Elderly drivers are not the danger many claim them to be

[Resident]

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!

 

In my opinion DRIVERS should have to go through an "MOT" type test, maybe once every 5 years. To keep their licence they must have a pass certificate which certifies they're fit to drive (general health + eye-sight).

[Eater Sundae]

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

 

But it is that simple.

 

The premiums don't lie.

[geared]

Answer this, and you'll know who are, on balance, the better drivers.

 

a car that has 10 bumps at 10 mph,

or one "bump" at 60?

 

Which is most dangerous?

 

Now you're starting to contradict yourself.

 

You're trying to convince everyone that someone who regularly crashes their car is actually a better driver???

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2014 at 21:17 ----------

 

But it is that simple.

 

The premiums don't lie.

 

The premiums show who is cheaper to clean up after not who is better.

 

Besides I'd expect a pensioner to have a full 10+ years no claims bonus, and have held a licence for even longer.

 

Both those things have a significant impact on insurance premium cost.

[El Cid]

 

This suggests that it's not the cost of public transport that deters users but it's the inconvenience, unreliability and lack of comfort that put people off.

 

They could be unable to walk very far to the bus stop, yet be able to drive.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2014 at 21:26 ----------

 

 

The premiums show who is cheaper to clean up after not who is better.

 

If we are discussing over 70s, its likely that they will not drive very far, so even if they are more rsky, the lower annual mileage would make their premiums cheaper.

[Eater Sundae]

Now you're starting to contradict yourself.

 

You're trying to convince everyone that someone who regularly crashes their car is actually a better driver???

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2014 at 21:17 ----------

 

 

The premiums show who is cheaper to clean up after not who is better.

 

Besides I'd expect a pensioner to have a full 10+ years no claims bonus, and have held a licence for even longer.

 

Both those things have a significant impact on insurance premium cost.

 

Yes, because they have already demonstrated that they are less of a drain on the insurance companies' resources than the average younger driver. I accept that younger drivers cannot have built up a long no claims discount, but if they were not having crashes (and were on their way to building up a discount), then young drivers in general would get good insurance rates. The fact that they don't shows that insurance companies have to pay out more for younger drivers than they do for older drivers.

 

It is not about individual drivers and whether or not they are a risk (as would show up with NCDs). it is about groups in general. In general, older people pay less in premiums simply because they cost the insurance companies less in payouts.

 

Re contradicting myself - No, the comparison was between some notional old person having lots of little bumps and another notional younger person having a single, very serious crash. In that sense, neither driver is safe, but comparatively, the multiple small bump driver IS safer than the other one. Again, the question I asked earlier: Would you prefer to be a passenger in a car that had 10 low speed bumps or in one that had 1 high speed crash?

 

But this is irrelevant. The thread is about whether elderly drivers are particularly dangerous. You can look at insurance premiums, or you can also look at government crash statistics for those killed or seriously injured. Either way, elderly drivers are demonstrably safer than younger ones.

[Cyclone]

The RAC say that elderly motorists are 'safer than younger drivers' - so please get off our backs !

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8618992.stm

 

It's always seemed fairly logical to me that retired people will have more time for their journeys and therefore drive less aggressively and most will have more experience too.

 

An interesting point in the report is that "63% of journeys by over-70s are by car, either as a driver or passenger" - this in spite of the free travel they enjoy on public transport.

 

This suggests that it's not the cost of public transport that deters users but it's the inconvenience, unreliability and lack of comfort that put people off.

 

The RAC report found the ageing process and infrequent driving only increased risk when drivers reached the age of 80

So there is an age at which we will all become less competent, as our reactions slow and so on.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2014 at 10:49 ----------

 

A company whose sole source of profit is from car drivers, says that people should be car drivers? Yes, I'm sure I can trust that as being a completely unbiased commentary.

 

 

In fact, it's been shown that the reaction times of a 70-year-old are considerably worse than a 25-year-old who is over the legal driving limit. If the elderly are fit to drive, then so are the drunks.

 

Reaction time isn't the be all and end all.

 

It's equally easy to show that a 70 year old has (on average) a better developed understanding of the consequence of actions, is more risk adverse and is thus likely to be more careful in the first place and not put themselves in a position where reaction time is important.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2014 at 11:21 ----------

 

But it is that simple.

 

The premiums don't lie.

 

The premiums show you what the likely cost to the insurer is. They don't judge on 'safety' they judge on cost.

 

Are a group of drivers 'safer' if they have many small accidents, instead of fewer more expensive accidents? Or are they just cheaper?

 

It does suggest a different mechanism for the accidents. Many low value claims is likely to be poor judgement (ie distance/speed) or reaction time. Fewer, but more expensive accidents is likely to be poor judgement in a different way (this is born out by studies mind), ie over judging competence or taking unnecessary risks.