Do we need mandatory retesting for older drivers?

Excellent - and obviously the kind of reasoned, data-backed proposal which has no place here.

Retesting and CPD needs to be for all drivers, but with differing frequencies.

10 years up to 60, then 5 years to 70, then 3 years.

With independent medical checks.

Addressing poor driving standards requires every driver to undergo refresher training periodically and that should not vary with age. A 25/50/80 year old driver with poor attitude / skills presents exactly the same risk to those around them. A requirement to undertake short sessions on the latest Highway Code, on hazard perception and the advantages and limitations of current car technology followed by a short practical assessment of driving should be the minimum requirement and every 5 years at most. It also requires better enforcement. Where I would be in favour of more frequent refresher training would be if it was related to risk - clean licence = 5 yearly, 3 points = 3 yearly, 6 points = 18 monthly, 9 points = 6 monthly etc.

Medical checks on drivers are another matter and a better way must be found to enforce minimum eyesight standards. Make it a requirement for a positive declaration by an optician that you meet the standard and make this a regular process throughout life so it isn't just something that kicks in at 70. Why is a driving licence treated so differently? What other dangerous machinery can you pass a test for, get a licence and that licence still be valid potentially 75 years later with no refresher training, no requirement to keep a log of use of that skill and only minimal medical checks.

You could also introduce something that allowed earlier points removal with further training and testing. Would all need a huge increase in very skilled instructors and examiners though and raised standards.

Also we should be looking at introducing more testing for "professional drivers" ie, someone who is paid to drive a vehicle. I'm thinking taxi drivers (yet to be driven by one that I would consider wouldn't improve by having their driving critiqued. More throttle blips than Senna for the last one!), Delivery drivers (I've worked for Waitrose and their drivers are assessed on a very regular basis against very high standards) and other light commercial drivers like tax avoiding pickup drivers who don't know their speed limits aren't the same as cars!

Next should be Company car drivers, ie those claiming mileage as they are also driving as part of their job and their employers could be held liable for their sub-standard driving skills.

All of the above would be funded by someone's employment so largely free or tax deductable for the driver.

Finally we get to the "average driver" which in my experience are what I would call Lowest Common Denominator drivers ie, they once passed a very straightforward test some time ago and nobody has told them that they need to think more about how they drive. Typically these drivers will react badly when this is pointed out by another motorist or God forbid, someone atop a cycle or even worse, someone no longer atop a cycle.

Current membership and the assessment that comes with it of an accredited body such the IAM should obviate anyone of the assessments above as that shows you care about how you drive and don't think you can't improve.

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

No, we need regular retesting for ALL drivers. The thoughts behind this are the same as those put forward by others, it was the attitude of the driver that was the issue here. He was aware of the eyesight problem, same as a lot of drivers are aware of excess speed, passing too close, use of mobile device etc etc etc. It's the attitude that surrounds the 'right' to drive that's the problem, as we all believe we are perfect drivers. Now I'm not suggesting that drivers would be silly enough to text whilst on a retest, but a simple fail on other issues would bring a lot of drivers back to reality.

unless you are talking about retesting everytime someone gets behind the wheel of a car, how would it help ? the guy I saw in a car on the commute home today, swapping lanes every 5 metres to overtake or undertake cars just to get that little extra bit ahead in a traffic queue, and then turned right at a roundabout from the left hand lane...and then wondered why someone drove into him...I guarantee would not drive like that in a driving test, so he passes, and then gets to spend the rest of his time driving round like an accident waiting to happen impatient idiot again, till his next test.

or say he fails on a simple thing in his test, do you think he'd care ? do you think the estimated 1-1.5 million currently unlicenced drivers on UK roads are remotely bothered by not having a licence, or car tax, or valid insurance, or an MOT ?

retesting sounds like a good idea,but wont actually work unless you can force those that fail off the road

I don't agree with being taken off the road if fail on one occasion as good drivers make mistakes and bad drivers can pass. I think a course instead of points as a starter. A GP I worked for should have lost his license, an Audi driver, but he couldn't do his job. The scare slowed him down.

I once carved across, misjudged a car I had overtaken because I was driving my partner to A&E in agony. I'm normally praised for being a good driver and thankfully no damage and understanding other driver when he saw the situation. I also couldn't do my nursing job without driving.

It's an imperfect world.  Some here have proposed a "continuous monitoring" of some kind (e.g. like a minority of insurance companies do now).  Would that be fairer - or just "the spy in the car"?

We also seem to be handing out "warnings" and "words of advice" and even courses already.

Merely doing what we say we do (e.g. enforcing the law) would be a start.  However if we really want less death on the roads (or maybe even nicer places and better transport systems) that's not going to happen by more law, training or otherwise hoping for better people.  Given the numbers crashing into bollards, bridges and buildings I think we need to have a rethink.  A system which facilitates a large proportion of the population driving vehicles really isn't a good idea (lots of other reasons as well as safety).  We're a danger to ourselves and each other!

The way to deal witrh that one is an opportunity to repeat the test.

The standard system now for elderly or medical licenses is that you get an automatic notifocation 3 months in advance, so the time can be managed with appropriate measures.

RGN007 wrote:

I don't agree with being taken off the road if fail on one occasion as good drivers make mistakes and bad drivers can pass. I think a course instead of points as a starter. A GP I worked for should have lost his license, an Audi driver, but he couldn't do his job. The scare slowed him down. I once carved across, misjudged a car I had overtaken because I was driving my partner to A&E in agony. I'm normally praised for being a good driver and thankfully no damage and understanding other driver when he saw the situation. I also couldn't do my nursing job without driving.

I'm curious to know why a GP cannot work without a car - or a nurse for that matter, there is district nurse in my area who gets around quite happily on an e-bike.

I think it would definitely help. It would weed out those whose skills are far below the necessary level (who are also just as prone to drive like idiots, probably even more so), and moreover, it would send the message that driving is taken seriously and drivers are expected to maintain a certain standard.

There is a bit of a joke in sales recruitment, that sales people can be a nightmare to interview due to their ability to bullsh1t. However, the thinking is, if you interview them three times, and they've not tripped over their own crap in that time, then they are probably a safe hire. 

The same stands for driving tests... the fact that a chap/chappess can 'turn it on' come test day, means that they can fundamentally drive. When they are taking the 'P' on other occasions, at least you would know they were doing so from a base of basic competence. 

> what about the dodering old gits that  cycle regardless of health and eyesight problems !

What about them? 10 or 100 times less important as 'what about cyclists' always is. They will tend to kill themselves not others.

>just how many people have been killed or injured by 80 year olds with dodgey eyesight / health problems during the last 10 years and what is this as a percentage of the overall roadkill total ? 

On how many are killed or injured by doddery old drivers - it's a very regular occurrence. Just monitor the reports. The % of the total is a bit of a red herring imo.

Here's one from a recent Ashley Neal video, 83 year old driver who could not read a numberplate at 9m. License immediately revoked. Did not reach the court for a ban because it was adjourned for health reasons of the driver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-uhomvf2Lo

The driver broke the cyclists pelvis in 4 places, and left him on crutches for 3 months.

what about the dodering old gits that  cycle regardless of health and eyesight problems !

What about them? I agree- this is a non-existent hazard if ever I heard one. There aren't any in Lancashire, as there aren't many cyclists around at all- for obvious safety reasons linked numerically to non-doddery Audi/ BMW type aggressive drivers- these are the real hazards I encounter: close passes at speed in 30-limit areas, staying in my lane because of oncoming traffic. BMW BU21 FGM

That sounds more sensible, but if someone's job depends on a minor single fail it seems too harsh. Needs something in between.

I think you're begging the question there... why "a single minor fail"  - who said that?

Unfortunately where we are is it's de-facto legal to break the law as written if you're a driver.  Doing things with potentially lethal consequences.  Some has been actually decriminalised (driving on the pavement - to park), decriminalised except in certain places (speeding - unless you're unlucky), much is not seen as "socially unacceptable" and you're generally extremely unlikely to be caught.  And if caught you may get you no penalty or a pretty meaningless one ("We'll write you a letter...").

It's clear that those simply calling for the law as it actually is written now to be effectively enforced and for the standard penalties imposed where due are actually calling for a pretty radical social change.  Given where we are.

So then I am an extremist.  I'm not feeling sympathetic for the odd excellent medical workers who only occasionally maim people in their cars.  Or the "upstanding pillars of the community" who somehow seem to be deliberately running others over - unaccountably?  Or those who - tragically - have children or parents or partners or pets or indeed jobs that would (might) suffer if we stopped them doing a dangerous activity because they've shown they cannot do it safely.

But I'm also a dreamer.  I'd rather this was a much less emotive issue for all because we had a system which prioritised the safe movement of people rather than motor vehicles.  With safe and convenient alternatives - actually a more democratic independant mobility for all.

In fact - without that I can't see any change happening at all.

"It's clear that those simply calling for the law as it actually is written now to be effectively enforced and for the standard penalties imposed where due are actually calling for a pretty radical social change. "

I think I agree entirely with this statement, and still I find it shocking to be written as boldly as that.

And yet the UK comes very low on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death... with only Norway, Switzerland and Sweden looking safer

So it seems that what we have is reasonable infrastructure, and some very good driving rules and testing. But very little appetite for taking action to remove the relatively few bad drivers.

As I've bleated on in the last days a large part of the reason for our "safe roads" is because we've essentially driven everyone not in a car off them.

(This also explains why those killed on the roads - or indeed pavements - get such short shrift.  They shouldn't have been there.  Or it was a freak accident.  Or one of those very rare criminals on the road.  Because driving is an everyday activity and our roads are safe!)

This is largely by "self-enforcement" - if you have roads with lots of motor vehicles and especially fast ones people naturally avoid those spaces.  We sense they're unpleasant and understand "this isn't our space" even without the training which we get as children.

However we've also made rules and motor vehicle infra - pedestrian crossings, pedestrian barriers, underpasses and overpasses ("a concrete trench in the sky") - to get people out of the way of cars.  (Really - if safety was the main concern we'd bury the cars, make them go up over the bridges or take the less direct route).

Finally we have then made it safer for those in cars.  The car manufacturers have done their bit for their customers (inside their cars - not necessarily to the benefit of those outside - think A-pillars).  We've added traffic lights, lane markings, rumble strips, cats eyes, energy-absorbing crash barriers etc.  We could probably go further though if we were really focussed on safety rather than motor vehicle flow or just appeasing drivers.  Removing a lot of overtaking would help - as would lowering speeds!

I'm not 100% that our driving rules and especially testing are brilliant.  We should be regularly re-testing, like every other licenced dangerous activity I can think of.

There's certainly very little in the way of feedback for people falling below the standard* or breaking the rules.  Indeed some rules have been declared decriminalised (driving on pavement) or are known to be little-enforced (speeding in many cases).

I don't know if the concept of "anyone and everyone can drive a car" has ever been planned by government or standards adjusted to match but that seems to be the effect.  The overall pass rate hovers at about 50%.  However it seems that lots fail on the first test but are much more likely to pass on subsequent tests.  I can't find the numbers here but that seems to be the wisdom.

Irrespective of this practice makes habit and there seems little incentive for drivers to maintain good practice over time, as driving becomes a mundane daily activity.

* Lots of this due to infra helping - which I certainly approve of.  This is the "forgivingness" principle of sustainable safety.

The UK does ok but could do much better and as always figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. There will be a few other factors that have nothing to do with vehicles or vehicle infrastructure that influence those figures. For example healthcare and geography will have an impact as will the provision of organised rescue services I suspect. If you are seriously injured in a RTC then the faster you can get to a well equipped trauma care centre, the better your chances. Minimising that time until you receive definitive clinical intervention and care will depend on having well trained rescue and medical staff to extract you from the vehicle and treat you on scene, provision of well equipped trauma centres, and geography - the further that trauma centre is or the longer it takes to get there, the worse the outcome. It may also be influenced by societal knowledge of basic life support and first aid. The provision of simple intervention such as stemming bleeding, maintaining an airway and CPR can save lives. The list goes on.

RGN007 wrote:

That sounds more sensible, but if someone's job depends on a minor single fail it seems too harsh. Needs something in between.

a single minor fault is not a drving test fail

"In your driving test you can receive 15 minors and still pass, only a major or three of the same minor will result in a fail. There are several driving test minor faults - however, you should try to avoid them to give yourself the best chance of passing."

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/what-is-a-driving-t...