Do we need mandatory retesting for older drivers?

Retest everyone...if you limit it to the over 60s (for example) they'll feel victimised, and probably point out that a higher proportion of accidents are caused by younger drivers. It will be a nuisance to have to renew every few years, but surely it's a reasonable requirement when you're in control of a tonne of metal travelling at 70mph. 

Everybody has known about this issue for years the only reason it hasn't been delt with is politics.  No political party wants to been seen taking away the 'right' of older people to drive.  More importantly older people tend to vote more no political party is that brave nothing will change unless the public get behind it. 

I'm late 30's and believe every one should have their driving assessed I don't have a problem with it may even learn a few things. Young drivers should be reassessed a year after passing their test and then every 5 years until 60-65 and then increasing in frequency.   It doesn't have to be a full driving test but a drive around a mixture of roads 30 minutes and a quick eye test.  If they failed this test you would have to go on a short course one or two days and a test at the end.  If you don't pass your license is suspended until you can pass.  This leaves the opportunity still open but most people unfit wouldn't bother.  

The driving test standard needs to be of a much higher level, almost advanced driver standards as its far to easy.

Instructors nowadays dont teach you to drive, they teach you to pass the test.

I have to agree with superpython in that everyone should be retested every five years, its commonsense.

To answer the question posed in the article heading... in a word, YES.

As stated the vast majority of the population believe that driving a vehicle is a right. Once the test is passed the only time they think about the license is when they get points. This is reinforced by how we operate licensing in our society. How many drivers get let off a ban when they exceed the points allocation by pleading they need to drive for business or something in their personal lives? Funnily this never occurs to them over the multiple driving offenses that they have to commit to achieve enough points to earn a license suspension!

Compare motorists with aviaiton and you'll see why testing and medicals are important.

For even the most basic Private Pilot's License you need a new medical exam every five years and you have to do a check flight with an instructor every year. This is part of the reason why there are so few fatalities.

If something similar (thought not as darastic) was applied to motorists, I imagine it would be much safer out there. As a new driver, watching what some people do on the roads is rather eye opening.

And what about the cost? Well my driving test and theory only cost £85, paying that every 10 years is hardly significant. It could be very quickly and simply introduced by having a combined theory/eyesight/reaction test for older/all driver to sit.

The fundamental issue here is that driving is seen as a right when in fact it is not, it is a privilege granted under licence. The perceived "right" of the motorist trumps all others, including the right to safe mobility of the non motorised majority. Until we redress this imbalance the freedom of mobility of the most vulnerable in society will be restricted for the benefit of the privileged.

At 60, and every few years thereafter (3 or 5 perhaps) you should have to be medically signed off as capable of driving. The only hard and fast requirement for driving at the moment is eyesight I think, so it's difficult to test anything else without major changes, which I think are necessary, but will take longer to implement, and I would like to see something done sooner rather than later.

I hold a fork lift truck licence as well as a driving licence, to keep my fork lift licence I have to be re-tested every three years. I can see no reason why this shouldn't apply to a driving licence also. It ensures you operate the vehicle competently and safely.

Self certification is a get-out clause, for people who don't think they're that bad... Certification by a third party who is not personally involved, and/or mandatory re-testing, is a far better option IMO.