Should elderly people drive? (70+) Watch

Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
Do you believe elderly people past the age of 70 should be allowed to drive and why?

I always get scared when an elderly person drives really close to the back of my car, even though there's no reason I should suspect they could crash into the back of me, the thought is still there.

All that is required to renew a driving licence past the age of 70 is a self-assessment of your health, I believe there should be a test to ensure people are medically fit to drive and are still able to drive proficiently?

According to the Older Drivers Forum signs to look out for include:

  • Slower reaction times
  • Difficulty in turning to see when reversing
  • Keeping a foot on the brake
  • Other drivers sounding their horns at them
  • Incorrect signals
  • Hitting the kerb
  • Trouble making turns
  • Confusion at exits
  • Over-revving the engine, especially on low-speed manoeuvres
  • Difficulties with low-light or night-time driving
  • Avoidance of driving to new or unfamiliar places
  • Scrapes and dents in the car



Some background below:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
"After the Duke of Edinburgh was involved in a road crash where he was at the wheel, there was surprise in some quarters that he was still driving at the age of 97.
But he's not alone. The number of people over 90 holding a driving
licence in Britain has been on the rise - it recently topped 100,000. So should you still be driving in your 90s?

The number of over-70s holding a driving licence exceeded five million for the first time last year, but figures suggest concerns that older drivers pose a danger are unfounded."
2
reply
CrazyConnor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
Do you believe elderly people past the age of 70 should be allowed to drive and why?

I always get scared when an elderly person drives really close to the back of my car, even though there's no reason I should suspect they could crash into the back of me, the thought is still there.

All that is required to renew a driving licence past the age of 70 is a self-assessment of your health, I believe there should be a test to ensure people are medically fit to drive and are still able to drive proficiently?

According to the Older Drivers Forum signs to look out for include:

  • Slower reaction times
  • Difficulty in turning to see when reversing
  • Keeping a foot on the brake
  • Other drivers sounding their horns at them
  • Incorrect signals
  • Hitting the kerb
  • Trouble making turns
  • Confusion at exits
  • Over-revving the engine, especially on low-speed manoeuvres
  • Difficulties with low-light or night-time driving
  • Avoidance of driving to new or unfamiliar places
  • Scrapes and dents in the car



Some background below:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
"After the Duke of Edinburgh was involved in a road crash where he was at the wheel, there was surprise in some quarters that he was still driving at the age of 97.
But he's not alone. The number of people over 90 holding a driving
licence in Britain has been on the rise - it recently topped 100,000. So should you still be driving in your 90s?

The number of over-70s holding a driving licence exceeded five million for the first time last year, but figures suggest concerns that older drivers pose a danger are unfounded."
I think that when your photocard expires, so too should your license. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so should only be reserved for those who can continually prove they are still competent and safe.
3
reply
Kim~Shawn Mendes
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
I think that it would be ok as long they are tested and are able to drive properly
1
reply
username4454836
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
They should face a retest and a medical to ensure they are still fit to drive.
2
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by CrazyConnor)
I think that when your photocard expires, so too should your license. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so should only be reserved for those who can continually prove they are still competent and safe.
Agreed, I'd definitely fail the test unfortunately because well... I never knew how to parallel park and they gave me a 3 point turn.
1
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
The issue is more that they will get worse with time, whereas young drivers will get better. There might not be a specific upper age limit that makes sense for everyone, but it does make sense to keep checking older drivers because their ability will deteriorate. A retest at 70 passed perfectly doesn't mean they'll still be okay at 97, because simply biology. You'd need to continually retest, and the government probably doesn't want to invest in the extra test centres that would require.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
Over seventies are certainly not as safe as the safest age group - the 60-69 cohort. However, they appear to be about ten times safer than young dirvers. Perhaps those advocating stiff testing for older drivers should apply their logic to younger drivers, say those under thirty.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22437517307600
8
reply
(づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
According to the Older Drivers Forum signs to look out for include:

  • Slower reaction times
  • Difficulty in turning to see when reversing
  • Keeping a foot on the brake
  • Other drivers sounding their horns at them
  • Incorrect signals
  • Hitting the kerb
  • Trouble making turns
  • Confusion at exits
  • Over-revving the engine, especially on low-speed manoeuvres
  • Difficulties with low-light or night-time driving
  • Avoidance of driving to new or unfamiliar places
  • Scrapes and dents in the car
I've seen both young and old drivers doing this one and it does my bloody head in.

If they can demonstrate they are still able to go about their daily business in a safe manner then yes.

There's probably more we could do to improve public transport for those that have willingly given up driving.
Last edited by (づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ; 4 weeks ago
2
reply
Doones
  • Volunteer Section Leader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
Do you believe elderly people past the age of 70 should be allowed to drive and why?

I always get scared when an elderly person drives really close to the back of my car, even though there's no reason I should suspect they could crash into the back of me, the thought is still there.

All that is required to renew a driving licence past the age of 70 is a self-assessment of your health, I believe there should be a test to ensure people are medically fit to drive and are still able to drive proficiently?

According to the Older Drivers Forum signs to look out for include:

  • Slower reaction times
  • Difficulty in turning to see when reversing
  • Keeping a foot on the brake
  • Other drivers sounding their horns at them
  • Incorrect signals
  • Hitting the kerb
  • Trouble making turns
  • Confusion at exits
  • Over-revving the engine, especially on low-speed manoeuvres
  • Difficulties with low-light or night-time driving
  • Avoidance of driving to new or unfamiliar places
  • Scrapes and dents in the car



Some background below:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
"After the Duke of Edinburgh was involved in a road crash where he was at the wheel, there was surprise in some quarters that he was still driving at the age of 97.
But he's not alone. The number of people over 90 holding a driving
licence in Britain has been on the rise - it recently topped 100,000. So should you still be driving in your 90s?

The number of over-70s holding a driving licence exceeded five million for the first time last year, but figures suggest concerns that older drivers pose a danger are unfounded."
97 is not 70.

Young drivers are much riskier...


However I'd be happy to have compulsory retests every 10 years or so, and every 5 years after age 70.
3
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Doones)
97 is not 70.

Young drivers are much riskier...


However I'd be happy to have compulsory retests every 10 years or so, and every 5 years after age 70.
Doones I always love your statistics! That is a real eye opener I didn't know youngsters were that big a menace to the road in comparison, I would definitely be happy with your retest idea.
1
reply
Tootles
Badges: 20
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Good bloke)
Over seventies are certainly not as safe as the safest age group - the 60-69 cohort. However, they appear to be about ten times safer than young dirvers. Perhaps those advocating stiff testing for older drivers should apply their logic to younger drivers, say those under thirty.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22437517307600
Young drivers will get better with experience, and everyone has to start somewhere. Old drivers will get worse with age and shouldn't be driving once their ability drops sufficiently.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by ThomH97)
Young drivers will get better with experience, and everyone has to start somewhere. Old drivers will get worse with age and shouldn't be driving once their ability drops sufficiently.
Drops sufficiently? Does that mean worse than a typical seventeen year old male. Because that is pretty bad, many times worse than the average 70+.
1
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Good bloke)
Drops sufficiently? Does that mean worse than a typical seventeen year old male. Because that is pretty bad, many times worse than the average 70+.
Different issues. Time will make the older driver worse as their increasing age will decrease their ability quicker than any marginal increases in experience they get, so repeatedly checking makes sense. An idiot 17 year old male will get better with time, so punitive measures for infractions makes sense there as it is the intent, not ability, in question.
1
reply
Lala143
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
If they can continually prove that they are able to drive a car safely, I don't see the problem as it's unfair to restrict all elderly people even if they are perfectly able to drive around safely. Driving a car is also quite helpful especially for the elderly as I don't think they'd be able to carry their week's shopping from 5 miles away.
1
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by ThomH97)
Young drivers will get better with experience, and everyone has to start somewhere. Old drivers will get worse with age and shouldn't be driving once their ability drops sufficiently.
IMO, the required standard of driving should be the same for everyone. There should be retesting every 5 years - we all develop bad habits and need to be forced to keep abreast of changing legislation. I wouldn't be against annual medicals either, although people with failing health should already be being seen.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Universities Forum Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
As a society, we have accepted the trade-off that comes with cars - we have decided that the level of convenience they offer to us all is worth, in Britain's case, around 1700 car-related fatalities every year.

On that basis, while I certainly agree that people whose driving has become unsafe should not be allowed on the road, I don't see how you can justify withdrawing the right to drive from all people over a certain age. All drivers are capable of killing people - if you're saying that a 3% accident rate among drivers over 80 is unacceptable, why is a 1.5% accident rate among middle-aged drivers ok?

Wherever you put the acceptability line is entirely arbitrary.
Last edited by LeapingLucy; 4 weeks ago
3
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by ThomH97)
Different issues. Time will make the older driver worse as their increasing age will decrease their ability quicker than any marginal increases in experience they get, so repeatedly checking makes sense. An idiot 17 year old male will get better with time, so punitive measures for infractions makes sense there as it is the intent, not ability, in question.
It isn't really like that. A number of things happen. The young develop their ability to judge risk after about the age of 25, which improves their driving ability at a point when they have some experience and a bit more sense to use it sensibly. Ability increases over the decades, and one of the main factors in this is that older drivers realise their reaction times are (a) nowhere near what they (wrongly) thought they were when they were younger and (b) getting slower. They compensate for this by driving both slower and more carefully. As they age they learn to compensate for physical imperfections, and old drivers (obviously, apart from the truly senile or terminally incompetent) continue to do this. The least acciden-prone group consists of those in their sixties. The over seventies are nearer to them in ability than they are to the young, and ability in general deteriorates slowly. Accident rates never rise to those of the young.

A driver with fifty tears experience would have to be stupendously incompetent or totally gaga not to pass a driving test, even an extended one of the sort given to banned drivers. This is why I believe that tests would be impractical and costly imposition. The failure rate would be tiny and the cost would be enormous. Testing under thirties every few years would lead to far more failures, despite the numbers being lower, and save more lives. That, too, is a foolish idea.

The answer lies with the individual driver and his or her family, and knowing when to give up. Stereotyping those over seventy as poor drivers is as ridiculous as saying that all black men carry knives or all that Mohammedans are terrorists.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
Yes, as long as they are healthy and capable of being on the roads.
But there should be closer liaising between the medical professionals and the DVLA, the same way that there is between civilian medical professionals and the armed forces.
That way early signs of sight loss or dementia could be identified and the DVLA made aware of potential medical issues long before health deteriorates to the point that an accident is almost inevitable.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by londonmyst)
Yes, as long as they are healthy and capable of being on the roads.
But there should be closer liaising between the medical professionals and the DVLA, the same way that there is between civilian medical professionals and the armed forces.
That way early signs of sight loss or dementia could be identified and the DVLA made aware of potential medical issues long before health deteriorates to the point that an accident is almost inevitable.
I agree. GPs and hospitals should be given a duty to report particularly dangerous diagnoses.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has 2019 been so far?

Amazing!!! (38)
5.71%
Fairly positive (217)
32.63%
Just another year... (264)
39.7%
Is it 2020 yet? (146)
21.95%

Watched Threads

View All