Should elderly drivers need to resit their test?

cabledude

tayto lover wrote: »

Speed IS a killer.
Only a fool does not recognise that as a fact.

How does speed kill someone? Its the sudden stop that kills them. Racing drivers week in/week out drive fast. Yet, very few of them crash/get hurt/die. By the logic of 'speed kills' they would all be dead from driving fast.

Basic physics. Rate of momentum is irrelevant. Its obstacles in the way that cause the problem.

The whole 'speed kills' cliché boils my urine.

lintdrummer

I think the issue is that the elderly drivers of today learned to drive in a different era of motoring. There wasn't as much traffic or regulation and many of them just haven't adapted to modern motoring.
I would hope that going forward people will be better capable of driving in old age as the right attitudes will have been instilled from the beginning. However by looking at some younger people driving today I think it's fair to assume certain individuals will always be a danger on the road.

Degag

I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread but I reckon there are a lot more 18-23 year olds who need to resit their test than elderly people - and that's coming from someone a lot closer to the former age bracket.

con___manx1

Young drivers are worse. A young one speeding around tesco car park nearly went into the side of me yesterday. Scared d crap out of me. Old drivers are usually slow and carefull drive u mad when yr stuck behind some owl one driving at a snails pace. ; )

tayto lover

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Once you hit 70, your risk of a crash per mile driven raises drastically. Including the risk of a fatal crash being far higher than the usual picked on group of young males aged 18-24.

The reasons their insurance is so cheap is that statistically they do nowhere near the daily mileage and they tend to drive in situations with a lower speed, like cities. Keeping that in mind, it makes them horrific drivers.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/older-drivers/qanda

For women, there is actually more research since I last looked pointing out that women over men have the same problem with accidents per mile driven. The overwhelming factor that leads to higher male premiums is the simple fact that men drive more. Its the main reason why I had such a problem with that stupid RSA campaign, he drives, she dies.

Here are two papers, one old, one new. I'm sure I can find plenty more if you want.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/1007/83596.0001.001.pdf?sequence=2

http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving.pdf



So lets be very clear on this. New drivers are very likely to crash. Most new drivers are young. Its not really something that you can avoid.

Old drivers are progressively more likely to kill you every year. That is something you can avoid.

I'll read those reports when I get time.
Your last two points are contradictory.

Also the high cost of insurance is down to young drivers and their accident rate rather than older drivers.

Degag

cabledude wrote: »

An old chap holding up a quarter of a mile of traffic is every bit as dangerous as a young lad in a car driving too fast.

Annoying - Yes

Dangerous - Possibly

As Dangerous - Not a hope

cabledude wrote: »

Basic physics. Rate of momentum is irrelevant. Its obstacles in the way that cause the problem.

I reckon I'd much rather crash into a wall at 20 mph than 100 mph. Basic physics also.

beauf

Rather than simply quote the relevent part hes going to make us trawl through loads of irrelevent data to fnd what hes talking about

tayto lover

cabledude wrote: »

How does speed kill someone? Its the sudden stop that kills them. Racing drivers week in/week out drive fast. Yet, very few of them crash/get hurt/die. By the logic of 'speed kills' they would all be dead from driving fast.

Basic physics. Rate of momentum is irrelevant. Its obstacles in the way that cause the problem.

The whole 'speed kills' cliché boils my urine.

You have a better chance of surviving an accident if you are driving slower.
I was a passenger in a fatal accident years ago in which my two friends died.
I was the only survivor after we hit a parked lorry. I agree that it's the driving that caused the accident rather than the speed BUT the speed killed us. We would all have survived if we were going at a much lower speed.

cabledude

Degag wrote: »

I reckon I'd much rather crash into a wall at 20 mph than 100 mph. Basic physics also.

Thats the point I'm making.

I can drive to Dublin along the M9. As soon as I get onto the motorway just outside Waterford, I gun it up to 145kmph.Click the cruise control and hold the same speed all the way to the end of the M9. No problem. That is fast. But not dangerous. Because it is an appropriate speed.

I would not do the same speed on a local road. That would be dangerous. Because that would be an inappropriate speed for the driving conditions.

Speed does not kill. Inappropriate speed handled incorrectly is leading to an impact is what kills.

cabledude

tayto lover wrote: »

You have a better chance of surviving an accident if you are driving slower.
I was a passenger in a fatal accident years ago in which my two friends died.
I was the only survivor after we hit a parked lorry. I agree that it's the driving that caused the accident rather than the speed BUT the speed killed us. We would all have survived if we were going at a much lower speed.

I am very sorry to hear that you had that bad experience. I will refrain from getting into a debate about this because it would be insensitive. I'll gladly agree to disagree with you....

beauf

cabledude wrote: »

How does speed kill someone? Its the sudden stop that kills them. Racing drivers week in/week out drive fast. Yet, very few of them crash/get hurt/die. By the logic of 'speed kills' they would all be dead from driving fast.

Basic physics. Rate of momentum is irrelevant. Its obstacles in the way that cause the problem.

The whole 'speed kills' cliché boils my urine.

You're being pedantic. Obviously speed determines how violently you stop or decelerate.

A race track is an entirely different environment.

When people talk about speed and accidents inappropriate speed is implied.

Hence the most dangerous roads are usually not motorways.

tayto lover

cabledude wrote: »

Thats the point I'm making.

I can drive to Dublin along the M9. As soon as I get onto the motorway just outside Waterford, I gun it up to 145kmph.Click the cruise control and hold the same speed all the way to the end of the M9. No problem. That is fast. But not dangerous. Because it is an appropriate speed.

I would not do the same speed on a local road. That would be dangerous. Because that would be an inappropriate speed for the driving conditions.

Speed does not kill. Inappropriate speed handled incorrectly is leading to an impact is what kills.

Surely your reaction time is effected by your own speed if someone else makes a mistake? 145 is also an illegal speed regardless.

tayto lover

cabledude wrote: »

I am very sorry to hear that you had that bad experience. I will refrain from getting into a debate about this because it would be insensitive. I'll gladly agree to disagree with you....

Thanks.
I have no problem whatsoever continuing the debate though.

Sh1tbag OToole

No leave them potter along in their old Micra with a bailertwine holding the door closed. Never did any harm to anyone. People are so fecking uptight these days..

beauf

Savage insurance on those Micra's as a result.....:)

tayto lover

beauf wrote: »

Savage insurance on those Micra's as a result.....:)

The wee green ones are the worst.

cabledude

tayto lover wrote: »

Surely your reaction time is effected by your own speed if someone else makes a mistake? 145 is also an illegal speed regardless.

The difference in reaction times between travelling at 120kmph and 145 kmph are negligible. At the times I travel that route there is very little traffic on that road. It is also like a runway and the sightlines can be measured in miles.

The illegality only becomes an issue if you are caught. I've travelled that route a hell of a lot of time and have yet to see a Traffic Corps car.

As an aside, I was on that road one night late, heading for the Airport. A guy in a 730d BMW passed me. He was doing at least 60kmph more than I was. He was tipping 200kmph. Thats 125 odd in old money. The Autobahn in Germany sees speeds like this all the time. They are seen as very safe motorways.

Alias G

cabledude wrote: »

I am very sorry to hear that you had that bad experience. I will refrain from getting into a debate about this because it would be insensitive. I'll gladly agree to disagree with you....

You'll refrain from debate because your argument simply doesn't stack up. Obviously differant roads and conditions will warrant a differant appropriate speed but the rate of velocity of a car involved in an impact will have a profound impact on the outcome of an accident on every single road and given any variety of conditions. Your basic physics are indeed basic.

Cedrus

A lot of posters seem to be unaware that there are already restrictions on elderly people driving. Like three year licences with mandatory medical reports for over 70's and a requirement to report any long-term or permanent injury or illness that may affect their safe driving ability. This last part applies to all of us regardless of age.

Of course in this country the enforcement is somewhere between lax and non existent and family GPs (and family themselves) don't always do their duty in being strict enough to protect us all.

My Father did a driving assessment after he had a stroke, it was an official thing but not as arbitrary as the RSA/NDLS driving test, he flew through it because of his experience and the Advanced Driving Licence training he did in the 60's.
Ironically, he would have been 80 this year so he got his driving licence before there was a test for it.

Dai John

Driving seems to be a very emotive subject and there are so many experts out there running down us old wans. I have a clean licence and am accident free, not bad for someone who used to do over 100,000 miles a year. A friend once said, "When you are 19 you come around a corner like there is nothing there, when you get to say 28 you come around the corner a little slower as there might be something there, but when you get older still you come around the corner knowing full well there is something there".You want people over 65 to be tested every year, fine but apply the same criteria to those under 65 and while you are about it include mechanical knowledge as part of the test and include driving with a constant mesh gearbox and driving without the fancy kid leather gloves.

Degag

cabledude wrote: »

The illegality only becomes an issue if you are caught.

That Fritzl dude.... he was a great guy... till he got caught!!

Alias G

cabledude wrote: »

The difference in reaction times between travelling at 120kmph and 145 kmph are negligible. At the times I travel that route there is very little traffic on that road. It is also like a runway and the sightlines can be measured in miles.

The illegality only becomes an issue if you are caught. I've travelled that route a hell of a lot of time and have yet to see a Traffic Corps car.

As an aside, I was on that road one night late, heading for the Airport. A guy in a 730d BMW passed me. He was doing at least 60kmph more than I was. He was tipping 200kmph. Thats 125 odd in old money. The Autobahn in Germany sees speeds like this all the time. They are seen as very safe motorways.

The differance between 120kph and 145kph would be roughly 7 metres per the second ie the time you might have to react to a crash in front of you. Thats not negligble in fact it could be catastrophic. Cruising at that speed is obnoxius imo. As for the Autobahn, it is only certain highly engineered and regulated sections that have no speed limit.

cabledude

Alias G wrote: »

You'll refrain from debate because your argument simply doesn't stack up. Obviously differant roads and conditions will warrant a differant appropriate speed but the rate of velocity of a car involved in an impact will have a profound impact on the outcome of an accident on every single road and given any variety of conditions. Your basic physics are indeed basic.

You are also making my point for me.

I made the point that speed does not kill. Does speed kill? I think not. I don't know of anyone that has been killed by going fast.

Deceleration is what does the damage. Impact with a solid surface is what kills. I just hate the 'speed kills' cliché. It is inaccurate.

Speed is not dangerous.

Inappropriate speed in dangerous.

And my basic knowledge of physics are far better that your knowledge of spelling. Its different.Not diffarant. (And it wasn't a typo. You did it twice):P

Alias G

cabledude wrote: »

You are also making my point for me.

I made the point that speed does not kill. Does speed kill? I think not. I don't know of anyone that has been killed by going fast.

Deceleration is what does the damage. Impact with a solid surface is what kills. I just hate the 'speed kills' cliché. It is inaccurate.

Speed is not dangerous.

Inappropriate speed in dangerous.

And my basic knowledge of physics are far better that your knowledge of spelling. Its different.Not diffarant. (And it wasn't a typo. You did it twice):P

Of course, hitting a wall at 10kph vs 100kph will have the same outcome, of course it will. Noone is claiming speed in and of itself kills but that does not limit it as a factor in the outcome of an impact.

And having a go at my spelling.....what a man!

doolox

....for the omissions and mistakes of the few????

Any retest or onerous imposition on an old driver should be done only on the basis of mistakes made.

I know the safety nazis will want to err unreasonably on the side of caution and make everybody over 70 or some other arbitrary age sit the test and go through all that rigmarole again but consider these dangers.

If an unfortunate 70 yr old fails the test and has to resit, they will become pedestrians, prone to attack by unscrupulous members of society, probably cut off from medical or other assistance because of their newly acquired legal inability to drive and more vulnerable as a result. They will certainly become more isolated as a result.

Many over 70's suffer from lack of mobility and lack of money and hence cannot walk any distance, cannot cycle any distance and may not be able to afford a taxi in this expensive country. In our climate, the ability of over 70's to stand around waiting for a bus is a lot less than younger peoples ability. Their metabolisms and circulations are not as good as younger peoples.

Such a move to penalise a whole group of people with onerous extra impositions such as tests and limited licences would be a steo too far.

I do think there are a lot of elderly people on the road that should NOT be driving. I have customers that come in to me, barely able to make it to the counter, and ask me to hurry because they had to double park, because they need to be right outside or they wont manage the walk to the counter. I'm surprised that these people are physically able to react in time to traffic lights etc.

I'd mention however, that for a lot of people their car is essential to their ability to live independently, they only use it to drive very short distances, they drive slowly, and driving (by their age) is a natural thing that they'd have muscle memory/experience to help them a lot. So I do think there's a reason why we don't hear of as many bad accidents involving elderly people as you'd think.

Lastly, I know 65 is seen as the age where you're officially old, but I think the people you see out driving where you think you can see that their age is affecting their ability are a lot older than 65.

Degag

Alias G wrote: »

Of course, hitting a wall at 10kph vs 100kph will have the same outcome, of course it will.

??

cabledude

Alias G wrote: »

The differance between 120kph and 145kph would be roughly 7 metres per the second ie the time you might have to react to a crash in front of you.

Which is why one would ensure good gaps between traffic ahead. Tailgating on the M9 would be daft. And inappropriate.

Thats not negligble in fact it could be catastrophic

Subjective to the driver, correct.

Cruising at that speed is obnoxius imo.

I didn't ask your opinion, thanks.

As for the Autobahn, it is only certain highly engineered and regulated sections that have no speed limit.

No.

Autobahn

The Autobahn (German: Autobahn, plural Autobahnen) is the federal controlled-access highway system in Germany. The official German term is Bundesautobahn (plural Bundesautobahnen, abbreviated BAB), which translates as "federal motorway". German autobahns have no federally mandated blanket speed limit,[1]—although limits are posted (and enforced) in areas that are urbanized, substandard, accident-prone, or under construction. In case of bad weather, speed limits come into play and are frequently enforced. On speed-unrestricted stretches, an advisory speed limit (Richtgeschwindigkeit) of 130 kilometres per hour (81 mph) applies. Individual states have the authority to set speed limits for any or all autobahnen they control

Mr. McGreg

God yes, I let an elderly couple turn into my lane driving home yesterday, thing is I didn't really have a choice because they were blocking the whole ****ing oncoming lane of traffic just sitting there til someone let them out, then the eejits miss the entrance to the industrial estate up the road a bit and decide to stop in the middle of the road 10 yards ahead of the entrance and turn in the exit. Old people

cabledude

Alias G wrote: »

Of course, hitting a wall at 10kph vs 100kph will have the same outcome, of course it will. Noone is claiming speed in and of itself kills but that does not limit it as a factor in the outcome of an impact.

Er, what!? And you were slagging off my knowledge of Physics!!!

Alias G

cabledude wrote: »

Alias G wrote: »

Which is why one would ensure good gaps between traffic ahead. Tailgating on the M9 would be daft. And inappropriate. Subjective to the driver, correct. I didn't ask your opinion, thanks. No.

Autobahn

Obviously noone should tailgate under any circumstances but that doesn't prevent an accident in an adjacent lane causing you to crash also. Not only is 145kphh obnoxius but also against the law. Your wiki quote merely backs up what I said. The Autobahn only has sections without a speed limit.

Alias G

cabledude wrote: »

Er, what!? And you were slagging off my knowledge of Physics!!!

sarcasm

cabledude

Alias G wrote: »

Obviously noone should tailgate under any circumstances but that doesn't prevent an accident in an adjacent lane causing you to crash also. Not only is 145kphh obnoxius but also against the law. Your wiki quote merely backs up what I said. The Autobahn only has sections without a speed limit.

Alias G wrote: »

sarcasm

Alias G wrote: »

Of course, hitting a wall at 10kph vs 100kph will have the same outcome, of course it will. Noone is claiming speed in and of itself kills but that does not limit it as a factor in the outcome of an impact.

Will you explain how an impact at 10kmph vs 100kmph would have the same outcome?

cabledude

doolox wrote: »

Any retest or onerous imposition on an old driver should be done only on the basis of mistakes made.

A 70+ yr old has lived their life. Not so for the 5 year old they mow down because they a) didn't see them or b) couldn't react in time.

I know the safety nazis will want to err unreasonably on the side of caution and make everybody over 70 or some other arbitrary age sit the test and go through all that rigmarole again but consider these dangers.

Liberal mumbo jumbo. Everyone accepts that reaction times decrease with age.

If an unfortunate 70 yr old fails the test and has to resit, they will become pedestrians

At least then they can't kill people driving 1 ton machines.

probably cut off from medical or other assistance because of their newly acquired legal inability to drive and more vulnerable as a result

That is what ambulances/neighbours/family/busses are for.

They will certainly become more isolated as a result.

Unfortunate, but not a justification for allowing people who are no longer competent to drive get behind the wheel of a car.

Many over 70's suffer from lack of mobility and lack of money and hence cannot walk any distance, cannot cycle any distance and may not be able to afford a taxi in this expensive country

But surely mobility and physical competency are kind of important to be able to drive?

In our climate, the ability of over 70's to stand around waiting for a bus is a lot less than younger peoples ability. Their metabolisms and circulations are not as good as younger peoples.

Thats grand so, let them drive away!!!

Such a move to penalise a whole group of people with onerous extra impositions such as tests and limited licences would be a steo too far.

The safety of other road users and pedestrians should not be subservient to onerous impositions on old people.

cabledude

Alias G wrote: »

The Autobahn only has sections without a speed limit.

No. The Autobahn has no federally mandated speed limits. Limits only apply in areas that are urbanised, sub-standard, accident prone or under construction. The majority of the Autobahn has no speed limits. That is miles away from what you are saying.

You are saying the opposite, in fact. You are saying that it only has sections without limits. Which is untrue.

obezyana

Every driver should re sit the theory test every 10 to 12 years.

cabledude

obezyana wrote: »

Every driver should re sit the theory test every 10 to 12 years.

You know, that would be no harm at all. Do a refresher course when applying for the licence every 10 years.

P. Breathnach

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Once you hit 70, your risk of a crash per mile driven raises drastically. Including the risk of a fatal crash being far higher than the usual picked on group of young males aged 18-24.

The reasons their insurance is so cheap is that statistically they do nowhere near the daily mileage and they tend to drive in situations with a lower speed, like cities. Keeping that in mind, it makes them horrific drivers.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/older-drivers/qanda...

The study you link tells a different story.

Even adjusting for miles travelled, a driver aged 75 is less likely to be involved in a fatal accident than a driver aged 25. The text also makes it clear that the frailty of older drivers is a factor in the fatality rate: they are more likely to be the ones who die in accidents. The corrolary of that is they are less of a threat to other road users.

The study also offers the argument that older drivers drive fewer miles, but that a higher percentage of those miles are on the types of road where accident rates are high, particularly in cities. High-mileage drivers do more of their driving on the safer roads - motorways and dual carriageways.

But never mind: don't let the facts get in the way of your conclusions.

beauf

cabledude wrote: »

Y...Deceleration is what does the damage. Impact with a solid surface is what kills. ...

Lets play your game.

Deceleration doesn't do damage. If you decelerate from 10mph to 5mph no damage occurs. Likewise impacting a door by walking into does not kill you.

Alias G

cabledude wrote: »

Will you explain how an impact at 10kmph vs 100kmph would have the same outcome?

What part of the word sarcasm are you having trouble with

cabledude

Alias G wrote: »

What part of the word sarcasm are you having trouble with

Hands up, my bad. You had replied and I hadn't seen it.

P. Breathnach

We have complaints in this thread about older drivers being slower on the road. And comments that reactions become slower with age. Yet there two things actually go together very neatly: if you need a little bit more time to react properly to a hazard than you used to, then you should drive a bit more gently to give yourself that extra buffer.

beauf

This topic has nothing to do with with speed. Its about dangerous drivers. There already laws for that. They just need to be enforced.

Lia_lia

My 90 year old grandmother still drives.


She got her license in London when she was 18. She said all she had to do was send an application and then you get it. No test, nothing.


So er...yeah! I do.

whatdoicare

I agree there should be a test once you hit retirement age and then every few years after. This test should include a section for testing hearing, vision and reaction times.

My father is an amazing safe driver, he is 65. He would have no problem doing a test.

My mam is hit and miss but she drives nowhere so I'm not too worried about her - she doesn't know how to use roundabouts.:rolleyes:

My mother in law on the other hand is very dithery and very nervous on the road. She won't drive into limerick city as she's afraid of the traffic but she's on dangerous country roads everyday, which is frightening!

How she passed her test in the first place, I'll never know as I wouldn't trust her to push a buggy let alone drive a car. She has MS now and can't feel her feet. She was given a grant for a car that has the controls all in the steering wheel but she's too stupid to figure out how to use it so she continues to use pedals that she can't even feel. Now, she would be the person who needs to have the license taken off her.

I've been in the car with her once, she is an absolutely scary driver, I don't know how she hasn't caused a crash, she can't use roundabouts, uses both lanes if she can't decide which one to use, slams on the brakes, won't go over 40kph and has some habits that are insane. She once stopped her car on a roundabout to pick some flowers!!!:eek: another time she drove up the exit to a car park where the person coming against her wouldn't have been able to see her until it was too late. She drives up on the footpath if she's trying to undertake someone. Crazy stuff like that!

We've all been trying to get her to stop driving but she insists on it and the medical reports all say she's fit to go as she has the car kitted out for her needs. It's very hard to get an independent grown woman to do something if the law is on her side. If we take her keys the gardai will make us give them back as were the ones stealing and it's our word against hers.

It's an insane situation!