Elderly drivers are not the danger many claim them to be

[Scozzie]

a 70+ year old man blacked out behind the wheel of his car, crossed to the wrong side of the road and ran over my sister.

 

My sister is in a wheelchair.

the old codger said that as he blacked out, he doesn't remember a thing, but h is awfully sorry.

[Xt500]

Elderly drivers are like everyone else,theres good and bad.All drivers should be retested perodically it doesnt matter what age they are many would fail miserably and the roads would be a much safer and quieter place.

[tzijlstra]

Resurrection due to the following:

 

The road I live in is blessed with having a torrent of elderly bowls players using it as a car park when the weather is nice. Fair do's, it is a public road after all. However, there are a few (and yes, I recognise them now, they come almost every day) that are seriously worrying me.

 

Coming home just now I saw one of my favourites. A VERY old gentlemen, well over 80, possibly 90, who clearly has Parkinson's or something else that causes him to shake. He drives a little Micra at about 10 miles per hour, everywhere. He just attempted to reverse into a parking spot that started at our drive, some 20+ yards for him to park his 3 and a half yard car into. He managed to reverse it into the car behind him, without noticing and revving the engine because he clearly had no idea why he had stopped. No wonder, he doesn't seem to be able to turn his head to even see the mirrors.

 

I wouldn't post this here were it not that the car he drove into is parked in the place where I normally parked. I went to see him, check the car behind, there was fortunately no damage (despite his best effort) that I could see. I asked him if he was alright (I genuinely thought he might well be in shock) and all he did was mumble some foul two-word remark at me that isn't worth repeating here.

 

This man genuinely should not be on the road. He is a hazard to others.

 

There are a few others as well that are so clearly not up to driving any more but I won't mention them in detail. When you sit behind a car for four minutes trying to turn left out of your own road because the person in front can't estimate what traffic is where, it gets very tiring very quickly though.

 

Now I am not saying all elderly drivers are a hazard/nuisance, some of these bowler folks are good drivers from what I can see, despite being well into their retirement. But it does really make me wish there was a stricter system for re-testing. It is now every 3 years after 70 I believe? I don't know what they test, but from what I see it is failing to take gentlemen like the one I described off the road.

[geared]

Makes you wonder how robust the statistics are.

Does it still count as an accident if the old duffer doesn't realise it's actually happened :hihi:

 

If you're going to bring in re-testing, then it should be re-testing for all people not just the old.

Every 10-15 years or something.

 

Certainly create a boat-load of new jobs as driving instructors and driving examiners.

 

Some of the restrictions on new drivers they have in Australia might be worthwhile too.

[Eater Sundae]

I think people are deluding themselves if they think that old drivers magically cause other people to have accidents, but are not involved themselves. There may be a few, but the same will apply to younger drivers also.

 

The best statistic is insurance premiums. Car insurers are not charities. They charge based on risk and likely payouts.

 

Who get the cheaper insurance? 70 year olds or 20 year olds? Answer this, and you'll know who are, on balance, the better drivers.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2014 at 16:30 ----------

 

Makes you wonder how robust the statistics are.

Does it still count as an accident if the old duffer doesn't realise it's actually happened :hihi:

 

If you're going to bring in re-testing, then it should be re-testing for all people not just the old.

Every 10-15 years or something.

 

Certainly create a boat-load of new jobs as driving instructors and driving examiners.

 

Some of the restrictions on new drivers they have in Australia might be worthwhile too.

 

If this is the "no driving with young passengers" and "no driving at night" type of rules, then I think we've missed an opportunity here. There was a news item maybe around a month ago, where the government said they are abandoning any ideas of bringing in this type of legislation, saying it was impractical. One of the reasons was that it would prevent young people taking jobs which required them to drive at night. That might be true, but clearly it CAN be done because other countries have done it, and presumably their kids have similar constraints.

[barleycorn]

I think people are deluding themselves if they think that old drivers magically cause other people to have accidents, but are not involved themselves. There may be a few, but the same will apply to younger drivers also.

 

The best statistic is insurance premiums. Car insurers are not charities. They charge based on risk and likely payouts.

 

Who get the cheaper insurance? 70 year olds or 20 year olds? Answer this, and you'll know who are, on balance, the better drivers.

Not quite. Prior to the desexing of premiums the reason that young male drivers premiums were higher than females wasn't because they had more accidents (quite the opposite in fact, they had fewer) but rather because they were more likely to be a a high speed crash thus causing a hell of a lot more damage, increasing the expense.

I suspect the same may be the case with older drivers, you can have ten bumps at 10mph and not cause a great deal of damage, try one at 60mph and there's not much car left.

 

jb

[Eater Sundae]

Not quite. Prior to the desexing of premiums the reason that young male drivers premiums were higher than females wasn't because they had more accidents (quite the opposite in fact, they had fewer) but rather because they were more likely to be a a high speed crash thus causing a hell of a lot more damage, increasing the expense.

I suspect the same may be the case with older drivers, you can have ten bumps at 10mph and not cause a great deal of damage, try one at 60mph and there's not much car left.

 

jb

 

Even if that is the case, where would you rather be:

in the passenger seat of a car that has 10 bumps at 10 mph,

or one "bump" at 60?

 

Which is most dangerous?

[barleycorn]

Even if that is the case, where would you rather be:

in the passenger seat of a car that has 10 bumps at 10 mph,

or one "bump" at 60?

 

Which is most dangerous?

Obviously I'd rather be in the 10mph collision. I was, however, simply pointing out that it may not be as simple as low premiums = better drivers.

 

jb

[davyboy]

how about this YOUNG m/b rider.

I was behind one car at a set of lights which were at red.

As they changed to green the car in front started slowly(fortunately) to pull away as I did.

At that very moment a motor bike came screaming up between the two lanes of traffic, swerved round the front of the car in front of me, turned left and did a wheely as he shot up the road.

The car in front and I both went straight ahead.

If the driver in front had been a bit faster off the block the m/cyclist would be dead.

Young = safe.

Not always.

[tzijlstra]

I don't think the point is to generalise (which is what insurance companies etc. do) I think the point from my story is that there should be a check on whether this gentlemen should still be on the road.

 

Let's not kid ourselves, this is someone who has Parkinson's or another disease that makes him shake uncontrollably, who clearly can't see what is going on behind him, who doesn't realise that he has stopped because he reversed into another car.

 

Do we really think he should be on the road? I don't. To make matters worse, and I hadn't mentioned this, when I spoke to him he struck me as someone with very poor vision, squinting his eyes to see who this shape asking if he was alright was.

 

I read up some more and it turns out that all the 're-application' is, is them filling in a form and sending it off to the DVLA, it appears to me the only check is that you need to declare you still have good enough eyesight. Whoop-ti-do, of course people are going to lie on those forms!