You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Think the logic is that the number of young driver accidents during that period is higher than the baseline but could be wrong
Doubt it, it’s not like it’s something that hasn’t happened before ?
Has there been a FAI (or Inquest) that recommended age based cognitive testing?
The more appropriate option would be to simply require re-testing at intervals.
It’d need some evidence base, i.e how frequently does it need to be to discover enough bad drivers that it was worthwhile, or how quickly do people decline.
I only skim read the FAI report but I think they heard evidence but concluded that the immediate need was for >80's and the SoS should consider it for >75s. Expert evidence seemed to suggest that whilst actual driver testing would be the gold standard - cognitive impairment testing could be a more realistic step.
I just love this, another kick the elderly thread.
Not at all. But an elderly woman killed a toddler because she appeared to have reached a point where she should no longer be driving, and was no longer able to make sensible decisions about her own or other people's safety, even after the accident she seemed to have no appreciation of what was going on. Should society ignore the fact that some people are a potential hazard to others because those people are old?
You can all do one, I really resent having to keep reappliying for my license every three years while being subjected on the road to all the dangerous behaviour on other road users.
I'm not sure why you resent having to renew your license every three years. My wife has to for a medical condition - its a minor inconvenience but anyone could see that its a necessary safeguard against deterioration of her health to the extent it affects driving. Now I do think there also needs to be a better mechanism for her clinical team to raise a concern before the three years, just as there should be for old folk - but the point here, if you bother to read the judgement before dismissing it, was that the lady involved actually appeared quite lucid and had obviously had her license renewed multiple times, so the current system didn't work.
This is one quite rare incidence but some 17 year old kid can kill 3 of his mates and himeself and none of you even commented.
Well I was responding to a press story about the fatal accident inquiry. If there's an FAI on a teenager killing his mates then I'll happily discuss the outcomes. My point (which to be fair most people seem to have missed) was that this wasn't just some road safety organisation claiming we should be more thorough, or a driver training place with a vested interest, or the bereaved family. it was a fatal accident inquiry. They are relatively uncommon in the first place, but even less common to make formal recommendations. My question was do those recommendations carry any real weight?
I am sick of close passes , cars doing red light plus three or four in the all England light jumping championship, The idiot in Rusholme who passed me at speed in the straight on lane to turn right in front of the the cars in the process of turning right, the person in the Audi who overtook me in the 20mph zone when I was obeying the speed limit.
You are 100% right, we should not even consider doing anything about the license renewals of people with dementia until all those other issues are resolved 😉
For the record my partner has promised to tell me the moment my driving is no longer safe so I can give up before getting to the point of being dangerous.
What if her judgement goes first or the same time? What if you won't listen at that point (dementia isn't great at helping sound judgements)? What if she thinks, as many do in those circumstances, he's not the worst and it will affect our lifestyle if we cant get about and surely the Dr would have said something...
By the way, I think it is telling that the body representing GPs essentially refused to take part in the FAI. I understand if they don't think they are the right people to make that decision etc, but attending the inquiry and saying that, or raising concerns about impact on workload etc would have enabled the Sheriff to take that into account in making his recommendations.
Most cases of dementia are diagnosed between the ages of 40 and 65.
I think you have misquoted something there... Under 65's with dementia are known as early onset dementia - the clear implication being that "normal" dementia is not diagnosed until 65+!
Parents' friend (late 70s) informed them that he'd recently stopped using his sleep apnea mask. Seemingly, the continued validity of his driving licence was conditional on his maintaining this treatment.
Needless to say, he's still driving. Tellingly, his son hasn't allowed him to drive his grandchildren in years.
Instead of fussing over this we should be aiming for a society where everyone can get where they need to by bicycle and/or public transport, and perhaps the occasional car hire. The personal car is probably incompatible with widespread human survival in the centuries to come anyway, and is at the epicentre of a current public health crisis which includes premature cognitive decline. Most of the cars I see on the roads around me every day just don’t need to be there and our lives would be better if they weren’t.
Not sure a 45mph limit (assume thats a legal limit relying on an officer clocking them, not a physical restriction on the car?) and a sticker would help here
Same as any speed limit really then. There was nothing stopping them trying to take the bend at 100.
OTOH it might have put them off going on the road trip at all and got the train instead.
And any measures are inevitably going to have to be assessed based on the bigger picture, a 45mph limit would do nothing to prevent deaths around most towns, it might have an impact out of town. Yes it relies on enforcement, but that's the same as the motorcycle restrictions which are largely stuck to and workable (e.g. no pillions, I've seen the police pull over riders and pillions on small capacity bikes to check licenses etc).
What if testing was run at a profit?
This. Absolutely this.
Petrol currently at 1.35 ish a litre. Way too cheap. My litmus paper is the school run. When petrol was 1.70 a litre, there were very few who'd leave the engine running while the parents sat there. Now, there's a few. QED petrol is too cheap.
It's back to the entitlement thing. "WHY should I, a driver, have to pay?"
Oh, and I did enjoy the comments about regular retesting likely having no impact on safety. Some people drive like incompetent buffoons through choice. Most people drive like that because of habit.
If you change the habit, you change the output. So retests work by constantly reminding people of how they need to drive, so they do it better & more often... Which forms a habit.
Pilots don't often crash aeroplanes. Why is that? Because they aren't tested often? Or because they are?
Instead of fussing over this we should be aiming for a society where everyone can get where they need to by bicycle and/or public transport, and perhaps the occasional car hire.
Indeed.
But carnormativity runs deep.
(As do challenges in rural areas).
Pilots don’t often crash aeroplanes. Why is that? Because they aren’t tested often? Or because they are?
I'd hypothesize because they have a crew and ATC looking over their shoulder constantly? If a pilot did something stupid it would get noticed and investigated. I'd say that's a better argument for black boxes universally than regular testing.
Indeed.
But carnormativity runs deep.
(As do challenges in rural areas).
Nothing changes, until it does.
To answer the OP's question.
There was a case a couple of years ago near me of someone with dementia pulling out - ended up killing a toddler in a pram on the pavement.
Nothing was done then, nothing will be done now. People who should not be allowed in a car will continue to be allowed to kill and maim.
I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this has been mentioned already. We have built a society based on car travel for the past 50 years, it isn't any wonder that the elderly are reluctant to give up their cars when that creates a level of isolation from the services they need and activities they can still enjoy.
If we want not only old people to consider their impact on road safety but just make our own environments nicer and more traffic free then the concept of the 15 minute city is the way to go, make living without a car a realistic lifestyle choice bring most of the facilities and services we need in life within walking distance or a short trip on an efficient public transport.
I didn't own a car from about 2012 until 2023, but arthritic knees meant using public transport had become an issue for me, I had already set my life up so I could have relatively quick and easy commute to work on bike or public transport, but I still found I needed a car. So at 55 now, and I am having thoughts now about what my life will be like when I get older, with services getting more centralised, friends being quite geographically distributed, local high streets dying etc would I be able to survive without a car?
To answer the OP’s question.
There was a case a couple of years ago near me of someone with dementia pulling out – ended up killing a toddler in a pram on the pavement.
Nothing was done then, nothing will be done now. People who should not be allowed in a car will continue to be allowed to kill and maim.
do you know if there was an inquest/FAI with recommendations?
Instead of fussing over this
“fussing over” the preventable circumstances that lead to the death of a toddler on the pavement is quite an interesting characterisation
we should be aiming for a society where everyone can get where they need to by bicycle and/or public transport, and perhaps the occasional car hire.
you think 86 yr old women with dementia should be getting around Edinburgh by bicycle ? I am not sure how a hire car would have made her safer? Whilst I would like to see a world less reliant on the car - I’m not sure how realistic your aspiration is. Edinburgh is already fairly well served by busses but she continued to drive once a week. However your utopia is surely more, not less likely, to happen if certain types of driver who shouldn’t be on the roads anymore are unable to continue driving = more demand for public transport.
Nothing was done then, nothing will be done now.
This. It's like gun deaths in the US. There'll be some handwringing, some thoughts and prayers and - when it's particularly horrific such as the death of a toddler or a whole family in one go (like the incident on the M6 last week) - there'll be a few column inches about it before the nation goes back to watching old episodes of Top Gear where Clarkson slides a supercar round a bend going POWEEEERRRR! and we'll all feel a bit better.
Then the same thing will happen the following week, and the week after.
If it was trams or trains or planes the whole industry would be shut down in an instant. But cars (like guns) = freedom and occasionally freedom = death and there'll be a collective shrug and a sort of "isn't it tragic but what can we do?!"
They can attend in person like a theory test. Whether they can drive home afterwards of course…..
not only a problem for the driving home afterwards - but “attend a theory test centre” is a “city” centric approach which may not be reasonable for an 80 yr old in a rural area. The FAI finding was you can probably avoid these sort of accidents with a far simpler test requiring much less time/cost/inconvenience. Of course if you want to keep a lot of old people out just make it so to renew your license you need to do it online, with a Live Photo required so they can’t outsource the whole thing to their children.
She was already driving illegally so not sure how there been a ‘test’ would’ve stopped her driving.
that is an interesting question. Her car should have popped up on anpr for being uninsured and she should have been fined for not having continuous insurance. She may have continued to drive without a licence (a scary number of people with all their cognitive functions do), but perhaps it would have been the trigger to accept she wasn’t safe, and sell the car.
I think its a difficult one as others have said a car (or transport etc) is a lifeline for the elderly im many ways. (not just getting to waitrose but family etc)
I have noticed that over the years the cars have become much faster at accelerating. With the current super fast electric cars becoming more commonplace i can only imagine the potential for accidents increases as the 2T steel monsters with a sub 4 second 0-60 shoot off from the school gates in silence.
I strongly believe that anyone retaking a driving test that passed more than 20 years ago would probably fail a current test. However that said a rolling test would be beneficial. Like a test lite thats taken as a refresher every 5 years or so. If you use your transport for work (like a taxi) that could be halved. All professional drivers should be trained as such imo.
I dont think its about pricing people off the road as we clearly need transport but it has to be carried out at a good standard. At the moment its not.
I also think that we should have classes of license. i.e up to 100bhp class 1 up to 200 class 2 etc. For each you would have to take an advanced test to move up. There are far too many people (myself included) driving 400+ bhp cars without the ability to handle that sort of power in an emergency situation.
She was driving uninsured and cognitively impaired and thought she was still entitled to drive. What legislative approach are you suggesting? She died before she could be convicted of death by dangerous driving (which is a retributive nonsense which does little to prevent road deaths). The problem here is precisely a cultural one around driving and selfishness. It’s one that’s as visible on the zigzag lines outside my kids’ school daily as it is in this woman’s deadly actions.
Her car should have popped up on anpr for being uninsured and she should have been fined for not having continuous insurance.
Most estimates are that there are about 1.2m uninsured (and therefore presumably untaxed / un-MOT'd) cars in the UK although how many are on the roads at any given time is more difficult. In theory it's about 1 in every 35 vehicles in the UK.
And usually that'll flag up other issues like disqualified drivers, general criminals, dangerous vehicles...
It'd be an easy win to plug some of that apparent black hole of Government finances.
Im amazed there are still so many on the road with the technology that exists.
I'm in favour of tougher driving licence renewal, together with a change to the "totting up" rules
Make it a universal change in line with current rules for certain drivers, e.g. full medical on first licence application, full medical on renewal at age 45 years and every 5 years thereafter. It can be done by agencies employing GMC-registered doctors and renting a hotel suite, which is current practice for large vehicle drivers (you can use your GP too)
Reduce "totting up" to 6pp rather than 12pp, which is current practice for the first two years as a new driver
The problem with a wider range of measures is that statistically they can't be supported and politically there won't be the push
5 road fatalities per billion vehicle miles travelled in 2023, down 7% compared to 2022
Maybe we should concentrate on blokes...
in 2023, 75% of fatalities and 61% of casualties of all severities were male
But if you look at the graphs older men are safer than older women.
People with a dementia diagnosid are supposed to tell the DVLA so their ability to drive can be assessed.
Maybe we should be doing psychological testing for all drivers to weed out the dangerous.
Maybe we should be doing psychological testing for all drivers to weed out the dangerous.
The medical at 45 years ^^ covers "Dementia or cognitive impairment" (form D4, section 4 on p5) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/d4-medical-examiner-report-for-a-lorry-or-bus-driving-licence
Stamp on the accelerator instead of the brake
Had one of those in our town recently. Straight through the wall of the mental hospital. The police have asked for his licence to be revoked.
As for no tests, my dad's test was twice round the parade ground in a 3-tonner, got a licence which allowed him to drive just about anything. That was on national service, but he's 91 now and was one of the last to do NS so they're can't be many more left like him. He agreed not to drive any more about 4 years ago, after my step mother asked me to have 'the driving conversation' with him.
It definitely worries me that I could be left without the ability to drive. At 66 next month, that day could be 10 years away, maybe more, maybe less. I'll not miss driving as a past-time - I've always viewed cars as a utility - but rural transport is shit and I'd hate to be forced into moving somewhere busier.
Won’t be long before the car itself will decide if you’re fit enough to drive and it and simply won’t turn on if you’re not!
But if you look at the graphs older men are safer than older women.
be interesting to see some really deep analysis of that. Is it in any way linked to the longer life expectancy of women? Or gender stereotypes that affect the miles driven by each (esp if in a relationship). In any case you need to be careful with those graphs they look just at the demographics of the drivers who got hurt (if the title is correct) not the driver who was at fault. In the OP she wouldn’t appear as she walked away with no/minor injuries.
People with a dementia diagnosid are supposed to tell the DVLA so their ability to drive can be assessed.
yes but this is the point the Sheriff is making. You can’t expect someone who has a mental impairment (diagnosed or not) to make the decision to tell dvla - so someone else should assess that. And it’s common enough in the over 80s that the sheriff believed without change the same thing could happen again.
Maybe we should be doing psychological testing for all drivers to weed out the dangerous
well I’d welcome that. Suspect it would be hard for any practical to delver mass scale test to tell who should not be trusted with a car and those who should not be trusted but have learned the bluff answers. Although maybe connect a blood pressure monitor and wheel a bike past them would be a clue!
When you are first diagnosed with dementia is at a point when you are reasonably rational. At diagnosis you can still drive if the DVLA says you can it's not a black and white situation.
I suggest so of you have look at the altzimers society website. Age is not the only factor with people being diagnosed in their 60s.
When you are first diagnosed with dementia is at a point when you are reasonably rational. At diagnosis you can still drive if the DVLA says you can it’s not a black and white situation.
I'm guessing this is why GPs etc won't touch this aspect of recommending people give up their licences. Not as definitive as a blood pressure test or diabetes test.
Besides the dementia angle, I got into a debate recently with an older driver who was adamant that the A road out of town was a 40mph limit throughout. She was convinced that there were signs painted on the roadway advising that there was a 40mph limit and that as there was no NSL signpost after then it applied all the way to the next town.
There are no 40mph signs. There are huge SLOW markings on the entry to bends.
Opticians also cannot disclose patient information to the DVLA.
The other factor in the number of people killed in cars is that older people are more frail and therefore more likely to die in a collision.
One person who kills one child is one to many, but this is not an individual with newly diagnosed dementia.
Won’t be long before the car itself will decide if you’re fit enough to drive and it and simply won’t turn on if you’re not!
Nah. The vehicle will just have a lot more control systems and emergency braking, lane departure etc.
These systems are currently generally crap, but far more achievable than proper autonomous systems. My old V70 had a very effective braking system if it thought you were hitting a wall, person, post, bike etc - but the VAG system in the Seat or Skoda are just appalling..
Most cases of dementia are diagnosed between the ages of 40 and 65.
Citation needed! That sounds like absolute nonsense to me. Under 65 is the threshold for "early onset" and that's only a small minority of cases:
I got into a debate recently with an older driver who was adamant that the A road out of town was a 40mph limit throughout. She was convinced that there were signs painted on the roadway advising that there was a 40mph limit and that as there was no NSL signpost after then it applied all the way to the next town.
That's Donald Trump levels of denial right there lol!
Some people just refuse to accept that they are ever wrong.
Nah. The vehicle will just have a lot more control systems and emergency braking, lane departure etc
Yeah my comment was slightly tongue in cheek. My V90 has a pretty good early warning system and very useful adaptive cruise control, but, the obvious limitations of it are that it doesn't take into account anything other than what is directly in front of it, so a car braking 3 or 4 cars up etc which would normally get me ready to potentially take action has zero effect on the car.
but rural transport is shit and I’d hate to be forced into moving somewhere busier.
Better than driving when not even knowing who you are though isn't it. I am in same situation and would be reliant on taxis if I didn't want to use the bus that comes once a day at 11:00 and returns once a day at 17:00 whereas compared to my mum who live in very concentrated town she has a bus to pretty much anywhere with a 30 minute wait.
It doesn't even need full retests to make a difference, just have it so once you're 75+ you need to do one of those hazard perception/reaction time test simulations every year or two. If you fail you can opt to do a full retest or give up your licence. Would also be a requirement to have a functioning public transport system though so the elderly had a viable alternative.
@Bruce Like I said, citation needed. Please give a link where it’s stated not a vague claim that it’s out there somewhere.
That's More evidence than most of the claims on here.
Wild prejudice abounds in this thread with a witch hunt on older drivers. Which is not evidence based.
maybe but your claim doesn’t pass the sniff test. My wife and I have 4 late onset Alzheimer’s cases in our families (all post-75 diagnosis at least). Many of our friends have an Alzheimer’s parent. I don’t know of a single early onset case directly (though of course I read of a handful of celeb cases in the papers). They exist but are rare and no way a majority. It’s just a nonsense claim.
Assuming this image is correct (always a risk on the internet!) Alzheimer detection ramps up after 75:
My FiL had early-onset Alzheimer, I think he was 67 or so when it was detected. One of the first symptoms, incidentally, was that he was driving and couldn't work out how to get off a roundabout.
Better than driving when not even knowing who you are though isn’t it. I am in same situation and would be reliant on taxis if I didn’t want to use the bus that comes once a day at 11:00 and returns once a day at 17:00 whereas compared to my mum who live in very concentrated town she has a bus to pretty much anywhere with a 30 minute wait.
Taxis? You think taxis are available whenever you want them in rural areas?
And don't ever think you'll just ring up and get a taxi during either school drop-off (up to an hour before) or pick-up (up to an hour after).
The older folk I know (my Mum and her friends are all now 80's thru 90's) self-regulate their driving, they're slowly giving up and none of them drive at night (as in when it's dark - so their twice weekly afternoon walk & coffee meetup will start an hour early as of next week (clocks going back). It's also 'handy' that most of them drive equivalent-type cars, so when I come across an Aygo/Piccanto/Smart/etc etc doing 40mph on a NSL road with a driver I can barely see I pretty much know why, and they're easy to overtake.
This for me is the majority, as just like when they were younger they didn't break Rule #1.
We live rurally; bus services are only on the main roads between the main towns, taxis are limited (and expensive as they rarely get a return journey) and with lots of hills, single-track roads and often limited options between towns cycling is an enthusiast 'occupation' only - consequentially folk are car-dependent.
On the flip side, deaths attributed to the roads are at historically low levels and to put it into perspective, approximately 10 folk a month die on Scottish roads vs the 5,000 or so total deaths.
And I go back to the case the OP linked to, she was already driving illegally (as she'd purposely cancelled her car insurance).
Wild prejudice abounds in this thread with a witch hunt on older drivers.
I'm not sure anyone is out on a witch hunt. People are pointing out (sometimes anecdotally, sometimes with citations) that older drivers are more likely to suffer from cognitive or physical decline affecting their driving - be that Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or general frailty. There's nothing witch hunting about pointing out simple facts like that.
With my grandfather, it was his eyesight initially. Cataracts. He got pulled over once for driving too slowly, turned out that in the headlight glare and rain he literally couldn't see a thing. The policeman drove him home but for whatever reason that did not trigger a "holy shit, you shouldn't be anywhere near a car!" discussion.
After he'd had his cataract operation he was a lot better but then everything declined slowly again.
We're not happy about my Mum continuing to drive although she is so frail that she is totally reliant on her car. No diagnosis of Alzheimer's though (she's mid 70's).
Would also be a requirement to have a functioning public transport system though so the elderly had a viable alternative.
There is also an element* of choice as to where you live out your later years, shouldn't be just down to the public purse if you choose to live way out in the sticks.
* I am aware that proportions of the population don't have a choice in where they might live.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alzheimers-disease/
Who is affected?
Alzheimer's disease is most common in people over the age of 65.The risk of Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia increases with age, affecting an estimated 1 in 14 people over the age of 65 and 1 in every 6 people over the age of 80.
But around 1 in every 13 people with Alzheimer's disease are under the age of 65. This is called early- or young-onset Alzheimer's disease.
I'd start with insisting on an eye test every 5 years with The results formally submitted to the DVLA. If you need glasses it could be logged against your licence. Would also pick up peopke who shouldn't be driving due to other eye issues. Get caught driving without glasses on would invalidate your insurance on the spot.
Id then move to simulator based testing every 10 years reducing to 5 from 65.
Id also enforce speed limits and other rules of the road ensuring those caught pay for the service. Not difficult just wildly unpopular.
There is also an element* of choice as to where you live out your later years
this. People “retiring to the country” and *choosing* to live somewhere they are completely reliant on a car is mad.
You can’t expect someone who has a mental impairment (diagnosed or not) to make the decision to tell dvla – so someone else should assess that. And it’s common enough in the over 80s that the sheriff believed without change the same thing could happen again.….
We have built a society based on car travel for the past 50 years, it isn’t any wonder that the elderly are reluctant to give up their cars when that creates a level of isolation from the services they need and activities they can still enjoy.
two comments from posts above. You cant expect people to self assess their cognitive decline - as quite a few of us have mentioned in this thread our own parents have either been ignorant of or in denial about their health. Add to that a lifetime of being sold a car as a measure of status and independence (and in many cases a real, if sometimes self imposed by choice of home location, element of isolation without use of a car) the current self assessment approach is broken.
it’s becoming more of an issue because cars are more powerful, and people are living longer so more are affected by cognitive decline than before.
if a single airline pilot or train driver had done this there would be a major review and processes would change
if a single airline pilot or train driver had done this there would be a major review and processes would change
Absolutely.
Also of interest, and related to that ^^ comment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4w6lqp4lo
Police re-opening the investigation into the crash in Wimbledon where a woman crashed her Range Rover into a school, killing 2 pupils. The driver allegedly had an epileptic seizure and claims no memory of the incident. No info on whether or not she's still driving - claiming epilepsy means you have to stop driving immediately and notify DVLA although you can reapply for a licence if you've been seizure-free for one year.
Sadly it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she claimed epilepsy, gave herself an effective 1-year driving ban and then reapplied for a licence, no criminal record, no punishment.
Airline pilots and train drivers don't down a motorway texting
The older folk I know (my Mum and her friends are all now 80’s thru 90’s) self-regulate their driving, they’re slowly giving up and none of them drive at night
This for me is the majority, as just like when they were younger they didn’t break Rule #1.
those characterisations describe the lady in the OP right up until her disease started making her do irrational stuff, I actually wonder if self-regulating is a good idea - it means you are less practiced, less (recently) experienced. Those I know who have done that have done so following scares or minor bumps. Perhaps those closest to them (including me) should have said - if you can’t drive further than the shops safely you probably can’t drive there safely either. Lack of alternatives is a challenge but I don’t think we can use that as an excuse - well “she shouldn’t really be driving but how else would she get her shopping”… we wouldn’t let blind people, drunk alcoholics, epileptics/diabetics with very poor control of their condition etc drive just because it would be particularly inconvenient for them if they couldn’t.
There is also an element* of choice as to where you live out your later years, shouldn’t be just down to the public purse if you choose to live way out in the sticks.
this. People “retiring to the country” and *choosing* to live somewhere they are completely reliant on a car is mad.
Element of choice??? Retiring to the country? There are loads of people that have spent their whole lives living in one place in the country. Are you seriously suggesting someone who's lived in a village for the past 75 years, has all their friends there, all their life... they should just give all that up and move to somewhere with better connections? It's not going to happen. Rural areas need better public transport if we want the elderly to give up their cars.
BruceFull Member
Airline pilots and train drivers don’t down a motorway texting
Yep, but unless you inference is that big ramp on the right hand side of the graph is from the elderly driving down the motorway texting then there's something else going on that makes them 4x more lethal than those in the middle.
No one is saying take licenses away from the elderly specifically, we're saying take licenses away from people who are unable to drive.
Who is affected?
Alzheimer’s disease is most common in people over the age of 65.
The risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia increases with age, affecting an estimated 1 in 14 people over the age of 65 and 1 in every 6 people over the age of 80.
But around 1 in every 13 people with Alzheimer’s disease are under the age of 65. This is called early- or young-onset Alzheimer’s disease.
so Bruce whilst that is about Alzheimer’s not Dementia generally it seems to say the opposite from your previous post that most people are diagnosed 45-65… it also backs up the Sheriffs observation that the over 80s might be a particularly vulnerable group to cognitive function issues which merit a bit more scrutiny than assuming that if someone self declares they are still fit to drive then they are.
"But around 1 in every 13 people with Alzheimer’s disease are under the age of 65"
So 12 in 13 are above...
As for people saying "just take away your parents' keys", the child has no right to do this. It's basically theft, you're relying on the parent being unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Luckily, in our case FiL's car terminally failed its MOT at a convenient time, we refused to help him get a replacement and he wasn't capable of arranging that himself.
And as for "we must have a perfect public transport system before you take away the licence of any incompetent person", that's just nonsense. People get their licences taken away for a number of reasons, no-one has a right to drive if they can't do so safely and competently. If they choose to live somewhere that this is inconvenient, that's their problem.
Element of choice??? Retiring to the country? There are loads of people that have spent their whole lives living in one place in the country. Are you seriously suggesting someone who’s lived in a village for the past 75 years, has all their friends there, all their life… they should just give all that up and move to somewhere with better connections? It’s not going to happen. Rural areas need better public transport if we want the elderly to give up their cars.
are you seriously suggesting the someone who’s not fit to drive should be allowed to do so because the live in a location poorly served by public transport? I’m very much in support of better public transport, but it’s absolutely not an excuse for letting people who shouldn’t keep driving. What next - well I know the Judge disqualified you for being drunk, but fair enough you live in the middle of nowhere so you can’t be expected to actually not drive because there are no busses OR I see you’ve been diagnosed with a benign brain tumour and the docs want to see how that works out for 12 months before you are allowed to drive but looking at your address there is only one bus a day so I think we should make your convenience a higher priority than theoretical risks to others safety.
someone who’s lived in a village for the past 75 years, has all their friends there,
Well either their friends can give them lifts or they can move or they can struggle to continue living there, just as if they went blind or got banned for speeding or whatever.
"I'm incompetent and dangerous but you can't take away my inalienable right to drive because it would be a bit awkward" isn't really much of an argument.
"Taxis? You think taxis are available whenever you want them in rural areas?"
Absolutely this - and also even in small towns a relatively small taxi fleet means that being able to book one first thing in morning or mid afternoon to get to a GP/Hospital appt is impossible as what taxis there are are actually booked out by the education authority to take kids to and from school.
This is an argument for better rural transport in general though - there are plenty of people who currently live in rural areas poorly served by public transport who have never had access to a car. Maybe* having an uptick of "relatively" wealthier people with higher levels of social capital becoming reliant on buses in rural areas as a consequence of relinquishing their car licences will mean more effective advocacy for public transport as well as increasing the potential user numbers.
*I said maybe..more in hope than conviction
some very weird points of view on this thread. If people aren't safe to drive their license should be taken away. There should be regular tests for everyone to keep the standards of driving up and improve road safety
My ex BiL had epilepsy and was allowed to drive if he took his medication - thing was he kept not taking it, and had some big smashes. As far as I know he hasn't killed anyone and is still driving, but thats an example of someone whose license should be taken away.... its not just elderly
Whether you live in a village or not, tough shit, you shouldn't be on the road.
I also think there should mandatory bans for those in accidents that cause serious injury or death, even if accidental. Kill someone because the sun was in your eyes? You are not driving for 5 years. Non negotiable.
are you seriously suggesting the someone who’s not fit to drive should be allowed to do so because the live in a location poorly served by public transport?
Point out where I ever said people should be allowed to drive despite being incompetent, just because they live in a village? I clearly said we need better public transport.
Airline pilots and train drivers don’t down a motorway texting
I have no idea what that was supposed to say. But I’m pretty sure you won’t pass the medical (even for a PPL) if you have significant cognitive decline. Not many “airline pilot” or “train drivers” in their 80’s… must be more discrimination against the aging.
if you believe no pilot or train driver has ever used their phone inappropriately or that has never contributed to an incident I am fairly sure you will be wrong. Prosecutions for being over the alcohol limit are not unheard of in both those sectors.
@mogrim - here “ Rural areas need better public transport if we want the elderly to give up their cars.”
that clearly suggests you think if there’s no public transport we can’t demand elderly people don’t drive.
76 to80 bar on that graph looks similar to 30 to 35 bar.
I don't intend to be driving whe I am 80.
that clearly suggests you think if there’s no public transport we can’t demand elderly people don’t drive.
Perhaps I should have written "if we expect the elderly to give up their cars". Same meaning though - people are people, they need to get around, and if we want more people to voluntarily give up their main means of transport they need alternatives.
Element of choice???
@mogrim - exactly why I used the word "element" rather than plain choice. I also acknowledge that things change, somewhere I planned to move to had a good bus service between two large towns which would have been great in my later years but bus co has now cancelled that service ?
I don’t intend to be driving whe I am 80
Me neither & am actively planning my next move (just turned 60) to accommodate that.
Prosecutions for being over the alcohol limit are not unheard of in both those sectors.
And have consequences based on the risk to public safety, which is what this thread is about.
My parents gave up driving a couple of years ago. Our village has 1 bus an hour, so we are fortunate. It's two connecting buses to the supermarket, then they get a taxi back. Even doing that weekly, they aren't spending the petrol, insurance and servicing costs of their car.
I’d start with insisting on an eye test every 5 years with The results formally submitted to the DVLA. If you need glasses it could be logged against your licence.
if you need glasses and tell dvla (as the law says you should) then it is added as a condition on your license. It is surprising that when an optician tests your eyes and says you need to wear these to drive - the dvla rely on the person, not the optician, telling them. I think it’s mostly the same with serious medical conditions.
Would also pick up peopke who shouldn’t be driving due to other eye issues. Get caught driving without glasses on would invalidate your insurance on the spot.
people get a bit obsessed with invalidating insurance - that’s not a good thing, insurance protects everyone else on the road. However, under the current system if you have the flag on your licence that you need glasses and aren’t wearing them when the police stop you, you will be prosecuted for driving “otherwise in accordance with your license” (same as driving a class of vehicle you don’t haven’t got on the back of your license). Of course that does mean the cops need to stop you to check - which usually means you’ve done something else wrong first.
Since I seem to have stirred up a bit of a hornets nest with my comment about rural living, I should clarify that I accept there will come a time when driving isn't an option for me (assuming I live that long). I wasn't suggesting that I had some inalienable right to carry on forever. Balancing up when that will be would, of course, be much easier if there were other options.
Interesting point made by @intheborders though.. 10 deaths on the roads vs. 5000 for all reasons, but the figures also show that the elderly are only involved in a small proportion of those 10. We're looking at tiny numbers. I wonder if there are other lower-hanging plums that should be prioritised (like the 400bhp vehicles mentioned earlier?) or is this just seen as a cheap/easy win?
lower-hanging plums
I may be getting on, but my plums aren't hanging low, thank you very much. I did recently go for a "aorta aneurism scan", which is apparently routine at a certain age. The nurse asked if I was sure I wanted to do it, as if it was positive I'd have to stop driving until it was fixed. I went ahead, but with some trepidation as I'd have been royally screwed to be unable to drive. I could imagine some unprincipled folk avoiding medical tests if they risked losing their licence.
I wonder if there are other lower-hanging plums that should be prioritised (like the 400bhp vehicles mentioned earlier?) or is this just seen as a cheap/easy win?
I don't think *anything* in driving is a "cheap/easy win".
As soon as you mention or even imply the slightest restrictions on driving, there are howls of outrage around restrictions of freedom, what about the elderly, what about the carers, what about the rural dwellers, what about the kids...?
No one ever really seems to ask "what about the hundreds of people killed and seriously injured every year?" or "what about the costs to society of clearing up this carnage?"
All manner of qualifications require regular retesting, one I have to take is actually retaken at the driving theory test centres, so no reason why similar shouldn't occur for driving licences too.
@DrJ I just had the AAA scan done too. Completely out of the blue as I'd never heard of it. Good point about health testing and its implications though. I mean, I'd rather be healthy and NOT drive than the alternative!
As soon as you mention or even imply the slightest restrictions on driving, there are howls of outrage around restrictions of freedom, what about the elderly, what about the carers, what about the rural dwellers, what about the kids…?
What do you expect when folk have little choice though? I mean, I'm someone who would happily see speed restrictors fitted to all vehicles and much tougher penalties and totting-up rules (including the removal of any reason at all to be over the maximum points) just as a start but instead we're here focusing on a tiny percentage of the overall problem.
It is surprising that when an optician tests your eyes and says you need to wear these to drive – the dvla rely on the person, not the optician, telling them. I think it’s mostly the same with serious medical conditions.
Because ultimately it's the driver's responsibility to inform DVLA, and it's a criminal offense not to tell them about any serious conditions, and the GP details are on the form anyway, and they do occasionally follow up. If I'm honest, I'd much prefer that a different body did them, as they take up quite a bit of our time - Taxi drivers, HGV and bus drivers etc etc, they're just an additional burden that takes GPs away from what they should be doing
I know you shouldn’t laugh about these things, but….
A mates mum was in her 80’s and suffering from dementia. She was a feisty old bird (a former foreign office diplomat) and absolutely point blank refused to stop driving. Her car was the archetypal old biddy-mobile… a Rover 25.
Every time he went round to see her the car would have yet another ding or scrape where she’d hit somebody else in the car park at Tesco’s and just driven off. ‘Well, everyone does that!’ Was her reply to that.
He’d repeatedly pleaded with her to give up driving to no avail and was worried that the next prang would be a person, not a car.
So one day he had a moment of clarity. He went round to her house, rummaged through the drawers until he found the reg docs, got the keys and just drove it round to his house. He then set her up an account with a local taxi firm
The next time he went round she was demanding to know where her car was. He replied “you sold it about 6 months ago mum. Do you not remember? You get taxi’s now when you need to go to the shops. Look, the number is here by the phone”
Job jobbed as she couldn’t remember what happened last week, never mind 6 months ago
Like I said, you shouldn’t laugh, but sometimes the solution is staring you in the face 😀
if we want more people to voluntarily give up their main means of transport
I don't want it to be voluntary if they are incompetent.
What do you expect when folk have little choice though?
Almost all of them do have choices though, they have made choices all their lives to increase their car-dependency. They don't want to exercise the (simple and obvious) choices to do the contrary. Which in truly rural places means living somewhere more sensible, though this is only a small minority of such cases anyway.
Once you're old enough, you are not going to be able to drive. Sticking your head in the sand about this doesn't stop it from happening.
No one ever really seems to ask “what about the hundreds of people killed and seriously injured every year?” or “what about the costs to society of clearing up this carnage?”
Change "hundreds" to a percentage and it's the square root of FA though, and the costs likewise.
Remove all risk is both impossible and not the right approach, whether it's financial, road or any other area - you're not going to be able to remove 'all risk' and the closer you get to it the 100x more expensive it becomes (money as well as socially).
I’m actually surprised it requires new primary legislation, I would have thought the Secretary of State set medical rules for driving and determined the forms and processed for demonstrating that
I'm pleased that a right to personal freedom (irony much) is not subject to the whim of an individual elected politician with an eye on the headlines but requires the scrutiny of Parliament to change. At the same time as they are doing this could they please legislate to permanently remove licences from those that kill others by driving and the exceptional hardship defence (if your ability to drive affects your ability to provide for dependents maybe take a bit more care of your drving standard).