
A torque converter in most cases doesn't need any throttle input for most close work, simply lifting off the brake and creep in the system will do all the work for you, if you need power it's infinitely controllable.
The accidents i've known about at dealerships have in almost all cases involved non torque converter autos, where the on/off switch clutch engagement has caught the unaware out...quite why anyone buys this rubbish is beyond me.
As for cars too big for them, its not just older drivers, go into any motorway services car park and you'll find fleets of Aldis and Mundanes and Insigns parked at all angles because their younger drivers haven't a clue how to get them straight, for some reason having one small child now means you need a people carrier the size of a Humvee and the owners of these can't drive them either in many cases (thank goodness for coach size parent and child spaces at the supermarket), and on its goes.
Edited by gordonbennet on 02/06/2016 at 23:20
|
|
Its not just automatics or large cars or eyesight. Some OAPs are a trainwreck waiting to happen.
Here's another young life lost at the hands of an OAP who unbelievably denies it!
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/676359/Pensioner-denies-...n
The details of this poor girls tragic death are horrific to imagine.
|
Its not just automatics or large cars or eyesight. Some OAPs are a trainwreck waiting to happen.
Here's another young life lost at the hands of an OAP who unbelievably denies it!
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/676359/Pensioner-denies-...n
The details of this poor girls tragic death are horrific to imagine.
Every serious or fatal accident is a tragedy - but why pick on pensioners - the under '30s kill more people on the roads than over '60s - those on recreational drugs kill more than those on prescription drugs.
|
Its not just automatics or large cars or eyesight. Some OAPs are a trainwreck waiting to happen.
Here's another young life lost at the hands of an OAP who unbelievably denies it!
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/676359/Pensioner-denies-...n
The details of this poor girls tragic death are horrific to imagine.
Every serious or fatal accident is a tragedy - but why pick on pensioners - the under '30s kill more people on the roads than over '60s - those on recreational drugs kill more than those on prescription drugs.
Where exactly do you get these statistics from? I can find statistics for the quantity and ages of people killed in RTI's and what type of road users they were but, I can't find the ages (in mass) of the guilty party to the deaths.
|
|
Oddly, I choose a DSG, for its then unrivalled fuel efficency, in my size of car, in my choosen price bracket, and despite its quirks, might? consider another?
BUT I much much prefer the magnificent warm buttery smoothness of a TC, for instance the SDP Van with the MB 4 speed auto is simply perfect for towing, especially the way it hill-holds(with 3500kg behind on a fair incline) allowing for effortless creeping in an uphill queue at a junction.
And the way TC controlled transmissions have recently been developed to be near as fuel efficient as a dry clutch set-up, I imagine my next car will, of preference, be a TC set-up.
And I ALWAYS reverse park, quite centrally, between the lines, if this means my previously slovenly parked neighbour cannot get their door open, shrugs, and walks away, ah, the joys of driving an older and generally, country roads-as-used-by-farmers-dirty, car
marcus
Edited by DirtyDieselDogg on 03/06/2016 at 08:37
|
|
I'm surprised at the number of people who rubbish the practice of left foot braking with autos. It's very useful when manouvering where space is limited and serves the same purpose as using clutch control on a manual.
Let's hear from all those who have tried it and been unable to master it rather than those who just don't like the idea.
How many reports of accidents do you see that have been caused by drivers using their left foot on the brake?
|
I'm surprised at the number of people who rubbish the practice of left foot braking with autos. It's very useful when manouvering where space is limited and serves the same purpose as using clutch control on a manual.
As GB has said, in a TC auto it is not neccessary to do this.
My main gripe with these suggestions is that if the hypothetical elderly person is getting to a point where they can't drive a manual any more then trying to teach them something that they haven't been doing all their driving life is going to confuse and befuddle them even more into not knowing what they are doing or what pedal they are pressing.
However, I'll still stand by the notion that if a person is at the stage of being confused and befuddled by how to control their car in a safe manner then they really are not mentally fit to be driving it on a public road.
|
As GB has said, in a TC auto it is not neccessary to do this.
Maybe but it's still better and safer.
I do agree with your last paragraph though.
|
|
"Let's hear from all those who have tried it and been unable to master it rather than those who just don't like the idea."
I tried at age 59. I failed : I was reverting to 40 year old havbits in emergencies.
As I say above, asking elderly peoiple to funbdamentally change the habits of a lifetime in a bid to reduce a little carnage - is going to cause a lot more carnage.
I cannot see the need to debate this. Old people drive on reflexes. Period As do young people. Old people find it hard to change.
What is so difficult to understand? Unless you are under 55 years old ? :-)
Edited by madf on 03/06/2016 at 20:25
|
"Let's hear from all those who have tried it and been unable to master it rather than those who just don't like the idea."
I tried at age 59. I failed : I was reverting to 40 year old havbits in emergencies.
As I say above, asking elderly peoiple to funbdamentally change the habits of a lifetime in a bid to reduce a little carnage - is going to cause a lot more carnage.
I cannot see the need to debate this. Old people drive on reflexes. Period As do young people. Old people find it hard to change.
What is so difficult to understand? Unless you are under 55 years old ? :-)
Read and inwardly digest my last but one post old darling, if I was 17 in 1965 I am 68 now. All you have done is reinforced my belief that a regular strict test for the elderly should be introduced as soon as possible preferably starting at the age of 58.
|
"Let's hear from all those who have tried it and been unable to master it rather than those who just don't like the idea."
I tried at age 59. I failed : I was reverting to 40 year old havbits in emergencies.
As I say above, asking elderly peoiple to funbdamentally change the habits of a lifetime in a bid to reduce a little carnage - is going to cause a lot more carnage.
I cannot see the need to debate this. Old people drive on reflexes. Period As do young people. Old people find it hard to change.
What is so difficult to understand? Unless you are under 55 years old ? :-)
Read and inwardly digest my last but one post old darling, if I was 17 in 1965 I am 68 now. All you have done is reinforced my belief that a regular strict test for the elderly should be introduced as soon as possible preferably starting at the age of 58.
Any retesting needs to start at age 25 - nothing happens magically or mysteriously at specific ages.
|
|
Don't anyone point any apparatchiks at this thread, they'll come over all unecessary at the proletariat being so willing to give them yet more sway over every aspect of their lives.
|
Any retesting needs to start at age 25 - nothing happens magically or mysteriously at specific ages.
Absolute nonsense, for the majority of people today, their brains start dying at an accelerated rate several years prior to a persons ultimate death, which, on average, is around 80. This is reflected in an accelerated reduction in mental capabilities, particularly speed of reflexes and cognition. This is why we see an increase in Alzheimers and such within an increasingly aged population.
Edited by brum on 03/06/2016 at 22:04
|
Any retesting needs to start at age 25 - nothing happens magically or mysteriously at specific ages.
Absolute nonsense, for the majority of people today, their brains start dying at an accelerated rate several years prior to a persons ultimate death, which, on average, is around 80. This is reflected in an accelerated reduction in mental capabilities, particularly speed of reflexes and cognition. This is why we see an increase in Alzheimers and such within an increasingly aged population.
Try working on facts.
The brain reaches its peak power around age 22 and lasts for 5 more years. Afterwards, it’s a downhill pattern.
I presume from your comments you're over 22+5 !!!
|
|
"Let's hear from all those who have tried it and been unable to master it rather than those who just don't like the idea."
I first drove an automatic when I was 62. I had a part-time driving job at the time and I had to start driving that as well as other vehicles with manual boxes. I found I could switch from one to the other fairly easily.
I bought an automatic of my own when I was 68 and started to get arthritic pain in my left knee. Whilst I agree with HJ in principle, I couldn't master the technique. I found it difficult to press the brake pedal with any subtlety. It felt as if I was unable to unlearn the clutch operation I'd done with my left leg for years.
I think I'm probably a special case though. Due to a motorcycle accident, when I was 20, my left leg is much weaker than the right.
|
"Let's hear from all those who have tried it and been unable to master it rather than those who just don't like the idea."
I tried at age 59. I failed : I was reverting to 40 year old havbits in emergencies.
As I say above, asking elderly peoiple to funbdamentally change the habits of a lifetime in a bid to reduce a little carnage - is going to cause a lot more carnage.
I cannot see the need to debate this. Old people drive on reflexes. Period As do young people. Old people find it hard to change.
What is so difficult to understand? Unless you are under 55 years old ? :-)
Read and inwardly digest my last but one post old darling, if I was 17 in 1965 I am 68 now. All you have done is reinforced my belief that a regular strict test for the elderly should be introduced as soon as possible preferably starting at the age of 58.
Not everyone can 'retrain their brain' to learn new skills as they get older - that does not mean they are default a 'bad driver'. Just as you not being able (above) to master the 'skill' of putting the reply to another post below the quoted one doesn't mean you should be banned from using computer equipment.
I do agree that driving retesting should be done, though for all drivers, initially after 3-5 years (after passing the test for the first time), then every 10 until, say (for argument's sake), 60, then every 5 until 70, then every 2 until, well... I also think for anyone who has suffered a serious debilitation or illness, particularly those affecting brain function/cognative and reasoning abilities, and/or motor (pardon the pun) skills should, at least for the next 10 years, be on the 2-year testing regime, whatever their age.
There's been several local cases of (admitdely) elderly drivers getting 'confused' at night and driving down the local dual carriageway the wrong way - if such people can't manage to be able to do that sort of basic thing correctly, then I'm afraid they shouldn't be on the road. Even today, a middle-aged man in a white Corsa van was driving terribly (and, frankly, dangerously) in front of me (and many others), and appeared to be completely oblivious to it all. You have to wonder how they passed their driving test (including, perhaps, the abilities of their tester).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
