Great Western Coffee Shop

From Microsoft News / Daily Mail (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/over-70s-in-poor-health-face-night-driving-ban-in-licence-shake-up/ar-BB1f36iA)

Huh? Either they're a danger on the roads or they're not, surely? Is it ok to injure someone/something locally but not regionally? I don't understand this.

Surely, a retaken test shows whether they are still capable?

Indeed ... from Science Direct (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092575351730783X)

If you look a bit closer, this is only about a way of restoring some mobility to those who currently would lose their license automatically for medical reasons. The issue is not competence, but mainly the ability to maintain concentration for long enough periods. Hence it arose in discussion between DLVA and Driving Mobility, which is a DfT-supported "network of centres which offer high quality information, assessment and advice about mobility".

My point still stands - either they're a danger or they're not, whether close to home or not. Also Graham found that more accidents happen close to home, even in their age group

I know of people who would be safe driving during the day, but not at night. 

Graham's findings show, though, that older people are at no higher risk than anyone else when it comes to switching into "nearly home" mode. It is possible that the reasons for the accidents and the distance driven vary with age. A younger person may drive a thousand miles per week in connection with work, but someone at the frailer end of the spectrum may only drive to and from a shopping area or supermarket. Our young man may have driven his lorry from the depot five miles away to Istanbul and back, and begun to plan that long soak in the bath when he failed to spot a hazard, whereas his neighbour of more tender years could have just collected the guide dog from the vets after a routine service, and chanced upon a visitor who didn't know to get out of the way whenever they heard him coming. I don't think we can read too much into that statistic.

I have known personally of a number of people who wouldn't drive at night, in two cases being registered blind, plus one who went to elaborate lengths to avoid turning right. An elderly relative once scared the living daylights out of me by picking me up from Temple Meads - he had dementia, I learned subsequently, and hadn't realised that the traffic system had changed since the war. I hope I never get to the stage of not realising that I shouldn't be driving. Most of these people certainly shouldn't have still been behind the wheel, a fact that would have been immediately obvious  had they reported their limitations to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). They didn't, and I suppose the point of this exercise is to get them to do so in exchange for limited permission, rather than tick the "OK" box when renewing the licence because to do otherwise would mean an immediate stop to motoring. That doesn't mean I agree though.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying acronyms

I do not see the merit of allowing some drivers to only drive within a certain area, If they are unfit to drive and a risk to other road users, then they just as unfit five miles from home as they would be fifty miles from home.

What might be acceptable would be to restrict the type of vehicle that can be driven. A car of strictly limited speed and weight is a much lower risk and could perhaps be allowed to those judged unfit to hold a full licence.

In parts of Europe vehicles are available called VSPs, which may be loosely translated as "yours without permit" They are limited to 28 MPH and in some countries can be used lawfully by anyone over 14, after a few hours instruction. No insurance, MOT certificate or full licence is required.

Known popularly as "oldie killers" though serious accidents are in fact rare.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572) This sort of thing.
Petrol powered, but an electric version should be possible, and could charge overnight from a standard 13 amp socket, no expensive high capacity charge point needed.

This is quite a difficult matter, but I think there are a few points to make.

Firstly, we all will travel much more frequently in the area in the immediate vicinity of our homes. There is an implication in the study (in New Zealand) that there was more taking risks with alcohol and less attention. But could it also be that we tend to live in urban areas with much heavier traffic, so the 62% of accidents in 50% of journeys may not reflect "exposure" that is referred to in the summary of the paper, especially in a thinly populated country like New Zealand.

Secondly, I have known a number of elderly motorists who have reduced the length of their journeys because as they get old and frail they find that they cannot concentrate for as long as they used to. This supports the suggestion of distance limits.

Thirdly, the issue of dementia is a very difficult one. Many sufferers will not recognise its onset, and indeed I know from family experience it can be difficult to work out when just getting a bit forgetful and vague moves into dementia. And when it becomes clear, stopping an elderly relative driving is one of the more difficult moments you will have in your relationship with them.

Fourthly, deteriorating eye-sight is as difficult an issue as dementia, but in my experience the elderly are much more willing to acknowledge that they are having difficulty at night than being willing to give up altogether when other age related problems arise.

My late grandmother who was not in my view a very good driver, never even sat a driving test !
She started driving before the introduction of the driving test. A driving licence was required, but this was simply purchased at the post office with no test.
No driving test had to be sat in order to drive "carriage and four" so why would any test be needed for a new horseless carriage ?
One could in that era simply walk into a post office and purchase "one driving licence, two gun licences, and a dog licence, please"

I used to drive 30,000 miles a year.  Cut that to 3,000 a few years back (once it became practical with public transport service and far less heavy equipment to take) and last year can't have been much more than 300.  Days gone by, I have driven Mallaig to Easterton in a day, and Melksham to Dublin via Fishuard and Holyhead. And that famous Easterton - Stevenage - Church Stretton - Kingswood - Easterton day in a hire van.  I would not attempt them again; my limits have come down - but I can't see what / where / how a legal limit on me would work.   

Common sense DOES work and long country drives in the dark are out. I have stopped at motorway service areas for a break and kip and would simply do so more or plan for a hotel these days.  Is it possible to leave to common sense? Is there sense in "only in your 30 m.p.h zone"?

I was most uneasy at my now late Mother driving, following a couple of narrow escapes.
The worst was approaching Taunton station from the Minehead direction.
The main road passes under the bridge that carries the railway line. It is one way TOWARDS Minehead. Mother drove the wrong way towards the station, no accident occured but it was very concerning.
Mother was not entirely convinced that she had done anything wrong, on the grounds that the sign saying "TAUNTON STATION" Was in clear sight, straight ahead (painted on the side of the railway bridge)

The journey in question would have counted as local. As would have driving into a barrier accross a private road near Blue Anchor station.

What I see emerging from all this is that the key factor is whether an individual can judge their own limitations, especially as they decline only slowly. Most elderly drivers do that pretty well at the moment. But it's not something that's assessed by any test - not a driving test, nor the medical questionnaire, nor the new idea being discussed here.

I agree, but the use of small and lightweight vehicle, limited to 28 MPH and prohibited on motorways would greatly reduce the consequences if the elderly driver misjudges their capabilities.
No formal limit on length of journey, but a top speed of 28 MPH and being prohibited on motorways would discourage long trips.
No more dangerous than a horse and cart (no licence needed)
Not much more dangerous than a mobility scooter (licence not usually required)
Not much more dangerous than an E-bike (no licence needed)

If I was in charge I would permit lightweight low speed electric vehicles to be used without a licence or test.

Light electric car, 3 or 4 wheeled.
Max empty weight----------------200 Kilos
Max payload-----------------------200 Kilos (two people with light luggage or shopping.)
Max speed -------------------------25 MPH.
100% ELECTRIC.
No licence needed, operable by anyone over 14. Not allowed on moterways.
Faster and heavier electric cars would be subject to the same regulations as at present.

Electricly assisted cycles, scooters and similar vehicles.
Max speed under power-----------25 MPH
Max empty weight-----------------50 Kilos.
Operable by anyone over 10 years. No tax, licence, safety hat, or other formalities required.

Higher powered electric two wheelers would be allowed, but subject to the same rules as petrol motorcycles.

If there's no insurance, what happens in the event of an accident? (for example)

As has been said, a thorny problem. A recent case from the cycling press:
https://road.cc/content/news/94-year-old-killed-cyclist-while-driving-golf-club-282077 (https://road.cc/content/news/94-year-old-killed-cyclist-while-driving-golf-club-282077)

When I first read it I thought is it sensible at 94 to ban them for four years and then allow them back on the road, "extended test" or not.
The last motoring event with the Duke of Edinburgh is a similar case. It is difficult to give up after a lifetime of "independence". There is also the issue of rural dwellers, which brings us back to public transport, although hardly an issue for the Duke of Edinburgh.

Having just renewed my driving licence for the first time, somebody said "but you now have to renew it every three years" obviously thinking that was an infringement of their civil liberties. I haven't driven for years and have no intention of ever again, but it is a useful form of identification (as we appear to have a problem with ID cards in this country).

The over 70's driver hit the headlines when they are involved in an accident because its quite rare when you compare the to the under 25's.

Its the under 25's that need to have speed limiters fitted, and a limit on horse power


The over 70's like any age group its having the discussion with them ................ should you really be driving there are after all appalling, negligent, dangerous, etc drives in all age groups who should not be allowed to drive

About the same as in the event of an accident involving a horse, an ebike, a mobility scooter, or even an oversize pedestrian.

Indeed. Did I ever tell you about the time a horse ran in to my car?

And it would make more sense in a country where most people have public liability insurance for the whole family - which for some reason we've never gone in for.

It's a problem but not just for the elderly. A friend started learning to drive when she was about 18 (she's now in her 40s) and soon found that although there was no legal medical reason for her not to drive, because of her unusual vision problems, she never felt safe or competent. Her instructor said she should carry on and she had no trouble passing the sight requirement for a driving test, but she is unable to focus on moving objects. The legal standard for sight for a driving test, reading a static number plate, is a mockery. She then had a battle on her hands trying to voluntarily turn in her licence. Turns out it's very difficult to get yourself declared physically unfit to drive!

Hopefully, she's sensible enough not to try & drive. I share her problem.

It's very hard to get that declaration, especially proving that type of disability in order to access other assistance with disability transport!

That, but not only that. I have known at least two people who knew their limitations and the effect that disclosure would have had, so kept schtum. In both cases it was eyesight. One decided never to drive at night nor out of her local area, but turned up at my house for a cuppa after visiting a friend, before the 20 mile slog home in the dark. "Don't worry, I'll be fine". The other pulled a deserved 18-month ban after driving home from the pub. He was offered a 6 month reduction in exchange for attending a course, but declined because he knew he would fail the eyesight test. He was then under 60, and also avoided visiting the optician because in his view, if he wasn't told, it didn't matter. If I know two, there must be thousands like them out there.

In a city, giving up the car can be a fairly easy decision to make. For all its faults, the public transport in Bristol at least exists. Where I now live, the last bus from the station some 3 miles distant is around 7pm, at which time the taxis all knock off and go home too. That complicates the picture. I am, though, of a similar mind to broadgage, and don't think a partial exemption from the rules is workable or fair on everyone.

A test re-take for everyone at certain ages to be determined - possibly every 10 years from a starting point, reducing to every 5 years at an older point in time. Fair on everyone, anda driver for further jobs paid by those retaking the tests.

I'd start at 50 for every 10 years, and say 70 for every 5 years onwards. BUt open for other views.

Along maybe for a review of the eyesight test to be improved too.

That sounds reasonable, and I would add that after a driving ban, that a new test should be passed before starting to drive again.

Not a very good idea then

I hope the guide dog belongs to a friend or relative. I would be worried if it was his/her own.  ;D

Also, do guide dogs have to undergo the equivalent of an MOT?  ???

Guide dogs have regular vet checks for general health and fitness which I suppose is somewhat comparable to an MOT.
They are normaly retired at a certain age, but this can be extended a bit if still fit, active, and suitably alert.

A bit of routine hyperbole on my part to try to lighten my day. Lockdown is getting to me.


This is attractive at first glance, but I don't think it stands up to deeper thinking. I used to fly aeroplanes, albeit with the NPPL in mind, a sort of light licence which would allow me to fly only single -engine non-complex aircraft under 1000 Kg, 4-seat maximum, VFR (Visual Flight Rules) only, always in sight of the ground, and within the UK. The medical requirement was the same as for a HGV licence, a self-declaration signed off by my own GP every 5 years in exchange for a tenner. The required flying time to stay current is surprisingly short. For a full private pilots licence, I would need an examination by a specialist medical examiner starting at around £250 every 3 years, becoming annual after (I think) 45 years old. For the professionals, the examination is more gruelling and more expensive, and is accompanied by a 6-monthly skills test. For driving after 60 or 70, something equivalent to the HGV option would seem useful, but it imposes a higher standard of fitness on older people than is required for the younger folks with poor eyesight and /or co-ordination. The medical requirement for driving a private car is not at all rigorous - if you have two of most things and one of everything else, you will probably pass, unless you suffer fits without warning.

The things that set the HGV test apart from the private test include diabetes and high blood pressure, and the consequential side effects of both. A reasonable guess of someone's likely fitness on those grounds could be made with an eyesight test and a bathroom scale. Family doctors currently struggle to find hours in the day to treat patients, so won't want to be involved in any form of testing for something that isn't a medical necessity. Some would argue against using patients' health records anyway, in case the fear of losing a licence deterred people from seeking treatment for proscribed conditions. A new government agency to do the job would soon run up a six-month waiting list and do a patchy service across different parts of the country (trust me - I was a civil servant), becoming a box-ticking exercise rather than a solution to a problem, and would devote most of its effort to seeing perfectly healthy people.

Then we come to the biggest obstacle to all of this - which political party is going to include in its manifesto legislation to stop older people driving, and taking away those freedoms (as the Express would put it) gained only through two world wars, one world cup, and Brexit? Given that older people are more likely to vote, it won't happen unless both major parties agree, which also won't happen. My view - there is already a requirement for drivers to disclose poor eyesight and certain  medical conditions. This should be enforced more effectively, with lifetime bans for anyone who says "Yes" when the answer should be "No". The current process for renewing a licence at 70 should look less like a "Sign here for your licence please" form, and more like a demand for answers.

As for an exemption for small vehicles or limited range - no. All or nothing.

I disagree with the view that driving should be "all or nothing"  and consider that a small lightweight vehicle of limited speed should be allowed to persons denied a licence.
There has to be a line drawn somwhere.

But what exactly should we allow ? without a driving licence.

Walking, obviously.
Pedal cycle, no restriction at present.
Electricaly assisted cycle, allowed at present.
Mobility scooter, of course.
Horse, either riden or pulling a vehicle, not that popular but allowed.

2 seater car of very limited speed and weight, not permitted at present but in my view should be allowed.
Such vehicles should be strictly limited in speed and weight, and be as simple to operate as possible.

Broadgage approved specification.
Limited empty weight, limited gross weight.
Max speed 25 or 28 miles an hour.
Automatic parking brake, is applied when the "ignition" is turned off. User can not forget to apply parking brake.
Marker lights automatic, cant be turned off when vehicle in use.
Reverse gear limited to 3 MPH, safer if selected by mistake.
"Tortoise mode" when battery is low.
Electric power, charges from any standard socket outlet, input current limited to 10 amps. Double insulated, no earth required or permitted. Suplied with 2 core charging cable.

The UK civil service would like to over complicate this and should be kept in check.

Available for use by anyone over 14 after a few hours instruction.

Neigh. ::) ;D Reminds me of the time though when, at the vehicle rental firm I work for, a client in one of our vehicles (Mercedes B180 IIRC) hit a horse, I believe, on exposed moorland - near Rhymney (Valleys) I think -  and it wrecked the vehicle. I shouldn't imagine the poor horse fared much better. The vehicle sat in the depot for ages with a dent on the bonnet that was deep enough for a large bird bath. Car was eventually scrapped.

I have had similar thoughts in the past but would do things a touch differently and have it so that the maximum engine size you can own on your car depends on how you behave on the road. If you behave well then it goes up every, say 3 years. So, for example, for someone who gets a licence at the age of 18:

Cat 1: 1.4L engine, unmodified.
Cat 2: 1.6L engine
Cat 3: 1.8L engine
Cat 4: 2.0L engine or above.

You would not be able to go up to something more powerful for a minimum 3 year period. Misbehaving by, say, getting more than a certain number of points in a 3 year period, results in going down 1 category for minor offences but worse offences, such as D.U.I, can drop more than 1 category.

Dave

To some extent, isn't the insurance industry doing some of the limitation economically by pricing high-powered cars out of the reach of groups more likely to have accidents? And I suspect engine capacity becomes a poor or even archaic means of measuring as the petrol or diesel engined vehicle is replaces by something else.

As engine size is becoming a bit outmoded,
Class 0 maximum speed 25 MPH. no licence required. Minimum age 14.
Class 1, maximum speed 30 MPH. for new licence holders. Min age 17.
Class 2, maximum speed 40 mph, for nearly new licence holders. Min age 19.
Class 3, maximum speed  60 mph. Experienced drivers only. Min age 21.
Class 4,  maximum speed  70 mph, experienced drivers over age of 25 only.

Drop back one or more classes in case of wrong doing, as described in an earlier post.
Only classes 3 and 4 to be allowed on motorways.
Classes 3 and 4 would require re-testing of older drivers so as to ensure that they are still safe to drive. In case of SLIGHT health issues, older drivers could be restricted to class 1 or class 2. More serious health issues would mean class 0 only.

In exceptional cases, the age limits could be relaxed but only after passing an "enhanced" and very thorough practical and theory test.
Any two adjacent classes could be the same actual vehicle, but with different and tamper proof speed limiters.

 ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrrIRr9arkM

Surely my proposal has the merit of sufficient complexity to preserve civil service jobs ?
And the devolved nations of the UK could adopt similar regulations but with slight differences to ages and speed limits.

There are far too many civil servants already.

Are you Sir Humphrey Appleby in disguise?

I come late to this discussion, but just to say that I find that I'm limiting the distance of journeys more and more. I'm not even keen on driving out to locations that I used to get to on my 120-miles cycle rides of my youth.

There are situations that I avoid, such as joining motorways from slip roads or driving on narrowish roads at night - even people younger than I find that some modern car-headlights are too bright. I gather that the latest test includes parking on the "other" side of the road and then resuming one's journey, which is a manoeuvre I might find a little challenging.

Just possibly I've done one "silly thing" in the past two or three years when I was turning right at a familiar mini-roundabout and an oncoming car failed to recognise my right-of-way. No impact, just some horn-blaring, but later I reflected as to whether I had been indicating - something that I'm usually very conscientious about.

In contrast I've noticed several very dangerous actions by younger motorists (not to mention the dangerous and anti-social parking by people seeking to exercise at countryside locations).

If the UK civil service didn't say it, someone would look at how it would work on real roads, and see how dangerous it is. For a start, 25 mph on a moped can prove fatal to an unfortunate pedestrian, meaning that we are no better off than we would be by letting old people drive cars. You would have to ban them from all roads with a speed limit of 50mph or more, much as slow vehicles are prohibited on motorways.


We enter the realms of bureaucratic logjam here. 14-year-olds driving anything frightens me, without thinking what roads near schools would look like. The cars would be useful to anyone disqualified from driving - if no licence is required, how would sanctions be applied when they are badly driven? The rest of the system would need considerable expansion of DVLA to keep track of the switches of licence level, and the courts to interpret all of this, and enforce the regulations.

Our existing driving legislation is tougher than in many countries, and strikes a balance between liberty and responsibility. I just needs to be enforced, and ultimately, technology will do a lot of the hard work in that respect.

I have a full driving linence, 7.5 ton, trailers etc, never used any of them, no way I could drive our tail lift van round Bournemouth area an some of the gravel driveways in the New Forest..

And that's another kettle of fish. I last towed a trailer (a caravan in fact) about 30 years ago, and wouldn't say I did a particularly good job of it. Safe enough, but reversing proved a bit tricky, having previously only reversed a trailer with an army Land Rover in the mid-1970s. I am permitted to tow a combination of vehicle and trailer weighing 12,000kg, despite last driving a 10,000 truck in 1978, but don't worry, I am not going to do it again. Anyone qualifying for a licence after 1997 would not enjoy the same freedom, but the trend on regulation of driving larger vehicles has seen some relaxation of late. The minimum age for a HGV licence was reduced from 21 to 18 a few years ago. This was not because of scientific evidence showing that younger drivers had become safer, but to try to fill a gap in numbers as older drivers were leaving the job.