Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Elderly drivers: when should they stop? How do you tell them?

12346»

Comments

  • Options
    Looking forward to next month's Norfolk Mason's Lodge meeting. Shouldbe interesting ;-)
  • Options
    reportedly, debris from the dooks wrecked motor being offered on ebay for lots of doh reh meh
  • Options
    ross1 said:

    ross1 said:

    They always say that insurance companies know best, so why do young drivers pay so much more than senior drivers?

    The 80+ do have their car insurance rise but some because of their fading memory have automatic renewal so don't notice !
    Thank you for saying 80+ and not 70+
    Or even worse - 60+
  • Options

    reportedly, debris from the dooks wrecked motor being offered on ebay for lots of doh reh meh

    I noticed soon after the crash, a reporter with a cameraman was broadcasting, when a man came from left to right behind the reporter and went to pick up some debris when he noticed the camera and hurried off
  • Options
    shine166 said:

    iainment said:

    Every driver should be retested periodically.
    Maybe every 5 years and then annually after 75.
    But this is only an uninformed opinion perhaps everyone should face annual retest.
    What do other countries do?

    Currently there are about 1.8m tests a year in the U.K. Retesting every 5 years would require about 9m extra tests to the 45m license holders. So we need to add a huge number of qualified testers (that don’t exist) and test centers. Even a 10 year retest would be a significant investment.

    There isn’t an easy answer to this. Any new laws only make sense if they can be enforced if you want it to be preventative.

    Personally I don’t think you can stop people driving with no license and/or insurance.

    In the US you need to renew your license every 10 years (in Mass. anyway). You have to do a vision test at the time, that include peripheral vision. Maybe they should include a knowledge test as well.

    I’d support retesting for anyone found at fault in an accident.

    Increase the penalty for driving without a license, but the bigger penalty should be driving without insurance.
    Driving without insurance never killed any body, plus inconvenience is no reason to not re test people !
    Crash into me then tell me you're not insured - see what happens
  • Options
    Oggy Red said:

    ross1 said:

    Car accidents: Younger v older drivers
    By BBC Reality Check

    In November 2018, there were 5.3 million over-70s with full driving licences in Britain, according to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

    There were 11,245 people involved in road traffic accidents where the driver was in that age group - a rate of two per 1,000 licence holders.

    For Britain's 2.8 million drivers aged 17 to 24, the rate was more than four times as high, at nine per 1,000.

    You have to look at the number of miles driven for this to be meaningful.
    My grandparents MOT shows they done 350 miles last year.
    Ah .... Sunday drivers, eh? :smile:


    Finally I do something with Charltonlifes blessing.
    Last year I walked further than I've driven in three years, I can now go to my grave a happy man. Wearing beige slacks and suede slip ons! ;)
  • Options
    edited January 2019
    The biggest surprise for me wasn't that the Duke or the queen don't have to have insurance to drive (according to many reports) but there were no red lights stopping the traffic on the main road so the plebs get our of there cars and bow or curtsey. No point in having Royalty if you don't genuflects.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!