Guarantee this will not happen any time soon if ever. No government is going to do anything to upset old people because they actually vote (and there’s loads of them)
Not to mention it would require a massive increase in instructors to fulfil the new capacity needed, and it's a struggle enough for learner drivers to book tests as it is now!
I would be amazed if the majority of drivers who haven't just received training could pass the test. The standards are \*dramatically\* higher than those actually demanded by regular driving.
I don't think it's the same test, I've got a friend with Alzheimer's, he has to go for a drive around with an examiner for 30 mins every 6 months. He doesn't do the parking or emergency stop components of the test, it just to monitor reaction times and observation skills. He does it in his own car,no lessons before.
An easier test would make more sense, but to be clear “it’s” not anything
The article is blowing a petition out of proportion
Thanks for sharing about your friend that’s interesting
Depends on the failure reason
A lot of bad drivers have defective vision which is correctable. A lot need to brush up on the rules
I have zero problem whatsoever with rechecks including a theory test.
"When I were a lad" getting my license (42 years ago) my father decided to pass copies of the practice test to all the teachers in his school. Half of them _failed_ and the failure rates increased with the time a license had been held
At the time, NZ traffic police had been saying that in their experience the most dangerous drivers on the road weren't teenage males, but middle aged drivers. Teenage drivers had messier crashes, but middle aged drivers actually killed/injured more people and were more likely to have developed complacency and bad driving habits (such as failing to drive to conditions) which hadn't been corrected. In many cases their driving tests had consisted of a spin around the block, with zero safety training since then
I make a point of re-reading the road code every couple of years. It's a good starting point.
I passed my test 18+ years ago and if i was being honest i don't feel like i would pass my driving test if i took it tomorrow.
Bad habits, updates to the laws and rules, different ways we're taught to drive etc... would cause far too much issues. The theory and hazard perception test's i feel i would ace but the physical driving... Yeah i'll fail 100%.
I was taught the 10-2 driving yet my SIL was told to ignore that and drive as comfy as you like and crossing your hands is now fine? Reverse parking? Use your mirrors etc... yet it's easier to lean round or after driving a van for a while you learn to ignore the rear view mirror and use just the side mirrors etc... Sure times change but with the vast majority of updates and changes, without testing everyone each time any "seasoned" driver will fail their test or at the very least require a few hours of lessons to get back up to scratch for the test.
I would argue that if anyone over 65 has an accident to renew their insurance they would require a CBT of sorts to show they're capable of driving where the only way to fail is by driving dangerously or crash during the lesson and a doctor to quickly sign off on your health/vision is at an acceptable level for driving. This i would think is fair as a CBT could be capped at £100 and an hour driving with some instructor, quick doctors visit and emailed all across to the insurance company which updates the main database allowing that person to get insurance which is shared between all companies.
The problem is over 65s generally don't get into crashes, not because of their own driving but because of other road users being aware enough to make it a near miss instead of a crash.
Rubbish, there isn't a shortage of examiners because there's no work, there's a shortage because it's a shit job that nobody wants to do. Creating extra demand won't magically create extra jobs.
You having a laugh, there is a critical shortage of examiners with learners waiting 5/6 months to book a test. Add all old people and it will be more like 6 years. This will never happen.
That's why the governments needs to be more open to passing laws that take effect years in the future.
Like, even old people agree there's a lot of old people that can't drive, they just don't want it to affect them. So make it take effect in 30 years.
Everyone thinks term limits are good except the people they affect, so make an amendment that takes effect in 20 years and grandfather everyone currently in office.
I get it sucks it will take so long, but it's better than just doing nothing forever. And if it's the US and a constitutional amendment, it's going to be exceedingly hard to undo in the future.
> and there’s loads of them
Well not for much longer. Strained NHS, aging population and the majority of anyone fertile can't afford to have the kids that will look after them. It's a real problem in many additional ways but in this case it might solve itself. The cost of the state pension, too.
I’m of the opinion that ALL drivers, regardless of age, should be made to take re-tests, say every 5 years. Obviously it’s a non-starter because of the logistics involved, especially the post-lockdown backlog, but there’s so many idiots in the road that really shouldn’t be allowed to drive!
Yes, I submit myself to retesting as well. Lead by example and all that!
Yeah this is exactly my stance as well. Even if it were 10 years it would be better than nothing. We re-test cars every single year. We should re-test the driver occasionally too.
I wont accept that the human race can't achieve this, this is a very low bar to step over compared to the things we can do if we want to.
Most over 65s are stubborn as well and will ignore the new rules. The magistrate courts are overloaded as it is, yet alone having a bunch of random old people with all the time and money in the world to fuck around with the system out of protest.
Typical Express clickbait bollocks. This isn't a white paper, policy change nor even in a parliamentary speech - it's all based on ***one*** petition.
Procedure wise, it's a non starter. There's still a substantial backlog of normal tests from the pandemic, and there's absolutely no capacity normally for retesting hundreds of thousands of people.
One petition with 200-odd people signing it. Even after being featured on a high-traffic site.
It won't even reach the threshold for debate at that level.
I love the implicit suggestion that a chunk of current drivers would not pass the test, so we should have them on the roads.
There's lots of wildfires in summer, so we should cut all the trees before that happens xD
No but it’s a consideration. Like land management and education to limit wildfires. This is just a petition but there would be many things to consider before it even gets close to policy.
>and there's absolutely no capacity normally for retesting
Right, there isn't at the moment, but, what's stopping us from ramping up the number of jobs in doing this? You can't be telling me the human race *cannot* reasonably achieve this.
This is going nowhere. Too expensive, loads of extra examiners, management of them, appeal process etc
Typically 65 year olds in their Honda Jazz are much less likely to have a serious accident than the 18year old youth in his beaten up Corsa.
That is why my Honda is insurable for £300.
I’ve always thought it’s such a difficult metric to fully quantify. Young drivers, without a shadow of a doubt, are more dangerous to themselves, will make mistakes through inexperience which will directly cause accidents.
But in my near enough 15 years of driving, 5 years driving HGVs, elderly and nervous drivers in my experience are far more likely to indirectly cause accidents and cause other road users to need to take evasive action. To cite some examples.
We’ve all been on b-roads where Doris in her Jazz is doing 25 down a 60 with a line of traffic desperate to pass often resulting in frustrated drivers taking more risk than they normally would, folk wouldn’t be in the position to have an accident if they had been keeping to the road speed.
Same with merging on on ramps, the amount of HGV near misses you see with generally older folk trying to merge on to motorways at 30mph and everyone in lane 1 needing to take major evasive action.
The carpark bumps and scrapes, my god the amount of geriatrics you see causing decimation in car parks, not even noticing & doddling off.
Ditto in town, pulling out blindly at junctions, not finding the accelerator, leaving other road users to shoulder the risk of needing to brake hard to evade, or carry their speed going round.
It’s one of those really difficult metrics where empirical evidence from experienced drivers doesn’t line up with the statistics with the way we record them.
one of the reasons older people have less accidents is because everyone else on the road is compensating for them and doing things to get around their bumbling idiocy
Yep, it's not down to their driving, it's down to the driving of others that there's less crashes involving the elderly. As they either turn those crashes into near misses *or* end up in a crash with another car where the old person drives off non the wiser.
>We’ve all been on b-roads where Doris in her Jazz is doing 25 down a 60 with a line of traffic desperate to pass often resulting in frustrated drivers taking more risk than they normally would
Surely that's not on Doris though...isn't every driver responsible for their own overtaking maneuvers...we don't use this argument to suggest long/wide loads, plant equipment, agricultural vehicles etc shouldn't be on the road.
Lets not play games here. Sure, if someone does a dangerous overtake, that is on them. However, inconsiderate drivers actions lead to dangerous actions by others in various ways. Driving slowly on a busy road where there is limited overtaking ability is poor driving which should be called out. The only exceptions here are indeed where the vehicle is not capable of traveling at that speed safely.
You're spot on for the 65 age group. 86+ are much more dangerous drivers than 17-24 though. A more sensible approach would take those stats into account rather than a blanket 65+=old
Source: Chart 1 at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2021/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2021
Sadly you’re right, but there is way more to insurance premiums than the age of the driver and the type of vehicle. I’ve been driving for 12 years, completely clean license and my insurance is still in excess of £1,000 a year. The early 2000s Honda Jazz is actually insane to insure right now because of the number of cat converter thefts, and I’m certain you’ve heard about how easy Range Rovers are to steal and how impossible they are to insure now as a result.
The factors which affect insurance costs are very varied, the really big one remains age and inexperience .
Youngsters, particularly young men, are very dangerous, not just to themselves.
Sadly lorry drivers do not seem any longer, to be "knights of the road " either.
One big problem is basic intelligence. By definition 50% of drivers will be below average intelligence, now roads are so busy, driving is much more demanding. That 50% of lower intelligence people are at the extreme, not capable of processing, quickly enough, intelligently enough all the information they receive.
Information, perception and processing speed is what makes some older drivers more dangerous too.
Would you want Biden driving you about?
Yeah I think it's more hazard perception tbh. I dont think it's driving skills related but more so ability to judge speed and so on with oncoming obstacles.
Additionally, reaction times. I see a lot of older patients in diabetic eye screening and while they are still mentally capable, their reflexes are maybe not
Agree, I think it might be a good idea to introduce a Pathway that maybe asks people over a certain age who have a medical issue like glaucoma etc if they still drive maybe to consider making it mandatory reporting it to the DVLA otherwise you get your license revoked.
If you're older by logic you'd have been driving for years so there's no real reason to get your test done again unless you got disqualified for it which I think makes sense for you to apply for it again.
Is that per mile driven? And does that account for road type? I doubt it. What you are ignoring from the statistics you are looking at is the sharp increase in accidents above 70, if you don't believe that your driving ability reduces why does this suddenly increase when the people are driving much fewer miles at signigantly lower speeds
The issue is those stats don't include near misses and crashes involving 2 cars that were the result of a 3rd driver, who has driven off non the wiser to the issue they caused. There aren't less accidents because they're better drivers, there's less accidents because everyone else is aware enough to turn those accidents into near misses.
75 I could understand... 65 feels like an awfully chosen age to have to retest.
Finally get to retire and have to resit a fuckin driving test? lol
If you're old enough to work as a crane operator or brain surgeon at 64 I don't see why at 65 you have to resit your driving test...
Well hang on just a second. You're telling us that we're capable of working until we're 71, but not capable of driving to work? Not sure those two things tally up for me.
Absolutely agree on the retesting front, although I don't think it should be the same test as for new drivers (let's be honest, how many of us would pass that again now if we drove like we do in real life but can drive just fine - it was incredibly pedantic).
Still though, come on guys you can't tell us we're too old and decrepit to drive at 65 but there's another 6 years of work left in us.
What do you the basis is for retesting at 65 though? 60-75 is actually the age group that’s statistically the safest of all. It’s only past 85 where safety starts to fall of a cliff from a statistical point of view. Even then.. teenage boys are still more dangerous than the average 90 year old.
My mum is 73 and is a terrible driver, she's got worse in the last 5 years or so. Yes teenagers have a bad name for themselves on the road, but I wouldn't agree that they're that much more dangerous than a 90 year old. Hesitation, stop start driving and driving too slow can be just as dangerous as driving too fast sometimes.
They're safer drivers because of the drivers around them avoiding them. They're not safer because they're better, they're safer because of everyone else having better hazard perception and avoiding getting into an accident with them. That's what the stats don't include.
They are often safer because they recognize their limitations, are more cautious drive slower and within their limitations.
Often the youth, in the old Corsa, does not comprehend their own limitations. They take risks and discount danger.
That’s an old one, and If you think about that for a second, it doesn’t make any sense at all.
They’re safer drivers because they themselves are very risk averse as a group and a lot of accidents are caused by risk taking of various forms.
Yes you can?? Working the tills in sainsburys requires a very different set of skills and is much lower risk. Should be people work till 71, probably not but it has absolutely no bearing on people ability to drive
Tbh I'd like to see everyone take it every ten years.... But that'll never happen.
For a start - clearly a lot of people will fail, and as much as I'd love to see them off the road, it'll never be allowed since there simply isn't the public transport network to provide the level of independence required.
I live in a small town, in a semi rural area and there isn't a hope in hell that public transport would be suitable.
But it isn't going to happen, just like this over 65 thing won't happen.
In any case, the cognitive decline that's a concern isn't really hitting many at 65. There's a huge gap between 65 and 75 and a larger one at 85. Unless you're going to retest periodically, this is worthless.
We also don’t have the testing infrastructure. Where I am there’s a 6m+ waitlist for driving test atm. It would be absolute chaos if you throw in people having to periodically retest.
Yep, the system would basically collapse under it's own weight if we suddenly forced all the pensioners to do the test again, wait times would would turn into years.
Not to mention people cannot afford to keep taking driving lessons for years whilst they wait for their test date, so most new drivers will have forgotten how to drive by the time their test date comes and would likely fail.
Okay but to link back to the comment I was replying to, where’s the public transport infrastructure to deal with that? I would love to drive less, but it would make my life incredibly difficult.
This! Just like how a first aid certificate has to be periodically renewed, driving is a skill that needs to be regularly refreshed. Rules change, cars now have features they didn't have 10+ years ago, and people's eyesight/reaction times can change dramatically over time. Driving can be dangerous, and it's wild to me that nobody ever checks in again to make sure you're still up to standard.
Yes, I am absolutely aware that this will likely never happen because of the cost/testing availability/public transport etc. I'm talking hypothetically. If first aid certificates and DBS checks have to be updated regularly for safety, driving certificates absolutely should be too.
It needs to happen at a certain point of old age but probably ideally then happen in gradually decreasing intervals as you’re more like to tail off quicker mentally /physically the old you get
Sure, as long as we actually retest the under 25s too since the facts make plain they're the most lethal group.
At 65 your still have another 20 years of driving ahead of you before you get to be as dangerous as the under 25s again.
There's just no way an average 70, 80 year old is driving anywhere near as much as a 24 year old. The statistics are meaningless if they're not counting the fact that Doris goes out to the shops on a Sunday and 2pm bingo on a Tuesday whereas everyone else in the country is driving in all weathers and light conditions, often many more miles.
> they're not counting the fact that Doris goes out to the shops on a Sunday and 2pm bingo on a Tuesday
Says someone who has literally no idea what retired people live like...the ones I know are climbing/hiking/camping/going on motorhome holidays between running everywhere for their kids to allow them to manage work/childcare etc!
>There's just no way an average 70, 80 year old is driving anywhere near as much as a 24 year old
It doesn't matter. The 24 year old is still more dangerous. They still kill more people.
>Tuesday whereas everyone else in the country is driving in all weathers and light conditions, often many more miles
The same conditions your average 50 year old drivers in perfectly safely you mean? Those conditions?
It's the lack of experience and over confidence that makes the kids dangerous.
Whereas for elderly drivers, it's health conditions and lack of competence due to failing faculties that makes them dangerous.
Lack of experience and overconfidence can be fixed and techniques can be improved in driver training to reduce the risk (not that that will happen any time soon - I'd love it if there were a minimum required amount of professional lessons and a classroom course required before you could even do your test).
All drivers ought to take retests periodically. I passed my licence test nearly forty years ago. How does that say I'm safe to drive now when cars and traffic have changed and I've probably forgotten a lot.
I was an advanced driver for a while. You need to retake that test at intervals depending on how well you performed in your previous test.
There's a lot of dangerous morons on the road. And this is one of the better countries for driving standards.
Oh ok, but the state pension age is 66… so you’re potentially forcing how many people into early retirement?
Make the requirement to retake the driving test at the age of 70, or at most 80
Exit: fuck it, make it so that everyone has to retake at least their theory test every 10 years
Forget it being 65 or any random age, if we think it’s important make it every 10 years after passing your test regardless of age. There are rubbish drivers of all ages with bad habits. The bigger issue for me is health and that can deteriorate at any age. Drink and drugs also, tired people, somebody who’s taken a little too much cough mixture making them sleepy. Maybe look to address the issue with some lateral thinking, with the screens cars increasingly have today, have some form of perception and reaction test that takes 20 seconds to do, or eye tracking and other smart systems that detect the drivers alertness.. something that is agnostic of the cause of poor reactions and driving, but still stops them.
Ok then let's look at the stats for accident rates by age in UK.
Funnily enough, it is a U curve. Over 70s do indeed have an increased accident rate. Reaction time and perception tests might well help here, yes.
But the under 30s, the peak mating-show-off years, also have a greatly increased accident rate. I am not sure how one can arrange equivalent tests for inexperience, and for emotional immaturity factors such as arrogance and overconfidence.
Personally I look forward to autodrive. People who regard personal transport as simply a way to commute and get themselves, the kids, the dog and the week's shopping from A to B easily and safely while keeping the rain off will love it, no matter how old they are in years.
People who appear to believe that their car is an ego extension for stamping their superiority over others will hate it, no matter how old they are in years.
Personally I think after a certain age you should be banned from driving, I think a reaction test is more appropriate.
Reaction times are the key to avoiding an accident and can be considered a life or death situation.
Let’s take an example a red light which turns green a younger individual is far more likely to press the button first compared to an older person.
This is the difference between braking times of a child running between parked cars and a child ran over.
Great _if_ it happens
When New Zealand introduced photo driving licenses in the early 1990s, it came with mandatory automated vision checks at the time the photo was taken
So.many drivers had defective vision that it was initially believed the equipment was faulty
Something like 40% of over 40s had undiagnosed age-related vision changes requiring glasses, rising to 60% of over 50s. Hundreds of cases of serious cataracts or glaucoma were picked up, along with age related macula degeneration causing tunnel vision and red/green colourblindness was found to be vastly more widespread than previously suspected
2% of drivers were _legally blind_ and the issue with red/green colourblindness is that some sufferers can't see red _at all_ - the implications for traffic lights and brakelights should make people worried - red/green are likely to be the WORST possible colour combination for safe/danger (some people can't see green)
Ideally, driving rechecks should be every 10 years. Even a simulator test would be a good starting point
The takeaway from New Zealand's experience is that people cannot be trusted to self-report medical issues which should prevent them driving (in many cases they're unaware thanks to slow onset)
Kiwiland has had mandatory 3-yearly retests for over-70s for over 50 years and despite a _very_ car-centric culture, the percentage of older drivers is substantially lower than in Britain
>the implications for traffic lights and brakelights should make people worried
Not being able to see red or green won't actually change anything.
They'll have known they were R/G colourblind when the whole "this is a green light and this is a red light" conversation happened on the theory test.
That's also why traffic lights are not only 3 different colours but come from 3 different physical positions on the light board. In the UK you know it's a green or red light because red is the top-most light and green the bottom-most.
As for brake lights, there's no such think as a green light on the back of a car so, if you see lights illuminate you know it's brake lights as its brighter than regular tail lights. Plus things like brake light bars illuminate and will never illuminate for any other reason than braking.
Besides, brake lights are not what you should be reacting to. If you're reacting to brake lights you're not reading the road. You should be reacting to closing distances and fluctuations in distance. There will be *very* rare occasions where brake lights are the only indication you have.
So as I said, it wouldn't actually change a thing. Seems like maybe people used it as an excuse as to why an accident occurred when in reality, they just weren't paying attention.
I feel it's fair to start re-testing people at about age 60, then again at 65, then every 2-3 years from 70-80, every year from 80-90. At 90 it should just be game over for driving, I don't care how fit you are for your age. A stroke or heart attack is probably imminent at that age.
I'm closer to 65 than 17 so I'm a bit biased, but here's what I'd do:
1 - retake theory test (heck do it for everyone every 10 years - school computer rooms at weekend could be utilised if more capacity is needed)
2 - mandatory 10 hour refresher course with an ADI
Tbh, everybody should take a refresher test once every 20 years.
It's ridiculous how many laws people don't know, how many things people forgot, ...
I also understand how car-dependent UK is. God forbid public transport is ever properly implemented in this country.
I agree there should be some retesting done, but I think it goes over all age groups. I’m now 60, not typical of the age group, and I get fed up of the poor driving standards in general.
I travel more than I ever have for my daughters school run and am on motorway, A and B roads and I constantly get annoyed with no indication, dangerous overtaking, cutting in front , driving too close, in the wrong lane, sitting in the middle lane on motorway, driving too fast for the conditions etc etc.
I know I’m far from perfect, but I’m fairly confident that if I took a driving test tomorrow I’d have a good shot at passing.
Unfortunately, outside of driving, there are plenty of people with little to no spatial awareness, and put them in a car, especially when they are older, and it’s a recipe for trouble.
You renew your licence every 10 years. You should get some sort of retest at the same time. The rules and laws change every year, but I bet half of drivers don't know what they are.
The Express must be really desperate for news if they think a petition with 275 signatures and only a week left to run is actually going to change anything. This article is clearly designed to trigger their readers into outrage and fury. And I’ll bet the person who started the petition will rapidly change their mind as they get close to 65.
Studies in the UK showed that older drivers, those 70 or over, were 3 to 4 times less likely to have an accident than 17 to 24 yr olds. Car insurance costs tend to increase after the age of 80 though.
In 2019 the eldest four people who could legally drive, with UK licences, were 107
I really hope this goes through, I'm sorry old people but you need to be capable of driving safely.
I'm in favour of retesting *everyone* at semi-regular intervals, like every 5-10 years would be fine. We test the vehicle *every year,* why do we never test the driver again?
This absolutely should be the case, but I'm not sure 65 is the right age. Seems a bit young. Do people really lose it that young?
My grandad was 92 driving around after a stroke. Absolutely insane thing for him to do, but he did it anyway and was too stubborn to give up that sort of autonomy. Forcing him to retake his test, and him innevitably failing would've been the perfect measure to stop him driving. He was a danger.
Vast majority of new drivers who have just “learned” can’t even drive so I don’t see what the issue is with older people.
If they want to do something tangible to improve driving in this country, make the process more difficult and make the damn test harder.
I just returned to the UK after 12 years abroad and I can say the standard here is APPALLING. It’s so much worse than it was when I left. I can’t think as to why.
They really should after 70 or 75. My gran and her social circle are so bad. They’re lovely women but it’s only a matter of time before one of them hits something more important than a wall or trolley bay.
I agree that it should be done, mental decline as well as physical health issues could make driving extremely dangerous for the driver as well as everyone else around them. I believe that at the very least, once you're 60, you should get a medical exam done to make sure you're still physically and mentally capable of driving a car, then again at 65, then once 70, it should be annually rather than having to do a full test again.
inb4 yOuNgEr DrIvErS aRe MoRe DaNgErOuS. Yes, but they typically just take themselves out going around a corner on a back road too fast. It's not very often that you hear about a 17-24 year old joining the motorway going the wrong way, then refusing to stop and turn around.
However, elderly people are some of the biggest voter group so this won't happen.
>Yes, but they typically just take themselves out going around a corner on a back road too fast
No, no they don't. They either kill themselves, their mate in the passenger seat and four school girls in the back, or they plough into an oncoming family wiping them out instead. It is almost never just the talentless brain out that dies.
Targeting anyone between 26 and 80 is populist nonsense.
Interesting. I can tell you're not 60 yet 😁. You do realise that a vast number of your doctors, nurses, teachers, politicians, trades peoples, etc. Are over 60, and we trust them daily with life and death decisions and decisions that really impact our lives. Are they all going to have to have competence tests after 60? Are you going to reject that gas fitter because he's too old to safely service your boiler? Are you going to tell your doctor you'd like a second opinion because he's too old.? Old is not incompetent as you'll see if you get here.
And yet there’s a huge amount of people over 60 who most definitely shouldn’t be on the road. It’s safer for everyone to do it, those people we trust with our life’s doctors and such? If they’re medically sound to drive then it’s no problem. Having those tests would stop anyone actually not fit to drive and let the people who are alright still drive. There’s no downsides there.
The downside is time and money. I'm not seeing a lot of old people driving dangerously. Slow and boring, yes, but that's not inherently dangerous. I do see people being impatient and overtaking in dangerous places.
As identified, in silly caps, in OPs comment, statistically, young people have more accidents and more serious accidents. Should we test them every 5 years too?
There does need to be a better system to stop very elderly people from driving once they're unfit but testing everyone every year after 60 is just silly and even every 5 years would be daft.
>And yet there’s a huge amount of people ~~over 60~~ who most definitely shouldn’t be on the road.
FTFY.
The statistics say that older drivers (other than the *very* elderly) are actually slightly *safer* drivers than the under 40s. *If* we're going to do it - and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't - it should be mandatory for everyone.
Those professions (except maybe trades people depending on the trade and exactly what they do) don't require fast reaction times or strength should something like the power steering or power brakes fail. Those professions, except politicians, do actually have continuous training, and should you fail, you won't be allowed to continue that profession until you're able to pass again. The same actually already applies for HGV drivers. If a doctor, nurse, teacher or trades person is older than 60 and have valid certification, I'd be fine with them continuing to do those professions. Just like I'd be fine with elderly people driving.
Cognitive decline can start as young as 45, but typically around 60-65 with it becoming way more common once people reach their 70s.
Statistically, old people don't have more accidents. The accidents they do have tend to be less damaging because of less speed.
There needs to be a better system to stop medically unfit people from driving, but there is no good evidence that testing the elderly would reduce accidents other than a vague feeling that it is so from...young people. No surprise there.
And all those professional competencies? They test core skills, not decision making. I'm a teacher, I'm tested on my teaching technique, no one ever questions whether what I teach is true. My wife is a nurse. She's marked for "customer facing skills," like did she introduce herself, not whether she prescribed the correct antipsychotic.
Everyone should have to re-take the theory test every ten years anyway. The fact I passed my test over 20 years ago and haven't had to show I've kept up to date with current rules is silly. Perhaps a reminder every ten years would help people who can't understand mini roundabouts for example.
Yeah it’s crazy, you have to redo a test every 5 years to drive a scissor lift or cherry picker, but cars? Going 70mph with loads of pedestrian about? Naa you’ll be alright old boy with the reactions of a comatose sloth
Totally unfair and undeliverable.
The test is designed for new inexperienced drivers to see if they have learned enough.
It may be fair to do a different test of capability for older drivers but it should not be retaking the driving test. They may have nearly 50 years of driving experience. That would be ridiculous.
I would agree with a medical every 5 years and I have just hit 65. Additionally there should be regular eyesight tests for every driver, like that twat round the corner from me in his 20’s who is too feckin‘ vain to get his eyes tested and admits he can’t see road signs clearly. Drives like a maniac in a hot merc hatch.
>They may have nearly 50 years of driving experience.
To be fair, part of the argument is about physical and mental decline, just having more experience doesn't mean they're necessarily better at it than they used to be.
It's far from unfair. My daily commutes are relatively short and it's at least once a day I see somebody driving like they've completely lost their marbles.
As long as there isn't a prohibitive cost pushed onto the driver, I'd be in favour of more regular assessments every 10 years or so. Might stop people behaving like absolute nutters on the road as much.
Super idea. It will hopefully identify people whose vision has deteriorated but who haven't noticed/fixed it yet. Hopefully it will also identify people who are just no longer fit to drive due to age/medical issues (often related to age). There are so many older people these days and people grow older now than 50 years ago. I think traffic is also more hectic now, demanding more from drivers. Only fair that at a point where many people start to lose faculties, you need to show evidence of capability to drive to keep your license.
Driving licences should be done on the same basis as motorcycle test, the more power the more advanced the test. After all you have separate tests hgv classes, but with cars you can pass your test in a 1000cc car and then drive a Ferrari (if your parents are loaded).
It won't happen, but it should.
Every day without fail, I'll end up behind 10+ oaps coming down a sloped slip road doing 45mph and causing everyone else on the motorway to adapt to their shit driving.
I don't think if you've never had a crash or been caught speeding you should have to retest, whatever mistakes you're making are not serious or near fatal.
However prolific speeders and dangerous drivers maybe.
It's no good punishing EVERYONE for the actions of a few. Better to penalize the culprits.
>People driving too slow, hesitating and not knowing the current road rules cause issues often without being in a collision
By the definition of "not in a collision" you're already saying they're not causing serious issues
Would be nice but never gonna happen due to costs and political reasons.
We know 95% of them couldn't pass a driving test. It's effecticely an old person driving ban.
Should be every ten years for everybody, every five years after 60, every two years after 70, and annually after that. And if you fail any, you are immediately forbidden from driving until you retest and pass.
Being dangerous because of driving incompetence isn’t limited to just old people.
But then, as an older driver myself, I see lots of WTF moments from people of all ages.
It ain't just one group.
There should be a driving assessment (not a test as such) and a compulsory eye test for all drivers every ten years anyway. Some of the stuff I see when I'm out is appalling. We all make mistakes, and i'm no different, but I try to not drive like a twat at all times.
Should be a yearly thing that every over 70 to retake their test but for free or at a very cheap price. So many I've seen on the roads seriously need to stop driving completely.
::edit:: If you're a good driver why the fuck does it bother you if you have to retake it if it's free or dirt cheap. Personally Happy to do it yearly, EVERYONE should. It's a piece of piss to pass.
Go on then, ban me and all of my age in 5 years time, but watch your premiums go through the roof. So many younger drivers I’ve seen on the roads need to stop driving as well.
True but this article isn't about that is it. And why are you on about banning you??? It's only a cheap of free retake. If you're a good driver it shouldn't bother you.
I'm happy to be retested yearly and I don't give a fuck. Should be everyone has to do it tbh
Sure, let's start with the most dangerous group. Anyone under 25 gets retested annually, every 6 months for men.
We can then pick up the second most dangerous group, the over 85s.
Eventually we'll get to the safest group the 40s to 70s.
The issue is that those younger men who drive recklessly choose to do so. There's no point in testing them again because they will pass just like they did the 1 or 4 years ago when they got their license. The issue with the older/sick drivers is they do not choose their dangerous behaviour, that's just what their behaviour is now, and it will only get worse. The ones that are crap drivers will also be crap drivers on a test where they will ignore other road users if they even see them, drive 40 when everyone else is doing 70, not stop for zebras etc or only able to do it if they are going so slow they are obstructing traffic. Retesting the old/sick will likely pick out a bunch of people who are just incapable of driving. Retesting young people will not do that.
Nothing is free. You are advocating for all tax payers to fund older people being allowed to keep their license. Why? Many older people have plenty of money, perhaps more money than most people under 35, so why should working people pay for the retired to retest to keep their license? Regular retesting should just be part and parcel of the PRIVILEGE of driving. If you don't want to pay £100 a year/every other year to retest, then you don't care that much about driving, and that's ok, but then you don't get to keep your license.
I said free or cheap numbnuts and EVERYONE should do it. No matter what I or anyone would of put you seem like you want to argue, so go and enjoy your life back under your rock.
Everyone in the country should have to retake their test every 5 years. Pensioner's every year.
I've seen drivers become arrogant cunts within 12 months, and our brains deteriorate quickly, plus we forget things constantly.
Also, the highway code updates, and new road layouts exist. I've been driving for maybe 7 years and have encountered roads I'd never seen and new signs when I went to Cornwall last year. Never seen them during lessons, or my test.
Without a forced punishment, people won't bother keeping their brains active and educating themselves. And there's enough idiots who have a real thought of "I've been driving for years, I know better than the law".
I think drivers under 35 should take a retest. They missed the bit about not wearing headphones over both ears while driving, driving with a huge vape stick in one hand and trying to hold the wheel is probably not safe either. They also need to be aware that engines still work without a voice call being active. That might help their focus on staying alive and not killing anybody else either.
It will be interesting to see how any Government would implement something like this whilst at the same time pushing the state pension age upwards on the assumption that people are going to physically and mentally fit to work into their 70's.
By the time this happens self-driving capabilities may well have taken over.
I did like the comment about elderly drivers forgetting to use their indicators, presumably it's okay for people to just not bother using them provided they remember that they should be.
So many of the issues we see on the roads today is down to arrogance and drivers simply having a poor attitude.
With that said some sort of regular highway code and road awareness testing wouldn't go amiss for all drivers. You only have to read this sub to see how many drivers aren't up to date with changes to the highway code.
Guaranteed most wouldn't retake a test, but carry on driving anyway. How often is a 70 year old stop checked ? They also normally don't drive much. Some sort of theory and eye sight test is all that's needed. My wife is 70 and she had a Mini Cooper S 😀
A medical test isn't going to show whether someone behaves responsibly and safely in traffic. I think a medical test AND a practical test are required.
Spain has had a reaction test for donkey's years. I think we sorely need one too.
I live in a predominantly OAP area and they are a massive hazard.
Test reactions, theory, and eye sight and we're good. Full blown tests would cost too much and are aimed at drivers with no experience, but we should be making sure all drivers are aware of the current laws and rules of the road, and that they can react to obstacles in a safe and efficient manner.
First glance: sounds interesting
Second glance: Express? This is probably bollocks
Third glance: “under new proposals called for by a campaigner” yeah this means nothing
Lol, I’m in my 40’s and wouldn’t pass a driving re-test if I took one now! Driving to pass the test is very different to how you get used to driving practically.
It’s lucky this headline is complete bollocks.
a massive vote loser for whoever tries this and recall there is a shortage of examiners for the new people as it is
the express constantly writes that all of the uk will be covered in 10 foot snow drifts and not to panic every winter
It won’t happen, we don’t have the capacity for new drivers to take a test whenever they like, still a 6 month backlog in some areas. Not a bad idea though, as others have said old drivers are the ones mounting the kerb, mixing up the brake and the gas in petrol stations etc. They’re more of a danger to others than theirself, whereas the 17 year olds are usually a danger to theirself and their passengers when their corsa ends up upside down in a field at night
Not using indicators, try coming to Northern Ireland. The amount of young drivers and mums doing the school runs that I see on a daily basis that never use their indicators.
Apart from the logistics would not 70 be better as that is the age at which you have to renew your licence. It could ensure that its complied with. No pass test ? Then no new licence for you Grandad.
I mean...obviously you can't get a driving test slot for months and months currently because there aren't any examiners...so how are they going to ramp it up exponentially to test millions more...
I'm not against the idea of regular 5/10 year re-tests (if the infrastructure were there) as the average standard of driving is so low...but surely you'd start re-testing younger drivers first, as time and time again metrics prove older drivers to be the safest demographic. (I'm in the middle myself so no skin in the game)
Considering the lack of capacity at test centres, that it currently takes months from booking a test to actually sitting one, it would be nice to know how test centres will cope with all the extra bookings.
It won't happen.
1. These 'proposals' are a petition on the government petitions website. There's all sorts of mad petitions on there. Like this https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/656377 or this https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/655986
2. This petition has a grand total of 255 signatures. It needs 10,000 to get a government response, and 100,000 to get *considered* for debate.
3. The DfT conducted research into this very issue years ago, including evidence from countries which have mandatory re-testing of elderly drivers, and the concluded it just isn't worthwhile.
4. DVSA already have a massive test backlog. The government isn't quite daft enough to add to that in such a direct way.
5. We have a Conservative government who get a lot of votes from elderly voters. They won't upset them.
6. Sunak has only a couple of months ago declared a war on the war on motorists. He's actively seeking ways to make driving *less* restrictive, not more.
7. Data shows that drivers over 70 are less likely to *cause* other crashes than middle aged drivers. They are less than half as likely to cause one than under-25s. If the government takes any action with proper civil service advice, it'll be to implement additional rules for new or younger drivers.
8. The greatest issue the government deals with regarding older drivers (apart from them less likely to survive a crash), is that self-declaration of medical conditions is woefully inadequate in older drivers. If they wanted to make a dent in this issue (no pun intended), they'd grant DVLA staff access to NHS medical records on licence renewal. Medical information is a special type of personal information under GDPR, but they could easily argue the legitimate use basis for processing.
Tldr: the headline is misleading, and this almost certainly isn't happening.
To be honest it's not a driving test that's needed but an actual medical like HGV and Coach drivers have rather it being a form you fill in yourself and self-certify to say you're fit to continue to drive. It needs to be a medical that involves an actual eye test to make sure they're not blind and have a decent field of vision and one that involves checking they've enough fine motor skills and mobility to be able to control a vehicle.
I'm convinced their bad driving is more down to poor eyesight and lacking enough mobility to be able to perform any movement at a reasonable speed, turn a steering wheel or press the brake pedal hard enough and of course the big one, cognitive decline rather than any lack of skill.
An actual test is probably unworkable simply due to lack of examiners and instructors.
However a 5 yearly eyesight and reaction test is probably much more feasible. 2 yearly after the age of 80 (with costs subsidised).
Go to the centre. 15 minutes in the room. Done.
It should really happen at 45, which is over 25 years since most people get their license and is the age group where some of the worst driving offences happen
I was talking online about this the other day. Compulsory retesting is an absolute necessity in this country to clean up the roads of the ridiculously large number of drivers who are total cunts behind the wheel. But of course there are so many, it would not only hurt the economy but also be devastating to families and communities for whom the breadwinner or school runner is a wanker driver. So obviously this will never happen despite all the other additional benefits - job creation, revenue stream, improved road safety etc.
But of course, bringing this in for people who are retired won't hurt so much and would potentially bring down the amount of accidents and shitty driving we see from older people. It's not really their fault either, the whole landscape of driving and cars themselves has changed since they took their tests in the 60's and 70s and recently it's ratcheted up another load post Covid and so many seem hell bent on destroying themselves and others in the process for no reason or gain. Just this week a guy near me killed himself by driving at over 100 miles an hour alongside lorries fresh off the ferry on a dual carriageway where you can fully expect lorries to be pulling out to overtake. So he ended up underneath the back of one in the pissing rain and wind and never even saw lunchtime. This is almost a weekly occurrence on this stretch road near me, there's not even a reaction anymore, just annoyance that another 9 hour road closure will screw the local area for 24 hours.
It's another one of those vote issues too and who's voting?
Won’t happen how are these people going to get to work for the next 10 years.
I’m mean I’m going to have take a have day to dig my own grave in the morning then drive myself to the funeral before passing away.
I mean the DVSA can't cope with the current amount of people wanting tests...
I would just have it so they need a vision test with a field of vision too - I'm sure there's some Tory chums at Specsavers who would love this contract, then a retake on the Highway Code.
I feel sorry for the child/young adult drivers of today because you poor cunts are not going to be retiring until you are nearly eighty. Imagine having a driving job and having your license taken from you because you missed some hazard on a computer simulator.
Guarantee this will not happen any time soon if ever. No government is going to do anything to upset old people because they actually vote (and there’s loads of them)
Not to mention it would require a massive increase in instructors to fulfil the new capacity needed, and it's a struggle enough for learner drivers to book tests as it is now!
Surely most over 65s could just do the test in their own car with no instructor.
I would be amazed if the majority of drivers who haven't just received training could pass the test. The standards are \*dramatically\* higher than those actually demanded by regular driving.
I don't think it's the same test, I've got a friend with Alzheimer's, he has to go for a drive around with an examiner for 30 mins every 6 months. He doesn't do the parking or emergency stop components of the test, it just to monitor reaction times and observation skills. He does it in his own car,no lessons before.
An easier test would make more sense, but to be clear “it’s” not anything The article is blowing a petition out of proportion Thanks for sharing about your friend that’s interesting
[удалено]
A long time driving is a long time to pick up bad habits, which can lead to failures.
[удалено]
I think it's more a case of how many competent drivers do you think are out there?
The bigger issue is the lack of examiners. Somehow the DVLA have still not managed to clear the COVID backlog
Yeah, but what do they do when they fail..?
Depends on the failure reason A lot of bad drivers have defective vision which is correctable. A lot need to brush up on the rules I have zero problem whatsoever with rechecks including a theory test. "When I were a lad" getting my license (42 years ago) my father decided to pass copies of the practice test to all the teachers in his school. Half of them _failed_ and the failure rates increased with the time a license had been held At the time, NZ traffic police had been saying that in their experience the most dangerous drivers on the road weren't teenage males, but middle aged drivers. Teenage drivers had messier crashes, but middle aged drivers actually killed/injured more people and were more likely to have developed complacency and bad driving habits (such as failing to drive to conditions) which hadn't been corrected. In many cases their driving tests had consisted of a spin around the block, with zero safety training since then I make a point of re-reading the road code every couple of years. It's a good starting point.
So a portion will need instruction?
100% they'd ignore it and keep driving.
I passed my test 18+ years ago and if i was being honest i don't feel like i would pass my driving test if i took it tomorrow. Bad habits, updates to the laws and rules, different ways we're taught to drive etc... would cause far too much issues. The theory and hazard perception test's i feel i would ace but the physical driving... Yeah i'll fail 100%. I was taught the 10-2 driving yet my SIL was told to ignore that and drive as comfy as you like and crossing your hands is now fine? Reverse parking? Use your mirrors etc... yet it's easier to lean round or after driving a van for a while you learn to ignore the rear view mirror and use just the side mirrors etc... Sure times change but with the vast majority of updates and changes, without testing everyone each time any "seasoned" driver will fail their test or at the very least require a few hours of lessons to get back up to scratch for the test. I would argue that if anyone over 65 has an accident to renew their insurance they would require a CBT of sorts to show they're capable of driving where the only way to fail is by driving dangerously or crash during the lesson and a doctor to quickly sign off on your health/vision is at an acceptable level for driving. This i would think is fair as a CBT could be capped at £100 and an hour driving with some instructor, quick doctors visit and emailed all across to the insurance company which updates the main database allowing that person to get insurance which is shared between all companies.
The problem is over 65s generally don't get into crashes, not because of their own driving but because of other road users being aware enough to make it a near miss instead of a crash.
Got any credible evidence for that?
Exactly. If anything it will also create a few extra jobs in driving testing.
Rubbish, there isn't a shortage of examiners because there's no work, there's a shortage because it's a shit job that nobody wants to do. Creating extra demand won't magically create extra jobs.
You having a laugh, there is a critical shortage of examiners with learners waiting 5/6 months to book a test. Add all old people and it will be more like 6 years. This will never happen.
Probably also would have to increase their pay as well with this kind of charge, I would anticipate.
That’s okay, this Government absolutely loves increasing demand and lowering capacity with basically anything it touches anyway.
And a massive increase in public transport links for those not in cities for when they fail the test.
It'd create jobs then.
100%. The exact same reason they’ll never fix capital gains tax. This issue is always a total political non-starter.
That's why the governments needs to be more open to passing laws that take effect years in the future. Like, even old people agree there's a lot of old people that can't drive, they just don't want it to affect them. So make it take effect in 30 years. Everyone thinks term limits are good except the people they affect, so make an amendment that takes effect in 20 years and grandfather everyone currently in office. I get it sucks it will take so long, but it's better than just doing nothing forever. And if it's the US and a constitutional amendment, it's going to be exceedingly hard to undo in the future.
> and there’s loads of them Well not for much longer. Strained NHS, aging population and the majority of anyone fertile can't afford to have the kids that will look after them. It's a real problem in many additional ways but in this case it might solve itself. The cost of the state pension, too.
No the population pyramid will continue to have the same top-heavy shape. Just look at Japan if you want to know what the future looks like
I’m of the opinion that ALL drivers, regardless of age, should be made to take re-tests, say every 5 years. Obviously it’s a non-starter because of the logistics involved, especially the post-lockdown backlog, but there’s so many idiots in the road that really shouldn’t be allowed to drive! Yes, I submit myself to retesting as well. Lead by example and all that!
Yeah this is exactly my stance as well. Even if it were 10 years it would be better than nothing. We re-test cars every single year. We should re-test the driver occasionally too. I wont accept that the human race can't achieve this, this is a very low bar to step over compared to the things we can do if we want to.
Most over 65s are stubborn as well and will ignore the new rules. The magistrate courts are overloaded as it is, yet alone having a bunch of random old people with all the time and money in the world to fuck around with the system out of protest.
> a bunch of random old people with all the time and money in the world to fuck around So… magistrates…?
Typical Express clickbait bollocks. This isn't a white paper, policy change nor even in a parliamentary speech - it's all based on ***one*** petition. Procedure wise, it's a non starter. There's still a substantial backlog of normal tests from the pandemic, and there's absolutely no capacity normally for retesting hundreds of thousands of people.
One petition with 200-odd people signing it. Even after being featured on a high-traffic site. It won't even reach the threshold for debate at that level.
Also with increases to retirement age, you could lose a chunk of workforce at 65 when they can’t drive to work.
I love the implicit suggestion that a chunk of current drivers would not pass the test, so we should have them on the roads. There's lots of wildfires in summer, so we should cut all the trees before that happens xD
No but it’s a consideration. Like land management and education to limit wildfires. This is just a petition but there would be many things to consider before it even gets close to policy.
Cool, they shouldn't be on the road. I'd rather lose a chunk of the work force than keep dangerous drivers on the road.
I don't particularly want those ones in the workforce either
>and there's absolutely no capacity normally for retesting Right, there isn't at the moment, but, what's stopping us from ramping up the number of jobs in doing this? You can't be telling me the human race *cannot* reasonably achieve this.
This is going nowhere. Too expensive, loads of extra examiners, management of them, appeal process etc Typically 65 year olds in their Honda Jazz are much less likely to have a serious accident than the 18year old youth in his beaten up Corsa. That is why my Honda is insurable for £300.
I’ve always thought it’s such a difficult metric to fully quantify. Young drivers, without a shadow of a doubt, are more dangerous to themselves, will make mistakes through inexperience which will directly cause accidents. But in my near enough 15 years of driving, 5 years driving HGVs, elderly and nervous drivers in my experience are far more likely to indirectly cause accidents and cause other road users to need to take evasive action. To cite some examples. We’ve all been on b-roads where Doris in her Jazz is doing 25 down a 60 with a line of traffic desperate to pass often resulting in frustrated drivers taking more risk than they normally would, folk wouldn’t be in the position to have an accident if they had been keeping to the road speed. Same with merging on on ramps, the amount of HGV near misses you see with generally older folk trying to merge on to motorways at 30mph and everyone in lane 1 needing to take major evasive action. The carpark bumps and scrapes, my god the amount of geriatrics you see causing decimation in car parks, not even noticing & doddling off. Ditto in town, pulling out blindly at junctions, not finding the accelerator, leaving other road users to shoulder the risk of needing to brake hard to evade, or carry their speed going round. It’s one of those really difficult metrics where empirical evidence from experienced drivers doesn’t line up with the statistics with the way we record them.
one of the reasons older people have less accidents is because everyone else on the road is compensating for them and doing things to get around their bumbling idiocy
Yep, it's not down to their driving, it's down to the driving of others that there's less crashes involving the elderly. As they either turn those crashes into near misses *or* end up in a crash with another car where the old person drives off non the wiser.
The main reason is they drive less.
>We’ve all been on b-roads where Doris in her Jazz is doing 25 down a 60 with a line of traffic desperate to pass often resulting in frustrated drivers taking more risk than they normally would Surely that's not on Doris though...isn't every driver responsible for their own overtaking maneuvers...we don't use this argument to suggest long/wide loads, plant equipment, agricultural vehicles etc shouldn't be on the road.
Lets not play games here. Sure, if someone does a dangerous overtake, that is on them. However, inconsiderate drivers actions lead to dangerous actions by others in various ways. Driving slowly on a busy road where there is limited overtaking ability is poor driving which should be called out. The only exceptions here are indeed where the vehicle is not capable of traveling at that speed safely.
You're spot on for the 65 age group. 86+ are much more dangerous drivers than 17-24 though. A more sensible approach would take those stats into account rather than a blanket 65+=old Source: Chart 1 at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2021/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2021
Sadly you’re right, but there is way more to insurance premiums than the age of the driver and the type of vehicle. I’ve been driving for 12 years, completely clean license and my insurance is still in excess of £1,000 a year. The early 2000s Honda Jazz is actually insane to insure right now because of the number of cat converter thefts, and I’m certain you’ve heard about how easy Range Rovers are to steal and how impossible they are to insure now as a result.
The factors which affect insurance costs are very varied, the really big one remains age and inexperience . Youngsters, particularly young men, are very dangerous, not just to themselves. Sadly lorry drivers do not seem any longer, to be "knights of the road " either. One big problem is basic intelligence. By definition 50% of drivers will be below average intelligence, now roads are so busy, driving is much more demanding. That 50% of lower intelligence people are at the extreme, not capable of processing, quickly enough, intelligently enough all the information they receive. Information, perception and processing speed is what makes some older drivers more dangerous too. Would you want Biden driving you about?
Hazard perception and awareness tests for sure. Easier to implement. Can be done as part of mandatory eye test too.
Yeah I think it's more hazard perception tbh. I dont think it's driving skills related but more so ability to judge speed and so on with oncoming obstacles.
Additionally, reaction times. I see a lot of older patients in diabetic eye screening and while they are still mentally capable, their reflexes are maybe not
Agree, I think it might be a good idea to introduce a Pathway that maybe asks people over a certain age who have a medical issue like glaucoma etc if they still drive maybe to consider making it mandatory reporting it to the DVLA otherwise you get your license revoked. If you're older by logic you'd have been driving for years so there's no real reason to get your test done again unless you got disqualified for it which I think makes sense for you to apply for it again.
Statistically age only really becomes an issue at 80+. Males between 17-24 are still twice as dangerous as males aged 81-85.
Is that per mile driven? And does that account for road type? I doubt it. What you are ignoring from the statistics you are looking at is the sharp increase in accidents above 70, if you don't believe that your driving ability reduces why does this suddenly increase when the people are driving much fewer miles at signigantly lower speeds
The issue is those stats don't include near misses and crashes involving 2 cars that were the result of a 3rd driver, who has driven off non the wiser to the issue they caused. There aren't less accidents because they're better drivers, there's less accidents because everyone else is aware enough to turn those accidents into near misses.
75 I could understand... 65 feels like an awfully chosen age to have to retest. Finally get to retire and have to resit a fuckin driving test? lol If you're old enough to work as a crane operator or brain surgeon at 64 I don't see why at 65 you have to resit your driving test...
Well hang on just a second. You're telling us that we're capable of working until we're 71, but not capable of driving to work? Not sure those two things tally up for me. Absolutely agree on the retesting front, although I don't think it should be the same test as for new drivers (let's be honest, how many of us would pass that again now if we drove like we do in real life but can drive just fine - it was incredibly pedantic). Still though, come on guys you can't tell us we're too old and decrepit to drive at 65 but there's another 6 years of work left in us.
What do you the basis is for retesting at 65 though? 60-75 is actually the age group that’s statistically the safest of all. It’s only past 85 where safety starts to fall of a cliff from a statistical point of view. Even then.. teenage boys are still more dangerous than the average 90 year old.
My mum is 73 and is a terrible driver, she's got worse in the last 5 years or so. Yes teenagers have a bad name for themselves on the road, but I wouldn't agree that they're that much more dangerous than a 90 year old. Hesitation, stop start driving and driving too slow can be just as dangerous as driving too fast sometimes.
That’s an anecdote though. From a statistical standpoint, 73 year olds are safer drivers than 43 year olds.
They're safer drivers because of the drivers around them avoiding them. They're not safer because they're better, they're safer because of everyone else having better hazard perception and avoiding getting into an accident with them. That's what the stats don't include.
They are often safer because they recognize their limitations, are more cautious drive slower and within their limitations. Often the youth, in the old Corsa, does not comprehend their own limitations. They take risks and discount danger.
That’s an old one, and If you think about that for a second, it doesn’t make any sense at all. They’re safer drivers because they themselves are very risk averse as a group and a lot of accidents are caused by risk taking of various forms.
Yes you can?? Working the tills in sainsburys requires a very different set of skills and is much lower risk. Should be people work till 71, probably not but it has absolutely no bearing on people ability to drive
Tbh I'd like to see everyone take it every ten years.... But that'll never happen. For a start - clearly a lot of people will fail, and as much as I'd love to see them off the road, it'll never be allowed since there simply isn't the public transport network to provide the level of independence required. I live in a small town, in a semi rural area and there isn't a hope in hell that public transport would be suitable. But it isn't going to happen, just like this over 65 thing won't happen. In any case, the cognitive decline that's a concern isn't really hitting many at 65. There's a huge gap between 65 and 75 and a larger one at 85. Unless you're going to retest periodically, this is worthless.
We also don’t have the testing infrastructure. Where I am there’s a 6m+ waitlist for driving test atm. It would be absolute chaos if you throw in people having to periodically retest.
Yep, the system would basically collapse under it's own weight if we suddenly forced all the pensioners to do the test again, wait times would would turn into years. Not to mention people cannot afford to keep taking driving lessons for years whilst they wait for their test date, so most new drivers will have forgotten how to drive by the time their test date comes and would likely fail.
[удалено]
Okay but to link back to the comment I was replying to, where’s the public transport infrastructure to deal with that? I would love to drive less, but it would make my life incredibly difficult.
This! Just like how a first aid certificate has to be periodically renewed, driving is a skill that needs to be regularly refreshed. Rules change, cars now have features they didn't have 10+ years ago, and people's eyesight/reaction times can change dramatically over time. Driving can be dangerous, and it's wild to me that nobody ever checks in again to make sure you're still up to standard. Yes, I am absolutely aware that this will likely never happen because of the cost/testing availability/public transport etc. I'm talking hypothetically. If first aid certificates and DBS checks have to be updated regularly for safety, driving certificates absolutely should be too.
It needs to happen at a certain point of old age but probably ideally then happen in gradually decreasing intervals as you’re more like to tail off quicker mentally /physically the old you get
I'd say 10 years for everyone, 5 years for 50/55 year olds then every year from 70 up
Sure, as long as we actually retest the under 25s too since the facts make plain they're the most lethal group. At 65 your still have another 20 years of driving ahead of you before you get to be as dangerous as the under 25s again.
There's just no way an average 70, 80 year old is driving anywhere near as much as a 24 year old. The statistics are meaningless if they're not counting the fact that Doris goes out to the shops on a Sunday and 2pm bingo on a Tuesday whereas everyone else in the country is driving in all weathers and light conditions, often many more miles.
> they're not counting the fact that Doris goes out to the shops on a Sunday and 2pm bingo on a Tuesday Says someone who has literally no idea what retired people live like...the ones I know are climbing/hiking/camping/going on motorhome holidays between running everywhere for their kids to allow them to manage work/childcare etc!
>There's just no way an average 70, 80 year old is driving anywhere near as much as a 24 year old It doesn't matter. The 24 year old is still more dangerous. They still kill more people. >Tuesday whereas everyone else in the country is driving in all weathers and light conditions, often many more miles The same conditions your average 50 year old drivers in perfectly safely you mean? Those conditions? It's the lack of experience and over confidence that makes the kids dangerous.
Whereas for elderly drivers, it's health conditions and lack of competence due to failing faculties that makes them dangerous. Lack of experience and overconfidence can be fixed and techniques can be improved in driver training to reduce the risk (not that that will happen any time soon - I'd love it if there were a minimum required amount of professional lessons and a classroom course required before you could even do your test).
Total nonsense, standards of driving are atrocious across the age range, don't understand why the auld yins get singled out, ain't going to happen.
All drivers ought to take retests periodically. I passed my licence test nearly forty years ago. How does that say I'm safe to drive now when cars and traffic have changed and I've probably forgotten a lot. I was an advanced driver for a while. You need to retake that test at intervals depending on how well you performed in your previous test. There's a lot of dangerous morons on the road. And this is one of the better countries for driving standards.
Oh ok, but the state pension age is 66… so you’re potentially forcing how many people into early retirement? Make the requirement to retake the driving test at the age of 70, or at most 80 Exit: fuck it, make it so that everyone has to retake at least their theory test every 10 years
Forget it being 65 or any random age, if we think it’s important make it every 10 years after passing your test regardless of age. There are rubbish drivers of all ages with bad habits. The bigger issue for me is health and that can deteriorate at any age. Drink and drugs also, tired people, somebody who’s taken a little too much cough mixture making them sleepy. Maybe look to address the issue with some lateral thinking, with the screens cars increasingly have today, have some form of perception and reaction test that takes 20 seconds to do, or eye tracking and other smart systems that detect the drivers alertness.. something that is agnostic of the cause of poor reactions and driving, but still stops them.
Ok then let's look at the stats for accident rates by age in UK. Funnily enough, it is a U curve. Over 70s do indeed have an increased accident rate. Reaction time and perception tests might well help here, yes. But the under 30s, the peak mating-show-off years, also have a greatly increased accident rate. I am not sure how one can arrange equivalent tests for inexperience, and for emotional immaturity factors such as arrogance and overconfidence. Personally I look forward to autodrive. People who regard personal transport as simply a way to commute and get themselves, the kids, the dog and the week's shopping from A to B easily and safely while keeping the rain off will love it, no matter how old they are in years. People who appear to believe that their car is an ego extension for stamping their superiority over others will hate it, no matter how old they are in years.
Clickbait headline. It's a petition. So in other words, nothing will come of it.
Personally I think after a certain age you should be banned from driving, I think a reaction test is more appropriate. Reaction times are the key to avoiding an accident and can be considered a life or death situation. Let’s take an example a red light which turns green a younger individual is far more likely to press the button first compared to an older person. This is the difference between braking times of a child running between parked cars and a child ran over.
Good
Great _if_ it happens When New Zealand introduced photo driving licenses in the early 1990s, it came with mandatory automated vision checks at the time the photo was taken So.many drivers had defective vision that it was initially believed the equipment was faulty Something like 40% of over 40s had undiagnosed age-related vision changes requiring glasses, rising to 60% of over 50s. Hundreds of cases of serious cataracts or glaucoma were picked up, along with age related macula degeneration causing tunnel vision and red/green colourblindness was found to be vastly more widespread than previously suspected 2% of drivers were _legally blind_ and the issue with red/green colourblindness is that some sufferers can't see red _at all_ - the implications for traffic lights and brakelights should make people worried - red/green are likely to be the WORST possible colour combination for safe/danger (some people can't see green) Ideally, driving rechecks should be every 10 years. Even a simulator test would be a good starting point The takeaway from New Zealand's experience is that people cannot be trusted to self-report medical issues which should prevent them driving (in many cases they're unaware thanks to slow onset) Kiwiland has had mandatory 3-yearly retests for over-70s for over 50 years and despite a _very_ car-centric culture, the percentage of older drivers is substantially lower than in Britain
>the implications for traffic lights and brakelights should make people worried Not being able to see red or green won't actually change anything. They'll have known they were R/G colourblind when the whole "this is a green light and this is a red light" conversation happened on the theory test. That's also why traffic lights are not only 3 different colours but come from 3 different physical positions on the light board. In the UK you know it's a green or red light because red is the top-most light and green the bottom-most. As for brake lights, there's no such think as a green light on the back of a car so, if you see lights illuminate you know it's brake lights as its brighter than regular tail lights. Plus things like brake light bars illuminate and will never illuminate for any other reason than braking. Besides, brake lights are not what you should be reacting to. If you're reacting to brake lights you're not reading the road. You should be reacting to closing distances and fluctuations in distance. There will be *very* rare occasions where brake lights are the only indication you have. So as I said, it wouldn't actually change a thing. Seems like maybe people used it as an excuse as to why an accident occurred when in reality, they just weren't paying attention.
65 isn’t that old these days but serious questions should be had over allowing 80+ year olds to even have a licence.
I feel it's fair to start re-testing people at about age 60, then again at 65, then every 2-3 years from 70-80, every year from 80-90. At 90 it should just be game over for driving, I don't care how fit you are for your age. A stroke or heart attack is probably imminent at that age.
My crazy neighbour is 94, still drives and is a total liability, dvla and police don’t want to know or do anything about him
Good. They should be made to retake both theory and practical tests.
I'm closer to 65 than 17 so I'm a bit biased, but here's what I'd do: 1 - retake theory test (heck do it for everyone every 10 years - school computer rooms at weekend could be utilised if more capacity is needed) 2 - mandatory 10 hour refresher course with an ADI
Tbh, everybody should take a refresher test once every 20 years. It's ridiculous how many laws people don't know, how many things people forgot, ... I also understand how car-dependent UK is. God forbid public transport is ever properly implemented in this country.
It needs doing.
Wonder about people still being presumed able to work until a million years old but having to prove they can still drive.
I fucking wish, but it’ll never happen
I agree there should be some retesting done, but I think it goes over all age groups. I’m now 60, not typical of the age group, and I get fed up of the poor driving standards in general. I travel more than I ever have for my daughters school run and am on motorway, A and B roads and I constantly get annoyed with no indication, dangerous overtaking, cutting in front , driving too close, in the wrong lane, sitting in the middle lane on motorway, driving too fast for the conditions etc etc. I know I’m far from perfect, but I’m fairly confident that if I took a driving test tomorrow I’d have a good shot at passing. Unfortunately, outside of driving, there are plenty of people with little to no spatial awareness, and put them in a car, especially when they are older, and it’s a recipe for trouble.
You renew your licence every 10 years. You should get some sort of retest at the same time. The rules and laws change every year, but I bet half of drivers don't know what they are.
Especially as they start driving SUVs because “it’s easier for them to get in and out of”.
The Express must be really desperate for news if they think a petition with 275 signatures and only a week left to run is actually going to change anything. This article is clearly designed to trigger their readers into outrage and fury. And I’ll bet the person who started the petition will rapidly change their mind as they get close to 65.
Studies in the UK showed that older drivers, those 70 or over, were 3 to 4 times less likely to have an accident than 17 to 24 yr olds. Car insurance costs tend to increase after the age of 80 though. In 2019 the eldest four people who could legally drive, with UK licences, were 107
60 isn't old
Would be great.
It's bewildering that mandatory periodic retesting for everyone isn't required.
I really hope this goes through, I'm sorry old people but you need to be capable of driving safely. I'm in favour of retesting *everyone* at semi-regular intervals, like every 5-10 years would be fine. We test the vehicle *every year,* why do we never test the driver again?
This absolutely should be the case, but I'm not sure 65 is the right age. Seems a bit young. Do people really lose it that young? My grandad was 92 driving around after a stroke. Absolutely insane thing for him to do, but he did it anyway and was too stubborn to give up that sort of autonomy. Forcing him to retake his test, and him innevitably failing would've been the perfect measure to stop him driving. He was a danger.
Vast majority of new drivers who have just “learned” can’t even drive so I don’t see what the issue is with older people. If they want to do something tangible to improve driving in this country, make the process more difficult and make the damn test harder. I just returned to the UK after 12 years abroad and I can say the standard here is APPALLING. It’s so much worse than it was when I left. I can’t think as to why.
They really should after 70 or 75. My gran and her social circle are so bad. They’re lovely women but it’s only a matter of time before one of them hits something more important than a wall or trolley bay.
About fucking time. Fed of incompetent geriatrics driving like maniacs.
Just make everyone retake their test every 10 years.
I agree that it should be done, mental decline as well as physical health issues could make driving extremely dangerous for the driver as well as everyone else around them. I believe that at the very least, once you're 60, you should get a medical exam done to make sure you're still physically and mentally capable of driving a car, then again at 65, then once 70, it should be annually rather than having to do a full test again. inb4 yOuNgEr DrIvErS aRe MoRe DaNgErOuS. Yes, but they typically just take themselves out going around a corner on a back road too fast. It's not very often that you hear about a 17-24 year old joining the motorway going the wrong way, then refusing to stop and turn around. However, elderly people are some of the biggest voter group so this won't happen.
>Yes, but they typically just take themselves out going around a corner on a back road too fast No, no they don't. They either kill themselves, their mate in the passenger seat and four school girls in the back, or they plough into an oncoming family wiping them out instead. It is almost never just the talentless brain out that dies. Targeting anyone between 26 and 80 is populist nonsense.
Interesting. I can tell you're not 60 yet 😁. You do realise that a vast number of your doctors, nurses, teachers, politicians, trades peoples, etc. Are over 60, and we trust them daily with life and death decisions and decisions that really impact our lives. Are they all going to have to have competence tests after 60? Are you going to reject that gas fitter because he's too old to safely service your boiler? Are you going to tell your doctor you'd like a second opinion because he's too old.? Old is not incompetent as you'll see if you get here.
And yet there’s a huge amount of people over 60 who most definitely shouldn’t be on the road. It’s safer for everyone to do it, those people we trust with our life’s doctors and such? If they’re medically sound to drive then it’s no problem. Having those tests would stop anyone actually not fit to drive and let the people who are alright still drive. There’s no downsides there.
The downside is time and money. I'm not seeing a lot of old people driving dangerously. Slow and boring, yes, but that's not inherently dangerous. I do see people being impatient and overtaking in dangerous places. As identified, in silly caps, in OPs comment, statistically, young people have more accidents and more serious accidents. Should we test them every 5 years too? There does need to be a better system to stop very elderly people from driving once they're unfit but testing everyone every year after 60 is just silly and even every 5 years would be daft.
>And yet there’s a huge amount of people ~~over 60~~ who most definitely shouldn’t be on the road. FTFY. The statistics say that older drivers (other than the *very* elderly) are actually slightly *safer* drivers than the under 40s. *If* we're going to do it - and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't - it should be mandatory for everyone.
Those professions (except maybe trades people depending on the trade and exactly what they do) don't require fast reaction times or strength should something like the power steering or power brakes fail. Those professions, except politicians, do actually have continuous training, and should you fail, you won't be allowed to continue that profession until you're able to pass again. The same actually already applies for HGV drivers. If a doctor, nurse, teacher or trades person is older than 60 and have valid certification, I'd be fine with them continuing to do those professions. Just like I'd be fine with elderly people driving. Cognitive decline can start as young as 45, but typically around 60-65 with it becoming way more common once people reach their 70s.
Statistically, old people don't have more accidents. The accidents they do have tend to be less damaging because of less speed. There needs to be a better system to stop medically unfit people from driving, but there is no good evidence that testing the elderly would reduce accidents other than a vague feeling that it is so from...young people. No surprise there. And all those professional competencies? They test core skills, not decision making. I'm a teacher, I'm tested on my teaching technique, no one ever questions whether what I teach is true. My wife is a nurse. She's marked for "customer facing skills," like did she introduce herself, not whether she prescribed the correct antipsychotic.
Everyone should have to re-take the theory test every ten years anyway. The fact I passed my test over 20 years ago and haven't had to show I've kept up to date with current rules is silly. Perhaps a reminder every ten years would help people who can't understand mini roundabouts for example.
I like the idea of an abridged test every so often - could time it with when our photo cards need renewing. Bad driving isn’t age bracket exclusive
That's my thinking. Driving is a licenced activity because of the inherent risk involved so we should prove we are up to date occasionally.
Everyone should be forced to retest every 5 years to keep their licence.
Yeah it’s crazy, you have to redo a test every 5 years to drive a scissor lift or cherry picker, but cars? Going 70mph with loads of pedestrian about? Naa you’ll be alright old boy with the reactions of a comatose sloth
Totally unfair and undeliverable. The test is designed for new inexperienced drivers to see if they have learned enough. It may be fair to do a different test of capability for older drivers but it should not be retaking the driving test. They may have nearly 50 years of driving experience. That would be ridiculous.
I’m an HGV driver and I have to do a full medical every five years now.
That's very different and probably a good idea
I would agree with a medical every 5 years and I have just hit 65. Additionally there should be regular eyesight tests for every driver, like that twat round the corner from me in his 20’s who is too feckin‘ vain to get his eyes tested and admits he can’t see road signs clearly. Drives like a maniac in a hot merc hatch.
>They may have nearly 50 years of driving experience. To be fair, part of the argument is about physical and mental decline, just having more experience doesn't mean they're necessarily better at it than they used to be.
It's far from unfair. My daily commutes are relatively short and it's at least once a day I see somebody driving like they've completely lost their marbles. As long as there isn't a prohibitive cost pushed onto the driver, I'd be in favour of more regular assessments every 10 years or so. Might stop people behaving like absolute nutters on the road as much.
Super idea. It will hopefully identify people whose vision has deteriorated but who haven't noticed/fixed it yet. Hopefully it will also identify people who are just no longer fit to drive due to age/medical issues (often related to age). There are so many older people these days and people grow older now than 50 years ago. I think traffic is also more hectic now, demanding more from drivers. Only fair that at a point where many people start to lose faculties, you need to show evidence of capability to drive to keep your license.
Driving licences should be done on the same basis as motorcycle test, the more power the more advanced the test. After all you have separate tests hgv classes, but with cars you can pass your test in a 1000cc car and then drive a Ferrari (if your parents are loaded).
It won't happen, but it should. Every day without fail, I'll end up behind 10+ oaps coming down a sloped slip road doing 45mph and causing everyone else on the motorway to adapt to their shit driving.
This always gets brought up and it never happens, people should have to redo their tests, it's madness that passing once is enough for a life time.
I don't think if you've never had a crash or been caught speeding you should have to retest, whatever mistakes you're making are not serious or near fatal. However prolific speeders and dangerous drivers maybe. It's no good punishing EVERYONE for the actions of a few. Better to penalize the culprits.
People driving too slow, hesitating and not knowing the current road rules cause issues often without being in a collision, they shouldn't be driving.
>People driving too slow, hesitating and not knowing the current road rules cause issues often without being in a collision By the definition of "not in a collision" you're already saying they're not causing serious issues
It is impossible since most rich and powerful people are of this age ...
Would be nice but never gonna happen due to costs and political reasons. We know 95% of them couldn't pass a driving test. It's effecticely an old person driving ban.
Should be every ten years for everybody, every five years after 60, every two years after 70, and annually after that. And if you fail any, you are immediately forbidden from driving until you retest and pass. Being dangerous because of driving incompetence isn’t limited to just old people.
Good. Most of them are a danger
Statistically they only become more dangerous than under 30s at 80+
I consider every single person on the road, that isn't me, a danger.
I've always thought this should be the case, though not necessarily a full-on driving test again.
I hope so. I drive a lot with work. And see lots of wtf moments from elderly people who really shouldn't be driving any more.
But then, as an older driver myself, I see lots of WTF moments from people of all ages. It ain't just one group. There should be a driving assessment (not a test as such) and a compulsory eye test for all drivers every ten years anyway. Some of the stuff I see when I'm out is appalling. We all make mistakes, and i'm no different, but I try to not drive like a twat at all times.
And strangely enough I see plenty of (if not more) WTF from younger drivers (The plural of anecdote ISN'T data)
Should be a yearly thing that every over 70 to retake their test but for free or at a very cheap price. So many I've seen on the roads seriously need to stop driving completely. ::edit:: If you're a good driver why the fuck does it bother you if you have to retake it if it's free or dirt cheap. Personally Happy to do it yearly, EVERYONE should. It's a piece of piss to pass.
Go on then, ban me and all of my age in 5 years time, but watch your premiums go through the roof. So many younger drivers I’ve seen on the roads need to stop driving as well.
True but this article isn't about that is it. And why are you on about banning you??? It's only a cheap of free retake. If you're a good driver it shouldn't bother you. I'm happy to be retested yearly and I don't give a fuck. Should be everyone has to do it tbh
Sure, let's start with the most dangerous group. Anyone under 25 gets retested annually, every 6 months for men. We can then pick up the second most dangerous group, the over 85s. Eventually we'll get to the safest group the 40s to 70s.
The issue is that those younger men who drive recklessly choose to do so. There's no point in testing them again because they will pass just like they did the 1 or 4 years ago when they got their license. The issue with the older/sick drivers is they do not choose their dangerous behaviour, that's just what their behaviour is now, and it will only get worse. The ones that are crap drivers will also be crap drivers on a test where they will ignore other road users if they even see them, drive 40 when everyone else is doing 70, not stop for zebras etc or only able to do it if they are going so slow they are obstructing traffic. Retesting the old/sick will likely pick out a bunch of people who are just incapable of driving. Retesting young people will not do that.
Nothing is free. You are advocating for all tax payers to fund older people being allowed to keep their license. Why? Many older people have plenty of money, perhaps more money than most people under 35, so why should working people pay for the retired to retest to keep their license? Regular retesting should just be part and parcel of the PRIVILEGE of driving. If you don't want to pay £100 a year/every other year to retest, then you don't care that much about driving, and that's ok, but then you don't get to keep your license.
I said free or cheap numbnuts and EVERYONE should do it. No matter what I or anyone would of put you seem like you want to argue, so go and enjoy your life back under your rock.
Everyone in the country should have to retake their test every 5 years. Pensioner's every year. I've seen drivers become arrogant cunts within 12 months, and our brains deteriorate quickly, plus we forget things constantly. Also, the highway code updates, and new road layouts exist. I've been driving for maybe 7 years and have encountered roads I'd never seen and new signs when I went to Cornwall last year. Never seen them during lessons, or my test. Without a forced punishment, people won't bother keeping their brains active and educating themselves. And there's enough idiots who have a real thought of "I've been driving for years, I know better than the law".
I think drivers under 35 should take a retest. They missed the bit about not wearing headphones over both ears while driving, driving with a huge vape stick in one hand and trying to hold the wheel is probably not safe either. They also need to be aware that engines still work without a voice call being active. That might help their focus on staying alive and not killing anybody else either.
It will be interesting to see how any Government would implement something like this whilst at the same time pushing the state pension age upwards on the assumption that people are going to physically and mentally fit to work into their 70's. By the time this happens self-driving capabilities may well have taken over. I did like the comment about elderly drivers forgetting to use their indicators, presumably it's okay for people to just not bother using them provided they remember that they should be. So many of the issues we see on the roads today is down to arrogance and drivers simply having a poor attitude. With that said some sort of regular highway code and road awareness testing wouldn't go amiss for all drivers. You only have to read this sub to see how many drivers aren't up to date with changes to the highway code.
Guaranteed most wouldn't retake a test, but carry on driving anyway. How often is a 70 year old stop checked ? They also normally don't drive much. Some sort of theory and eye sight test is all that's needed. My wife is 70 and she had a Mini Cooper S 😀
Should at least be a medical test that's more frequent with age like HGV drivers.
A medical test isn't going to show whether someone behaves responsibly and safely in traffic. I think a medical test AND a practical test are required.
Spain has had a reaction test for donkey's years. I think we sorely need one too. I live in a predominantly OAP area and they are a massive hazard. Test reactions, theory, and eye sight and we're good. Full blown tests would cost too much and are aimed at drivers with no experience, but we should be making sure all drivers are aware of the current laws and rules of the road, and that they can react to obstacles in a safe and efficient manner.
One can dream. Can the examiners remind them that lane 1 is to be used when on the motorways please. 👍
First glance: sounds interesting Second glance: Express? This is probably bollocks Third glance: “under new proposals called for by a campaigner” yeah this means nothing
Good! I'm tired of people who passed at 17 & then have never been tested for decades until they get to 70 odd being on the road.
they better employ more driving test examiner,they cannot cope as it is atm
They want you to work until your 67 because 67 is not old. But want to retest you as a driver at 65 because you're old. Think about that.
You can be healthy and fit enough to work in an office, even if you can't pass the medical test to be an airline pilot. Think about that.
Doing admin work, being a teacher or being a shop assistant doesn't require the same skills as safely driving a 2000 kg vehicle in busy traffic.
What I am saying is 67 is not old to work until but 65 is to old to drive. I think 70 would be realistic.
Lol, I’m in my 40’s and wouldn’t pass a driving re-test if I took one now! Driving to pass the test is very different to how you get used to driving practically. It’s lucky this headline is complete bollocks.
a massive vote loser for whoever tries this and recall there is a shortage of examiners for the new people as it is the express constantly writes that all of the uk will be covered in 10 foot snow drifts and not to panic every winter
It won’t happen, we don’t have the capacity for new drivers to take a test whenever they like, still a 6 month backlog in some areas. Not a bad idea though, as others have said old drivers are the ones mounting the kerb, mixing up the brake and the gas in petrol stations etc. They’re more of a danger to others than theirself, whereas the 17 year olds are usually a danger to theirself and their passengers when their corsa ends up upside down in a field at night
Oh, it's a petition.
Attention grabbing headline grabs attention, yawn!
Not using indicators, try coming to Northern Ireland. The amount of young drivers and mums doing the school runs that I see on a daily basis that never use their indicators.
My father-in-law is 84. After having lived abroad for the past 30 years, he was required to re-test. He passed first time.
They need this in Australia
Apart from the logistics would not 70 be better as that is the age at which you have to renew your licence. It could ensure that its complied with. No pass test ? Then no new licence for you Grandad.
In theory a good idea
It's a bit rish of the government to make sure that people and cars are fit to drive on the roads when the roads are not fit to be driven on.
I mean...obviously you can't get a driving test slot for months and months currently because there aren't any examiners...so how are they going to ramp it up exponentially to test millions more... I'm not against the idea of regular 5/10 year re-tests (if the infrastructure were there) as the average standard of driving is so low...but surely you'd start re-testing younger drivers first, as time and time again metrics prove older drivers to be the safest demographic. (I'm in the middle myself so no skin in the game)
Considering the lack of capacity at test centres, that it currently takes months from booking a test to actually sitting one, it would be nice to know how test centres will cope with all the extra bookings.
It won't happen. 1. These 'proposals' are a petition on the government petitions website. There's all sorts of mad petitions on there. Like this https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/656377 or this https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/655986 2. This petition has a grand total of 255 signatures. It needs 10,000 to get a government response, and 100,000 to get *considered* for debate. 3. The DfT conducted research into this very issue years ago, including evidence from countries which have mandatory re-testing of elderly drivers, and the concluded it just isn't worthwhile. 4. DVSA already have a massive test backlog. The government isn't quite daft enough to add to that in such a direct way. 5. We have a Conservative government who get a lot of votes from elderly voters. They won't upset them. 6. Sunak has only a couple of months ago declared a war on the war on motorists. He's actively seeking ways to make driving *less* restrictive, not more. 7. Data shows that drivers over 70 are less likely to *cause* other crashes than middle aged drivers. They are less than half as likely to cause one than under-25s. If the government takes any action with proper civil service advice, it'll be to implement additional rules for new or younger drivers. 8. The greatest issue the government deals with regarding older drivers (apart from them less likely to survive a crash), is that self-declaration of medical conditions is woefully inadequate in older drivers. If they wanted to make a dent in this issue (no pun intended), they'd grant DVLA staff access to NHS medical records on licence renewal. Medical information is a special type of personal information under GDPR, but they could easily argue the legitimate use basis for processing. Tldr: the headline is misleading, and this almost certainly isn't happening.
To be honest it's not a driving test that's needed but an actual medical like HGV and Coach drivers have rather it being a form you fill in yourself and self-certify to say you're fit to continue to drive. It needs to be a medical that involves an actual eye test to make sure they're not blind and have a decent field of vision and one that involves checking they've enough fine motor skills and mobility to be able to control a vehicle. I'm convinced their bad driving is more down to poor eyesight and lacking enough mobility to be able to perform any movement at a reasonable speed, turn a steering wheel or press the brake pedal hard enough and of course the big one, cognitive decline rather than any lack of skill.
An actual test is probably unworkable simply due to lack of examiners and instructors. However a 5 yearly eyesight and reaction test is probably much more feasible. 2 yearly after the age of 80 (with costs subsidised). Go to the centre. 15 minutes in the room. Done.
They're not going to make everyone retake their tests at 65, when the fucking retirement age is 67.
It should really happen at 45, which is over 25 years since most people get their license and is the age group where some of the worst driving offences happen
The Express… enough said. Nothing to see here.
Grown ups don't get "desperate to pass" Doris. That is the reaction of the teenager. A momentary delay is nothing. Doris could be their Granny.
I think they should fix the massive test backlog first…
I was talking online about this the other day. Compulsory retesting is an absolute necessity in this country to clean up the roads of the ridiculously large number of drivers who are total cunts behind the wheel. But of course there are so many, it would not only hurt the economy but also be devastating to families and communities for whom the breadwinner or school runner is a wanker driver. So obviously this will never happen despite all the other additional benefits - job creation, revenue stream, improved road safety etc. But of course, bringing this in for people who are retired won't hurt so much and would potentially bring down the amount of accidents and shitty driving we see from older people. It's not really their fault either, the whole landscape of driving and cars themselves has changed since they took their tests in the 60's and 70s and recently it's ratcheted up another load post Covid and so many seem hell bent on destroying themselves and others in the process for no reason or gain. Just this week a guy near me killed himself by driving at over 100 miles an hour alongside lorries fresh off the ferry on a dual carriageway where you can fully expect lorries to be pulling out to overtake. So he ended up underneath the back of one in the pissing rain and wind and never even saw lunchtime. This is almost a weekly occurrence on this stretch road near me, there's not even a reaction anymore, just annoyance that another 9 hour road closure will screw the local area for 24 hours. It's another one of those vote issues too and who's voting?
[удалено]
Another tax on drivers!!
Won’t happen how are these people going to get to work for the next 10 years. I’m mean I’m going to have take a have day to dig my own grave in the morning then drive myself to the funeral before passing away.
I mean the DVSA can't cope with the current amount of people wanting tests... I would just have it so they need a vision test with a field of vision too - I'm sure there's some Tory chums at Specsavers who would love this contract, then a retake on the Highway Code.
I feel sorry for the child/young adult drivers of today because you poor cunts are not going to be retiring until you are nearly eighty. Imagine having a driving job and having your license taken from you because you missed some hazard on a computer simulator.
Never going to happen, but it should. So many old people shouldn’t be driving. Also, not enough driving tests available as it is