Tighten tests to ensure older motorists fit to drive, says lawyer

Subject to blackouts... there's a clue in the those three words

Compulsory eye-test should be necessary for all driving license renewals, particularly night-vision would be a good start.
Make it a criminal offense to knowing not self-declare a condition.

As someone who ended up in a pretty nasty crash with an OAP driving a car I’m all for this. I encountered a very elderly lady coming round a corner totally in my lane resulting in me being crushed against an embankment. My arm hit her wing mirror with so much force it ripped the mirror clean off and my radius was completely shattered. I had to have two major operations (one over Xmas - sob) and I’ve been left with permanent nerve damage and a large area of missing muscle. The police visited the elderly lady twice, but on the second visit she couldn’t remember seeing them previously! Her license was subsequently taken away. The route I was on is mostly very quiet and popular with families out for a ride so had she met them it could have been a lot worse.

She was subject to blackouts and self-certified to drive. How is that NOT dangerous driving?

Well you could start by having a test in the first place. My dad (now 84) decided that he shouldn't be driving about anymore after he hit a wheelie bin he "didn't see". But he could hav just carried on and all he would have to do is sign a form saying that he was ok to drive.

This could be quite simply done by older people who in any case are almost bound to see their GP once a year anyway just having their GP sign that form to say they were OK (as most are) or not OK (as some are) or that the GP was unable to say and they should have an eye test for the purpose of deciding.

Basically old people aren't necessarily poor and those that can afford a car can also afford to pay an admin fee for an annual sight test and for the GP to say they are fit to drive.

The current self certification is a joke.

Too many coffin dodgers still allowed to drive beyond 70 years. They should have an annual test from 70th birthday onward to include sight, ear, hand eye co-ordination, mental dexterity - alertness and reflex testing.

prosecutors accepted her defence that her blackouts were due to an underlying medical condition.

Blackouts - plural, she shouldn't have been driving, driving whilst knowing you may blackout is obviously dangerous, so why did the prosecution drop the charges?

So, basically the old lady lied when self-certifying, and her GP failed to report a serious medical condition to DVLA.

One should be aggravating circumstances, the other professional negligence.

The article says
"Last year, charges of causing death by dangerous driving against Mrs Ross, who had no recollection of the crash, were dropped after prosecutors accepted her defence that her blackouts were due to an underlying medical condition."
Surely that means she must have self-certified herself as capable of driving while knowing - because of this "underlying medical condition" - that she wasn't? Isn't lying to the government an offence of some sort? Or am I being dreadfully old-fashioned?
Incidentally, don't assume being over 70 or whatever automatically means someone's a bad driver. We know a 92 yr old who drives herself to the gym several times a week with no problems.

If you want to know what its like with an abundance of aged drivers, look no further than Florida. It combines bad infrastructure (no paved shoulders) with well past their sell-by-date drivers. I believe Tampa is the most dangerous city for cyclists and Orlando isn't far behind. When I drive there (I'd never ride my bike on the road) you have to expect anything. My Floridian friend advises never to honk your horn because the old folks tend to panic.

P.S. fortunately Florida has some really nice rails-to-trails based bike paths. Unfortunately there are only 400kms of them in the whole state and they aren't interconnected.

My father-in-law has passed the Ontario re-test twice: he is functionally deaf (unless you yell into his 1 good ear); had the wrong prescription for one of the tests; and in general should not be allowed behind the steering wheel. The system still needs to be willing to take the license away and it won't. We ended up selling his car so he couldn't drive.

your GP should be able to have your licence revoked if he feels that you are no longer fit when doing your annual health checks...

Anyone pick up on this typically lazy Department for Cars thought process?

"The Department for Transport has been pushing for the age threshold to be increased, saying that Britain’s ageing population means it is getting inundated with applications for renewal of licences"

Essentially it reads we can't be arsed to process applications as too many people are getting old so can't we just look at upping fitness checks to operate a lethal machine in the public domain to say, 120 years old so we have less to do?

Total incompetence and murderous apathy yet they have the gall to insult every single bereaved family out there by insisting road safety is a priority. Classic case of actions meaning more than words I think yet sadly we see very little in the way of action from this pointless department.

Agreed, my Grandma stopped driving after she destroyed the front of a house with a telegraph pole after flooring the accelerator instead of the brake. Routine testing could have spared her the risk she posed to herself and others. At least it was only property that got damaged, it could have been a lot worse.

Bikeability, AIM and CBT should be mandatory for all driving instructors and renewed annually alongside a practical driving test and routine observation sessions.

For us plebs a regular theory test every ten years focusing on recent changes and safety awareness would weed out the idiots and correct false assumptions and bad habits that creep in over time. Fail theory and you get knocked back to provisional with a year to pass an gets put on to a five year re-test after the initial pass. Over 60s should test five yearly and over 75 annually.

New drivers should have to do CBT or Bikeability Level 3 before progressing to a provisional drivers license.

Those caught committing cycling offences (especially pavement cycling) should be allowed to opt for Bikeability training to avoid or reduce fines.

Personality profiling would be useful but psychopaths will find ways around that and I doubt we can afford fMRI scans of all new drivers while they are shown images of fluffy kittens and roadkill.

Don't start going down that road, it might just drive you mad. Imagine you were to invent and market the motor car in this day and age, what with our health and safety laws.

"You want to sell what now? To anyone with a pulse? Yeah, how about NO?!"

This story is anecdotal, but I gather that the statistics indicate a worrying trend towards older people being responsible for a disproportionate share of accidents involving injury to other road users - a bit of a donut, in fact, with the youngest drivers also being disproportionately involved, although for different reasons.

I used to have a private pilot's licence. I was required to submit to biennial re-tests of my flying capabilities, and to have a minimum amount of experience between tests. I also had to submit to regular medical examinations which increased in both frequency and thoroughness as I grew older. So for example from age 50 you have to have a medical every 2 years, with an ECG every time. You also, obviously, had eyesight and hearing tests, and if your eyesight needed correction you had to wear your glasses AND have a spare pair of your prescription with you when you fly.

For all that, the number of occasions when a private pilot has taken anyone other than themselves with them to the grave is vanishingly small, unlike the carnage which occurs daily due to unfit, careless or negligent drivers.

It is really quite incredible that in an most environments you would be expected to be tested periodically to ensure you are safe, to ensure that your knowledge is kept upto date. First aid, fork lifts, traveling cranes, etc etc.

Yet you can get a driving licence at 17 and then at 70 you can self assess. Consider the roads today and then look at how they were in the 1960s. Likewise look at the roads today, can anyone with any confidence say that nothing will change between now and 2060?

How many drivers read the highway code after they have a licence? how many drivers are unable to negotiate a roundabout?

Agree with the above, regular re-tests for everyone and include anger management tests to weed out the nut jobs who should not be driving becuase they are a danger to others, i.e. all Audi Q7 drivers.

Tighten tests to ensure all motorists fit to drive, says me.