Should over 70s be made to take a driving test? Options

[GMR]

Emma Soames, writing for Saga magazine (that represents the over 50s) believes that over 70s should retake their driving test.

Read the article below.

http://www.saga.co.uk/homeandlifestyle/peo...-test-at-70.asp

My view:

I am all for testing bad drivers; whatever their age. But focusing on the 70s or over is discrimination and the writer of the article should be careful. Emma Soames is supposed to speak for Saga, who represents people of a certain age. They shouldn’t be in the business of discriminating against those they stand for.

In the article Ms Soames says “I’ve changed my mind since a particularly po-faced edition of Traffic Cops featured footage of several quite serious incidents caused by the erratic driving of older people in Sussex – though it could have been anywhere.” Yippee, she saw a programme of bad drivers who happen to be old. I saw a programme of black drug dealers dealing to kids, does that mean those black dealers represent every black person? No and to suggest it is discrimination. And what she said is discrimination against people of a certain age. She should not be judging everybody by her narrow focused observations. It is offensive. There are some brilliant ‘older people’ who drive on our roads, as there are evil nasty young drivers out there.

There is also another problem with people who are no longer young, taking their driving test again. When I past my test in the 70s (i.e. 1970s) I told my driving instructor ‘Everything you taught me will go out of the window,’ in which he agreed with me. We become more skillful and judge things differently (compared to learning parrot fashion). That is why when they retest people many, many years later they fail. But they don’t fail because they are bad drivers; they fail because they are a different/ better drivers than when they first started out (naive even).

‘Older people’ have a lot of obstacle to contend with when they get older, what they don’t need is somebody who represents them also joining in to kick their legs out from under them. By all means attack and remove bad drivers – whoever they are – from our roads. But picking on good drivers because they are of a certain age is prejudice, bigotry, abusive and offensive to those that expected more from their representatives.

[Simon Kirby]

Yes, very well put.

[dannyboy]

Driving test should be every three years for everyone.


Having said that, age does have a bearing on ones physical ability & being of sound eyesight & quick reactions is a pre-requisite for driving. So, yes I think the over 70s should be tested.

[Iommi]

Driving test should be every three years for everyone.

In theory a good idea, but we could see plenty of reasonable drivers lose their jobs through failing.

Having said that, age does have a bearing on ones physical ability & being of sound eyesight & quick reactions is a pre-requisite for driving. So, yes I think the over 70s should be tested.

I would advocate a 'fit to drive' test.

[user23]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Tests every three years for everyone would almost certainly raise the standard of driving.

[GMR]

Driving test should be every three years for everyone.


Having said that, age does have a bearing on ones physical ability & being of sound eyesight & quick reactions is a pre-requisite for driving. So, yes I think the over 70s should be tested.

Yes, but that should apply to everybody. There are some very alert 70 year olds, whilst there are some very bad 25 year olds. We should punish the bad drivers, not the good ones; no matter how old they are.

[Iommi]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Tests every three years for everyone would almost certainly raise the standard of driving.

I doubt it, but people would lose their jobs.

[GMR]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Tests every three years for everyone would almost certainly raise the standard of driving.

No, because it wouldn't work. People change from when they first past their test. They mature and learn different skills.... better skills, but skills that are taught differently when first learning to drive.

[GMR]

I doubt it, but people would lose their jobs.

Exactly... the only reason for it would be to make money, not help to make better drivers.

[user23]

I doubt it, but people would lose their jobs.

If they can't drive to a standard sufficient enough to pass a driving test should they be working on the road?

[GMR]

If they can't drive to a standard sufficient enough to pass a driving test should they be working on the road?

But the 'standards' you talk about are different than when a person matures as a driver. As i said to be driving instructor; what we learn when taking our test gets thrown out off the window and we learn different skills. Even driving instructors admit that. It has also been show that mature drivers - whatever age they are - are likely to fail their test if they had to take it again.

[Iommi]

If they can't drive to a standard sufficient enough to pass a driving test should they be working on the road?

My little 'un passed third go. There's no-way she suddenly become a better driver on her third go. The driving instructor thought she was good enough when she first started driving lessons (she did a lot of off road practice). Amongst other things, passing the driving test is about luck that you don't get stitched up by some other ahsole on the road. On my test, I drove better on my first test than second, but according to the examiner I didn't.

[dannyboy]

In theory a good idea, but we could see plenty of reasonable drivers lose their jobs through failing.


I would advocate a 'fit to drive' test.

Err, maybe a test every 3 years would make reasonable drivers better?

[GMR]

My little 'un passed third go. There's no-way she was a better driver on her third go. The driving instructor thought she was good enough when she first started driving lessons (she did a lot of off road practice). Amongst other things, passing the driving test is about luck that you don't get stitched up by some other ahsole on the road. On my test, I drove better on my first test than second, but according to the examiner I didn't.

The same here. It has more to do with luck than skill or good driving.

[Iommi]

Err, maybe a test every 3 years would make reasonable drivers better?

Why? I understand that the standard of driving in the UK is amongst the best in Europe already.

[GMR]

Err, maybe a test every 3 years would make reasonable drivers better?

No it won't. What it will achieve, if it achieves anything, is that people will just play the game until they've passed and then go back to the way they were driving in the first place. If you were correct then why do so many people have serious and bad accidents just after they've passed their test?

[dannyboy]

Yes, but that should apply to everybody. There are some very alert 70 year olds, whilst there are some very bad 25 year olds. We should punish the bad drivers, not the good ones; no matter how old they are.

that happens already.

Fact is when you get old your body deteriorates. Testing divers of an age is about driving fitness - not compentence. You could be a very good driver, but is you can't see more than 100 yds....

[GMR]

Why? I understand that the standard of driving in the UK is amongst the best in Europe already.

it is, but if we have to take the test again then it would only be a money exercise.

[Iommi]

Fact is when you get old your body deteriorates. Testing divers of an age is about driving fitness - not compentence. You could be a very good driver, but is you can't see more than 100 yds....

Hence my 'fit to drive' idea.

[GMR]

that happens already.

Fact is when you get old your body deteriorates. Testing divers of an age is about driving fitness - not compentence. You could be a very good driver, but is you can't see more than 100 yds....

You don't have to be over 70 for your body or whatever to deteriorate. We should focus on the bad drivers, not penalise the good ones as well.