Should drivers over 70 hand in their keys ?

[cram_it_frog]

one thing no one has said is a 70 year old today compared to a 70 year old in the last century is a totally different person health wise many are still working and leading healthy active lives due to modern medicine

a 70 year old today drove cars much harder to drive manual no air con and cross ply tyres

compared to say driving a 1960s ford with no power steering or power brakes to a modern car which one is much less stressful to drive

so 70 in todays terms is not that old 80 or 90 is getting close

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by cram_it_frog

one thing no one has said is a 70 year old today compared to a 70 year old in the last century is a totally different person health wise many are still working and leading healthy active lives due to modern medicine

a 70 year old today drove cars much harder to drive manual no air con and cross ply tyres

compared to say driving a 1960s ford with no power steering or power brakes to a modern car which one is much less stressful to drive

so 70 in todays terms is not that old 80 or 90 is getting close

We still have alzheimer's, dementia, diabetes & other related illnesses that will impact on your fitness to drive, New car technology is not going to really help you.

[nuthin' fancy]

The idea that you can get a licence at 18 and die at 98 without your skills being retested is ridiculous. The idea of being tested every year unless there is a compelling reason to do so is a nonsense too.

I think something along the lines of testing at licence renewal time is not a bad idea. Surely the development of simulators would create a way to make an initial test with further monitoring if required.

Fund it with a tax on fuel, the more you drive, the more you pay.

[filthypig]

Come on bernie leave frank alone my old man is pretty shabby to they should be tested every year but don't forget we will be that age to one day well some of us anyway

[olfella]

Originally Posted by trublu

We still have alzheimer's, dementia, diabetes & other related illnesses that will impact on your fitness to drive, New car technology is not going to really help you.

Is that the same as alcohol, grass, ice and coke?

[olfella]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

The idea that you can get a licence at 18 and die at 98 without your skills being retested is ridiculous. The idea of being tested every year unless there is a compelling reason to do so is a nonsense too.

I think something along the lines of testing at licence renewal time is not a bad idea. Surely the development of simulators would create a way to make an initial test with further monitoring if required.

Fund it with a tax on fuel, the more you drive, the more you pay.

So how is it that so many that cannot read or write english get a licence? Would that be picked up in the beginning or as part of the retest? Or taxi drivers that don't know where they are let alone where they are taking you!

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

I think something along the lines of testing at licence renewal time is not a bad idea..

But then those that renew their license yearly would have to do an annual test, and those with a 10 year licence would do the test every 10 years?....

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

Fund it with a tax on fuel, the more you drive, the more you pay.

Great idea for city folk with little cars who don't travel very far, however in a country town.................

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by olfella

So how is it that so many that cannot read or write english get a licence? Would that be picked up in the beginning or as part of the retest? Or taxi drivers that don't know where they are let alone where they are taking you!

Many street signs conform to an international standard so can be read whether you learned to drive in Sydney, San Francisco, Sunderland or Saudi Arabia. A knowledge of english does not make you a better driver.

Taxi training is not a general licence issue. I'm not disagreeing that too many cab drivers seem to lack knowledge, but we are talking driver licence testing here, not skills training for other requirements.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

But then those that renew their license yearly would have to do an annual test, and those with a 10 year licence would do the test every 10 years?....

Choose the length of your renewal, choose the frequency with which you are tested.

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Great idea for city folk with little cars who don't travel very far, however in a country town.................

It has to be paid for somehow. If it took an hour for a retest you would have to recover a $100 for the cost. Increasing the licence fee by $100 would generate a greater blow back than a small increase to fuel.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

Many street signs conform to an international standard so can be read whether you learned to drive in Sydney, San Francisco, Sunderland or Saudi Arabia. A knowledge of english does not make you a better driver.

Taxi training is not a general licence issue. I'm not disagreeing that too many cab drivers seem to lack knowledge, but we are talking driver licence testing here, not skills training for other requirements.

So the street signs help with reading the road rules do they?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

Choose the length of your renewal, choose the frequency with which you are tested.

Yeah great idea, the idiot who drives like a lunatic chooses a 10 year license/test, whilst one who is a good chooses the annual one.

This would tie up testers for testing someone who is safe on the roads while the idiots carry on for the next 9 years ?

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

It has to be paid for somehow. If it took an hour for a retest you would have to recover a $100 for the cost. Increasing the licence fee by $100 would generate a greater blow back than a small increase to fuel.

Yeah, increasing fuel price thereby penalising people who don't live in a city but who would be subsidising them.

Would you be happy with an increase in your weekly fuel bill so someone can test you every 1/2/5/10 years

[olfella]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

Taxi training is not a general licence issue. I'm not disagreeing that too many cab drivers seem to lack knowledge, but we are talking driver licence testing here, not skills training for other requirements.

So driver licence testing must be based on competency? Right? So to be competent, one must have experience (based on a drivers log these days and signed off by the examiner) and knowledge (based on the road rules). Even a retest would be based on those two criteria one would imagine. As for road signs, having driven through Sydney recently it is a mess. You dont know what speed the speed limit is as it changes in a very short distance and you dont get enough time to read the destination signs to get into the correct lane. Thank gawd for the GPS!

[olfella]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

It has to be paid for somehow. If it took an hour for a retest you would have to recover a $100 for the cost. Increasing the licence fee by $100 would generate a greater blow back than a small increase to fuel.

pensioners over 65 get their licence for free!! woooopeeeee

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by olfella

So driver licence testing must be based on competency? Right? So to be competent, one must have experience (based on a drivers log these days and signed off by the examiner) and knowledge (based on the road rules). Even a retest would be based on those two criteria one would imagine. As for road signs, having driven through Sydney recently it is a mess. You dont know what speed the speed limit is as it changes in a very short distance and you dont get enough time to read the destination signs to get into the correct lane. Thank gawd for the GPS!

This is not a discussion about taxi drivers, it is about testing on over 70s. Start a new thread on taxi driver skills if you want.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by olfella

So the street signs help with reading the road rules do they?

26 language choices on the Vicroads website.

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Yeah great idea, the idiot who drives like a lunatic chooses a 10 year license/test, whilst one who is a good chooses the annual one.

This would tie up testers for testing someone who is safe on the roads while the idiots carry on for the next 9 years ?

But there is no testing now, once every 10 years better than never.

Those who are doing the right thing are always penalised and inconvenienced by the tiny minority who want to do the wrong thing. Most people don't need to be screened at the airport, they have no intention of causing harm, they just want to get where they want to go. It is those handful of people who want to cause harm who make it harder for the rest (and bulk) of us.

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Yeah, increasing fuel price thereby penalising people who don't live in a city but who would be subsidising them.

Would you be happy with an increase in your weekly fuel bill so someone can test you every 1/2/5/10 years

The increase in excise of ½c per litre just introduced means $0.50 a week to me, almost unnoticeable in the scheme of things and in the fluctuation of fuel prices through the week yet it raises billions.

My point is that testing increases someone's workload and requires resources. It has to be paid for.

How would you pay for it?

[blackf6]

No. Just make everyone drive around in motorised jumping castles. Problem solved. Next problem.....

[noflac52]

So this thread is still going!!!

By the time it finishes everyone here will be over 70 lol!!!!

[olfella]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

This is not a discussion about taxi drivers, it is about testing on over 70s. Start a new thread on taxi driver skills if you want.

eeeerrrr did I mention taxi drivers in that post? And it is not about testing the over 70's either - it is about should they hand their keys over. So, why should they?? What is the difference between them and some of the examples given here?

[malazn mafia]

What if everyone who has a car accident (at fault) loses their license automatically and needs to resit driving test?

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

The increase in excise of ½c per litre just introduced means $0.50 a week to me, almost unnoticeable in the scheme of things and in the fluctuation of fuel prices through the week yet it raises billions.

That equates to 100L of fuel a week, and in an average car that's from 700-1100km - so you spend a of of time on the road (like I do).

I reckon that 50c would be saved, by having better fuel consumption, when you see a marked reduction in incidents like where you have to dive on the brakes all the time to avoid idiots (this increasing fuel consumption when you have to accelerate again), speed up & slow down all the time behind clowns who can't keep a constant speed.

Regardless of whether or not we see a marked reduction in the types of things above, economy will improve simply from the smoother traffic flow that would come about from A), less drivers in the road in total, and B) at least a base line of road rules (courtesy to be part of the test) that they have to learn every 10 or so years (or less).

So it should end up cost neutral.

[motorcycles4eva]

Originally Posted by mercury39

I'm 76 years old, but I would challenge the average driver to a few laps on the 1/4 mile speedway track.

rock on dude!!! i hope i'm still like that when and if i reach your age..

[aussiblue]

No; see https://www.youtube.com/embed/qxCpK1...layer_embedded and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Dunning 104 still going strong and used to do her own oil changes etc post 100.

[aussiblue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37292951

New research from Swansea University challenges the idea that older people are dangerous drivers.

Analysis of data on vehicle accidents showed that drivers aged 70 are involved in 3-4 times fewer accidents than 17-21 year old men.

By observing older drivers, the study found that most mistakes made occurred on right turns and overtaking.

Older drivers tended to make mistakes when they felt under pressure from other road users.

[TER2BO]

Just thought I would get in on this one.
As a baby boomer fast approaching 70. At the moment I still drive at least 500klms per week (work & pleasure) and see no reason for handing in my keys at 70 (which is the new 60).Unless health issues arise.
In a few years won't 1/4 of the population be over 70. Car dealers would nearly go out of business and Uber and others would make a killing (most likely the passengers) because most of them can't drive and don't know where they are going.(without a GPS)
Seriously, maybe there should be Health and driving checks every 5 yrs for over 70's and yearly assesments, comprehensive medical/drug tests and retraining for under 30 year olds from what I see on the roads everyday.

[buggo]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37292951
Quote:
New research from Swansea University challenges the idea that older people are dangerous drivers.

Analysis of data on vehicle accidents showed that drivers aged 70 are involved in 3-4 times fewer accidents than 17-21 year old men.

By observing older drivers, the study found that most mistakes made occurred on right turns and overtaking.

Older drivers tended to make mistakes when they felt under pressure from other road users.

3-4x more likely to have an accident is a pretty useless statistic if it isn't accompanied by how much more (or less) 17-21 year olds spend on the road compared to 70+.

17-21 year olds also show that as experience increases, the likelihood of accidents go down. This is the exact opposite of 70+ year olds which I think is the key concern.

It could be argued that if the driving age began from 25, than 25-31 year olds would be the highest risk category, due to their inexperience only. This would decline until the driver reaches 70+.

[aussiblue]

17-21 year olds also show that as experience increases, the likelihood of accidents go down. This is the exact opposite of 70+ year olds which I think is the key concern.

It could be argued that if the driving age began from 25, than 25-31 year olds would be the highest risk category, due to their inexperience only. This would decline until the driver reaches 70+.

No; it is because many 17-24 year old have not accepted they are mortal and they take more risks and do silly things to impress peers and or the opposite sex. I guess it's also because they are exploring new boundaries having escaped from parental control and still have to learn from their mistakes. As the ABS says here:

Youth is a period characterised by rapid psychological and physical transition, where young people progress from being dependent children to independent adults. This transition period has been made more complex by the social, economic and technological changes that have occurred in Australia over recent decades. 1

In this stage of life, people may be vulnerable to the influences of peer pressure and popular culture, and may be inclined to experiment, push boundaries and take risks that could impact on their immediate and longer term health and wellbeing. Patterns and levels of some risky behaviours differ between young men and young women, with prevalence often being higher among young men.

As the ABS article goes on to explain this risky behaviour often includes drinking at risky levels, use of illicit drugs, dangerous driving and violence. and that driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, driving when fatigued and speeding are often implicated in transport accidents involving young people.

[buggo]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

No; it is because 17-24 year old have not accepted they are mortal and the fact that they take more risks and do silly things to impress peers and or the opposite sex. As the ABS says here:



As the ABS article goes on to explain this risky behaviour often includes drinking at risky levels, use of illicit drugs, dangerous driving and violence. and that driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, driving when fatigued and speeding are often implicated in transport accidents involving young people.

Is that then not supporting the argument that 70+ year olds should be tested / reviewed more frequently?
Based on the above, <25's take more risks as it's in their nature. This compounds with inexperience behind a wheel and leads to high rates of accidents.

By the time these same guys are 70+, they've had 50 years to develop skills and reduce their risk taking. This isn't reflected in the data which shows accidents spike after a certain age.

[mike_nofx]

Not enough information in that article.

How do they come up with the figure of 3-4x more likely, are 17-21 year olds just on the road 3-4x more than old people?

Surely 17-21 year olds are 1000x more likely to have an accident compared with drivers 100+ years old, but this would also prove very little.

We're comparing an age group who are driving to work, university, social outings, road trips etc with a group who drives 2km to the grocery store on a sunny day.

[LG17]

Originally Posted by buggo

Is that then not supporting the argument that 70+ year olds should be tested / reviewed more frequently?
Based on the above, <25's take more risks as it's in their nature. This compounds with inexperience behind a wheel and leads to high rates of accidents.

By the time these same guys are 70+, they've had 50 years to develop skills and reduce their risk taking. This isn't reflected in the data which shows accidents spike after a certain age.

Judging by the road toll, most won't make 70 as they will be dead...

[Seasoned One]

70, most of us won't even be able to retire till then, I think maybe a doctors certificate over 75 and maybe a practical driving test for a set time frame, surely within 15 minutes a driving tester will be able to determine whether or not you need further testing or are good to keep driving, seen some shocking young drivers , know some fantastic 70 pluses... most of us better than middle aged buggers know distance rules for parking, u turns etc by sight , but couldn't give you the rule book measurements if you know what I mean, then, my daughter just got her licence, and in the pre test instruction got chipped for "going back through the gears" , the new way apparently is to hold the gear your in until point of stalling and not have clutch depressed for more than 5 seconds...... then stop.... I would have failed