|
Hopefully the dozy old twonk will get done for driving without due care..and then get a re-test requirement, which she'll fail.
|
"this just compounds to me why people in their 80's+ should NOT be driving. Most of them are a danger on the roads".
A comment :)
|
>> "this just compounds to me why people in their 80's+ should NOT be driving. Most
>> of them are a danger on the roads".
>>
>> A comment :)
Compulsory re-test at 80... and then every 3 years...free.
|
>> Compulsory re-test at 80... and then every 3 years...free.
>>
Compulsory EYE test at 45, then every 5 years thereafter (as per vocational licences) or you don't drive.
Why they expect my eyesight to be above a certain standard and yet not bother about the car drivers I have to avoid is beyond me.
|
|
One reason why there will not be compulsory re-testing or eye sight tests is that older drivers are voters, and are more likely to vote. Also the resources to police the possible millions who would lose their licences and then drive illegally do not exist nor does the public transport infrastructure for them.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 10 Dec 13 at 08:37
|
>> One reason why there will not be compulsory re-testing or eye sight tests is that
>> older drivers are voters, and are more likely to vote. Also the resources to police
>> the possible millions who would lose their licences and then drive illegally do not exist
>> nor does the public transport infrastructure for them.
Ah but being elderly, they tend to be law abiding.
|
>> Ah but being elderly, they tend to be law abiding.
>>
Aye, right. :-)
What they going to do? Throw them all in jail?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 10 Dec 13 at 09:03
|
>> What they going to do? Throw them all in jail?
>>
It would probably keep them alive longer..warm, regular food, plenty of people to talk to and wouldn't raid their savings.
|
>this just compounds to me why people in their 80's+ should NOT be driving. Most
>> of them are a danger on the roads".
>>
>> A comment :)
>>
My father is 84 in January.
He is, I wager, a better and safer driver than anyone contributing here.
He probably drives over 10k a year including Europe.
You cannon categorize drivers by age any more than you can by race, creed or colour.
Some 20 year old males are good, some 80 year olds are poor, many in between should not be on the road.
What we need is better testing and enforcement but that costs money the country hasn't got after Brown wasted it all.
|
>> My father is 84 in January.
>>
>> He is, I wager, a better and safer driver than anyone contributing here.
I very much doubt it.
For example, I joined the Old Bill at 18.5 in 1981 and through extreme good luck and possibly some merit got my first 'standard' driving course in 1984 (21), followed by a van course in 1985 (22) and then....(amazingly, virtually unheard of at that age/service)......an 'advanced' course in Dec 1986 (24).
This was followed by an NVQ in driving assessment and another driving course in 1999 (36) to be a police driving assessor...then in 2003 (40) I took on the role of a London Borough's police safe driving manager, which lasted for 7 years, (and extended to another Borough), before I retired.
I am now 50.
Is my driving as good now, as it used to be? No, it is not, not at all. Age diminishes your skill.
Fair enough at some point some maturity counteracted some recklessness...but the older you get, the worse you get.
|
>> Age diminishes your skill.
I know what you mean Wp but I wouldn't put it like that. Age takes the edge off your senses and the speed of your reactions, perhaps sometimes their accuracy as well. Makes you less decisive too, more timid and hesitant, and stiffens the body a bit. It all adds up to a slowing down, but not a loss of 'skill'. You still know what to do, better than ever, but you're going to do it more slowly. So you have to drive a bit more slowly if you have any sense.
|
Bet my dad was better than your dad.
;-))
|
>> Bet my dad was better than your dad.
>>
>> ;-))
>>
Did you know who he was?...;-)
|
>>Did you know who he was?...;-)
Sure of course. One of the reasons I didn't feel properly qualified to go into the police...
;-))
|
>> >> Age diminishes your skill.
>>
>> I know what you mean Wp but I wouldn't put it like that. Age takes
>> the edge off your senses and the speed of your reactions, perhaps sometimes their accuracy
>> as well. Makes you less decisive too, more timid and hesitant, and stiffens the body
>> a bit. It all adds up to a slowing down, but not a loss of
>> 'skill'. You still know what to do, better than ever, but you're going to do
>> it more slowly. So you have to drive a bit more slowly if you have
>> any sense.
I couldn't punt a high speed police car around Central London nowadays, with anywhere near the forward thinking and dexterity I had over 20 years ago...so that makes my skill base less, surely?
I might have the knowledge in my head still...but I am unable to achieve it.
Fair enough, I might well make a better go at it now than the average 25 year old...but I won't when I'm 80.
|
>> I might well make a better go at it now than the average 25 year old...but I won't when I'm 80.
Of course a fuzzmobile with tweaked engine, suspension and brakes is easier to punt fast even in traffic than a wallowing bog standard large saloon (although they're awfully good these days).
I haven't done it for ages and don't expect or want to have to, but I reckon I could still summon up a bit of getaway driving for a mile or so if really pushed and properly hyped up. But I couldn't keep it up for long. It's fairly hard work even when you're 30.
|
>> It's fairly hard work even when you're 30.
And what I forgot to mention was that you still don't get there all that much sooner: double your heartrate and the car's petrol consumption, punish the engine, brakes, tyres, suspension and transmission, all for a minuscule saving of time... doesn't really make much sense, especially in your own car.
Quite fun for a young geezer paid good money to drive a state-of-the-art sled belonging to the taxpayer though.
:o}
|
>> "this just compounds to me why people in their 80's+ should NOT be driving. Most
>> of them are a danger on the roads".
>>
>> A comment :)
>>
Perhaps we should all be looking up?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25344780
|
>>Perhaps we should all be looking up?
For an old stick with a joystick!
|
|
How awful!! - codger looks petrified, reckon I'd have an art attack if it was me.
Last edited by: Dog on Mon 9 Dec 13 at 13:09
|
|
The answer to the question that I always ask in these circumstances wasn't given - i.e. "was it a recently acquired 'automatic' transmission?"
|
Terry Skingle, 73, feared he was going to die after his £45,000 Lexus RX400 Hybrid crashed through metal railings into the River Can in Chelmsford, Essex, on Wednesday morning.
The retired car salesman’s dramatic rescue was caught on camera after his foot slipped from the brake on to the accelerator.
Another geriatric unable to control his movements..(the mind boggles at other bodily functions ) Your foot cannot SLIP from one pedal to another on an auto as they are spaced too wide...
|
>> Another geriatric unable to control his movements..(the mind boggles at other bodily functions ) Your
>> foot cannot SLIP from one pedal to another on an auto as they are spaced
>> too wide...
Are you sure that applies to all pedal/footwear etc combos? Seems plausible to me, particularly if double width brake is (correctly) used with right foot.
Once the foot has moved inadvertently to the accelerator pressing harder on the 'brake' is almost instinctive response to failure to stop.
|
Regardless of age the factor which concerns me most is how unregulated the eyesight requirements are for drivers. Just because someone was able to read a number plate in daylight at 17 doesn't seem to me to be an adequate lifetime measure.
I've often been in car with others when I'll say something like "Oh look, that sign says city centre to the right" only to get a response along the lines of "What sign?"
On checking it's often not lack of observation but ( and particularly in darkness ) people who need distance glasses simply can't see things but they still hold valid driving licences.
|
>> On checking it's often not lack of observation but ( and particularly in darkness )
>> people who need distance glasses simply can't see things but they still hold valid driving
>> licences.
>>
You' ve lost me there. Do you mean they can't see without their glasses which is of course true or do you mean people who need distance glasses shouldn't hold a license - ?
|
|
There's much more to effective 'driving' eyesight than just the ability to focus at a distance e.g. the onset of cataracts and the quality of peripheral vision are other characteristics that are checked during an eyesight test. I understand that 'distance' vision generally improves as you get old older - it certainly has in my case.
|
>> You' ve lost me there. Do you mean they can't see without their glasses which
>> is of course true or do you mean people who need distance glasses shouldn't hold
>> a license - ?
Issue surely is people who need distance glasses but never recognise fact as sight has declined gradually.
Also worth pointing out that ability to read a number plate at n metres is a very poor test. With a bit of effort I can meet that without my specs using just my left eye (the right is much worse).
|
Well, of course this is only based on my straw poll of one, but a couple of examples include a friend who wears glasses for driving and all his / our adult life he has clearly been unable to see anything like as far as me, particularly in the dark. My sister-in-law who drives something approaching a monster truck and who also wears distance glasses for driving seems to be similarly impaired.
Not up to me to decide whether they should hold licences of course but the thought does occur that these people are just two of potentially many driving around with what seems to me anyway to be dangerously restricted vision.
Perhaps, and once again I claim no expertise in these matters, they could be prescribed better eyewear for the purpose, I wouldn't know. What I do know is they can't see enough for my liking. On an unlit road my friend is constantly on the brakes slowing down for imagined hazards and not doing so when I can see real ones. Scares the fertiliser out of me.
|
I'm 61 and haven't had an eye test since we lived in Hastings, which must be, erm, nigh-on 22 years ago.
My eyes must be okay though as I can easily spot the difference between a push bike and a lorry.
|
>> I'm 61 and haven't had an eye test since we lived in Hastings, which must be, erm, nigh-on 22 years ago.
>>
Not a good report.
>> My eyes must be okay though as I can easily spot the difference between a push bike and a lorry.
>>
As I have posted in the past. Please get your eyes tested!!!
It addition to a basic vision test - can you still read a comic or ID skirt at 500 paces it should check peripheral vision and any eye disease .
It is the only non intrusive check on blood vessels so it is not just for eye health / conditions.
|
>>Please get your eyes tested!!!
Thanks henry, I should get a lot of things checked TBH, but I've decided to go out like my dog, he's 13.5 years old, which is a good age for a large breed, he's never had an eye test, never been to the dentist, never had his blood pressure/cholesterol/homocysteine/blood sugar/PSA etc. etc. tested, but he's as right as ninepence really,
for his age.
He hasn't had a wash in 13.5 years either, but I draw the line at that :)
|
"he's 13.5 years old, "
So's my old labrador but, as far as I know, she has given up driving.
|
>> I'm 61 and haven't had an eye test since we lived in Hastings, which must
>> be, erm, nigh-on 22 years ago.
>>
>> My eyes must be okay though as I can easily spot the difference between a
>> push bike and a lorry.
>>
>>
>>
Dog, I could see the difference between a push bike and a lorry too. Early October I broke my reading glasses so popped into Specsavers for another pair, after an eye test of course. It must be five or six years since my last one and I thought everything would still be the same, but I was shocked when I was told I was driving illegally. And now I have distance glasses, I can see what they meant, the difference is astonishing.
You'd be surprised how deteriorating eyesight creeps up un-noticed.
|
>>You'd be surprised how deteriorating eyesight creeps up un-noticed.
You didn't see it coming?
|
Cheers Robin, I honestly don't think I've got any vision problems TBH, I can read a newspaper (under a 20w G4)
I have no problems reading a car number plate at any distance.
No blurring or double vision, I have some weak off-the-shelf reading glasses which I use now and again.
No doubt if I went to an optician for an eye test they would give me a prescription for reading glasses, but I get by in my own way okay, at the moment.
I can read this text okay on my 22" monitor, whereas my wife can't, which I find a tad alarming.
|
>>
>>
>> Are you sure that applies to all pedal/footwear etc combos? Seems plausible to me, particularly
>> if double
Easily done when heel-and-toeing down-changing double-declutching with a crash box.
It needs practice :)
|
Left foot braking.
Problem solved.
End of.
|
>>Left foot braking.
>>Problem solved.
So, people switching from manual to auto is seen as an inadvisable or at least risky change in the older driver, but you feel that switching to the pointless exercise of left foot braking would be fine?
>>End of.
End of what?
|
>>pointless exercise of left foot braking would be fine?
LFB is far from pointless.
Fine if you cannot manage it, then don't bother... but really, if you manage to tie your shoelaces, and manage to drive a manual car, then learning to use two feet to drive an automatic should surely be within your competence.
|
"LFB is far from pointless. "
Then what is the point? RFB seems to work perfectly well for me. What exactly would I gain by changing?
|
I understand left foot braking when maneuvering, although I rarely do it.
But when driving along?
A significant argument seems to be that you can cut down the time it takes to brake when its important.
But its enormously uncomfortable to keep your foot hovering in the air above the brake, and if you're going to put your left foot back down on the floor then you might as well use your right foot to brake.
And as I said, people leap up saying that older drivers should not change to an auto, but they seem to suggest that they should change their braking technique - doesn't seem terribly consistent.
I didn't say it was bad, I didn't say it was beyond me, I said it was pointless. If its not pointless, then what is that point?
|
I've always used both feet on the brakes for some reason. Not at the same time of course !
Instinctively it feels right in an auto to left foot brake when pressing on a bit but when parking or whatever I use only the right foot. Can't tell you why. Just suits me I suppose. Never really think about it.
|
> Instinctively it feels right in an auto to left foot brake when pressing on a
>> bit but when parking or whatever I use only the right foot. Can't tell you
>> why. Just suits me I suppose. Never really think about it.
>>
Not driven an auto for several years and no wish to do so in future but I'd do opposite.
Drive normally with right foot only when under way. Possibly use left foot in close quarters moves such as parking or as a proxy for handbrake starting on slight slopes.
Last auto I drove was my mother's Clio. A petrol engine that raced under cold start conditions was another factor to use LFB from time to time.
|
Oh I'm not presuming to advise others, on the contrary, just saying what I do really. I think it might be a hangover from when I used to drive like an ignited witch in older low powered manual cars when it was advantageous to balance the revs with the right foot while braking with the left to achieve clutchless ( therefore quicker ) downshifts.
Modern cars mostly won't let you do that of course as they cut the fuel feed when the brake is applied but old habits and so on.
Like I say, I don't really give it a lot of thought in the scheme of things.
So far so good etc and of course each to their own.
|
I drive both manuals and autos on a regualr basis. Always have done.
RFB only!
My uncle at 73 had Parkinsons and in 1975 accelerated his auto Daimler 250 through the rear garage wall. Foot on accelerator not brake.
I have two yearly eyesight tests: it is amazing how peripheral vision deteriorates even although distance reading of numberplates does not. Muppet drivers don't use peripheral vision and have crashes others manage to avoid through seeing problems at the corners of the eye.
I would recommend anyone over 60 to have biannual eye inspections for that very reason.
|
I listened to an item about a guy with early stage dementia
In the interview with him:-
He can still navigate himself by car to the golf club.
He sometimes forgets to take his clubs so borrows some.
He sometimes forgets his golf shoes
All very jolly!!!
|
>> I would recommend anyone over 60 to have biannual eye inspections for that very reason.
Do you mean:
Biannual - twice yearly
OR
Biennial - every two years?
|
Biennial should be adequate, although the interval is eighteen months for contact lens wearers like me.
But I share Henry's bewilderment that people who take reasonable care of other aspects of their lives are so blasé about their vision. Even Mrs Beest, mid-forties like me and normally first in the queue to bother any health professional about anything at all, has recently decided that her vision for driving is better without the mild distance glasses she's worn for 20 years, but has ignored my urging to get a test and has just discarded them; she's about four years out of date, which is less heinous than some but still not good. It may be a coincidence that her usual lumpy-but-safe style deserted her on the motorways of France this summer and she actually scared me a couple of times with late overreactions.
|
Another gas not brake fligher ? - Westpig
