[Closed] Have we done the old fool on the M1 yet?

3, 2, 1 before someone piles in with actuarial stuff about 17yr olds driving like loons being a great menace....

Stoner +1

This almost looks like click-bait....

Anyway, not just old people, compulsory 10 year re-testing for all imo. Would bet there would be an increase in unlicensed drivers though

Good point OP, but badly made given today's circumstances. Two people are dead.

But everyone should be retested every 5-10 years, and over 75(?) annually, or at least a medical assessment.

'Old fool' is a bit harsh OP. The problem here is the old chestnut about our lax regulatory scheme around driving in general, allowing individuals to be the only judge of their driving ability (whether 17, 77 or just some middle-aged bloke with anger management issues...

100% agree with you on reassessment - at drivers' expense. Whilst we're at it of course, let's not make this age-dependent. Every 5 years at our own expense - re-test and pay for additional lessons if you fail.

It'll reduce cost on the NHS from car crashes and increase employment opportunities for driving instructors so there's a good economic argument too 🙂

I wonder if it's the same old chap I reported to the DVLA when I worked in Nottingham for doing a U turn on the A610 and coming back down the on slip while I was going up it on a blue run. Probably, given that they ignore most police unfit to drive referrals*

*based on the ones I've done or know about.

RIP both drivers. People lost some family members, can we change the title please?

That's not to say I dont think 80+ yr olds should have a such an easy ride to retain their licences. That my 88yr old M-in-Law still drives in SE London (watch out Beckenham) is a shaft of idocy I'll never understand

All digger tickets etc have an expiry with a requirement for re-assessment can't see why cars are different. Also having recently been on a speed awareness course (which was pretty good actually) if you get done for a minor driving offence you should get a tracker fitted to your car for lenght of time to make sure the lessons bed in.

Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. I'm very much of the opinion that we should implement a scheme requiring 10 year interval re-testing at all ages, not just the elderly.

The driving environment has changed so much, even in the last 10 years - it's almost unrecognisable from 20 years ago! Everyone should have to prove they are capable of driving safely in the current environment.

Rachel

edit - and yes, I have had a test in the last two years as I did my A-licence for the motorbike

That's not to say I dont think 80+ yr olds should have a such an easy ride to retain their licences. That my 88yr old M-in-Law still drives in SE London (watch out Beckenham) is a shaft of idocy I'll never understand

No disrespect to your MiL but the standards of driving in Beckenham are so low, I doubt she'll stand out!

Move her to Southall, then she will stand out as exemplary

driving is a god given right, its sad that some people are dead but hey...its the cost society is willing to pay for the freedom of a car.
nothing will change

This is almost a daily occurance here in Germany.Seems everyday there is a warning on the radio that someone is driving the wrong way on the Aotobahn in the region. They even have a name for the person doing it 'Geisterfahrer' or ghost driver. Only a few weeks ago a family were killed just outside the city on the Autobahn here. Very sad and in alot of cases very preventable ie testing people over 65.

[quote=allthegear ]The driving environment has changed so much, even in the last 10 years - it's almost unrecognisable from 20 years ago! Everyone should have to prove they are capable of driving safely in the current environment.

I wouldn't argue against regular retesting, just against the premise that repeating the standard driving test would prove anything about whether somebody is capable of driving safely.

[url= http://news.stv.tv/tayside/1330264-soldier-daniel-mclean-drove-drunk-at-120mph-wrong-way-over-tay-bridge/ ] Army, be the best[/url]

[i]But everyone should be retested every 5-10 years, and over 75(?) annually, or at least a medical assessment. [/i]

And have you any thought to the cost of this - are YOU prepared to spend £500 every 5 years or so?

Or do you not drive and/or live someone where you don't have to?

All to save a few accidents - based on us been pretty much the safest place to drive (of any size), in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Driving tests cost £23+£45

aracer - there are too many people out there that can pass a test but not drive safely, I will agree with you on that. What I hope, though, by requiring regular retests is that people will at least have 'the fear' that the licence may be revoked if they don't at least reflect upon their driving skills on occasion. This might not be perfect but it is better than the current situation.

[quote=b r ]based on us been pretty much the safest place to drive (of any size), in the world.

So we kill a few less people than other countries which are even shittier than us?

To be fair (and I do see an argument for periodic retesting), the amount of deaths on UK roads in these circumstances are really very low so to bring in new legislation to cover this type of incident seems a bit of an over-reaction.

From what I've seen of late some people shouldn't have passed in the first place let alone a retest.
As for the van in the accident I believe it's the passenger who died and the driver is still critical which may make it 3.
Rip to all involved even he who had managed to get to 80 odd and then die so wastefully.

Compulsory tracking devices in all cars would likely do more to improve the standard of driving.

I have little doubt that my driving has improved significantly in the 40 or so years I've held a licence.

Driving tests cost £23+£45

Assuming you don't need any lessons to get back up to scratch.

I'm pretty sure I'd fail if I sat my test again tomorrow.

I'm not sure that compulsory re-testing is the answer (as people have pointed out above, it would be a bit of a knee jerk reaction), but there are significant issues with the way poor driving standards are policed and punished in this country. I'm still amazed that people can get away with having more than 12 points on a licence - with the reason being they need to drive for their work, well shouldn't that have influenced their behaviour after they got the first 9 points?

I wouldn't argue against regular retesting, just against the premise that repeating the standard driving test would prove anything about whether somebody is capable of driving safely.

It's true, passing the test isn't proof someone is a good driver, but at least it would weed out the (no offence meant) doddery and semi-blind - those who are simply physically unable to drive safely. Even though that leaves those that can drive safely but choose not to it at least removes some of the unsafe drivers.

so after seeing my wifes grandads driving deteriorate to the point where i was about to say something (eventually FiL manned up and had the conversation with grandad) i think what will i do closer to home. We are all responsible - when my parents get doddery, will i say something? and potentially upset them. Yes i bloody will and i don't really care if the old man gets the hump frankly, as if he did collect someone i'd feel bad about it. And also, when i'm an old giffer, when someone younger tells me it's time to stop driving i will stop (you heard it here first). I have also had the conversation about who is going to speak to FiL when he gets doddery too. imo this is too important to be left to the individual.

re grandads driving, overnight his engine warming up and driving off routine changed to:
1. clamp right foot on throttle fully
2. turn key
3. sit there for several minutes with the engine wailing away
4. depress clutch, engage first gear
5. using the clutch as the forward speed modulating device, drive off.

Assuming you don't need any lessons to get back up to scratch.

I'm pretty sure I'd fail if I sat my test again tomorrow.

many people would. a good reason to make people re-do it every now and again, IMO!

I did my test last year, and I see so, so many things on the road that would fail people a test if they were driving under test conditions; inability to use lanes on roundabouts, not indicating, blah blah blah. Some of it is probably 'deliberate' (i.e. people who know the rules full well and just don't give a crap), but i think a lot it is stuff that people have forgotten or that didn't even exist when they took their test in 1976. So a refresher would probably be useful to those people and those around them.

it would make roads safer for cyclists too, which is no doubt a good thing.

and frankly, 10 lessons plus a test would be about £30 a year if it was to be every ten years. Most car owners spend more than that on screenwash.

It wouldn't be beyond the examiner to assess general competance rather than the specific skills. Everyone will try to drive better than they normally do, the idiots will still stand out.

Taking some people off the road would have a huge impact on general congestion levels and hopefully relax everyone else a little.

Maybe start with mini cab drivers, they drive professionally so should welcome the validation of their competence.

Doesn't need to be a full retest imo, a simple eyesight and reaction time test would help.

Oh and compulsory eye tests every two years, the number of people who drive without sight correction is appalling.

Edit, not fast enough.

agree with the eyetest thing. when i got my acu licence i had to have eye tests, and when you are racing no one is coming the other way.

Half a million uninsured drivers, why does anyone think that people will submit to a 5 yearly retest? How would police enforce it?

[url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2596859/Half-million-motorists-driving-without-insurance-fines-just-fraction-cost-premium.html ]http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2596859/Half-million-motorists-driving-without-insurance-fines-just-fraction-cost-premium.html[/url]

I think what some people are saying is....
"it'll be expensive to put measure in place to stop this (like regular retests) and if only a few people get killed a year its okay"

How about anyone that agrees offers up their kids/wife/parents to the gods of motoring...anyone.......anyone???

What percentage of road accidents might be prevented by more regular eyesight and reaction testing? Are young, male drivers predominently blind and sluggish?

At 94 my granddad was still driving. He definitely shouldn't have been. Yes, he drove everywhere at 20mph but that can be enough. His logic was that they kept passing him fit so he must be ok. His car was covered in small dents and scrapes as he couldn't judge parking. We eventually persuaded him to stop but by then it was well over 5 years too late. The decision should have been taken out of his hands with much more stringent testing.

RIP the people in the OP. +1 for compulsory retests - I spend quite a bit of time on the roads these days and see quite a lot of "poor" driving. Some of it's mine!

I reckon new drivers should be issued licenses on the basis of a 5 year compulsory re-test/eye check. Problem is, what about those driving on an EU ticket? Or from other parts of the world?

They're all meant to apply for a licence in the UK I think within 1 year of living here, but they don't... Even people from Isle of Man simply bring their cars and licence over and nothing ever seems to get checked.

So - more funding for traffic rozzers too, please.

My 95 year old Gran is still driving and would be a bit stuck if she couldn't as lives in a rural spot though only a couple of miles from some shops. So she drives back and forth daily but also longer trips. Had a crash last year but apparently not her fault. Asked who says she's ok to drive - suggested her doctor but apparently no comment made by him.

She's better than my wife though.

Given how slowly my wife's grandad moves about their house, how much he can't hear anything, and how he tends to fall asleep at a moments notice, I was entirely unsurprised to hear how their car was in the garage following an accident in a car park.

They probably shouldn't be driving, but I can't say anything and I'm 95% sure my MiL/FiL won't as then all ferrying duties will fall to them.

I took my motorcycle licence a couple years ago. Part of me thought taking the theory part a bit ridiculous. However having gone through it I think it was worthwhile and agree it's necessary (hey, things have changed since the 80's, the last time I read the Highway Code!). Doing a DAS meant I had a couple of days training (the other guy on it was adding to his car licence too) that also transferred to the car. I honestly think it's made me a better driver (the Loon has said as much) it's certainly slowed me down and increased my hazard perception (it's amazing how complacent I'd been regards red triangle warning traffic signs).

I'm not sure retesting is the answer, continued training should be mandatory though. Refresher course after 5 years then every 10 perhaps? Obviously there would need to be some sort of mechanism to *catch* people who shouldn't be driving! recommendation of retest if person falls below required standard?

Driverless cars can't come soon enough,the population is aging and we all want to keep our independence and mobility and public transport provision is patchy.

"retesting" doesn't have to mean an exact resit of the driving test- though, a lot of the opposition to that seems to be around "I couldn't pass a driving test today" which is pretty worrying when you think about it, how can you be content that your driving is below the minimum entry standard? There's elements I'd want to get back up to speed, some of the maneouvres but if you can't get it together and drive to test standard with a little notice, get off the road, surely?

But an "existing driver" test could be a simple ridealong competence test, like we do for work before you can use company vehicles, and that's a different kettle of fish.

The system as it is doesn't really seem to work. I'm a diabetic on insulin so every 3 years I need a medical extension, it's not perfect but it kind of works... But as a healthy diabetic I'm far less a risk tham frinstance my dad, who was bloody nearly blind and had voluntarily stopped driving long before anyone decided to take away his licence.

Maybe mandatory gps equipped dash cams would make people think about the standard of their driving?

[quote=wwaswas ]Maybe mandatory gps equipped dash cams would make people think about the standard of their driving?

Hopefully insurance companies might help bring that about by offering a discount for drivers using one - it's certainly something I'd be looking into if I was in charge of risk assessment at an insurance company.

We have developed a carcentric society and old people being reliant on their cars is just one aspect of that. Many localised services are gone even down to the small rows of shops on the estates and in the villages where people live.

Taking away their car license is just condemning many of them to a life of isolation.

We need to address many problems of urban planning, local services and local businesses. It would make most peoples lives better, and the ability of (old) people to still have a life without a car is just one small piece of the jigsaw.

Maybe mandatory gps equipped dash cams would make people think about the standard of their driving?

a lot of the opposition to that seems to be around "I couldn't pass a driving test today" which is pretty worrying when you think about it, how can you be content that your driving is below the minimum entry standard?

There's two ways to take this really. The driving test is a very specific way of driving, which with time and experience people naturally move away from. Shuffling the steering wheel is probably a good example, if I got in a car with a driver who shuffled the wheel I'd think they'd just passed their test and I'd probably be quite nervous.

On the other hand, this statement could be saying "I couldn't pass a test now because I've forgotten most of it." These are the people that a retest should aim to catch. It should be possible to engineer a test which checks for real-world competence, whilst removing requirements for behaviours which are good practice when you're a new driver but get replaced with better techniques as you get more experienced. For instance, using the 'wrong' side of the road in a safe and controlled manner is something I was taught as part of an Advanced Driving session, yet it'd almost certainly be a test failure.

Every budding photographer knows about the 'rule of thirds.' It's a basic method of composing a pleasing shot that you shoulf "always" use, and often comes as a revelation to those who've been unknowingly breaking it for years. However, once you become much more experienced you learn that actually, it's ok to break this rule sometimes for artistic effect and you work out how and why to do it to make creative, dramatic shots. Driving's kind of similar; you're taught good practices for a beginner as it's simpler to teach (and thus, learn) "never do this" rather than adding unnecessary complication in the form of "actually, it's ok to do this carefully in certain specific circumstances."

So, yeah. If you think you won't pass because you can't drive like a learner, the test should allow for that. If you think you won't pass because you're not proficient enough, your knowledge is out of date or you can't see ten feet in front of your nose then you're exactly why we need retests.

[quote=Cougar ]The driving test is a very specific way of driving, which with time and experience people naturally move away from. Shuffling the steering wheel is probably a good example, if I got in a car with a driver who shuffled the wheel I'd think they'd just passed their test and I'd probably be quite nervous.

Depends what you mean by shuffling the wheel. I very rarely use my hands on the steering wheel in a way which would fail a driving test.

Assuming you don't need any lessons to get back up to scratch.

I'm pretty sure I'd fail if I sat my test again tomorrow.

The driving test is an assessment to see if you are at the minimum safe standard to be allowed on the roads. You have just admitted that you are not upto that standard - why are you still on the roads?

Cougar » The driving test is a very specific way of driving, which with time and experience people naturally move away from. Shuffling the steering wheel is probably a good example, if I got in a car with a driver who shuffled the wheel I'd think they'd just passed their test and I'd probably be quite nervous.

I "shuffle" the wheel. It is by far the safest and quickest way to turn the car when done properly.

Oh, and,

things have changed since the 80's, the last time I read the Highway Code

Well, bloody well read it, then. Seriously, you're piloting a couple of tons of steel at 70mph in public. You could probably go cover to cover in about ten minutes, and now it's online and free. Even if you don't care, do it for the benefit of everyone else before you fail to understand a sign meaning "level crossing without barriers" and some poor sod will need a mop and a spatula.

I really, really don't get this mentality. It's the same revelling-in-my-own-ignorance I hear from people who need to use a computer for their job and sit their laughing about how they know nothing about computers, like it's a badge of honour, something to be proud of. If you're an accountant and can't use Excel, it's time you learnt FFS, or considered a career change.

Depends what you mean by shuffling the wheel. I very rarely use my hands on the steering wheel in a way which would fail a driving test.

I "shuffle" the wheel. It is by far the safest and quickest way to turn the car when done properly.

Poor example then perhaps, but it was just that, an example.

Are you both saying you 'shuffle' as you'd be taught as a learner driver, or talking about something different?

Yep, pretty much the same as in TZF's video

I do get the more general point that there are some things which you move on from when you get more advanced, but I'd like to think my every day driving wouldn't result in me failing a driving test (I suppose I probably would because of the failure to move my head when using the mirrors).

Not moving your head just does not lead to failing the test. Not using your mirrors does. If an experienced driver was having to move their head lots to look in their mirrors I'd be worried that they couldnt set their mirrors up correctly.

Oh, and,

things have changed since the 80's, the last time I read the Highway Code

Well, bloody well read it, Oh, and,then.

Woooosh.

Did you actually read my post or just think **** it I'll pull this all out of context and be an arse?

Got rear ended by 30 year old last Sunday on M5 at 0640 in his BMW, asleep or phone we think. On inside lane at 55mph, rest lanes clear and he runs into me. Fires me into barriers and I spin down the road for 200m. Car written off. Another three children nearly lost their dad.

Its not just the old. What about those that are offered driver rehab? Instead they have to retake their driving test. Bet that would affect a few on here or is it easier to just pick on someone becasue of their age regardless that they havent committed an offence.

One old guy causes an accident, what about the rest? One law that fits all not singles people out because of age?

Did you actually read my post or just think **** it I'll pull this all out of context and be an arse?

Are you new here?

[i]Maybe mandatory gps equipped dash cams would make people think about the standard of their driving? [/i]

Still wouldn't have made a difference to the M1 accident, just might have had a record of it...

That's a fair point Pawsy Bear, it's not going to weed out everyone we might want to stop driving. But if you split bad drivers into those that could drive safely if they wanted to and those that, for whatever reason (poor eyesight, infirmity, dementia) simply can't drive safely, then mandatory retests or other suitable regular checks will at least identify [i]some[/i] of the substandard drivers, which would help. The solution to the drivers that choose to be shit drivers is enforcement, education or a combination of both I would think, depending on the situation.

Or stopped these drug fuelled idiots driving st 90mph, what was that about the one old Guys?

Sussex Police release drug driving death crash video
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34510180

We're really pround of the wife's farther. After a recent car accident (only he was involved) he's agreed to surrender his license. It's limited him a lot as he lives in a semi rural location but it was the right thing to do. I do feel sorry for him as losing independence in your 80s must be one of anyone's biggest fears. However, I can't imagine how it would feel to not make that decision and then be responsible for someone else's death.

I support the idea of retesting. How about a tiered system? Once a year, take a two hour refresher lesson or, every three, retake your L test, or every ten, take an advanced test.

The other problem is that road policing is now done by speed cameras rather than proper traffic cops who can notice weaving, phone use, tailgating etc etc.

Are you new here?

No, I've been here long to remember who you are/were. In fact I think we've met.

I was railing at cougars ignoring completely that my post was about how having to take the theory test was beneficial for me (implicit in that would be some revision at least of the Highway Code). But no, there are high horses to ride. Apparently.

not just the doddery old is it - these 2 only killed themselves

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34510180

Yep, pretty much the same as in TZF's video

Gotcha. So it's basically test technique (as far as I remember), but using all of the wheel.

Woooosh.

Did you actually read my post or just think **** it I'll pull this all out of context and be an arse?

I didn't intentionally pull it out of context, I misread it. I thought you were talking about yourself rather than others' attitudes. I wholeheartedly apologise.

Point still stands for people who [i]do[/i] think like that though, and there are plenty out there I'd wager.

Well I learnt that I should check the travel before setting off at 5:45am. Someone managed to crash in the queue so was closed from 26 to 24 at 6am, so after getting on at 27 spent an hour before diverted off at 26. Bolloxed my morning up.

Some poor families had far worse mornings though - RIP

I was driving home up the M1 after a night out, about 3am. 2 mates asleep in the back, Mrs asleep in the front seat. I was fully alert, middle lane, slow right hand curve, saw something but brain couldn't work it out. There was a 'whoosh' and the car jolted a bit...

Oncoming car in the fast lane of the M1, fast. We were in middle lane doing a reasonable speed. Closing speed was probably well over 160mph.

I didn't really click what happened until I could see the tail lights disappearing.

Terrifying.

Matrix signs lit up saying Oncoming Car, Keep Left. Called Police and they were on it, but how on earth can you intercept that? Drove on feeling scared and helpless but relieved.

Bit of a random ramble really but spent some time afterwards looking at how hard it is to get onto the wrong sliproad and how to prevent it. This guy we saw must have been trying, I reckon.

Thoughts with driver families.

😯 Jesus.

I wholeheartedly apologise.

You'll bring this whole forum into disrepute if you carry on like that!

Regular compulsory re-testing for all would be sensible but politically impossible. Unlike pensioners, most working-age drivers would (a) remember who introduced it and (b) not be dead by the next election!

Regular compulsory re-testing for all would be sensible but politically impossible.

I would expect it to fail a basic cost benefit analysis i.e. the lives saved (tiny) verses the cost (huge) would render in non viable (given money is a finite resource with many other potentially life saving things to fund).

'push pull?' What's this bloke playing at then?

😆

(-:

Rally cars are different though, are they not? Full lock is something like 3/4 of a turn IIRC.

footflaps, the cost is about half a tank of petrol, say every 5 years. What life-saving thing do you think the average motorist would be doing with that?

Rally cars are different though, are they not? Full lock is something like 3/4 of a turn IIRC.

Dunno about that but looking at how much McRea's moving the wheel I wouldn't have thought so. A small twitch of the steering wheel would mean a pretty big movement at the front wheels & I'm not sure if that would work very well.

(I is not an expert though, have never driven an actual rally car, but have been driving since my eyesight was ok) 😉

Price it so far hat it pays for itself. There doesn't need to be a cost. Given how much driving actually costs, I don't think anyone can say the cost would impinge in people's freedoms/rights.

I would expect it to fail a basic cost benefit analysis i.e. the lives saved (tiny) verses the cost (huge) would render in non viable (given money is a finite resource with many other potentially life saving things to fund).

It's not just lives saved though is it. If it was workable and led to an improvement in driving then you'd see a reduction in minor and major but non fatal collision.

You might just even save money by having reduced insurance premiums.

(I is not an expert though, have never driven an actual rally car, but have been driving since my eyesight was ok)

Nor me, I could be hopelessly wrong.

Price it so far hat it pays for itself. There doesn't need to be a cost.

Could include it in the VED. What's a test cost, £50? That's a quid a month for five-year retests, pence for 10 year ones.