£440 fine for 92-year-old who crashed into cyclist on Cambridge roundabout

In all fairness im in favour or mandatory retesting of all ages every 5 or so years. It only needs to be a retake of the theory test covering all the new stuff that's come out.
All the current driver's aren't going to know about the upcoming changes to the highway code unless they have to re take a test

Drivers can have a stroke at the wheel at any age. Thankfully extremely rare, but a cut off age is ageist as many 70 year olds are more conscientious than some much younger drivers.
One issue that I have complained about (I'm a recently retired nurse) were the amount of those driving with poor diabetes control, especially those on insulin and refuse to monitor adequately. I've twice contacted the police where very frail drivers were concerned as the police had a tactful way of catching them once they were made aware. As said earlier, the GPs took no action but my own father nearly hit a pushchair at 92 because he couldn't feel his feet. There's so many conditions that make driving or riding any projectile risky at any age, including taking painkillers.

I'm 74 and aware that my eyesight is not what it was.
My optician says I am fine to drive. The moment he says I should think about it I'll stop.
As you get older all sorts of things get worse, Cognition, flexibility, reaction times, memory, etc, At the same time experience and responsibility tend to increase.
It is still a fact that old people are over represented in accident statistics
This is after the fact that a lot of them compensate by not driving at night and on busy roads.
I can see no reasonable option to asking us to take a test to show that we fit to drive.
It's not ageist just common sense

Cycloid wrote:

I can see no reasonable option to asking us to take a test to show that we fit to drive.
It's not ageist just common sense

In lieu of mandatory retests, I'd like to see a driving "black box" being fitted to as many cars as possible. Similar to the software that some insurance companies have on phone apps, it could measure the accelerating/braking forces and timing of maneouvres to produce a metric that shows how smooth your driving is. I think that'd provde an early insight that faculties are failing if you normally drive at say a 70% rating and it starts dropping to below 50% or some other noticeable decrease. It could function as a continual driving assessor which could also be valuable in highlighting certain diseases if metrics suddenly change.

Spot on
We can do almost anything we want with technology now.
Drivers could be logged every time they broke the speed limit, and receive a fine (+ points) at the end of the month. The investment in tehnology would pay for itself in no time
Nearly all the Highway code could be enforced
It won't happen because it would be too unpopular with motorists and no government would pass the legislation.
Anyway we will all be sitting in autonomous vehicles soon

Cycloid wrote:

Spot on
We can do almost anything we want with technology now.
Drivers could be logged every time they broke the speed limit, and receive a fine (+ points) at the end of the month. The investment in tehnology would pay for itself in no time
Nearly all the Highway code could be enforced
It won't happen because it would be too unpopular with motorists and no government would pass the legislation.
Anyway we will all be sitting in autonomous vehicles soon

I was thinking that they wouldn't be linked up to ensure law compliance, but they'd be more of an informational system for the driver - that way there's not an immediate detriment to using one. Ideally, insurance companies would also make use of them to provide lower premiums if you're a safer driver which would provide another incentive.

Maybe aggregate the anonymised data to instruct city planners and road designers about traffic flows and poor junction designs etc.

Both would be best

hawkinspeter wrote:

In lieu of mandatory retests, I'd like to see a driving "black box" being fitted to as many cars as possible. Similar to the software that some insurance companies have on phone apps, it could measure the accelerating/braking forces and timing of maneouvres to produce a metric that shows how smooth your driving is. I think that'd provde an early insight that faculties are failing if you normally drive at say a 70% rating and it starts dropping to below 50% or some other noticeable decrease. It could function as a continual driving assessor which could also be valuable in highlighting certain diseases if metrics suddenly change.

Hmm... I'm not convinced that this idea would be effective at preventing the sorts of incidents like the one in this article. A person can be driving very slowly and smoothly and appear (to a black box) to be perfectly safe. Until they slowly and smoothly drive into something they didn't see.  

OnYerBike wrote:

Hmm... I'm not convinced that this idea would be effective at preventing the sorts of incidents like the one in this article. A person can be driving very slowly and smoothly and appear (to a black box) to be perfectly safe. Until they slowly and smoothly drive into something they didn't see.  

You may be right, but I suspect there are factors that could show when drivers' abilities are declining. Maybe average speed decreases as their eyesight slowly worsens and the driver might not be that aware of the changes.

Average speed decreases over time as congestion increases !

ktache wrote:

Her claim of having a clear view seems doubtful too...

Her claim was utter b'lox!

I got taken out by a coffin dodger in late May 2020, who simply wasn't paying attention.

Smashed scapula, dislocated collar bone, 10 broken ribs, fractured sternum and a punctured lung.

Got a brief onboard with a history of taking on cycling cases and am now just awaiting a 5 figure payout from his car insurers.

It wasn't about me having insurance, which I did, but me being willing to sue his arse and not taking no for an answer.

Originally his insurance wouldn't pay a penny as they said I was going too fast and couldn't be seen.

GPS data overlayed onto maps with photos of the scene taken from both directions put pay to that, sharpish.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic about insurance.
It's just people say cyclists should have insurance as though the damage and danger are equal.

And, a reason why doctors/optometrists should have the power to compel people to hand in their driving license - see the horrific case in scotland (different legal system, mind) where a doctor recommended that John Johnstone hand in their license, they didn't, and subsequently killed a cyclist (Hanno Garbe)

What's worse is that GPs / Consultants who diagnose dementia in their patients refuse to inform DVLA.

Our family experience is that it's incredibly difficult to stop a driver with dementia from driving.

Even after informing the local police, social care etc of the diagnosis and the relative being clearly unfit to drive the reality was that they continued to drive untaxed / uninsured / impaired for a whole year afterwards.

There was no shortage of "professionals" but in every case their response was that it was someone else's job to sort the situation out. It's almost as if someone has to be killed or seriously injured before the "system" does anything.

What is the significance of the number 70?  The drivers who most frighten me are probably around a third of that age which makes me favour compulsory re-tests for all drivers.  Maybe every five years and in any case, immediately after a court conviction for any driving offence.  But I hope in vain, no government will risk upsetting the Great British Driver.

An anecdote typical of so many ......

On a recent frosty morning I was very carefully pedalling my way along a local lane.  Up ahead, on the apex of a sharp right bend was a young chap forlornly surveying the wreckage of his shiny new Mini.  "Ice on the road," he told me.  "Absolutely nothing I could do."

For a second I thought about enquiring whether he had troubled himself to watch a weather forecast, or to leave a few minutes early, or to drive a little slower, or to defrost all his frozen side windows.  But no; my righteous frustration at his refusal to acknowledge any blame at all would simply have bounced off his hard shell of ignorance.

We, the vulnerable must just suck it up.

There's nothing magic about the number 70, although it is the age already prescribed by law where driving licences start needing to be renewed and so it is a natural point to extend any age-related changes. If you look at a graph like the top one on this article, there does appear to be some evidence to support somewhere around the age of 70 as appropriate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489

I would agree (and the graph on that page would suggest) that young drivers are just as dangerous, if not more so, than older drivers. I would tend to agree that regular testing for everyone would make the roads safer.

However, I do think it is fair to identify a distinction between young drivers who choose to drive recklessly and older drivers who are attempting to drive safely but incapable of doing so due to age-related problems. I think young people would be perfectly capable of driving sensibly for the duration of a test in order to pass, but then revert to their normal manner of driving as soon as they are unsupervised. Therefore, more testing wouldn't necessarily reduce the incidence of accidents among young drivers. I also note that testing every five years would not result in much additional testing amoung the most dangerous under-24 age group (the earliest re-test would be at age 22).

However, additional testing could be more effective at preventing older people who have become incapable of driving safely from continuing to do so.

Another option would be to insist that drivers have to be certified as fit to drive by a doctor before renewing a licence (and provide that certification alongside the application), rather relying on the current self-declaration approach. 

OnYerBike wrote:

.......

I also note that testing every five years would not result in much additional testing amoung the most dangerous under-24 age group (the earliest re-test would be at age 22).

If we assume approximately 700,000 new drivers each year, taking an average of 3 tests to pass (probably an overestimate) that would be 2million anual tests.

If we now want to test the circa 30m drivers every 5 years that means an additional 6million tests per year, an incredible increase in testing requirements.

How's about retesting as follows;

• 1 year after passing test
• 3 years after passing test
• 5 years after passing test
• 10 years after passing test
• Every ten years until your 60 the birthday, when it reverts to every five years until...
• Your 75th birthday, where it reverts to every two years until...
• Your 85th birthday, where it reverts to an annual test.

Driving needs to be less of a right and more of an earned priviledge.

However, I'd say that in this digital age, these tests don't necessarily need to be out on the open road, they could be in a simulator of some kind. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Driving needs to be less of a right and more of an earned priviledge.

So someone who is operating a two tonne vehicle, containing a tank of flammable liquid and powered by an internal combustion engine, on a regular basis, at speed, and in close proximity to other such vehicles or to the general public (either pedestrians or vulnerable road users)... They did a test which licenced them to use that machinery some time ago (one test, and then you're pretty much good to go forever and ever).

Why isn't it necessary or desirable for such an operator to keep refreshing their skills and making sure that they are safe to continue to operate such machinery?

(I mean, if you are in an industrial environment, are you required to keep refreshing your skills for (say) driving a forklift or a container crane?  So why not cars?)