Should drivers over 70 hand in their keys ?

[chevypower]

I wonder if some people think they will never get old, or perhaps they don't realize yet that life goes pretty quickly. I don't wish to make life even more difficult for the elderly.

[JG33]

Drivers under 20 should hand in their keys, can't drive if their life depended on it.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Giant Cranium

My grandfather passes every time but he knows his limits and only goes to the local shops. He is 88 though

And that's the difference, he's 88, knows his limits, and drives accordingly. Your average 18 yr old thinks he's invincible and can do anything.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

The elderly are only a small part of the danger equation on Aussie roads.

But unlike younger drivers, who tend to have more single vehicle accidents, elderly drivers tend to crash into others. And per km travelled, they have just as many accidents as young drivers.

[BPXR6T]

Try living on a farm. Lose your license and you're stuffed.

[LoudPipes]

Here are the Government road death statistics for 2009 through to 2013.

This will give an accurate figure on the ages and types of accidents and may also help with more accurate comments.

You’ll see for 2013 by far the deadliest age is between 40 and 64 followed by 26 to 39.

Disregarding the fact there is most likely more drivers within those age groups on the road, I say take the licences off all middle aged drivers so as to keep the roads safe for the rest of us.

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_annual_summaries.aspx

[Burnout]

/\ Cheeky ol' Barsteward!

[hedgehobb]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

And that's the difference, he's 88, knows his limits, and drives accordingly. Your average 18 yr old thinks he's invincible and can do anything.

So I'm invincible because I choose to drive further than the shops.

[chevypower]

See what happens when people try to impose their views on others? They get ****ed off. Everybody should just leave everyone else alone to do whatever they damn well please (within reason).

[mik]

No, but they should do a yearly medical and competency test.
And on that note i think at the very least every driver should have a medical every 5 years at least, your health can change very quickly, even 5 is probably to long.

[Andrew S]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Happens also to some under 70 drivers.

Automatic transmissions make it too easy for the driver to drive and for this to happen. Its been happening since the early '60's when automatics started becoming more common. Mainly because the right foot does all the braking and accelerating, it can get confused, while the left foot does nothing. Maybe left foot emergency braking should be taught more instead of only using the right foot. Which reminds me of a thread some years ago. Oh wait, here it is. But read the last page of that thread, not just the first page.

This problem doesn't happen with manual cars, maybe all drivers over 70 should be driving only manual cars, which would also sort them out.

Interesting comment about left foot braking...
I worked in the Australia Square underground car park for several months in my younger days and all us drivers had to learn to brake with our left foot because of the large variety of cars and pedal layouts.
Since then it has become so ingrained that I do it automatically.
Only downside is a tendency to ride the brakes a little but I don't find that a disadvantage.
I know that given this trait and also given that my brakes are better than the majority of other cars, I worry a little about the bloke behind me stopping in time........

[Andrew S]

.......and yes it is an auto....

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Andrew S

I know that given this trait and also given that my brakes are better than the majority of other cars, I worry a little about the bloke behind me stopping in time........

I'd worry if series 1 au brakes, regardless of rotor and pad upgrade, were better than the majority of other cars on the road.

[aussiblue]

Talking about misuse of stats; Peneberthy is jumping to unfounded subjective conclusions.

Looking at the actual stats for the 7 months to July 2014 here http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/s..._database.aspx many of the oldies involved were pedestrians or passengers and others were drivers in multiple vehicle crashes where they may not have been the cause of the accident just the poor oldy with an increased risk of non-recovery due to age and possibly existing health issues. Only 25 of the 98 fatalities involving those 70 and over were single vehicle drivers, 20 were pedestrians and 5 were on pushbikes.

In the 15 to 25 year age group for the same 7 months by comparison we get 128 fatalities in total with 46 single vehicle driver fatalities nearly double for the oldies..

[aussiblue]

Hmmm I wonder if we should look at the 12 months figures and check his maths too to see if it is true that "In the 12 months to June 30 there were 204 fatalities involving drivers aged 17 to 25 and 258 fatalities involving those over 65."

[Madaya]

I've got no problem when the day comes to hand in my licence and/or keys.
I'm 51 right now. Another 20 years or so should see me. I don't want to be one of those old men who through a brain fade or heart fart, mows down a young innocent.

Give away the car, there's several hundred dollars a year in rego, possibly a grand or more in petrol and servicing, throw in extra for insurance and we are talking a lot of money for taxi rides.

On the other hand, maybe I will be jumping in to a car and saying 'home'.

[GT450]

I wonder how many of you younger drivers will think the way they do now when they are closer to 70, Not many I bet when the shoe is on the other foot. If you want the real truth about accident statistics ask the insurance companies and I bet the oldies don't rate anywhere near some of the younger age groups.
If the police just handed out fines for being on the phone in Vic at $433 a pop the could fix the defecit this year not to mention the one's who are off the planet on illicit drugs and are never caught.
So please spare a thought for the oldies you may, with a lot of good luck, become one yourself.....oneday.
GT450

[noflac52]

Should Richards, Johnson, Perkins, Grice, Longhurst, Mezera, Moffat etc etc hand in their keys at 70. I think not!

These are exceptional drivers and even into more advanced age than 70 their skill levels will be well above those of the ordinary driver unless of course medical problems that inhibit their normal activities become apparent.

You don't just forget higher levels of learning because you are getting older. The problem exists mainly because a large majority of drivers were never taught how to drive in the first place and the problem will continue to exist in all age groups until proper driving skills are taught right from the beginning.

If drivers are taught high skills that become second nature they will carry them throughout their lives and tolls will drop in all age groups.

Regular revision and practice to maintain the skills should also be a prerequisite for all drivers.

This would have such an affect on driver behaviour that it will probably never come to fruition because of governments reliance on fine revenue to balance the budgets. Its also the reason we will probably never see driverless cars for yonks because no one would be breaking any laws and this would devastate their budgets too.

[tut0r]

Problem is those who are young want older drivers banned, those who are older generally want the youngings banned.

Most of us have had a fair share of stupid moments in our younger days, it just comes down to better driver education. So many young people even my age have the mentality of 'it won't happen to me', the laws just aren't working in this country.

I love the $433 and 4 demerit points for phones, probably the smartest thing they ever did, I say raise the damn fine, lack of concentration is the worst!! How many times do you see some dimwit on their phone either sit at a green light or keep edging forwards till they tap the car in front because they were checking their precise facebook to see if someone liked their idiotic status about kittens or some ****....

I for one hate having my falcon ute in my area due to my insurance being minimum of $1600 up to $3600 quotes for the stupidity of others my age driving the same vehicle.....Then here's someone 2 years younger than me, I'm 26 can have a 2010 GTS for a $900 premium....Why? Because statistics show there aren't many people of that age crashing those cars.......Think I might go and buy an aston martin tomorrow for a work car..

[FormulaFG]

This is a very timely thread actually. My grandfather is just about to stop driving at the age of 91.

One of the reasons I think the elderly hold on to their licenses longer than they should is the fact they don't want to burden their friends and family.

Over the last 10 years my grandfather has been getting regular clearances from his doctor to say he is ok to drive. He has, by his own choice, given up driving at night and in more recent years has been doing less driving and shorter trips.

Now he has handed us his keys, to which we all breath a sigh of relief, it does however mean that we must now pick up the slack. Taking him to get his weekly groceries, return/borrow books from the local library, doctors appointments etc etc.

I'm not complaining at all about having to do these things for him. I'm convinced he hung on at least 2 years longer than he probably should have because he felt he would be burdening us once he stops driving. In fact I'm grateful that he has come to the conclusion on his own and that he hasn't killed himself or anyone else.

[MattSAU2XR8]

Other than old drivers and young drivers possibly Govco should start looking at people who have lots of fender benders :-) Insurance companies could be made to forward claim reports to Govco and if a bad driver clocks up more than a certain number of at fault claims in a certain number of years they could have to sit a vision/medical/driving test and if they don't pass be referred for glasses/treatment/driver education? Probably alsoautomatic referral for idiotic crashes like single vehicle rollovers, sideswiping parked cars, crashing Nissan Skylines sideways onto gutters, running over keep left signs, driving into other peoples gardens, and so on. Any of these people is probably more dangerous than an old driver because they DID crash as opposed to MIGHT crash.

[tapeworm]

I'm sure the government would love the 'fees' involved if they brought in testing every few years. I'm surprised they haven't implemented this because of this

[Franco Cozzo]

If public transport was better I'd only be driving on weekends, driving in Melbourne gives me the ***** to be honest.

Public transport sucks which is why people avoid it when they can, especially the Metro rail system linking Melbourne suburbs (VLine is actually quite good which links Regional Victoria).

Metro trains are all vandalised and in poor condition, need inspectors or transit police on them.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by tapeworm

I'm sure the government would love the 'fees' involved if they brought in testing every few years. I'm surprised they haven't implemented this because of this

The money paid out to accident compensation victims might be minimized with less serious crashes on our roads with some regular compulsory testing to weed out the potential problem drivers.
So with some extra potential cash in the coffers , and the added cash from compulsory testing, wouldn't it be great to have a compulsory advanced driver education program for all drivers who have held their license for 10 years or more. Subsidized by govco......free. You have to pass the advanced test and it could be graded with levels. High achievers could be Gold license holders with good on road track record could attract substantially lower insurance premiums at 75% lower than standard. Gives people an incentive and might make some people strive to upskill themselves and pay more attention.

Instead, we have a BS fee for getting your picture on a plastic card updated which gives you the right to another 10 years on the road.....untested. Insurance premiums are cheaper because you can pay on line and you live in a good postcode as opposed to a tested and documented driver skill level. No wonder we're trying to blame everyone but ourselves for the some of the mess our roads are in. A lot easier to get 70 year olds off the roads and put speed cameras in wheelie bins then it is to reculture an ignorant and aloof driving public.
Great job govco.....awesome.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

High achievers could be Gold license holders with good on road track record could attract substantially lower insurance premiums at 75% lower than standard.

Which insurance company will welcome 75% less $$$ coming to them? They would all be up in arms.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Which insurance company will welcome 75% less $$$ coming to them? They would all be up in arms.

I reckon there would be heaps. Especially if after a while it was statistically proven that a GOLD level license holder was proven to be less than 2% likely to be involved in any accident. Insurance company makes less money on premiums but is much less likely to pay out. So the more of these gold level license holders you attract, the more money you actually keep, as opposed to charging more because you have to pay out more. Glass half full.....glass half empty.

[motorcycles4eva]

if they can still drive safely after their tests why shouldn't they drive?
youger people with quicker reflexes at times shouldn't be on the road either.

[Andrew S]

I'm over seventy and I consider myself to be a pretty competent driver.
Having said that however I would be willing to submit to any test imposed by the transport dept.
I've driven millions of miles both here in Oz and also in Europe and my present car which I've owned from new has 401 on the clock now.
I guess the one thing I've learned in my advancing years is patience. I was never patient in my youth and had many speeding tickets as a consequence..
The only things that gets me slightly annoyed these days are P platers who think they are invincible and young females in pocket rockets who seem to have no regard for anyone else on the road...
I've quietened down a little now but I don't hang around....if the limit is 110 that's generally what I'll be doing, or if the flow is traveling at 115 I'll happily keep up....
I've recently upgraded the AU a little, not because I'm a rev head but mainly for reasons of confidence, safety and responsibility...

[Falcon Coupe]

There are many middle aged slow/timid drivers who can't merge at speed or need five head checks and a lot of swerving just to change a lane. If they haven't learned by now they won't be any better as they lose control of their faculties.

Does freedom overpower public safety? I think not. However a case by case basis is required. It's harsh to cover all elderly with the same blanket.

[mik]

When we look at the system in victoria at least, here is a system where you can go for a your drivers test and get your licence at 18 , no medical required, not long ago you could then drive until you died with out a single medical or even a road rule refresher course..
I believe now that when you hit 70 you will get a letter in the mail from vic roads, 52 years no medical no refresher course. ....... good thing we the oldies make the laws : ).