www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9136979/Strategy-needed-to-cope-with-explosion-in-number-of-elderly-drivers.html
Elderly drivers caught speeding or breaking other traffic laws should be sent on special training courses to make sure they are still safe behind the wheel, a new report claims.
|
I hope the Parliamentary report itself makes more sense than that article, Henry. As far as I can tell the argument is that the number of elderly drivers is increasing but the number of casualties they cause is staying the same, whereas for younger drivers the numbers are steady but the casualty numbers are decreasing. That, to me, doesn't seem like conclusive evidence that older drivers in general are a problem. I'll read it again and see if I can make sense of it.
Perhaps what we need is an 'intervention' to help the DT break its unhealthy relationship with statistics. It clearly has friends here, and friends don't let friends publish rubbish statistics.
}:---)
|
The report of the report glibly makes assertions about numbers of accidents rising or falling as between age groups, but does not as far as I can see make clear whether it is talking about the absolute numbers of accidents, or the number per 1000 of the particular age group.
It also needs to consider what is to be done about an increasing proportion of the population who now as they age and decline face living in a society that has deliberately been created on the assumption of almost total reliance on cars.
Perhaps there needs to be some means of limiting such drivers' road use, and warning others of their possible lower ability. In the same way as learners are permitted lower driving standards, with restrictions, and on display of warning signs.
|
...and warning others of their possible lower ability. In the same way as learners are permitted lower driving standards...
'L' for learner, 'C' for coffin dodger. :)
|
>>'L' for learner, 'C' for coffin dodger. :)
>>
Size matters !!
"Is that an L or a C I spy ahead ?"
Please make the signs bigger. :-)
Now where did I leave my night time glasses ?
|
<<'C' for coffin dodger.>>
More tactful might be PD for pre-deceased, a term borrowed from the Simpsons episode in which Granpa wins a prize, a free autopsy.
|
Pacts website is here:
www.pacts.org.uk/
It's not an official select commitee or similar; more an alliance of Parliamentarians with an interest.
|
I've said it before, but I'd be in favour of all drivers having some mandatory top-up training every 3-5 years. Doesn't have to be a test. Driving is the most dangerous thing many of us do, yet we're let onto the roads at 17 or so, and have no further training until we die (unless we choose to).
Most industries have feedback loops, so as they find out what caused a crash (eg. with an aircraft), that knowledge is fed back around to improve the systems, to improve the training and to top up the training of existing pilots.
I see huge numbers of drivers displaying shocking levels of awareness. They drive much closer than the recommended 2 seconds, they rarely check their mirrors, they hog the overtaking lanes etc.
Driver error is the cause of most crashes. Yet the one we do least about.
|
One further thought...
>> Driver error is the cause of most crashes. Yet the one we do least about.
Yet we let the poor driver go through life accumulating bad habits, getting away with them and not getting stopped/educated. Until someone dies as a tragic outcome; then we expect the driver to go to jail.
|
Totally agree Tigger. If I operated machinery in a factory where I could lose a finger I'm sure I'd have to satisfy some annual H & S test before I could do my job and yet there is no motoring equivalent.
If I kill a bus load of people in one go however there'd be all sorts of questions raised and inquests after the event.
|
How about all people involved in a fault-claim on their insurance have to re-take their test? Say if the claim was above £500 to avoid people who clip their wall at home etc.
This would have a broad sweep so all those oldies who keep having moderate prangs are weeded out but those who dont actually have accidents arent penalised.
It would work for other age groups too.
|
|
I wouldn't stand for parliament if i were you Stu..;)
|
>>I wouldn't stand for parliament if i were you Stu..;)<<
Imagine how careful people would drive with the thought of a re-test hanging over them should they cause an accident.
Of course all this attacking old codgers has more to do with a general dislike for their taking up road space than safety, as they arent the main problem on UK roads.
When you have people drinking or taking drugs before they get behind the wheel, not to mention the stupidity of young drivers, it seems rather strange to pick on a group who arent having many accidents in the name of safety.
My own opinion is to leave well alone frankly. Too many people getting their knickers in a knot.
When my son starts driving, my father will be 84. I think ill be less concerned about my father doing 3 miles to the shops than about my son trying to break the land speed record in an ageing Fiat Seicento. But thats just me.
|
I'd see a big privacy issue with insurers being required to report claim details to the authorities. Besides, it would still miss too many dangerous drivers until after the event.
I agree that there's a problem with driving abilities in general, but our roads have fewer casualties per kilometre travelled than most countries', so perhaps drastic changes are not required - just a little extra vigilance on the fringes of capability to remove the most dangerous cases.
Does anyone know of a country that requires regular re-assessment before the age of 70?
|
>> How about all people involved in a fault-claim on their insurance have to re-take their
>> test?
With my (Co-operative) protected no claims discount comprehensive insurance, fault doesn't come into it. In the event of my car getting damaged I claim on my insurance and leave it to them to sort out. I've made about 3 claims in the 37 years I've been with them and on no occasion was I asked whose fault it was. In any case, with most accidents where both cars are being driven (i.e neither was parked) it's usually a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Tue 13 Mar 12 at 10:02
|
"and on no occasion was I asked whose fault it was."
But the insurers will between them have decided whose fault those accidents were and the claims will have be funded accordingly.
That is why the proposal would not work. You would be deciding who needed to take a re-test based on the arbitrary decision of the Insurers.
|
|
Not only that, but a 'fault' claim today is anything for which the insurer can't pin liability on anyone else. So a bumper damaged by an unknown vehicle while the car is parked (happened to us in 2008) is still a 'fault' claim. Sorry Stu - it is not, as my francophone boss likes to say about some of my ideas, going to fly.
|
Erring oldies to be health checked / retrained ? - WillDeBeest
