You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Should we mandate more ‘city speed’ protection devices?
A lot of these "old folk crashes car into something" events are a case of mistaking the gas for the brake and - especially in an EV - acceleration can be rapid, too quick for the owner to react and often too quick for the car's own sensor stuff to start dealing with the rapid change in pace and the scenario of what's in front of it. Plus the driver still has their foot hard on the gas pedal. By the time everything has kicked in, the car is already bonnet deep in a shop.
And human faculties or lack thereof aside, if you're pressing what you think to be the brake and aren't slowing then every nerve in your body is screaming to press it harder.
This was a Thing I Was Taught back when I passed my test. You start sliding and - in the days before widespread adoption of ABS which only became mandatory in the UK in 2004, my first car was manufactured in 1977 - you should lift off the brake to allow the wheels to start turning again. Great in theory, really difficult in practice when you're trying to recover from a **** up.
These days we could probably equip all new cars with technology to prevent them from mounting kerbs altogether and it would much improve our urban realm, as well as making doddery drivers somewhat safer.
This was a Thing I Was Taught back when I passed my test. You start sliding and – in the days before widespread adoption of ABS which only became mandatory in the UK in 2004, my first car was manufactured in 1977 – you should lift off the brake to allow the wheels to start turning again. Great in theory, really difficult in practice when you’re trying to recover from a **** up.
Same with the theory that putting your best tyres on the back keeps the cars natural tendency to understeer, which is safer.
Great in theory, but try telling you monkey brain to straighten the wheel when the car is understeering straight on into a crash barrier. Oversteer might be more likely to end up in a full on spin, but at least your instinct and the right thing to do in order to correct it are aligned.
By the time everything has kicked in, the car is already bonnet deep in a shop.
Come and try it in a Volvo. Honestly sweeping into the car parking space at work to quick with a hedge in front led the system to all but put me through the windscreen as the car stopped on screeching tyres.
The day it spotted a child on bike swerving in front of me, I hadn't even seen the kid and the car behind could barely stop in time...
It's a really, really good system.
A lot of these “old folk crashes car into something” events are a case of mistaking the gas for the brake
do these safety features have an override? Like lane keep assist, you can still leave the lane but the steering is much heavier. So something in front, you have override the autobrake by putting your foot on the floor. Seems stupid at first thought but as technology is fallible, would always want a manual override of sorts.
more importantly, the mistaking the pedals issue - if you think you are pushing the brake and you are still heading towards something, you push down harder on what you think is the brake. only a problem in auto transmission vehicles (and EVs) so for a long time, it was only americans who had incompetent people plowing into shop fronts. Now autos are common here in the civilised world in standard vehicles not just expensive luxury ones, its becoming much more of a problem.
The UK is in a bind - so car-dependent that people don't think of the car as something that has to be kept maintained and driven competently, it's become 'the only way I can get around'. This has become really embedded in how people think and means that there are significant blind eyes turned by practically everyone to poor practice (that tyre? I'll get around to changing it, but right now I need to get to work / 'oh gosh I can't see a parking space, I'll only be ten minutes so I'll just leave it on the pavement, I'm sure that guy in a wheelchair won't mind popping out onto the road to get round it etc).
The lack of alternatives makes it really hard for people to give up driving (even for a few days). My mum in Germany (81) has an e-bike that she potters around on so she has access to the post office, shops etc and the train station for longer trips. There aren't many places in the UK that are as safe for cyclists as where she lives - which is a semi-rural town in the Thüringer Wald. Nor do small UK towns have the kind of public transport that mean I don't have to worry about her needing a car.
I know it's a bit nerdy but I am really excited about the Buses Bill, it could make a massive difference to access to public transport. Obviously it's turning a tanker size endeavour but we really need to have alternatives to driving so that everyone has options.
Re the Volvo auto brake feature
Even if the car was equipped with this feature, the heavy acceleration of the driver could have caused the system to be overridden and deactivated; the Volvo auto-braking (mitigation and avoidance) technology is highly advanced and in cases which the car detects that the driver intends to perform the action deliberately, it will deactivate itself.
From googling, depending on the age of the system it only prevents collisions up to 19 or 30mph as well, although by braking it will mitigate/ reduce severity of accidents if not overridden as above.
I know we're discussing older drivers here but there's a very wide issue with general competence and lack of compliance with the HC and law.
I commute along the M27 four days a week. Currently it's subject to a massive resurfacing project where there are a normal width lane and 2* 2m width restricted lanes (so cars and modest sized vans). There is clear signage saying HGVs use inside lane.
Every day I see:
- Large numbers of HGVs in the width restricted middle lane - but of course they get stuck every time they catch up to anything wide on the inside so end up with 200m of useless dead space in front of them and holding up a queue behind
- Car and van drivers in the normal width inside lane who can't manage to steer their modest family car to stay off the lane markings / out of the narrow lanes
- People barging across the solid white lined hatchings to join the main carriageway at junctions
- People leaving ridiculous gaps between them and the queue in front and not moving in unison with the traffic.
- Stupid tailgating and bullying behaviour like refusing to allow enough space for vehicles to exit slip roads at the proper point
- People ignoring the variable speed limit (sprinting between camera sets)
- Facetime/video calls using a phone in a windscreen / air vent cradle + hand held phone use is still rife.
Round town there seems to be an epidemic of leaving more than a car length to the vehicle in front when stopped at traffic lights, unnecessarily extending the length of queues and also of blocking junctions and pedestrian crossings.
These problems are not being caused by "older drivers" as a group they're caused by people of normal working age having a massive shortage of competence and consideration.
These drivers are much more numerous, they're on the road more of the time and I honestly don't know how you turn the tide. If they can't drive properly now as fit and healthy people what on earth will they be like in 20-30 years.
Now autos are common here in the civilised world in standard vehicles not just expensive luxury ones, its becoming much more of a problem.
As an auto driver now I struggle with how incompetent one has to be to mistake the wide firm brake pedal for the narrow soft-feeling accelerator pedal. Like "the sun was in my eyes" it's another poor excuse for an inability to drive to the expected standard. Maybe if the laws had both of these as excluded excuses (use either and lose your driving privileges forever).
Same with the theory that putting your best tyres on the back keeps the cars natural tendency to understeer, which is safer.
Great in theory, but try telling you monkey brain to straighten the wheel when the car is understeering straight on into a crash barrier. Oversteer might be more likely to end up in a full on spin, but at least your instinct and the right thing to do in order to correct it are aligned.
This is a bit "would you rather have a punch in the nose or a kick in the bollocks." The solution, as ever, is more robust driver training. I don't recall ever being taught how to handle a skid, if I was then it was little more than the paragraph above. I taught myself one night on a deserted ASDA carpark in the snow.
See also, RWD vs FWD.
People leaving ridiculous gaps between them and the queue in front and not moving in unison with the traffic.
To be fair here, if you do this and move at a constant pace rather than stop-start-stop-start it can actually clear a traffic jam and get traffic flowing again.
Round town there seems to be an epidemic of leaving more than a car length to the vehicle in front when stopped at traffic lights, unnecessarily extending the length of queues and also of blocking junctions and pedestrian crossings.
You'll be thankful of that the day you stop and the driver behind doesn't. If you can't see the rear wheels of the car in front, you've stopped too close. Obviously though yes, blocking stuff off is either incomptence or being a dick.
Maybe if the laws had both of these as excluded excuses (use either and lose your driving privileges forever).
it’s the job of the state prosecutor, with all the resources of the police and CPS/COPFS at their disposal* to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If an accused person manages to convince a judge or jury that there is reasonable doubt that the standard of driving was below that of a careful and competent driver, it’s probably wrong to get upset at the “excuses” the defence used: the crown have plenty of opportunity to dispel those claims.
* they may be massively under resourced, and subject to all sorts of pressures but be under no doubt, that compared to the ordinary man on the street their resources are vastly different.
@poly The comment would save precious resources from disproving specious excuses. Don't continue driving if one's visibility is poor is covered in HWC (be prepared to slow down or stop is in the version I remember).
This:
I know we’re discussing older drivers here but there’s a very wide issue with general competence and lack of compliance with the HC and law.
And this:
so car-dependent that people don’t think of the car as something that has to be kept maintained and driven competently, it’s become ‘the only way I can get around’.
Absolutely. And that's why every single driver should be regularly retested. The general standard would rise. The reliance on cars would change. Paid for by the retest fee.
It'd be a simple thing to issue new licences for a certain amount of time. Then those drivers are in a system where they know they must be retested.
Then roll it out for the remainder. Could start with oldies first. ?
People leaving ridiculous gaps between them and the queue in front and not moving in unison with the traffic.
To be fair here, if you do this and move at a constant pace rather than stop-start-stop-start it can actually clear a traffic jam and get traffic flowing again.
What cougar says. Its much better to roll along at a slow steady speed than accelerate and stop all the time. Closing up to within half an inch of someone acheives absolutely nothing
Unless there are statistically significant incidents of injuries/deaths then they won't do anything.
Should we mandate more ‘city speed’ protection devices?
Already are in many places
From googling, depending on the age of the system it only prevents collisions up to 19 or 30mph as well, although by braking it will mitigate/ reduce severity of accidents if not overridden as above
From memory it's all about trading off max braking control/stability/traction control and sensor range/accuracy. Minimising the number of false positives and screeching to a halt in the middle of the road because of a car in the other lane on a curve. There are 4 or 5 versions of it out there in the wild now, and several market/model specific sub specs.
The requirement to be able to override is a legal thing. Probably written by the terminally carbrained :wink:. There is also some draft legislation around false pedal detection, but don't know the status on that. The brake override will be overridden if you can detect that the driver didn't really want to press the accelerator pedal. It all starts to get a bit meta then. So i don't get involved.
Again,
There isn't the resource. You could charge £1000 for a retest and it still wouldn't be viable because there aren't that many test centres, buildings to turn into test centres, instructors or examiners. There's barely enough for the current load. Such a scheme would require massive investment ahead of implementation.
It's both far easier and cheaper to fling up a few more speed cameras and go "that'll be a hundred quid thanking you kindly" to everyone passing one at 31mph. Hell, we don't have the resource to process that even, having the Gatso limit at 31 rather than 35 would cripple the automated fixed penalty system.
I know we’re discussing older drivers here but there’s a very wide issue with general competence and lack of compliance with the HC and law.
Very much this - local news last night running a story about "problems" with traffic calming measures on the road through the centre of Castle Donington. Because drivers keep driving over signage/bollards/kerb chicanes in a longstanding 30mph area.
So the call is to remove the traffic calming. Not remove the licenses from the bellends who can't drive safely. ****ing madness.
So the call is to remove the traffic calming. Not remove the licenses from the bellends who can’t drive safely. **** madness.
Ha! They put chicanes in a few places on my old commute to work, just to restrict it to 1 1/4 lanes, make everyone slow down entering villages.
Each chicane got a big sign (chevrons), a streetlight and black and white painted kerbstones all back filled with tarmac or concrete/gravel. But they are only kerbstone height. So it was quite common to pass through in the early hours on the way to work to find a broken sign, streetlight and bits of someones car spread along the road.
So now, the worst offending of the chicanes are made out of massive curved protection kerbs (35/40 cm high) with a large concrete pillar in the middle (50-60 cm dia and 1m tall) to hold the signage and lights. I still (very occasionally) see bits of car, but the chicanes and signs are there to stay...
There isn’t the resource. You could charge £1000 for a retest and it still wouldn’t be viable because there aren’t that many test centres, buildings to turn into test centres, instructors or examiners. There’s barely enough for the current load. Such a scheme would require massive investment ahead of implementation.
As if 'they' were listening to STW the BBC has an article on recruitment for driving examiners. Can't link to it as it's currently unavailable at the office!
https://road.cc/content/news/six-cyclists-hit-driver-major-mallorca-collision-312321
89yr old driver. 🙁
Thankfully none of the riders have life-threatening injuries.
Each chicane got a big sign (chevrons), a streetlight and black and white painted kerbstones all back filled with tarmac or concrete/gravel. But they are only kerbstone height. So it was quite common to pass through in the early hours on the way to work to find a broken sign, streetlight and bits of someones car spread along the road.
There's one near me that's obviously been hit by a badly loaded painters van, somehow it's made it past the chicane then deposited a large tub of emulsion behind it.
I know it's a month-old post, but there's one of those near where I used to live which is truly stupid.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2xJ4jJksR9YcvkMS6
It serves absolutely no purpose I can fathom beyond creating a hazard. Behind it is a short single-track road with passing places, then here it opens up to two-way traffic and immediately drops a bollard slap in the middle of one lane. For added LOLs, when it first went in it was painted all in black. You can see the old one if you go back to the 2009 street view.
Oh, and that cycle lane, that's the entirety of the cycling infrastructure in the area. Quite what cyclists are expected to give way to, I have no idea.
Ooh @51.8084941,-0.3475778,3a,64.2y,101.54h,80.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swjZMpGa5aL1PshV8MhpU6w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D9.921360334950407%26panoid%3DwjZMpGa5aL1PshV8MhpU6w%26yaw%3D101.53922707568996!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D">we have one of those round my way. Please note the relatively fresh tarmac and damaged curbstone. I reckon someone drives into it at least once every month or two. At least I can see why it might be there as well, as there's a zebra crossing immediately afterwards, plus the railway tunnel is a hint narrow.
Permit parking behind white zig-zags? WTAF?
Oh mate if you think that's bad clearly you didn't think to go @51.8070411,-0.3430547,3a,75y,90.44h,60.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s44T8_sjR_sgD34FZpbZKfA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D29.28730476860119%26panoid%3D44T8_sjR_sgD34FZpbZKfA%26yaw%3D90.44182746452799!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D">a few hundred yards down the road.
Don’t continue driving if one’s visibility is poor is covered in HWC (be prepared to slow down or stop is in the version I remember).
Been there, had to do that! Couldn’t see the verge due to overwhelming dazzle from oncoming traffic. All fixed now, thankfully. And no longer needing glasses, apart from readers.
Permit parking behind white zig-zags? WTAF?
Seems relatively common, unless I'm missing something what would be the issue?
The zig zags are supposed to be no parking/stopping to keep the view of the crossing clear, the bay is set back from the road then what is the issue?
Aged 19 and 21! Thankfully, nobody else injured.
And running from the police at the time, so nothing to do with the issue of older drivers driving beyond their capable years.
Had an elderly driver cause me to do an emergency stop the other day as they failed "to give way to oncoming traffic" at one of those traffic calming chicanes, clearly thought he had priority.
Had a young van driver cause me to do an emergency stop the other day as he failed “to give way to oncoming traffic” at a width traffic restriction, clearly thought he had priority.
So, time for extra driving tests for drivers below 40 years old? Or proof that anecdotes dont prove anything?
There are examples of poor driving for all sorts of reasons but with a growing aged population and seemingly worse and worse public transport provision, the issue of elderly drivers continuing to drive beyond their capabilities and refusing to give up their licences is something that needs to be addressed.
We had a local news programme following a police spot check on driver's vision recently. One lady driving without her glasses, failed sight test. Police took her home, got her glasses and she still failed the sight test. Fine/car impounded. Old chap, couldn't read the registration until right up to the car. Again, fine/car impounded.
Far too many folk are driving when they should not. My FIL was a prime example of someone who wouldn't give up driving. Only stopped on his death bed. Was still trying to drive with an oxygen tank on the passenger seat. Prior to that his eye sight was poor. Let's say he had lots of 'chips away' receipts !
I think the point of scotroutes post, and a view I hold as well, is that there are a lot of drivers who's driving standard falls below what is acceptable and responsible. To single out just older drivers is rather narrow, and perhaps we need to look at all things testing, licensing and restrictions across who really does cause most accidents.
To single out just older drivers is rather narrow, and perhaps we need to look at all things testing, licensing and restrictions across who really does cause most accidents.
Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qw5zdyp25o
18 years old and driving an HGV
Seems relatively common, unless I’m missing something what would be the issue?
The zig zags are supposed to be no parking/stopping to keep the view of the crossing clear, the bay is set back from the road then what is the issue?
With yellow lines, their enforcement doesn't stop at the line but extends behind to the nearest feature. So, for example, you couldn't park wholly on a particularly wide pavement behind double yellows (knowledge which is of particular importance to motorcyclists). With zig-zags I don't know but it surprises me if the same doesn't apply.
Old chap, couldn’t read the registration until right up to the car.
And I can tell you the story of 3 youngsters who didn’t make it round a simple corner for some reason 2 miles from where I live. The tragedy was they also killed the mother and daughter heading in the opposite direction.
Anecdotal evidence is rubbish for making policy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78w1znxdlyo
31 year old, driving a Ferrari. I wonder what his eyesight was like.
another case where lack of fitness to drive should have been apparent to those around him and it seems none of the healthcare professionals involved saw it as their responsibility to alert DVLA.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrv1g2yl0xo
TBF I think there’s a lack of clarity as to what you can and can’t do. While I don’t see outpatients my understanding is that it’s OK to say to people ‘you need to disclose this to the DVLA and if you don’t by the time you come next, I will’. Problem is that there’s not (AIUI) a statutory duty nor is there any way of following through.
In at least one case described there, the driver told everyone he’d stopped when he hadn’t (which IMO shows premeditation which should have affected charges/sentencing).
The staff at my hospital reported a driver to the police. He had dementia and had had his license revoked. He still was driving to the hospital to visit his wife.
He was clearly unsafe
My mother in law continued to drive while registered blind she had some sight
Could there be a system where everyone who has a driving license has to have a box ticked on their record to say they're medically fit? If a GP/Optician logs in to the system and unticks the box the DVLA and insurers are notified.
we need regular retesting and yes that means incompetent drivers who “need” their cars may be significantly inconvenienced.
or maybe they will make the effort and learn to drive a bit better.
@NewRetroTom That would require joined up IT systems, and there’s no real prospect of that.
The problem with healthcare providers reporting is that by the nature of it, it’s only those who actually go to the optician/GP who will be picked up. There will be plenty out there who (due to lack of perceived or true alternative, fears of loss of independence etc) will not go anywhere near an optician as even though they know they’re unfit they don’t want this to be picked up.
Needs to be a mandatory certificate of fitness for renewal. And also increased investment in active travel and public transport to give people choices.
TBF I think there’s a lack of clarity as to what you can and can’t do. While I don’t see outpatients my understanding is that it’s OK to say to people ‘you need to disclose this to the DVLA and if you don’t by the time you come next, I will’. Problem is that there’s not (AIUI) a statutory duty nor is there any way of following through.
In at least one case described there, the driver told everyone he’d stopped when he hadn’t (which IMO shows premeditation which should have affected charges/sentencing).
I had this issue with my dad, ended up going to the GP surgery and 'having a word's with the doctor (who is a long-time family friend) and figure out what to do. He essentially said he won't report any of his patients to the DVLA for medical issues as A: he doesn't have to legally and B: as soon as he does one then he would be blacklisted by a lot of patients who would just refuse to come in for genuine issues and their health would deteriorate.
Nothing will change until it's law to have an optician sign a form declaring your eyesight to be ok every 10 years or when a new license is applied for. I have to for my HGV part, why not for the whole thing.
Shirley the solution must be to increase cycling.
My mother has to be regularly tested due to glaucoma, the biggest problem hasn’t been passing the test but getting it done promptly when required…
she’s certainly close to the end of driving, I didn’t enjoy the last time she drove me. But she only does slow local journeys in broad daylight and the car is still unscraped so I don’t think she’s a serious danger.
Age discrimination is alive and well on here again.
For info when I had to renew my license at 70 I had my eyes tested prior to submiting the form.
I shall probably do the same in a year or two when I need to get another license.
I don't feel safe on a bike due to all the brain dead driving gods on the roads, but I cycle most days for erands and fun.
Maybe curbing car use in general and enforcing traffic laws might also be useful.
Part of the solution is to increase cycling, yes. In the Netherlands/Denmark people keep going well into their 80s as there’s safe infra to allow this, in the UK there’s little alternative to driving, so loss of license = loss of independence.
Of course treating public transport as an essential utility and enabler of economic activity rather than an expensive luxury also helps.
Nothing will change until it's law to have an optician sign a form declaring your eyesight to be ok every 10 years or when a new license is applied for. I have to for my HGV part, why not for the whole thing.
Funnily enough my wife’s uncle had a LGV license so he could drive old military trucks. He lost this due to his diabetes, appealed and lost his car license as well…
My mother has to be regularly tested due to glaucoma, the biggest problem hasn’t been passing the test but getting it done promptly when required…
she’s certainly close to the end of driving, I didn’t enjoy the last time she drove me. But she only does slow local journeys in broad daylight and the car is still unscraped so I don’t think she’s a serious danger.
Same for me with the MIL. Her doctor is getting more insistent on her having the DVLA eye test done
It’s not age discrimination to recognise that everyone lucky enough to live a long life, eventually gets to the point where their faculties are insufficient for safe driving.
Many of us have seen this in our relatives.
Of course lots of people die before they get to that point too. But those who don’t, need to stop driving at some point.
Part of the solution is to increase cycling, yes. In the Netherlands/Denmark people keep going well into their 80s as there’s safe infra to allow this, in the UK there’s little alternative to driving, so loss of license = loss of independence.
This.
My grandad (the other side of the family to the one I've previously referred to in this thread) was cycling to the village long into his 80's, well after he'd given up driving. He had a little 3sp shopper bike, basket on the front and a small rack and top-rack / box pannier on the back. There was a nice traffic-free route into the village through the park, maybe 1.5 miles each way, nice and flat.
Admittedly this is back in the 90's but it being small-town rural, everyone knew everyone. He even had someone call round his house one morning to check he was OK cos they hadn't seen him cycling through the park as normal!
He'd buy the paper, stop at the little cafe, chat to people in the park as he rode through. It was his independence.
It’s not age discrimination to recognise that everyone lucky enough to live a long life, eventually gets to the point where their faculties are insufficient for safe driving.
Correct, mil just hung up her keys after crashing through a fence, luckily no one was hurt. We all need to take responsibility & plan for not driving as our capabilities decline.
And yes I also acknowledge that there are lots of other reasons for poor driving, particularly in young inexperienced drivers but this thread is about how to tackle the decline in driving ability/eyesight in aging drivers.
Needs to be a mandatory certificate of fitness for renewal. And also increased investment in active travel and public transport to give people choices.
Carrot and stick
Maybe curbing car use in general and enforcing traffic laws might also be useful.
Agree but sadly that's looking less and less likely with Keir - I'm on the side of drivers - Starmer. Labour are just Red Tories, just as useless and pandering and dithering.
There were the beginnings of promising steps with Louise Haigh but then she was swiftly removed from office.
The thing is, you can legislate all you want, but you can’t legislate against stupidity! Here’s a case in point:
The red Hyundai was being driven by a colleague of mine, from a storage facility up to the main site, along a straight piece of road that had a roundabout, with the main site just the other side. As she approached the roundabout, a big milk tanker came around it, so she pulled in behind a parked van. Meanwhile, another colleague was coming up behind her, in the silver Zafira, with a fogged up ‘screen, no seatbelt on, and was exceeding the 40mph limit. He didn’t see her or the truck, and drove straight into the rear of her car, forcing it into the rear of the van. Fortunately, the van driver had looked in his mirror, anticipated what was about to happen, and released his handbrake, so her car was twisted sideways into the van, instead of straight into the path of a 40 ton tanker.
She was badly shaken, but not seriously injured, but couldn’t drive that stretch of road for months after, he was dismissed immediately. He was in his late 20’s, early 30’s, IIRC, so age had no bearing on the circumstances, only total stupidity.
The outcome could have been the death of someone who was a very precious member of our staff at the time.
The van driver also had his own vehicle written off as well, he was a service engineer for a refrigerated goods company, and was out on a call when the incident happened, so that just compounded the situation.
The thing is, you can legislate all you want, but you can’t legislate against stupidity!
You can however legislate against driving without due care and attention, which this is.
You can however legislate against driving without due care and attention, which this is.
Hmm, difficult to legislate against poor attitude to driving but it should be possible to make sure legislation against defective capabilities of driving is adhered too or strengthened.
Honestly 95% of the close passes I have had on a bike have been someone over the age (visually) of 65 (or older)
Thankfully my parents have given up driving but you can fill in the blank as to why they stopped (thankfully no one hurt)
Not saying that young males aren't a problem (one almost wiped me out this morning in his Corsa doing 50+ in a 30) but I really do think that there needs to be a testing program to check for both eyesight, coordination and mental facilities as well as knowledge of the highway code changes. On this last point I really believe that the UK gov does a terrible job of informing drivers of the HW code changes. The numbers of people who don't know about the 1.5m rule or that people crossing at junctions
Q
On this last point I really believe that the UK gov does a terrible job of informing drivers of the HW code changes. The numbers of people who don't know about the 1.5m rule or that people crossing at junctions
There’s a good argument we should all have to re-do the written every 5 years. There are a lot of people out there who’ve not opened the HC since they passed their test 40+ years ago.
Statistically, the most dangerous drivers on the roads are the really young ones and the really old ones, it's an inverse bell curve.
Age discrimination is alive and well on here again.
Huh?
Statistically, the most dangerous drivers on the roads are the really young ones and the really old ones, it's an inverse bell curve.
My Mum (mid 70's, very frail) was complaining to me that her insurance premium is going up and up.
It didn't help when I said that mine (mid 40's, full NCD) had dropped again and is now less than £250 fully comp.
But she's far higher risk than me; she's using her car multiple times a day for short journeys in an already congested area (she's too frail to walk much, completely reliant on the car).
Whereas mine does occasional long journeys mostly on motorway (statistically far safer) and is otherwise parked on a private road.
This is what finally stopped my grandfather from driving, the sheer cost of his premiums due to him being such a high risk.
You can however legislate against driving without due care and attention, which this is.
How exactly could you "legislate against driving without due care and attention"?
You can "legislate" them after they've done it AND get caught but not before...
You can "legislate" them after they've done it AND get caught but not before...
I'm a bit confused what you mean here. You can legislate (ie. pass laws) against things, and as described you'd have thought there was a good case here:
Meanwhile, another colleague was coming up behind her, in the silver Zafira, with a fogged up ‘screen, no seatbelt on, and was exceeding the 40mph limit
Thread bump.
https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-elderly-careless-driver-jailed-killing-cyclist-313981
A combination of a tragic case (with the victim's daughter subsequently campaigning for mandatory eye tests for older drivers) and a derisory jail sentence although I guess there's the argument that the driver is 75 and at least had the decency to plead guilty.
I'm never clear on whether the ban and prison sentence run consecutively or concurrently, but either way I don't see a 77yo who's not driven for 2½ years+ passing an extended retest so I don't think this chap will drive again. May be wrong, of course.
derisory jail sentence
You say that, and I guess it is taken at face value- but don't underestimate the effect even a short sentence would have on a typical 'upstanding' citizen.
I'm 55 and have never been in trouble with the law since I was pulled over for riding drunk with no lights as a student and did a runner from the police...now if I was to receive even a short jail term today it would be a catastrophe. I'd lose my job, I'd be mortified at how to explain it to my family, I'd probably spiral into depression, I might lose my marriage, I might lose my house.....my kids might disown me....I mean who on here wouldn't have their life properly screwed up by going to prison for 6 months? Obviously most of us would also be tortured by the fact we had killed someone. but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
Now if it was a premeditated act like robbery or fraud etc, I guess the argument would be 'well you should have thought about the consequences before you stole all that money or fudged the books etc etc' but I'd assume that driver didn't think the net result of his drive home that day would be a 10 month jail term. I guess what I'm trying to say is these type of sentences should be widely publicised - that way Kevin who speeds 'a bit' and fiddles with his phone whilst driving might think hmmm actually my life could be really screwed up by that - perhaps I better take a bit more care. Everyone would be a winner then.
at least had the decency to plead guilty.
What tends to happen is that they're charged with death by dangerous driving but then offer a guilty plea to death by careless driving (a lesser offence).
Yeah.
We've covered this sentencing outrage before. The Prosecution want to present a charge which is likely to stick or it's a waste of everyone's time. That charge will carry a standard sentence. That sentence can then be adjusted depending on various factors (eg, showing genuine remorse) but the courts can't just throw the book at them because they look like a wrong 'un or let them off because they're one of the boys. Any deviation from the baseline has to be (ahem) justified.
Source: I used to know a bloke who took early retirement but couldn't sit still so became a JP. He used to bring example cases home as part of his training. How would you sentence this > how you should sentence this? It was fascinating and not always what you'd expect.
if I was to receive even a short jail term today it would be a catastrophe. I'd lose my job, I'd be mortified at how to explain it to my family, I'd probably spiral into depression, I might lose my marriage, I might lose my house.....my kids might disown me....I mean who on here wouldn't have their life properly screwed up by going to prison for 6 months? Obviously most of us would also be tortured by the fact we had killed someone. but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
I think this is often overlooked when we talk about "lenient" jail sentences for these kind of offences. Destroying one family by your actions is one thing, for the state to destroy a second is a more complicated issue.
I guess defective eyesight is a borderline deliberate/non-intentional act, so not a good case to debate on.
I seem to recall we are towards the top of the European table for jailing people but also towards the bottom on rehabilitation. I understand the desire for "justice/vengeance" but I'm not convinced our live of jail sentences serves any other purpose, for a variety of offences.
I'm never clear on whether the ban and prison sentence run consecutively or concurrently, but either way I don't see a 77yo who's not driven for 2½ years+ passing an extended retest so I don't think this chap will drive again. May be wrong, of course.
He won't be driving again legally. I'm not sure that means he won't drive again.
I'm never clear on whether the ban and prison sentence run consecutively or concurrently,
The ban comes into effect once the person is released. Jail term first then when that has been served and they're released, any other restrictions (driving ban, curfew, etc) comes into force.
He won't be driving again legally. I'm not sure that means he won't drive again.
That's a fair comment.
@crazy-legs Thanks!
[this isn't a dig at any one poster in this thread btw] One of the things that I find annoying is the idea that as soon as the driving licence goes, the non-holder is confined to the house and they lose their job and everything - note that I apply this to all ages not just the elderly - because it isn't true
This is a cycling forum
Walking is possible, there is public transport, lots of jobs operate from home and taxis exist, as does ocado;
so if a licence is taken away a person can still live their lives - and I'd wager that if a licence was taken away from someone at the age of 60 they'd probably have better late life physical health than someone emotionally welded to their carkey until the age of 82
If the govt were really serious about KSI reduction there would be investment in mass transport infra, and we could easily apply speed limiters on cars the same as we do for lorries, the tech exists. The idea that you can kill someone with a car and then get a licence back 18months later is pure madness
Autonomous vehicles aren't the answer either, they are just cars and another set of complexities on the roads
A lot of what @edhornby says is quite true but it depends where you live. Loosing access to a car is fairly trivial if you live in a city or urban area but if you live somewhere rural it could impact a lot more.
I have recently had a hand op and could not drive for a couple of weeks. where I live it's easy to get about as there are trams buses and walking. I have missed the car a lot less than I have missed my bike as we do most errands and shopping by bike where we can.
If I could not drive I would not suffer that much but my partners mother might as I drive her to most of her medical appointments.
If you're an 80 year old living somewhere rural then you're a disaster waiting to happen anyway.
Depends on the 80 year old.