Widow of cyclist killed by driver aged 93 calls for annual testing of older motorists

Captain Badger wrote:

To be clear, I am for regular testing. Of all drivers. 

Amen to that. Now that you have to actually "renew" your licence (the bit of paper) every 10 years there is the beginnings of a mechanism to make that happen ... just insist that in order to get the new one you provide evidence that you have passed a competency test (which includes the Highway Code). 

The only issue I have with how elderly drivers (or indeed any drivers affected by health issues) are dealt with is that it is down to the individual to report themselves unfit to drive, and they can just choose not to do so, even if they are aware that they should. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

To be clear, I am for regular testing. Of all drivers. 

Amen to that. Now that you have to actually "renew" your licence (the bit of paper) every 10 years there is the beginnings of a mechanism to make that happen ... just insist that in order to get the new one you provide evidence that you have passed a competency test (which includes the Highway Code). 

The only issue I have with how elderly drivers (or indeed any drivers affected by health issues) are dealt with is that it is down to the individual to report themselves unfit to drive, and they can just choose not to do so, even if they are aware that they should. 

I agree here, and this is true for younger drivers too. How many times do we hear from friends "I'd never be able to pass my test now" My response is typically "then why the f*ck are you driving?"

Or it would be if I still had any friends....

Captain Badger wrote:

No, it is about mistaking correlation for causation. The actual story is taken from a sample of 1. This is a notoriously crap method of formulating policy, tempting though it may be

I think it's actually a case of assuming correlation in the first place. It seems obvious, doddery old drivers, must be dangerous. But it is not so clear cut. Doddery they may be, but that is not the same as dangerous.
https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-re...
And, I suspect that if you stripped out motorway miles from the denominator, the OAPs rates per mile would compare even better.

Sriracha wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

No, it is about mistaking correlation for causation. The actual story is taken from a sample of 1. This is a notoriously crap method of formulating policy, tempting though it may be

I think it's actually a case of assuming correlation in the first place. It seems obvious, doddery old drivers, must be dangerous. But it is not so clear cut. Doddery they may be, but that is not the same as dangerous. https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-re... And, I suspect that if you stripped out motorway miles from the denominator, the OAPs rates per mile would compare even better.

That I think is the statistic I was referring to in my response to Hoarseman above

Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

No, it is about mistaking correlation for causation. The actual story is taken from a sample of 1. This is a notoriously crap method of formulating policy, tempting though it may be

I think it's actually a case of assuming correlation in the first place. It seems obvious, doddery old drivers, must be dangerous. But it is not so clear cut. Doddery they may be, but that is not the same as dangerous. https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-re... And, I suspect that if you stripped out motorway miles from the denominator, the OAPs rates per mile would compare even better.

That I think is the statistic I was referring to in my response to Hoarseman above

I suspect that stat is a bit higher at the lowest age range as it's the US, where you can drive at 16. There's no doubt young, inexperienced drivers are a high risk.

It also demonstrates that the oldest age range contribute the highest death rate.

HoarseMann wrote:

....

It also demonstrates that the oldest age range contribute the highest death rate.

I don't believe it does. In terms of 3rd party injury or death, the 80+ is surpassed by all groups up to 25-29. 60-69 are safest of all per mile for all roles, with the 70-79 age group being the same risks approx as mine (46)

As mentioned before the risk of injury or death of the driver themselves increases alarmingly with age, however this may be less to do with competence and more with the fragility of body in the event of a collision. I would hazard this applies to the passengers too - elderly drivers are more likely to carry elderly passengers.

As Scirarcha has put forward removal of motorway miles (more likely for younger drivers due to commuting etc) which are inherently the "safest" miles would likely show elderly drivers to be safer still.

It's also worth noting that this graph shows figures by involvement and not cause/fault. An interesting speculation to follow might be to investigate whether elderly drivers are more likely to suffer collisions from impatient more dangerous younger drivers, as they are notably slower (or so our prejudices might suggest).

Looking at these graphs makes it more clear to me than ever that legislating on age bracket to achieve safer roads (rather than meerly satisfying our prejudices) would be either ineffective or, if we did follow the true age/risk patterns ridiculously complex and nigh on impossible to administer

My conclusion is that regular health and ability tests across the board would be the way forward

I doubt there is much disagreement between us.

The existing system of passing your test at 17 and never being assessed again isn't very good at removing unsafe drivers.

It isn't a sample of 1 though, even the story references two deaths in two different cases.  It isn't hard to find a few others.

Sniffer wrote:

I doubt there is much disagreement between us.

 

The existing system of passing your test at 17 and never being assessed again isn't very good at removing unsafe drivers.

No I dare say there isn't. You are absolutely correct, and I would say retests at least every 5 years, with an accompanying medical for key indicators such as eyesight.

Sniffer wrote:

It isn't a sample of 1 though, even the story references two deaths in two different cases.  It isn't hard to find a few others.

Indeed, we can always find individual occurrences to suit our own conclusions (and help to convince ourselves that we are right), which is why anecdotal evidence and laws of one are so crap at making policy. We can always find several incidences of cyclists breaking lights, folk smoking into their 90s and people winning the lottery. They're not necessarily identifiable trends in themselves though, tempting as they are to illustrate a point.

That's why I believe that policy should be determined by risk analysis. And that shows that age is not a straight forward determinant for risk to others on the roads in itself.

Captain Badger wrote:

That's why I believe that policy should be determined by risk analysis.

It's never quite that simple though, as costs play a very big part of it.

Ideally, everyone of any age ought to pass some fitness to drive test prior to each journey and be continually monitored throughout. But the costs and inconvenience of that are just not commensurate with the risk (although might happen sooner than we think with AI and autonomous cars - error, manual mode disengaged due to erratic steering input!).

For anyone with an elderly relative, they're not just concerned with the 3rd party risk, but the risk to the driver themselves - which is high in those stats from the US.

Maybe "black-boxes" should be more commonplace for vehicles. I know some insurance companies already use them and I think provide lower costs for the smoother drivers (i.e. gradual acceleration and braking rather than flooring it and then hitting the brakes). In theory the tech should already by in mobile phones (accelerometers, GPS and cameras) so the hardware cost shouldn't be significant. Maybe flag up suspicious poor driving for the driver to attend a skills refresher course and possibly a re-test if there's no improvement.

Ultimately, we're at the point where we have the technology but just require the political will to achieve Vision Zero.

HoarseMann wrote:

 

It's never quite that simple though, as costs play a very big part of it.

Costs are to be borne by those wishing to drive. Eye test is less than £ 30, if you're not entitled to NHS - driving test whatever, but once every 5 years seems sensible to me

HoarseMann wrote:

 Ideally, everyone of any age ought to pass some fitness to drive test prior to each journey and be continually monitored throughout. But the costs and inconvenience of that are just not commensurate with the risk (although might happen sooner than we think with AI and autonomous cars - error, manual mode disengaged due to erratic steering input!).

You have just essentially stated that there is no point in testing cos it's inconvenient and costly for high-risk drivers. So why chase down low-risk drivers.....?.

If resource is a worry (which it shouldn't be as drivers should bear the cost) then you would concentrate on the largest riskiest group, not the smallest lowest risk group. if indeed you are trying to reduce road risk, and not just chasing doddery old (but safe) drivers.

Again, this seems like prejudice

HoarseMann wrote:

For anyone with an elderly relative, they're not just concerned with the 3rd party risk, but the risk to the driver themselves - which is high in those stats from the US.

As stated it is likely that the higher risk to the individual is due to fragility rather than competence. Note, high risk to the individual, not 3rd parties. Again, you would do better to reduce risk to individuals and 3rd parties by concentrating on young high-risk drivers than older safer drivers.

But ok, let's look at this more closely. You are infantilising these low risk, low outcome drivers. Their personal risk is theirs to take, and risk for the elderly increases for any activity. They are grown-ups and it is not for you and me delicence perfectly competent drivers "for their own good". 

Especially when, really, it's more about that old lady driving too slow for you.

HM, this has been a fascinating conversation, however, there has been nothing in it to convince me that there is any valid reason to single out any driver for age alone - competence/fitness to drive is the only valid reason to delicence.

Neither have I seen anything to convince me that "concern" for elderly drivers is born out of anything more than prejudice and "get outta my way", something that as cyclists we should show more empathy for.

Have a great weekend dude.

Captain Badger wrote:

Have a great weekend dude.

You too, I don't think we're too far off agreeing, you're just casting the net a bit wider and we're seeing the stats from different angles.

But your assumption that the slow driver held me up is not true - I was often the approaching vehicle, and the times I overtook, she had stopped on a straight and I could easily pass. I was just concerned at the erratic driving.

HoarseMann wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Have a great weekend dude.

You too, I don't think we're too far off agreeing, you're just casting the net a bit wider and we're seeing the stats from different angles.

But your assumption that the slow driver held me up is not true - I was often the approaching vehicle, and the times I overtook, she had stopped on a straight and I could easily pass. I was just concerned at the erratic driving.

No probs. In fairness I'm not quite old enough for the Logan's Run of driving licences just yet, and I suppose it's academic as in this country at least, there is an utter political reluctance to address the road safety issue at any level - I'm still waiting for the promised review....

Some drivers become incapable of driving safely due to poor/deteriorating physical or mental health. Regular testing could screen out such drivers. Normally this is elderly people but does apply to younger people to.

Some (most?) drivers are prefectly capable of driving safely but choose not to (outside of a test environment, or in the immediate vicinity of a speed camera/marked police vehicle). I don't think regular testing will do much to change this group's behaviour. It might help a little bit if it corrects bad habits, and ensures all drivers are familiar with the latest highway code etc.

I guess the distribution of accidents is a reverse bell-curve then with higher rates in younger and older drivers.  It's all academic, we're going to be taxed off the roads soon enough anyway! 

Yes, per mile driven it looks like this:

My granny was driving her Nissan Micra into her nineties. She would drive from near Reading to Norwich sometimes, avoiding busy roads, taking most of the day. There were frequent conversations about maybe cutting her off. She'd been driving since a teenager, before 1935 when testing became required.

One day she pulled out in front of someone and had a bad crash. She was in hospital for a week, and in a care facility for nearly a year before returning home. She didn't drive after that. She lived several more years, a few months shy of 101.