Is 75 to old to drive?

[The Decorator]

No

[GypsyTom]

The Decorator - 2010-03-09 11:36 AMNo

I think it obvious that almost every one of us agrees with you! The debate is really about whether they should be able to carry on driving without any form of assessment and let them blunder on killing people unnecessarily.

[Guest Tracker]

GypsyTom - 2010-03-09 11:42 AM

The debate is really about whether they should be able to carry on driving without any form of assessment and let them blunder on killing people unnecessarily.

 

That is an ill thought out and pointless comment and makes the broad assumption that only drivers aged over 75 make the mistakes that kill people - whereas in the real world it is people of all age groups that make mistakes that kill people.

 

The real arbiters of true risk are the insurance companies and when, based on their actual claims experience, drivers over the age of 75 start paying more for their insurance cover than inexperienced and or 'young' drivers then we will know that the older age group in general is at higher risk of a fatal or serious accident.

 

 

[The Decorator]

I would like to see quite vigourous tests for older people, I'm 80 and went for an advanced driving course a few years ago and am planning another shortly.

 

I found it impossible to just 'have a test' I had to attend a recognised course which included police instruction and information plus a skid pan experience.

 

This all takes up evening time for several weeks, and its easy to say 'I knew it all' but all I really wanted was a tough test.

 

I did come away with a hand written certificate with indication on how I could improve, also notes on what I was good at.

 

Does it make me any better at 80? I doubt it but at least it makes me aware of my responsibilities to other road users.

 

When on the actual test run through a town and motorway, I offered and carried out a running commentary on what was observed during the test.

 

This obviously assists any examiner to assess what the pupil is actually thinking and seeing on the journey, plus it adds brownie points to the excercise, for without a commentary not a lot is known of the pupils thoughts.

 

Accidents very rarely 'happen', they are caused and can often be avoided by the thinking driver.

[Brian Kirby]

The simple truth, surely, is that there is a gradual deterioration of most of our faculties as we age.  The difficult bit is that which faculties deteriorate, and by how much, varies from person to person.  This is further complicated by considering those faculties that have bearing on driving: reaction times, sight, and general co-ordination of movement.  It is thus rather pointless to pick a particular age, and introduce hard and fast rules to apply to all at that age, saying that anyone over such and such age should have a check.  It will identify some, miss others, and result in a great deal of wasted time and effort.  As a blunt instrument, I agree it would be better than nothing, but not much.

Is not the answer to rely on the insurance companies to signal to DVLA when a particular drives appears to need assessment?  The first signs seem often to be minor bumps and scrapes accumulating as vehicles are parked etc.  Maybe MoT testing should also note general damage to bodywork since a previous test.  Then, when the amber lights come on, call the individual in for an assessment test.  Not just a medical: there is no evidence, so far as I know, that medical conditions necessarily underly loss of driving ability.  The driver needs to be assessed as a driver, not as a patient.  That way, the resources could be directed where they will do the greatest good, rather than a shotgun approach at age X. 

Having said that, from what I have seen, but with no direct experience, I would say that with the exception of a few large cities, driving in the US is not at all comparable to driving in UK.  But then, neither is driving in the North East of the UK particularly comparable to driving in the South East, and I have done both of those.

[W3526602]

In a 1997 NHTSA study, older people made up 9 percent of the population but accounted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities

 

Hi,

 

The above is a rather meaningless statement.

"Older people make up 9% of the population". Does population include those that are too young to drive? If it does, then older drivers will form a larger proportion of the driving population.

 

"Older people accounted for 14% od all traffic fatalities" What does that mean? That they died in the accident? Or that they killed somebody in an accident?

 

The only meaningful figure would be would be a pro-rata list, by exact age, of those driving during a fatal accident. And even then there will be ambiguity.

 

I once saw a graph recording motorcycle fatalities, by age. It was a straight line from top of page at 16 to bottom of page at 17, after which it remained at bottom of the page.

 

Two points....

 

Modern cars are too zippy, and too easy to drive.

 

No politician is going to impose driving restrictions on HIS age group.

 

602

[naittaw]

Thank you Brian K. for a bit of sanity.

[Guest Tracker]

Interesting thoughts Brian?

 

A few observations -

 

Any rules regarding checks will have to be general as it is totally non PC to only check those who are 'thought' to be a risk and we live in totally PC and non discriminatory times.

 

Very few people ever claim for minor scrapes and if they thought that big brother was watching even fewer would - mind you insurance might then cost less? That said it is personal injury claims not AD claims that bump up premiums.

 

I too have driven all over the UK and cannot say that driving in any one region is that different to any other - the exceptions being the difference between urban and rural driving of course.

 

Eyesight and hearing tests are easily available on the high street, or potentially at a GP surgery, these days and maybe a certificate of competent to drive sight and hearing every two years - which is when most of us need new specs anyway - might not be a bad place to start - at any age - not just over 75.

 

Similarly a machine that checks reaction times is possibly not that expensive and this test could also be included for all as a further check of competence to drive?

 

With those three easily quantifiable issues accounted for it is a simple and non medical matter to assess mobility, hand and leg movement coordination and range.

 

Surely these must be considered the very basic requirements for anyone of any age to be granted the priviledge of a driving license?

 

 

[BGD]

Simples:

 

All drivers to resit a driving test every (say) 5 years.

 

[Guest Tracker]

BGD - 2010-03-09 2:27 PM

 

Simples:

 

All drivers to resit a driving test every (say) 5 years.

 

 

..............reducing to every three years over 70 and every year over 80?

 

 

...............and starting at every two years for 17 to 24 year olds?

[Brian Kirby]

The point I was trying to get to was some form of early warning system, based on present driver and vehicle licensing requirements, that allowed the potential risk drivers to be identified for assessment, in preference to blanket measures that would assess a lot of sound, competent drivers to no great benefit. 

I accept that having everyone tested at regular intervals should allow the risky drivers to be identified, but think of the army of testers that would be required.  I believe there are presently in the region of 33 million vehicles on UK roads.  Tested quinquennially, as Bruce suggests, even without the reducing timescales between tests Rich adds, would require in the region of 6 million extra driver tests per annum.  Where are all the testers and test stations to come from to cope with that little lot?  The present number of tests is stated to be 1.3 million per annum, via 1,600 examiners.  The 6 million required would be in addition. 

Really, Bruce, I'm surprised at you, being the champion of reduced public expenditure and low cost living that you are!  It would be horribly expensive, and quadruple the number of examiners required.  :-)

[rupert123]

GypsyTom - 2010-03-09 10:27 AM

rupert123 - 2010-03-09 10:01 AMInteresting debate this but probably a pointless one. GypsyTom's statistics quote does not mean much as he said it is worldwide so cannot be applied direct to the UK. The UK insurers do apply age as one guide but not age alone, it depends a lot on your past record. If you have a full no claims then the cheapest age for insurance in the UK is 60-65. It starts to go up at 70, but not by much, and it is interesting that at 80 it is still cheaper than at 30. I would point out again this is an average with a full no claims, so it would seem the insurance industry, probably the best guide, do not agree that age alone will cause accidents. Sure our reaction time increases with age but so does experience. Their is no proof that UK drivers of over 75 have more accidents and impractical for all to retake a test. I would point out that if you do have an accident, at any age, the court can make you retake a test anyway. So a big no, unless medical or accidents prove otherwise 75 is not to old to drive, but this applies at any age.

I'm just staggered that you can say that there is no proof that drivers over 75 are involved in more accidents. Have you taken the trouble to do the slightest bit of research?

I hope that you will accept that driving in the USA is similar to in this country. If anything it's easier as they have more traffic lights and no roundabouts.

Here's a link which gives statistics from government figures;

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/older-drivers-elderly-driving-seniors-at-the-wheel.html

Highlights are:

Research on age-related driving concerns has shown that at around the age of 65 drivers face an increased risk of being involved in a vehicle crash. After the age of 75, the risk of driver fatality increases sharply, because older drivers are more vulnerable to both crash-related injury and death. Three behavioral factors in particular may contribute to these statistics: poor judgement in making left-hand turns; drifting within the traffic lane; and decreased ability to change behavior in response to an unexpected or rapidly changing situation.

In a 1997 NHTSA study, older people made up 9 percent of the population but accounted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities and 17 percent of all pedestrian fatalities. NHTSA's "Traffic Safety Facts 1997: Older Population" (DOT HS 808 769)

 Moreover, 28 percent of crash-involved older drivers were turning left when they were struck-- 7 times more often than younger drivers were struck while making left turns.

Remember, this relates to the US so in this country it would be when they are turning right and often misjudge the oncoming traffic.

I find it worrying that people can blithely assume that as we get quite old that our driving skills do not become impaired. It's no wonder that old people go out and have horrific accidents if they cannot work out something as simple as this.

Again your research is flawed the USA has no bearing on this. I should explain I have a motor traders insurance so have access to the motor insurers database where I can register any car bought or sold. On here I can get the figures for risk of various groups. I never at any point suggested as we get older driving skills will not suffer, I did in fact make the point that reaction times will be affected. Suggest you read posts properly before shouting. I am only answering the original question, is 75 to old to drive. I repeat, no of course not, but like drivers OFF ALL AGES this is subject to health and more important your past driving record.

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2010-03-09 12:17 PM

GypsyTom - 2010-03-09 11:42 AM The debate is really about whether they should be able to carry on driving without any form of assessment and let them blunder on killing people unnecessarily.

That is an ill thought out and pointless comment and makes the broad assumption that only drivers aged over 75 make the mistakes that kill people - whereas in the real world it is people of all age groups that make mistakes that kill people.The real arbiters of true risk are the insurance companies and when, based on their actual claims experience, drivers over the age of 75 start paying more for their insurance cover than inexperienced and or 'young' drivers then we will know that the older age group in general is at higher risk of a fatal or serious accident.

I can see no evidence in anything that I've said that only those over 75 kill people, how can you possibly have inferred this from anything that I have written?

If I say the under 25s kill people by silly driving that's what I mean. I obviously don't mean that only under 25s kill people or I would say only under 25s!

What I have constantly said is that all the evidence proves that older drivers have, pro-rata, more accidents than younger ones, except of course the very young, who make up for as many if not more.

This quote is from Age Concern's website, an organisation which exists to support older people and not to denigrate them.

Everyone has to have motor insurance if they drive a car. But older drivers sometimes have problems getting the right insurance policy to meet their needs. And because older drivers make more and higher claims‚ their
premiums are higher than average.

Once again, just in case people can't take it in I repeat:

I'm in favour of people driving for as long as they can. The only question is whether they should simply be allowed to carry on regardless or whether we accept that their faculties will diminish and they will pose a much greater threat to other drivers and particularly to pedestrians.

There is so much evidence that the latter is the case and anyone who believes that say, a 90-year-old, should be allowed to carry on driving without any form of assessment is ignoring not just the obvious statistics but, in my opinion, common sense.

[Colin Leake]

GypsyTom - 2010-03-08 7:13 PMTwo weeks ago in Accrington, Lancashire, a driver had a heart attack, mounted the pavement and killed a baby in a pushchair. There are so many recorded accidents of people doing similar things, losing control through illness, becoming confused and driving the wrong way up a motorway.

And what's the common denominator in all these things.They were all old people!

You freely admit that you have problems that preclude you driving normally and that you have to be restricted. What has caused these problems? Are you a youngish man or are you, as I suspect, getting on and possibly in your seventies?

Of course age should be considered when talking about testing drivers' abilities - it's so self evident that it beggars belief that people can say "Age shouldn't come into it."

Whether you regularly test everybody is a completely separate argument and I would actually be in favour of that but, until that happens, it's time that we made people over 75 prove that they are competent to drive. 

If you have all your faculties and are confident of your ability then what have you to fear from a simple test?

Finally, yes I can pass out at the wheel tomorrow, but every year that passes makes that eventuality more likely. There are far fewer incidents of younger people suffering heart attacks and strokes whilst driving. Not surprising really, as heart attacks and strokes tend to occur when you get a lot older. And please, don't start telling me about someone who had a heart attack at 40, we know it can happen but it happens a lot more at 80!

Yes I may be well into my seventies but I've had the problem which causes me to need regular tests and restricts my driving. Diabetes which is my problem happens as much if not more in younger people many of whom don't appreciate the need to take good care of the condition, or may not even know they have it, and hence are much more likely to pass out than I am even at my age.

[Guest Tracker]

Gypsy Tom - along with quite a few others I tire of your incessant confrontational style where you often deny what you have clearly stated and go on to misquote others out of context and then blame everyone else for misinterpreting what you write.

 

You do make some good points but you continually spoil your own argument by being so aggressive - so just why do you persist?

 

Why can't you be content to just make your own point without continually feeling the need to have a go at other people?

 

 

[GypsyTom]

Again your research is flawed the USA has no bearing on this. I should explain I have a motor traders insurance so have access to the motor insurers database where I can register any car bought or sold. On here I can get the figures for risk of various groups. I never at any point suggested as we get older driving skills will not suffer, I did in fact make the point that reaction times will be affected. Suggest you read posts properly before shouting. I am only answering the original question, is 75 to old to drive. I repeat, no of course not, but like drivers OFF ALL AGES this is subject to health and more important your past driving record.

Why has the USA no bearing on this? Are our older drivers somehow genetically different from American drivers? This is a worldwide phenomena, the older you get the more impaired your faculties become.

And as for telling me to read your post I would remind you of what you wrote, which was:

Their is no proof that UK drivers of over 75 have more accidents and impractical for all to retake a test. 

There is mountains of proof, it's everywhere! And why is it impractical for people to have to be tested every two or three years? Please explain to me why this cannot be done. We employ more testers, it's as simple as that! The one thing that government is good at is employing more civil servants.

Finally, this is what you said in your first post:

What does not make sense to me is that it should be age related.

You appear to totally rule out that older people are more likely to have an accident and yet you yourself admit to having your driving restricted by what are generally age-related health problems! I'm afraid that you've completely lost me!

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2010-03-09 5:29 PMGypsy Tom - along with quite a few others I tire of your incessant confrontational style where you often deny what you have clearly stated and go on to misquote others out of context and then blame everyone else for misinterpreting what you write.You do make some good points but you continually spoil your own argument by being so aggressive - so just why do you persist?Why can't you be content to just make your own point without continually feeling the need to have a go at other people?

Rather than making another completely unjustified accusation will you please tell where I've misquoted you? Refuting your argument in a debate isn't having a go at anyone. It would appear that if I point out where you have erred, as you most certainly did when you accused me, quite wrongly, of saying that only people over 75 kill others, that you immediately take this confrontational stance. Why can't you simply admit that what you said was wrong, because it most certainly was.

If anyone is introducing confrontation, it's you with that post. I've been perfectly happy to argue my corner, as has everyone else without any personal agenda.

Finally, please tell me where I've denied something that I earlier stated. That should be easy for you as all you have to do is look through the thread and tell us all. 

[Guest Tracker]

GypsyTom - 2010-03-09 11:42 AM

The Decorator - 2010-03-09 11:36 AMNo

I think it obvious that almost every one of us agrees with you! The debate is really about whether they should be able to carry on driving without any form of assessment and let them blunder on killing people unnecessarily.

A predictable response. I don't generally go in for taking people to task for what they say as I find that just to reply with a differing point of view is sufficient for me to make a point without bringing personalities into it.However, above is what you said that I found particularly distorted.Read the tone of everyone else's postings and then read the tone of your own postings and then you might see what I mean about you being continually confrontational and agressive?

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2010-03-09 5:41 PM

GypsyTom - 2010-03-09 11:42 AM

The Decorator - 2010-03-09 11:36 AMNo

I think it obvious that almost every one of us agrees with you! The debate is really about whether they should be able to carry on driving without any form of assessment and let them blunder on killing people unnecessarily.

A predictable response. I don't generally go in for taking people to task for what they say as I find that just to reply with a differing point of view is sufficient for me to make a point without bringing personalities into it.However, above is what you said that I found particularly distorted.Read the tone of everyone else's postings and then read the tone of your own postings and then you might see what I mean about you being continually confrontational and agressive?

I'm sorry, but this is what you said:

That is an ill thought out and pointless comment and makes the broad assumption that only drivers aged over 75 make the mistakes that kill people - whereas in the real world it is people of all age groups that make mistakes that kill people. 

I repeat - prove that I said that only drivers over 75 kill people. This is what you accused me of and you were wrong. You refuse to admit that you were wrong so you do what you always do, turn it into a personal attack on me.

Please, just for once, answer the question that I've asked without this habit that you have of attacking the person who has proved your statement to be incorrect. It's a cheap diversion and unworthy of anyone.

Where did I say that only people over 75 kill others?

And I know now what will happen, once again you'll make a generalised attack and say how you have no intention of defending your self against what anyone says about you. Good way out!

[Guest Tracker]

You have had your say and I have had mine and in due defference to all other forum users I think that we should let it rest there.

 

The readers will be the judges of who is aggressive and confrontational and I would be most interested to hear the unbiased views of others?

 

Let me add that I will not be having a go at them for expressing their opinions - so come on folks - tell us what you think!

[Mel B]

Gypsy Tom ... if you ask a question, then you have to be prepared for the answer and the opinions of others. If you aren't really willing to do that, then I suggest you don't ask the question in the first place.

 

Now all you seem to be doing is continually regurgitating what you and others have said. I was following this thread with interest but have got bored with continually re-re-re-re-reading the same thing time and time again.

 

You do not appear to be happy with anyone who does not hold your exact view so what is the point in anyone trying to hold a 'conversation' with you on here?

 

One thing I would NOT do though, is put my faith in a survey which seems to be from 1997 - that's 13 years ago and things have changed massively over that time.

 

And no, before you ask, I haven't done any research on the matter - you were asking for opinions and that's what you've been getting - if I wanted to spend my time doing research I'd do it on a subject that really interests me, not just to 'argue' with you and inflate your ego.

 

By all means, continue to keep your speil going, you like to 'see' the sound of your voice on here, I'm bored with it all and am off to try to help others with queries, rather than 'listen' to more of your comments.

 

Bye-bye. :-S

[GypsyTom]

Mel B - 2010-03-09 6:07 PMGypsy Tom ... if you ask a question, then you have to be prepared for the answer and the opinions of others. If you aren't really willing to do that, then I suggest you don't ask the question in the first place.Now all you seem to be doing is continually regurgitating what you and others have said. I was following this thread with interest but have got bored with continually re-re-re-re-reading the same thing time and time again. You do not appear to be happy with anyone who does not hold your exact view so what is the point in anyone trying to hold a 'conversation' with you on here?One thing I would NOT do though, is put my faith in a survey which seems to be from 1997 - that's 13 years ago and things have changed massively over that time. And no, before you ask, I haven't done any research on the matter - you were asking for opinions and that's what you've been getting - if I wanted to spend my time doing research I'd do it on a subject that really interests me, not just to 'argue' with you and inflate your ego.By all means, continue to keep your speil going, you like to 'see' the sound of your voice on here, I'm bored with it all and am off to try to help others with queries, rather than 'listen' to more of your comments.Bye-bye. :-S

Yes, you're right of course. In the last thirteen years old people have stopped having accidents and they are now all perfect drivers. I'm sorry, I should have realised that.

I was enjoying this debate and it's cut and thrust but all of a sudden the usual suspects have to make it personal. We can't refute your arguments so we'll attack you personally.

I shall leave this thread, Tracker obviously isn't going to justify his accusation against me (because he can't) and you'll do your usual bonding with your mates.

[Guest Tracker]

GypsyTom - 2010-03-09 6:26 PM

and you'll do your usual bonding with your mates.

 

And how predictable was that response!

 

Let's get one thing straight.

 

I like Mel and I respect her views but we can and do disagree and I would no more 'bond' with her (though it does sound like fun if only Chris - or Dot - would allow it) than Mel would support me if she thought that I was wrong.

 

The same applies to anyone else.

 

I have tried hard to ignore your bullying tactics Gypsy Tom but you are just that - a bigoted bully.

 

I have tried asking you, I've tried explaining how offensive some of your postings are and I have even tried reconcilliation with you but it's all a waste of time as you are not listening - I suppose it is all part of being a bully?

 

I have several PM's to support that view from people who would rather not bear the brunt of your sharp tongue and unruly bully boy tactics on open forum.

 

A lot of regular forum users have disappeared recently and at least one has emailed me to say that your attitude is the main reason.

 

So once again I ask you to look at the tone of your postings and compare them to the tone of other people's postings and ask yourself whether your attitude is conducive to a happy forum?

 

People on here like to read differing points of view but in the main they do not want to read argumentative and aggressive postings - can you not grasp that?

 

[teflon2]

GT age concern are a limited company and not a charity they therefore have a vested interest in selling the appropriate insurance. As to the U.S.A. they drive on the wrong side of the road anyway and their youngsters seem to get a driving licence with their cornflakes so where is the similarity. As to the proof you claim is available if any of it comes from the department of transport just remember they were forced to apologise for giving the minister for transport false information about the number of motor cycle accidents which he had given in parliament. :-S John

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2010-03-09 7:34 PM

GypsyTom - 2010-03-09 6:26 PM and you'll do your usual bonding with your mates.

And how predictable was that response!Let's get one thing straight.I like Mel and I respect her views but we can and do disagree and I would no more 'bond' with her (though it does sound like fun if only Chris - or Dot - would allow it) than Mel would support me if she thought that I was wrong.The same applies to anyone else.I have tried hard to ignore your bullying tactics Gypsy Tom but you are just that - a bigoted bully. I have tried asking you, I've tried explaining how offensive some of your postings are and I have even tried reconcilliation with you but it's all a waste of time as you are not listening - I suppose it is all part of being a bully?I have several PM's to support that view from people who would rather not bear the brunt of your sharp tongue and unruly bully boy tactics on open forum.A lot of regular forum users have disappeared recently and at least one has emailed me to say that your attitude is the main reason.So once again I ask you to look at the tone of your postings and compare them to the tone of other people's postings and ask yourself whether your attitude is conducive to a happy forum?People on here like to read differing points of view but in the main they do not want to read argumentative and aggressive postings - can you not grasp that?

I was leaving this thread but this demands a response. First of all it was you who made this personal. It was going along very well until you made your nasty comments.

People posted their opinions on this subject and I posted mine. Mine weren't just opinions, they were all backed with facts. Many others were simple statements claiming amongst other things that very old people are not responsible for more accidents. They gave no evidence to support that opinion and I and others disagreed.

Your accusations of bullying are disgraceful and are themselves the cheapest and lowest form of bullying. A typical example of your tactics is that you accused me of saying that only old people cause accidents. I said no such thing!

I have asked you twice to justify that statement and you have declined. What you have done is, once again, introduced personal attacks to divert from the fact that you opened your mouth without your brain being in gear.

I ask again - where did I say that accidents are only caused by old people?

I'd said that I was leaving this thread but you couldn't resist and had to carry on with your bile.

And as for people leaving because of me, poppycock! If you want an example of what you and your cronies have done to this site look at the Chatterbox section which you dominate. It is moribund! The number of people who no longer post in Chatterbox has nothing to do with me as I hardly go there.

It's interesting that the you only made the personal attack because I challenged your lie about only people over 75 causing accidents. Faced with having to accept that you were wrong you again went on the offensive to divert things. Now that's bullying.

I apologise to other readers for the direction that this debate has now gone. Previous to Tracker wading in it was a vigorous and interesting thread with many different views, although the common agreement seemed to be that old people should be allowed to drive for as long as they like, but as long as they are competent and subjected to assessment occasionally.